Any theories?

[dorian gray]

sure, and every metal song is about sex, fantasy, the occult, or metal itself

true, but what's your point here? my statement was just a joke to themoor666. it's not really my main argument. that would be that country music is incredibly, mind-numbingly formulaic and i simply can't understand why people listen to it. the same goes for pop and most rap. from what i've heard and seen, country "artists" aren't very proficient with their instruments and worse, they seem not to care. that's fine and good but i think country open itself to much neagtive criticism from the genuine music community. i think they deserve it.
My opinion is that music should have a focus and a vision. It should be creative and interesting. The musicians should be striving to constantly be better at their given instruments - be it a guitar or a voice. Many, many people share this opinion, i believe.
Disclaimer: I am in no way including bluegrass with country. The two are very different. Although I will admit bluegrass is not very creative or interesting, the musicians seem to take great pride in their intrumentalism.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

(a la "deliverance") narnar nar-nar-nar-nar-nar-nar-naaar

 

[dorian gray]

it wouldve been funnier if you posted the entire song in actual music notation.

 

[Don Corleone]

somre great entries on this thread, very thoughtful.

got a question for you all there...well esp. to those interested:

now we've talked about why popular music sucks and mostly agreed on the fact that some of it can actually be good.

now then, how do some bands who write good music become popular? here is my (yours will deffirently be different) list of bands of this kind:

a perfect circle
ac/dc
aerosmith
alanis morissette (this one is quite interesting...she isnt pretty at all)
alice in chains
aphex twin
audioslave
barry white
ben harper
beyoncé
bob dylan
coldplay
the cure
depeche mode
the flaming lips
fun lovin' criminals
goo goo dolls
guns n roses
incubus
kiss
korn
manic street preachers
pearl jam
the pixies
placebo
primus
rem
radiohead
red hot chili peppers
santana
dj shadow
the smashing pumpkins
tool
tori amos
u2
the white stripes
velvet revolver


i just scanned through my cd towers...now, all of these great bands and musicians have made lots and lots of money but how come other great bands and musicians such as camel, ulver, opeth, anathema, antimatter, type o negative (could have put them on the list, though), tindersticks, morphine, the gathering etc dont make as much as they do?

is it all about the advertisement?

 

[dorian gray]

Very good question Don Corleone. As i scanned that list, one thing stuck out to me: the ones I've heard of or listened to were popular only at a certain time and then faded from existence for one reason or another. Which made me think, their popularity was more a product of their environment than it was sheer talent, vision, or originality. AIC for example: I love them. I loved them when the were popular and I still like them now. Jerry Cantrell was and is a legitimate guitar player. Yet, I will say virtually all their songs were very similar in length, scope, and structure and severely lost popularity over time (granted, they *did* break up). I can't remember for sure, but maybe they were different and original at the time. But hearing them now, I just think they're fairly redundant - although I like them.
I'll let someone else comment on the other bands. Overall though, I'll just say that most of those bands made music that was somewhat ambitious but at the same time, accesible. Most maintained some type of balance, compromising one for the other: I would consider AIC ambitious and talented but not as accesible to the listening public as say, Aerosmith. I mean, your average adult didn't want to hear about heroin addiction but musician-types thought Cantrell's playing was solid....and they sold alot of albums that way.
Nice addition to this thread.

 

[dorian gray]

ok i'll address these as i numbered them:

*etc*

opinions? :Spin:

excellent arguments. i see your points. i agree with you that metal is just as formulaic as country and pop (in its own way). however, my guess is that more metal bands than country bands are more interested in musicianship than they are about "making it big". there's no way to prove this of course, i'm just pontificating. One would think though, by comparing royalties of metal bands versus country bands, that my point isn't too far-fetched. I mean, the fact that metal bands exists in the first place demonstrates that not everyone is in it for the money. I happen to repsect musicians and bands who are creative and music-focused - not money- or image-focused.

As far as Cash, Dylan, et al are concerned. I see what you're saying. I didn't say they sucked. I said I didn't understand the appeal. Frankly though, I don't think they're anything impressive or interesting. They may have been back in the day but I can't comment on that. Obviously i wasn't around back then.

one more thing: I think my assumption is erroneous only when applied to the general listening public. My experience is that musicians prefer to listen to other musicians who are instrumentally proficient. I'm going out on a limb here but I would think Moonlapse would rather listen to and study [insert instrumentally-proficient band here] than Bob Dylan or Johnny Cash. I may completely wrong and that's cool.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

excellent arguments. i see your points. i agree with you that metal is just as formulaic as country and pop (in its own way). however, my guess is that more metal bands than country bands are more interested in musicianship than they are about "making it big". there's no way to prove this of course, i'm just pontificating. One would think though, by comparing royalties of metal bands versus country bands, that my point isn't too far-fetched. I mean, the fact that metal bands exists in the first place demonstrates that not everyone is in it for the money. I happen to repsect musicians and bands who are creative and music-focused - not money- or image-focused.
[...]
one more thing: I think my assumption is erroneous only when applied to the general listening public. My experience is that musicians prefer to listen to other musicians who are instrumentally proficient. I'm going out on a limb here but I would think Moonlapse would rather listen to and study [insert instrumentally-proficient band here] than Bob Dylan or Johnny Cash. I may completely wrong and that's cool.

agreed on the first point...at least with my own personal experience, the guys i know who play metal are more interested in creating music for themselves and showing it to their friends and fellow metalheads, as opposed to getting their name out and trying to score a deal. then again, could just mean we're a bunch of lazy fucks, self-promotion is hard .

on the second point i have to respectfully disagree, speaking for myself as a musician. i make an effort to learn to *play* things that are more challenging, to improve technically as a guitarist, but when it comes to listening preference i don't hold an artist's instrumental proficiency as the biggest indicator of their musical value. granted, if a guitarist is attempting something beyond his or her abilities it can be cringe-inducing, but artists like bob dylan can play 3-chord folk songs and still have a great impact on me personally, as great or greater than that of lighting-fast shredders.

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

now we've talked about why popular music sucks and mostly agreed on the fact that some of it can actually be good.

now then, how do some bands who write good music become popular? here is my (yours will deffirently be different) list of bands of this kind:

[a big 'ol bunch of bands]

i just scanned through my cd towers...now, all of these great bands and musicians have made lots and lots of money but how come other great bands and musicians such as camel, ulver, opeth, anathema, antimatter, type o negative (could have put them on the list, though), tindersticks, morphine, the gathering etc dont make as much as they do?

is it all about the advertisement?

Good question. Aside from the obvious fact that sometimes a band finds itself in the right place at the right time, and gets exposure and success it may not have if it'd tried the same thing a year or two later, I think it boils down to the general public being an extremely fickle beast. Sometimes a fantastic band does not get rewarded as it may deserve for seemingly no reason at all, whereas an inferior band may rocket to success. Call it better advertising if you will, but i think this argument can only go so far, and cannot tell why Radiohead is amazingly prominent, yet Porcupine Tree is plodding along (even with a string of great albums).

Basically, life ain't fair, and shit happens. This isn't a hallmark-card worthy sentiment, but within the realms of the music industry, i think it sums things up pretty nicely.

 

[ViCyniC]

It's ignorance, plain and simple. I can say that I don't generally like rap, country, techno not because of ignorance, but because I've heard those genres, and they consistently suck at it's musical core.

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

simple answer: because radiohead has the novelty value of the strange sounding vocals, and since vocals are the only thing most people care about...

also porcupine tree has way too many instrumental songs, as well as long instrumental parts of other songs. they are not a commercially accessible band, radiohead is.

If Radiohead is only for novelty value, then how come A) It hasn't worn off, B) Other bands had high vocals before and after Radiohead and C) PT arguably has interesting vocals?

I don't believe PT is not a commercially accessible. They have plenty of songs that have radio-potential; Blackest Eyes, The Sound Of Muzak, Lightbulb Sun, How Is Your Life Today. None of these songs have long instrumentals either. Remember, Radiohead achieved success with a song such as Paranoid Android, a song that clocks in at over 6 mins, goes through a number of sections, has no chorus, and is an interesting, well writen song.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

ooh, it's on

 

[Maayan]

somre great entries on this thread, very thoughtful.

got a question for you all there...well esp. to those interested:

now we've talked about why popular music sucks and mostly agreed on the fact that some of it can actually be good.

now then, how do some bands who write good music become popular? here is my (yours will deffirently be different) list of bands of this kind:

a perfect circle
ac/dc
aerosmith
alanis morissette (this one is quite interesting...she isnt pretty at all)
alice in chains
aphex twin
audioslave
barry white
ben harper
beyoncé
bob dylan
coldplay
the cure
depeche mode
the flaming lips
fun lovin' criminals
goo goo dolls
guns n roses
incubus
kiss
korn
manic street preachers
pearl jam
the pixies
placebo
primus
rem
radiohead
red hot chili peppers
santana
dj shadow
the smashing pumpkins
tool
tori amos
u2
the white stripes
velvet revolver


i just scanned through my cd towers...now, all of these great bands and musicians have made lots and lots of money but how come other great bands and musicians such as camel, ulver, opeth, anathema, antimatter, type o negative (could have put them on the list, though), tindersticks, morphine, the gathering etc dont make as much as they do?

is it all about the advertisement?

you forgot:
THE BEATLES
Pink Floyd
Led Zeppelin
Blackfield
David Bowie
Supergrass
Deep Purple

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

ooh, it's on

Its not on, nothing is on; its off.

 

[Kenneth R.]

somre great entries on this thread, very thoughtful.

got a question for you all there...well esp. to those interested:

now we've talked about why popular music sucks and mostly agreed on the fact that some of it can actually be good.

now then, how do some bands who write good music become popular? here is my (yours will deffirently be different) list of bands of this kind:

[popular bands here]

i just scanned through my cd towers...now, all of these great bands and musicians have made lots and lots of money but how come other great bands and musicians such as camel, ulver, opeth, anathema, antimatter, type o negative (could have put them on the list, though), tindersticks, morphine, the gathering etc dont make as much as they do?

is it all about the advertisement?

i think fundamentally it does come down to advertisement and accessability. death metal and prog are simply a lot harder for most people to get into than alternative and rock. not that one genre is better than another, but the popular ones are popular because the mass majority people find them easier to understand, sing along to, and generally "get". this gets even more underlined with strong advertisement for those bands and virtually no mainstream presence for the others.

 

[dorian gray]

@bangadrum and cthulu: points well taken. i hereby stand corrected. well, kinda. i was only stating an an opinion. heheh
*wipes sweat off brow - narrowly avoiding having to admit being wrong*
cheers, guys. good luck with your bands.

 

[R0l0]

actually one thing I noticed on Don Corleone's list is that save for a few exceptions, none of those artists have any purely instrumental tracks or long instrumental passages.

like mentioned earlier in the thread, it seems that most people are more concerned with lyrics and vocals in music as opposed to instrumentation. it's kind of strange to me, because after all, music to me in the most basic sense of "music" is purely instrumental -- basically the use of instruments to make a composition from different notes/frequencies.

lyrics and vocals can be great and all, but I think people put too much value on them. I've noticed that even some people who call themselves huge music fans who "listen to everything" tend to ignore the more instrumental genres.

i'll quote one of my english professors who said something along the lines of "9 times out of 10, if you compared lyrics written by a musician with poetry written by an actual poet, the poet's writing would be better". And I agree, if I wanted to interpret some really good writing I wouldn't go read Bob Dylan or Beatles lyrics, I'd go straight to literature and poetry by professional writers.

 

[Kenneth R.]

some bands are incredibly lyricists though i'd agree that isn't the majority.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

@t3ts: oh it's on.

@bangadrum and cthulu: points well taken. i hereby stand corrected. well, kinda. i was only stating an an opinion. heheh
*wipes sweat off brow - narrowly avoiding having to admit being wrong*
cheers, guys. good luck with your bands.

haha, you weasely bastard....i need a band actually, i'm between bands.....and jobs.....and girlfriends.....fuck

 

[Don Corleone]

you forgot:
THE BEATLES
Pink Floyd
Led Zeppelin
Blackfield
David Bowie
Supergrass
Deep Purple

of course i left those out. :Smug: i mean especially the beatles, pf, lz, db and deep purple. these bands were there at the VERY right time, with the VERY right music...which was as good as it could get and really original, ground-breaking and maybe genre-opening...i made that last one up :Spin: they are perfectlt exceptional.

and dont forget your list will be different from me.

but yeah you were right in reminding of adding blackfield to my accessible-but-why-not-popular list.

great points there again, well taken.

my idea on the whole thing is that the major problem with the bands on that list is not being signed to a major label...i mean just take camel...why did pink floyd get popular and they didnt? pf is my 2nd fave band (after opeth) and i believe dsotm is the greatest record ever but still camel should have made it much higher with an album like mirage.

you guys know this joke?

whats the difference between a pink floyd gig and a camel gig?

in a pink floyd gig, everyone in the audience knows who's on the stage.
in a camel gig, everyone on the stage knows who's in the audience.

breaks your heart, doesnt it?

 

[Don Corleone]

we all know major music labels can pay for much more advertising. think about how much money mtv is being paid for showing what they are showing.