[there's too much love]

(Original post by Dr Good Manners)
Pop is not real music, so someone needs to school these boobs on what IS real music. So Y U MAD?

If you're talking about Britney Spears I can't help but agree with you.
If you're talking about Belle and Sebastian I can't help but disagree with you.


And although it's not pop, if you read my other post, an interesting one is 'Morrissey' who I think has let fame go to his head. Has the music he makes changed from where it's a piece of art (who doesn't like a bit of The Smiths) turned into Morrissey just going 'I'm famous I am'?

[there's too much love]

(Original post by Jake22)
Not really. Who cares how people phrase it? It is just a common way that people denigrate one form of music whilst simultaneously extolling the virtues of another. It is just a colloqialism; the musical analogue of Crocodile Dundee saying "Call that a knife? This is a knife".

I can't say I particularly like or feel the need to **** all over a type of music/tv programme/food etc. that other people like just because I don't like or rate it but I can't say that I am that moved when other people do.

If someone is saying all rap is bad, then yeah I agree with you. I don't like rap as a style, but there are some very talented rappers out there.

There's a lot of crap rappers as well.


I would never say pop is terrible (mainly because there's some good pop out there).

But if someone is listening to music like Britney Spears (and only crap like that), am I really unjustified in thinking "you don't know what music is?"

What if it's some desperate 13 year old who just watches the videos for fap material?

[Bellissima]

(Original post by there's too much love)
If you're asking why The Smittens are more real than The Corrs it's because The Smittens don't rely on software to attempt to make music. Where as The Corrs, who my mum was playing in the car about 6 months ago, were simply using software to attempt to make music. It sounded over produced and tacky. It didn't take any musical talent to make. It was clearly made with one intention, sell to the mass market of jumps who are obsessed with dido and other bland pathetic so called 'artists'.

When you don't have to be able to sing or play an instrument, or you don't even bother. When the music is so obviously made for the sake of generating revenue, not to make a piece of art, that's when music isn't 'real' music.

The reasons why people make music usually effect the music they make. Now I'm not saying that always happens, I'm not saying that some people aren't making music to make money that I like. For all I know some of them are just trying to do that.

But some artists clearly don't. When an artist just does lots of gigs and makes music that obviously won't be sold to the mass market, you can't argue that they're in it to make money.

That's not to say every mainstream artists is in it to just make money or be famous. But some of them very blatantly are.

why is using software to make music not a skill or talent or less real than using an instrument? i have a friend who wants to go into music production and while he is very talented on about 5 instruments he is also very talented on this music making software... they all make music at the end of the day, at it IS music... it doesn't make sense saying one type/genre of music is more real than another... because they are both real

i really don't see why it matters, as long as people enjoy it.. which is largely what music is about, whatever their reasons for enjoying it are.

[Nephilim]

(Original post by stac4321)
However, I do hate musical ignorance. Whether it's silly little teenage girls who won't listen to anything that isn't One Direction, or pretentious toffs who won't listen to anything other than Bach. You have to give all music a chance in order to find what you truely like. By telling yourself that you like this one kind of music and not bothering to seek out new music then you're just being blind and missing out.

What if one only listens to Classical because they don't enjoy other genres? How is that pretentious (btw, in "Classical" there are at least 5 genres -- Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Neo-Classical, Modernist). I used to like bands like The Beatles and Pink Floyd, etc. But I now I just find their music boring and simple compared to musicians like Bach and Prokofiev, etc.

[ROYP]

(Original post by a rusH)
Sorry.

There's no need to apologise

Sharp observational skills though. 'Real music' gets thrown around all the time so bravo for knowing that this was inspired by your post on the Rihanna thread

[CherryCherryBoomBoom]

I feel the same way OP. Pretentious ponces, lmao. Some people takes things way too seriously.

(Original post by Dorito)
I love real music, totes love Ed sheeran and Mumford and Sons, they're so alternative and fresh, hehe. /sarcasm.

Yeah, I hate people that use the term 'real music', it doesn't even mean anything.

I totally agree. All music is real, isn't it? I mean, what music is imaginary? Arguably, yeah I can see how some music is seen as better quality than others, but at the end of the day what is important is what sounds good to you personally.

(Original post by Doughnut)
I want to punch anyone that doesn't open their eyes to the great music that's out there but just takes what's given to them.

Why? Some people don't really care that much about music and might have better things in their life to worry about. Which in that case, why should that be any problem of yours?

[there's too much love]

(Original post by Bellissima)
why is using software to make music not a skill or talent or less real than using an instrument? i have a friend who wants to go into music production and while he is very talented on about 5 instruments he is also very talented on this music making software... they all make music at the end of the day, at it IS music... it doesn't make sense saying one type/genre of music is more real than another... because they are both real

i really don't see why it matters, as long as people enjoy it.. which is largely what music is about, whatever their reasons for enjoying it are.

When you're listening to auto tuned voices singing along to a drum machine on the same basic loop and the most mind numbingly boring violin tunes. With lyrics that just reek of ****. Just boring cliches.

No, that's not real music.

It'd be like comparing a 5 year old's painting with Picasso.

Or a Chuck Palahniuk book with a 12 year old's 400 word creative writing assignment.

You're right that you don't have to play instruments to make music. But at the moment those tend to be the exceptions to the rule.

[HeadintheClouds93]

I don't like certain music/bands, but wouldn't it be really boring if everyone liked the same music?

[Bellissima]

(Original post by there's too much love)
When you're listening to auto tuned voices singing along to a drum machine on the same basic loop and the most mind numbingly boring violin tunes. With lyrics that just reek of ****. Just boring cliches.

No, that's not real music.

It'd be like comparing a 5 year old's painting with Picasso.

Or a Chuck Palahniuk book with a 12 year old's 400 word creative writing assignment.

You're right that you don't have to play instruments to make music. But at the moment those tend to be the exceptions to the rule.

noo, comparing an untalented 5 year old's painting with picasso would be like comparing an untalented 5 year old plonking away on the piano with beethoven. i highly doubt an average 5 year old could compose a likable piece of music, whether it's on computer software or on another instrument like a violin or piano. both computer software and other instruments need skill and training to make likable music, and talent to make something a step up from just "likable".

[balletlover]

(Original post by geetar)
Almost as bad as people who use the term 'real woman'!

That annoys me so much!

"Real women have curves"

What am I then? A man?

[Devel]

(Original post by CherryCherryBoomBoom)
Why? Some people don't really care that much about music and might have better things in their life to worry about. Which in that case, why should that be any problem of yours?

This is what has caused the gradual decline in quality in chart music as a whole. When you have artists like Janelle Monae, who are actually making new and exciting pop music, being overlooked for the most part for another chart hit that brings nothing new to the table.

[ROYP]

(Original post by Nephilim)
What if one only listens to Classical because they don't enjoy other genres? How is that pretentious (btw, in "Classical" there are at least 5 genres -- Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Neo-Classical, Modernist). I used to like bands like The Beatles and Pink Floyd, etc. But I now I just find their music boring and simple compared to musicians like Bach and Prokofiev, etc.

I know this was a reply to someone else but I felt like weighing in.

I don't care at all if someone listens to only one genre. I don't even care if they don't attempt to listen to other genres. What annoys me is people parading their **** around saying 'this is real music' and acting like certain artists/genres don't qualify as music.

Obviously that wouldn't apply to you from reading your post though

[ROYP]

(Original post by HeadintheClouds93)
I don't like certain music/bands, but wouldn't it be really boring if everyone liked the same music?

Most people are going to have music they don't like. Everyone has opinions but you get people that want to forcefeed you their opinion as fact which annoys the **** outta me

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by there's too much love)
When you're listening to auto tuned voices singing along to a drum machine on the same basic loop and the most mind numbingly boring violin tunes. With lyrics that just reek of ****. Just boring cliches.

No, that's not real music.

It'd be like comparing a 5 year old's painting with Picasso.

Or a Chuck Palahniuk book with a 12 year old's 400 word creative writing assignment.

You're right that you don't have to play instruments to make music. But at the moment those tend to be the exceptions to the rule.

This doesn't actually address the point at all. Why is one instrument more 'real' than another? There's no logical reason to dismiss computer synthesisers as less 'real' than any other instrument.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by there's too much love)
If you're asking why The Smittens are more real than The Corrs it's because The Smittens don't rely on software to attempt to make music. Where as The Corrs, who my mum was playing in the car about 6 months ago, were simply using software to attempt to make music. It sounded over produced and tacky. It didn't take any musical talent to make. It was clearly made with one intention, sell to the mass market of jumps who are obsessed with dido and other bland pathetic so called 'artists'.

What's wrong with using software? Playing an instrument requires dexterity and an understanding of music. Creating music using software requires the latter plus the vision to string together patterns of sounds which bring make people feel certain ways.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by Bellissima)
noo, comparing an untalented 5 year old's painting with picasso would be like comparing an untalented 5 year old plonking away on the piano with beethoven. i highly doubt an average 5 year old could compose a likable piece of music, whether it's on computer software or on another instrument like a violin or piano. both computer software and other instruments need skill and training to make likable music, and talent to make something a step up from just "likable".

Sorry, given the context what I said, it almost sounded as if you're trying to defend what The Corrs do as 'music'.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by TheHansa)
What's wrong with using software? Playing an instrument requires dexterity and an understanding of music. Creating music using software requires the latter plus the vision to string together patterns of sounds which bring make people feel certain ways.

I'll edit the post with a link to another one I made.

[CherryCherryBoomBoom]

(Original post by Devel)
This is what has caused the gradual decline in quality in chart music as a whole. When you have artists like Janelle Monae, who are actually making new and exciting pop music, being overlooked for the most part for another chart hit that brings nothing new to the table.

OK, fair enough. I agree that there are some really good pop artists like Janelle Monae that I really like and then I'm surprised don't do well in the charts. Sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of lack of promotion though. Like, I'm not sure I've actually ever heard her music on music channels or radio, just the internet and occasional TV programmes. Whereas someone like Rihanna will probably always be popular as long as she's always making music and her music is always played 24/7 on the popular radio stations.

[Jake22]

(Original post by there's too much love)
But if someone is listening to music like Britney Spears (and only crap like that), am I really unjustified in thinking "you don't know what music is?"

It is all relative. Some people would say that the pop music you like is just shallow dirge created by (relatively) talentless hacks. They could make qualitative comparisons with say, Mahler and give convincing arguments why your favourite bands, in the grand scheme of things are as shallow and unsophisticated as a 5 year old banging on pots when compared to a musical piece with vaster depth and scope. They would say, "if they only listen to rock/pop and haven't heard any actual art music then they don't know what music is"

Playing devil's advocate - let's look at Belle and Sebastian

Belle and Sebastian don't play their instruments or sing to any decent level of proficiency. Their song structures are basic, predominantly based around a single tonal center with typical modulations only ever involving switching to the relative minor for a chorus, bridge or refrain. Rythmically, their music is generally a simple embellishment of 'four to the floor' and texturally, the arrangements are basically guitar playing root position diatonic triads (or very occaisionally root position diatonic 7th chords) with the bass generally just doubling the roots. Sometimes, there are trumpets or violins playing simple melodies or arpeggios over the top.

Now, I actually like Belle and Sebastian and don't care much for Britney Spears but when I hear a B&S fan trying to make out that in purely musical terms they are better musicians from the point of view of performance and composition or that there music is in anyway sophisticated - I just laugh my head off. It is utter *******s. I like their witty lyrics, I like some of their catchy melodies and the gentle nature of their typical arrangement but I accept that musically they are shallow and without any profundity, insight or originality. Even Britany Spears songs, penned by trained producers generally contain snazzier arrangements, more intricate harmonic progression and voicing although lyrically they are generally inferior.

Now, I like a lot of art music ('classical', jazz etc.) and also lot of pop music (including pop, rock, grime, metal, indie, folk etc.) I don't bother with this "they don't know what music is" business because I appreciate that music of differing levels of profundity serve different purposes and can be good or bad.

But when people say that for example, Belle and Sebastian are musically more advanced than a Britney Spears song... I do wonder whether they know anything about music

[TheHansa]

(Original post by there's too much love)
I'll edit the post with a link to another one I made.

Autotune is very sucky indeed.

genuine pity btw