|
I watch a lot of anime and I took the Japanese basics on Duolingo, so I recognized this as Japanese 
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any music you do not care for? I am willing to bet my fortune in 100y/10y/1y no one will know who whatever her/his/its' name is or her/his/its' music. "flow" "beat"? Sounds like all other instances of the genre which as near as I can discern is more or less similar if not identical to rap a genre of music I consider the least original creative varied etc. which occasionally requires spitting into microphone and grabbing one's crotch or is that another genre. If anyone develops AI to perform music analysis I believe these comments would be verified by same.
PS As per usual "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman"
|
|
|
|
|
PaltryProgrammer wrote: Is there any music you do not care for?
I generally don't care for punk, (metal) hardcore, power metal and most (hard) rock.
Other than that I enjoy a lot of music genres
PaltryProgrammer wrote: I am willing to bet my fortune in 100y/10y/1y no one will know who whatever her/his/its' name is or her/his/its' music. "flow" "beat"?
I don't really care about 1/10/100 years from now, I'm enjoying it now
PaltryProgrammer wrote: Sounds like all other instances of the genre which as near as I can discern is more or less similar if not identical to rap a genre of music I consider the least original creative varied etc. which occasionally requires spitting into microphone and grabbing one's crotch or is that another genre.
That tells me more about you than about the music genre(s) 
|
|
|
|
|
There is a distinction I have difficulty separating i.e. to wit in particular to be specific quality/enjoyment. If something is not of high quality which I assume can somehow be determined though I am not certain how except via the passage of time I have difficulty imagining enjoying same. I am attempting to recall music I enjoy which I also do not consider high quality as judged by myself and consensus but am failing.
|
|
|
|
|
The average party song comes to mind.
They're often not that great, but they need to be simple and you need to be able to jump to them.
They can give you joy and pleasure without being all that great.
Sometimes, simple is just what you need.
Same goes for an average pop song, easy to listen to, can be quite enjoyable.
On the other hand, I know plenty of high quality music that I don't like.
Dream Theater, for example (someone shared that today, so it came to mind).
I can hear that the music is technically complex and that the musicians are great at their instruments, yet I don't like it.
Ultimately, a lot comes down to taste.
|
|
|
|
|
Re/ the average pop song I find such intolerable. Such belongs in a category I refer to as "mashed potato music" i.e. nothing you can sink your teeth into. I accept we each find enjoyment/pleasure in different ways but as for quality I do not accept variation as I assume an objective measure exists probably the passage of time. Re/ "Dream Theater" I gave them a listen for the first time per your mention. As it turns out I have heard them many times before. In 100y no one will recall them of that I am certain. It was not even toe-taping.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: It was not even toe-taping.
 it looks like we are on the same page ... I did some attempts but also without much success  Thinking about the opposite, this one is for example quite addictive, at least in my case
TOOL - Pneuma (Audio) - YouTube
modified 6-Aug-22 6:14am.
|
|
|
|
|
PaltryProgrammer wrote: I assume an objective measure exists probably the passage of time.
I think you couldn't be further from the truth.
For example, Dream Theater is very well respected by the rock and metal community and by the guitar, bass, synth, vocalist and drummer communities, for their song writing and technicality (and they've been doing so for over 25 years!).
If critics, fans and peers hold them in such high esteem they must be doing something right, yet you dismiss it as "not even toe tapping."
Sounds like this probably just isn't your taste, but that doesn't change the "objective quality."
Now let's look at "passage of time", as you mention.
Have you heard of Louis Spohr?
He was a classical and romantic composer, highly regarded in his lifetime.
Yet no one remembers him now.
At the same time, Johann Sebastian Bach wasn't considered as the best in his lifetime (I think he was just "good"), yet everyone knows him today.
So why then is a genius like Spohr not remembered, yet Bach is?
One of the things that certainly didn't help was that some of Spohr's music was banned by the nazi regime during WWII.
There are many such examples of composers who are forgotten even though they were considered brilliant in their lifetime (and still are by fans and critics alike).
Let's take it a bit more recent, everyone knows Elvis "The King" Presley.
No doubt he'll be remembered for many more decades to come.
But is his music really so great?
It's not technical, especially when comparing it to Bach, Spohr, or even Dream Theater.
Mind you, that all those classical composers were also only just following the musical rules that existed in those days, they just had more notes (I'm oversimplifying, but it's not far from the truth).
And Mozart could not have composed an Elvis song, so who is really brilliant here?
So "quality" is not the same as "technical".
Elvis did something new, something that wasn't heard before, and it moved people (literally and figuratively).
The same goes for The Beatles, and many bands from those days.
The fun thing is that for all those bands there were nay-sayers (not unlike yourself) who dismissed it as garbage and noise.
Music, and art in general, is highly subjective.
You can rate it by some more or less objective measures, like composition and instrument handling, but you can't rate the emotions it stirs in a particular person, and that's what art is all about.
Furthermore, art is highly dependent on context, place and time.
Something that isn't considered art can be considered art when it's placed in a museum.
Likewise, something that's considered as brilliant today could be considered as vulgar tomorrow, like Spohr during the nazi regime.
Shakespeare was also considered as "low brow" entertainment for the masses, back in his day.
Coming back to today, and Dream Theater.
I believe Rush is a large influence on Dream Theater.
Rush is considered a legendary rock band, yet not very well known by bigger audiences (I mean, they aren't The Beatles, The Rolling Stones or Queen).
People probably said the same thing about Rush, they wouldn't be remembered, they're just a fad, yet over 50 years later they've only just stopped playing and they won't be forgotten by decades to come!
I know Dream Theater will do the same (they're already doing it!).
They've been going strong for over 25 years, they've influenced 1000's of bands and musicians, they still get new (young) fans, and they're not stopping anytime soon.
PaltryProgrammer wrote: In 100y no one will recall them of that I am certain.
I'm very certain you're wrong.
I wonder what you consider to be "objectively" high quality music that will be remembered though?
|
|
|
|
|
Re/ Dream Theater I listened to all the offerings on their web site. None were catchy. They reminded me of Grateful Dead which a co-worker many years ago espoused endlessly and attempted unsuccessfully to convince me were pleasurable to listen to.
|
|
|
|
|
"Catchy" is your "objective" measure for quality?
Then surely most pop songs adhere to your standard!
Pop is written to be "catchy" 
You didn't answer my question though.
What do you consider to be an "objective" measure for quality and what music fits that bill?
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing wrong w/ catchy. As for pop as stated prior I can not tolerate mashed-potato music. As an example I hold the early works of Chicago in high regard another is that Tango fellow Astor Piazzolla and am fond of Ravi Shankar also Kronos Quartet. Obviously the Beatles are great though I tend to avoid them something about Mr. McCartney troubles me. As for "objective" measure as stated only time will tell. As for "quality" my definition is that which survives time. Perhaps the term requires definition.
|
|
|
|
|
PaltryProgrammer wrote: As for "objective" measure as stated only time will tell. As for "quality" my definition is that which survives time. Perhaps the term requires definition.
That's a terrible metric, as plenty of bad music is remembered and not all good music is (as I mentioned in my examples).
Also, you'd need a crystal ball to decide what's good quality now 
You must really enjoy N.W.A.[^]
They were active from 1987 until 1991 and they recently got their own movie, so they're remembered for over 30 years now and there's no sign of them being forgotten.
Really good quality, according to your standards (it is, by the way, but you'd dispute that).
PaltryProgrammer wrote: Chicago [...] Tango fellow Astor Piazzolla and [...] Ravi Shankar also Kronos Quartet. Obviously the Beatles are great
At least you have a pretty wide taste
|
|
|
|
|
This morning BBC "Hard Talk" met w/ one maestro Semyon Bychkov in which he stated "... art reveals something of human nature." Perhaps this is what "great" i.e. "quality" music does. May I say I have a favorite piece of music and which I assume is great by any definition i.e. to wit in particular to be specific Stravinsky's "Firebird" though what it reveals I am not certain but it certainly is stirring maybe even catchy.
I examined all the lists of "100 greatest rock bands". I found Dream Theater on none of them. In 100y this will remain true of this I am certain. Though to my surprise Grateful Dead was found on several. I accept the judgement of these sites. Who am I to argue particularly where they intersect. I am glad Chicago was found on several.
Re/ N.W.A. W.O.W.! I do not recall ever being so insulted. I need no crystal ball to know in 100y they will be forgotten or I prefer remembered as schiit.
enum struct emusic_good_qualities { pleasurable, revealing, stirring, catchy, toe_tapping, thoughtful };
I will not dispute all good music is not remembered as you clearly are more knowledgeable than myself but "good" is not "great" and things sometimes fall through the cracks.
|
|
|
|
|
PaltryProgrammer wrote: I examined all the lists of "100 greatest rock bands". I found Dream Theater on none of them.
Yeah, because they're a metal band and they're on the greatest metal band lists.
PaltryProgrammer wrote: Re/ N.W.A. W.O.W.! I do not recall ever being so insulted. I need no crystal ball to know in 100y they will be forgotten or I prefer remembered as schiit.
I literally just told you they just got their own movie after 30 years 
N.W.A. stirred up a BLM movement in the late 80's.
If art reveals human nature, they revealed police brutality and the systematic oppression of black people in America.
You may like it or not, but they've been more socially relevant than any rock band.
It's also how Dr. Dre got famous, and Rolling Stone rates him as the 56th best musician of all time.
So yeah, they will be remembered.
You are very much confusing your personal taste with what is "objectively good".
People are very different, and different music will stir different emotions in different people.
What's pleasurable, revealing, stirring, catchy, toe tapping or thoughtful to you may not be those things to someone else and vice versa.
Someone else may not even find those qualities all that important.
For example, my mom always listens to lyrics and barely even hears the music, I listen to everything except the lyrics.
I find Chicago a 13 in a dozen rock band, or at least what I've heard of them, but it's certainly easy to listen to.
|
|
|
|
|
"... they're on the greatest metal band lists."
I found them number one on the list of 100 greatest bands w/ first name "Dream" whose drummer's aunt is named "Susan"
"... they just got their own movie ..."
Several biographies were made of Hitler so they are in good company
"N.W.A. stirred up a BLM movement ..."
So add emusic_good_qualities::political_relevance to the list and don't forget to stipulate it is necessary to wait a period of time to learn if a BLM movement is stirred up before deciding if it is good music
"... they revealed police brutality ..."
"Phuck Police" I can say that also while spitting and grabbing my crotch
"It's also how Dr. Dre got famous ..."
Is he of the hip hop/rap variety? Why do all such "songs" from that "genre" sound exactly alike? Do not tell me they do not
"... and Rolling Stone rates him as the 56th best musician of all time."
I can not investigate further as I lost audio for the time being Maybe that's a good thing
"You are very much confusing your personal taste with what is "objectively good".
Yes We agree completely
"Someone else may not even find those qualities all that important."
Somewhere on this Earth there is a person who enjoys eating dirt
"... mom always listens to lyrics and barely even hears the music ..."
So add emusic_good_qualities::good_lyrics to the list. She is fortunate to be able to discern the lyrics. I would like to do so but usually find them undiscernible
"... Chicago a 13 in a dozen rock band ..."
Am not certain of meaning. Might be missing a word or two
|
|
|
|
|
Not for me - but thanks for sharing
|
|
|
|
|
Alvin the Chipmunk does Japanese rap.
|
|
|
|
|
...about the language, the title is Japanese, and the lyrics sound Japanese indeed ... and, of course this reminds me about Babymetal and their infamous "bxmxc" BABYMETAL - BxMxC (OFFICIAL) - YouTube
|
|
|
|
|
|
 ... yes indeed, BABYMETAL rules, they deserve it 100 %
|
|
|
|
|
Should be Chaos White
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Had me tapping my toes, which is good, although it seems rather nonsensical.
For this week:
An old Deadmau5 song (not the Kascade one you've posted, unless I've missed it): deadmau5 - Rio (Extended Edit). (It feels like I've mentioned this before?)
And something new for me: Hardwell - PACMAN
|
|
|
|
|
Both nice songs
David O'Neil wrote: An old Deadmau5 song (not the Kascade one you've posted, unless I've missed it)
I Remember is the only Deadmau5 song I ever posted and still one of my favorite songs ever 
David O'Neil wrote: deadmau5 - Rio (Extended Edit). (It feels like I've mentioned this before?)
Could be, but I can't remember.
Good thing you post it now though
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 412 6/6
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 412 4/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟨⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
