Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
(Post 980619)
I'd argue that they were basically just another crappy nu-metal band in an era of crappy nu-metal.
|
I'd argue that's absurd. System of a Down were only nu metal on their surface. I don't think they were the most original band on earth, either. But for a band that was literally selling #1 chart topping albums, they're quite a bit expansive.
Unlike most acts in that position they:
A) were live focused, and could preform their songs without additional production. You didn't go to their shows to see lights, and dancing. You went for music.
B) Albeit, they heavily exploited their political viewpoints to get over(and really very little of their music was related to), they were still selling themselves on music. Nobody got into System of a Down because they wanted to compliment Serj Tankian's Wardrobe.
C) They TRIED to include some influences outside the mainstream norm. Sometimes you hear a bit of an operatic tinge in Serj's voice, or some jazz/swing like bass work, whatever. Sure many bands before this explored it, did it better, and made massive success doing it(Faith No More, Red Hot Chili Peppers) but very few were able to keep as firmly in the spotlight as System of a Down did. From Toxicity to Hypnotize they were pretty much consistently selling number one albums, which means they could be an influence on direction. They were the biggest act in music at the time they were big.
D) Even if not known for their virtuosity they played off each other well as a unit. Yes, the guitarwork was retardedly simple tuned down power chord bull****, and they overused the whole "SCREAM sing SCREAM sing with dual harmonies SCREAM" thing. However, there was a lot of ambition in the arrangement especially during their ultra-frantic songs.
System of a Down appear as a shining moment to me because of these thing, and because they stayed somewhat popular as these things were going out the window. Not that System of a Down is a shining moment for music in general, but it is for the direction of mainstream music which is going back to the way of the Madonna(And Yes, I'd prefer even truly abysmal Nu Metal like Limp Bizkit, or Linkin' Park over this any day).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar
(Post 980623)
One has to remember though, that most people aren't really interested in music (and no, cranking up the stereo for the weekend party, which most people do, alone doesn't count) and thus, not at all interested in digging deeper. My point is, however, that we who are interested also do our best to dig up something more profound than the background muzak on the radio, and some of us also try to cook something up ourselves that others might appreciate. But wether you're into "just" exploring even more obscure bands/artists for listening, or writing and performing new music, it all takes a considerable amount of dedication and as long as that community as a whole persists, good music* will continue to be made and evolve in the process.
If you'll excuse a not entirely accurate analogy: Think about scientists and inventors, those who really carry the technological evolution forward. As a part of the total population there aren't many of them, and there are not that many who in addition are very interested in their work. I.e. most people don't really care for science and technology, even if they all benefit from it. Those involved in it, however, carry on anyway since they know they may be gratified in the end, either upon seeing their own vision finally becoming realized and maybe even become acknowledged by others in the scientific community, or upon the commercial success of it when the masses acknowledge it (or rather, the fulfilling of the need it grants) through which he/she can make money.
Just the same, every - and I dare you to find an exception - popular mainstream musical genre has evolved from an at one time or another underground movement in which bands and artists has dwelled upon their own vision and maybe even the acknowledgement from the closest inner circle.
(I don't know if that made sense, but it sounded good in my head)
* "Good" music as I see it could be summed up as any music containing an artistic depth and vision in itself, in contrast to what I like to call "utility music", the thing you hear on the hit radio etc. That's not to say that artistically valid music cannot be commercially successful as well.
|
I'm not bashing the music community of more serious listeners(a seemingly dying breed). I'm just saying my comments on mainstream music. That's why I say I like the fact the music industry is crashing. It makes good music less about finding the best of all time, and a more exploitative experience. Plus, I'm all for people making their own music. In fact, if people are doing it with the guarantee there's a 95% chance they won't make a dime, it's proof that the love of music is more important than the industry.
