[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by 1.X.1905)
From the top of my head, an incomplete list of people who wrote better songs than The Beatles (using a strict definition of 'song', similar to the kind The Beatles wrote)

"From the top of my head, an incomplete list of people who in my opinion wrote better songs than the Beatles"

Music is subjective, you can't say this song is better than that song. And if you do, you're just stating an opinion, not fact.

Creativity is of little use unless it is channelled.

I totally agree, but without creativity, theory knowledge is of little use.

I'm not arguing the value of theory here, I agree with you on that. I'm just saying it's not the deciding factor between someone who can write songs and someone you can't.

I'm not disputing theory knowledge is great though

[1.X.1905]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)


This guy wrote some pretty amazing songs with little background in music theory.

He's remembered far more for his lyrics than for the actual musical component of his writing, which could kindly be described as 'forgettable'. I won't pretend to know much about poetry beyond knowing what I like, but Wiki tells me an ex-Oxford English Professor reckons him poetically the equal of Tennyson and Eliot, so presumably he isn't too shabby. However I am judging him as a writer of music, and the text is only a small part of that.

[Endless Blue]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)


This guy wrote some pretty amazing songs with little background in music theory.

Bob Dylan is one of my favourite artists of all time, he is an incredible songwriter - something hard to find these days.

[1.X.1905]

(Original post by Converse Rocker)
Music is subjective, you can't say this song is better than that song. And if you do, you're just stating an opinion, not fact.

Not really true, though. As I said in my first post, it is perfectly possible to judge the level of musical competence present in two works (provided there is enough of a gap in competence to make such a thing possible). Comparing something like Mahler's Das Lied von Der Erde with The Beatles' White Album would (besides being absolutely pointless) result in an irrefutable conclusion the first is in every way musically more sophisticated and hence stands up better to proper, attentive listening, the hallmark of any piece of good music.

If you think music is entirely subjective, you are forced to accept statements like 'the sound of a squirrel farting through a ring modulator is of equal worth to Le Nozze di Figaro (or Nevermind, or whatever does it for you)'. Care to reconsider?

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by 1.X.1905)
Not really true, though. As I said in my first post, it is perfectly possible to judge the level of musical competence present in two works (provided there is enough of a gap in competence to make such a thing possible). Comparing something like Mahler's Das Lied von Der Erde with The Beatles' White Album would (besides being absolutely pointless) result in an irrefutable conclusion the first is in every way musically more sophisticated and hence stands up better to proper, attentive listening, the hallmark of any piece of good music.

If you think music is entirely subjective, you are forced to accept statements like 'the sound of a squirrel farting through a ring modulator is of equal worth to Le Nozze di Figaro (or Nevermind, or whatever does it for you)'. Care to reconsider?

Are we talking about instrumental ability, or song writing here?

Some people are, obviously, better on their instrument than others. I'm talking about what comes into their brain to do with said instruments. When it comes to listening to music, everyone has their tastes, and that is why I said music is subjective.

I'm not disputing the difference in technical ability between artists - my point is that music isn't all about technical ability, as shown by people like the Beatles or Dylan. You'd be foolish to say so, I'm sure you agree.

[1.X.1905]

(Original post by Converse Rocker)
Are we talking about musical competence, or song writing here?

Some people are, obviously, better on their instrument than others. I'm talking about what comes into their brain to do with said instruments. When it comes to listening to music, everyone has their tastes, and that is why I said music is subjective.

I'm not disputing the difference in technical ability between artists - my point is that music isn't all about technical ability. You'd be foolish to say so, I'm sure you agree.

What is technically harder to play - not really up for dispute. What sounds better - entirely up for dispute.

I'm not talking about technical difficulties. I haven't even mentioned that anywhere as far as I can see (though a knowledge of the full technical range of whatever you are writing for is always an advantage since it makes the palette of expression you have to draw from as large as possible). I'm talking about the difference in compositional ability between Mahler and The Beatles, a difference as obvious to anyone who knows enough about music as the difference between, say, Dan Brown and Dostoevsky, one being at best the writer of silly but enjoyable novels, the other being unquestionably a genius.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by 1.X.1905)
I'm talking about the difference in compositional ability between Mahler and The Beatles, a difference as obvious to anyone who knows enough about music as the difference between, say, Dan Brown and Dostoevsky, one being at best the writer of silly but enjoyable novels, the other being unquestionably a genius.

You see, some people might find that composing orchestral pieces comes natural to them...yet writing metal riffs is impossibly hard.

Does that mean it's easier to write orchestral pieces? Just a thought.

I take your point though, the Beatles wrote songs that were much simpler in composition, but does this make them easier to write? Doesn't it kind of depend on the writer in hand? Or maybe people that write orchestras just ARE more musically gifted, making I'm talking out my ass. Overall though, enjoyment of music is not always linked to complexity of the piece or whether the writer knew theory.

And apologies to the OP, me and 1905 have sort of hijacked this

[motunrolarulz]

Hmm. Well I don't like Lady Gaga. I wish she'd just go away. Oh, and I've never listened to an Oasis song. Ever. I don't think it'd be worth the bother.

(Original post by takethyfacehence)
My unpopular opinion off the top of my head is that I find Beyonce on the whole really dull and get really sick of how much everyone seems to **** over her.

Agreed. Why is everyone acting like she's the first person to be pregnant? I just don't get it tbh. Oh well.

[takethyfacehence]

(Original post by motunrolarulz)
Hmm. Well I don't like Lady Gaga. I wish she'd just go away. Oh, and I've never listened to an Oasis song. Ever. I don't think it'd be worth the bother.



Agreed. Why is everyone acting like she's the first person to be pregnant? I just don't get it tbh. Oh well.

It's the whole 'what an iconic woman' BS that surrounds her. I ****ing hate 'Single Ladies' it's so boring musically and lyrically... I can't stand that 'I'm such a fierce independent woman and don't men suck' ****... no, your good-for-nothing boyfriends were your stupid choice and there are plenty of good-for-nothing girlfriends out there too...

[1.X.1905]

(Original post by Converse Rocker)
You see, some people might find that composing orchestral pieces comes natural to them...yet writing metal riffs is impossibly hard.

Does that mean it's easier to write orchestral pieces? Just a thought.

I take your point though, the Beatles wrote songs that were much simpler in composition, but does this make them easier to write? Doesn't it kind of depend on the writer in hand? Or maybe people that write orchestras just ARE more musically gifted, making I'm talking out my ass. Overall though, enjoyment of music is not always linked to complexity of the piece or whether the writer knew theory.

And apologies to the OP, me and 1905 have sort of hijacked this

Firstly, it's difficult to explain how much more there is to any large scale composition than just coming up with an idea, be it riff, melody or whatever. Plenty of extremely good musical ideas languish in second and third rate works, and plenty of first rate works have ideas which in themselves are totally unremarkable (it might be said [with a cheeky wink] that Beethoven made a fine career out of doing this). There are so many things which are more important than the original idea itself. One is coherence; if you are writing an hour long work, the piece needs to be intelligible. It needs to sound like a whole to which every moment contributes something. So stuffing it full of ideas is no good; the listener will simply be overcome by the sheer number of unrelated motifs competing for his attention, and will not hear a satisfying unified piece but instead a series of ideas crudely stuck together with a thin paste. But equally, repeating the same idea over and over again is no good as it quickly becomes tedious.

The solution is to use only a few ideas, and continually develop them in such a way that the seed of the idea is recognisable and gives the listener a 'handle' to hold on to, but sufficiently different to maintain interest. Development is one of the things which made Beethoven so great; he had the best eye of any composer for potential in the most uninspiring-looking of ideas Witness, say, the finale of his symphony #3, the mighty Eroica: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDrwn5ky7Ac. After the explosive introduction, the movement proper begins at 0:16 with a trivially simple theme, not even a melody, the sort of thing a child could write, which is played in repeated in various ways with little embellishments until 0:50. Now the first development of the theme begins; it is joined to by a pair of imitative 'melodies' to create a texture of three independent parts. This is then followed by another similar development with a trio of imitative melodies and the original theme (but all the melodies are related by the harmonic anchor of the first theme). At 1:58, our first really important melody appears (can you hear how it relates to the opening theme? The second half of the melody especially is very similar), and the opening theme itself becomes the bass line. A new idea turns up in the accompaniment to the melody: the running notes in the violins (+ others), which will be picked up on later and elaborated. The melody disappears from view soon to be replaced by yet another new one (2:44) which begins in the same way as the opening theme but continues differently and is enlarged to develop a life of its own. Beethoven then creates from this new melody what is known as a fugue, the precise definition of which is not important but which is known for being rather difficult to write and even more so to write in a way which doesn't sound like a student exercise (in terms of compositional skill this is far, far beyond what you will hear in most pop songs. You can hear for yourself how complicated the texture gets from 3:00 on. And Beethoven has barely got started yet - the full movement is about 13 minutes, and is itself only one of four parts of a 50 minute long symphony). I'll end the commentary here for fear of boring you, but you should get the idea.

Now Beethoven was an extraordinarily gifted musician, of the calibre that few have matched and arguably none have passed. But this didn't come easily to him - it was written over a period of one and a half years, and thoroughly revised several times before being considered worth of performance. Beethoven worked damn hard for it. About the only person in history who could write orchestral masterpieces with ease was Mozart, but his technical facility was stupendous, in another plane of existence to everyone else (he wrote three of the greatest symphonies in history in 6 weeks. Okay, none quite match the Eroica, but damn).

This is just one of many aspects of large scale structuring which simply doesn't have to be dealt with by pop musicians. I could write pages and pages about the rest (management of tension, tonal structure etc) but I don't think that will be necessary.

I would, though, like to return to the idea of 'writing a classical style melody' versus 'writing a pop-style riff', assuming all other things to be equal. I'm not going to claim much experience with metal, but I gather that the riffs tend to be in a minor key, made up of chugging power chords (don't get me started on 'power chords') and often focus excessively on the 1st-3rd or 5th-6th scale degree relationship (these give a minor key its 'flavour'). More importantly, they lack any expressive qualities. They don't suggest anything other than a cliched kind of aggression (my typical reaction being 'wow, more chugging power chords '). Compare to a great classical melody, say the revolutionary idee fixe from Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvh1gpdxCv0, wonderfully elucidated by the great educator Leonard Bernstein in this short video.

[G8D]

Muse are mediocre.
Adele doesn't deserve the awards she's been given, she is truly terrible.
Biffy Clyro are dreadful and imo most of their fan-base stems from misplaced Scottish pride.

[The_Super_Nerd(:]

Lady GaGa's 'oh look at me I'm so unique and out there with ma clothing craved out of dead animals and my zero gravity hair' bravado is extremely tedious and her music is just as uninspiring. Rihanna is overrated. People who claim to hate one direction/ Justin bieber at every possible opportunity are annoying. How can you hate someone you have never met? 'Hate' is just a bit dramatic no?

[Humberto]

"There is no noise, only sound"... people always hate me for saying/quoteing that

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by G8D)
Biffy Clyro are dreadful and imo most of their fan-base stems from misplaced Scottish pride.

They have an absolutely massive fan base in England.

[DZJX]

I should have known most of TSR are the types that dont like stuff in the charts.
im sick of all these people only liking something because its largely unknown. they get really snobby over pop music, its pathetic really.

And people dont seem to understand that Bands and Rock artists are just as manufactured as pop artists, theres a basic rule which is, if its signed to a major label, its manufactured.

and there is nothing wrong with liking manufactured music, it can be just as good as any other music.

and for those saying that music is being made for the wrong reasons, erm its always been about money AND the songs, the artists who sing pop songs want to do pop because they like it, and many write it themselves, like Katy Perry for example.

[G8D]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
They have an absolutely massive fan base in England.

Ok. They're still dreadful.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Skrillex blows.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by 1.X.1905)
I'm not going to claim much experience with metal, but I gather that the riffs tend to be in a minor key, made up of chugging power chords (don't get me started on 'power chords') and often focus excessively on the 1st-3rd or 5th-6th scale degree relationship (these give a minor key its 'flavour'). More importantly, they lack any expressive qualities. They don't suggest anything other than a cliched kind of aggression (my typical reaction being 'wow, more chugging power chords '). Compare to a great classical melody, say the revolutionary idee fixe from Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvh1gpdxCv0, wonderfully elucidated by the great educator Leonard Bernstein in this short video.

It's a good thing you didn't claim much experience with metal, but it's quite clear you know nothing about the genre...

You couldn't be further from the truth when you say 'it's all about chugging power chords and aggression. Just one example off the top of my head: Metallica performed their 'Master of Puppets' with an orchestra, was that all about aggression and chugging on the E string? 'Care to reconsider?'

You also seem to have missed my initial point - if it's easier for Beethoven to write orchestra than metal (I know it's a made up example, but it would probably be true) does that mean orchestral pieces are easier to write? No, because it depends on the person (at least, it's surely a large factor)

Again, I'm not arguing how complex classical/orchestral music is, I'm just saying surely the person involved plays a large role in how hard the style of music is to write.

[Dagnabbit]

Some people don't understand 'unpopular opinions'. Just saying 'Skrillex sucks' or 'JLS suck' may not actually be that much of an unpopular opinion, certainly not on TSR!


My unpopular music opinion:

I actually enjoy a fair few of Dido's songs.

[IPlayThePiccolo]

Metal and screamo are annoying and Nirvana are overrated.