contraversial musical opinions

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

I never said you didn't read the fucking article, I said that the article is bullshit. CD sales declined because the big current trend of the time died and the record companies had nothing in line to replace it with. It has nothing to do with quality, but popularity.

So all mainstream music has no good qualities and people are mindless and only buy strictly due to popularity... hate to burst your bubble but I buy mainstream music as well and popularity only makes me aware of those bands/artists... I judge for myself what i consider good or bad quality for my own tastes.. we all have individual minds just like we do in extreme metal (there's good & bad quality in our favorite genre's and record sales that is normal for those bands reflects it).. In the Grunge genre I bought Nirvana, Alice n Chains.. the only two bands i considered good quality imo at that time... I didn't buy anything else else that was "in" by other people after i heard some of it from friends CD's... and when Grunge died I didn't buy any other bands because the quality of those bands sucked and not because the trend died...I buy quality and not popularity from each individual genre I like... If i like a genre I tend to buy it for years whether the trend is alive or dead like Thrash nowadays if i think it's good quality... I don't play follow the leader in anything in life... As for the article being BS... that is your opinion and your entitled to it... but if CD sales died because Grunge died as you say then it is suffice to say that Grunge died because of all the bad quality bands that came out and the public refused to buy those CD's... if the quality continued to be top quality for that genre then the trend wouldn't have died...

But anyways it was Clinton's fault!!!! and Nu Metal was Bush's Fault!!! let this argument die already... in 10 years when a kid (whose 10 yrs old now) tells you about your era you can argue with them..

 

[skeptik]

You completely and utterly miss the point. I'm not even passing any value judgments whatsoever. Mainstream music being poppy, catchy and whatnot does not mean it's bad, it just means that it's going to appeal to a lot of people. I just so happen to think that it's bad. What I'm saying is that there is no rational basis for drawing a correlation between record sales and quality unless you're talking about overal populist opinion. Actually the general statement itself that there was a decline in quality is purely based on opinion to begin with, so the entire basis of the article is pointless.

Edit: And stop using the bullshit age argument. Realizing that CD sales have no correlation to musical quality has nothing to do with when you're born, and should be common sense. Just because you read it in a (probably mainstream) magazine doesn't mean it's founded upon fact.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

Actually the general statement itself that there was a decline in quality is purely based on opinion to begin with, so the entire basis of the article is pointless.

Exactly... but that is a opinion I agree with and you don't... you have your own opinion... which is neither right nor wrong but just opinion...

Edit: And stop using the bullshit age argument. Realizing that CD sales have no correlation to musical quality has nothing to do with when you're born, and should be common sense. Just because you read it in a (probably mainstream) magazine doesn't mean it's founded upon fact.

As for the age thing... i bring it up because you tend to have strong opinions about a era that you were not born in or were not old enough to remember nor care much about issues... I don't know about your childhood but I would assume you played with trucks or whatever your favorite toys are... whatever you read now about any past era is strictly your opinion... I can only give my opinion about the 60's but a Hippie from that era can give a better opinion then my own... I can quote this author or that author but nothing replaces one's experience... my experience was working record stores in those era's & seeing it first hand and listening to what customers said about this band/artist or that band/artist and their albums...

As for where I read it I do not remember but if it has to do with business it is usually the business section of a local paper or a financial newspaper like the Wall Street Journal which I think has a more informed opinion about such things as business since it is their business to know about business and why a business ascends or declines more then you or me...

Anyways let the argument died... i know your opinion and you know mine... leave it at that... talk about some controversy about some extreme band... much more interesting (though business is a passion of mine)...

 

[skeptik]

The whole fucking point that you keep ignoring is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to imply a connection between CD sales and the quality of music coming out. You keep insisting that this is true, and yet it cannot possibly be true, because there is nothing between them. Even if it just so happens that the decline in record sales declines as the quality 'declines,' there is STILL no logical basis for drawing a causational link between the two. THIS is my point, and it has nothing to do with your or my opinion about the music NOR does it have a damn thing to do with any specific time period.

Once again, record sales have no business being discussed in conversations of musical quality. If you can't see the illogical nature of saying "well Album X sold more than Album Y, so Album X is the higher quality album," then sit down and think about it for a minute, it will come to you. And the business crowd certainly shouldn't be the ones talking about musical quality. Looking at statistics to determine what album is better is completely stupid.

As for the specific issue of the mid/late 90s, I've already talked about this. After Grunge died, as all trends eventually do, record sales declined because there was nothing to take its place. Does this mean that the quality in music was gone? Absolutely not. It means that there was nothing to market until the boy bands came along. Records sell huge numbers because they're pushed by the music industry. This is not to say that the general populous is vain and can't think for themselves, but merely that most people don't really care about music enough to explore to find new music, they just select what they like from what is presented to them in the mainstream media. When there was no immediate trend to rise up from the grave of Grunge, it was almost like there was not real new music coming out for people who didn't look for it. And yet, none of this has to do with Metal at all, because Metal (aside from Pantera, Metallica, etc) never cracked the charts in the 90s, so record sales really had nothing to do with the current fads popular among the average listener. The downfall of Metal was because major labels were done investing in the Metal scene because it was old hat, so the vast majority of the quality Metal being released at the time was either coming out on small labels or independently.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

The whole fucking point that you keep ignoring is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to imply a connection between CD sales and the quality of music coming out. You keep insisting that this is true, and yet it cannot possibly be true, because there is nothing between them. Even if it just so happens that the decline in record sales declines as the quality 'declines,' there is STILL no logical basis for drawing a causational link between the two. THIS is my point, and it has nothing to do with your or my opinion about the music NOR does it have a damn thing to do with any specific time period.

Impossible and no connection? So if Grunge album X at the height of Grunge music does not sell well with all the label's marketing power then that has nothing to do with quality?

Once again, record sales have no business being discussed in conversations of musical quality. If you can't see the illogical nature of saying "well Album X sold more than Album Y, so Album X is the higher quality album," then sit down and think about it for a minute, it will come to you. And the business crowd certainly shouldn't be the ones talking about musical quality. Looking at statistics to determine what album is better is completely stupid.

Again no matter the popularity of a genre or how much a label puts alot of money into marketing/promotion of a album... it has to have some good qualities or else in the end it won't sell enough for the labels to recoup their expenses of putting out that album... no amount of popularity or marketing will make a bad album sell alot... much like in movies... so therefor sales can and have reflect quality whether good or bad regardless of what you & me think of said quality... the average listener in the end can determine a album's quality based on their listening tastes... like you said in the mainstream it has to be catchy,memorable etc.. but those features have to be good enough quality to the average listener or they won't buy it... I've heard albums with such catchiness etc. in the mainstream in the 90's even at the height of Grunge and the album failed despite the money backing up the album... why? because in the average listener's ears at the time despite a label telling them to buy this, it's good, it's popular etc. they had different opinions and thought it sucked and was bad quality so they didn't buy it... Quality (in the average listeners opinion) in the long/end run determines a albums success... marketing etc. only leads them to the album...

As for the specific issue of the mid/late 90s, I've already talked about this. After Grunge died, as all trends eventually do, record sales declined because there was nothing to take its place. Does this mean that the quality in music was gone? Absolutely not. It means that there was nothing to market until the boy bands came along.

There was a trend but I don't know what to label it... but imo was a bad trend that didn't catch on because of bad quality again... even though there was huge marketing for those bands... not grunge but born from grunge and punk influences... can't describe it... nor can i label it... i suppose they never came out with a name for it back then...

Records sell huge numbers because they're pushed by the music industry. This is not to say that the general populous is vain and can't think for themselves, but merely that most people don't really care about music enough to explore to find new music, they just select what they like from what is presented to them in the mainstream media. When there was no immediate trend to rise up from the grave of Grunge, it was almost like there was not real new music coming out for people who didn't look for it.

Again a album won't sell no matter how pushed by the music industry if the average buyer determines it to be bad quality. As for the trend from the grave of Grunge, like I said there was one but I wouldn't know what to call that trend. And my argument is about overall sales across the board, not just Grunge or rock music. Other music genre's as well. The whole industry was the point of the article(s) I read & not just the ones that make the charts.

And yet, none of this has to do with Metal at all, because Metal (aside from Pantera, Metallica, etc) never cracked the charts in the 90s, so record sales really had nothing to do with the current fads popular among the average listener. The downfall of Metal was because major labels were done investing in the Metal scene because it was old hat, so the vast majority of the quality Metal being released at the time was either coming out on small labels or independently.

Metal has it's trends like the BM trend when Mayhem,Darkthrone etc. came out at it's height. Of course they don't crack the charts but there was a trend and that trend declined with poor quality BM bands in the aftermath. Alot of BM was pushed by the underground (dare i say mainstream) media in those days & that influenced buyers much like the pop mainstream influences the Grunge and other trends. But no matter how much the underground media pushed BM the listener in the end determined the good quality bands from the bad no matter how much money the media or the labels put behind the bad ones.Same concept imo. Sales reflects the listeners assessment about what is good or bad no matter the marketing in the end.

But anyways as for this post and your other posts... >>> I hear ya I hear ya .... i just don't agree with ya... let it die... you won't change my mind and i won't yours... let the others talk about their own controversial topics/bands etc....

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Then Mr. Know it all and I'm always right because im think im a psuedo intellectual...

explain the decline of CD sales overall in the music industry and not any particular music genre if not for bad quality... pre Internet/download and Ipod era... After the decline of Grunge music...

So what years are we talking about? I'm not seeing a big decline here. Apparently musical quality was on the rise until it declined by 4% in 1997, fortunately it bounced back in the following year.

And the last debate at one point ended when you yourself stated that the debate was pointless because I wouldn't see things your way and that you would not continue with it and will ignore my future posts... you can backlog and find it yourself what you said...

I think you are confusing me with someone else, you are the one who continuously stated that no opinions would be changed and the discussion was pointless (much like you are doing here ) and then left. I'm still waiting for your reply to my last post. Which reminds me, remember this?

Slayer's albums, ranked by sales per year:
CI	150000
GHUA	50667
DI	39385
SITA	38765
DIM	32222
RIB	32000
SOH	30789
HA	21909
SNM	6583
HTC	4739

Isn't your position suggesting that that list also accurately ranks Slayer's albums by quality?

Heck, lets sum it up like this: doesn't your position argue that Celine Dion's music is of higher quality than Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Bob Marley, The Doors, etc.?

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

So what years are we talking about? I'm not seeing a big decline here. Apparently musical quality was on the rise until it declined by 4% in 1997, fortunately it bounced back in the following year.

I don't remember the exact years that were quoted in the articles back then since it's been like 10 or so years since i read the articles... but im fairly certain they mean after 1994...

I think you are confusing me with someone else, you are the one who continuously stated that no opinions would be changed and the discussion was pointless (much like you are doing here ) and then left.

Nope... it was you... you and Doden are the only two where the threads run into a few pages when we debate something...no one else is interested in such debates much less ones that run for pages.. and I know Doden didn't say it at the time... was you who said you would ignore my posts in the future... if you can post the thread for me and I'm not lazy I can probably find where you said that... but i don't remember the thread's name nor do I care to read through pages and pages to find that one line... but you seem to have the time.... so go read them and get back to me...

I'm still waiting for your reply to my last post. Which reminds me, remember this?

Slayer's albums, ranked by sales per year:
CI	150000
GHUA	50667
DI	39385
SITA	38765
DIM	32222
RIB	32000
SOH	30789
HA	21909
SNM	6583
HTC	4739

Isn't your position suggesting that that list also accurately ranks Slayer's albums by quality?

I did answer you back then but you insisted on not listening to my answer... so why beat a deadhorse again... but like i said quality is opinion... you and me might think those particular Slayer albums suck but someone else might think otherwise...

Heck, lets sum it up like this: doesn't your position argue that Celine Dion's music is of higher quality than Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Bob Marley, The Doors, etc.?

To a Celine Dion fan... yes of course... to you or me.. not really... I prefer the Doors over Celine but that is just my opinion in terms of quality between those two... As for Johnny Cash... I prefer versions of his songs done by other people such as Social Distortions version of Ring of Fire... same with Willie... and Bob Marley.. I only like a few songs...

 

[thisisaformicatable]

I don't remember the exact years that were quoted in the articles back then since it's been like 10 or so years since i read the articles... but im fairly certain they mean after 1994...

The RIAA's year ends don't show this decline. I'm inclined to go with them over a mysterious article some guy on the internet read a decade ago.

Nope... it was you... you and Doden are the only two where the threads run into a few pages when we debate something...no one else is interested in such debates much less ones that run for pages.. and I know Doden didn't say it at the time... was you who said you would ignore my posts in the future... if you can post the thread for me and I'm not lazy I can probably find where you said that... but i don't remember the thread's name nor do I care to read through pages and pages to find that one line... but you seem to have the time.... so go read them and get back to me...

Accusations without evidence, what a surprise. Put up or shut up.

I did answer you back then but you insisted on not listening to my answer... so why beat a deadhorse again... but like i said quality is opinion... you and me might think those particular Slayer albums suck but someone else might think otherwise...

"Back then" we were discussing the commercial sound of Slayer in relation to their sales, not quality, remember? We haven't had this discussion before, don't act like I'm bringing up something you have already addressed.

To a Celine Dion fan... yes of course... to you or me.. not really... I prefer the Doors over Celine but that is just my opinion in terms of quality between those two... As for Johnny Cash... I prefer versions of his songs done by other people such as Social Distortions version of Ring of Fire... same with Willie... and Bob Marley.. I only like a few songs...

And here again is the contradictory nature of your position staring you in the face, yet you don't even realize it. Is your argument not this?

Record sales determine quality.

Quality is subjective, opinion, doesn't exist in any concrete sense.

Simplified:

X determines Y

Y doesn't exist

Let me extrapolate a conclusion:

X determines nothing

Why the hell are you arguing this?

 

[Xorv]

Star Wars > Star Trek

Legs and Ass > Titties and Tongue

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

The RIAA's year ends don't show this decline. I'm inclined to go with them over a mysterious article some guy on the internet read a decade ago.

You showed me up to 1994 when Grunge was still in it's heyday till Kurt died and the other bands disappeared.. I've said mid to late 1990's and so did Doden... We or me never claimed the decline happened early to mid 90's...

Accusations without evidence, what a surprise. Put up or shut up.

The evidence is in that last thread we debated... if you can remember the thread name and post the link here & I'll do your job since you are too fucking lazy... then when i find where you said u would ignore me... then you can shut up...

"Back then" we were discussing the commercial sound of Slayer in relation to their sales, not quality, remember? We haven't had this discussion before, don't act like I'm bringing up something you have already addressed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you posted those Slayer album sales in the other thread and not this thread til now... so yes "Back then"...

And here again is the contradictory nature of your position staring you in the face, yet you don't even realize it. Is your argument not this?

Record sales determine quality.

Quality is subjective, opinion, doesn't exist in any concrete sense.

Yes opinion in the long run not short... big sales can happen in the first two weeks but to sustain those sales for weeks the album has to have some good quality aspects to the fans of those bands/artists... when it's bad quality word of mouth gets around and sales drop soon after it's debut.. to you and me it would be bad quality regardless because we are not fans of that band/artist... our opinions are biased...

Simplified:

X determines Y

Y doesn't exist

Let me extrapolate a conclusion:

X determines nothing

Why the hell are you arguing this?

Let me spell it out for you:

X determines Y to the actual fan of that artist/band and not to you or me who dislike such bands/artists...

But anyways post me that link of the previous thread we clashed in so I can find that one line and you can shut up and ignore me... someday you will realize you are not always right... and can be wrong... but till then I rather show you where you said about ignoring me... since you have a obsession with me and my thoughts.... I guess I make your life complete since you cannot find anyone else on this forum other then perhaps Doden to debate such trivial things for pages and pages...

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

Star Wars > Star Trek

Legs and Ass > Titties and Tongue

You like legs more then a girl's tongue? .. i like all but Ass is #1

As for Star Wars over Star Trek... definetly...

 

[Bone Daddy]

This thread is some hilarious shit.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

This thread is some hilarious shit.

it can be but sometimes i wonder why i bother answering a post in the first place because some peeps can't accept other people have opinions different then theirs... they have a need to always be right... it's like they lack something in life and this is their therapy to give meaning to it...

 

[thisisaformicatable]

You showed me up to 1994 when Grunge was still in it's heyday till Kurt died and the other bands disappeared.. I've said mid to late 1990's and so did Doden... We or me never claimed the decline happened early to mid 90's...

Um, check again, the link I posted shows 1989-2006.

The evidence is in that last thread we debated... if you can remember the thread name and post the link here & I'll do your job since you are too fucking lazy... then when i find where you said u would ignore me... then you can shut up...

Yes, it's my job to prove your assertions. What a shining example of logic and integrity you are.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you posted those Slayer album sales in the other thread and not this thread til now... so yes "Back then"...

Yes I posted them in that thread. I am posting them now for a *different* reason. This is a *different* discussion about a *different* topic. So your response in that discussion has no relevance here, that is the point I am making.

Yes opinion in the long run not short... big sales can happen in the first two weeks but to sustain those sales for weeks the album has to have some good quality aspects to the fans of those bands/artists... when it's bad quality word of mouth gets around and sales drop soon after it's debut.. to you and me it would be bad quality regardless because we are not fans of that band/artist... our opinions are biased...

Let me spell it out for you:

X determines Y to the actual fan of that artist/band and not to you or me who dislike such bands/artists...

But anyways post me that link of the previous thread we clashed in so I can find that one line and you can shut up and ignore me... someday you will realize you are not always right... and can be wrong... but till then I rather show you where you said about ignoring me... since you have a obsession with me and my thoughts....

Let me again try to pull a coherent point out of that mess - aren't you saying not that album sales indicate quality, but how much the fans of a band like the album? That if an album sells a lot of copies then that means a lot of people like it? I think that the use of the word "quality" is preventing you from successfully making a painfully obvious observation that was never all that relevant to my original assertion anyway.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

Quality: Degree or grade of excellence

Who determines that quality but the fans themselves? You or me? no.. were not fans... we only give a biased opinion of such quality & of course would give a opinion of bad quality... if it's bad quality then the fans won't buy it... do some people buy it? yes... of course they do... I didn't say zero sales... just lower sales after it's debut... difficult concept to grasp? ... For example... I haven't bought a Metallica album since their Black album... why? because I considered Black to be a bad quality album and any things I heard from albums after that one were bad to me also... I'm a fan and that is my opinion on their quality... Does everyone think like i do? of course not... because it's a opinion and everyone has one... accept it... we all have opinions & that is all it is about this topic... opinion...

Btw I don't see the link to that previous thread... you told me to put up or shut up about that particular thing... I don't remember the thread so you'll have to post the link to it... if you can't then I would have to say to you to put up or shut up... I'm offering to go through the thread for you since u are too lazy or are you afraid I will find that line and I am right...

 

[hibernal_dream]

Star Wars > Star Trek

nah

 

[skeptik]

The assertion that only people that like the music can judge the quality of the music is absurd. Everybody listens to the same piece of music. Everybody approaches it from a different angle, but no opinion is any more or less valid at the core. What raises one's opinion's value is the knowledge and understanding attached to it. One who is able to critically analyze a work for what it is objectively has a more worthwhile opinion than the average teeny bopper. What raises the value of one's opinion on a specific type of music is not whether or not they like it, but whether or not they know and understand it. There are objective measures of quality, but they're obviously subject to opinion. You can judge how effective the artist is in communicating a message, the production, the instrumentation, the vocals, the dynamics, the songwriting, etc., but everyone will view these objective measures subjectively. Being that there are objective measures regarding quality, the more 'qualified' one is, the more relevant and valuable their assessment of a work is. The average music listener does not have a very worthwhile opinion as far as judging the quality of a work is concerned. I don't think that this point needs to be qualified further. Accordingly, being that the bulk of record sales come from the average music listener, using record sales as a means of determining the quality of an album is fruitless at best.

Thus, there is no effective, causationally linked correlation between record sales and quality. Judging the musical quality of a given work should be reserved for the informed and the knowledgeable. Taking into consideration the opinions of the average listener saturates the field with generally worthless drivel and is simply a waste of time...unless of course you're also an average listener. Otherwise, how well a given record sells should have no bearing on the likelihood of you appreciating said album. Mainstream music created for mainstream audiences is of inherently lower quality because it explicitly panders to the lowest common denominator listeners, those least knowledgeable and least informed. THEY may think that the new Backstreet Boys album is high quality, but analyzed as objectively as possible, it will inevitably be deemed shallow and vapid.

 

[Zephyrus]

Nice post, Dodens, but you haven't taken into account that half the posters here are too retarded to bother reading your epic arguments. (Yes I read it all, and I agree with your many solid points).

 

[skeptik]

I suppose it's good exercise regardless of whether or not it actually accomplishes anything.

 

[Zephyrus]

There's nothing like the satisfaction of typing a lengthy, coherent post that you know will be constructive to the current argument. I wish I could do that more often.