Shit Bands

[Tater Totts]

The Red Hot Chili Peppers, new stuff mostly!

[Robo Axl]

No actually i was asking a question of you if you look closer. And where on earth was that you saw me say artistic merit doesn't exist?

You accused me of pseudo-intellectualism for pushing forward the idea of artistic merit in the context of music.

That is hands down the most ridiculous statement i have ever heard. Why? Why on earth would you wanna do that, why would you want to even enter into this game of measuring up and stacking up against. See what you're engaging in here is something that, to me, is in stark contrast to someone who understands anything about artistic merit. Why cheapen music or art like that? Is that what its about, these high ideals you hold, is that the as good as they get? This celebrity squares bullshit?

See, this is the issue. As far as I'm concerned if you aim to achieve greatness musically and don't look towards the greats you're wasting your time. Those guys set the benchmark. Any clown can take a shit in a cardboard box and call it art but it takes someone with real talent and ambition to measure up to the greats.

See this is the problem, the core of the problem with your posts in this thread so far (being that i dont know you outside of this context). "Shit bands", betters and worses, number 1, number 2, number 3, its totally contrary to anything art has anything to do with. Art, by virtue of what it is, has NOTHING to do with competition, not for the people who really understand anything about it, this is why the commercial aspect of the arts are so often cited as what fucks the whole riddle up, cuz commerciality is based on competitiveness, this pecking order, top of the pops mentality. The minute you enter into all of that and yet still try and propagate some kind of intellectualism is the minute that you become a pseudo intellectual yourself because you either can't see or wilfully ignore or can't understand what it is that makes art so important to the human expierience.

Never said it was a competition. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and to want to achieve the same kind of artistic grandeur of the greats certainly doesn't cheapen art in any way whatsoever. That being said, competition is actually beneficial for the artist - it generally makes him up his game so to speak. Nobody in their right mind could think competition between artists is a bad thing. Don't you think The Beatles wanted to be the best? Beethoven? Are you arguing that their competiveness cheapened their art?

Right and i was explaining that maybe the problem is with your ears here because Nirvanas songs were intensely melodic, just because something is amped and distorted and possibly because of this to your ears it becomes "noise" don't make it so. Behind that ampedness and distortion, as showcased on Unplugged In New York, Nirvanas songs were extremely melodic.

For the standards of grunge they may have been melodic. Melodic compared to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXG83p2nkHw

Naw!

No i'm kinda having a giggle at someone who pokes at psuedo-intellectuals and then uses broad terms like "emotional impact" like its meant to have some kind of immediate relevance in the context of a debate.

And it does have immediate relevance in the context of this debate. Music is 90% concerned with evoking emotions - that's why we listen to it. If it leaves you feeling cold and empty it isn't good music.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Robo Axl

[stacks on deck]

Music is evoking emotions

that's why we listen to it

If it leaves you feeling cold and empty

it isn't good music.

[Robo Axl]

Huh? Having trouble with basic quoting/posting functions Stacks?

[Demon Wolf]

I cannot stand U2 or Radiohead, but that doesn't mean I label those who do like them idiots.

[stacks on deck]

trying to break down your contradictions as clearly as possible.

[Robo Axl]

trying to break down your contradictions as clearly as possible.

There were no contradictions in those quotes....

[SpUd_Jr]

[Robo Axl]

And it does have immediate relevance in the context of this debate. Music is 90% concerned with evoking emotions - that's why we listen to it. If it leaves you feeling cold and empty it isn't good music.

For the sake of juvenile education, I present you the original quote prior to Stacks on Deck's edits where he removed the "90%", the key part of the message. Where lies the contradiction?

Edited March 16, 2009 by Robo Axl

[SpUd_Jr]

:lol:

[Tater Totts]

And it does have immediate relevance in the context of this debate. Music is 90% concerned with evoking emotions - that's why we listen to it. If it leaves you feeling cold and empty it isn't good music.

For the sake of juvenile education, I present you the original quote prior to Stacks on Deck's edits where he removed the "90%", the key part of the message. Where lies the contradiction?

Most important part of the quote in bold there. YOU just because you feel cold and empty and it isnt good for you doesnt mean everyone will feel the same. For them it might provoke emotions in them and as a result is good as it doesnt leave them cold.

[Robo Axl]

And it does have immediate relevance in the context of this debate. Music is 90% concerned with evoking emotions - that's why we listen to it. If it leaves you feeling cold and empty it isn't good music.

For the sake of juvenile education, I present you the original quote prior to Stacks on Deck's edits where he removed the "90%", the key part of the message. Where lies the contradiction?

Most important part of the quote in bold there. YOU just because you feel cold and empty and it isnt good for you doesnt mean everyone will feel the same. For them it might provoke emotions in them and as a result is good as it doesnt leave them cold.

... But that isn't a contradiction. I never doubted that the bands listed as shit bands could potentially evoke emotions in people. I criticised their pseudo-intellectualism and pretentiousness.

I said music is 90% evoking emotions, not entirely. The rest is what irks me about the bands listed.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Robo Axl

[SpUd_Jr]

Feeling cold and empty are emotions.

[Robo Axl]

Feeling cold and empty are emotions.

In the context of my sentence, "cold and empty" refers to a piece of music which has little to no emotional effect.

[Tater Totts]

And it does have immediate relevance in the context of this debate. Music is 90% concerned with evoking emotions - that's why we listen to it. If it leaves you feeling cold and empty it isn't good music.

For the sake of juvenile education, I present you the original quote prior to Stacks on Deck's edits where he removed the "90%", the key part of the message. Where lies the contradiction?

Most important part of the quote in bold there. YOU just because you feel cold and empty and it isnt good for you doesnt mean everyone will feel the same. For them it might provoke emotions in them and as a result is good as it doesnt leave them cold.

... But that isn't a contradiction. I never doubted that the bands listed as shit bands could potentially evoke emotions in people. I criticised their pseudo-intellectualism and pretentiousness.

I said music is 90% evoking emotions, not entirely. The rest is what irks me about the bands listed.

I believe the contradiction they were going for was that Music that leaves you feeling cold and empty isn't good music as it may not cause those emotions in everyone. And for those it does there are some people who may desire those feelings out of certain types of music and as a result despite the fact it leaves them feeling cold and empty they like it and it is good for them

[SpUd_Jr]

If I feel cold and empty, then there's been emotional effect.

[dirtylenny]

You accused me of pseudo-intellectualism for pushing forward the idea of artistic merit in the context of music.

No i didnt, i asked you a question...here it is again..

Tell me, what is it in the intellectualism of the bands you've cited that makes them pseudo as opposed to fully realised 360 degree intellectualism?

there ya go..

As far as I'm concerned if you aim to achieve greatness musically and don't look towards the greats you're wasting your time.

look toward the greats for what?

Any clown can take a shit in a cardboard box and call it art but it takes someone with real talent and ambition to measure up to the greats.

Part of the measure of great art or some great art is the audience and their ability to interpret. I dont go in for this looking up to grandad mentality, i think this whole measure up to the greats mentality is what stifles art. Greats became what they were because they were original, not immitative, however flattered and placated the immitatee might feel as a result.

Never said it was a competition.

But thats exactly the direction you start in when your central preoccupation becomes "measuring up".

That being said, competition is actually beneficial for the artist - it generally makes him up his game so to speak. Nobody in their right mind could think competition between artists is a bad thing. Don't you think The Beatles wanted to be the best? Beethoven? Are you arguing that their competiveness cheapened their art?

Art does not function on the basis of betters and worses. Its just a ridiculous notion and its why rock n roll is probably at the very bottom of the totem pole of artistic merit. I mean what makes the Cistine Chapel more or less of merit when compared to say The Mona Lisa or something? What do you guage these things upon and what has competition led the music industry to when its all said and done? I'll tell ya, its led it to this commercial shit-stream with crap infested charts while real musicians are out there probably today in some piss smelling bar playing their asses off and going for the music and not to knock someone off the number one spot. This is why rock n roll is, when really dissected and examined as an art form, it barely stands up...cuz of the inherently commercial aspect of what an artists success is measured by. Who brings in the bucks, thats the long and short of it. It just so happens that the people that bought in the bucks 30 or so years ago actually had artistic merit. Didnt last long though, did it? I wonder why...

For the standards of grunge they may have been melodic. Melodic compared to this?

Again with your standards and comparisons...but yes, since you asked, definitely at least AS melodic as both those examples.

And it does have immediate relevance in the context of this debate. Music is 90% concerned with evoking emotions

90% huh? Well thats a precise number...doesnt leave much room, does it? So tell me, whats other 10 up to?

If it leaves you feeling cold and empty it isn't good music.

cold and empty is an emotion unto itself, is it not? I think a song that leaves you cold and empty has worked wonderfully, whether it was its intention or not. Even music that inspires indifference can be considered of merit if thats what it set out to do. You cant dictate terms to art like that..

Edited March 17, 2009 by dirtylenny

[Robo Axl]

If I feel cold and empty, then there's been emotional effect.

The issue is with your misinterpretation of my post. When the listener feels cold and empty about the music it is never a good thing. When a proffessional describes an album as leaving the listener "cold" he is generally referncing the fact that it doesn't excite, entertain or have an emotional impact upon the listener. It doesn't mean he's been launched into a deep depression.

[arnold layne]

1. U2

2. Radiohead

3. Blur

4. Rush

All pathetic bands who churn out absolute garbage with 0 artistic merit or entertainment value year after year while acting as if they actually mean something. Uninteresting music and lyrics, pseudo-intellectualism, pretentiousness. Ugh. Who else?

Hey dumbass. U2 is the greatest band of all time. Clean out your ears and grow a brain.

[dirtylenny]

If I feel cold and empty, then there's been emotional effect.

The issue is with your misinterpretation of my post. When the listener feels cold and empty about the music it is never a good thing. When a proffessional describes an album as leaving the listener "cold" he is generally referncing the fact that it doesn't excite, entertain or have an emotional impact upon the listener. It doesn't mean he's been launched into a deep depression.

Thats a bunch of opinionated presumptuous nonsense. What a proffesional does or doesn't mean is something you can only know when you ask him or her. If thats your take on the matter then fine but dont go slingin' your dick around on the subject like thats what is because quite frankly, you aint qualified to speak on anyones behalf except your own...no one is.

[Tater Totts]

If I feel cold and empty, then there's been emotional effect.

The issue is with your misinterpretation of my post. When the listener feels cold and empty about the music it is never a good thing. When a proffessional describes an album as leaving the listener "cold" he is generally referncing the fact that it doesn't excite, entertain or have an emotional impact upon the listener. It doesn't mean he's been launched into a deep depression.

Thats a bunch of opinionated presumptuous nonsense. What a proffesional does or doesn't mean is something you can only know when you ask him or her. If thats your take on the matter then fine but dont go slingin' your dick around on the subject like thats what is because quite frankly, you aint qualified to speak on anyones behalf except your own...no one is.

I think that is about the 17th time someone has said this to him, in one ear out the other it seems

[Teroz]

U2

RHCP (after one hot minute)

Coldplay (boooo-ring)

Nickelbäk

[The Sandman]

U2

[kaddisonmoore]

Guns N' Roses

Who do they think they are, The Rolling Stones?

[sweetness]

Damn, you arent even really the music snob type, i'd probably have more respect for you cause you'd at least know what youre talking about. but really, youre just an ass who likes to get a rise out of people

anyway, i'll go with Fall Out Boy