Is Grimes the best artist of the last 1 or 2 decades?

dog ate my homework, need extension.

its just people who like grimes, they want to elevate her and feel validation from others liking her too. knowing that some people dislike or even hate her creates a dissonance in their mind they need to alleviate. by saying she is the "best"

Art Angels was a very solid album, but I think Grimes can do a lot more

>>72733562
OP here, its not like i dislike her music, i usually love her delivery and also think art angels to be a pretty nice pop album.

its just that the best nomination is kinda silly.

File: 1409694323525.jpg (28KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x500px

stop these threads.

grimeth isn't bad, but she isn't that good.

AVERAGE AS FUCK.

>>72733488
>Is Grimes the best artist of the last 1 or 2 decades?
Of course. I've never heard a more compelling musician in this decade. Her music is very immersive and enjoyable. She has the gift of squeezing every bit of melody from her songs; they're packed with hooks over hooks. And the most important thing: I've never got tired of her music. Her songs refuse to get stale.

If there's a female musician that has the chance to be regarded as a legend in the next decade, Grimes is.

>>72733590
of course its silly, no one can be the "best" artist. it doesnt even make sense. the people just love her and want to exalt her. consider it a symptom of a rotten and godless work that we live in. people need meaning and fullness and beauty, get it where you can

>>72733609
all of your arguments are literally "I like her, she's the best"
kindly kys yourself

>>72733488
>I see a bunch of these threads every single day, and there I am wondering if its serious, or if it is, then what made people arrive at that conclusion?
You have to listen to her music for a while to understand what's the deal with that praise. To prove such a subjective thing (the artist of the last 1 or 2 decades) is a futile attempt.

>>72733652
>all of your arguments are literally "I like her, she's the best"
Music taste is subjective, cunt. Those are my opinions, deal with them.

>kindly kys yourself
>shooting in his own foot (argument)

>>72733488
>You do realise that your supposed best musician of the last 10 or 20 years is a girl in her 20s who thinks that Justin Bieber is underrated, hates ambient music and sums up Skinny Puppys discography by listening to a singles collection because its "less painful" that way?

it's most obviously that she did it on purpose. she most likely wanted to be controvrsial (thus more discussed), and/or noticeable among others 'what's in my bag'. she's pretentious.

judging by many namedrops, and her lastfm she's a former /mu/tant who actually got successful. she wanted to be more discussed on here.

>>72733488
Contrapuntal voice-leading in the context of thoroughly contemporary pop music. I can explain further what I'm talking about in great technical detail if you like (I have a professional background in classical music/extensive formal training in the ways of musicology.)

Absolute, pure, shite.

>>72733839
please do

File: dc785145be4940f0864b9bb25081efa6.jpg (67KB, 1000x437px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1000x437px

>>72733488
>Whats this incredible "musical complexity" thing she features in her music? I know her discography backwards and front, so feel free to explain me the complexity of one of her songs, which I apparently dont recognise.
The complexity in her music is in the details. She makes complex songs sound efortless. There are tons of little elements that work perfectly that make her music hugely entertaining. Count also the interplay between those elements and her voice. Almost every listen reveals a little element that I had no idea it existed - e.g. Flesh Without Blood has a strange horn-like sound at 4:15 that seems random but it's very well placed. Another important thing: arrangements. They're expertly made. And finally: there's soul in her music. It takes talent to turn a cold, stark and overdone genre like synthpop into something so addictive and emotional.

>What about her music being innovative?
It's innovative because she made an 1980s genre (synthpop) fresh again by mixing it with influences from IDM, medieval, classical, drampop, R&B, J-Pop, K-Pop, alt rock, industrial, country. There are literally zero artists with the range of her songs (from Heartbeats to Scream). She craved her own genre and nobody is like her. Grimes is not the new Bjork, Kate Bush, whatever. Grimes is Grimes.

>You do realise that your supposed best musician of the last 10 or 20 years is a girl in her 20s who thinks that Justin Bieber is underrated, hates ambient music and sums up Skinny Puppys discography by listening to a singles collection because its "less painful" that way?
I have no problem with that. What she likes is her own business. What it matters is her music, which is frankly amazing. And tbch I love the fact she's so against the grain and sticks to her guns - e.g. defending an uncool artist like Mariah Carey; that certainly pissed off the hipster part of her fanbase.

>>72733839
Not OP, but I'd like further explanation if you don't mind. I'm neutral in this discussion. Just want to see where people are coming from.

>>72733884
i'm glad you wanted to feel part for this anon

>>72733884
Not an argument.

File: 1487982001249.jpg (236KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1280x720px

>>72733488
Art angels fucking sucked and you know it

>>72733839
>>72733885
>>72733901
Working on it - gonna do this right if I'm gonna do it at all...

>>72733890
The things you listed are valid. It doesn't seem like you just listen to her due to waifuism. What other artists are you into though?

Honestly I could say some of the same things for Death Grips. Hip hop was stale and they spiced it up by merging all kinds of other genres and sounds together to create their own sound.

File: gepsgcq4.jpg (111KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 600x315px

>>72733948
>t. contrarian
No matter how much you shitpost, still doesn't make it true.

>>72733890
Just listened to SCREAM and then Heartbeats. If you don't think any other artist has a larger variety in their work, you need to listen to more music. You were doing such a good job without exaggerating anything up until that point.

>>72733976
I genuinely enjoy her music. Believe me, when I heard her music for the first time it didn't impress me. It grew on me with each listen.

>What other artists are you into though?
To name a few: Ashra, Can, Tangerine Dream, Neu!, Amon Duul II, Cluster, Gas, The Field, Sven Vath, Tiesto, Slowdive, Frank Zappa, Brian Eno, New Order, Nirvana, Disco Inferno, LCD Soundsystem, Daft Punk, most Warp Records artists, Global Communication, The Prodigy, The Clash, Jimi Hendrix, Sly and the Family Stone, T.Rex, Roxy Music, Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis, Mingus, Carly Rae Jepsen, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Arcade Fire, Washed Out, Enya, Cocteau Twins, Dead Can Dance, FSOL, Vangelis, Kraftwerk, Gorillaz, Dr. Dre, Outkast, FLA, Skinny Puppy, LFO, Coldplay, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Motorhead, Hawkwind, Scott Walker, Francoise Hardy, ABBA, Blur, The Beatles, The Human League, AIR, M.I.A., Kendrick Lamar, The Flaming Lips, Pink Floyd, The Orb, Armin van Buuren, Green Day, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Primal Scream, Moderat, Devo, Art of Noise, Queen, Kate Bush, Peter Gabriel, Depeche Mode, The Cure, Bjork, Bach, Feist, David Bowie, Front 242, Pop Will Eat Itself, The Stone Roses......................

Pretty common, I guess.

>>72734157
I love Grimes too, just stopping by to say that I like your taste. Basically everything I listen to is on there.

>>72734053
>If you don't think any other artist has a larger variety in their work, you need to listen to more music.
I exaggerated a little to enhance my point. However, I listened to a fairly large amount of music as you can see here >>72734157 Most artists stick to a certain style and they're not that diverse.

>>72734196
That's cool. Most Grimes fans I met have at least a decent taste in music.

>>72733592
>isn't bad, but she isn't that good. AVERAGE AS FUCK.
you just described most of /mu/core

>stop these threads
why?

OP here.
This thread turned out to be a lot more peaceful than I expected.
I love it.

>>72733948
Grimes said on twitter: "You just don't like it." That sums up your opinion. I suggest you to give it a try again.

>>72734246
Grimes has that effect on people.

>>72734277
i really hope we see evidence of this

>>72734284
funny you should say that, i dont think there are any other artist who generate as much fight here as her

File: 1.png (65KB, 500x346px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x346px

>>72734296
She didn't say it to that anon, but you get the idea. Liking or disliking an album is a mere subjective thing.

>>72734356
right, people just don't like it

>>72734426
SOME people just don't like it. If you love melodies it's very likely that you will enjoy AA. The only difficult thing is liking her voice. If you get into her voice, there's a big chance you will enjoy her entire discography.

>>72734452
i love how she preaches to people to be accepting of theirselves. Xx

>>72734477
So many people are just pretending. Pretending to be smart, pretending to like certain music/movies/persons..., pretending to be rich, pretending to work, pretending to be nice, pretending to shitpost, pretending to give a fuck. Being yourself it's not that easy. First, you have to be self aware about who you really are.

steinvord ghost produced grimes

>>72734713
Huh? Better prove that.

>>72734527
i think it's important to care about why people are insecure and needing to identify with whatever works for them, and not to villainize people so much. niceness works by choice. you're self-projecting a little.

>>72734713
the single tracks?

dumb troll thread

>>72733609
6/10 parody, but the bit about her melodies being interesting and varied is a bit too obvious.
Try spinning her monotonous melodies into something like "hypnotic" or "artful repetition" next time.

>>72734809
>you're self-projecting a little.
Sometimes I pretend but most of the time I'm trying to be myself.

>>72734826
>her monotonous melodies
You have no idea what are you talking about. She's not a drone artist, ffs. Do you think all these people that praised her great melodies are lying?

>>72733488
You know, if she was really that good you Grimes fags wouldn't need to constantly be trying to convince others (or yourselves) how great she is

>>72734847
i'd like to be myself

>>72735039
i mean i'd like to feel like a real person

>>72735048
i do that all the time though, it's easy

File: die.jpg (186KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 900x506px

>>72733488

How to be Grimes :

1. be smelly and cute
2. get bottom of the barrel amateur audio equipment/synthesizers you couldn't give away to someone that uses fruityloops
3. don't read any manuals or know jackshit
4. binge on amphetamines
5. tumblr

>>72735109
it's really difficult to be nice to grimes

>>72735097
But then why hasn't anyone else done it

White girls get all the luck. You don't have to be pretty or even talented but if you got white skin then you damn near have a free pass in the world. Sure, there are musicians currently pushing the boundaries of modern sound but no, let's fawn over some average white chick that like to sing over shoe gaze records.

>>72735227
but she is talented

>>72733885
>>72733901

First some examples of what I'm talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-aWEYezEMk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtH68PJIQLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv9YoYCKNoE

One of the main things that separates "art music" from "pop music" (insomuch as such a distinction ISN'T just a meme perpetuated by sub-par musicians to justify why it is their sub-par "classical" compositions aren't more popular) is in the way lyricism (words in vocals, distinctive melodic hooks in either vocals or instrumentals) is used in the overall composition.

Generally speaking, popular music sticks to an underlying formula where brand new lyrical material in vocals (again, either words or distinctive melodic hooks) only ever gets introduced a single element at a time, and accompanied by already-heard musical material wherever possible (the essence of verse-chorus form.) For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNaR-rxAic
The reasoning behind this is simple: the primary purpose of pop music is to facilitate direct verbal communication between a solo singer and a listener (ever wonder why instrumentals-only pop virtually doesn't exist? Now you know.) It's a musical simulation of a one-to-one conversation, and - just like irl - having more than one unique voice going at the same time in a conversation makes the whole thing unintelligible on FIRST LISTEN*.

[1/2]

>>72735328
[2/2]

Now go back and listen to the Grimes' tracks I linked to earlier and notice how often she breaks this single-brand-new-lyrical-element-at-a-time rule, especially in terms of multiple vocal lines singing drastically different words/rhythms at the same time FOR THE FIRST TIME (aka contrapuntal voice leading.) This degree of compositional formula rule-breaking in pop music to the point where formal structure starts to blur with distinctly classical compositional styles is pretty much unprecedented in the contemporary pop music landscape, and is a HUGE DEAL in terms of demonstrating how contemporary musical sounds are going to translate into the wider classical musical canon as future decades/centuries go by (whether she originally meant it as an empty boast or not, Grimes is quite literally the future of western musical composition.)

* Btw this FIRST LISTEN business is where the whole art vs. pop music distinction actually comes into play. Conversations are normally one-time events: have an idea -> verbalize it -> transmit idea -> idea received. Then on to the next idea. Music performance, however, includes the concept of repetition. Didn't understand something the first time? Just go back and listen/perform/study it over again until you do. If "pop music" is about direct communication - as postulated above - then "art music" amounts to the exact opposite - indirect communication. The advantage to "art music" is that a lot more information can be communicated through a given amount of it than with pop music. Pop music delivers a handful of ideas directly, whereas art music delivers a multitude of ideas obscurely. Which one is better depends entirely on the number of ideas the artist is trying to convey, and either one extremely well-done is virtually indistinguishable from the other (great pop music is catchy on the surface but has layers to it; great art music has layers to it but is catchy on the surface.)

>>72734826
see
>>72735328
And yes - I wrote it myself.

>>72734901
>Grimes fags
>expecting to be taken seriously
Up your game, "fag" boy.

>>72734157
Nice. I like your taste. I'm kind of indifferent about Grimes. I like a lot of her music and I find it enjoyable. Just trying to see where people are coming from when they say she's one of the best artists of this decade. Thanks for being civil and not weird like the one Grimes poster on here.

>>72734333
Yeah I agree. I think that the majority of this board is middle of the road like me. I enjoy her. She makes pleasant music. Don't think she's revolutionary, but there is definitely nothing wrong with her music. It's just the load few on either side of the argument that make it seem like she's a polarizing artist.

>>72735328
>>72735337
Thanks! Will listen to the songs you linked.

>>72735791

I definitely think she's at least innovative. Like, the layering of samples on Visions is pretty damn special and unique. The layering was still present on Art Angels (my favorite of hers), it's just that it's a much more accessible album
.
I don't think she's anything truly revolutionary, but I really do love her music. I think she definitely deserves her good reviews. Plus she's a great role model for young people. For those that don't know, Grimes does vocals, production, mastering, album art, music video direction, etc. so she's basically a one woman machine.

If I seemed to overstate anything, it wasn't intentional. I'm not one of the obsessive Grimes fags, I just think she deserves credit where it's due.

>>72735879
Cool. I can agree with this. I think these discussions usually turn sour because of points being exaggerated. She's deserves credit but I understand the other side scoffing whenever people say she's revolutionary and the best female artist of all time.

>>72735328
>>72735337
This is just embarrassing.

>>72736083
Trolls will be trolls. E.g. >>72736356

>>72735444
Someone sounds butthurt

>>72736356
You're deadass just mad that there's theoretical justification for Grimes being one of the best artists on earth, while there is no justification for your favorite artists of today. Because Grimes is better than your favorite artists.

>>72735328
>>72735337
Good posts. Well done, classical anon. You should write a book about Grimes.

>>72735768
Thanks for compliment. As you can see, my music taste is highly compatible with her music. Besides R&B and J-Pop/K-Pop I dig most of her music taste.

>>72733488
she has one song and nothing more IMO
the others wont connect to me

just like skrillex had maybe max. 2 songs and Michael jackson had one

>>72735791
I think she's quite revolutionary. There's a reason why her music incites such interest. You don't see anything special about it because you don't really understand it. It's seems to be just synthpop but it's much more than that.

Theory: Grimes is talented but inconsistent because she was and still is a serious drug addict. She just hides it better now. Her best songs were composed, recorded, and produced with the right combination of luck and drugs.

In all her Visions interviews, she says her songs all came in "visions" induced by her long, sleepless amphetamine binge. Then when the media started portraying her as a druggie, she tried to downplay it.

In multiple Art Angels interviews, she says she started most of her songs by smoking weed, fucking around on the guitar, and picking the best parts then developing from there. But this was years after the drug-glamorization bad PR, so it's quite possible she only mentioned weed but omitted other drugs used in the process.

She says she's unable to perform live without drugs. Several /mu/tants have reported she acted like she was on speed during performances.

Of course, lots of great musicians use and abuse drugs, but I'd bet Oblivion, Genesis, and Kill v. Maim were all made when she was super fucked up.

Re: title, she's maybe the best female solo act or best female alt-pop artist of the decade so far, but that's about it. AA is arguably in the top 10 or 5 pop records of the decade (if you cut some songs).

>>72735328
>>72735337
I'm a Grimes senpai but this is a shitty point. She uses a lot of counterpoint, especially with "groovy" and syncopated rhythms, but she doesn't do much voice leading, especially in

Your breakdown of pop music's fundamental elements aren't wrong but are only one piece of the puzzle. Grimes is certainly more adventurous than mainstream pop artists (Taylor Swift, Katy Perry) but nearly all of Grimes' songs are very poppy.

Most Grimes songs have an infinitely looping chord progression running through most sections (unlike classical). Most Grimes songs are verse-chorus-verse (unlike classical). In fact, they're nearly always close to verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus. Sometimes with intros, outros, and pre-choruses, sometimes extended a bit in her longer songs, but still pretty much following the pop "macro structure" formula.

As a composer she just isn't very experimental, and isn't anywhere near classical composers. She is only interesting and unique as a producer (tons of nice effects, automation, sample choice, and sound design), arranger, and performer.

Grimes' song style is similar to experimental pop groups like Animal Collective (one of her inspirations). Still pop, but a bit less compositionally formulaic, and cooler timbres and rhythms. Though AC is actually often more compositionally experimental and creative.

>>72736356
Bullshit. That anon did a solid analysis. You? Just shitposting.

>>72735337
>(great pop music is catchy on the surface but has layers to it; great art music has layers to it but is catchy on the surface.)
What did he mean by this?

>>72738677
>but nearly all of Grimes' songs are very poppy.
They're not that poppy. Pop music isn't as weird as her songs.

>>72738677
>As a composer she just isn't very experimental, and isn't anywhere near classical composers.
Why not? She's able to make music that keeps the interest high on every single second. How many classical composers could claim that? Lots of classical pieces have lots of boring parts. Her music has almost zero boring parts.

>>72739058
They follow the pop structure, just not the pop singing or instrumental style typically. She makes much more captivating instrumentals which can stand on their own, while the Taylor Swifts have very light, super simple and repetitive instrumentals that get out of the way of the vocals.

>>72739090
I'm not saying her music is WORSE than classical. I prefer listening to Grimes than classical. I'm just refuting that poster's argument that her compositions are somehow similar to classical music.

>>72733890
An artist from the last 1-2 decades that I think has an even more varied output is Boris (honestly the best imho). Listen to something like Absolutego and then Party Boy

>>72739138
Maybe he said she took inspiration from classical (she actually listened to a lot of classical music, esp. Russian composers). Her music is still pop, but a weirder kind.

>>72739147
I never understood the appeal of this band. Their music is plain annoying.

>>72739122
Maybe thats why I like her so much: her instrumentals aren't decorative parts for vocals, they carry a lot of melody and could stand on their own. That separates her from 99.99% of popstars.

>>72739591
Me too. The instrumental version of AA is great.

>>72739669
Visions, even more