Well said.

Well, I guess if complimenting someone is a douchebag thing to do, then yeah, the shoe fits man. Urban knows his music. So maybe ask me in what context my statement toward him was, before you know, calling me a douche or saying my statement came off in that way.

Thanks for playing.

that's amazing

Nine, your pokemon ava needs headphones.

You seem to think that liking or not liking music is some kind of logical, analytical thing, but it's not. It's mostly an emotional response. You can try to understand it to a certain point, but saying "You like X so you must like Y" is wrong. I like a lot of music I shouldn't, and dislike a lot I should like. And I'm sure it's the same with most other people. And I think that's cool and makes music all the more interesting.

I think a lot of liking new music has to do with how open you are to exploring it. For example, a month ago, I was going crazy searching for new stuff and taking recomendations. Now, I'm going through a phase where I'm just happy to listen to music I already know, maybe some stuff my parents like that I haven't heard in ages. I'm sure that in another month, I'll be digging for fresh stuff again. Maybe your sis is just not ready for something new?

I do think you have a point about the production, though. Despite music similarites, there's a huge sound difference between today and yesterday. I think that people who aren't used to the cleaner sound might be turned off at first.

Your whole point of view on the subject is douchy. You're basically telling people what they can and can not enjoy. That just happened to come off the worst. Also, ending posts with "Thanks for playing" like you just won some sort of cool guy competition doesn't help your case.

You are trying to make logic out of artistic personal tastes: Marcel Duchamp threw a Men's urinal on a pedastel and the art-world thought it was the greateset thing since sliced bread, but Norman Rockwell - who illustrated with the precision of a camera lens - is chastised by the same critics.....On the other hand, a cover band can play "Pride and Joy" by Stevie Ray Vaughan and older folks say its a great dance song and will pack the dancefloor, but the cover band can later play another I-IV-V Shuffle exactly like Pride and Joy - like Clapton's "Before You Accuse Me" -- and those same folks will just sit in their chairs

There is no making sense when trying to determine the mechanics of why people like certain bands/songs/sound and what moves them

I really think you're taking everything I've said in here in the wrong way.

To summarize...

I'm frustrate with the state of music. I'm frustrated that people support artists like Nikki Minaj or Taylor Swift that having nothing of worth to contribute to music, other than just existing. It's a silly thing for me to feel that way toward something I can't change, but it is what it is. You really think I would actually tell people what to listen to? I know that how I have expressed myself on this subject would say that I do, or have. But it is not something I do. Somewhere in my OP to this thread, I said something like "stop supporting music like this blah blah blah" and yeah, that reads in a pretty holier than thou tone. But, this is all frustration man, that's it. But it won't change anything.

So, I could take how you're addressing me, turn it around on you and claim that you're the one acting douchy. But I won't do that. I'm better than that. All I will say is that you keep making an assumption about me, when you aren't even bothering to realize that those assumptions are wrong. I'm a nice, cool, laid back guy. And you're all up in my business, taking things I say out of context.

Like, you're the only one so far that even has a problem with what I have said, or claimed it is douchy. So if it is true. I'd think more people other than you would have pointed that out, and people here don't spare feelings so I'd go out on a limb here and say you're alone in you're opinion of me and what I have said in this thread.

Who are you to say that they aren't contributing to music? YOU may not find value in their music, but what would you tell somebody who listened to a Taylor Swift song during a sh*tty time in their life and felt better because of it? Is that not contribution? You don't get to decide what is worthy and what is not worthy. That's not the kind of thing that works well in music or generally in art as a whole.

This is from your first post...

Then you try to take it back...

That's fine. I'm all for saying stuff in the heat of the moment and all. You haven't really given us a counter point to your frustration posts though. You just kind of said...oh, I didn't mean that though. Really? This is a message board. I'm going to respond to what you write on a message board because it's the only form of communication that occurs here. You write something, I take that as your opinion and give you mine. The whole "well, I didn't mean it that way so you're wrong about me" is complete bullsh*t. Back what you say or explain to me why you were wrong in what you were saying. Otherwise how the hell am I supposed to know what you're talking about?

How am I acting douchy? The way you wrote that comment to Urban came off that way. You're whole argument, whether you "meant it" or not came off snarky, elitist, and misinformed. That's douchy to me. Do I think your a douche? I don't know you man. I couldn't make claims to your character after reading a couple posts, but the ones I read came off douchy. You're a laid back guy? Great. That's nice. You're the one who started this though, so don't get upset that somebody doesn't agree with you. Which brings me to...

You're right. I am the only one who said it was douchy. I am not however the only one who had a problem with what you said. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding single post in agreement with you on this subject. William_the_Bloody sort of agreed with you, but if you want to call that agreement then you'll have one supporter. In fact, you had some people in this thread calling you a troll. What are you talking about?

If you want to participate on this message board, you're going to have to learn how to deal with people who don't agree with you. I don't agree with you. I find your original post, regardless of what you meant, to be a little pompous. Nobody is saying that you can't share your opinion, but try not to whine about it after somebody calls you out on it. For what it's worth, sorry for calling what you said douchy.

In "YOUR" opinion.

Not very familiar with Minaj, but Swift is the real deal. She writes, plays, sings, and looks good doing it. Perfect for the times.

Most of the bands I consider classic were dismissed at one point as "having nothing of worth to contribute to music".

Be careful........
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3073/2...d8efc6fb1f.jpg

Ok, ok yeah, I see what you're saying...to all of that.

I said all of that in the heat of the moment. Force of habit. I'm the kind of guy that does that sort of thing. Sometimes it takes someone coming along to point it out, as stubborn as I am to see it even when it is pointed out to me. And maybe when I collect my thoughts to better explain my point of this thread, I will.

And, I am perfectly fine with people disagreeing with me. What you see here between us, is me more or less just responding to you making that comment about me being douchy, it's hardly about you disagreeing with me, I really don't care about that. If I had an issue with people disagreeing with me, I wouldn't register on a forum like this one and express my views, I wouldn't even care to voice my views at all to my own friends or family if I couldn't take being disagreed with. But I will respond to anyone calling me a name, or anything like that. I won't just ignore something like that, especially if it isn't true of my character.

Anyway. I take away some amount of respect toward you with our exchange here. Obviously you're an intelligent person (hey now, don't call me a douche for that hahaha!) <----- A joke...so in other words, I think being able to discuss anything with you in the future would be cool.

Oh, and for the record. I am aware that there hasn't been anyone that agreed with my initial post, however...I don't remember the name of who said it, someone did say they sort of see my point. I wasn't looking for people to only agree with me, I wanted to see what people thought overall about what I said, whether they agreed or not. Urban and I have little spats, but it is never personal. I don't know the dude anyway.

Hahaha, well. You're the first person that has ever said Swift is the real deal. I'm no fan of hers, obviously. And my opinion is that she's nothing special.

You talking about hair bands, or just in general? Because I see your point. But really, I can't see someone like Minaj or Swift twenty years or so from now, being regarded is any sort of icon.

And, I yell at clouds all the time. Especially if the weather sucks.

She's 8 years into her career and soaring. She's won 8 Grammy's, 15 American Music Awards, 12 Billboard Music Awards, and been nominated for 2 Golden Globes.

She's sold more albums than Metallica, Van Halen, REM, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, The Who, Guns N Roses, and Prince.

Pretty sure folks will be talking about her in 2034.

Step down from your soapbox dude.

I have to ask. Do you define an artists or bands worth/credibility/talent based on their success and overall reception? I respect that she has amassed so much, so early on in her career. But I feel she's given more credit than she deserves. That is my opinion. I am not knocking you for the opinion you have of her, so please don't take it that way.

But! She has not sold more albums than Metallica. Metallica have sold over 50 million albums in the United States alone, 120 million worldwide, while Swift collectively has only sold 30 million albums overall. And she also has not sold more albums than Van Halen. You may have meant that Swift has sold more albums than Metallica or Van Halen did 8 years in to their careers, but even then you'd be wrong. I mean, over 80 million records sold for Van Halen. Prince has sold over 100 million albums worldwide. So how exactly has Swift sold more albums than any of those three? I just don't see how you came to that Chula.

And if you mean Swift has sold more albums than either of those three and any album they've release recently...I don't know about that.

I used Wikipedia too. But I've never entirely thought that website to be completely accurate. I really doubt Swift has sold more than Metallica in just 8 years.

And I'd like your thoughts on this question I asked you, good chap.

Do you define an artists or bands worth/credibility/talent based on their success and overall reception?

Eminem has sold 155 Million albums in the US

TuPac has sold 75 Million since 2007

The Beastie Boys debut album, "Liscenced to Ill", sold 9 Million copies in the USA- this one album makes up for almost 1/5th of all Metallica's album sales....


Just to be fair

All very respectable sales, indeed.

Swift has only sold 30 millions albums or more in the US, so you can see my confusion with Chula and their claim that Swift has outsold Metallicas overall album sales, which she has not. Metallicas sales in the US alone are nearly 25 million more than Swift. I get that Chula finds what Swift has accomplished so early on in her career impressive, and I do agree, success is success. I'd really like to see certifiable proof of Metallica's overall albums sales though, same with Swift. I just don't rely entirely on Wikipedia, I use it more for referencing than anything else. And according to either Metallica or Swifts pages, Swift still falls short by a long shot.

Source?

Also, I don't think you're giving enough credit to how much technology has enabled sales. It's perfectly reasonable for "sh*tty" artists to outsell all the best bands from 70/80/90s because music is soo much more accessible now.

I agree with this.

But my curious mind would still love to see visual proof that Swift has amassed more album sales, not just in the US, but worldwide than Metallica, Prince, Van Halen has in the time they've been active. For me, what Chula has claimed and supposedly proven to me, is an extremely bold statement of Swift and her accomplishments.

And, as I thought. Swift has sold 80 million digital singles, not albums. So, when you factor than in to the bigger picture. Swift has only sold 30 million actual albums, not 110 million albums. So, that does not place her above Metallica in actual album sales, or Van Halen, or even Prince. Now I want to go figure out how much those three have sold in digital singles...

This really doesn't add anything to the debate, but… I turned on Taylor Swift after I saw a video of her doing "As Tears Go By" with the Stones. She absolutely butchered one of my favourite songs.

She's a country/pop singer, so her taking her pretty, delicate voice, and taking on a song like As Tears Go By, her voice won't fit. That statement makes it sound like I'm saying that singers with voices like Swifts can't tackle a song like that, even if it isn't really that difficult. I'm just saying that some singers just don't have the sort of voice that would compliment certain songs when they go to cover them.

Of course.

I also love and admire a bunch of artists that didn't hit the jackpot.

Does that mean that I should sh*t on Taylor Swift because she's sold more albums than King's X?

Absolutely not.

But you know, that certified album sales of Swifts you linked me to, it's only at 110 million certified unites because of the 80 million digital single sales she has, those aren't 80 million album sales, they're digital singles, as in single songs.

And cut me a break, man. I said that I respect what Swift has accomplished. I just don't like her music, but she isn't without talent.

By the way...

Talent does factor in to success. But I don't want to get in to that debate with you, because I feel that if I do, I'll only come off in the wrong way to you and your idea of what defines an artists or bands success, because it does not rely only on the talent they possess. Justin Beiber is a good example of that. Talented? To a point, but there are other, more prominent or ruling factors in to the success he has had.

I see what you're saying, but these are my sisters, and I know what they like and dislike, which is not terribly different from what I like and dislike. I might expect maybe 1 of the 3 to differ from my perception of a band like Tame Impala, but not all 3.

wait tame impala aren't a bland band? fooled me

It's not the "music" itself, but what is picked and how the show is ran. The unfortunate thing now is that it's mainly bubblegum without any true balance or holes in the system that provided some kind of well-heard alternative in the past in the Pop Scene. By The 90's, I'm sure some respected musicians got lectures from the New Suits on how to record their music - not advice, but hard lectures which read "get a hit or else".

Here's a fact that set the scene - during the MTV days, the companies spent themselves blind on those big music videos. Compile that money losing fact with their crap attempts to go modern with the technology or even ignoring it in true old fart fashion through The 90's, and you can see where their goal is the big hit and not the longer lasting great song. Passing the bill to the bands who would usually be left out in the cold used to work until they finally read what was going on.

The fact is that the number of people who treat music like wallpaper will always outnumber those who will seriously listen to it, and the industry was always trying to find ways to win full stop. Ever since the majors finally got a hold on how to handle music promotion in the post-MTV generations, after of course forming into one big monster with several heads, they closed and triple locked the doors making sure those who get in hold the cards given to them who will not question authority.

It's usually kind of like working at a big block store or Fast Foods - the star is behind the cash register being young and presentable while the lucky workers who know their place slave behind the instruments. No ugly old know it all is to be seen up front or anyone who represents something different, unless the elder is like a respected uncle or the something different is nothing more bit a small quirk they can work with.

Once something hits the Mainstream, it's usually this dire - Think of when MTV made it into every area in The US right in the middle of the Reagan years as well as being bought up by a TV company that thought of turning things away from it's original formula that did not provide stable ratings, think of when the method to chart music popularity called Soundscan only focused on the big stores (including Wal Mart!) who could afford to join in the beginning (many indie stores then rarely had a computer, and it's possible that some smaller chains also lacked the equipment, too!), think of when Boy and Girl groups dominated after Grunge faded away.


So in other words, real music listeners of all stripes including Pop always were seriously out numbered, it's that now the gap is even wider. It always was...that's usually a good thing.

Plus when the business went seriously visual through the Internet and DVD (Video Disc Killed the Audio Star!), the game plan had to be changed. And you can see through the carefully structured videos where that belief went into full force in the Music industry...

There may be a change in the near future, who knows?

silly subject to talk about, because the music that you're talking about right now that's apparently 'killing' music is very mainstream. There's plenty of other good stuff out there, hate it when people say stupid stuff like this :banghead:

There are also some of us that like (some) mainstream music and don't feel that "mainstream" is necessarily a bad thing :banghead:

This.

Well great music is out there. In fact with the internet it has now become possible to find new artists that we actually like. Back in the day we we're so dependent on radio and mtv for that latest sound. This isn't the case anymore. Don't get me wrong it's not as easy as it sounds. The market is flooded with music that is less than favorable but I think it just makes the artist that you eventually find that much more appreciated. Being the industry that we work in, we're constantly looking for that unique sound. We've featured Heavy Metal bands from Kenya, Rock bands from the Ukraine, and artists all over America. It's great finding a sound that you never would have expected. Great music is out there, you just have to find it.

Very clever.

Never said all music that's mainstream is bad. I love happy by Pharrell amongst other stuff

I completely agree, mainstream music that is designed to be catchy and shallow offers nothing.
It keeps people away from music that is composed by people that they actually like what they play and they are not pointed towards a specific direction that only favors the mainstream music industry.

Music is very important, it helps us to evolve spiritually, mentally and also physically because there is energy in music.

Now, with all this trash on commercial radio...

I agree, very intelligent post you have there.

Not the same point as the OP but since it was bumped, the many examples of second rate Hip-Hop being passed off as Grime.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00...XBA75D1W5F7KE9

Track 1 is appalling.

i see that happening a lot. lot of my friends hate grime because of it, they won't even give JME or early Dizzee a chance :(

A shame that. No matter how much I criticise Grime and it's faults, BIDC is a superb album.

skepta is doing a great job of expanding the scope though, couldn't believe the size of the crowd when I saw him live. think he'll be a big bridge between hip-hop and grime in the coming years.