(no subject)
Feb. 4th, 2005 09:25 amI just caught myself about to go back and edit my post to put in the song Base (Silence is golden mix) by COntaX. Why? Why do we put our mood and songs on our posts? Like reality tv or a bad movie, when there is no substance or no script, we try to paint a mood with music. This song sends me spinning, and I want to share the experience I get from hearing it...but no one knows this song, and even if they did know the song who is to say how other people hear it, what feelings it invokes in them?
This is why Linkiln Park sucks - their music is actually somewhat compelling, there are clearly moods in the sounds they produce, but it's all lacking substance. There are no words, there is no thought in their song. It's dumbed down to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Much mood music is, you can paint a mood with music, and the less you say about the mood itself the wider the appeal. I hear and feel this from this song, perhaps someone else thinks of puppies, someone else sees a realtionship being consumated with a sharp blade.
Is it necessarily dumb to have a wide appeal? I suppose more complex music doesn't need words at all, and the mood painted is only heard by those reaching to understand it. Ah, now burning and looting is on...the words are burning and looting, my picture and impulse is to be sitting on an ugly couch with my stoner girlfriend laughing as my friends play sonic and pass the bong around. The windows are open and you can hear kids laughing at the pool.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-04 03:50 pm (UTC)I have a sneaking suspicion that most people are not being honest with their "current music." I think that most of the time they write up their post and think, "you know, this is kind of like song ___. So, I think I will have to say I am listening to that song." They really don't want you to know that they are either:
a: Not listening to anything
b: Are listening to something that others will look at them strangely for
c: Want the post to have some sort of 'completed' feel.
d: Want others to bow down at their music genius by listening to some obscure track that is probably on a CD or on the posters computer at home but not really where they are at the moment (work).
no subject
Date: 2005-02-04 07:43 pm (UTC)as far as it being dumb or not to have wide appeal, it depends...
does the "artist" want money, recognition, woman/men? if the answer to any 2 is yes then no, wide appeal is not dumb. if the answer is no, then well there will be no wide appeal and the question is moot.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-04 08:11 pm (UTC)Isn't not necessarily dumb to have wide appeal, it's just that the usual requirement for having mass appeal is the play to the lowest common denomonator, which is often rather lacking when you really analyze it, and why current pop songs (especially those marketed to the angsty teen crowd) sound like bad exceprts from a relationship counseling therapy session. It's all 'you do this, and it makes me feel like this'...what ever happened to use of metaphor?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-04 08:18 pm (UTC)When I worked for radio in college, we were just being hit with the first boy bands. I remember the same guy who produced New Edition created criss-cross, then new kids on the block. Since then, the music industry has realized they save money by outsourcing the entire process rather than actually finding talented musicians. They research to find a target audience and product, hire casters to get the kids, writers to get hte music, musicians and singers to record the music, choreographers to teach the kids to synchronize dance...you get the picture. This saves a fortune on royalties, and of course sucks the last bit of life and soul out of art. Hoorah!