Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I am honestly sickened by those who make a point to stick their little noses up in the air when musicians whom they don't take so favorably are mentioned, going so far as to labeling them without hesitation, "bad music."

Fact of the matter is this. just because the sound of something doesn't appeal to you, doesn't mean its necessarily inferior. Music is versatile. But then so are the tastes of many fellow people inhabiting this earth. The quality of music goes above and beyond a simple, "rock is better than pop" argument.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I am honestly sickened by those who make a point to stick their little noses up in the air when musicians whom they don't take so favorably are mentioned, going so far as to labeling them without hesitation, "bad music."

Fact of the matter is this. just because the sound of something doesn't appeal to you, doesn't mean its necessarily superior. Music is versatile. But then so are the tastes of many fellow people inhabiting this earth. The quality of music goes above and beyond a simple, "rock is better than pop" argument.

well the little matter of having musical talent does tend to make the difference between what some people believe is good music and what good music actually is

hence the fact that Jeff Buckley will never be surpassed by bands like embrace and coldplay...because Jeff could play better....and sing better than those 2 bands could ever hope to achieve

and its also the reason why didn't need big light shows and all the other crap to give a truely beautiful performance

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9006141501152795211&q=jeff+buckley

Originally posted by jaden101
well the little matter of having musical talent does tend to make the difference between what some people believe is good music and what good music actually is

'Some people' is the key word here. Most of those who initiate those 'bad music' arguments do so baselessly.




That is a totally subjective statement. The talent inherently present in him may be a fact, but whether or not he performs better or worse than the above mentioned bands will more often than not remain an opinion.



That video was lovely. But your assumption that most people take flamboyant stage decorations be the only thing that makes a good performance is not. In fact, stage accesorizing could very well have been used to improve this performance up a few notches. Because like it or not, appearance counts. Big time.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
In fact, stage accesorizing could very well have been used to improve this performance up a few notches. Because like it or not, appearance counts. Big time.

It bears not on the issue of good or bad music, though.

there is absolutely nothing subjective about Jeff Buckley performing better live than embrace...Danny McNamara is unquestionably a completely rotten vocalist who relies on a ridiculously huge amount of production to make him scrape about the level of shit pub band in their studio recordings




appearance counts far more to talentless bands than they do to people with talent...

hence people may come away from a coldplay performance being amazed at the "show" as opposed to the music

because the fact remains that Jeff Buckley was astounding without the background extras...coldplay would look flat, bland and boring without their huge stage shows...which means that they are actually flat, bland and boring

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It bears not on the issue of good or bad music, though.

Technically, no. But being a musician, especially when out on stage like that, is about making use of every possible resource so that the final effect is beautiful in every possible way.

Had his mic. or guitar not been working properly, the fact that he has a beautiful voice would far from have saved his performance. Similarly the lighting, or lack of an appropriate amount of it didn't add much to enchance his talent, if anything at all.

Originally posted by jaden101
there is absolutely nothing subjective about Jeff Buckley performing better live than embrace...Danny McNamara is unquestionably a completely rotten vocalist who relies on a ridiculously huge amount of production to make him scrape about the level of shit pub band in their studio recordings

Notice my delicate phrasing of that statement. Yes. More often than not I said. Of course its possible that he may very well perform a lot better than many artists out there.




lol. You seem bent on bringing this back to Coldplay. Alright then, here's the thing. True. Those lacking in the talent department, I've noticed compensate by special effects and appearance. That does not mean that appearanece will do talented artists no good. Infact, if someone's smart, they'll go out of their way to ensure that ALL aspects of the performance are worthy of note.

Since you are talking about a performance, here I assume its a full blown public one most likely on some stage. There Coldplay do themselves a favor by satisfying their audience in all ways. As an avid fan, I know for a fact that their performances range from big stagelighted events to small music only emphasized gatherings. They realize that a 'performance' is comprised of much more than mere musical talent. That he can sing, for instance will not make up for his lack of an amiable character for instance. Which would be off putting to the audience and you have yourself a not so pretty performance.

Point beingfor a performance of ANY scale to be successful, more than just vocals and musical ability is needed.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Technically, no. But being a musician, especially when out on stage like that, is about making use of every possible resource so that the final effect is beautiful in every possible way.

Had his mic. or guitar not been working properly, the fact that he has a beautiful voice would far from have saved his performance. Similarly the lighting, or lack of an appropriate amount of it didn't add much to enchance his talent, if anything at all.

Well, yes, but...what I originally said.

Let's also realise that Coldplay simply have to have a flashy stage show, because musically they contain all the excitement of watching paint dry in deathly hot Sun.

Having a good stage show is nothing more than an aside if you are a great band or musician. Any great band or musician can get up on stage with or without a stage show and blow their crowd away. Kiss couldn't stroll into a club and make everyone go mad without all their lights and pyro. Rammstein could. It's also not about making use of everything possible, image or whatever. Some bands go out and do nothing but play their instruments.

I've seen bands in tiny venues with nothing but their instruments and they get more honest reactions than shitty Coldplay with their massive "COLDPLAY" in lights, and hanging orbs. All the image in the world won't change the fact that you have shit music. Coldplay could have Rammstein's onstage set-up, they'd still be shit. Being a musician is about doing it for yourself, making sure it satisfies you first, not your fans. If you're in a band and you think "Shit, we better have lights and pyro incase our fans leave disappointed" then you're an idiot. Go out and play how you want, perform how YOU want.

As for good/bad music, you'll never hear me claim that I can factually prove Jeff Buckley is better than Britney Spears, but it's what I like to call a borderline fact to anyone with sense, and some opinions are more credible than others.

Coldplay are shit, but because it's a man with a high voice playing a piano, people think they have good taste for liking them. Generally, people who have problems with the idea of music fans saying "This is good, that is bad" are those with shit taste. I don't give a shit what people say about the bands I like, I'm confident enough in my taste. You, liking Coldplay, obviously aren't.

-AC

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Technically, no. But being a musician, especially when out on stage like that, is about making use of every possible resource so that the final effect is beautiful in every possible way.

Had his mic. or guitar not been working properly, the fact that he has a beautiful voice would far from have saved his performance. Similarly the lighting, or lack of an appropriate amount of it didn't add much to enchance his talent, if anything at all.

so why is it that the live music performances regarded as being truely brilliant didn't need the extras to make them so...alice in chains unplugged...hendrix at woodstock...joni mitchell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_aJETSQD10&search=alice%20in%20chains%20unplugged

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGz_s-l5zEs&search=hendrix%20woodstock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOqZ9lCDcm0&mode=related&search=joni%20mitchell%20river

there are also far more talented musicians that get no recognition and still dont need extras to blow people away with their ability

trace bundy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8950987166990414376&q=trace+bundy

then again there are talented musicians who do benefit and are indeed renouned for their massive shows...jean michel jarre being one of the people who's stage shows were widely praised although for the life of me i cant think why

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-syxUrh45eM&search=jean%20michel%20jarre

"good" music is subjective. some people may think music is "good" because they like the sound. for example, i personally hate Nickleback. i think they're crap. i know there are hoards of people who will rush to disagree but thats not the point.
If you love a band that aren't the most technically proficient band in the world, more power to you, you think its "good" music, i think its "shit" music. you will never get everyone to agree to what is "good" music.
it's like starting a thread called "which is the best religion" you'll never get people to agree.

oh and i think a good stage show can make a good band seem better, but in the end if the music sucks, you cant gloss it over with pretty lights and some fireworks. as my Yr 12 English teacher said, "You can't polish a turd"

Originally posted by tabby999
"You can't polish a turd"

Classic

The only people who seemingly have problems with the idea of music being called shit, are those with insecure tastes. Me and Jaden have scrapped over each other's tastes, but he doesn't give a shit what I think, and nor do I care what he thinks of mine.

The fact is, people who say "You shouldn't say that!" are generally insecure with their own taste.

-AC

Originally posted by tabby999
"good" music is subjective. some people may think music is "good" because they like the sound. for example, i personally hate Nickleback. i think they're crap. i know there are hoards of people who will rush to disagree but thats not the point.
If you love a band that aren't the most technically proficient band in the world, more power to you, you think its "good" music, i think its "shit" music. you will never get everyone to agree to what is "good" music.
it's like starting a thread called "which is the best religion" you'll never get people to agree.

oh and i think a good stage show can make a good band seem better, but in the end if the music sucks, you cant gloss it over with pretty lights and some fireworks. as my Yr 12 English teacher said, "You can't polish a turd"

true that it's subjective but the only explanation for it is that people who like bland mainstream bands haven't bothered their ass to go and look for something better that isn't chucked in their faces by the media

if i havn't seen a band on a ipod commercial they're not worth knowing

i'll just interject here:

in my personal opinion, the only thing things that make music good are:

a wide audience who are interested in them. how are they gonna continue making a name (and money!) for themselves if no one knows who they are?

good lyrics. a lot of people i know are interested in some types of music solely because they either like the lyrics or can relate to them.

a catchy beat. again, there are a lot of people i know who like listening to certain music because it has a very catchy beat or rhythm to it.

i think thats it. if there's anything else that you think...

Lyrics have no effect on how good the music is or not.

-AC

ditto to the size of their audiences. the spice girls are one of the biggest selling groups of all time, dosn't make them good. tons of people liked milli vanilli, they were crap too.

Whatever you, as an individual, happen to like. That's what.

If someone likes Ashlee Simpson, that's up to them, but to call it good music is a bit of a claim. A subjective one, but a stretch nonetheless.

-AC

if we are actually talking about "music" rather than songs we can say whats bad. a computer used to make electronic beats and feedback is bad, these aren't instruments, nobody plays them and the tracks can be made without much thought.

Entirely false, to the point of ignorance.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
to the point of ignorance.

-AC

i'd say beyond

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Lyrics have no effect on how good the music is or not.

-AC
I completely disagree.

Without the words...the rest is all just noise and sound no matter how pretty.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I completely disagree.

Without the words...the rest is all just noise and sound no matter how pretty.

i'm sure mozart lovers would agree...

She likes Coldplay, Jaden. The worst thing is, this suggests that she likes Coldplay more for the lyrics, which are arguably worse than the toilet bowl worthy music they spew out.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I completely disagree.

Without the words...the rest is all just noise and sound no matter how pretty.

You have no room to disagree, it's a fact, Punky.

In music, music is primary and lyrics are always secondary, always. If you prefer lyrics, that's fine, but you are still preferring the secondary part. You preferring that part doesn't automatically make it as important as the music. The music is the most important part of music, it's simple logic.

It's music, lyrics are nothing more than a guest. They don't make the music better or worse, they might make you PREFER a whole song more, but they do not enhance or retract from the music. Not only is it impossible, but it's also illogical.

Think.

-AC

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I completely disagree.

Without the words...the rest is all just noise and sound no matter how pretty.

Have you everheard the song by Rob Dougan, called 'Clubbed to Death'?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Entirely false, to the point of ignorance.

-AC

because you say so? you might believe what i said is wrong, but i don't.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

In music, music is primary and lyrics are always secondary, always. If you prefer lyrics, that's fine, but you are still preferring the secondary part. You preferring that part doesn't automatically make it as important as the music. The music is the most important part of music, it's simple logic.

-AC

this isn't always true, think about pop music. can you remember how the music in a britney spears song goes? probably not, but you'd remember the lyrics after hearing them a few times.

Originally posted by The Pict
because you say so? you might believe what i said is wrong, but i don't.

You are wrong though. If you actually think a ****ing brilliant masterpiece like girl/boy song is bad because it was created on a computer, then you're an idiot.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Lyrics have no effect on how good the music is or not.

-AC
it depends on what kind of music your listening to. it makes a huge difference with hip hop, or at least it does to me; i'll listen to a rapper because of his lyrics before a good beat, good beats are just a bonus.

i think raps the only exception though. otherwise the lyrics themselves, not the actual singing, doesnt make a difference.

Hip hop is actually about lyrics though, that is how the artists are judged. The music isn't pivotal because it's made so that it's minimal in comparison to the MC, it's an exception but it works well.

Otherwise is doesn't matter.

-AC

Originally posted by Phat J
it depends on what kind of music your listening to. it makes a huge difference with hip hop, or at least it does to me; i'll listen to a rapper because of his lyrics before a good beat, good beats are just a bonus.

i think raps the only exception though. otherwise the lyrics themselves, not the actual singing, doesnt make a difference.

Then you are listening for the lyrics. That still doesn't mean the lyrics affect the music.

Before I go on, a comedy interlude.




Anyway, imagine a pizza parlour. They also sell nice garlic bread. No matter how nice the garlic bread is, and how much it has a bearing on you going into that restaurant, it doesn't actually change the pizza at all.

If you prefer the garlic bread, that still doesn't change the pizza. The pizza is the pizza. The garlic bread is additional. It might add to the experience, but not to the pizza.

Why the hell does this require an analogy anyway?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom


Anyway, imagine a pizza parlour. They also sell nice garlic bread. No matter how nice the garlic bread is, and how much it has a bearing on you going into that restaurant, it doesn't actually change the pizza at all.

If you prefer the garlic bread, that still doesn't change the pizza. The pizza is the pizza. The garlic bread is additional. It might add to the experience, but not to the pizza.

Why the hell does this require an analogy anyway?

it doesn't. i didn't say i prefered the lyrics, i was saying they are more important to pop songs than the music is.
and your analogy is pretty poor as it is using two seperate objects to explain a song which contains both lyrics and music.

Originally posted by The Pict
it doesn't. i didn't say i prefered the lyrics, i was saying they are more important to pop songs than the music is.

Although they don't change the musical content.

You knew this?

Then let's move on.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Then you are listening for the lyrics. That still doesn't mean the lyrics affect the music.

Before I go on, a comedy interlude.




Anyway, imagine a pizza parlour. They also sell nice garlic bread. No matter how nice the garlic bread is, and how much it has a bearing on you going into that restaurant, it doesn't actually change the pizza at all.

If you prefer the garlic bread, that still doesn't change the pizza. The pizza is the pizza. The garlic bread is additional. It might add to the experience, but not to the pizza.

Why the hell does this require an analogy anyway?
i see where your coming from, i just think its different with hip hop. the lyrics are the main medium and reason for listening to it. i dont really feel up to arguing about it right now, so yeah, thats all im going to say. agree to disagree i guess.

Originally posted by The Pict
it doesn't. i didn't say i prefered the lyrics, i was saying they are more important to pop songs than the music is.
and your analogy is pretty poor as it is using two seperate objects to explain a song which contains both lyrics and music.

i entirely disagree...pop songs are overwhelmimgly successful because they use catchy melodies (are are marketed to the max)....given that almost all pop songs dont go lyrically beyond..."ooo baby...i love you...ooo...yeah...ooo"

Originally posted by Phat J
i see where your coming from, i just think its different with hip hop. the lyrics are the main medium and reason for listening to it.

Yes, all you've said here is true (for some people). However, that isn't even opposed to the original point, so I'm not sure you're understanding the point in the first place.

Good music is basically what I like. The rest is either bad or not yet judged.

For the lyrics thing, I believe the lyrics are an important part of a song, but not because of the message but just because the words use create their own sounds. Meaning, if you have different or no lyrics the Song will be different.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I am honestly sickened by those who make a point to stick their little noses up in the air when musicians whom they don't take so favorably are mentioned, going so far as to labeling them without hesitation, "bad music."

Fact of the matter is this. just because the sound of something doesn't appeal to you, doesn't mean its necessarily inferior. Music is versatile. But then so are the tastes of many fellow people inhabiting this earth. The quality of music goes above and beyond a simple, "rock is better than pop" argument.

I generally dont judge a song based on its genre, or even who perfroms it, what makes a song "good" for me, is that it resonates to something Im feeling at that time, or even just something I feel in general.
There can be no definitive "good" song, because no song will ever mean a lot to everyone, and, by the same token, so song will ever not reach someone, in some way, even the most random, stupid song will be amusing to some people, and so will mean something to them.
Music is the expression of everything and anything a person can go through, so for every song, there are people who can relate to it, and understand it better than others.

Originally posted by Xirius
I generally dont judge a song based on its genre, or even who perfroms it, what makes a song "good" for me, is that it resonates to something Im feeling at that time, or even just something I feel in general.
There can be no definitive "good" song, because no song will ever mean a lot to everyone, and, by the same token, so song will ever not reach someone, in some way, even the most random, stupid song will be amusing to some people, and so will mean something to them.
Music is the expression of everything and anything a person can go through, so for every song, there are people who can relate to it, and understand it better than others.

but there is a difference between a good song and good music...

i can go out and have a few drinks...be in the mood for partying and think any old drivel is a good song if it makes me want to party....doesn't mean its good music though

Originally posted by Bardock42
For the lyrics thing, I believe the lyrics are an important part of a song, but not because of the message but just because the words use create their own sounds. Meaning, if you have different or no lyrics the Song will be different.

Then you are referring to vocals, not lyrics. Vocals are a sound, an instrument. Lyrics are words, the two are different.

-AC

Originally posted by jaden101
but there is a difference between a good song and good music...

i can go out and have a few drinks...be in the mood for partying and think any old drivel is a good song if it makes me want to party....doesn't mean its good music though
Why doesnt it?
If that song gets a positive reaction from you, to me, that means it's good music.
True, you're drunk while you enjoy it, but there is always some factor which determines your mood at any time, and thus the type of music you'd enjoy.
The fact that you're drunk while enjoying the song, doesnt mean that your opinion of the song while sober is more correct, it only means that its a good song for you when your drunk, whereas other songs would be preferable while sober.
Neither is necessarily more correct, it just shows that different music reaches you while in different states of mind.

Originally posted by Xirius
Why doesnt it?
If that song gets a positive reaction from you, to me, that means it's good music.
True, you're drunk while you enjoy it, but there is always some factor which determines your mood at any time, and thus the type of music you'd enjoy.
The fact that you're drunk while enjoying the song, doesnt mean that your opinion of the song while sober is more correct, it only means that its a good song for you when your drunk, whereas other songs would be preferable while sober.
Neither is necessarily more correct, it just shows that different music reaches you while in different states of mind.


you're missing my point...musically many of them aren't good because they take very little musical talent to create...

you need to be good at something to do it well...that goes for anything in life...you need to be talented to create good music...so when a band or solo musician creates absolutely talentless music...you have to presume they have little or no talent

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yes, all you've said here is true (for some people). However, that isn't even opposed to the original point, so I'm not sure you're understanding the point in the first place.
i understand the point, i just feel differently about it. your saying it wouldnt make a difference if a rapper was rapping about murdering someone or saying something meaningful and thats cool. i think it does change the music, you dont. whatever.

Originally posted by Phat J
i understand the point, i just feel differently about it. your saying it wouldnt make a difference if a rapper was rapping about murdering someone or saying something meaningful and thats cool. i think it does change the music, you dont. whatever.

It factually doesn't change the music though. It's not opinion, Phat. It might change how you react to it or feel about it, but not the music itself.

If I rhymed over an instrumental beat directly taken from a Jurassic 5 song, I'm not changing the beat. The beat is exactly the same as it was when they used it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then you are referring to vocals, not lyrics. Vocals are a sound, an instrument. Lyrics are words, the two are different.

-AC

But the lyrics put the vocals in a direction. You can't do the same vocals with different lyrics.

Originally posted by jaden101
you're missing my point...musically many of them aren't good because they take very little musical talent to create...

you need to be good at something to do it well...that goes for anything in life...you need to be talented to create good music...so when a band or solo musician creates absolutely talentless music...you have to presume they have little or no talent
If something doesnt take a lot of talent to make, that doesnt mean it isnt good.
Just because it doesnt take a really good musician to play a certain song doesnt mean it isnt good.
Sometimes the most simple or basic songs are the most powerful.

Good music to me is simply music that inspires thought and feelings while listening while making want to keep listening because it sounds so good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But the lyrics put the vocals in a direction. You can't do the same vocals with different lyrics.

You miss the point again, that still doesn't mean they affect or change the music. Just the way you perceive it.

-AC

Originally posted by Phat J
i understand the point, i just feel differently about it. your saying it wouldnt make a difference if a rapper was rapping about murdering someone or saying something meaningful and thats cool. i think it does change the music, you dont. whatever.

I think you are thinking too widely about the term 'music'.

Music- sounds.

Lyrics- words.

Song- both.

Originally posted by Xirius
If something doesnt take a lot of talent to make, that doesnt mean it isnt good.
Just because it doesnt take a really good musician to play a certain song doesnt mean it isnt good.
Sometimes the most simple or basic songs are the most powerful.

we're debating what "good music" is...not what makes a song good or not

hence for music to be good...it has to be good musically...

alot of beatles fans argue that their songs are good for numerous reasons...but their music was actually poor and extremely basic from a musical talent perspective

perhaps they were better musicians than their simple songs suggest but then thats a matter of being poor song writers

i know alot of extremely talented musicians but they will only ever play in pub bands and do jimi hendrix covers til the end of their days because they dont have a song writing bone in their body

now when song writing talent and musical talent combine into one person...then truely great music and great songs are born and this will tend to shine more than corporate marketing ever could

actually...something related to this debate really gets on my ****

when you see peoples online profiles ala myspace, bebo etc and under the "music" section they put "i like anything"

no you dont...stop lying...infact without you even typing another word i will name everyone you like

coldplay, kanye west, the kooks, kelly clarkson...generally whatever i'm ****ing told cause i have absolutely no opinions of my own about anything ever and never will and my future husband will probably smack me about a bit...the end

Originally posted by BackFire
Good music to me is simply music that inspires thought and feelings while listening while making want to keep listening because it sounds so good.

*nods*

haha.I know the feeling.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It factually doesn't change the music though. It's not opinion, Phat. It might change how you react to it or feel about it, but not the music itself.

If I rhymed over an instrumental beat directly taken from a Jurassic 5 song, I'm not changing the beat. The beat is exactly the same as it was when they used it.

-AC
so you dont consider lyrics part of the music? becuase what your saying there is that the beat makes up the whole song, it doesnt matter what they're saying or if they're saying anything and doesnt effect the song.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think you are thinking too widely about the term 'music'.

Music- sounds.

Lyrics- words.

Song- both.
i think your not thinking widely enough.

music - sounds (everything thats in the song, including the lyrics and the beat)

I think that it matters less what the lyrics are and more how they are delivered. This delves into the "Vocals" range of it, where are you are looking at someone's voice like its an instrument.
But poor word choice can detract from songs, as can poor vocals. But when done correctly they can add a great deal.
But too say lyrics are most important, or a nessesity is ignorant.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You miss the point again, that still doesn't mean they affect or change the music. Just the way you perceive it.

-AC

If we talk about the meaning of the words then I agree.

But the vocals are part of the music, aren't they? And they depend on the choice of words to an extend.

Then if you want to travel that road, change the lyrics and the vocal SOUND may change because the singer is saying different words. The SOUND would be changing the music, not the words.

It's not a difficult point to grasp.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then if you want to travel that road, change the lyrics and the vocal SOUND may change because the singer is saying different words. The SOUND would be changing the music, not the words.

It's not a difficult point to grasp.

-AC

exactly...example being guns n roses dont cry...there are 2 different versions with only the lyrics changed...they are played the same and sung the same and thus dont change the song

they may change how people percieve and feel about the song...but not the song itself

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then if you want to travel that road, change the lyrics and the vocal SOUND may change because the singer is saying different words. The SOUND would be changing the music, not the words.

It's not a difficult point to grasp.

-AC

Yeah, of course it is the sound...different lyrics create different sounds...do you not see that they are connected in some way?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, of course it is the sound...different lyrics create different sounds...do you not see that they are connected in some way?

Yes, but then it's the SOUND changing the MUSIC, not the words.

It doesn't matter WHAT is being said, just HOW it's being said. The sound, audio, not lyrical, not writing, not words.

It's seriously not that hard. Words don't change music, sound does.

-AC

lol

dont give a **** what other people says

do you

if you feel theyre good... theyre GOOD

DIPSET ALL DAY EVERYDAY

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but then it's the SOUND changing the MUSIC, not the words.

It doesn't matter WHAT is being said, just HOW it's being said. The sound, audio, not lyrical, not writing, not words.

It's seriously not that hard. Words don't change music, sound does.

-AC

Words change sound though.

They don't. How much do words on a page change sound? None. What's the difficulty you're having here? Someone using sound to say those words, maybe. Then it becomes the sound, not the words. It's never the actual words.

As I said before, if I rhyme over an instrumental hip hop beat from another artist, minus his lyrics, plus mine, the music isn't different is it? It's exactly the same. The song as a whole may sound different, but that's because a different sound has been added, not because of words. The music is still identical, the beat hasn't changed. I could sit there with the beat going "Lalalalalalalalalalala.". The song hasn't changed because of the phrase "Lalalalalalalalala", it's changed because of the SOUND I make when I say that phrase. It's ALWAYS sound, it's never lyrics solely. You know this, so why you continually press the matter is a bit odd.

It's simple logic, Bardock. I appreciate your need to philosophise everything, but words don't have any effect on the actual music.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They don't. How much do words on a page change sound? None. What's the difficulty you're having here? Someone using sound to say those words, maybe. Then it becomes the sound, not the words. It's never the actual words.

As I said before, if I rhyme over an instrumental hip hop beat from another artist, minus his lyrics, plus mine, the music isn't different is it? It's exactly the same. The song as a whole may sound different, but that's because a different sound has been added, not because of words. The music is still identical, the beat hasn't changed. I could sit there with the beat going "Lalalalalalalalalalala.". The song hasn't changed because of the phrase "Lalalalalalalalala", it's changed because of the SOUND I make when I say that phrase. It's ALWAYS sound, it's never lyrics solely. You know this, so why you continually press the matter is a bit odd.

It's simple logic, Bardock. I appreciate your need to philosophise everything, but words don't have any effect on the actual music.

-AC

Actually, when spoken, words change the sound very much.

I don't know about you8 but I am unable to make "wonderful" sound like "brother" ...just not possible.

The meaning does not change the actual sound. THe words do though.

I am not very familiar with Rap, but in the music I listen to the vocals are part of the music. And the vocals change with different words. It doesn't even have to be words.

I mean, I think we are arguing different things. But "How Soon is Now" would just sound different with different lyrics.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, when spoken, words change the sound very much.

I don't know about you8 but I am unable to make "wonderful" sound like "brother" ...just not possible.

The meaning does not change the actual sound. THe words do though.

I am not very familiar with Rap, but in the music I listen to the vocals are part of the music. And the vocals change with different words. It doesn't even have to be words.

I mean, I think we are arguing different things. But "How Soon is Now" would just sound different with different lyrics.

It's actually like talking to a brick wall with you sometimes.

Look, lyrics do not create different sounds on their own, they don't create any sound on their own. So then how can they add to music...on their own? They don't. The sound created when singing them is what adds, and by that time it doesn't matter what the words say, because it's not them that is adding to the music, it's the sound.

I know for a fact you understand this, so why the pointless continuation? You're not a stupid man, you clearly get what I'm saying. You're probably just trying to play devil's advocate.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's actually like talking to a brick wall with you sometimes.

Look, lyrics do not create different sounds on their own, they don't create any sound on their own. So then how can they add to music...on their own? They don't. The sound created when singing them is what adds, and by that time it doesn't matter what the words say, because it's not them that is adding to the music, it's the sound.

I know for a fact you understand this, so why the pointless continuation? You're not a stupid man, you clearly get what I'm saying. You're probably just trying to play devil's advocate.

-AC

All I am saying is that:

Different lyrics equals different sound (once the lyrics are used to sing)

And of course the written lyrics do not do that, and the meaning they have does not do that. But lyrics when sung are pronounced in a certain way. Which is part of the music.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but then it's the SOUND changing the MUSIC, not the words.

It doesn't matter WHAT is being said, just HOW it's being said. The sound, audio, not lyrical, not writing, not words.

It's seriously not that hard. Words don't change music, sound does.

-AC
the WORDS change the SOUND which changes the MUSIC.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And of course the written lyrics do not do that, and the meaning they have does not do that. But lyrics when sung are pronounced in a certain way. Which is part of the music.

Yes, sound.

Originally posted by Phat J
the WORDS change the SOUND which changes the MUSIC.

Note the second step; "the SOUND which changes the music". Precisely, the sound changes the music, not the words. Clear? Are you getting that? The sound changes the music, the sound that comes from the human vocal, the human vocal (sound) that is necessary to make words more than just words. The words cannot do it on their own, which is what we have been discussing.

Don't say "But the words change the...", no, we're not discussing what words DO change, just what they don't. That being music.

-AC

Originally posted by Phat J


i think your not thinking widely enough.

music - sounds (everything thats in the song, including the lyrics and the beat)

That's one definition, but it's quite clearly not the definition applied here, otherwise the argument wouldn't make sense.

If you are arguing that the lyrics are more important than the music, but they are also part of the music, you've just disappeared inside yourself.

For the most part, all music (salient point coming here, try to spot it) is written before the lyrics.

The lyrics are placed on top of the vocals.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
For the most part, all music (salient point coming here, try to spot it) is written before the lyrics.

The lyrics are placed on top of the vocals. How are you going to do that? I mean the lyrics have to fit the vocals, don't they?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How are you going to do that? I mean the lyrics have to fit the vocals, don't they?

Yeah. So they write them to fit.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

You are arguing, as you always do, on your own. Different lyrics make a song different? It's a song with different lyrics then, the music hasn't changed.

-AC

The Music will have changed though. Since the vocals will have changed. We agree that vocals are part of the music, right? That's like saying you play a complete new guitar solo...but the music hasn't changed...

Originally posted by Bardock42
The Music will have changed though. Since the vocals will have changed. We agree that vocals are part of the music, right? That's like saying you play a complete new guitar solo...but the music hasn't changed...

No, it's not is it? If Morrissey changed the lyrics, the words, to The Boy with the Thorn in His Side, Johnny Marr's guitar work then wouldn't change, would it?

Stop being silly. VOCALS changing the music does not equate to lyrics changing it, because they cannot.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yeah. So they write them to fit.

So they are not interchangable, since they are made after the rest of the music (I am not sure if that's actually true though, I think Leonard Cohen was more interested in his poems, the Music just came around it, i also know Bob Dylan wrote lyrics first and then fitted the music, and I have read an interview with Thom Yorke where he said they came together he with new lyrics ideas they with new music ideas).

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, it's not is it? If Morrissey changed the lyrics, the words, to The Boy with the Thorn in His Side, Johnny Marr's guitar work then wouldn't change, would it?

Stop being silly. VOCALS changing the music does not equate to lyrics changing it, because they cannot.

-AC

If Johnny Marr's guitar work would change Andy Rourke's Bass wouldn't, would it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So they are not interchangable, since they are made after the rest of the music (I am not sure if that's actually true though, I think Leonard Cohen was more interested in his poems, the Music just came around it, i also know Bob Dylan wrote lyrics first and then fitted the music, and I have read an interview with Thom Yorke where he said they came together he with new lyrics ideas they with new music ideas).

Some people write the lyrics first. A song is still written as an independent entity, though.

If you read the lyrics to 'Bald' by The Darkness, and then listen to the song, you can tell there's no correlation from lyrics to music- the lyrics are just made to fit the song. I doubt any song- or vocal that is- was specifically made to fit the lyric. It wouldn't make any sense, or have any real point.

What the hell are you on about? You are making no sense at all.

If the people playing the music, change the music, then the music has changed. Lyrics cannot do that.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What the hell are you on about? You are making no sense at all.

If the people playing the music, change the music, then the music has changed. Lyrics cannot do that.

-AC

Look if Morrissey would suddenly sing something totally different, it wouldn't sound the same, would it?

The lyrics just show what he has said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look if Morrissey would suddenly sing something totally different, it wouldn't sound the same, would it?

The lyrics just show what he has said.

Depends if he re-writes the vocal line. Chances are he'd adapt the new lyrics into the old line. All that'd change is the words, barring slight enunciation points.

If he changed the vocal line, then he's changed the vocal line.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Depends if he re-writes the vocal line. Chances are he'd adapt the new lyrics into the old line. All that'd change is the words, barring slight enunciation points.

If he changed the vocal line, then he's changed the vocal line.

Would he be able to keep the same vocal line with different lyrics?

Or would he (as is basically my only point) be forced to change the voclas because of the different lyrics?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Would he be able to keep the same vocal line with different lyrics?

Or would he (as is basically my only point) be forced to change the voclas because of the different lyrics?

People always keep the vocal line with new lyrics. Just different words. Granted, the odd thing can sound slightly different.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
People always keep the vocal line with new lyrics. Just different words. Granted, the odd thing can sound slightly different.

Well..then forget what I just argued over a page...it just seemed quite impossible.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, sound.



Note the second step; "the SOUND which changes the music". Precisely, the sound changes the music, not the words. Clear? Are you getting that? The sound changes the music, the sound that comes from the human vocal, the human vocal (sound) that is necessary to make words more than just words. The words cannot do it on their own, which is what we have been discussing.

Don't say "But the words change the...", no, we're not discussing what words DO change, just what they don't. That being music.

-AC
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That's one definition, but it's quite clearly not the definition applied here, otherwise the argument wouldn't make sense.

If you are arguing that the lyrics are more important than the music, but they are also part of the music, you've just disappeared inside yourself.
i dont even know how i got into this argument, i dont remember what my point was but this is the one from my last post so im just goin with it. if the words change the sound, which you just admitted ac, then therefore they change the music because the music is determined by the sound.

now your probably gonna call this a cop out, but i said what i was originally trying to say awhile ago and i dont really care much about what we're talking about now so im not gonna post in the thread anymore.

Originally posted by Phat J
i dont even know how i got into this argument, i dont remember what my point was but this is the one from my last post so im just goin with it. if the words change the sound, which you just admitted ac, then therefore they change the music because the music is determined by the sound.

now your probably gonna call this a cop out, but i said what i was originally trying to say awhile ago and i dont really care much about what we're talking about now so im not gonna post in the thread anymore.

No, you're talking bullshit. Words are just words, they don't have anything to do with sound, at all. That is scientifically, factually undeniable.

They don't change anything on their own, sound changes things. Therefore we can see, as people have already said, and as I have said, that words don't touch the music, sound does. It doesn't matter what is said, but how it's said. That's with sound. Sound changes a song, not text.

-AC

Words dont change the music? What? Lyrics are the basis of the songs, the meaning. People write songs with meaningful lyrics. Take Tears in Heaven for example, the Eric Clapton song. Those lyrics are the whole song!

Read that back and realise how preposterous that post is. I'm not going over it again, I've done it with people in this thread already and proved I'm right.

-AC

whatever dude
Take music 101 or sumthin

Example: Radiohead.
Does it even matter what Yorke is saying? No, its HOW he says it, its the moaning, the dragged out vowels, the drone, that takes the music and adds so much too it.
Vocals are important, Lyrics less so.

Originally posted by pinkfloydkor
whatever dude
Take music 101 or sumthin

Take ReadTheThread101, or alternatively just read the thread. You're wrong, get over it.

-AC

okay then, whatever

Originally posted by pinkfloydkor
Take Tears in Heaven for example, the Eric Clapton song. Those lyrics are the whole song!

I take it you just read it as a poem then, seeing as the music isn't necessary.

Not as apoem, but you take the lyrics, and the style of the music, and then you get what the artist wanted. You get a story, and a nice sounding tune mixed together

Yeah, in which the music is primary, the lyrics aren't. You just countered your own argument, you fool.

-AC

Good music is generally music that, when everything else is stripped away and it's just one man/woman and their guitar, it can still send chills down your spine and completely enrapture someone *points to Jose Gonzalez {sp?}*. Actually that is great music, but anywho.

On a slightly different note, there is a difference between liking music and it being good. Example: I like the new Rogue Traders song but I wouldn't necessarily say it is good music. ermm

Oh and if this has already been answered then I don't care, as I only read the first page.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, in which the music is primary, the lyrics aren't. You just countered your own argument, you fool.

-AC

**** it, im done talkin to you