Are these 3 the best female artists ever?

Clairo

No.

You got one right.

>>74708332
Grimes?

none of those are Joanna Newsom

Yes
1. Bork
2. Kate Bush's left tit
3. Kate Bush's right tit

Are objectively the 3 greatest female artists. Plus some irrelevant shit you tacked on the end.

Idk but clairo is objectively the best waifu

>>74708303
does bjork have downs

>>74708303
>best
yeah okay good luck with that

>>74708348
No. I'm afraid whisper singing over Casio presets really doesn't take much talent. But thanks for playing.

File: 4ac.jpg (77KB, 621x621px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 621x621px

>no Hope Sandoval

>>74708428
>whisper singing over Casio presets
Everything you said here is wrong. You just have shit taste.

>>74708303
no

Three of the most perfect women in existence.

>>74708303
>pomf
>what are we gonna do on the sidewalk
why is grimes so lewd?

bjork
joanna
julien

>>74709791
This except replace Julien with Norma tanega

>>74709791
>joanna
Terrible voice, boring harp music
>julien
Terrible voice, boring indie rock/folk music

Why do you like singers with shitty voices?

>>74709880
i don't listen to any of them desu

>>74708378
This is the right answer, OP.

>>74708378
>Plus some irrelevant shit you tacked on the end.
Don't you dare to talk about Grimes like that, megapleb!

>>74708303
Adriana Hölszky
Allison Cameron
Annea Lockwood
Annette Schlünz
Annie Gosfield
Amy Beach
Barbara Benary
Barbara Strozzi
Bianca Maria Meda
Carla Bley
Carla Kihlstedt
Caroline Shaw
Cécile Charminade
Charlotte Moorman
Chaya Czernowin
Chen Yi
Clara Schumann
Daphne Oram
Delia Derbyshire
Diamanda Galás
Dobrinka Tabakova
Élizabeth-Claude Jacquet de la Guerre
Elizabeth Maconchy
Jennifer Higdon
Judith Weir
Elena Kats-Chernin
Elena Mendoza
Eliane Radigue
Elis Regina
Elizabeth Lutyens
Ellen Fullman
Ellen Taaffe Zwilich
Ethel Smyth
Eve Beglarian
Fanny Mendelssohn
Frances-Marie Uitti
Gabriela Lena Frank
Galina Ustvolskaya
Germaine Tailleferre
Gloria Coates
Grazyna Bacewicz
Haco
Ha-Yang Kim
Helena Tulve
Hildegard von Bingen
Isabel Mundry
Isabella Leonarda
Jennifer Higdon
Jenny Scheinman
Jessica Pavone
Jin Hi Kim
Joan La Barbara
Joan Tower
Julia Wolfe
Kaija Saariaho
Kassia
Lera Auerbach
Lili Boulanger
Liza Lim
Lois V Vierk
Louise Farrenc
Lydia Kavina
Maja Ratkje
Maria Schneider
Maria Szymanowska
Marian Zazeela
Mary Lou Williams
Maryanne Amacher
Meredith Monk
Michiyo Yagi
Miya Masaoka
Nadia Boulanger
Nina Senk
Okkyung Lee
Olga Neuwirth
Pauline Oliveros
Pia Gilbert
Rebecca Clarke
Rebecca Saunders
Regina Carter
Rosa Giacinta Badalla
Ruth Crawford Seeger
Sachiko M
Sainkho Namtchylakv
Sarah Kirkland Snider
Satoko Fujii
Sheila Silver
Sofia Gubaidulina
Sofia Jernberg
Susie Ibarra
Theresa Wong
Thea Musgrave
Unsuk Chin
Vanessa Lann
Wendy Carlos
Wu Fei
Wu Man
Yoko Ono
and Zeena Parkins are all better

File: 1498007764844.jpg (221KB, 672x865px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 672x865px

>no choa

>>74710200
>generic kpop waifu
stop spamming this retarded shit

File: 1468725841935.jpg (40KB, 480x423px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x423px

Bjork is the only one you got right.

>>74710145
Yoko fucking sucks you avant teen.

File: 1200px-AOA_Ellesse_Fansign_160408[1].jpg (162KB, 1200x763px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1200x763px

>>74710200
why do all koreans look the same?
like look at these women, could you honestly tell them apart if it wasn't for their artificially dyed hair?
>>74710375
funny how plebs always ignore all the other avant-garde artists on the list and just complain about Yoko.
maybe it's because all the newplebs straight from r/music have only heard of her because she happened to be married to a talentless hack who happened to be more popular than her.

>>74708303
I don't even know who any of those are.

>>74710586
kate bush, bjork and grimes
also leave this board

>>74710458
they look nothing alike

File: Capture.png (28KB, 373x237px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 373x237px

>>74710662
>they look nothing alike
>their own fans have to do this in the comments of their videos

File: 1485401379197.jpg (177KB, 833x696px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 833x696px

>>74710617
>leave this board
why, anon? that's mean :(

>>74710963
I'm sorry, you should stay.
But you should familiarize yourself with some music. Seeing as OP posted three very well known pop musicians I would expect almost everyone here to recognise all of them.

>>74708303
Yes, in the whole history of humanity only this three women from the past 30 years are the best ever.

I have to make it clear: I'm being ironic

>>74711005
OPs listed 3 are just the ones people on this board try to spoonfeed everyone into liking.

>>74708539
>the gimesfag is back

please just go somewhere else your hook nosed banking goblin has its own general

>>74711005
>Yes, in the whole history of humanity only this three women from the past 30 years are the best ever.
For the vast majority of the history of humanity, only until the last few centuries really, humans have been unable to expend energy and time on things directly related to survival. Sophisticated art is only possible in a post-scarcity economy, which is pretty much how things have been since the mid 1950s in western countries. Unsurprisingly there was an explosion in the prevalence of popular music at that time, and over time popular music has only become more sophisticated. While classical music is for most part been the preserve of an elite section of society, and has until relatively recently not had access to modern technology. In addition women have been denied access to musical education until fairly recently.
It is therefore a perfectly reasonable thing to assume that the greatest female musicians ever should come from as recently as the past 30 years. In fact it would be surprising if otherwise. Given the popularity and critical acclaim that each of these artists have achieved I would recognise that a serious case could be made that they are indeed the greatest 3 women artists ever.

>>74711113
shut up cracka

>>74711130
sure

>>74711113
There are examples for women making music in almost every age

>>74711130
>whites pretend to be black

ytho

>>74710858
they're not real fans, those are mostly for new fans anyway

File: 1499894007469.jpg (19KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 413x395px

>>74708378
>bork

File: regina.jpg (70KB, 980x629px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 980x629px

>>74708303
just posted in other thread, bjork is top ten but this is my always fave female artist. since like 7th grade

>>74708397
She comes from a country with only 300k people, inbreeding was bound to happen

>>74712983
>ywn have shameful incestuous sex with your qt bjork sis

>>74708456
only thing she's gonna be fading into is irrelevance

File: 14565316980310.jpg (31KB, 424x424px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 424x424px

>>74708303
Grimey is surely the best. I hope she is sleeping well.

>>74708303

name 47 female artists from before 1990

>>74711415
You...you just agreed with him...

Bjork and kate bush are both pop trash.
Grimes is ok but still not that great.

File: BUNBUN.jpg (22KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x320px

This is all this thread needs desu

No one will remember Grimes in 20 years, but Kate and Björk's oeuvres will live on.

File: B82X2859.jpg (700KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 1500x1000px

>>74710200
this guy gets it

>>74710458
they look nothing alike, i can tell them apart just by the eyes

>>74716155
You also said that 20 years ago but she is still remembered.

>>74710963
You're not wanted

>>74708351
this

File: 1502479357599.png (107KB, 267x423px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 267x423px

I want to impregnate bush

>>74710200
I love her

>>74708303
1. Nina Simone
2. Kate Bush
3. Joanna Newsom

>>74716492
>1. Nina Simone
Just a singer
>3. Joanna Newsom
Boring music, awful voice. No producer.

>>74711195
And none of them come close to the the best ones from the past 3 decades. Not even close. The current ones are far more complex and sophisticated.

>>74716155
>No one will remember Grimes in 20 years
Many people said the same kind of words about Bjork and Kate Bush before: they're just some novelty artists with no chance of being remembered in the future. They were wrong.
As far as I know Grimes is still making vibrant and relevant music and there are no signs she's going to stop too soon.

Grimes and Bjork aren't nearly as fucking weird as Kate Bush. You needed an igloo or even a fucking leaf to compete with that

>>74716989
case in point:
Music made by a woman in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKLymvwD2U
Music made by a woman in 1687: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZBDFse_O4Q

>>74716989
I like how people like you just throw arguments with no fundaments at all

>The current ones are far more complex and sophisticated

Why can you said that? just because is the shit that drop from your ass?
Anyway, I could name more talented women than those three from the past thirty years and also from the past 500 years.

>>74717091
Do it then.

I'm the biggest asshole of the net

>>74717034
Shit! Willows Smith's song is worst than listening Merzbow, in fact, I truly prefer listen Avanga Ranga instead of that piece of shit.

>>74717106
oh and by the way, not matter who you might name I shall just respond with "they're not as good as grimeth".

>>74717034
>Music made by a woman in 1687
It sounds very simple to me. Too barebones/empty and too minimalistic. Also nice bias picking a shitty song (still more complex sonically) to be representative of music made by a woman in 2010. Pick something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtH68PJIQLE
Music is more than just melodies. The whole thing matters.

>>74717106
Why should I? Your arguments are shit. I don't need to prove my point any longer right now. If you force me to do it with an actual argument I will.

>>74717121
See? Shit arguments. No need to prove my point any longer, you are stuck

File: images (15).jpg (14KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 443x332px

>>74717121

>>74717132
One riff repeteaded since the beggining to the end of the song sounds more complex to you than the song that anon post from the year 1687?
You are being condescendant with yourself...

>>74717132
I don't know, at least make an effort and post something like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNwWRoNMcAc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFeouD2IWSA

just to try...

>>74717091
>Anyway, I could name more talented women than those three from the past thirty years and also from the past 500 years.
"Your" talented women can't make music as complex as Bjork, Kate Bush, Grimes. Just because a piece has more random notes it doesn't mean it's more complex. Only narrow minded idiots judge music based on music sheets exclusively and not the actual recorded music. There are many sounds in the actual recorded music of those 3 that your old composers can't even dream about. Production is an integral part of music.

>>74717182
I'm not going to post that wanky "music".

>>74717119
>The Ananga Ranga (अनंगरंग Stage of Love) or Kamaledhiplava (कमलेधिप्लव Boat in the Sea of Love) is an Indian sex manual written by Kalyana malla in the 15th or 16th century.[1]
hmmmmm...
>>74717132
>sounds very simple
complex harmonic structure and unmeasured rhythm less complex than "i whip my hair back and forth i whip my hair back and forth"
>>74717182
I considered posting some Lutyens but thought it would be better to post something from far longer ago to specifically destroy the 30 years claim.

>>74717160
>One riff repeteaded since the beggining to the end of the song sounds more complex to you than the song that anon post from the year 1687?
Actually yes. Read this (not written by me):
https://rbt.asia/mu/thread/74678021/#q74688125
You'll see that Oblivion is far more complex and tricky than you think it is. The song is more than a bassline. BTW that bassline is not exactly the same through the whole song.

>>74717232
>complex harmonic structure and unmeasured rhythm less complex than "i whip my hair back and forth i whip my hair back and forth"
Sonically it sounds very empty and simple. Like I could play randomly and get about the same result. I'm not impressed by that.

>>74717192
>Just because a piece have more random notes
Your argument is based in the "randomness" of the notes, just a judge made by you that dont take back my point that there are talented women in other ages.

>Only narrow minded idiots judge music based on music sheets exclusively and not the actual recorded music

Ad hominem argument, not valid.

>There are many sounds in the actual recorded music of those 3 that your old composers can't even dream about

So, you are saying that just because they didn't have a material resource their music is worst? They used all that they had in their hand in the best way they can. Anyway, if you claim that, Grimes is shit now because in 50 years there are going to be sounds that grimes could only dream about.

>Production is an integral part of music.
Again, if you are judging something from the last 500 with the eyes of the present you are not making a point at all. I will have to explain what is production because your arguments don't explain anything: production could be considered as the part of music in wich you mix the sounds and prepare all the sounds that you are going to use to create a song, like some kind of sound engineering. But is not production also write a partiture? Sound engineering production is not a integral part of music

>>74717258
Well I don't know what to say. I guess you just have a pretty shit ear for music.

>>74717282
>So, you are saying that just because they didn't have a material resource their music is worst?
I don't care about that. I'm judging their actual music, not the potential. The music of those old women composers is underwhelming to say the least. Someone like Bach was far more advanced for those times.

>>74717311
When you said >There are many sounds in the actual recorded music of those 3 that your old composers can't even dream about you are implying that, it's the point in what you've said.

So, at least, from what we've saying, I can conclude that both have the same importance.
Also
>I'm judging their actual music, not the potential. The music of those old women composers is underwhelming to say the least. Someone like Bach was far more advanced for those times.

I could said the same fucking thing about Grimes with any modern composer (like the ones that I've already posted)
You can't said two arguments without falling in contradiction.

>>74717282
>Again, if you are judging something from the last 500 with the eyes of the present you are not making a point at all. I will have to explain what is production because your arguments don't explain anything: production could be considered as the part of music in wich you mix the sounds and prepare all the sounds that you are going to use to create a song, like some kind of sound engineering. But is not production also write a partiture? Sound engineering production is not a integral part of music
Production is part of the music because the recorded music contains actual sounds. Music = organized sounds, not only organized notes. Think in terms of sounds, not notes.
Music should be judged as a whole. A modern song with a simple melody but intricate production is more sonically complex than an old piece full of notes performed on an instrument. Get with the times, grandpa.
>Sound engineering production is not a integral part of music
It totally is. It contributes to the actual sounds that you hear while listening to that music.

Music made by a woman in 1969: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbdNiRfMQaE
>boring, literally one note for 13 minutes, nothing going on to sustain interest
Music made by women in 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRlDo3JuzfI
>alive, exciting, has a catchy melody and arresting rhythm.

You're still doing this? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you think forward to when you might get completely bored of it?

File: images (17).jpg (16KB, 292x220px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 292x220px

Production is part of the music because the recorded music contains actual sounds. Music = organized sounds, not only organized notes. Think in terms of sounds, not notes.
Music should be judged as a whole. A modern song with a simple melody but intricate production is more sonically complex than an old piece full of notes performed on an instrument. Get with the times, grandpa.

>>74717346
>I could said the same fucking thing about Grimes with any modern composer (like the ones that I've already posted)
You could, but you would be wrong. Any modern composer could churn a shitload of notes but the actual music would sound generic and predictible sonically. You know that super generic classical music vibe from film soundtracks? About the same.
Meanwhile Grimes could make sonically complex pieces, full of subtle details and exciting new sounds. My point is that the real innovators are those who experimented with sound: Delia Derbyshire, Brian Eno, Autechre, Grimes, Pierre Schaeffer and so on.

>Sound is the vocabulary of nature... noises are as well articulated as the words in a dictionary... Opposing the world of sound is the world of music.
---Pierre Schaeffer

>>74717346
>>There are many sounds in the actual recorded music of those 3 that your old composers can't even dream about

Grimes can only dream about playing piano like Hiromi

>Production is part of the music because the recorded music contains actual sounds. Music = organized sounds, not only organized notes. Think in terms of sounds, not notes.

Writing a partiture is the equivalent to what you are saying, it was the way to organize the sound in that time. The material ressource available to do it and you are saying that just beucase somebody in the XVII century didn't have a mixing table made worst music than the music from our time. They were using the material resources available to create, the same thing that Grimes do now and, as I've said, if you keel claiming this you have to claim that Grimes is shit because in 100 years there are going to be more material resources that her could only dream about now. It's a really bad argument, anon. Don't get stuck with it.

>A modern song with a simple melody but intricate production is more sonically complex than an old piece full of notes performed on an instrument

It's from your point of vien being in the year 2017, you are unable to put yourself in context. At least, I could said that it's more "sonically" complex but not more melodically, therefore, we can said that they are equally complex since their own perspective. You making a value about the material resources to make music don't give more complexity to the actual music.

>>74717397
>Music made by a woman in 1969: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbdNiRfMQaE
>boring, literally one note for 13 minutes, nothing going on to sustain interest
Maybe the modern civilisation is accustomed to more variety in their music. Those old pieces sounded exciting centuries ago but these days nobody is impressed by that. It's all about evolution.

>>74717515
I wouldn't both responding if I thought this post was ironic but it doesn't seem that way.
plenty of people listen to and enjoy ambient and drone music today, and there was complex pop music like the second link in the 70s too.

>>74717482
>Grimes can only dream about playing piano like Hiromi
Her primary occupation is composer + producer and only on the third place is performance, after singing. She can't play as good as Hiromi but she could translate any melody she has in her head into her DAW. A creator is more valuable than a mere player.

>>74717476
So... this sounds to you like "super generic classical vibe"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNwWRoNMcAc

Come on, stop forcing your arguments to the point of the strawman, making shitty generalizations.

>Meanwhile Grimes could make sonically complex pieces, full of subtle details and exciting new sounds. My point is that the real innovators are those who experimented with sound: Delia Derbyshire, Brian Eno, Autechre, Grimes, Pierre Schaeffer and so on.

Really? you are puting in the same level Grimes and Pierre Schaffer? What the actual fuck?
Pierre Schaffer had nothing to do what he creates. He took things that were not supposed to create music and find the way to make it music. This litte girl can go and buy 7 synths every three corners...

>>74717560
Yes, she can translate at least... but I don't know if she could actually imagine that sound and make it by herself. Said that is just an assumption with no fundaments because you truly don't know.

File: scr.png (16KB, 427x321px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 427x321px

>>74717553
>plenty of people listen to and enjoy ambient and drone music today, and there was complex pop music like the second link in the 70s too.
Bored people.

>>74717533
Who's paying for this

>>74717476
Also, there were tons of women making electronic music when computers did not even have a monitor...

>>74717596
>Really? you are puting in the same level Grimes and Pierre Schaffer? What the actual fuck?
Why are you so triggered? Yes, I put her on the same level with him. Unlike Schaffer, she actually managed to make great songs on top of experimental music.
>This litte girl can go and buy 7 synths every three corners...
It matters what sounds she gets from those sounds. Judge the final product not the tools.

>but I don't know if she could actually imagine that sound and make it by herself.
She can. https://www.ableton.com/en/blog/grimes-bird-calls-and-dentists-drills/
She learned a lot since her debut.

>>74717643
I already implied that by putting Delia Derbyshire in the list.

>>74717294
Lame ad hominem.

>>74717482
>Writing a partiture is the equivalent to what you are saying, it was the way to organize the sound in that time. The material ressource available to do it and you are saying that just beucase somebody in the XVII century didn't have a mixing table made worst music than the music from our time. They were using the material resources available to create, the same thing that Grimes do now and, as I've said, if you keel claiming this you have to claim that Grimes is shit because in 100 years there are going to be more material resources that her could only dream about now. It's a really bad argument, anon. Don't get stuck with it.
Irrelevant. You actually imply that I should make concessions because those composers had access to fewer resources compared to now. I'm judging the actual results, how they sound to me right now.
It's like comparing 2 tower buildings e.g. Burj Khalifa vs. Empire State Building. It doesn't matter that Burj Khalifa is taller because it's newer and has been made with superior technology, the fact remains: it is more complex/tall than Empire State Building. Same thing with Grimes vs those old female composers: Grimes' music is objectively more sonically complex.
You should update your views.

>Why are you so triggered? Yes, I put her on the same level with him. Unlike Schaffer, she actually managed to make great songs on top of experimental music.

But you put them in the same level with any fundament to said that, anon.
As I've said (I'm starting to think that you can't read) Schaffer took things that were not supposed to make music and made music with that. It's, by far, more complicated that go to a store and buy 7 synths. Also, he had to think a concept for what he wanted to do. The work of Schaffer is by far more complicated, more creative and more personal: he had creates the concept and the material out of nowhere and also, having againts him almost all the tradition in music.
Grimes have everything in his hands: she goes to a store and buy a few synths, then she goes to the music uni and learn something about composition: she didn't had to create any material resource or concept.
And please, don't throw at me again the: "think about the final product" because that's just a value judgement. Actually, when I read:

>Unlike Schaffer, she actually managed to make great songs on top of experimental music.

I laugh a little. Grimes is not experimental at all: she just uses traditional forms of composition, as you showed me in the post from the archive, mixed with pop music. Where is the experiment? Schaffer had to experiment... How can I make music with sound materials? How can I manipulate recorded sounds? Wich kind of device will allow me to do that? Anon... the problems that Schaffer had to face wich waaay more bigger and creative.

>>74717668
If you already implied that then thank you for making my point more stronger.
Nothing about Annie, hu? I'm sure that she also can dreeeeam about Grimes can do. There is no production at all in her music, right anon?

I like this quote:
>Music has to do with sounds, so we need to find them somewhere and it is preferred to find musical ones. You have two sources for sounds: noises, which always tell you something — a door cracking, a dog barking, the thunder, the storm; and then you have instruments. An instrument tells you, 'la-la-la-la.' Music has to find a passage between noises and instruments. It has to escape. It has to find a compromise and an evasion at the same time; something that would not be dramatic because that has no interest to us, but something that would be more interesting than sounds like Do-Re-Mi-Fa...
>Pierre Schaeffer - Electronic Musician magazine, December 1986

Grimes combined noises with instruments very well:
>I'm always listening for interesting sounds. Like, for example, I recently took a sample of some percussion that had a lot of melodic information in it, put the verb up to 100% and then sampled the verb so that none of the original sample was there but it contained the melodic information. Sometimes I record things in the house like beads or whatever etc. Sometimes I get found samples from online bird watching communities or this or that, haha. Usually I use some combination of these methods.

>For the song “Venus Fly", for example, I had these awesome 808s, that I built using two different 808 sounds. Then I sampled a dentist drill and tuned it to the 808s and layered it very lightly on top so that they sounded a bit more savage but also wide and clean cuz I think I panned the drill hard and the 808s were mono in the center.

>>74717854
>Grimes is not experimental at all
Stopped reading here. I just can't take you seriously if you throw baits like that.

>>74717884
You don't have any argument to support whay you said. I do
Why is Schaffer experimental and Grimes don't, at least not at the same level? I've explain that. You don't explain anything that you said, you just said and pretend that people must think like that just because. Ok, don't read anymore. I can't take seriously anybody that only have ad hominem and strawman arguments to argue.

Bye, anon. It was fun to take all your shit back.

>>74717997
I'll make one more concession and prove why you're wrong.
>As I've said (I'm starting to think that you can't read) Schaffer took things that were not supposed to make music and made music with that.
Wrong. He wanted to combine things that were not supposed to make music with actual instruments. See this quote >>74717862
>It's, by far, more complicated that go to a store and buy 7 synths.
Grimes didn't even have money to buy 7 synths. She actually made most of her older music with a synth, a sampler, a DAW and some effect pedals.
>The work of Schaffer is by far more complicated, more creative and more personal
It's far simpler, less creative and very unpersonal. In contrast to him, Grimes sang about very personal things, did very creative music with influences all over the place and far more layered and sophisticated.
>he had creates the concept and the material out of nowhere
I'll give you that. He was a pioneer.
>Grimes have everything in his hands: she goes to a store and buy a few synths
False. Even if her family was quite wealthy she had a phase when she lived with very little money and had drug problems. Not exactly "goes to a store and buy a few synths".
>then she goes to the music uni and learn something about composition
She didn't go to a music uni. She studied Neuroscience, Russian literature and philosophy. Music was just a hobby that she started taking it seriously after a close friend commited suicide in 2008. She paid a friend with cans of peas to learn her how to use a sampler. She's mostly a self taught musician.
>she didn't had to create any material resource or concept
Your fallacy is that someone could create something out of thin air. Even Schaeffer was inspired by past work e.g. by anything works attitude of the Dada movement. To say that Grimes didn't create any concept is completely false. Her whole work including her artwork is a concept that could be done only by her. Who else created a whole album inspired by the Dune universe?

>>74717997

Jessu christ. I'm not the guy you've been arguing with but you're retarded.

to be the best they need to have a great set of tits, grimes and bjork can fuck off

>>74718260
Fair enough

>>74718260
Grimes used to stuff her bra at shows lol

>>74717997
(part 2)
>Why is Schaffer experimental and Grimes don't, at least not at the same level? I've explain that.
You didn't. You just said some opinions like
>The work of Schaffer is by far more complicated, more creative and more personal
Schaeffer was uncompromisingly experimental but that affected the quality of his music which is not exactly listenable. Grimes was smarter by including experimental elements into pop music fabric. So, it's really just 2 kinds of experimental.
Schaeffer was more like an academician/sound engineer/scientist, Grimes is a real artist in every way. That's the big difference between them.

File: tumblr_mrl2jpAYLL1rho9f6o4_1280.jpg (199KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1024x683px

>>74718279
lies, lies, lies

>>74718302
The trick is to stuff underneeth them, because they didn't form on her actual body and kind of just dangle. She's a great musician loved for her great musician music

>>74718350
But if she ever made decisions that were devoid of pride or integrity then, it's all in the past. Why not do it again. You lied.

>>74710200
>pork chode

>>74710200
She's hot anon

File: IMG342.jpg (3MB, 5184x2916px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5184x2916px

>>74718350
you're ridiculous. she doesn't do such tricks.