Fred_C Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 A lot of it sounded like all attitude and no ability-ironically enough, replace attitude with looks and you end up with pop. I'll never forget the time when a young guitar student of mine tried to explain to me that "Grunge" musicians were actually proud of not playing well. Incredible!!! If you play cool, you are cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_C Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 But you see, that's not what I'm SEEING. I notice just holding the phone out (like a waiter might hold a tray) and NOT using any earphones, "buds" or any bluetooth attachments. While I'll concede those items might increase the sound qality somewhat, I don't think they'll ever outdo my Nakamichi Stasis TA-4A and Miller & Kreisal sat/sub system. Whitefang I was not aware of this fact and apologize for my assumption. You're correct, These small, relatively inexpensive audio devices (headphones, Bluetooth speakers etc.) will never compete with a quality home system. To borrow a quotation from Mr. Scott on the original Startrek series, "I canna' repeal the laws of Physics, Captain." If you play cool, you are cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitefang Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Apology accepted(though not really needed )but I also wonder... JuJu mentioned the variance of quality in the different listening devices( earbuds, headphones, etc, ) and also I wonder if the quality of the SOURCE plays a large part in that. For instance... Is the signal received and delivered by an iPhone better, worse or the same as from a Samsung Galaxy? And do iPod stored mp3 files sound better, worse or equal to what one gets from a compact disc? Having never experienced ALL that's out there, I couldn't fairly give a well informed answer, and am too, guilty of making some possibly unfair assumptions. And how seriously SHOULD I take the opinion about any of this from someone who might not have experienced anything different? Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d halfnote Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 After reading the commentary here, both in regard to musical quality & audio quality of diff devices, I must say that the most defining thing abt many of the opinions is along the lines of "this is what I like'. Some limit their listening to a few narrow sources, hence aren't aware of what's actually happening. Some make presumptions abt the quality of a audio reproduction device based on their imagined idea of what such a device might sound like, the admit they never heard one. If all one ventures to hear is what you already listen to, everything else will always be of lesser quality. Despite what some like to think, there's a diff between an opinion & an informed opinion. Not all opinions are equal & not everything is relative & up for grabs. Criteria for evaluating art, products & facts are real. However, they don't just come to us. We must acquire them. So. "All that stuff sux", applied to any category is false. d=halfnote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 I'm always on the lookout for new music that interests me. So far, new music in Pop, Rap and Country just can't get me interested. Some of the older Pop like Michael Jackson and Bolton, and going back even further like Johnny Mathis, Tony Bennett, further Sinatra, yada yada yada, is still music to my ears. The newer digital age stuff still sux for now IMHO... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta Posted August 23, 2017 Author Share Posted August 23, 2017 After reading the commentary here, both in regard to musical quality & audio quality of diff devices, I must say that the most defining thing abt many of the opinions is along the lines of "this is what I like'. Some limit their listening to a few narrow sources, hence aren't aware of what's actually happening. Some make presumptions abt the quality of a audio reproduction device based on their imagined idea of what such a device might sound like, the admit they never heard one. If all one ventures to hear is what you already listen to, everything else will always be of lesser quality. Despite what some like to think, there's a diff between an opinion & an informed opinion. Not all opinions are equal & not everything is relative & up for grabs. Criteria for evaluating art, products & facts are real. However, they don't just come to us. We must acquire them. So. "All that stuff sux", applied to any category is false. I never said that ALL pop music sucks. I heard hundreds of these pop songs over the 2 week period I mentioned. Some were better than others, however there wasn't 1 that I actually enjoyed. "Let me stand next to your fire!", Jimi Hendrix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d halfnote Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 I'm always on the lookout for new music that interests me. So far, new music in Pop, Rap and Country just can't get me interested. Some of the older Pop like Michael Jackson and Bolton, and going back even further like Johnny Mathis, Tony Bennett, further Sinatra, yada yada yada, is still music to my ears. The newer digital age stuff still sux for now IMHO... That just means yer either looking for what you already like & rejecting all else out of hand or yer looking in, as some cat said abt 1990, all the wrong places. People can like or dislike whatever but to categorically maintain that all of anything is bad is not a sign of discernment but of a closed mind. I never said that ALL pop music sucks. I heard hundreds of these pop songs over the 2 week period I mentioned. Some were better than others, however there wasn't 1 that I actually enjoyed. Naw, I rechecked & you only said "modern pop music sucks" but the crux of the issue remains the same & applies, as I said just above, to any blanket categorization. Not just you, Delta, but as amply demonstrated by some of the comments here, many base their judgements on preconceived notions. I suspect some may not actually be able to hear passed though prejudices. d=halfnote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta Posted August 23, 2017 Author Share Posted August 23, 2017 I'm always on the lookout for new music that interests me. So far, new music in Pop, Rap and Country just can't get me interested. Some of the older Pop like Michael Jackson and Bolton, and going back even further like Johnny Mathis, Tony Bennett, further Sinatra, yada yada yada, is still music to my ears. The newer digital age stuff still sux for now IMHO... That just means yer either looking for what you already like & rejecting all else out of hand or yer looking in, as some cat said abt 1990, all the wrong places. People can like or dislike whatever but to categorically maintain that all of anything is bad is not a sign of discernment but of a closed mind. I never said that ALL pop music sucks. I heard hundreds of these pop songs over the 2 week period I mentioned. Some were better than others, however there wasn't 1 that I actually enjoyed. Naw, I rechecked & you only said "modern pop music sucks" but the crux of the issue remains the same & applies, as I said just above, to any blanket categorization. Not just you, Delta, but as amply demonstrated by some of the comments here, many base their judgements on preconceived notions. I suspect some may not actually be able to hear passed though prejudices. I never used the word "ALL". If I say, "In my opinion, modern pop music sucks", does that work for you? "Let me stand next to your fire!", Jimi Hendrix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitefang Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 So. "All that stuff sux", applied to any category is false. Not patently. Particularily if it's in referrence to one person's opinion. To THAT individual perhaps, all that they so far experienced might "suck" to them. And who among us can sufficiently claim that opinion WASN'T based on only "a few narrow sources"? And as the opinion was centered on modern "pop" music, and not ALL "modern" music, it remains a valid one. Being open minded and accepting ANYTHING "new" out of hand doesn't make anyone more authorative about any topic than anyone else. But does allow those things have a RIGHT to exist despite overwhelming unfavorable opinions. If art be self expression, then there must be allowance for it's presentation, regardless if the "art" is in any particular medium. Music for example. If the music being created IS a representation of the "artist's" personal self expression, and not a display of a commercially crafted formula aimed at a particular area of interest, then it truly can be considered an artistic endeavor, but wide acceptance of it depends on many factors. In another way...Art isn't "art" because one person or a small group of individuals CLAIM it is. It takes ALL artists involved in that particular art form's acceptance to be considered so. All the rest of us can do is consider how it appeals to our personal tastes as to whether WE accept it as so. Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 I'm always on the lookout for new music that interests me. So far, new music in Pop, Rap and Country just can't get me interested. Some of the older Pop like Michael Jackson and Bolton, and going back even further like Johnny Mathis, Tony Bennett, further Sinatra, yada yada yada, is still music to my ears. The newer digital age stuff still sux for now IMHO... That just means yer either looking for what you already like & rejecting all else out of hand or yer looking in, as some cat said abt 1990, all the wrong places. People can like or dislike whatever but to categorically maintain that all of anything is bad is not a sign of discernment but of a closed mind. I didn't say anything about rejecting all of anything and I did say I'm open minded and will look for something of future interest. Right now it (i.e. Modern Pop Music) doesn't interest me at all. In my prior post I said I reviewed the top 200 and I would be lucky to give 10% of it a worthwhile rating IMHO. It's like opera, I don't care for it so I would not be listening to it (no matter how great and classic) I would not be looking for my love there...I have heard some beauty in the arts that I have mentioned, but I reserve the right to change the station and vote with my pocket book. Certain things do not interest me while others truly enjoy them... ps. I did say the digital stuff sux and that would include all of it... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitefang Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 Exactly! Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipclone 1 Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 Apology accepted(though not really needed )but I also wonder... JuJu mentioned the variance of quality in the different listening devices( earbuds, headphones, etc, ) and also I wonder if the quality of the SOURCE plays a large part in that. For instance... Is the signal received and delivered by an iPhone better, worse or the same as from a Samsung Galaxy? And do iPod stored mp3 files sound better, worse or equal to what one gets from a compact disc? Having never experienced ALL that's out there, I couldn't fairly give a well informed answer, and am too, guilty of making some possibly unfair assumptions. And how seriously SHOULD I take the opinion about any of this from someone who might not have experienced anything different? Whitefang As far as sound sources, yes there is a difference among mobile phones-I can`t compare iphone and Galaxy but, it`s easy enough to look up statistical user comparisons from sources like Consumer Reports. My Galaxy S5 went missing last year so I had to plow through a lot of information to get a new phone early this year. I am basically an Android guy-the S7 is still way up there pricewise but, aside from sound quality there are other considerations like battery life. That, and camera quality are probably the big three points in choosing a phone. I take a lot of pictures and video as well so my two priorities were battery life and camera. I`m not a fan of portable sound devices in general. Maybe it`s the martial arts guy in me but, IMO blocking off the abiliy to hear what`s going on around me is like putting on really dark glasses. Or wearing nose plugs. That`s especially true these days with people using vehicles as weapons. I don`t want to miss a revving engine, not even for Pink Floyd. Same old surprises, brand new cliches- Skipsounds on Soundclick: www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipclone 1 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 My original thought for this post was, to offer a few examples of pop music that doesn`t suck. But regardless of majority opinion, all I can do is post my opinion-and inevitably it won`t work for someone else. There`s really no point. I`ll just say this-the music I grew up on is the foundation of where I am today, both as a music maker and listener. I can still listen to it anytime anywhere. But part of my job is, to stay relevant. I perform for people in their 20s and 30s. Sometimes I do play the music I treasure most but I also have to press on, sometimes I rearrange songs that don`t have guitar. A while back someone mentioned arranging `Say a Prayer` by Duran Duran for guitar. It`s actually a beautiful song at its base, without the loud keyboard. There`s good stuff out there, but not just by hitting the power button. That was never the case anyway. Same old surprises, brand new cliches- Skipsounds on Soundclick: www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyalcatraz Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 The definition of "pop"- like any genre- is also nebulous. My first thought in this thread was to offer counterexamples, but it's tough to do without parameters... Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: âNinety percent of everything is crapâ My FLMS- Murphy's Music in Irving, Tx http://murphysmusictx.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipclone 1 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 A lot of it sounded like all attitude and no ability-ironically enough, replace attitude with looks and you end up with pop. I'll never forget the time when a young guitar student of mine tried to explain to me that "Grunge" musicians were actually proud of not playing well. Incredible!!! Fred C I would be more inclined to agree with that about punk. By the time grunge came along, that ethic was not universal. Two defining grunge bands, Alice in Chains and Soundgarden, may not be your taste personally. But they could definitely play. Nothing surprised me more than when Dave Grohl, a competent multi-instrumentalist and singer, came from Nirvana, a band who had some good songs but were shockingly amatuerish on their instruments. A long, long publicity stunt methinks. Same old surprises, brand new cliches- Skipsounds on Soundclick: www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitefang Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Definition of "pop"? Now, THERE'S a debate that can heat up fast! Back in "the day"(which is different for a lot of people) I used to define it as in comparison of what "pop" was in long used vernacular. Like.... In these parts, "pop" is the common referrence to SOFT DRINKS. So then, I compared "pop" music to HARDER fare. Like comparing POP to harder beveages. But I was probably being facetious. Then there's some who might define it as music that's POPular commercially. Probably favored by a large number, or the largest number in a particular demographic. And then there's that "subjective" thing again. I usually derogate the music of the '80's. But retrospectively I have to admit not ALL of it was bad. Just that I didn't care much for a LOT of it. And perhaps at this point, the OP hasn't heard anything yet that he can say DOESN'T suck. At least to HIM. And then again several of us here have reached an age in which we've gone from watching the GRAMMY awards on TV in order to catch a glimpse of our favorite artists, to where NOW we don't know who ANY of the nominees are, or have heard what they're nominated FOR, and it's unsettling. And of course, there's always that "subjective" thing. AGAIN. Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipclone 1 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Well strictly speaking, pop is not subjective. One of the valid criticisms about the Grammy awards, is that they are more like sales awards. That shouldn`t be a surprise when all the live performers are introduced by their name and sales figures-a whole new meaning to watching one`s figure I suppose. In that way, some media channels referred to Michael Jackson, after his legal troubles got real, as the `Self-proclamed King of Pop`. Um....no. He didn`t proclaim it. His sales figures did. Same old surprises, brand new cliches- Skipsounds on Soundclick: www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Sales figures do represent a vote of the people...I'm wondering who would be the King of Pop now? Which Pop artist(s) is selling the most records, CD's, downloads, etc., these days? Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyalcatraz Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Gaga & Timberlake are still big, but others are in the same orbit. Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: âNinety percent of everything is crapâ My FLMS- Murphy's Music in Irving, Tx http://murphysmusictx.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipclone 1 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 It`s funny though-my brother and I were talking music on one of my summer visits-Timberlake`s `Justified` was a smash hit-but the actual financial return on it after all the expenses, was not that great. Same old surprises, brand new cliches- Skipsounds on Soundclick: www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitefang Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Sales figures do represent a vote of the people...I'm wondering who would be the King of Pop now? Which Pop artist(s) is selling the most records, CD's, downloads, etc., these days? Yeah, but just remember... Sales figures are NOT an indicator of QUALITY. I mean if you claim that sales figures is what made Michael Jackson the "King" of "pop", and nothing ELSE, then you have to wonder why ELVIS was considered the "King" of "rock'n'Roll"! And if sales figures AREN'T an indicator of QUALITY, THEN what does it mean for both? Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 I'm not following that one Fang, as Elvis sold more records than any other rock and roll or other genre artist. The Beatles are the only ones that beat him (but not as single artists). I know you like to debate this concept with regard to quality and/or whatever, but record sales are the king when it comes to who comes out at the top of the Billboard top 10, top 40, top 100 each year. I think people vote with their pocket books and it's just a hard rating to ignore...I like both Michael and Elvis whether they're considered the king or not. I know they both sold a ton of records that had a lot to do with the king moniker Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipclone 1 Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 There`s also this historical note-for a long time, `popular` meant the opposite of quality. Think of it more like `populist` and you get the idea. Even now, trying to equate the two is illogical. The flip aide of that is-I got in a debate with a friend about it, I think it`s mostly a coastal mentality. A band says, `This tune is by The Yellowjackets`, and everybody is supposed to go `ooooooohhh`. My friend said, `It`s quality music`. So what? that doesn`t mean I`m going to enjoy hearing it. If I didn`t care for a song, and someone says, `But that was by The Yellowjackets`, is that supposed the change my mind? I don`t think so. Same old surprises, brand new cliches- Skipsounds on Soundclick: www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitefang Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 Exactly Skip. And my point is that. If somebody recorded themselves farting the National Anthem and it topped the carts due to sales wouldn't make it "great" nor make the gas man "King" of anything. Except of making people look foolish. Of course, Michael and Elvis gave us MUCH better than that, but you should get what I mean now. And I apologize for the indelicacy but I didn't want to bring up my "pet rock" example. Again! And Skip..... On the TCM forum I'm in, your "Yellowjackets" example illustrates what I go through concerning an old "comedy" movie called BRINGING UP BABY". For YEARS so-called "experts" have lauded how "great" that movie is. I personally don't think it's all that GOOD, let alone "great", yet others attach that "oooooooh" factor to it. Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipclone 1 Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 I know that. You know that. But mass media does not support that. None of us no matter how good we are, would ever be signed to a label without the ability to sell stuff. It doesn`t matter if you do that by hanging a rope under a bridge and swinging from one side to the other without getting hit by traffic... hang on, I`m gonna write that down... Same old surprises, brand new cliches- Skipsounds on Soundclick: www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipclone 1 Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 I mean, I wouldn`t actually DO that. yet..... Same old surprises, brand new cliches- Skipsounds on Soundclick: www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 This quote from Wiki kind of sums it up: "From about 1967, the term was increasingly used in opposition to the term rock music, a division that gave generic significance to both terms.[13] Whereas rock aspired to authenticity and an expansion of the possibilities of popular music,[13] pop was more commercial, ephemeral and accessible.[14] According to British musicologist Simon Frith, pop music is produced "as a matter of enterprise not art", is "designed to appeal to everyone" and "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste". It is "not driven by any significant ambition except profit and commercial reward ... and, in musical terms, it is essentially conservative". It is, "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers, and concert promoters) rather than being made from below ... Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged".[4]" I would agree with this quote and still say Pop is what's popular (not necessarily quality IMHO) and is judged by record sales, radio programmers and concert promoters. Madonna, Gaga, Justin, Jackson, etc. are but a few examples that even I can recognize... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyalcatraz Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 All that said, I would respond that even within the commercialized confines of "pop", some artists do distinguish themselves with genuine musicality. Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: âNinety percent of everything is crapâ My FLMS- Murphy's Music in Irving, Tx http://murphysmusictx.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 +1 Lady GaGa with Tony Bennett doing their jazz standards did it for me musicalitywise...I also like a lot of Michael Jackson's music. Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.