Received wisdom

[Bigsby]

i think the funniest thing about this thread is the fact so many people have taken the bait yet again, why bother? We all know how this thread is going to go;

stripey says i hate all music, except for what i like,

heaps of posts defending music,

stripey calling people morons for defending music,

big bad dark destroyer dave comes and closes the thread.....

same shit, different week.

lol, yep, I did allude to this in my post.

[Stripey]

there's no baiting going on here, it's a serious question and people have raised some interesting points. Why should it be so terrible to question the actual importance of certain artists? This is what I mean, they've been elevated to some kind of god-like status by many people, and I just don't see why.

[The Milner]

there's no baiting going on here, it's a serious question and people have raised some interesting points. Why should it be so terrible to question the actual importance of certain artists? This is what I mean, they've been elevated to some kind of god-like status by many people, and I just don't see why.

why do you listen to electronic music?

Why do you think that album of noises is one of the best you've heard?

Why do you dislike pop-punk?

Its called an opinion and everyone has one, what more needs to be said? Where do you get this "god-like status" from? Yes people enjoy the music you speak of but i dont know many people who would say they are the be all and end all of music.

[Stupot]

there's no baiting going on here, it's a serious question and people have raised some interesting points. Why should it be so terrible to question the actual importance of certain artists? This is what I mean, they've been elevated to some kind of god-like status by many people, and I just don't see why.

Fairly terrible to compare listening to james blunt to smoking crack, even if does have a similar effect on me!

[Neil]

Fairly terrible to compare listening to james blunt to smoking crack, even if does have a similar effect on me!

Listening to James Blunt gets you high?

[Swingin' Ryan]

hahahahahaaaaaa

I don't mean 'you don't get it' in some kind of quasi-spiritual you don't get the vibeee maaaann kind of way. I mean you literally don't understand what make's a rock song appealing in the same way I can't with genres I'm not into because it's not what inherently appeals to you.

You've got that misconception from watching too many documentaries about 50's/60's rock and roll in secondary school music lessons. Music is not some kind of linear progression of innovation.

In my secondary school music lessons consisted of listening to Mozart and playing The Eastenders theme tune on a Glockenspiel.

I do think most music is generally a product or reaction to what came before it though. You obviously dislike Dylan and The Beatles etc, yet you're still actively curious enough about their legacy to start a thread about it. That is the unwitting redeeming factor of this thread, and the part that stops me thinking this thread is moronic.

[StewCat]

i listen to wu-tang. what dose that make me?

[Alkaline]

what dose that make me?

I dunno. 3 grams? A score?

[Stripey]

I don't mean 'you don't get it' in some kind of quasi-spiritual you don't get the vibeee maaaann kind of way. I mean you literally don't understand what make's a rock song appealing in the same way I can't with genres I'm not into because it's not what inherently appeals to you.

No, I do understand the appeal, believe it or not I used to listen to (and enjoy) bands like RATM, the dead kennedys, primus and RHCP when I was a kid.

I think the idea that people "inherently" find distinct genres of music appealing over others is not true atall either. There is a huge amount of snobbery and ignorance among a lot of "traditional" rock fans when it comes to modern music, which I think leads to people develop irrational phobias of anything which sounds challenging or wildly different. The classic "even a kid could make music on a computer, it doesnt require any skill" argument demonstrates this fear, and would rapidly be taken back if such people were sat infront of a DAW and given a day to produce from scratch a commercial quality track.

Anyone with an ear and a brain can hear that drumnbass for example appeals to people for exactly the same reason that metal appeals to people. You develop that understanding on the dancefloor. The reason I prefer dnb over metal is that I've heard absolutely every combination of tone, amp, eq you can apply to a guitar and it bores me, whereas part of the excitement of dnb for me is the surprise of hearing some drastically evil new synth sound in a tune used to good effect.

To get back to bob dylan and these other 60's/70's "icons", of course I'm curious about their legacy, and wondering wether bob dylan is just the james blunt of that era. The other thing that people seem to forget, is that these artists essentially became the posterboys for what the record industry subsequently became, an industry that people quickly realised is really bad for music.

It is hard for me to listen to bob dylan or the beatles, and think of them as being part of a cultural revolution, when they are now old men sitting on vast fortunes and *still* squeezing every penny they can out of their legacy.

[KimyReizeger]

they've been elevated to some kind of god-like status by many people, and I just don't see why.

Simply because the marketing men recognised them as potent money-spinners?

I think it is a question of skewed proportions. Whether or not iconic 60s music is good or not - to any single person - is irrelevant. What it certainly isn't - objectively speaking - is massively different or 'better' than any other music, something which contradicts the astronomical clout these groups hold in popular culture.

[lepeep]

bob marley

king tubby

otis reading

miles davis

bb king

all a waste of space too....

aye - right.

what a fucking shit thread. again.

[Bigsby]

what a fucking shit thread. again.

True.

BUT!

If it wasn't for Stripey's shit threads/posts keeping the place going, there's a chance this forum would be dead.

[Scootray]

NThere is a huge amount of snobbery and ignorance among a lot of "traditional" rock fans when it comes to modern music, which I think leads to people develop irrational phobias of anything which sounds challenging or wildly different.

Jesus christ, you're one of the biggest music snobs on this forum...

...If it's not plinky plonky computer generated stuff you lose the rag and shit all over everything else.

[Neil]

FYI, the off-topic part of this thread (which was my fault to be honest!) has been split into a new thread in a more appropriate forum: http://www.aberdeen-music.com/forums/comments-suggestions/50564-received-wisdom-split-thread.html

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

Anyone with an ear and a brain can hear that drumnbass for example appeals to people for exactly the same reason that metal appeals to people. You develop that understanding on the dancefloor. .

I did think (and still do) that the most evil Jungle of the 90's makes the vast majority *of Metal seem a bit Toytown, ooh, a scary man shouts about the devil, I think, as the delivery tends to such incomprehensibility that many could be describing how best to unblock your sink. And thats from someone who still likes Celtic Frost. But I haven't heard any Jungle so good that it has forced me to pay attention in at least 5 years, it seems to have stopped cross-pollinating with other genres, stealing from the best and making it better, and just refines the formula, instead of constantly re-defining it. But a track like 'Sonar' by DJ Trace is sonically heavier than just about anything I have ever heard.

I do think that simply re-treading the classic rock style in this day is a shade creatively bankrupt (Primal Scream, how did you go so wrong), but I understand that the dumb rock thrills contained within can still move people, and the golden back catalogue of rock history will always have at least some relevance.

*Of course the vast majority of all music is mediocre, but thats the way it always has been.

[Stupot]

Listening to James Blunt gets you high?

No no. It makes me constipated and turns me pale and weedy but with enough superhuman strength to fight ten coppers. My veins also collapse and my wife leaves.

[Lemonade]

Why do you dislike pop-punk?

EVERYBODY hates pop-punk, Milner.

[The Milner]

EVERYBODY hates pop-punk, Milner.

yes everybody.......

[Scootray]

No, EVERYBODY.

[french_disko]

No, EVERYBODY.

I concur.

[StewCat]

what is pop punk again?

[Guest Bob]

Are people like bob dylan, johny cash, the beatles, the rolling stones, etc etc so hugely rich and famous and widely revered because they have some kind of actual worth and value to humanity, or have they achieved this quasi-religious status through what amounts to a process of record-label and media driven cultural indoctrination?

You always hear people talking about bob dylan as if he's some kind of revolutionary master poet, but he isn't by any stretch of the imagination. Why is this irritating harmonica playing simpleton a cultural icon? Has anyone listened to his radio show and not felt like smashing his face in?

The same broadly applies to johnny cash and the beatles, why are these people seen as being important when they have no relevance whatsoever to this current generation?

The above post is received wisdom.

[french_disko]

bob dylan, johny cash, the beatles, the rolling stones,

I'm probably opening another can of worms here but why are all these artists white?

Why does "received wisdom" not apply to black people - why not mention Public Enemy, James Brown, Prince, Bob Marley, Lee Scratch Perry etc in your post?

Personally, I feel you've got a point in some respects - some of the work released by the people you mentioned has been absolute gash (see anything the Rolling Stones have released in the last 30 odd years, for example) but conversly some of it has been era defining and still classic.

I'd say that you're looking at this from a safe, white, liberal perspective - it's easy to slag off the "classics" but to not mention any black, african, Jamican, etc artists to me smacks of inverse racism & smug, middle class snobbery. You're directly applying your current tastes (and spare me the RHCP, RATM references - that's just your token "I like Rock, honest!" post to show how all encompassign your tastes are - like those Metal fans that name drop a token hip hop artist) and not taking into account that maybe, just maybe, pop, rock, rap, dance, etc are so sprawling that it's impossible to trace it back to half a dozen artists.

Where do you stand on artists such as Kraftwerk, incidently? Does the lineage from themselves to Africa Bambata to hip hop to Detroit to electronic music today fit nicely into your theory?

What about Joe Meek? Phil Spector? Or any other producer using the studio as a tool?

[soundian]

I'm probably opening another can of worms here but why are all these artists white?

Why does "received wisdom" not apply to black people - why not mention Public Enemy, James Brown, Prince, Bob Marley, Lee Scratch Perry etc in your post?

Personally, I feel you've got a point in some respects - some of the work released by the people you mentioned has been absolute gash (see anything the Rolling Stones have released in the last 30 odd years, for example) but conversly some of it has been era defining and still classic.

I'd say that you're looking at this from a safe, white, liberal perspective - it's easy to slag off the "classics" but to not mention any black, african, Jamican, etc artists to me smacks of inverse racism & smug, middle class snobbery. You're directly applying your current tastes (and spare me the RHCP, RATM references - that's just your token "I like Rock, honest!" post to show how all encompassign your tastes are - like those Metal fans that name drop a token hip hop artist) and not taking into account that maybe, just maybe, pop, rock, rap, dance, etc are so sprawling that it's impossible to trace it back to half a dozen artists.

Where do you stand on artists such as Kraftwerk, incidently? Does the lineage from themselves to Africa Bambata to hip hop to Detroit to electronic music today fit nicely into your theory?

What about Joe Meek? Phil Spector? Or any other producer using the studio as a tool?

I think you're misunderstanding the question. He's not asking about lineage etc, he's asking why these artists, who were relevant 40 odd years ago, are still popular with young people today.

[french_disko]

I think you're misunderstanding the question. He's not asking about lineage etc, he's asking why these artists, who were relevant 40 odd years ago, are still popular with young people today.

Are they though?

How many young people are actually buying Stones or Cash records? (well, apart from the last few Rick Rubin produced CDs in Cash's case).

If that's what Stripey is aiming to discuss then I think he's severly overestimating the appeal of the Rolling Stones to the average Panic At the Disco or Fal Out Boy fan.