Quote:
Originally posted by SP
Who says a musician has to have lasting power,
To be influential to other musicians to spark creativity and drive culture. If the song is some flash in the pan, it will become a meme and repeat itself over and over. It might not be the exact same instruments, or composition, or even lyrics, but it will repeat in some form or another. And what happens as it repeats? It stagnates the whole because no lasting change will push forward.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
and who say the goal of every musician is to make as much money as possible?
I didn't say that it should, I said that this commercially spewed garbage reinforces it as the only way to be lucrative. Repeat the same patterns to be successful, don't try to be inspirational or inventive, just do what everyone else is doing. So why apply yourself, just be as lazy as the rest of them and put out the same hollow garbage. It is a notable trend in all the popular musicians; they keep repeating the same trend over and over.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
So are you saying that if you make crappy pop music but aren't successful that you're less worthwhile than someone who also make crappy music but is successful?
I never said anything of the sort and nothing I said even remotely implied any of that. I have no idea where you got that idea from.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
Why is classical music that people used to waltz to any better or different than techno pop music that people dance to today?
Because classical music was refined through talent, work, inspiration, and meaning. Whereas now the techno-pop scene is full of people who spend a couple of hours on a virtual drum machine add some empty lyrics and release it. Of course with a few outliers of some talented individuals, Tiesto not being one of them.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
Watering down what is considered music? Please...could you be more arrogant?
Switching your attack to me instead of the actual argument at hand doesn't prove anything. And it still doesn't change the fact that most popular music is uninspired cash grab bullshit.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
So you're the final say on whats considered music...give me a break.
Well you seem to think you have final say about any other subject, how is this any different from what you do? Also, indeed, give us a break.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
And slowing down culture? Culture is culture...it is what it is.
That statement is meaningless and does not have any merit as a refutation.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
Its what people want.
People's want has nothing to do with culture. It is the collective summation of the arts, non-genetic heritage, and scholarly achievement. No person has control over it, it is influenced by everyone as a whole.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
If people want bubblegum pop music, then thats what they want.
Yeah and if you continually condition them to watch bubblegum pop music that is all that will find success. A stagnant, uninspired mono-culture of garbage.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
Sometimes they want a silly Avril song, some times they want Justin Beiber,
No one wants those. And Canada shall never live that down.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
sometimes they want the Beatles, and sometimes they even want a anti commercialism band like Nirvana.
Here is the difference, The Beatles and Nirvana had meaning, creativity, and inspiration, not to mention the fact that they had talented people who worked hard to produce such works. Where as to day, you don't have to. You have a drum machine set to loops and you just sing nonsense with no meaning and no value and rake in the money.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
All of these bands I just mentioned have been at the peek [sic] of culture and they are all very different...
That doesn't change the fact that the two more recent ones are garbage incarnate, it is just another notable marker at the steady decline of the quality of music.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
some are considered the best that music has to offer in recent history, others are not that critically acclaimed.
Which does nothing to refute my point that newer music is garbage. Where the Beatles and Nirvana broke new ground, had talent, work, integrity, and inspiration all we get now is the recycled garbage.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
My point is, people want what people want. there is ALWAYS something different to chose from, people just pick what they like.
And my point is if you continue to condition people to think that uninspired garbage is worth while that is all they will ever seek for. Just because you have been conditioned to eat dog food doesn't make it not dog food.
////
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
Its not the norm, its far from the norm.
No it is the norm, you just didn't notice it because you're okay with it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
And who's to say its dumb if people either a) relate to it. b) get some level of enjoyment out of it.
Never said that at all, I would suggest you re-read my post. I said that the same recycled garbage with no inspiration, no talent, and no progress was dumb.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
One of the most popular songs right now is Happy by Pharrell Williams. Is it musical genius?..probably not. Does it have the smartest lyrics in the world?...no.
So you're point is, I am right.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
But its enjoyable, it puts a smile on my face and makes me wanna dance. I'm not saying that ALL music should be dance music, but ALL music should strike some sort emotion...and Happy does that in strides.
Still doesn't mean it isn't hollow refuse.
And him ruining the latest "Daft Punk" album isn't helping.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
Don't tell me I'm wrong, you weren't there, you didn't live in prehistoric times.
But you did the exact same thing in your post, you can't have it both ways you can't tell me I was wrong and then assert your baseless statements as fact.
There difference is these people agree with the stance that I take:
Iain Morley — The Prehistory of Music: Human Evolution, Archaeology, and the Origins of Musicality.
Steven J. Mithen — The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Body.
Steven B. Jan — The Memetics of Music: A Neo-Darwinian View of Musical Structure and Culture.
Carl Stumpf — The Origins of Music.
Nils Lennart Wallin, Bjorn Merker, Steven Brown - The origins of Music. (Dissanayake)
Richard Parncutt — Prenatal and infant conditioning, the mother schema, and the origins of music and religion
Which is music started as a method to share information, not to make each other feel happy. It all boils down to it was a part of proto-language to exchange information, not just to make you happy.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
Music became part of ceremonies and rituals, but it sure as hell didn't start with them...thats impossible.
You should follow your own advice, you don't know so you shouldn't speculate.
I suggest you read some passages from those books above.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
So you think they were sitting around one day, doing their ritual, and someone said...geee...we need something to go with this ceremony...I wonder what we can come up with?
No, I think, just like the authors above, the customs and rituals were accompanied with the proto-language of music as a form to keep the ritual active and recreatable.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
And another caveman said, hmmm...let me try banging this stick on these piece of wood...maybe thats whats missing. Bullshit. The first caveman to bang a stick on a piece of wood did it because he liked the sound of it.
Again, baseless and incorrect.
Quote:
Originally posted by SP
The first caveman to wrap and stretch a hide over a hollowed out log did it because he wanted to improve on the sound of a stick on solid wood. I have no doubt that organized "songs" or rhythmic drums played in a similar way were part of ceremonies, but to say that music originated from rituals and ceremonies is preposterous.
Okay then take your argument to International Study Group on Music Archaeology or Société de Linguistique de Paris.
