|
I don't care about whether or not a band is mainstream. A band can be mainstream and good. I just don't like The Beatles. I despise everything they stood for and I lost all remaining respect for The Beatles after John Lennon's solo career. The real rock movement happened during the 1970's. |
|
bud390Join Date: 2010-05-02
Post Count: 6487 |
Eric Clapton, black sabbath and the Rolling Stones are the only artists you mentioned that are more talented than the Beatles. The Beatles lyrics aren't even shallow either, I don't even think you've listened to them at all lmao. Also the pop industry isn't even bad now, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do, make fun music to dance to or just easy accessibility and relatability. Most young people just want to listen to songs that are about cheesy love because it's relatable. You can act as if it's shallow, but thats only because you probably haven't experienced naive love. You just think you are deeper than everyone else and our "generation is shallow" but that's just because you prefer to spend your time online acquiring opinions formed by other internet dwellers that makes you feel as if you are enlightened, but true enlightenment is going a step deeper and realizing how much of a tool you sound like. Just have fun in life, stop trying to dig deep. I've found that it's the people who have the least amount of purpose in life are the ones who try to dig the deepest because they want to feel as if they have more purpose than others through their "intellect" and "wisdom." Life can be simple, don't make it more complicated than it is. Take the drugs that society hands out because when you try to dig deep you will always lose because life is too big for you to comprehend. Once you recognize that, life becomes a lot easier. I know I kinda extrapolated a larger picture and foundational belief out of just pop music's lyrics but Yolanda. Also how in any way is post-rock a joke genre???? |
|
circirakJoin Date: 2014-12-22
Post Count: 15312 |
@raymond
meldo didnt say that post rock was a joke, so why were you agreeing with him on something he didnt say??
|
|
|
itt: raymond reveals he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about in regards to music |
|
meldoJoin Date: 2008-11-04
Post Count: 61512 |
raymond ignoring everything i said because it wrecks him and then pretentiously posting several paragraphs to seem educated lmao
|
|
|
>Eric Clapton, black sabbath and the Rolling Stones are the only artists you mentioned that are more talented than the Beatles.
Love how you forgot Iron Maiden. I mean, seriously. Those guys have serious talent, but I'm not going to get into that. I never said that the individual claimed post-rock was a joke. I understand how I put "I agree. Post-rock and metal is a joke," but I never said that the previous user said that. I don't see how something can be post-rock or post-metal. It's that simple. It's like the genre post-grunge. Those don't make any sense. You can be rock, you can be metal and you can be grunge. Why identify as post-grunge, post-rock and post-metal? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Those are just poor reasons to give people who want to brag about establishing a genre. Say what you will, but you know it's true. It's like the whole alternative-metal vs nu-metal feud. |
|
circirakJoin Date: 2014-12-22
Post Count: 15312 |
@raymond
you dummy, you didnt say "i agree" you said "Meldo is right. Post-metal and post-rock are all jokes. "
|
|
circirakJoin Date: 2014-12-22
Post Count: 15312 |
also, you act like what you say is absolute truth, when it isn't.
raymond, you're just a sad little man in a sad little home.
|
|
jonny1367Join Date: 2010-07-04
Post Count: 33252 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQS91wVdvYc
man makes 48 minute analysis of the beatles, but raymonds got the roast down in 3 paragraphs
#slay #slay #slay |
|
|
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.
Beatles' "Nordic" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty *black* attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band. |
|
MattewFezJoin Date: 2008-12-26
Post Count: 9364 |
nice copypasta |
|
|
i wrote that and it won several major awards |
|
bud390Join Date: 2010-05-02
Post Count: 6487 |
Have you ever even listened to post rock or post metal?? Post rock is just a name, I don't see how it affects the genre and its legitimacy at all lmao. I feel like you haven't heard any post rock and are just assuming it is bad because it has a semi pretentious name?? |
|
bud390Join Date: 2010-05-02
Post Count: 6487 |
Like post rock is infinitely different from your standard butt rock you listen to lmao, like they are completely different genres, it's not just "a reason to brag about establishing a genre" or whatever that means. |
|
|
|
This thread is going completely brain-dead so I am going too just say my final thoughts. I do not claim too know much about the Beatles, I haven't listened too a butt ton of there discography. But too not acknowledge the impact they had whether you liked them or not is just ignorant. The Beatles is still widely known today 50 years later, while bands like disturbed and Limp Bizkit are now just in our past and forgotten. It's just ignorant too deny how impactful they were. |
|
VexullJoin Date: 2010-02-05
Post Count: 5861 |
slowdive r good |
|
|
I have heard post-rock and post-metal. Like I said, the whole genre name is stupid. Just be rock. Be metal. Don't make a whole genre just for the sake of making a genre. That was my point all along. Also, when I said "Meldo was right. Post-rock and post-metal are garbe." I meant the whole second sentence as MY OWN THOUGHT, not Meldo's. The one time I forget to add description to a sentence, everything goes to hell. |
|
jonny1367Join Date: 2010-07-04
Post Count: 33252 |
not sure if ray understands the point of subgenres honestly |
|
VexullJoin Date: 2010-02-05
Post Count: 5861 |
"I have heard post-rock and post-metal. Like I said, the whole genre name is stupid. Just be rock. Be metal. Don't make a whole genre just for the sake of making a genre. That was my point all along. Also, when I said "Meldo was right. Post-rock and post-metal are garbe." I meant the whole second sentence as MY OWN THOUGHT, not Meldo's. The one time I forget to add description to a sentence, everything goes to hell."
dude, if you think the genre is pointless, you obviously haven't heard much of either genre. They're separate genres for a reason, they weren't just made for the sake of being made lmao. |
|
jonny1367Join Date: 2010-07-04
Post Count: 33252 |
dont you get it dude? these "hipsters" (a term i coined) make up genres just to feel good about themselves
why call a dog a dog when its just a mammal? were all animals baby |
|
bud390Join Date: 2010-05-02
Post Count: 6487 |
Guys I think what Raymond is trying to say is, Why make post rock when you can just make rock? I understand what he means, why isn't all music just rock or metal? |
|
VexullJoin Date: 2010-02-05
Post Count: 5861 |
Ight |
|
|
Hipsters are trying to make unnecessary genres. What's the point of being folk if you rip-off indie rock? What's the point of being indie rock if you rip-off folk? It's a weird cycle that everyone follows to be trendy. I have listened to post-rock and post-metal many times. I just don't see why there has to be a genre entitled post-metal or post-rock to make rock and metal music. Post-grunge was created because people felt that Kurt Cobain's death marked the end of grunge music. Truthfully, that would've marked the birth of it since no other band could thrive in that environment because Nirvana was more mainstream than any other act aside from Pearl Jam. All post-grunge did for music was make grunge music have more radio-acceptable themes alongside a slightly slower pace. Less we forget the Godawful bands involved in that movement.
That brings us to post-rock and post-metal. What was the point of their inception? Modern metal genres have more or less gone underground. Including nu-metal, which was arguably popular during its run. What caused for metal bands to be post-metal? Did Dio's death mean metal died? The whole premise of post-metal is to be thought provoking. Hell, most metal songs are thought provoking. Why make a genre just about thought provoking metal? Metallica's "One" is thought provoking. Iron Maiden's "Run to the Hills" is thought provoking. Even The Amity Afflictions "Pittsburgh" is thought provoking. They don't need to invent a completely new genre just to contain strong lyrics.
The same thing goes for post-rock. That whole genre is not only redundant, but useless. It's solely focused on making instrumental tracts. Is that a bad thing? No. I just don't see why a band needs to create a whole new genre to make rock music that solely focuses on instrumental rock music. Call it hard rock. Call it alternative. Don't play the 'special card' and make a new genre for it. |
|
|
''What's the point of being folk if you rip-off indie rock? What's the point of being indie rock if you rip-off folk?''
Indie folk is a music genre that arose in the 1990s from musicians in the indie rock community influenced by folk and classic country music. Indie folk hybridizes the acoustic guitar melodies of traditional folk music with contemporary instrumentation. Early artists included Ani DiFranco and Dan Bern.[1] Later artists of note included Father John Misty, The Decemberists, Fleet Foxes, The Cave Singers, Loch Lomond, Bon Iver, Or, The Whale, Great Lake Swimmers, and Blind Pilot.[1]
Back at it with the Wikiposting! |
|