Trollheart's Room 101 (Music Version) is open for business!

Mojo · 05-06-2012, 06:53 AM

You're looking at it from a point of view that says, without a band or anything else to mask weakness, an acoustic performer can be more exposed and rely more on a stripped, raw talent for singing and songwriting.

But Janszoons point is that a lot of people consider this kind of performer to be more connected with their emotions, more "real", and produce music of a higher level of substance because of it. But why cant a metal band produce music with the same kind of qualities? If an individual can hear all of those traits in one and not the other then maybe thats just down to personal preference and perspective?

I can be moved by certain black metal bands more than I can certain acoustic singer/songwriters. Some of them are great and may well produce everything that "these" people say they do. Some of them are whiney and up their own arse and produce nothing but plastic bull****, probably aimed at the kind of person who would hear things in it than arent there, simply because its acoustic and its "real".

Trollheart · 05-06-2012, 09:02 AM

Right. I'm not saying I prefer acoustic bands --- sometimes it is just a gimmick, and sometimes it really doesn't work: I HATE Clapton's acoustic version of "Layla" with a passion! I was just clarifying why I think acoustic music can be seen as more honest. Doesn't mean it necessarily is, but I would definitely rather know that my chosen band/artiste(s) CAN play acoustic, that they're not limited by the tech they employ.

Can't see Art of Noise doing an acoustic set, can you?

But as for bands or artistes who profess (or whose fans do) that acoustic is more real than other music, I would not agree with that as a blanket statement. Certainly, sometimes banks of keyboards, screaming guitar solos (or intensive but restrained ones) can move me almost to tears, as can string sections, flute solos, and a whole lot more. It's not only acoustic music that moves me, and I don't consider it better than amplified music, for want of a better term. I think you need both to get the proper flavour of music, personally.

It can be interesting to hear a band who are not normally expected to use acoustic music, eg Metallica, in that setting, though sometimes, if they try too hard, something is lost within that effort. I guess you could also make the argument that people who ONLY play acoustic music can't handle electronic instruments, and maybe that makes them less musicians than those who can?

I don't know: there are so many sides to this argument. I do enjoy a good acoustic session, but they can get overlong and a bit boring,and sometimes you just want someone to rip off a power chord or do a few synth runs. Depends on your preferences I guess...

Trollheart · 05-10-2012, 06:10 AM

Okay, well after a small flurry of activity it seems everyone has forgotten about this. Hmm.

So, is anyone else interested? Post and let me know, otherwise this thread will end up in Room 101 itself... oh no!

Blarobbarg · 05-10-2012, 08:16 AM

How about Western-style boy bands? One Direction, N Sync, Backstreet Boys, and the like. They are a bane upon society. And just when I thought they were gone, we get another.

mr dave · 05-10-2012, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

But there is, isn't there? The worst band in the world can be made sound great with the right technology (look at Milli Vanilli and Frankie Goes to Hollywood, for example, and for a great satire on this the Simpsons episode where all the local kids are made into a boyband, even though none of them can sing --- "God bless NASA!"), but if you can really play, you shouldn't have to rely on all that tech. It should be as simple as guitar, chair, voice, audience, and away you go.

I'm sure most of you who can play began that way, acoustically, so surely going back to it for musicians is just their way of showing they haven't lost touch with their roots, aren't relying on technology to "make" or "enhance" their sound, and are still in touch with what first made them pick up a guitar, sit at a piano or whatever?

Would you not agree with that?

I think you're considering what is causing the shadow as opposed to the actual shadow (which is what Janszoon, Mojo, and now myself are pitching towards the room).

Technology doesn't diminish the honesty, or emotional integrity of a piece of music when performed by an actual musician (so forget the Milli Vanilli example). All the technology does is accentuate the talent that's already there. There is absolutely no way to illicit the same emotional response that a listener gets upon hearing a power chord held through a Marshall stack until it starts to break apart and transform into a wailing squeal of feedback with an acoustic. This doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

The issue is the attitude that somehow acoustic music is more pure, and that non-acoustic music is somehow compromised or faked. It's no longer about accepting and recognizing a difference but rating one as superior to the other. If anything I think a lot that attitude stems from ignorance of the technology or a desire to be seen as special or unique or a somehow more refined listener, none of which is worth much in my eyes.

Uppsa1 · 05-10-2012, 02:15 PM

Cheap remixes and remakes.
I know, although I don't ever listen to techno, that there are some talented DJs out there that can do some really great stuff. But I just hate it when one of my friends sends me a video and tells me to check out this "awesome remix" but the only awesome thing about this song is the original riff/intro/melody and the rest is just an awfull beat and maybe some other random stuff thrown in.
The best example I've got right now are all the pirates of the caribbean remixes I heard.
I just always get sick by these people profiting off of someone others awesome work

Trollheart · 05-11-2012, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blarobbarg

How about Western-style boy bands? One Direction, N Sync, Backstreet Boys, and the like. They are a bane upon society. And just when I thought they were gone, we get another.

Boybands are a given, but is this too easy a target? I would prefer, as I said, to have some other item to argue this against, but then, if there's no opponent there's no opposition.

I'll give it till tomorrow, if there's nothing else by then I'll throw boybands into Room 101, and not give it a thought!

And thanks for playing...

WiiareFaded · 05-11-2012, 01:32 PM

Can we throw Linkin Park in there? Mainly 'cause they rip-off NIN, but I'm sure if bands going in for ripping off other bands is the case, a lot of bands will be going in. But, not just that they rip them off, but it seems to me they pretty much haven't changed or experimented to really seem original to me and their whole career just seems based off of ripping off NIN. I'd rather listen to Stabbing Westward. Plus, they have elements of boy band and weak rap in it. It just screams generic weak sauce all around and I think the world would be a better place without them. Maybe someone else can throw in a vote and argue it better.

Trollheart · 05-11-2012, 03:28 PM

Okay, cool! So we now have three legitimate ideas. Excellent...

Let me turn this one over in the old noggin and I'll come back with a decision either tomorrow or more likely Sunday...

Thx guys

**Janszoon** · 05-11-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Okay, cool! So we now have three legitimate ideas. Excellent...

Let me turn this one over in the old noggin and I'll come back with a decision either tomorrow or more likely Sunday...

Thx guys

We have more than three ideas, no?

05-06-2012, 06:53 AM	#21 (permalink)
Mojo Melancholia Eternally Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: England Posts: 5,018	You're looking at it from a point of view that says, without a band or anything else to mask weakness, an acoustic performer can be more exposed and rely more on a stripped, raw talent for singing and songwriting. But Janszoons point is that a lot of people consider this kind of performer to be more connected with their emotions, more "real", and produce music of a higher level of substance because of it. But why cant a metal band produce music with the same kind of qualities? If an individual can hear all of those traits in one and not the other then maybe thats just down to personal preference and perspective? I can be moved by certain black metal bands more than I can certain acoustic singer/songwriters. Some of them are great and may well produce everything that "these" people say they do. Some of them are whiney and up their own arse and produce nothing but plastic bull****, probably aimed at the kind of person who would hear things in it than arent there, simply because its acoustic and its "real". __________________ Last.FM \| Echoes and Dust

05-06-2012, 09:02 AM	#22 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,992	Right. I'm not saying I prefer acoustic bands --- sometimes it is just a gimmick, and sometimes it really doesn't work: I HATE Clapton's acoustic version of "Layla" with a passion! I was just clarifying why I think acoustic music can be seen as more honest. Doesn't mean it necessarily is, but I would definitely rather know that my chosen band/artiste(s) CAN play acoustic, that they're not limited by the tech they employ. Can't see Art of Noise doing an acoustic set, can you? But as for bands or artistes who profess (or whose fans do) that acoustic is more real than other music, I would not agree with that as a blanket statement. Certainly, sometimes banks of keyboards, screaming guitar solos (or intensive but restrained ones) can move me almost to tears, as can string sections, flute solos, and a whole lot more. It's not only acoustic music that moves me, and I don't consider it better than amplified music, for want of a better term. I think you need both to get the proper flavour of music, personally. It can be interesting to hear a band who are not normally expected to use acoustic music, eg Metallica, in that setting, though sometimes, if they try too hard, something is lost within that effort. I guess you could also make the argument that people who ONLY play acoustic music can't handle electronic instruments, and maybe that makes them less musicians than those who can? I don't know: there are so many sides to this argument. I do enjoy a good acoustic session, but they can get overlong and a bit boring,and sometimes you just want someone to rip off a power chord or do a few synth runs. Depends on your preferences I guess... __________________ Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

05-10-2012, 06:10 AM	#23 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,992	Okay, well after a small flurry of activity it seems everyone has forgotten about this. Hmm. So, is anyone else interested? Post and let me know, otherwise this thread will end up in Room 101 itself... oh no! __________________ Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

05-10-2012, 08:16 AM	#24 (permalink)
Blarobbarg Do good. Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota Posts: 2,065	How about Western-style boy bands? One Direction, N Sync, Backstreet Boys, and the like. They are a bane upon society. And just when I thought they were gone, we get another. __________________ https://rateyourmusic.com/~Blarobbarg ｡･::･ﾟ★,｡･::･ﾟ☆　^my RYM^　｡･::･ﾟ★,｡･::･ﾟ☆ (◠‿◠✿)

05-11-2012, 03:28 PM	#29 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,992	Okay, cool! So we now have three legitimate ideas. Excellent... Let me turn this one over in the old noggin and I'll come back with a decision either tomorrow or more likely Sunday... Thx guys __________________ Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

05-10-2012, 02:15 PM	#26 (permalink)
Uppsa1 Groupie Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 3	Cheap remixes and remakes. I know, although I don't ever listen to techno, that there are some talented DJs out there that can do some really great stuff. But I just hate it when one of my friends sends me a video and tells me to check out this "awesome remix" but the only awesome thing about this song is the original riff/intro/melody and the rest is just an awfull beat and maybe some other random stuff thrown in. The best example I've got right now are all the pirates of the caribbean remixes I heard. I just always get sick by these people profiting off of someone others awesome work

05-11-2012, 01:32 PM	#28 (permalink)
WiiareFaded Groupie Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 10	Can we throw Linkin Park in there? Mainly 'cause they rip-off NIN, but I'm sure if bands going in for ripping off other bands is the case, a lot of bands will be going in. But, not just that they rip them off, but it seems to me they pretty much haven't changed or experimented to really seem original to me and their whole career just seems based off of ripping off NIN. I'd rather listen to Stabbing Westward. Plus, they have elements of boy band and weak rap in it. It just screams generic weak sauce all around and I think the world would be a better place without them. Maybe someone else can throw in a vote and argue it better.