»

[jester1470]

Following on from the Coldplay thread it got me thinking, many of the artists I like could be described as inoffensive and middle of the road such as Dido, Barenaked Ladies, Queen, Asia, ELO, Ultravox, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and the Beautiful South - all described as inoffensive and all sold shitloads of albums. This in turn got me thinking, should music always have an edge, or originality or not...

My conclusion was that I listen to many different things deoending on how I feel and that music doesnt have to be anything more than entertainment and people are entertained by many different things. So to me (no surprise), middle of the road music doesnt have to be bad, sometimes it does its job which is give me something pleasant to listen to,

Anyone else have any thoughts ?

Cheers

Stuart

[Tam o' Shantie]

i think it is a significant sign of having a dull taste in music. for me music that plays in the background and gets you tapping your foot gently isn't worth the plastic it's pressed on. it's the equivelant to birds tweeting or rain hitting your window. background noise that you barely notice. I like my music to be exciting, powerul, to really grab me and make me feel emotions, and I would say that the average listener cannot appreciate what I am describing while listening to the radio. this is why I find most of the music i enjoy by checking out bands online and activily seeking out music that will inspire me.

I think there's definitely a place for it.

I have a number of CDs in my collection which could be described as 'inoffensive' and are fantastic for putting on in order to have in the background as I relax of an evening with a cup of tea and a novel.

Well I guess Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler or Paul Simon/Simon and Garfunkel would be classed as "inoffensive" by many (snobby UK journalists mostly), and they are some of my favourite artists, so inoffensive me up.

Funny thing is, as long as they are perceived by the music press as being "cool" they are no longer inoffensive, even if the music they are playing is no more or less "offensive" than many of the artists listed in Jesters post. See Pink Floyd, Bruce Springsteen, U2, etc.

[jester1470]

Originally Posted by Tam o' Shantie

i think it is a significant sign of having a dull taste in music. for me music that plays in the background and gets you tapping your foot gently isn't worth the plastic it's pressed on. it's the equivelant to birds tweeting or rain hitting your window. background noise that you barely notice. I like my music to be exciting, powerul, to really grab me and make me feel emotions, and I would say that the average listener cannot appreciate what I am describing while listening to the radio. this is why I find most of the music i enjoy by checking out bands online and activily seeking out music that will inspire me.

But surely stuff like birds tweeting can be beautiful in its own right, are you never in the mood for that? And if music gets your feet tapping gently or otherwise it ust be making an impression somewhere. I dont think its anything to do with having a dull taste in music, I think its a moods issue, I listen to stuff that makes me feel emotions when I want to, sometimes its nice to just chill out and take it easy, switch off and not feel much, just listen to pleasant sounds... then again maybe thats just me.

Cheers

Stuart

Originally Posted by DustyDeviada

Well I guess Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler or Paul Simon/Simon and Garfunkel would be classed as "inoffensive" by many (snobby UK journalists mostly), and they are some of my favourite artists, so inoffensive me up.

Funny thing is, as long as they are perceived by the music press as being "cool" they are no longer inoffensive, even if the music they are playing is no more or less "offensive" than many of the artists listed in Jesters post. See Pink Floyd, Bruce Springsteen, U2, etc.

Nail. Head.

[Keilan 303]

I wouldn't include Queen in the inoffensive list...not the first few years of their career anyway

Inoffensive music suits inoffensive people...the man who goes to work and does little bar discuss his golf outing, drives home in his merc to his big home, his wife is in the home gym working hard to maintain that size 6 dress size he likes, and his kids are in a residential school, as he sits in his £10,000 reclining chair with his slippers and a glass of red wine, I'm sure he would probably rather listen to Coldplay on his Bang & Olufsen than The Locust

[Christhemusician]

I agree that inoffensive music serves a purpose and i also understand that in a lot of cases it sells well. This is because there are a substantial majority of average Joes out there who don't seek danger, don't like the edge and don't want to cause a fuss by standing up and being counted. They enjoy waking up each day and doing the same things as they did the day before. This is because regular routines develop a sense of safety that chaos does not. So to hear a song that sounds like everything you have ever heard before but to have it sold to you as something new gives a certain confidence that you will never be disappointed.

I enjoy many safe bands that don't use any kind of shock lyrics or bizarre and unusual musical concepts. I also (sometimes) enjoy writing music that follows a basic pop formula i.e. verse, chorus, verse, chorus, middle 8, coda (often just a chorus again); pretty much ternary structure (if memory serves). This is mainly because it receives the best response from an audience.

The things I find musically stop my heart though, are the pieces of music that do shock you into thinking "How the hell did they think of that?". Things like Pink Floyd's "Dark side of the moon" which as a concept album always makes me realise that the sheer song writing stamina required to complete a mammoth task like that is be beyond me. I struggle to sit down to write a single song in an evening without having to turn on the T.V. and give my head a rest and this is exactly why I find middle music so satisfying. It is because of its simplicity and the fact it isn't a challenge that it appeals to me.

I don't think you can knock it when it is done to the highest standards.

Sorry about the essay by the way but this is much better than doing my job.

Thing is, a whole lot of bands who appear to think of themselves as being cutting edge, offensive etc are anything but that. Screaming voices and thrashing guitars with lots of distortion aint new, original or any more edgy than the latest coldplay release.

[jester1470]

Originally Posted by Christhemusician

I agree that inoffensive music serves a purpose and i also understand that in a lot of cases it sells well. This is because there are a substantial majority of average Joes out there who don't seek danger, don't like the edge and don't want to cause a fuss by standing up and being counted. They enjoy waking up each day and doing the same things as they did the day before. This is because regular routines develop a sense of safety that chaos does not. So to hear a song that sounds like everything you have ever heard before but to have it sold to you as something new gives a certain confidence that you will never be disappointed.

I enjoy many safe bands that don't use any kind of shock lyrics or bizarre and unusual musical concepts. I also (sometimes) enjoy writing music that follows a basic pop formula i.e. verse, chorus, verse, chorus, middle 8, coda (often just a chorus again); pretty much ternary structure (if memory serves). This is mainly because it receives the best response from an audience.

The things I find musically stop my heart though, are the pieces of music that do shock you into thinking "How the hell did they think of that?". Things like Pink Floyd's "Dark side of the moon" which as a concept album always makes me realise that the sheer song writing stamina required to complete a mammoth task like that is be beyond me. I struggle to sit down to write a single song in an evening without having to turn on the T.V. and give my head a rest and this is exactly why I find middle music so satisfying. It is because of its simplicity and the fact it isn't a challenge that it appeals to me.

I don't think you can knock it when it is done to the highest standards.

Sorry about the essay by the way but this is much better than doing my job.

I know what you're saying but maybe its not just that people dont like danger, maybe they just like the music, I'm not a huge fan of Coldplay but i'd rather listen to them than any cutting edge metal band, not because I prefer 'safe' etc but because I enjoy more mellow music. What I'm getting at is people have a go because people like this style of music and saying things like they like it safe etc. what is safe about it except it appeals to the masses, as Dusty said surely all we're doing is falling into the media definitions. Peoples tastes being towards the more commercial element doesnt make something 'safe', it means that something within the music appeals to them, which in turn might suggest that on a commercial front its actually better than the 'cutting edge' thing. Basically i think I'm trying to suss out why so many people on here see the inoffensive stuff as so bad and why they look down on the musical tastes etc of those who do, is it jsut musical snobbery ?

Cheers

Stuart