There are all kinds of non-musical obstacles to overcome before you can really get your stuff out there and have a chance to make it. I know you know that. DoD, I never said and never intended to say that a song which lacks one of these elements cannot be enjoyable. You don't think there can be any standards at all for quality? You don't think there are people who go see Freddy Got Fingered and are perfectly willing to admit that it's not a "good" movie despite the fact that it entertained them?
Well even though The Srokes might be as derivative as Creed they are still a much better band IMHO.. The personal decision by you the listener determines whats good to you. But also you can agree that you can tell if something is new and original and sounds great and isn't counterfeit. Overall, everyone is a little right and a little wrong. Thats why i love music you cant really define the damn thing.
LMAO Oh, Zac, I have a band that I love listening to but I consider them a "guilty pleasure" - one that music snobs would look down on me for liking: the Goo Goo Dolls.
The Goo Goo Dolls are fine. N'Sync? The Backstreet Boys? Britney Spears!?!?! Manny, Manny, Manny... Zac - 1000 Posts... You rock now brother. COOK YOUR MEAT YOU DON'T EAT MOTHER****ERS.
I like the Goo Goo Dolls too. Okay, Freak, they have to rock *and* successfully "play the game," if you will. Better? If not, I'll just be wrong, all right? Nomar, I'm not saying Creed can't make some enjoyable music (which doesn't happen to play to my particular tastes), but I would argue that their songs - at least the ones I hear on the radio, which may be a bad sample? - lack any real raw energy at their base. The type of thing that you would find in a Nirvana song, for example.
I think the topic was about devising some sort of objective (or "personally objective" if oxymorons are allowed - take aim, cheapshotters) standard for judging music. I think it's a bit more complex than "Band A is good, and is unlike Band B. Therefore, Band B is bad." It's like Curling at the Winter Olympics. While I may appreciate that it takes a great deal of skill, training, and maybe even natural talent, I sure as hell don't want to watch it. Likewise, music can be appreciated on different levels. I can't stand Mozart. His music is irritating. But, I can appreciate the talent and skill it took (especially at the time) to create that music. I still won't listen to it, but I would consider it "good" if the standard of judgment was a purely objective one based on use of harmony, thematic development, compositional structure, etc.,. I love the Dead Kennedys, the Misfits, Minor Threat - lots of real American punk. It's caveman simplistic and the individual musicians aren't that great (except for Glenn Danzig 80's era, who is awesome). I listen to it a lot, but if forced to evaluate it on the same objective scale as Mozart, I'd consider it "bad" music - but it still ****ing rules. I don't listen to Mozart even though I know it's, technically and historically at least, "good" music. The Misfits rock, but as far as compositional structure and harmonic complexity it's not good. Everyone has different reasons for listening to music at different times; Journey might remind them of when they were making out with the fat girl in high school, Les Baxter might have the best choir arrangments of any 1950's instrumental pop songwriter, Britney Spears might have the nicest t*** and damn I'd love to hump her (or BE her if you're a teenage girl), the polytonality of a Bartok piece might rub one's spine in a silky way that no other music can, Boards of Canada might make you feel safe like you're under an elementary school desk during a hurricane drill, and so on....but not all of these reasons are necessarily valid when viewing music as an art form. So.... The impression I get of people enjoying The Darkness is that of folks who stopped listening to heavy metal in the early 90's once it was determined by those-in-the-know that heavy metal was no longer cool, but still really liked it even though they couldn't admit to it in public without the dreaded social effect of offending those-in-the-know and the subsequent branding of being clueless about coolness. But now, praise Jesus and ironic posturing, one can listen to it and be REALLY cool. Noway dawg u sux the mostest of them all and I RULE DA WORDL LIKE STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN!!!!!!111111 But, hell, I could be wrong. The truth is, the only valid measure of coolness is the length of one's individual run-on sentences posted on little message boards. Oh, the horror.
Well..........I like Poison and Warrant and Slaughter and Winger and Trixter and Firehouse and Bulletboys and THE DARKNESS, and...you still suck.
P.S. "Don't Fear the Reaper" by Blue Oyster Cult makes the Darkness look like Vixen. P.S.S. "Round and Round" by Ratt is an excellent and infectious pop song, and it makes the Darkness sound like John Zorn's duet for birdcalls and saxophone. P.S.S.S. I just farted, and it smells awful.
Don't Fear the REaper is a p***y song put out by BOC to seperate the hard fans from the real fans... anybody who likes it is immediately a sissy...and hence not a real BOC fan... saw them live in Ft. Worth last year...Every band puts out a p***y song to see who their real fans are....
Then I'm proud to say I'm not a real fan - I don't like any of their other songs at all. P.S.S.S.S. - that fart still stinks. What did I eat?
I agree with AntiSonic, Dr of D&D, etc. Good music is whatever you like to listen to. A lot of people like the Beatles. I think the Beatles suck ass. I don't care who they influenced, how many records they sold, how technically good their songwriting was, etc. To me the Beatles suck, and to me, that is all that matters. Just listen to what you dig and **** everybody that can't handle it.
The beatles suck ass. They are a horrendous infection that has diseased popular music. Death to all things beatle.
