Radiohead...

Originally posted by who?-kid
No shit Sherlock ?

The reference to Coldplay and James Blunt was to show that pop artists also perform at rock festivals. To show there is no big fat line separating the pop artists from the rock artists.

What are you on about? There is a massive line separating their music, though. Audioslave performed at Live 8, as did Madonna. Is the line not massive?

Originally posted by who?-kid
Yes they are. I already explained what a pop star is. You didn't. You only gave us examples of people who are according to you pop stars.

You explained an archaic definition, not what is applies to the artists today.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Will you give me your definition of a pop star ?

Ok, but it'll be the same as before.

Pop star: A "star" in pop music. Thom Yorke isn't one of those, he's a popular musician, he doesn't make pop music.

Originally posted by who?-kid
I don't like Enya, she's boring - maybe she and Thom Yorke can sing a song together sometimes, Orinocco Android or so - but she makes easy listening music and she is a million seller. She performs, has videoclips and even a hit or two.

So? How does this make her songs pop? Tool get played on the radio in the US, are you going to tell me they're a pop band or pop stars?

Being popular doesn't make you a pop musician, and to be a pop star that's what you have to be.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Still no pop star ?

No.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Pink Floyd a rock band 😄

Yeah, "Dark Side of the Moon" is one mean rock track after the other.

It's not one "mean" rock track after another, but what a way to subconsciously reveal that you believe rock should be mean. No wonder you think Thom Yorke is a pop star.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Yep, true pop stars. It's not my fault you hate pop music and hate the idea your beloved Radiohead belongs to pop music.

I own pop music, but nice attempt at being presumptuous. I love what was known as pop music, by some artists. Michael Jackson, Prince etc.

I don't hate the idea that they belong to pop music, because I know for a fact they do not. Their sales and their fanbase is not dictated by popular opinion. Proof: The Kid A exodus. You probably don't know what that is from an outsider view, since you were long gone. You were one of the few who couldn't hack OK Computer (zoom), let alone Kid A.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Pop music is a huuuuge genre that is divided in lots of sub genres such as rock, country, jazz, chanson, rap, ambient, blues, techno... You just don't get this simple statement.

Hahahahaha, actually one of the dumbest comments I have ever read on this site.

Rock is a sub genre of pop. Actually too funny.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Again, give me your definition.

I have. You can't grasp it, but then I think you proved to me what kind of mind I'm working with here, vis-a-vis your above comment.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Well, Hendrix heroic death dates from the early seventies, I don't know exactly if we can speak of him as a pop star. These days, he belongs to popular (music) culture, that's for sure, so I think we can classify him under pop stars.

What a complete fool, Jimi Hendrix a pop star. Truly a laughable claim.

-AC

Originally posted by who?-kid
Okay, I'll try it another way.

Do you know the Greek composer Vangelis Papathansiou ? No harm done if you don't know him. Anyway, he has composed a lot of different music styles, you name it, he composed it.

Emotive hardcore? (Bit of a joke there, but seriously?).

Originally posted by who?-kid
In the seventies, he made a controversial avant garde album called "Beaubourg". It was a collection of bizarre sounds, noise, disturbing impressions without any structure at all - or so it seems.

Yeah, there's a man who does that today, but about a million times better. That style isn't new to me, 'Kid.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Because I was a moderate Vangelis fan a few years ago, I decided to give it a try. Even I didn't like it, and I was already used to his sometimes weird song structure or instruments.

Let's say you - Alpha Centauri - have the chance to listen to a disturbing album like "Beaubourg". There's a big fat chance you won't like it all (trust me) - don't feel dumb however, most people don't like it.

I'm not most people, though. "Most people" think American Idol is a display of musicianship and artistry.

The difference between you and I is that I will give albums a long time and a lot of repeated listens. You evidently don't do that, and you've already expressed your distaste for a certain kind of music, so we're different in the music we like. I never feel dumb when it comes to music, because I know what I'm talking about. The same cannot be said for you.

As I said above, there's a man who does that today, but better. The album I'm referring to I won't give by name, because I don't want you listening to it, but it's an hour long, one continuous piece of music that is precise as well as erratic. Seemingly with no structure, but revealing itself to actually have a meaning on repeated listens. Then giving even more on repeated listens.

Just because you don't like/can't get a piece of music, doesn't mean I can't. I handle music better than you.

Originally posted by who?-kid
=> Now my question to you is : why wouldn't you like it ? Why can't Vangelis say (like you say all the time) : you didn't try enough ! You didn't try hard enough ! My music is too experimental, so you have to try more ! Until you get it ! You're too dumb ! Listen to it again ! And again ! Until you get it !! My music isn't wrong, it's you !

A) You're assuming I wouldn't like it, strike one. Nice attempt, though.

B) He could say that, very much so. He would be well within his right.

Not too good at this are you? Then again, I am talking to the guy who thinks blues is a subgenre of pop.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

As I said above, there's a man who does that today, but better. The album I'm referring to I won't give by name, because I don't want you listening to it, but it's an hour long, one continuous piece of music that is precise as well as erratic. Seemingly with no structure, but revealing itself to actually have a meaning on repeated listens. Then giving even more on repeated listens.
-AC

I think i know what he is talking about (I know, I'm awesomke), anyways have you actually listened to "Beaubourg"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think i know what he is talking about (I know, I'm awesomke), anyways have you actually listened to "Beaubourg"?

I know the man, but I haven't heard the album. That's a redundant piece of info, though. Because whether I have or haven't is irrelevant to his point, because his point isn't to do with liking or disliking the music, it's to do with him assuming I wouldn't like it because it has an odd structure, or no structure, which is stupid, because I listen to that style of music anyway. It only proves that he dislikes music that is unfamiliar to him, obviously not taking into account that I'm not him.

I know if I like something or not straight away, but whether or not there is more to that music is a different matter. If I don't like something, I don't assume there isn't more to it that I'm not seeing, I just don't like it. If I dislike an album and someone says "There's more to it, you haven't give it time", and I believe there is or could be, due to me not having given it time, then fine. However, he is suggesting that if he doesn't like something, there's nothing more to it.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think i know what he is talking about (I know, I'm awesomke), anyways have you actually listened to "Beaubourg"?

There are some people who say Vangelis just forgot to close the doors of the studio while he was taking a nap 😄

I used to be a fan of his music. Without any doubt he's one of the most talented (and most underrated) composers of the second half of the twentieth century.

In fact, now that I think of it, in a way I'm still a fan -"Direct", "The City", "Mask", "China", "Antarctica" and a few others are classics - imo at least.

I only brought "Beaubourg" up to make a point. Of course I should have guessed he'd say something like

Seemingly with no structure, but revealing itself to actually have a meaning on repeated listens. Then giving even more on repeated listens.

Just because you don't like/can't get a piece of music, doesn't mean I can't. I handle music better than you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I know the man, but I haven't heard the album.

Yeah, there's a man who does that today, but about a million times better.

Or maybe I'm just not "getting it". That'll be it.

Originally posted by who?-kid
You know, trying to sound intellectual. It's not his fault he doesn't know the music though. It's not a known piece. But then again, a true intellectual and music lover would have known it... 😎

I haven't heard it, I didn't say I didn't know it, though it is nice to see you resorting to smileys and grave assumption to prove a point.

To add to that, you having heard it is irrelevant, as is the connection of being a true music lover. Because apparantly you don't like it and don't understand it, are the two linked? Probably.

So you are putting forth the rather stupid point (Becoming a habit) that simply knowing of the album makes you a true music fan. This coming from a man who calls Jimi Hendrix a pop star and claims that blues is an offshoot of pop, despite it being the other way around, if anything at all.

That's simple music history, and you got it completely upside down. So I'll take not having heard Beaubourg, you can take the fame of calling blues, rock and others offshoots of pop.

I could sit here an name obscure, exclusive albums all day, similarly claiming you're not a fan of music unless you know them. The fact is, in this instance, in this debate, I have proved your claims wrong countless times. As all you have to fall back on is an archaic misuse of a term to keep yourself in this debate.

-AC

Originally posted by who?-kid

I think we have a contradiction (please say something witty to defend yourself).

Or maybe I'm just not "getting it". That'll be it.

It's not a contradiction, is it? It's you believing I don't have enough information and/or knowledge to make such a claim. I know that I do.

The funny part is, you are living proof that a lot of people genuinely don't "get" things in music. Anyone worth their salt need only look at some of your claims.

Though if it's contradictions you want:

Originally posted by who?-kid
You know, trying to sound intellectual. It's not his fault he doesn't know the music though. It's not a known piece. But then again, a true intellectual and music lover would have known it... 😎

All that after previously claiming I'm the one who tried to sound intellectual. Then moving on to claim that it's not a known piece, yet any true intellectual (this would mean you are implicating yourself, trying to sound intellectual) and music lover would have known of it. Yet, I did clearly know of it. Since hearing it doesn't matter, as you've said yourself that you don't appreciate it.

Funny how everything you try just gets gunned down.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As I said above, there's a man who does that today, but better. The album I'm referring to I won't give by name, because I don't want you listening to it, but it's an hour long, one continuous piece of music that is precise as well as erratic.

Scared ? Afraid I'd say something negative about it ?

Just because you don't like/can't get a piece of music, doesn't mean I can't. I handle music better than you.

Not too good at this are you? Then again, I am talking to the guy who thinks blues is a subgenre of pop.

These days, the term "pop music" refers to multiple genres, including blues. Or at least, the more known blues singers.

I found this definition of a pop star (you actually made me look for it) :

A pop star is a person who is widely recognized or famous in the music industry and who commands a moderate or high degree of public and media attention.

If we go by this definition, John Lee Hooker was a pop star. Jimmy Hendrix was a pop star. Enya is a pop star. Thom Yorke is a pop star.

I rest my case.

Originally posted by who?-kid
You.don't.want.me.to.listen.to.it 😘

Scared ? Afraid I'd say something negative about it ?

Not at all, it wouldn't affect me. I've just decided that you'd not appreciate such music.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Those kind of remarks make you look pretty full of yourself.

I speak what I believe to be the truth.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Pathetic. You know very well that I was talking about pop stars and pop music in general. You make it seem like I said that blues is a spin off from pop music.

You did say that. You said blues, rock et al are spin offs of pop music, subgenres. Which is pathetic.

Simple music history, 'Kid. Blues, if anything, gave birth to pop, rock, r&b etc.

Originally posted by who?-kid
These days, the term "pop music" refers to multiple genres, including blues. Or at least, the more known blues singers.

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. I'm not too sure where it is you're living, but I suggest joining us in 06.

Originally posted by who?-kid
I found this definition of a pop star (you actually made me look for it) :

A pop star is a person who is widely recognized or famous in the music industry and who commands a moderate or high degree of public and media attention.

If we go by this definition, John Lee Hooker was a pop star. Jimmy Hendrix was a pop star. Enya is a pop star. Thom Yorke is a pop star.

A) "Jimi".

B) That's an archaic definition, when pop actually meant pop. Nowadays, it has a very specific music type attached to it. None of the people you mentioned are part of that.

Jimi Hendrix never was a pop star, he never made pop music, which is what a pop star is, realistically. People called Jimi Hendrix a "star", sure. He was popular, sure. What you seem to be doing is adding the two phrases together and assuming that it means "pop star" in today's world. It doesn't.

Britney Spears is called a pop star, not because of who she is or the degree of her popularity, because her music is pop music.

Originally posted by who?-kid
I rest my case.

You don't actually have a case, and I hope you realise this.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I know the man, but I haven't heard the album. That's a redundant piece of info, though. Because whether I have or haven't is irrelevant to his point, because his point isn't to do with liking or disliking the music, it's to do with him assuming I wouldn't like it [b]because it has an odd structure, or no structure, which is stupid, because I listen to that style of music anyway. It only proves that he dislikes music that is unfamiliar to him, obviously not taking into account that I'm not him.

I know if I like something or not straight away, but whether or not there is more to that music is a different matter. If I don't like something, I don't assume there isn't more to it that I'm not seeing, I just don't like it. If I dislike an album and someone says "There's more to it, you haven't give it time", and I believe there is or could be, due to me not having given it time, then fine. However, he is suggesting that if he doesn't like something, there's nothing more to it.

-AC [/B]

I was more aiming at your statement that, I assume, Patton did what Vangelis did just much better. That's a pretty weird statement if you haven't heard the paticular thing.

[edit] I just read who?-kid's reply as well...damn, no one gets me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was more aiming at your statement that, I assume, Patton did what Vangelis did just much better. That's a pretty weird statement if you haven't heard the paticular thing.

[edit] I just read who?-kid's reply as well...damn, no one gets me.

I get you, and I understand why it came across as weird, it's just a redundant point considering what we're ('Kid and I) discussing.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I get you, and I understand why it came across as weird, it's just a redundant point considering what we're ('Kid and I) discussing.

-AC

Well, this is originally a Radiohead thread, you turned it into a "Deep and Shallow" music thread...so why not some questions regarding your discussion, since it is hardly on topic anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, this is originally a Radiohead thread, you turned it into a "Deep and Shallow" music thread...so why not some questions regarding your discussion, since it is hardly on topic anyways.

Because by keeping on the off-topic we can hopefully resolve it and then move on.

With multiple different discussions, that won't happen.

My original point was that some music has much more to it than other music, and a person (in this case 'Kid) not liking the music they DO hear doesn't mean there isn't more to it. He foolishly disagrees, he believes that if he simply doesn't like something then there isn't more to it. Whilst Tabby has the even worse view of Hanson fans being as credible.

That was my only point. I used Radiohead as an example, 'Kid made this about them specifically. Whether or not he chooses to focus on my original point or continue to thrill us with his misinformed musical "knowledge" is up to him.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because by keeping on the off-topic we can hopefully resolve it and then move on.

With multiple different discussions, that won't happen.

My original point was that some music has much more to it than other music, and a person (in this case 'Kid) not liking the music they DO hear doesn't mean there isn't more to it. He foolishly disagrees, he believes that if he simply doesn't like something then there isn't more to it. Whilst Tabby has the even worse view of Hanson fans being as credible.

That was my only point. I used Radiohead as an example, 'Kid made this about them specifically. Whether or not he chooses to focus on my original point or continue to thrill us with his misinformed musical "knowledge" is up to him.

-AC

Well, to add to this conversation then, I think just because there is more to the music doesn'tr mean that everyone that doesn't like it doesn't get it. Sure, some might like it if they would understand it, but others might get it and still not like it, that's where the preference is in music.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, to add to this conversation then, I think just because there is more to the music doesn'tr mean that everyone that doesn't like it doesn't get it. Sure, some might like it if they would understand it, but others might get it and still not like it, that's where the preference is in music.

I understand and agree with that, but my point stems from people who go around saying that Radiohead are a worse band now, which is untrue.

Regardless of what people think of their music, they have actually got better as a band as they've gone on.

'Kid not only believes that there's nothing to "get" purely because he doesn't like it, but he believes they've somehow declined because he doesn't like the music. Stupid logic.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not at all, it wouldn't affect me. I've just decided that you'd not appreciate such music.

Probably a part of your master plan.

You did say that. You said blues, rock et al are spin offs of pop music, subgenres. Which is pathetic.

Simple music history, 'Kid. Blues, if anything, gave birth to pop, rock, r&b etc.

I'm not trying to say I'm an expert in all these styles, because I'm far from being an expert. I just know my way around, I know my history and I know my facts.

Blues is ONE of the "founding fathers" of the early rock 'n roll. It certainly didn't give birth to rock alone. Other "founding fathers" were country and western and boogie woogie.

That's an archaic definition, when pop actually meant pop. Nowadays, it has a very specific music type attached to it. None of the people you mentioned are part of that.

You realize Mozart is considered a pop star in his days ? Same for Paganini and Liszt. Examples that the term "pop star" transcends "pop music".

You don't actually have a case, and I hope you realise this.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was more aiming at your statement that, I assume, Patton did what Vangelis did just much better. That's a pretty weird statement if you haven't heard the paticular thing.

I know he's always working on a new project, didn't know however he made such an album. It's really hard to keep track when we're talking about Mike Patton. Is it one of his collaborations with John Zorn ?

[edit] I just read who?-kid's reply as well...damn, no one gets me.

Originally posted by who?-kid
You're not afraid of a wild assumption, are you ? You complained earlier that I assumed you wouldn't like Beaubourg, but you're doing exactly the same.

Probably a part of your master plan.

The difference is, I assumed it after you told me your opinion of the "no structure" erratic style. It was based on something, not...nothing, as yours was.

The difference is, you got off the bus at OK Computer. You consider Kid A to be artsy fartsy, why should I give you such credit as to appreciate the album I was referring to?

Originally posted by who?-kid
No I didn't. Stop misquoting me and stop misinterpreting me. I know more about the history of music than most people I know combined.

You said that they were subgenres of pop, why are you trying to weasel out of it? Here:

Originally posted by who?-kid
Pop music is a huuuuge genre that is divided in lots of sub genres such as rock, country, jazz, chanson, rap, ambient, blues, techno... You just don't get this simple statement.

You never said that? You just don't know what you're saying anymore, do you?

That's a good one, by the way: "...than most people I know, combined.". Given that they must not know a lot, I'd say knowing more is about as worthy an accolade as being a gold medal special olympics contender. I've never met any true music fan who would be so utterly stupid as to call blues, rock etc subgenres of pop, Jimi Hendrix a pop star, Queen a pop band etc.

Originally posted by who?-kid
It's not that simple. Do me a favour, and don't argue with me about the history of music, and with music I mean Gregorian, opera, classical, spirituals, country, jazz, blues, rock, pop...

I'll argue with your misinformed self over what I choose, 'Kid. You've proven that you know shit all, so what have I got to worry about?

Originally posted by who?-kid
I'm not trying to say I'm an expert in all these styles, because I'm far from being an expert. I just know my way around, I know my history and I know my facts.

I'm seeing claims, 'Kid, but I'm not seeing proof. You can sit there telling me you know all this 'til the cows come home, but the fact is, you've dwelled in this thread making some of the most ignorant and ill informed claims I have ever seen on this site.

So when you start proving your claims, I'll start believing them. Because all you've done so far is storm into the forum as if you're the Ultimate Warrior, shake the ropes and then collapse of a stroke.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Blues is ONE of the "founding fathers" of the early rock 'n roll. It certainly didn't give birth to rock alone. Other "founding fathers" were country and western and boogie woogie.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. What I'm still baffled about is the whole blues, rock etc being subgenres of pop.

Explain that, please.

Originally posted by who?-kid
No no no. YOU think it's an archaic definition because YOU don't like it. I like the definition, there's nothing wrong with it.

Quite the funny line. You claim that I think there's something wrong with it because I don't like it, then say: "I like the definition, there's nothing wrong with it.". I'm well aware you like it, because it works for you.

What I'm pointing out is that you're wrong, here. Pop doesn't mean what you are taking it to mean, anymore. Unless you want to be overly literal.

Gay means happy, but it doesn't "mean" happy anymore, does it? No.

Originally posted by who?-kid
You realize Mozart is considered a pop star in his days ? Same for Paganini and Liszt. Examples that the term "pop star" transcends "pop music".

Oh well hang on, you've misunderstood me here. I'm not denying that certain people are considered pop stars, you consider Thom Yorke a pop star. Certain people consider Bush a good president, U2 the greatest band ever, Pink Floyd humble, etc. I can go on.

I know you consider them pop stars, haha. I'm aware of that, I'm just putting forward the fact that they're not. Don't confuse yourself.

Originally posted by who?-kid
I have a case, I have examples, I have reasons and I have a definition. What do you have ? Except for an arrogant attitude ?

If you're asking me what I have, besides my own case, examples, reasons and facts, non-archaic definitions and actual logic, then I can only assume you're being willfully ignorant.

Let's run down things here: You think Queen were a pop band, you think Pink Floyd aren't a rock band purely because they don't make hard music (that was a rather big subconscious slip on your part.), you think Jimi Hendrix was a pop star, you think that if you don't like a certain style of music, then there's nothing more to get.

How can you possibly hope to be taken seriously with opinions like that? The crux of this debate was layered music, to which you denied, confirmed, denied and then confirmed the existence of. Regardless of your inability to make your mind up, there is such a thing as "more to music" regardless of if you like it or not.

Originally posted by who?-kid
I know he's always working on a new project, didn't know however he made such an album. It's really hard to keep track when we're talking about Mike Patton. Is it one of his collaborations with John Zorn?

No it's not one of his collaborations with Zorn, actually. It's one of his main works, but I'm not going into any further detail. The fact that you say you keep up with his projects yet don't know about this album, is laughable. Then again, what can I say except:

"Any true intellectual and music lover would have known."

Funny ol' world ain't it? It's not your fault you don't know it, lots of people don't. Obviously this makes you more laughable, especially since you consider yourself a follower of his.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
T"Any true intellectual and music lover would have known."