FYI: Truth Attack - All Genres Of Music That Have Ever Existed Contain Awesome Music In Them, And If You Write Off A Whole Genre Of Music You Are Being Closeminded And Dumb

geir, i'm not saying that there wasn't a time where lots of people were into melodic pop, i was asking you why they don't know - do you think it's a liberal media conspiracy? are people pretending to enjoy avant garde classical and soulja boy while secretly returning to beatles LPs when nobody's looking? you've said james brown was the worst thing to ever happen to music, but his stuff is pretty unanimously loved, even by other corny beatles dudes like you - what do you think those people are getting out of it? why do they bother?

"why they don't know" = "why they don't now"

Geir is, as ever, conflating "music Geir does not like" with "music that is not melodic". The two things aren't the same, at least judging by Geir's assertions on this board.

i think it would take a lot of time and effort for me to get into contemporary country -- i get that it's supposed to be emotional and witty but the sounds in general don't appeal.

i think it takes a lot of time to get "inside" a genre so that the stylistic and personal differences between artists start to appear more prominent to you than the basic stuff of the genre itself, like a photograph developing in front of you.

gff i recommend going to karaoke somewhere rural and watch drunk people singing contemporary country joints, you get to hear it without all the slickness + lyrics are in front of you and you can focus on the storytelling and personal meaning - that's how i got over hating that stuff

geir, i'm not saying that there wasn't a time where lots of people were into melodic pop, i was asking you why they don't know - do you think it's a liberal media conspiracy? are people pretending to enjoy avant garde classical and soulja boy while secretly returning to beatles LPs when nobody's looking?

The answer is punk. Even though I do like some punk, punk did a lot of damage to music. Punk and disco together. They may have seemed like cat and dog at the time, but together they ruined music.

reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit, huh

Which question is that the answer to?

music is a market -- if tons of people were not interested in hearing disco and punk, and buying the records, it would have had no effect at all. why would people be interested in hearing punk or disco, do you think?

a/w it's funny you mentiont that. i went to a vfw this weekend -- it's in the city and they get a young crowd doing drunk karaoke. every now and again a girl would get up and do a country tune (who does "redneck woman?") and they were always much better as singers. those people are pretty serious.

WARNING WARNING CHALLOP AHEAD

There are some ways that punk ruined music but it wasn't because it killed McCartney-esque pop; it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band. The suckiness doesn't come as much from the acts who got famous as it does from the acts they inspired who didn't actually know what they were doing.

So do you actually think that?

I think it's pretty disingenuous to say that the icons of the 60s and 70s were/are only loved for their melodies - I mean the Beatles wouldn't be so revered without their playfulness and textural experimentation, nor the Stones without their huge grooves, nor Bowie without his self-awareness and contextual games. I'm not denying that all three artists' confidence with a tune isn't/wasn't a huge part of their appeal, part there are a number of factors at play.

There are some ways that punk ruined music but it wasn't because it killed McCartney-esque pop; it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band.

People got over those ideas. But The Beatles were never the one and only dominant influence on most music like they were until the mid 70s. Maybe except for a brief Britpop boom in the mid 90s.

hi again geir - i'm going to link you to a video, one of my favorite songs ever recorded. i hope you'll listen to it - i'll be happy to listen to a song you recommend to me afterwards

that's big daddy kane performing "raw". i really love this cut, and it's just a dude rapping (not singing) over a straight james brown drum loop (from "hot pants"). i'm not the only person who loves this, its part of the rap canon, for good or bad, and it's revered by lots & lots of people. people aren't enjoying it as a rebellion against 60s pop, and there's not really any extramusical factors at play here - it's not like we're distracting by a flashy video or the clout of listening to a 20 yr old song. i can explain what the appeal is to me, but i feel like there's not much you'd enjoy about it. i don't think you're objectively wrong for that, you just aren't into rap music. so, why am i big deal capital-w wrong for listening to this? what do you think is the error with me & other heads that we enjoy this track?

Piers Morgan: You all laughed when Eddie Izzard said it last week!
Ian Hislop: See, Eddie Izzard is funny.

wasn't it actually "people like him tho"?

that's big daddy kane performing "raw". i really love this cut, and it's just a dude rapping (not singing) over a straight james brown drum loop (from "hot pants"). i'm not the only person who loves this, its part of the rap canon, for good or bad, and it's revered by lots & lots of people. people aren't enjoying it as a rebellion against 60s pop, and there's not really any extramusical factors at play here - it's not like we're distracting by a flashy video or the clout of listening to a 20 yr old song. i can explain what the appeal is to me, but i feel like there's not much you'd enjoy about it. i don't think you're objectively wrong for that, you just aren't into rap music. so, why am i big deal capital-w wrong for listening to this? what do you think is the error with me & other heads that we enjoy this track?

That's where disco comes in. Some people have gotten way too fixated about dancing and rhythm. And disco started it.

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/britishradical/images/qutb.jpg

did you listen to the song, geir? what would you recommend to someone like me who has been brainwashed into music like "raw"?

Some people have gotten way too fixated about dancing and rhythm. And disco started it.
I thought James Brown started it.

it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band.

except these things are true

what would you recommend to someone like me who has been brainwashed into music like "raw"?

Well, first of all there must be some stuff that combines rhythm with lots of melody, and that would be better.

I thought James Brown started it.

James Brown originally wasn't all that popular. It was disco that really achieved mainstream success.

"Well, first of all there must be some stuff that combines rhythm with lots of melody, and that would be better."

why would it be better than "raw"? why isn't it just "different" from "raw", but "better"?

ethan why are you bothering

There are some ways that punk ruined music but it wasn't because it killed McCartney-esque pop; it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band.

i kind of agree with this! as a kneejerk reaction, anyway, i assume there are all sorts of arguments and examples people could use to 'prove' that it doesn't hold up. but i agree with the spirit of it.

metal is my huge blind spot, everything about it is so alien to me...so much so that i'd never even diss it in passing, but i don't think i'm ever going to appreciate a metal track.

James Brown originally wasn't all that popular.

lolz

More melodic. There doesn't need to be an opposition between melody and rhythm. As, actually, a lot of 70s disco proved. Not to mention early 80s new pop.

James Brown originally wasn't all that popular.
Yeah, neither were the Beatles until Eric Idle came to the rescue.

geir, here's what you're saying sounds like to me -

"paintings that use lots of blue are the only good paintings, and paintings that use orange ruined painting. there are some paintings that use blue and orange, and they're good because of the blue parts. but you should really only enjoy paintings that are blue."

is this an unfair characterization? can you explain how what you're saying is different than this?

anyway the title of this thread should be ILMs motto/credo

geir, here's what you're saying sounds like to me -

"paintings that use lots of blue are the only good paintings, and paintings that use orange ruined painting. there are some paintings that use blue and orange, and they're good because of the blue parts. but you should really only enjoy paintings that are blue."

is this an unfair characterization? can you explain how what you're saying is different than this?

In the past, only paintings that looked like they "photographed" reality were considered worthy paintings. At the same time, only music with melody was considered real music. The people back then were right.

where's that thread where people went into geir's slsk folders and found a load of wu-tang and jay-z?

yes, one would think....but last week made me think a "stating the obvious" thread was, in fact, necessary.

so is this like an ilm reboot?

in...well, not defense of geir, but in defense of him not being quite the freakish monoimaniacal outlier he appears to be here, i know plenty of people who routinely write off whole genres -- not as being not of personal interest, or something they just don't get, but as being somehow objectively valueless. hip-hop and country are the two most common, but dance/disco/techno, jazz and metal aren't unusual targets. so i think this is one of those threads that's painfully well-duh in the ilm universe, but pretty challopsy at the corner bar. but since none of the corner-bar guys are here, except geir, there's only so much mileage we can get out of it.

it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory.

to be more detailed about the problem with this statement specifically, this means you either have to say that "uneducated" (ie not formally trained) musicians like tribal drummers or early blues musicians or appalachian folk musicians are incapable of making "consistently good music," or you just have to admit that everyone has some knowledge of music theory via osmosis (ie just because they have heard music through their lives).

(oops. monoimaniacal = only listens to cockney rejects)

In the past, only paintings that looked like they "photographed" reality were considered worthy paintings. At the same time, only music with melody was considered real music. The people back then were right.
Now you're saying that Picasso, Van Gogh and multitudes of others all suck?

I think you're underestimating the amount of practice and training and learning through watching/participating that even "tribal drummers" go through.

One doesn't need formal training, no. But an understanding of one's instrument and even an intuitive understanding of music as an entity, yes.

The people back then were right.

There's absolutely no reason why the first opinion should be considered the best! Why do you say they were right?! If your answer boils down to "they just were, I believe it's right because it's right," then FUCK YOU YOU'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF MUSIC ASDFJ;LKASJD;FLAKS JD;ASISUREPWQU9[JFMJKA834787034U!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, because he is an IGNORANT RETARD. You guys are getting this, right?

In a way, punk was the reason for boy/girl bands. I am sure the punks of the 70s never intended it that way, but boy/girl bands were pretty unthinkable in a time where you had to be a musical wiz way above average to even get a recording contract.

except these things are true

Yes, they are.

Not every person who knows how to sing sounds like a Celine Dion or a Clay Aiken and you can know very well how to play an instrument but decide to only play three chords on it; you can also "get" the way that music works or learn about it as you go with having any formal study or a degree in it. I submit that if you can't sing on any level, you don't know how to play your instrument at all and you don't know how to put a song together, your band will not be very good, and I defy you to point out ANY moderately successful band that doesn't do all three of these things.

xp: I would, in fact, argue that there is more than one way to study music and that not everything needs to be rooted in Western academia; I am reasonably certain that tribal drummers do not fall out of the womb knowing the drum patterns of their forefathers, for example.

There are some ways that punk ruined music but it wasn't because it killed McCartney-esque pop; it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band.,

^^^strongly strongly disagree..that's the problem with these types of discussions, ppl just cherry pick examples to go with what ever thing they want to think....in all honesty, i don't think bands that are "great musicians" are any better on the whole than weirdo amateurs....like for every band, like say, king crimson, who were on the high scale of being super adept musicians and are great...there's a bad phish oriented local jam band that is just horrid....the same...for every bad shitty punk band bashing it out and sucking there's a band like young marble giants or early wire that make rudimentary chops a plus.

n/a I agree (see the David Fair guitar thread e.g.) but I think HI DERE put "consistently" in there to imply that the idea of quality control sometimes goes out the window in those situations, not to mean that nothing of worth comes out of it.

many xposts!

ethan you are very patient and I admire yr geir outreach program

but remember that story about the german jazz fan who ran up front and started banging on the stage at a sonny sharrock concert yelling "THIS IS NOT JAZZ! THIS IS NOT JAZZ!"

discussing this w/ geir is like talking jazz w/ that guy

Now you're saying that Picasso, Van Gogh and multitudes of others all suck?

There are others that are considerably worse. Picasso and Van Gogh do at least give an idea of what they are painting. I also accept painters like Dali and Andy Warhol, because they are figurative, only "hallucinating" the reality rather than "photographing" it. A bit like painting's answer to 1967 psych pop.

McCartney encouraged complacency and stagnation in melodic pop rock by persisting for as long he has, causing more damage to it than any 'opposing' genre.

I want to hear some of his Fireman stuff tho.

basically GENUINELY talented and special people will make special music whether they are dropped off a conservatory at age 8 to study composition, or dropped in a shithole suburban garage with a crappy drum kit and a $150 kramer guitar....

I submit that if you can't sing on any level, you don't know how to play your instrument at all and you don't know how to put a song together

uh i counterdefy you to name a band, unsuccessful or not, that meets these strawman criteria

But it takes years of practice to learn.

The prog musicians of the early 70s started out in the 60s, but they weren't as excellent then.

5. Blonde Redhead - 23

Hooray! I finally read this thread, after its having sat atop my browser as an unread bookmark for 11 months. It looked like a good start! And then it devolved into Geir. By the way, is this the closest Marcello has gotten to admitting he's Geir? I've suspected that since I started reading ILM. Their writing styles are very similar. I think Geir is just an experiment of his to try out a particular theory of pop works, and since Geir gets such a "good" response here means the Geir character has stuck around. It's good fun, anyway.

Geir was, is and will always be his own person. Those of us who first encountered him online back in 1994 or so know this.

I want to believe.

But have Marcello and Geir ever been in the same room at the same time? ;)

Marcello had a Geir-imitating sockpuppet a few years ago, I can't remember what it was called though. If he was Geir right from the beginning, why create a sockpuppet to ape Geir?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1238/1268566093_3612244f45.jpg?v=1188415465

Ah yeah, Marcello's sockpuppet was called "Comstock Carabinieri". Maybe it was a self-parody though, with Geir being the "serious" sockpuppet?

Truth is always stranger than fiction.