Posted June 3, 2008 There's like hundrends of genres and tastes and as far as I can see the list has a fair shair of everything. Thats the stupidest thing I've heard. That list has barely anything that can actually be categorised as musical in the first place, let alone being a representation of the hundreds of genres there are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 All i see is pop/catchy songs =[ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 theres only two in there that I like really and thats Stadium Arcadium and Beatles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 Amy Winehouse's voice makes me want to kill puppies. It's that horrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 I don't MIND Amy Winehouse, and I actually saw her live (Yes, she was stable, and great live), but I just REALLY dislike her last album (the famous one). Frank is miles better, and the only one I now choose to listen to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 Dear Lord that list makes me cringe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 Why is that the minority always believe they are more correct than everyone else? Besides, you can't really expect to find all your favourite cds on it. There's like hundrends of genres and tastes and as far as I can see the list has a fair shair of everything. I doubt anyone of us can find more than ten. Personally I found four; Avril, Beoynce and Rihanna. Tales, you have one of the worst tastes in human history. You're not fit to discuss music. At all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 Why is that the minority always believe they are more correct than everyone else? Besides, you can't really expect to find all your favourite cds on it. There's like hundrends of genres and tastes and as far as I can see the list has a fair shair of everything. I doubt anyone of us can find more than ten. Personally I found four; Avril, Beoynce and Rihanna. I don't like any of the CD's or bands in that list. Does that mean my opinion doesn't count? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 No. Where the heck did you get that from? I'm just saying there's an abnormal high amount of hatred towards anything you(pl) don't like. For some reason when it comes to music, and this just not here, there's this weird ideology that everything you don't like is crap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 No. Where the heck did you get that from? I'm just saying there's an abnormal high amount of hatred towards anything you(pl) don't like. For some reason when it comes to music, and this just not here, there's this weird ideology that everything you don't like is crap. Actually, most people think like that. That's a mistake. Wether you like something or not matter little to the fact that it has inherent quality that makes it either good or bad. The problem is, 99% of that list is bad music. Much like all the artists you named as being of your liking. Now, the hardest part is when people can't admit that something they like is crap. I like a lot of crap. I have no problem admitting it. But almost everyone is incapable of that. Can you admit that those artists you just listed make bad music? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 In that top 20 list, I count 2 (Nelly Furtado – Loose, and Red Hot Chili Peppers - Stadium Arcadium) that don't make me want to liberally vomit. Oh, and I also secretly quite like Eyes Open by Snow Patrol, though Chasing Cars can fuck off... 30-50 is a mixture of evil, indifference, and MCR/The Killers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 Nelly Furtado is actually quite satisfactory - I'd be lying if I said I thought Man Eater is a bad song. Alot of the music I like best in the world is really unmainstream stuff. One of my favourite albums is "Never Said Goodbye" by Cerys Matthews. I've yet to meet someone else that says they like it. As an album it just feels so personal to me - as though she phoned me up one day and said "Hey, go listen to my new album - it's pretty good". If it were to suddenly become massively famous, I'd feel a bit cheated, and it wouldn't feel so personal any more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 I only have "Stadium Arcadium". Even then, not RHCP's best album. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 Actually, most people think like that. That's a mistake. Wether you like something or not matter little to the fact that it has inherent quality that makes it either good or bad. The problem is, 99% of that list is bad music. Much like all the artists you named as being of your liking. Now, the hardest part is when people can't admit that something they like is crap. I like a lot of crap. I have no problem admitting it. But almost everyone is incapable of that. Can you admit that those artists you just listed make bad music? How do you decide if something is bad music though? I'm really struggling to understand what you're getting at. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 How do you decide if something is bad music though? I'm really struggling to understand what you're getting at. It's called having taste :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 It's called having taste :p I'm sorry but music being 'good' is not objective the way I look at it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 I'm sorry but music being 'good' is not objective the way I look at it. Well it kind of is. If I pick up a guitar and play three random notes, it will sound really bad. It's music though - it's bad music. If I download a remix of a song, and it's really slow and hard to dance to, and just sounds shite it's bad music. There is somewhat a blurred line between decent and not decent though, because I love certain artists like Shania Twain, ABBA and the Dixie Chicks everyone else seems to hate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 3, 2008 I feel I can distinguish between "good" and "bad", but some people I'm indifferent to. I know that Radiohead make great music. However, I often find them very hard to listen to, and I wouldn't call them a favourite of mine. However, they make some great music, and deserve being like the most praised band in the universe of whatever they are. :p Imogen Heap seems to be priased a lot too, something I don't really get, but I like a few of her songs, and she has made some good music. However, a lot of the songs on Speak For Yourself are too samey and just don't leave me with any particular feeling of joy (or whatever emotion the music tries to convey). I'd call that decent or at best good. The majority of hard Candy by Madonna is bad music because it is recycled ideas and sounds with dated beats and insincere vocals. Also one must look at music relative to an artists' back catalogue. This is shite compared some of the music she's made. However, I like listening to "4 Minutes", despite me knowing it's not as good as "Weird Fishes/Arpeggi" by Radiohead. I dunno really. Sometimes I do know music is good, but I don't obsessively love it as a result. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 4, 2008 I'm sorry but music being 'good' is not objective the way I look at it. So Spice Girls and Pink Floyd are objectively equal. Correct? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 4, 2008 However, I like listening to "4 Minutes", despite me knowing it's not as good as "Weird Fishes/Arpeggi" by Radiohead. But, it IS better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 4, 2008 Which one's the better picture: Picture A Picture B Picture A is nice to look at and I'd be hard pushed to paint anything as technically good, but that doesn't mean there aren't thousands of people around the world who, if presented with the same scene, could paint something exactly the same. Basically it's nothing unique and lacks imagination. Picture B however pushes boundaries, it makes a political statement and creates both something unique and powerful. That's why picture B is a cultural and artistic icon and picture A isn't. Now if all art is subjective and is just down to general opinion why aren't watercolours by Doris from Cornwall being shown in the Louvre? the same thing goes for that list. Nothing on there is particularly bad, but at the same time the vast majority of it completely fails to have any imagination, push boundaries or make a statement. Yep, it might be nice to listen to, like Doris's watercolour, but there are thousands of people making music that sounds very much the same and in 20 years time most of things on that list will be no more remembered than Bros is now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 4, 2008 Which one's the better picture:Picture A Picture B Picture A is nice to look at and I'd be hard pushed to paint anything as technically good, but that doesn't mean there aren't thousands of people around the world who, if presented with the same scene, could paint something exactly the same. Basically it's nothing unique and lacks imagination. Picture B however pushes boundaries, it makes a political statement and creates both something unique and powerful. That's why picture B is a cultural and artistic icon and picture A isn't. Now if all art is subjective and is just down to general opinion why aren't watercolours by Doris from Cornwall being shown in the Louvre? the same thing goes for that list. Nothing on there is particularly bad, but at the same time the vast majority of it completely fails to have any imagination, push boundaries or make a statement. Yep, it might be nice to listen to, like Doris's watercolour, but there are thousands of people making music that sounds very much the same and in 20 years time most of things on that list will be no more remembered than Bros is now. Might I just add... POST OF THE FUCKING YEAR. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 4, 2008 god I don't see what people saw in picasso's later art after his Blue Period. Its utter shit. I guess everyone was just fueled by hype, and fear of not belonging, so they just went with the crowd. Sort of like todays music scene. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 4, 2008 god I don't see what people saw in picasso's later art after his Blue Period. Its utter shit. I guess everyone was just fueled by hype, and fear of not belonging, so they just went with the crowd. Sort of like todays music scene. Have you ever actually tried looking at any of his Cubist or Surrealist period works whilst attempting to interpret them as a cultural and politicall manifesto? Or were you just looking at them for visual gusto? Because art isn't about being pretty or sounding nice and pleasent, it's about having something to say and getting that across to the viewer/listener/reader. Now, I'm not attempting to insult you, as I altogether believe we're on the same boat and all, but maybe you just haven't lost enough time looking at things from a contextual point of view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 4, 2008 Is picture B done by a 3-year-old? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
