what's the profile of people who like 'extreme'

Socially-challenged

Probably just obsessive or artistic

autister

>>74221908
whoops I forgot
>inb4 synonyms for autism

>>74221923
whoops I forgot
>inb4 intentional and cute misspellings of autism

dumb but think they are very very smart, bad taste (in a scientific sense)

>>74221913
i.e. homosexual

>>74221888
bored of softer sounds

>>74222001
Gotta be pretty retarded if you think listening to pop makes you smart

>>74222001
>(in a scientific sense)
dork

File: Schiller.jpg (1MB, 2230x3072px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2230x3072px

>>74222088
People that listen to regular radio pop are probably smarter than people who listen to badly produced, composed and performed pop music and mistake it for art.
>>74222092
Aesthetics, and thus Taste are objective sciences.

>>74222133
>badly produced, composed and performed pop music
elaborate

>>74222133
>and thus
>attaching portrait of philo mans for cred
embarrassing!

>>74222133
your mothers dick is an objective science homo

>>74221888
phils is such a dad on twitter

File: Anton_Graff_-_Friedrich_Schiller.jpg (337KB, 930x1206px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 930x1206px

>>74222141
"experimental music" is just popular music created and performed by the unskilled and untalented for the undiscerning ear. It is no way anymore valuable, beautiful or cerebral than whatever is played on the radio, very likely less as the music on the radio, though it lacks any sense of grace, vision or beauty, is at the very least created and performed by shrewd technicians and skilled craftsmen.

>>74222189
But if it isn't appealing to the popular taste, then isn't it by definition not popular music? Unless you mean it sounds the same for all intensive purposes.

>>74222189
id hate to have to hear you impotently talk about how wagner was peak art or whatever
>>74222215
my moneys on him being one of those retards that misappropriate the axiomatic triangle

>>74222189
frigg off

File: friedrich-schiller.jpg (125KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 540x540px

>>74222215
It is structurally and functionally the same as any other piece of popular music.

File: Samuel Hyde.jpg.jpg (91KB, 504x694px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 504x694px

>>74222253
agreed my friend.

>>74222237
Wagner /was/ one of the very best composers though

But the other poster is retarded. The "experimental" music i listen to is a lot closer to art music than pop music is. Not to say pop is shit, but experimental usually is better. Its still such a meaningless term who knows what were talking about though

File: Schiller_Stahlstich_Graphik__500x685_.jpg (81KB, 500x685px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x685px

>>74222237
>wagner
Wrong, his works constitute perhaps the single most significant move away from Ideal music and towards profane anti-art.
>misappropriate the axiomatic triangle
It is a fact that all popular music is functionally and structurally the same, anyone that has any knowledge of the science of music can tell you that. It is also particularly profane and ugly music, "experimental music" doubly so as it is akin to shoddy carpentry more than anything else.

>>74222189
Oh, so, you're the "visceral" guy, but with the cerebral narrative now.

>>74222133
>>74222189
>>74222253
>>74222340
this is some fucking moronic bait

>>74222340
No one gives a fuck what you think if you think it was all downhill since the classical era, plebs and intellectuals alike. Fucking oddity

>>74221888
Who like extreme music, experimental music, or both?
Cause I have a friend who's a big death and black metalhead who thinks stuff like post-rock or IDM is boring shit. And another who's a big Swans fan but doesn't like metal.

>>74222189
I will never forgive myself for replying to this obvious bait.

Experimentation is the reason why progress exists within anything.

As inane as it might sound, it takes some degree of talent to experiment and have some success with it.

>>74222517
me

>>74222189
fucking this
is everyone stupid?
any moron can noodle about on a guitar, keyboard and call it art
try writing a proper pop song
see how you go

>>74222559
Why are you assuming everything outside the norm is trivial?

>>74222189
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

File: arca-mutant-album[1].png (492KB, 807x807px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 807x807px

>>74222189
this guy is absolutely correct
retards listen to shit like pic related and think it resembles art music in any way, when it's just some retard fucking around with vst presets

>>74222559
Anyone can write a lazy pop song, not many people can make something that pushes boundaries in an engaging and affecting way

Wow look how i did that

>>74221888
Autistic Neets, I say that as a deep fan of EAI myself. I think you have to be a bit retarded to really appreciate this stuff

>>74222642
You only agree with him because your idea of "experimental" comes from teenagers on 4chan

>>74222642
this is some straw man bullshit, I'm pretty sure there's more to "experimental music" than that

>>74222656
>>74222670
most experimental music being created nowadays is done by people like arca and lies within the confines of pop music. I don't see how I'm wrong

>>74222559
>any moron can noodle about on a guitar, keyboard and call it art
Guess which instruments your favorite genre of music is made with. It's with synths and guitar. You know, synth pop?
>try writing a proper pop song
>see how you go
Because there's nothing more to music than chart placement.

>>74222678
I disagree. I think if we're talking about the greatest sum of experimental music then most of it belongs to the category of noise, of course, the popiest stuff is most popular but that's like saying that most music is pop music because pop music is most popular.

>>74222678
most? jesus christ you need to listen to more music

>>74222670
>>74222656
A lot of people misunderstand the purpose of experimental music, and as a result, they have pretty myopic perspectives of what bands and artists compose the genre.

>>74222708
the thing is, the term "experimental" doesn't really offer anything of substance to begin with

if you take it to mean anything outside of the usual stuff, that's extraordinarily broad, but most people doing that kind of thing wouldn't intentionally self-identify as "experimental" because it sounds kind of naive and dumb

>>74222602
i'm not saying that. there are many fantastic experimental songs and albums. just saying that melody, hooks , riffs and choruses are not trivial.

>>74222417
>>74222353
Just search the archive and look for his posts from a couple of days ago.

>>74222700
Read any publication dedicated to experimental music like Wire or Quietus, literally 95% of artists there are working withing popular music. Also

>implying noise can't be popular music

>>74222706
not an argument

>>74222757
>just saying that melody, hooks , riffs and choruses are not trivial.
Sure, but there's more to music than chart placement and doing anything in your power to make music acceptable to the masses.

>>74222757
so you're saying nothing?

anyone can make shit music without trying, that goes for pop music too

>>74222781
>implying noise can't be popular music
Where have you seen people dancing to Loveless in clubs? Not that Loveless is a noise album, but that's what most casual music consumers write it off as.

>>74222833
https://youtu.be/zsCDVawMemI
How's this for a Friday night party? Let's not be unreasonable here.

>>74222559
I found a jazz sample I liked and looped it with a drum break I found in someone's soulseek folder. Sounded pretty good, took me about an hour, if I write an autistic rhyme about pussy and loop it I've got a pop song. The rest is luck and shilling. Anyone can do it. Now I've got a mixing board, a distortion pedal, an amp, and a cheap karaoke mic, and while I like where it's going, I know it's gonna take me a while to really find and hone a sound I love. Experimental music is genuinely much harder to make.

>>74222833
Have you ever seen someone dance to Robert Johnson? Does that make his work art music instead of popular music?

>>74222877
You're the "visceral" guy lost likely. There's no point.

>>74222896
Most*

File: Max_Martin[1].jpg (359KB, 905x1071px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 905x1071px

>>74222868
Your little loop probably sounds like dogshit, you probably lack the skill to realize it [via dunning kruger effect]. the songs that top billboard charts take herculean amounts of work to create. pic related is a most talented composer than the vast majority of experimental bullshitters

>>74222896
I'm not, and that's not an argument either.

>>74222930
>I'm not, and that's not an argument either.
No way of confirming, but whatever. So, what do you expect? Forty posts arguing about dictionary definitions or different genres of music?

>>74222930
>>74222679

>>74222930
k, max martin isn't most pop music. Plenty of it is imbecilic. Success doesn't mean substance.

>>74222975
>>74222982
The craft of his music is genius, the chart placement is just a consequence. Do you think it's a coincidence that this guy created over 20 #1 hits? He's got pop songwriting down to a science
Of course, pretentious people will have a hard time giving a fair creative assessment to anything that tops radio charts

>>74223037
Oh, writing the most predictable and safe sounding music results in chart placement just as a coincidence?

>>74222789
>>74222801
I don't want to live in a world of bubblegum pop either, anons. I was just trying to point out that there is a genius involved in writing a hit song that the whole world loves. And if you can do that consistently over many years, decades even, then you may be a genius yourself.

>>74223050
And yes:
>He's got pop songwriting down to a science
The trait of a true artist and an innovator.

>>74223050
Like I said, pretentious people will have a hard time giving a fair assessment to anything that tops radio charts

>>74223037
I love that you reply with "not an argument" when your posts are filled with logical fallacies.

Of course Max Martin is a great songwriter. And Quincy Jones. And Trevor Horn. No one would deny that, so stop making such a fucking stupid straw man argument. They don't make all pop music. Just like Arca doesn't make all "experimental" music.

>>74223074
>And if you can do that consistently over many years, decades even, then you may be a genius yourself.
Again, why over romanticize it so much? I can appreciate producers like him as brilliant businessmen and nothing more.

>>74222930
Yeah I mean it's not perfect but after another hour of work and maybe another sample it'd certainly be better than any trap song.
Max Martin is horseshit for sure, I don't need all my music to be harsh noise levels of wankeringly experimental but I'd appreciate any semblance of something interesting happening. There's nothing good about the fucking Backstreet Boys.

Also, the Dunning Kruger effect is hardly the effect you want to be pulling out. It could just as easily apply to me as you, though I've already demonstrated that I'm insecure in my abilities to create music I actually care about. If anything, I've indicated that I'm on the underestimating side of Dunning Kruger.

>>74223090
Where did I exemplify such behavior? And you're not making an argument. Why should anyone take a man who's got pop songwriting down to a science seriously as an artist and not a businessman?

>>74223101
Businessman*

>>74223125
This. It takes some talent to craft popular music and forcefeed it to the masses, but that's not music talent, it's business talent. Max Martin is a great salesman, nothing more.

>>74223095
Read the posts I was replying to. How's it a strawman? The guy was saying some bullshit about chart placement

>>74223101
>can appreciate producers like him as brilliant businessmen and nothing more.
Yeah bro, he's just a businessman. All the great musical minds are posting drone mixtapes to their soundclouds...

>>74223123
Have you ever taken the time to dissect his songwriting? There's more interesting harmonic and melodic content in a Max Martin song than a thousand Arcas

>>74223125
>it's just safe and predictable bro!
what's even your background in music?

>>74223123
>Max Martin is horseshit for sure, I don't need all my music to be harsh noise levels of wankeringly experimental but I'd appreciate any semblance of something interesting happening.
The lyrics are awful (and really written to be ignored) but the harmonies and arrangements are excellent.

>>74223146
>Yeah bro, he's just a businessman. All the great musical minds are posting drone mixtapes to their soundclouds...
What are you even talking about? I'd suggest watching this:
https://youtu.be/f7yykcoyMcw
>it's just safe and predictable bro!
Uh, yes it is? And do you know how we determine that?
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bmvxvm/a-machine-successfully-predicted-the-hit-dance-songs-of-2015
https://www.wired.com/2011/12/hit-potential-equation/
>what's even your background in music?
The music I'm not willingly listening to when I'm outside.

>>74223146
I've never even listened to Arca, can you try responding to something I said? Why the fuck would I dissect a shitty pop song that was dated as soon as it came out? They're all invariably shallow, repetitive, and make for very unenjoyable listening after at most the third listen. Again, I don't even need experimentation, these songs just don't do anything well but sell. As long as we're throwing out intro-level psychology terms, the lyrics are blatant PT Barnum bullshit, there's literally nothing interesting happening at all.

>>74223146
This is how you're making shit arguments:

>Of course, pretentious people will have a hard time giving a fair creative assessment to anything that tops radio charts
>All the great musical minds are posting drone mixtapes to their soundclouds...

Do you not realize how retarded these statements are?

>>74223195
>can you try responding to something I said?
he's unfortunately not capable of that

>>74223194
To expand on predictability:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027241
We actually know the mechanisms of pop music's irresistability.

>>74223194
>>74223195
>>74223208
all your posts are cynical, smug representations of your ego and the average fan of "experimental" music's ego. you couldn't explain in a meaningful way how Max Martin's songwriting is bad and whatever shit you listen to is good to save your life, because you most likely lack the knowledge to do so. Like I said twice: you're too invested in this to give a fair assessment to pop songwriters.

>>74223185
They really aren't. They're meant to be initially soothing and simplistic enough to be remembered, but they're still incredibly repetitive and superficial. Not to mention anything he puts out could conceivably have come from the same session, there's almost nothing distinguishing sounds aside from the pop star of the week he decides to feature on his latest cash grab.

>>74223219
At this point, with how much I've taken it, I don't know if I still want it to be bait.

>>74223230
>all your posts are cynical, smug representations of your ego and the average fan of "experimental" music's ego.
not an argument, lol

>you couldn't explain in a meaningful way how Max Martin's songwriting is bad and whatever shit you listen to is good to save your life, because you most likely lack the knowledge to do so.
also not an argument

you suck at this

>>74223230
I >>74223194 couldn't explain anything in a meaningful way? I provided sources for every single on of my claims? I even went beyond that and for a good measure provided a study on the subject: >>74223225
Are you going to deliver anything other than personal attacks and character assassinations?

is this /pseud/ general?

>>74223250
>Are you going to deliver anything other than personal attacks and character assassinations?
do you need to ask at this point?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fndeDfaWCg
name an "experimental" song that employs a key change as devastating as the one in this song

>>74223250
did you even read the links you posted? the machine that "predicted" pop hits only pointed out absurdly generalistic characteristics of said hits like BPM, "loudness" and so on. Again, if making really successful pop songs is so easy, why so many people fail at it?

>>74223230
Dude I don't know what to fucking tell you. I like plenty of music that is in no way experimental, but pop continuously falls back on whatever trends stick and beats them into the ground to the point where they aren't making money. It's the reason you can always tell when pop is from immediately, it dates itself instantaneously. It's the same reason all trap sounds the same, blame DJ fucking Mustard for that. Then there's the bullshit quasi-"alternative", emotional pop, for which I blame Diplo. Pop is the antithesis to inspiration, it's exclusively cash grabs. Max Martin's bland hits are in no way an exception, they are equally uninspired and predictable.

>>74223242
>Not to mention anything he puts out could conceivably have come from the same session, there's almost nothing distinguishing sounds aside from the pop star of the week he decides to feature on his latest cash grab.
Not sure how that's a problem really. If you drop the illusion that the performer is ostensibly the "artist" you can just think of them all as Max Martin songs.

>>74223313
Can you explain in musical terms how Max Martin songs are bad? >inb4 predictable
And I agree with you that pop music follows trends to a certain extent, that doesn't mean at all that there's no room for artistry

>>74223317
Any band worth anything has some semblance of variation from album to album, whereas his hits from decades apart sound almost exactly the same. It's clear evidence that he doesn't want to try anything for fear of rocking the boat and not making his millions that week.

>>74223299
>name an "experimental" song that employs a key change as devastating as the one in this song
I like how you set this up so that you can move your goalposts regardless of what you're presented with. And of course that's totally what experimental music is aiming for in the first place.

>>74223273
If by that you mean masterpieces like these, then, yes it is.
>>74223146
>>74223230

>>74223326
No, it's 4 am here and I have no formal music education. Can you explain in musical terms anything good about them? They're overly reliant on musical tropes, the similarities from song to song are absurd to the point of insulting to the listener.

And honestly that's why it's so annoying, there's plenty of ROOM for artistry, but all the salesmen who run the industry refuse to popularize anything that tries to be artistic. Yankee Hotel Foxtrot made it big, but not before the label squashed it for two years. It became pop, but labels aren't willing to try anything in any way new until somebody else tests the waters.

>>74223329
So you think this song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F57P9C4SAW4

is the same as this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Sd5c4o9UM

that is also the same as this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug88HO2mg44

And is it really imperative for an artist to always attempt to innovate and change their modus operandi from time to time? Are you sure that's not your particular interpretation of the role of a creative artist?

>>74223329
um, ever listen to Muslimgauze, Merzbow, Whitehouse, Jandek? It's not like they don't have any range at all but they stick to formula at least as much

consistency isn't really a sin

>>74223299
>did you even read the links you posted?
Yes I have. And I've also read the study you decided to ignore.
>the machine that "predicted" pop hits only pointed out absurdly generalistic characteristics of said hits like BPM, "loudness" and so on.
Because that's what casual music listeners are impressed by. A beat that goes hard, "deep" breathy vocal performance is enough. You don't see people discussing chord changes and production techniques od their favorite pop songs.
>Again, if making really successful pop songs is so easy, why so many people fail at it?
>So many
How many? Who exactly failed? If you're going with statements like these, provide some evidence. And let's also not pretend that's a bad thing. Remember Scott Walker? That's not to say his pop career failed, he never truly wanted to be a pop star.

>>74223357
Stop obsessing about Max Martin and listen to, say, Burt Bacharach. Read about Scritti Politti.

>>74223363
It's not about songs being exact copies of each other, but you still refuse to get it.
https://youtu.be/f7yykcoyMcw
Watch this, be honest, and then come back to this thread. Certainly more interesting than reading big words >>74223225.
>And is it really imperative for an artist to always attempt to innovate and change their modus operandi from time to time?
That's how progress in any genre of music happened. This is common sense and you're presenting it as if it's out of everyone's depth.
>Are you sure that's not your particular interpretation of the role of a creative artist?
Certainly not having pop songwriting down to a science.

>>74223378
>You don't see people discussing chord changes and production techniques od their favorite pop songs.
What the fuck? Do you think that means the harmonic or melodic content of a song is unimportant? The fact that non-musicians can't explain it doesn't mean it isn't there. Like I said, those "studies" only pointed out very general trends in pop songwriting. They are not even close to the core of tenets to good, effective songwriting. I'm sure a similar machine parsing rock, electronic or even classical compositions from some particular period would be able to shit out a similar interpretation of trends in their composition. That means absolutely nothing.

>How many? Who exactly failed?
All the people who ever attempted to make it and you'll never hear their names or their songs in your lifetime. Are you really debating the harshness of playing field in the music industry? Very few ever make it. Scott Walker is a great songwriter btw, and he was successful to the point many of his pre-#woke songs are played daily until today in some places in the world.

>>74223363
Did you even try? All those songs have a simple, repetitive synth pattern, a drum loop, and interchangeable pretty vocalists who can hit all the notes in the song's range, with maybe a rapper feature to draw in the dudes who are too insecure to listen to a girly pop song. None of those songs had any characteristics different from the rest, even if the chord progression was slightly different.

>>74223364
I love Merzbow and Whitehouse, but Merzbow absolutely changes it up from release to release, and Whitehouse can get a little annoying if I try to listen to more than one album in a row. It's better when they let Peter throw in one of his field recordings to spice it up. Over all, they don't vary it as much as I'd like, I come to them in specific moods.
Still though, if you think Merzbow is just sticking to his formula then I really question how broad your experience with his work is, or at least how recently you've revisited it. Pulse Demon has very little in common with OM Electrique, neither have very much in common with Door Open at 8AM, and Hybrid Noisebloom sounds completely different from any of those three. Plus, while I don't much like his digital works, the fact that I can draw a distinction is evidence that they're clearly at least different, even if I think the change is for the worst. He's certainly not stagnating. And if you really think he's too repetitive, his massive list of collaborations holds staggering amounts of variety.

>>74223421
You are deliberately avoiding reading the actual study on the topic we're discussing and you're deflecting to different topics in each reply. And I didn't call articles from wired and vice studies, I referred to them as sources for my claims.
>Do you think that means that harmonic or melodic content of a song is unimportant?
That's not what I said, nor what I even implied and you didn't quote me on that because you couldn't.

>>74223415
Not every artist needs to be invested in the "progress" of the artform, whatever that means. Many just want to create good songs that people like to listen to. You're projecting your personal expectations of music onto others.
And I've already watched that video a few years ago.

>>74223424
If you're really claiming those songs are similar meanwhile claiming Merzbow and Whitehouse are somehow artists with very diverse oeuvres, then I have nothing else to say to you. I think you're being dishonest

>>74223424
>All those songs have a simple, repetitive synth pattern, a drum loop, and interchangeable pretty vocalists who can hit all the notes in the song's range, with maybe a rapper feature to draw in the dudes who are too insecure to listen to a girly pop song.
I hope you listen to other music more deeply than that.

>Still though, if you think Merzbow is just sticking to his formula then I really question how broad your experience with his work is, or at least how recently you've revisited it.
It's not like he keeps doing the same thing from one decade to the next, but try guessing the name of the track, or even in the album, in a random playlist.

>>74223454
So what were you trying to say with

>A beat that goes hard, "deep" breathy vocal performance is enough. You don't see people discussing chord changes and production techniques od their favorite pop songs.

>>74223459
Aren't you even going to pretend to have another psuedointellectual argument? I'm surprised you didn't just jack off to the fact that I conceded Whitehouse can be kinda repetitive, you colossal dullard. Get off my board with your deluded poptimism.

>>74223460
How is seeing the overuse of tropes shallow listening? Why would I waste my time on songs that I feel like I've already heard as soon as the loop plays once?

"Guess the track" isn't a good marker, I love Merzbow enough that I could easily pinpoint at least the album a track is from, and if it isn't too HNW, the track itself. But after the first listen, I could do that to any pop song too. It's no benchmark.

>>74223479
>deluded poptimism.
I'm not a poptimist. None of my favorite composers work with pop music, however I'm able to take a step back and give a sincere critique to good songwriting in any genre/mode of music. Max Martin is a genius

>>74223459
>Not every artist needs to be invested in the "progress" of the artform, whatever that means.
I think we can all clearly see how well that has served music over the years.
>Many just want to create good songs that people like to listen to. You're projecting your personal expectations of music onto others.
Sorry for not wanting to listen to material targeted to teenage girls for the rest of my life. And I'm also sure that I'm completely alone on that.
>And I've already watched that video a few years ago.
Great, so why are you in denial? Why are you over romanticizing pop music so much? Hasn't that video made it clear to you what to purpose of pop music is and why pop songwriting is the way it is?

>>74221929
>>74221944
whoops I forgot
>OP IS a faggot

>>74223501
Then do it, give a sincere critique with all the musical jargon. Analyze a song for us, and be sure to point out unique things about it that aren't beaten to death. Any song Max Martin has done, give us a breakdown, you pretentious idiot.

>>74223503
We live in an era of infinite content. There's music for people that crave innovation like you and people who just want merry, trendy tunes. Not everybody needs to be invested in moving music forward. In fact, music economy would probably crash in the occasion we reached a scenario anywhere close to this.

You realize the target audience of that video is upcoming songwriters, right? The workflow of anyone in the industry goes way beyond that. That video is just a very basic tl;dr.

>>74223498
>How is seeing the overuse of tropes shallow listening?
because all you're really doing is identifying the genre, which was already known

>Why would I waste my time on songs that I feel like I've already heard as soon as the loop plays once?
because you haven't?

>"Guess the track" isn't a good marker
But doesn't that mean he's overusing tropes?

>>74223474
Just because casual music listeners or otherwise target audiences don't discuss those particular topics, that doesn't mean constantly reaching target audiences and making a profit isn't to be respected (from a business standpoint). I can also respect producers who are constantly employing the most infatuating production techniques, along with market research, but then again, mostly from a business standpoint. And as I've said in that post, that's enough for them.

>>74223537
So do you concede that pop is just merry trendy tunes of little substance? It doesn't have to be good, it has its niche. Not everything I like is good, just stop pretending it has anything musically redeeming.

>>74223537
Thank you. Thank you for finally realizing and admitting that pop music shouldn't be over romanticized to the lengths you previously tried to do it.

>>74223554
do you not realize that avant garde and vacuous aren't the only possibilities?

>>74223545
Did you listen to me at all? I didn't mention the genre, I mentioned the overused features OF the genre, now you're strawmanning me in a way that actually undermines your entire argument.

But I have, once I've heard the loop and chorus once, nothing different is going to happen, because pop's purpose is to sound nice for a little while and serve as radio filler. It doesn't need to hold your attention, it can afford to be bland and repetitive.

No, did you read a single thing I said? I clearly stated that I can easily tell Merzbow albums apart, how fucking thick are you? Can you even pretend to respond to my posts?

>>74223546
How do you know the musical substrata of said tunes isn't essential to their success? That is beyond the scope of the studies you were referring to. I think the cadence or melodic content of any particular pop song is primal to its success of failure.

>>74223554
>>74223562
merry and trendy =/= musically shallow
there's plenty shit pop songs, but also auteurs like Martin and others

Do you realize many universally lauded composers spent their whole life creating very similar music, right? There's plenty of room for excellence within a familiar framework

>>74223579
I never even implied that it was some sort of binary. I would in no way argue that Pet Sounds is avant garde, and while it has some experimental elements that SUBTLY pushed the boundaries of what music was doing at the time, it still took some standard elements and did them well. You don't have to throw the norm completely to the wind, but living by it yields shitty music.

>>74222535
You're right

>>74223602
If something is trendy, then by definition it's part of the shallow culture of today that will be forgotten in the near future. Please try to at least be PSEUDO intellectual instead of just sperging on your keyboard.

>>74223581
>I didn't mention the genre, I mentioned the overused features OF the genre
yeah, like rock songs overuse drums and guitars

>But I have, once I've heard the loop and chorus once, nothing different is going to happen
so you've never heard of a bridge?

>No, did you read a single thing I said? I clearly stated that I can easily tell Merzbow albums apart
So if I made a playlist of 1930, Pulse Demon, Tauromachine and Red Magnesia Pink and Hybrid Noisebloom, you'd be able to correctly identify which album each track belongs to?

That's funny, I tried years ago and wasn't able to do it. It's easier than you think to confuse the KSSHHHHHPPHPPPHHH with the KSSHSSHHHHHSTTHTHTHTHTHT

>how fucking thick are you? Can you even pretend to respond to my posts?
lol

>>74223622
Millions still listen to Madonna or Michael Jackson or many others that produced very trendy music. How long until they are completely forgotten? Are you sure the half-life of your "innovative" artists isn't even more limited?

>>74223602
This >>74223562 would be my last post on that topic. I would like to discuss this now, although it's not a reply to my post.
>>74223606
>You don't have to throw the norm completely to the wind, but living by it yields shitty music.
Does it and in all cases? Some examples?

>>74223606
okay, well there's lots of other pop music that is also inventive and original and profitable all at the same time

>>74223647
>How long until they are completely forgotten? Are you sure the half-life of your "innovative" artists isn't even more limited?
I'm not the one you're a expecting a reply from, but classical music works for example haven't been forgotten even after hundreds of years after the death of their composers. Not only have they not been forgotten, classical music continues to get analyzed and acquire new audiences even today. And how can you not concede that not all musicians are motivated or even concerned by their chart placement shelf life?

>>74223622
except all the trendy old stuff that people talk about now, like synth pop

you're making the retarded assumption that all pop music is by definition exactly like 1910 fruitgum company or whatever

people still listen to ABBA

>>74223643
>hurr durr using the same instruments is the same as a valid criticism of stale song structure
I also don't like classic rock, I feel it is similarly repetitive, though at least the instruments take the vaguest bit of talent to play.

Stop deliberately misunderstanding clear points, cunt.

Just because you're a tone deaf mongoloid who can't perceive the differences between those five completely different albums doesn't mean everyone else is as retarded as you.

Alright fuck off, I hate myself for replying to bait this long but I'm tired and reactionary. Goodnight.

>>74223647
If they stick around, then clearly they aren't a trend. We're discussing the modern era, where pop songs fade in and out of vogue within the week.

>>74223650
At least half of the current hip hop scene is dominated by trap, the most boring, shitty subgenre in hip hop history. There are plenty of good hip hop artists, but none of them make trap, and all of them find unique ways to change the music to suit them. Take Danny Brown's odd voice and skillfull use of old samples or Death Grips' noisy gabber influence. Again, neither of those artists are that far out there in terms of strange experimentation, but they both focus on honing interesting aspects of modern music, while subverting things to better suit their individual visions.

>>74223647
>Are you sure the half-life of your "innovative" artists isn't even more limited?
why would it be?

>>74223706
holy hell you're retarded in every possible way

I'm not even who you think you were arguing with

>>74223706
I'm surprised you actually provided an example of someone who isn't doing experimentation right.

>>74223681
Comparing the longevity of works created previous to the advent of recorded music is kind of counter-productive, don't you think? And I'm not talking specifically about chart placement but being forgotten or not.

>>74223706
>If they stick around, then clearly they aren't a trend.
Are you really trying to call Madonna anything but a trendhopper? Lmao
Just admit it, there's many expectations to music beyond innovation

>>74223751
So suddenly Madonna's a shitty copycat artist? What happened to the beauty of pop genius? Can you even pretend to keep your b8 str8?

>>74223708
We are about to thread into very murky territory, but try to stay with me. I don't think there are many people who could work better as an encyclopedic definition of musical innovation as Arnold Schoenberg, Berg and the other Viennese. Yet, by the 60s, atonal and dodecaphonic music were already largely forgotten within academia. Contemporary erudite music is still tonal at large. What does that mean?

>>74223769
Read my previous posts. You are the one condemning musical trends, not me.

>this thread
experimental music elitists BTFO

>>74223893
Yeah, no.
>>74223537
>>74223706