Good music, bad music

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:


    That's my point;  a band cannot succeed on their own without good songwriting skills regardless of their singing/playing ability.  However, a band with a good songwriter (or even a few decent songs) can succeed with even the most modest of singing (Dylan, Hendrix) or playing (many, many bands) skills because the critical, most important, most rare skill is composing.  

     

    Sure, a band/singer can buy in songs and succeed, though in rock'n'roll that ship sailed when the Beatles arrived i.e. you don't write, you got no cred.  But that doesn't alter the fact that without songs you cannot succeed, but without the other stuff you can.

     



    If people like your music it doesn't matter if you get any cred. I listen to music I like without knowing who wrote the songs. I think a large part of the rock buying audience does the same. If I like the sound, I don't care how the band got their songs. Cred has nothing to do with the actual music. It is a non-musical aspect important only to those who care about such things. I like the Archies even though I know that the cartoon characters did not really perform the songs. I could argue that proper songwriting is more Tin Pan Alley than it is rock and roll. Rock evolved from music that was not so much about songwriting as it was about adding a personal mark to standard forms of music.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    And now, I suppose, should this be restricted to rock?


    I'm not aware of Yo Yo Ma, Rostropovich, Pearlman, or Heifetz of ever writing anything. But they were grand masters of their art: performance.

     



    Yes, we've only been discussing rock music.  Re classical music, why is it that modern composers are not considered - at least by laymen - to be able to reach the heights of the masters of 1-3 centuries ago?  Is it really possible composers could not reach or exceed the level of Mozart, Bach, etc?  If so, why?  Or is it just snobbery i.e. assuming the masters are beyond our meagre talents?

     



    In reading classical music forums fairly often in the recent past, their discussions are not unlike the discussions of other music -- by era, sub-genre, etc.  I don't see many discussing actual quality differences from century to century.    I've even seen threads where the discussions are for a specific decade, let alone a century.   

    So I think you're making a very broad generalization in your question.  

    I did bring this up in another thread re: best music.   The "general, bests" lists continue to state that the 3 B's (Beethoven, Bach, and Brahams) continue to be in the top 5, of "all time" but that's like saying The Beatles, Stones, and Led Zepp are consistently in the top 5 rock bands of all time.   Does it mean no one can or has been as good?  

    But again, you said "lay person" so that's what you're going to hear.    If you can insist that there's plenty of good, if not great, contemporary rock music out there, there are plenty of people who feel the same way about contemporary classical music.   People who know what it is, not lay people.   And I think you need to define "contemporary" or "modern" because in classical terms, contemporary is probably since the 70's, but modern is probably close to the entire 20th century.

    Saying that "laymen" think contemporary classical is not as good as the masters is synonymous with saying that "laymen"  think that all contemporary rock music is bad -- or not as good as rock music from the classic 70's  -- without qualification and in many cases, without even knowing much about it.  

    As you said earlier, they don't know what they don't know.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    And now, I suppose, should this be restricted to rock?


    I'm not aware of Yo Yo Ma, Rostropovich, Pearlman, or Heifetz of ever writing anything. But they were grand masters of their art: performance.

     



    Yes, it should be restricted.   I went down this alley either earlier in this thread, or in another recent thread.   So I know where you're going ... but the two genre worlds just don't mesh very well re: composing / performing, and have little common ground.  

     

    Pavarotti was a vocalist, too -- and his influence is legendary in bringing opera to the masses -- and as far as I know, he never wrote any of his own material.  :)

     




     

    Well, if I've missed a prior discussion I won't muddy the waters here. I'm curious as to the reasoning.

    I suppose the manner and scope of composition is completely different. With rock, most musicians seem to jam things out. Then write down lyrics, etc.

    They don't sit with their eyes closed, imagining the concern, and writing it down quietly. Hendrix said he played what he heard....   but I took that to mean... as he was hearing it.

    Of course now I start to argue against myself, because plenty of famous classical composers also played....and composed while playing...like Mozart.

    Whereas Beethoven may have been mostly deaf when he compposed some of his greatest.

     

    I'll be quiet now.



    Gosh, gone around the block on the "best / better" and "good / bad" cycle so much these past few weeks, I'm getting a bit weary, TBH.   

    The contention, and I think a fair one, is that classical composers were concerned primarily with composing -- not performing.  In terms of vocals, it would also be a rarity for a composer of an opera, let's say, to plan to play a part in an opera himself -- and actually perform the opera.   I think with a careful and fully thought out argument, you could poke holes in the argument, but I don't think we're here to get that serious.  I made a generalization, and I felt that the response(s) in return were fair and balanced.   I only made my point in terms of standardization and ability to classify "good or bad" music -- because it's fairly well-documented that certain composers always come up in the top 5 or 10 of all time in classical music.   Not that everyone agrees ...

    Of course classical composers played ... while they composed, and were masters.   Still are. But the level of composing, the art, the entire mission -- is that really on equal comparative ground to a rock band composing songs?    I'm not an expert on the craft of composing, as I said, it would take someone with more depth of knowledge to dig into the topic.   

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     


    That's my point;  a band cannot succeed on their own without good songwriting skills regardless of their singing/playing ability.  However, a band with a good songwriter (or even a few decent songs) can succeed with even the most modest of singing (Dylan, Hendrix) or playing (many, many bands) skills because the critical, most important, most rare skill is composing.  

     

    Sure, a band/singer can buy in songs and succeed, though in rock'n'roll that ship sailed when the Beatles arrived i.e. you don't write, you got no cred.  But that doesn't alter the fact that without songs you cannot succeed, but without the other stuff you can.

     

     



    If people like your music it doesn't matter if you get any cred. I listen to music I like without knowing who wrote the songs. I think a large part of the rock buying audience does the same. If I like the sound, I don't care how the band got their songs. Cred has nothing to do with the actual music. It is a non-musical aspect important only to those who care about such things. I like the Archies even though I know that the cartoon characters did not really perform the songs. I could argue that proper songwriting is more Tin Pan Alley than it is rock and roll. Rock evolved from music that was not so much about songwriting as it was about adding a personal mark to standard forms of music.

     



    Frankly, I am beginning to think about starting a new thread.  :)

    My thoughts are similar to yours -- consumers vs. performers.  I, quite honestly, don't care either.   I read the liner notes, but if I see that some of the songs on a CD are not written by the band, that makes no difference to me.  Why would it?   

    I love Allison Krauss' album of covers.  It was the first album that brought her to my attention.  I knew she didn't write "Now that I've found you", but I also didn't know who actually wrote it, until I read the liner notes; I never heard of the songwriters. Come to think of it, AK doesn't write LOADS of the songs she sings ... does she?    I never even think about it.   The songs would be nothing without her.   

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    And now, I suppose, should this be restricted to rock?


    I'm not aware of Yo Yo Ma, Rostropovich, Pearlman, or Heifetz of ever writing anything. But they were grand masters of their art: performance.

     



    Yes, we've only been discussing rock music.  Re classical music, why is it that modern composers are not considered - at least by laymen - to be able to reach the heights of the masters of 1-3 centuries ago?  Is it really possible composers could not reach or exceed the level of Mozart, Bach, etc?  If so, why?  Or is it just snobbery i.e. assuming the masters are beyond our meagre talents?

     

     



    This same question pertains to popular music.  Will there ever be songwriters that compare to the Beatles?  We're inclined to think not.  I tend to think that the musical form itself is a finite resource of material that is eventually exhausted.

     

     




    I think Simon and (Garfunkel) gave the Beatles a run for their Money, as composers, and performers, but that's just me. This is a great discussion, but it is like spinning plates.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from gerbs. Show gerbs's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    Yes, we've only been discussing rock music.  Re classical music, why is it that modern composers are not considered - at least by laymen - to be able to reach the heights of the masters of 1-3 centuries ago?  Is it really possible composers could not reach or exceed the level of Mozart, Bach, etc?  If so, why?  Or is it just snobbery i.e. assuming the masters are beyond our meagre talents?



    As others have mentioned, the long time horizon over which we can evaluate classical composition may influence perspective significantly.  One response named Bach/Mozart/Beethoven/Dvorak as benchmarks, yet that group itself spans close to 200 years.  All of them have composed music that has "stood the test of time" but in every case, not all of their output would meet that standard!  On the other hand, contemporary composers have not yet even TAKEN the "test of time", so the distilling of the wheat from the chaff is yet to come.

    For those so inclined, I offer the following compositions of the last 60 years as having the potential to establish the same level of performing tradition and audience reverence as the staples of the 18th-19th century masters:

    Shostakovich - Symphony No. 10

    Britten - War Requiem

    Bernstein - Chichester Psalms

    Rzewski - Variations on "The People United Will Never Be Defeated"

    Golijov - La Pasion Segun San Marcos

    Lieberson - Neruda Songs

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    Here ya go.....have a vote

     

    http://www.planetrock.com/promotions/most-influential-rock-band-poll/who-are-the-most-influential-rock-band/

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

     

     
    Frankly, I am beginning to think about starting a new thread.  :)

    My thoughts are similar to yours -- consumers vs. performers.  I, quite honestly, don't care either.   I read the liner notes, but if I see that some of the songs on a CD are not written by the band, that makes no difference to me.  Why would it?   

     

    I love Allison Krauss' album of covers.  It was the first album that brought her to my attention.  I knew she didn't write "Now that I've found you", but I also didn't know who actually wrote it, until I read the liner notes; I never heard of the songwriters. Come to think of it, AK doesn't write LOADS of the songs she sings ... does she?    I never even think about it.   The songs would be nothing without her.   



    I had Allison Krauss in the back of my mind when I was thinking about successful performers who don't write their own songs.

    When it comes to music, I always follow my ears, first amd foremost. But I am also on my never ending educational journey and enjoy learning all I can about music and all entertainment in general. This is another aspect of how I enjoy music, but it is quite separate from the act of listening to music for pleasure. Certain performers bring something special to a song that often transcends the song itself. That's when it becomes the singer, not the song.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to RogerTaylor's comment:



    Done.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to polar123's comment:

     


    This same question pertains to popular music.  Will there ever be songwriters that compare to the Beatles?  We're inclined to think not.  I tend to think that the musical form itself is a finite resource of material that is eventually exhausted.

     

     I think Simon and (Garfunkel) gave the Beatles a run for their Money, as composers, and performers, but that's just me. This is a great discussion, but it is like spinning plates.

     



    Ah, Simon and Garfunkle.  Great songs, great vocals.  Once they split up, what happened to the careers of composer Paul Simon and singer Art Gartfunkle?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     


    Frankly, I am beginning to think about starting a new thread.  :)

    My thoughts are similar to yours -- consumers vs. performers.  I, quite honestly, don't care either.   I read the liner notes, but if I see that some of the songs on a CD are not written by the band, that makes no difference to me.  Why would it?   

     

    I love Allison Krauss' album of covers.  It was the first album that brought her to my attention.  I knew she didn't write "Now that I've found you", but I also didn't know who actually wrote it, until I read the liner notes; I never heard of the songwriters. Come to think of it, AK doesn't write LOADS of the songs she sings ... does she?    I never even think about it.   The songs would be nothing without her.   



    Now me, I can't imagine ever buying a record of covers by a contemporary band.  Anybody can sing a bunch of covers, but very few people can create original music.  Nor would I go see a cover band play.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    I read the liner notes, but if I see that some of the songs on a CD are not written by the band, that makes no difference to me.  Why would it? 

     


    I like to know, since I like comparing my favorite bands covers of songs.

     

    The Doors' vs. Stones' cover of Dixon's "Little Red Rooster", for example.

    (Doors wins by about a light year. NY Felt forum shows, for anyone interested).



    My comment was taken out of context ... I didn't mean to imply I don't care *at all*, in terms of knowing ; I meant that it didn't have any bearing on how much I like a song or the interpretation of it.  

    There are times when I wouldn't know if a song was original or not on an album until I check the liner notes; it depends.    

    EX: Jeff Buckley's "Grace" album -- I knew Buckley was covering Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujiah' (known and obvious to me); OTOH, I had never heard 'Lilac Wine', and loved the song; it wasn't until I read the liner notes that I saw it wasn't written by Buckley.  In that instance, I was glad and interested to learn who wrote the song (esp. since it was introduced many years ago, I'd just never heard it)  -- but my affinity to the song, as sung and interpreted by Buckley, didn't change, and that is the proper context in saying that it makes no difference to me.   

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     


    Frankly, I am beginning to think about starting a new thread.  :)

    My thoughts are similar to yours -- consumers vs. performers.  I, quite honestly, don't care either.   I read the liner notes, but if I see that some of the songs on a CD are not written by the band, that makes no difference to me.  Why would it?   

     

    I love Allison Krauss' album of covers.  It was the first album that brought her to my attention.  I knew she didn't write "Now that I've found you", but I also didn't know who actually wrote it, until I read the liner notes; I never heard of the songwriters. Come to think of it, AK doesn't write LOADS of the songs she sings ... does she?    I never even think about it.   The songs would be nothing without her.   

     



    Now me, I can't imagine ever buying a record of covers by a contemporary band.  Anybody can sing a bunch of covers, but very few people can create original music.  Nor would I go see a cover band play.

     

     



    Allison Krauss isn't a "contemporary band", so it's probably not a fair comparison; she doesn't necessarily cover songs, either; she sings lots of traditional bluegrass / folk  songs written by songwriters whose songs are interpreted by various singers, not covered (beside the point).  Well over 50% of that particular Krauss album was unknown to me, since the songs were from a genre that was off my normal radar.  

    I wouldn't buy a record of covers, either (unless it was, perhaps, an interesting tribute album for an artist being paid tribute that I found intriguing).  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:


    Now me, I can't imagine ever buying a record of covers by a contemporary band.  Anybody can sing a bunch of covers, but very few people can create original music.  Nor would I go see a cover band play. 



    What if band members write the music but they enlist someone outside the band to write the lyrics...how does that affect your opinion of the band?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    Some performers combine performing songs that others have previously recorded with songs by songwriters who just write songs. Not every song not written by the singer is necessarily a cover. It may have been written by a songwriter hoping to make some money by getting a performer to sing it. But for me, it still doesn't matter. If a great performer makes an album of "covers" and really puts their personal stamp on it, it can be successful. I will listen to anything I enjoy, regardless of how it was created. I don't see the sense in limiting my musical enjoyment based on superficial things.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

     

    Allison Krauss isn't a "contemporary band", so it's probably not a fair comparison; she doesn't necessarily cover songs, either; she sings lots of traditional bluegrass / folk  songs written by songwriters whose songs are interpreted by various singers, not covered (beside the point).  Well over 50% of that particular Krauss album was unknown to me, since the songs were from a genre that was off my normal radar.  

     

    I wouldn't buy a record of covers, either (unless it was, perhaps, an interesting tribute album for an artist being paid tribute that I found intriguing).  




    Fair enough; I've never heard of her before and made an assumption.  Certain types of music lend themselves to "re-interpretion" (for lack of a better word).  Lots of Blues singers sang each others' songs and that doesn't bother me at all....Bluegrass and Folk also similar, IMO.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

     

    What if band members write the music but they enlist someone outside the band to write the lyrics...how does that affect your opinion of the band?

     




    That works for me as the band is creating.  

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Some performers combine performing songs that others have previously recorded with songs by songwriters who just write songs. Not every song not written by the singer is necessarily a cover. It may have been written by a songwriter hoping to make some money by getting a performer to sing it. But for me, it still doesn't matter. If a great performer makes an album of "covers" and really puts their personal stamp on it, it can be successful. I will listen to anything I enjoy, regardless of how it was created. I don't see the sense in limiting my musical enjoyment based on superficial things.



    But David, what's superficial to you is paramount to me.  Let's face it, if a singer/band has 12 great original songs they are really proud of and want to make an album they are NOT going to leave 6 out to put in 6 covers...singing other peoples' songs and making far less money as they won't get any pubishing on the 6 covers.  They would only have 6 covers if they were unable to come up with 12 strong originals.  

    Do you think Rod Stewart chucked away a batch of great originals in favour of his standards album a few years ago?  Or did his well run dry decades ago?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    Some performers combine performing songs that others have previously recorded with songs by songwriters who just write songs. Not every song not written by the singer is necessarily a cover. It may have been written by a songwriter hoping to make some money by getting a performer to sing it. But for me, it still doesn't matter. If a great performer makes an album of "covers" and really puts their personal stamp on it, it can be successful. I will listen to anything I enjoy, regardless of how it was created. I don't see the sense in limiting my musical enjoyment based on superficial things.

     



    But David, what's superficial to you is paramount to me.  Let's face it, if a singer/band has 12 great original songs they are really proud of and want to make an album they are NOT going to leave 6 out to put in 6 covers...singing other peoples' songs and making far less money as they won't get any pubishing on the 6 covers.  They would only have 6 covers if they were unable to come up with 12 strong originals.  

     

    Do you think Rod Stewart chucked away a batch of great originals in favour of his standards album a few years ago?  Or did his well run dry decades ago?



    It is paramount to you because you choose to make it that. You are free to purposely limit the scope of music you will listen to. But it has little to do with the actual music. If you heard some music in a blind test without knowing how it was created, how would you know whether to enjoy it or not?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    Some performers combine performing songs that others have previously recorded with songs by songwriters who just write songs. Not every song not written by the singer is necessarily a cover. It may have been written by a songwriter hoping to make some money by getting a performer to sing it. But for me, it still doesn't matter. If a great performer makes an album of "covers" and really puts their personal stamp on it, it can be successful. I will listen to anything I enjoy, regardless of how it was created. I don't see the sense in limiting my musical enjoyment based on superficial things.

     



    But David, what's superficial to you is paramount to me.  Let's face it, if a singer/band has 12 great original songs they are really proud of and want to make an album they are NOT going to leave 6 out to put in 6 covers...singing other peoples' songs and making far less money as they won't get any pubishing on the 6 covers.  They would only have 6 covers if they were unable to come up with 12 strong originals.  

     

    Do you think Rod Stewart chucked away a batch of great originals in favour of his standards album a few years ago?  Or did his well run dry decades ago?

     



    It is paramount to you because you choose to make it that. You are free to purposely limit the scope of music you will listen to. But it has little to do with the actual music. If you heard some music in a blind test without knowing how it was created, how would you know whether to enjoy it or not?

     




    An analogy would be if you saw a masterful fake of Van Gogh painting you had never seen before would you enjoy it (assuming you like Van Gogh)?  Sure.  Then if you later found out it was a fake would you still appreciate the brush strokes, the subject, the perspective, the light, etc?  Probably.  But you wouldn't like it as much once you found out it was someone else's inspiration, Van Gogh's.

    Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    (btw, I would bet that few people listen to as much new music every week as I do)

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    Some performers combine performing songs that others have previously recorded with songs by songwriters who just write songs. Not every song not written by the singer is necessarily a cover. It may have been written by a songwriter hoping to make some money by getting a performer to sing it. But for me, it still doesn't matter. If a great performer makes an album of "covers" and really puts their personal stamp on it, it can be successful. I will listen to anything I enjoy, regardless of how it was created. I don't see the sense in limiting my musical enjoyment based on superficial things.

     



    But David, what's superficial to you is paramount to me.  Let's face it, if a singer/band has 12 great original songs they are really proud of and want to make an album they are NOT going to leave 6 out to put in 6 covers...singing other peoples' songs and making far less money as they won't get any pubishing on the 6 covers.  They would only have 6 covers if they were unable to come up with 12 strong originals.  

     

    Do you think Rod Stewart chucked away a batch of great originals in favour of his standards album a few years ago?  Or did his well run dry decades ago?

     



    It is paramount to you because you choose to make it that. You are free to purposely limit the scope of music you will listen to. But it has little to do with the actual music. If you heard some music in a blind test without knowing how it was created, how would you know whether to enjoy it or not?

     

     




     

    An analogy would be if you saw a masterful fake of Van Gogh painting you had never seen before would you enjoy it (assuming you like Van Gogh)?  Sure.  Then if you later found out it was a fake would you still appreciate the brush strokes, the subject, the perspective, the light, etc?  Probably.  But you wouldn't like it as much once you found out it was someone else's inspiration, Van Gogh's.

    Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

     



    That's not really a good analogy. But if it was a good copy of Van Gogh, it would not alter the pleasure I got in looking at it. In fact, I have mainly seen reproductions of paintings. I don't need to see the original to enjoy the overall effect of the painting.

    You are creating a fantasy world about the writer and inspiration, and you are free to to that. Someone can come up with a song in that way that I don't enjoy. The inspiration does not make the song any more enjoyable than an "uninspired" song sung in an inspiring way. It has nothing to do with thinking I can sing that. Many soul singers performed songs written by others, and while I may be able to sing some of them, I don't for a moment kid myself that I can sing them as good.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

     


    I can respect that.  Originality is a admirable goal for any artist as well as any art lover.  I can also respect your apparent disdain for formalism and the shallow attempts sway opinion rather than elicit a response.

    But it might pain you to know just how many of the world's masterpieces - in all art forms - are quite literally (some intentionally) a crib of someone else's work.  I'm not saying creative genius doesn't exist.  It does, but it's so rare as to be unrecognizable...until later, perhaps.

    Art seldom exists in a vacuum.  And when it does, there's usually a darn good reason.

    Often, it's why artists usually start out by imitating someone else first.  Even Jackson Pollock tried painting landscapes in a post-impressionist style.

     

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    (btw, I would bet that few people listen to as much new music every week as I do)



    You're lucky.

    That's kind of my dream job.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share