Post your "UNPOPULAR" music opinions!

[relentless 254]

relentless's artpop could mean anything

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music

 

 

I hope that clears up any confusion.

[Des 289]

"Art music" is a vague and poorly worded term for something that seems to go against the very idea of art. These articles suggest that there are major differences in "art" and "pop" music while it's essentially very much alike. If anything, the "art" music category (according to this Wiki definition) has less to do with art than pop music because the Wiki excludes improvisation from the "art" category and attributes this to the pop category instead. How is improvisation not art? And music in both categories extensively use sets of predefined rules for the compositions.

 

"While often used to refer primarily to Western historical classical music, the term may refer to:

 

- Music which is highly formalized, that is, in which all or most of the musical elements are specified in advance, usually in written notation, as opposed to being improvised or otherwise left up to the performer's discretion."

 

This is not a definition of art.. this is just a silly description.

 

I think the whole "art music" term as described in that Wiki is very poor, starting at the very top when it digs its own grave by suggesting that snobby terms like "serious music" and "legitimate music" are synonyms. There is an implication here that "pop music" is kitsch as opposed to "serious music" but who has the right to decide this? Art has less to do with rules and complexity or whether or not it's improvised than it has to do with emotion and you can't categorize emotion.

 

I'm sensing a very strong mindset similar to "socialism vs. liberalism" here. As in there are people who insist these are opposites when that's really not true at all. Only the simpleminded like to think of them as opposites.

[Pretsy 1343]

This would get me lynch on some metal boards:

 

Black Sabbath are boring and did not invent heavy metal, just a darker version of the blues. Judas Priest invented metal. Halford is the metal god, Ozzy is just a clown.

Pffffft.

 

I have been always convinced that Judas Priest only "pushed the metal envelope" instead of inventing it - and this too, depends on how AND what exactly do you define as "heavy metal". This also leads to another series of questions on "what is heavy metal riffage" or "why power chords are the "metal thing" and so on and so on...is there a widely accepted view on what it is? I don't think so.

 

I don't want to expand on my views when it comes to this entirety of a genre (since most members here would lynch me in the end, haha), but like any other subgenre in rock and metal music - heavy metal had a huge cast of various bands and artists who were forerunning the concept and laying the foundation. Consequently, it's very dumb to say that "band X invented genre Y" and rule out the other important factors/acts - god knows whether the act you mentioned catered only one aspect of the said genre.

 

As a case in point, and as another "unpopular opinion" :

 

Based on how dedicated critics and musical analysts defined 'nu metal' throughout decades, I highly doubt that Korn or their producer at that time could be defined as "the ones that invented nu metal" - perhaps they were pushing the envelope as well? Various definitions could be applied pretty much to other acts who were specialized in funk metal and/or rapcore at that time. Could RATM be the actual "father of nu metal" - I mean, they have a) groovy, bouncy riffs b ) emphasized funk/hip hop/groove based drumlines and bass and c ) varied vocalwork between occasional rapping, angst-ridden slurring and hardcore grunting/screaming (if we were to name a few aspects) too? Could it be Deftones then? FNM? Living Color (oh wait, people ignore them because they are black - right)?

 

Debates could go on and on when it comes to these subjects.

[relentless 254]

I fear that you've completely misinterpreted the point of "Art music" and "Popular music" as terms. I will clarify any errors you've made:

 

 

"Art music" is a vague and poorly worded term for something that seems to go against the very idea of art. These articles suggest that there are major differences in "art" and "pop" music while it's essentially very much alike.

 

The term "Art music" is merely a means to describe set traditions in the development of Western music, it is not a means to distinguish what is and isn't "Art". There are plenty of other terms that are used in place of "Art music"; but I personally find them to be less than sufficient. For instance, "Serious Music" is another term used in musicology; but I don't like that because it implies the alternative, Popular music, isn't "serious".

 

At first glance I can understand the confusion; but the entry under Popular music does a good job at distinguishing the two:

 

 

Popular music, unlike art music, is (1) conceived for mass distribution to large and often socioculturally heterogeneous groups of listeners, (2) stored and distributed in non-written form, (3) only possible in an industrial monetary economy where it becomes a commodity and (4) in capitalist societies, subject to the laws of "free" enterprise, according to which it should ideally sell as much as possible of as little as possible to as many as possible. (Philip Tagg)

 

This description is adequate, because it also demonstrates that Art and Popular music are nothing alike. As I demonstrated above, they may sometimes share similar qualities in harmony; but their use of harmony are nothing alike.

 

 

If anything, the "art" music category (according to this Wiki definition) has less to do with art than pop music because the Wiki excludes improvisation from the "art" category and attributes this to the pop category instead. How is improvisation not art? And music in both categories extensively use sets of predefined rules for the compositions.

 

Again, the term "Art music" has confused you to think that people are trying to claim one style isn't "art" and the other is. That is not the case. In regards to improvisation, it does not qualify as "Art music". Why? Because improvisation, historically speaking, was a popular style. During improvisation's inception, it was considered a gimmick to be done during parties. Its purpose was merely to impress an audience and nothing more. Thus it does not fall under "art music" because it was a popular style.

 

 

 

This is not a definition of art.. this is just a silly description.

 

You're right. It's not a definition of Art. It's a definition of "Art music". Again, it's a means to describe a clear development of music starting around the Renaissance to today not to describe what "Art" is.

 

 

 

I think the whole "art music" term as described in that Wiki is very poor, starting at the very top when it digs its own grave by suggesting that snobby terms like "serious music" and "legitimate music" are synonyms.

 

"Serious music" and "legitimate music" are phrases that other musicologists have developed on their own, it is not universally accepted and not nearly as widely spread as the term "Art music". I agree, the concept of "serious music" is pretty stupid.

 

 

I'm sensing a very strong mindset similar to "socialism vs. liberalism" here. As in there are people who insist these are opposites when that's really not true at all. Only the simpleminded like to think of them as opposites.

 

Keep in mind, you're attempting to discuss musicological terms without even knowing what they describe, thus this description doesn't apply here.

[Peace Heavy mk II 7200]

fuck beyonce

[Des 289]

I'm not as confused as you think I am. Reading the descriptions I KNOW that the term "art music" is not meant to distinguish what is art and what isn't, but the term implies it does. That's my problem. If I want to split music in two broad categories as I would split vegetables and fruit, I wouldn't use "art food" and "pop food" with the implication that one is superior over the other. "Art music" is a really silly term. If you throw it out there in a conversation you're bound to create confusion and even after one looks it up there's still confusion about the validity of the term that remains because:

 

The quotation

Music which is highly formalized, that is, in which all or most of the musical elements are specified in advance, usually in written notation, as opposed to being improvised or otherwise left up to the performer's discretion.

 

Is still the silliest thing ever, because that's... everything but improv and Merzbow! It's Beyoncé, it's Amadeus, it's Black Sabbath and One Direction. So if you want to distinguish "art music" and "pop music" using all the other means to do so, by ruling out improvisation and commercially oriented music (also questionable, where do you draw a line?) and such, you'd still get this quotation that makes no sense in contrast to those other rules to define "art music".

 

fuck beyonce

 

What did she do this time?

[relentless 254]

I'm not as confused as you think I am. Reading the descriptions I KNOW that the term "art music" is not meant to distinguish what is art and what isn't, but the term implies it does. That's my problem. If I want to split music in two broad categories as I would split vegetables and fruit, I wouldn't use "art food" and "pop food" with the implication that one is superior over the other.

 

 

 

It never once tries to distinguish something being "art" and the other not, because that's not the point of the terms which is why I think you were confused and drawing assumptions as to what you think it may have been talking about. "Art music" describes a set of traditions in form that progressed through a span of time. That's it. Any of the "serious music" stuff I personally reject, as do most people, because THAT phrase (one that is not particularly in wide use) implies what you described; but that doesn't mean the concept of Art music as a whole does.

 

 

 

"Art music" is a really silly term. If you throw it out there in a conversation you're bound to create confusion...Is still the silliest thing ever, because that's... everything but improv and Merzbow! It's Beyoncé, it's Amadeus, it's Black Sabbath and One Direction.

 

None of those groups are highly formalized (none employ the various forms such as sonata-allegro form), and none of them are primarily distributed through written notation. How about musical structure? Do the bands above employ any of the various forms (Sonata, Rondo, etc.) or genres present in art music (String Quartet for example)? No, they don't. Do any of those bands stress the importance of musical development through modulation? No, they don't.

 

Unfortunately, Art music carries guidelines that the bands above do not even closely resemble. "Art music" carries set traditions and forms which popular music doesn't embody; but certain aspects (such as the Beach Boys and their occasional use of counterpoint in vocal harmony, or the Beatles in musical development) occasionally show up as special qualities to bands. But the bands you described above carry none of those qualities.

 

 

 

using all the other means to do so, by ruling out improvisation and commercially oriented music (also questionable, where do you draw a line?) and such, you'd still get this quotation that makes no sense in contrast to those other rules to define "art music".

 

As I said, improvisation is not "Art music" because it is a well-established popular style and has always been considered such. Then there's commercially oriented music which in its very nature (music is created through recording and mass production) makes it Popular music. Popular music is exactly what the name implies. Music to be distributed en masse to be appreciated and bought by wide audiences. It is a product sold to consumers. Art music does not fall into that category.

I will quote the Tagg excerpt again because I believe you overlooked it, when it is crucial to understanding the entire concept of Art Music and Popular Music:

 

 

Popular music, unlike art music, is (1) conceived for mass distribution to large and often socioculturally heterogeneous groups of listeners, (2) stored and distributed in non-written form, (3) only possible in an industrial monetary economy where it becomes a commodity and (4) in capitalist societies, subject to the laws of "free" enterprise, according to which it should ideally sell as much as possible of as little as possible to as many as possible.

 

Art Music isn't:

 

1. Conceived for mass distribution

2. Stored and distributed in non-written form

3. Only possible in an industrial monetary economy where it becomes a commodity

4. Subject to laws of "free" enterprise, according to which it should ideally sell as much as possible of as little as possible to as many as possible.

 

 

I do appreciate the discussion though, because it helps us weed out some common misconceptions, and you get to learn something along the way. Musicology can be a pain in the ass (thankfully that's not my field of study); but it is an enlightening way to look at music from a larger perspective.

[Bear 1817]

Jex Thoth is the best female vocalist in the world today.

[DogManX 179]

Kanye West is a really nice guy with a lot of truth in his words.

[Traxan 148]

Kanye West is a really nice guy with a lot of truth in his words.

 

The thread is about unpopular opinions, not the factually incorrect.

[beni 2149]

Sam Smith is a whiny radiopop idol who sounds like he's having a vasectomy which goes horribly wrong.

 

Imagine Dragons is one of the least imaginative and most sleep inducing groups of recent years.

 

I thought we could have a possible ship. </3

[efuru 255]

Heisei Iishin was terrible. Their vocalist, may he rest in peace, was so bad. I feel like when he died everyone started riding thye band's crotch and it was a little annoying.

 

Most of my unpopular opinions are that a lot of vocalists are shite.

[Des 289]

Foo Fighters are tiresome and Grohl is a play-it-on-safe radio rockstar making music for folks to whom much greater rock 'n rollers are scary or too far "out there".

 

Anouk in The Netherlands is (in a way) comparable to Dave Grohl.

 

Don't kill me.

[herpes 1597]

Anouk in The Netherlands is (in a way) comparable to Dave Grohl.

 

Don't kill me.

 

I like Anouk! Is that the general opinion of her in Nederlands?

[Des 289]

She sells out most (all?) of her shows I think. I guess the general opinion is a bit divided (some can't stand her, some love her) but she got a lot of fans over here anyway and is still one of the country's biggest names in pop culture. Everyone knows her.

 

Musically she may not be too similar to the Foo Fighters but in the attitude that shines through in the music there's this unappealing try-hard rock "bitch" that seems to work and appeal to a lot of people. And I always got that same feeling from Dave Grohl's presence in Foo Fighters. Trying too hard to be a cool rockstar yet being careful enough to not reach the border that if you cross it the celebrity status ends as far as the mass media is concerned. A desire for the "best of both worlds"... in that way it's exactly the same as what Anouk seems to be doing. And they're both very good at it too!

[Des 289]

Morrissey's solo career doesn't hold a candle to The Smiths.

 

Hugs and tears and all that nonsense during "last lives" like the one by X Japan in 1997(?) is just posing and bad theatre and when releasing the concerts on home video the editor should cut away all that cheap sentiment.

[beni 2149]

Heisei Iishin was terrible. Their vocalist, may he rest in peace, was so bad. I feel like when he died everyone started riding thye band's crotch and it was a little annoying.

 

Most of my unpopular opinions are that a lot of vocalists are shite.

 

My kokoro.

 

Vocalists who are shite are the shit though. #wayoflife

[Deathtopi4 428]

It seems like everyone loves it but personally I thought the song "Unravel" from the first season of Tokyo Ghoul was terrible. Could never get into any of the few other songs by Ling Tosite Sigure I've heard either.

[Des 289]

You can find a lot of the worst rock bands in the world by browsing the 'similar artists' section on the Five Finger Death Punch last.fm page. This band is atrocious and any music like it is too. All That Remains, Trivium, Killswitch Engage, As I Lay Dying... these groups are almost as cringeworthy as a My Little Pony convention with twenty-somethings instead of little girls.

[Lestat 2167]

Unpopular opinion: I greatly despise most of the -core bands that are coming out right now in the Visual Kei scene, and absolutely love every band that maintains their melodic intentions and clean vocals. I am also deeply disappointed that whenever a song nowadays is too soft or gentle, the forum immediately dubs it as garbage.

[Zeus 7997]

Unpopular opinion: I greatly despise most of the -core bands that are coming out right now in the Visual Kei scene, and absolutely love every band that maintains their melodic intentions and clean vocals. I am also deeply disappointed that whenever a song nowadays is too soft or gentle, the forum immediately dubs it as garbage.

I had to pause for a bit and ask myself if this is truly an unpopular opinion. I've felt similarly about the abundance of -core bands in visual kei for a long time so I never thought to question it...although I was under the impression that the scene was beginning to step away from -core a bit.

[Pretsy 1343]

I had to pause for a bit and ask myself if this is truly an unpopular opinion. I've felt similarly about the abundance of -core bands in visual kei for a long time so I never thought to question it...although I was under the impression that the scene was beginning to step away from -core a bit.

I don't think coreistic ambitions won't leave VK just like that for a while.

 

Now that we mention, even those acts that we interpreted as "throwback acts" (take Sibilebashir for instance) or just "clusterfuck" acts (Pentagon) have showcased their sympathies towards this late wave of death/metalcore rejects very formally. Also: Deviloof (a.k.a Nokubura v2) and such are expected to pop up further and in huge numbers as well.

 

We just have to cross fingers and hope that Japanese perceptions of "undated and not corny music" (since even casual metalcore bands in Japan realized dated, cliched aspects in their music and even tried to move on) will prevail these vk waves as well , *shrug*

[emmny 4139]

unpopular opinion i love the core bands, infact i love the dirtier sounding core bands now that remind me a lot of their older counterparts. i defend SAVAGE a lot because their best material reminds me of the sloppy aggression that NEGA and UnsraW brought to the scene in the mid-late 2000's, even if they're kind of a shitty band. Dead Children also have a bit of this vibe, although they're kinda boring. its hard to find new bands that have this sound, as most (as said above) incorporate a tighter deathcore sound or just more polished metalcore with electronic leanings.

[Pretsy 1343]

unpopular opinion i love the core bands, infact i love the dirtier sounding core bands now that remind me a lot of their older counterparts. i defend SAVAGE a lot because their best material reminds me of the sloppy aggression that NEGA and UnsraW brought to the scene in the mid-late 2000's, even if they're kind of a shitty band. Dead Children also have a bit of this vibe, although they're kinda boring. its hard to find new bands that have this sound, as most (as said above) incorporate a tighter deathcore sound or just more polished metalcore with electronic leanings.

I suppose you meant nu metal? And when it comes to discovering new bands akin to this arrangement-based approach (sans vocals), then I could say Kuroyuri to Kage and such could be easily lumped into this league - except that Kuroyuri to Kage should be praised for actually attempting to bridge certain gaps between otherwise very different visual kei subgenres (even if their stuff lacks distinguishable variety) .

 

The hell, that's what visual kei acts should actually practise: become retrospective and find new ways to evolve from there (Grieva has potential to do so but I am still on the fence about their latest ventures)

 

 

Also, allow me to correct you in terms of "bringing something to the scene":

 

+ several other Danger Crue acts popularized this much earlier (sorry, had to be a bit of wiseass here lol)

+ add Deathgaze - Hazuki + that other vocalist guy-eras into the same lump too.

[Ro plz 1290]

Unpopular opinion: A lot of ppl are turned off by The Devil Wears Prada's work after With Roots. And I happen to enjoy everything after that album. Up until that point, they really weren't that different from the other bands in that time. Cheesy Drop D chugging and breakdowns, overall just snooze fest music, minus a couple songs. The ZOMBIE EP is where they took that step in the right direction and IMO really created a distinct sound that separated them from the rest. Since then, they've been on a climb of progress that is quite admirable and they are one of the very few bands that can breathe fresh life into the scene with each release.