People who dislike music or bands because it is 'too mainstream'

I get your point but there are some 'proper' bands who have made a hell of a lot of money.

 

Double post..

 

I' m a heavy rock real ale drinker except for the Underneath the Stars Festival at Cawthorne in a couple of weeks then I'll be hitting the Thornbridge Brewery Tent listening to folky stuff

 

I'm afraid that I must disagree with you on just about every statement you have made in your posting.

Prior to the Beatles, the pop music consisted of ballad singers and big bands. Even Jazz and Blues was mostly confined to Black America. The advent of the electric guitar and amplification allow four players to make the same amount of noise as a big band and took music to a different set of players. The Beatles and Rolling Stones were at the forefront or the revolution. The Beatles took music into a new age, and with Sgt Pepper, they continued to move musical innovation into new areas. It might seem that they were mainstream in the light of what has followed, but at the time, they were fresh and new.

The Monkees copied the Beatles style, even down to the style of their TV series being based on the style of the Beatles first film. Furthermore, their songs were written by the best writers of their time eg Neil Diamond. They copied everything and innovated nothing. Any credit is due to the writers of the songs and the manufacturers of the TV series that made them into minor stars.

I am not a Cold Play fan myself, and I do not possess any of their music, but in my opinion they are a better band than your review would suggest. They deserve enormous respect for the quality of the material they have written.

I am not qualified to judge Girls Aloud as I cannot recall ever listening to them.

The problem is that you have confused your opinion with facts, and I hate it when people do that. You have an opinion about the music that you listen to, and that is fair enough. Everyone does. However, you must recognise that it is merely an opinion and NOT A FACT.

As for there being no rules. Of course there are rules, but everyone has their own rules.

 

The Monkees were huge stars not minor ones, and later in their career they started writing their own songs.

 

Text shouting doesn't make your point any clearer it just makes you sound like someone's dad at a party. My point was listen to what you want to want to listen to everything is down to personal taste.

The Beatles are the most mainstream of mainstream and that from someone who likes them enough to own every single one of John Lennon's unlistenable solo albums. The fact they innovated and changed the mainstream is irrelevant it doesn't make them any more of less populist.

Coldplay is music for people who don't like music. Background music at an accountants dinner party.

I like Live music still up to 2/3 gigs a week about 70% of the bands I see I have never heard of before I see them. If I like them live I listen more if not I don't. I have few preconceptions. I have seen both Coldplay and Girls Aloud live so am probably in a better position than you to discuss them.

The Monkees who cares if they innovated nothing. Are some of there singles full of life and joy that's all that matters. The Motown production line artists innovated little and contributed next to nothing intellectually to the process again who cares. Get over yourself.

Did Lee Perry or Coxsone Dodd contribute more to reggae than Bob Marley probably but again who cares.

Like what you like there are no rules. I spent my mid/late 20s writing for music magazines full of people who thought they could be arbiters of musical taste. By and large a little knowledge was a dangerous thing. Though I got loads of freebies so didn't care too much.

Music is about opinions there are no facts. And regurgitating recycled ideas doesn't make them so.

 

I like Coldplay and I love music and I am not an accountant, so that's a load of ****.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Just checking but if I played you a song and you liked it would you instantly dislike it again if I told you Simon cowell was behind it?

 

Isn't the whole point of music to entertain others? Manufactured bands are put together by people who want to make music that entertains as many people as possible? I'm struggling to see how that is a bad thing

 

Yep. It's how you entertain others though.

It's a case of do you entertain people through art or by appealing to the lowest common denominator?

I know which I prefer.

 

Sorry about the text shouting, but I really do dislike it when people cannot tell the difference between opinion and fact.

When the Beatles started, they were new and they were innovative. But as I have stated before in this thread, popular music moves on. The Beatles made their contribution and pop moved on. Their solo careers were largely uninspired, and their writing was largely disappointing. But that does not change the contribution that they made to music during their brief time together.

Your comment about Coldplay is yet another sweeping generalisation about their music which insults the intelligence of their legions of fans and it is just your opinion. Now your are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but please stop presenting them as facts.

Who cares about bands who have innovated nothing. I care, because music must move on. Every new generation must have new music that it can relate to. That can be the sound track to their youth. Now I had no time for the Sex Pistols for example. I never listened to them at all, but if that generation of music buyers enjoyed their music, and found it different to what had gone before, then fair enough. I did not enjoy it and they could not play their instruments (one of my tests). If I was to venture the opinion that they were *****, it would be my opinion. It would not be fact.

I guess the point of my contribution to this thread is that it does not matter how much you think you know about music, your views on it are simply your opinion and not fact. It is a sentiment that I notice you have echoed in your final paragraph.

 

No.

Does he do progressive rock ?

 

Very much agree.

 

You never listened to them at all, but didn't enjoy it and they couldn't play their instruments? Eh?

I like them, personally. Love punk music, and playing your set badly is/was part of the spectacle. Punk.

 

The point that I am trying to make is that like and dislike of a style of music, or a particular act is down to taste and opinion. If you like punk, it is your taste and your opinion. What originally rattled my cage was the confusion between opinion and fact. It happen on here a lot, and not just in music threads and is usually followed by the word FACT. I usually manage to rest my urges, and do not respond. I guess in this case, I had nothing better to do.

 

I don't dislike a band or their music because it is too mainstream, but I don't tend to like what is mainstream. I like a lot of music that was mainstream in the past, and during the 80s and early 90s I liked a lot of music that was mainstream at the time, but what is considered mainstream now and the type of music you are referring to leaves me cold.

I quite like The Beatles and I don't believe you can get any more mainstream than that. My favourite rock and roll band are The Clash who sold millions of albums and continue to do so. I like 70s punk, a lot of which were hit singles, and the new wave pop acts that evolve from that - Parallel Lines by Blondie is a fantastic album and they were the biggest band on the planet for a few years. I like 80s synth pop, now and contemporaneously - Depeche Mode, Soft Cell, OMD, Human League, Eurythmics - which was the dominant form of pop music at the time. A couple of my favourite bands from the early 90s were Suede and Pulp, both of whom had top ten singles, number 1 albums and played arenas. I like 60s girl groups, particularly the Phil Spector wall of sound, much of which is completely manufactured, so I'm not against producing music in that way.

I'm not a big fan of rock, I love catchy 2 and half minute pop music. I still buy a lot of it, but the stuff I buy gets nowhere near the charts or entering the mainstream. I don't think what I buy now is a any different to what was, for decades, hugely popular, but for reasons I can't understand, it no longer is. What I like tends to have a bit of an edge - nothing radical, but it's there - and there was always a place for that within the mainstream. Now, there no longer seems to be. What you describe as mainstream pop is very bland to me (and, bizarrely for pop music, lacking any melody) and while there was always plenty of that about, it seems nowadays that's all that becomes mainstream.

Having said all that, my favourite ever quote about music was written by [MENTION=54922]Marc[/MENTION] on this BBS
http://bbs.barnsleyfc.org.uk/showthread.php?228588-Most-Overrated-Bands&p=1688697

Pop music I've bought recently

[video=youtube;Q81yO9338CM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q81yO9338CM[/video]

[video=youtube;721s0o_0Cvc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=721s0o_0Cvc[/video]

 

The Beatles were innovative when they started..what when they were a pretty straight down the line Rock n Roll covers band? Or do you mean after their initial successes - where it could be argued that they were innovative or alternatively jumped on every Marareshi inspired trend and regurgitated the half remembered information distilling it for their audience. Ringo Starr can play the drums but is hardly Ginger Baker or Keith Moon.

Again the Rolling Stones were mainstream but changed the course of music despite starting as RnB covers band There's nothing wrong with being popular. Nothing wrong with performing the music of others the stones didn't write Little Red Rooster the Beatles didn't write Twist and Shout.

Glen Matlock from the Sex Pistols is an excellent guitarist in fact they imploded without his musicianship to hold them together. Wouldn't be you stating an opinion as a fact would it. A perhaps better example would have been Public Enemy who changed music without reference to instruments at all but maybe hip hop/rap isn't music because it's not performed in the traditional manner.

With your interest in innovative music are you currently exploring the Dubstep scene or again does the innovation have to be within narrow precepts.

Your views would dismiss most of Tamla's output from the 60s, all the reggae that came out of the Black Ark (where the innovation was Lee Perry's) or Studio One where it was Coxsone Dodd rather than Bob Marley who changed the course of Jamaican music. Seems a very white European conceptualisation of what makes 'proper' music. If you hear a song and like it do you have some process for unliking it once you realise it wasn't written by the band or the Drunmer failed his music exams? Music snobbery at its very worst.

Again nothing about anything I have said is a fact nor did it claim to be. The Coldplay stuff is a joke btw. Though I have seen them live three times and actually fell asleep the last time (though to be fair I'd be to Oakwell beforehand so to quote Morrissey I was bored before I even began).

Not sure how you can read like what you like if you don't turn it off as someone trying to pass opinions as facts. There are no facts outside of basic scientific ones ( though there is a lot of dispute over even them) everything else is just conceptualisation and opinion.

To quote the Reev HTH

 

Steve Jones, Paul Cook and Glen Matlock were all solid if unspectacular musicians. Never Mind The ******** is as tight as anything that has ever been recorded. The myth that they couldn't play comes from two sources: Malcolm McLaren's claims in the film The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle, which is a fantasy, a mockumentary, nothing to do with the truth; and the fact that Sid Vicious, Matlock's replacement, genuinely struggled to play, but was rarely allowed anywhere near an instrument in a recording studio and his bass was often turned down when playing live.

I'd say The Pistols imploded because they lost Matlock's song writing and arranging abilities rather than his musicianship. Steve Jones played everything but the drums on the majority of Nevermind The ******** as Matlock had already gone. That and the fact that John Lydon had had enough.

 

I guess the songwriting was the key thing really without Matlock they were lost and McKaren and Lydon were destined to clash. Saw Paul Cook drumming for his daughter Hollie a bit back and he got good later in life.