Music Snobbery?

[TheMan]

The absolute WORST for this kind of snobbery are people who like 80s cheese-metal bands like Iron Maiden or Metallica or whatever. They are the absolute worst for always talking about 'real music'.

I know we don't always agree, but this. So much this. That was just as fake as today's popular music - people don't like music, they like the people who make the music and hate to say it, but Iron Maiden and co. just put on as much of a show as One Direction and such.

Good post, Sam.

Er, no it wasn't lol! You think Iron Maiden had choreographers pmsl???

Oh - and they wrote their own music, worked the band circuit hard, and made it the hard way, as most bands and artists did then. I am not a Maiden fan, but that is ludicrous statement to make.

As for Bieber? As far as I know, he is a multi talented musician and writes his own songs. He is pretty much self made, whilst I cannot abide his style the guy got out with his guitar and still did it (I am not exactly all knowledgeable here so feel free to correct me), I don't judge on style, I judge on methods.

1D and Justin Bieber are polar opposites of the same style - one, cheap, manufactured, boy band (see the Boyzone video again!) - the other, a self made, self promoted young man with a dream and goal he attained, well done to the boy!

Please though, never, ever compare the turd like One Direction to the super groups of the 60s/70s/80s/ and pretty much the 90s. I don't like half of the them either, but you have clearly never had anything to do with music to make such a turgid statement.

No offense on a personal level Harvey obviously, but professionally speaking, that is total tripe mate

Here is a FRACTION of Maiden history to put this rubbish to bed also.

Things were difficult at first as in 1977 the Punk / New Wave
revolution was in full swing and most of the venues were only booking new wave acts. The record companies felt the same. The band did receive offers, if they were prepared to cut their hair and go punk. Needless to say you can guess Harry's answer.

Taken from Metal You

SOMEHOW I don't think they are talking about Harry Styles or whatever his name is...

Argh, opinions are one thing, presenting those as facts are an entirely different one - if you like that music, or defend what it is, DO IT, but do it honestly whilst accepting the ramifications of that - of which there are many. If your principles are that you like manufactured fake music (which it is, production lined, to a set template) then stand by them, don't do it by trying to dismiss the years, sometimes decades of graft put in by hard working musicians to make it through integrity and utter pain and graft!

If you doubt it is like this, do it... I did.

 

[Stevie]

What I hate about this generation's view on music, is that most young people totally dismiss artists just because of the fact that they're not 'in' at the moment, and they say "OMG Y DO U LIKE DEM? DERE SO OLD!". And people who say "Love this song, it's really old but YOLO!" Does it really matter how old a song or a band is? It doesn't give a blind bit of difference how old it is! Just sit back and enjoy the damn song!

Now that's what really gets on my wicks!

 

[Fredward]

While, I've tried to not become a music snob and embrace all kinds of music, popular and unpopular, some of these posts, are making me want to scream from the rooftops and to become a music snob once more.

It's almost as if we have two opposites at war with each other, the music snobs and the music snob snobs.... if that makes any sense at all.

There are people bashing pop music for one reason and others dismissing and bashing non pop music.

Now you can say you like Beiber and dislike Maiden, but saying they are on par with on stage, when one artist lipsyncs, with a back up band and dancers while the other band plays for 2 or more hours straight, stay in perfect sync with one another, while still running around on stage, playing their heart outs when they are now in their 50's and 60's, Interact with their fans, have their own religion in South America and their singer flies the plane to take them to these shows. It shows a distance difference in the level of effort and quality the two music groups do.

If you said someone like Lady GaGa or maybe Katy Perry, who actually put a lot of effort in their performing.. but Beiber!?

Their you go a random, music snobbery out burst.

It's all right to love and dislike certain types of music. The problem is, when people assume everyone loves pop music and is shoved down your throats it becomes irritating.

Think about it like this, how much do we complain about how The Smiler doesn't have enough airtime, or needs lapbars ext. That is just like complaining how Alton Towers need Iron Maiden, Metallica playing. Truth is the general public who want to attend these events don't care about air time, lap bars, Maiden or Metallica. Regardless of what the GP wants, we still express what we want, and complain when we do not. It's how an internet forum works, it's not snobbery to have a differing opinion.

If we have this topic, why can't we have a lap bar snobbery topic?

 

[TheMan]

If you said someone like Lady GaGa or maybe Katy Perry, who actually put a lot of effort in their performing.. but Beiber!?

Thing is mate, even Beiber at least made it by putting himself out there, he can sing a bit and can play a fair few instruments - not someone picked as he had nice hair (or in Boyzones case, wore jeans, bare chest, and "Rock On Tommy" trouser hold ups).

I haven't got anything against the boy bands themselves either (mostly), who can blame them for taking a chance as young teenagers to be lauded by 10k's of teenage girls lol!!

I remember the days when girls used to swoon over musicians though ;D - especially guitarists.... ahem.... moving on...

What I hate about this generation's view on music, is that most young people totally dismiss artists just because of the fact that they're not 'in' at the moment, and they say "OMG Y DO U LIKE DEM? DERE SO OLD!". And people who say "Love this song, it's really old but YOLO!" Does it really matter how old a song or a band is? It doesn't give a blind bit of difference how old it is! Just sit back and enjoy the damn song!

Now that's what really gets on my wicks!

I think many would actually cry real tears, if they realised, much of this "new" stuffs dem like, is in fact, rehashed segments of classical music centuries old. A pop producer I know, went through a load with me once pointing out which pieces they were lifted from - it was simply staggering.

Don't be fooled, in days gone by, artists perceived as pop often still had real talent, Robbie Williams for example - a brilliantly poetic writer, I was surprised by some that did have more talent... however, those days are well and truly done.

You are being left with producers/engineers that will work for virtually naff all, and bow completely to labels strict time/budget constraints, unlike it has ever been.

Thankfully, there are green shoots of independence, but the first thing that needs to happen, is people need to sit up and realise they are being taken for a ride - and the only people truly winning from it, are a few people behind some desks, desperately trying to fingernail grip a disparate industrial dinosaur that they themselves have helped destroy.

Enjoy your ready meal music - pop a CD in the microwave, churn out a hit in 3 minutes.

PING!

 

[Fredward]

If you said someone like Lady GaGa or maybe Katy Perry, who actually put a lot of effort in their performing.. but Beiber!?

Thing is mate, even Beiber at least made it by putting himself out there, he can sing a bit and can play a fair few instruments - not someone picked as he had nice hair (or in Boyzones case, wore jeans, bare chest, and "Rock On Tommy" trouser hold ups).

I haven't got anything against the boy bands themselves either (mostly), who can blame them for taking a chance as young teenagers to be lauded by 10k's of teenage girls lol!!

I remember the days when girls used to swoon over musicians though ;D - especially guitarists.... ahem.... moving on...

In terms of live acts, I would disagree, I would say GaGa has a better stage presence. They at least sing live in their pop concerts. I think Beiber sings on his acoustic sets, but at his pop concerts he does lip sing, as shown in his vomming video!

But moving on, again that is personal preference and opinion. (Not that I would buy tickets for a performance by either! But I can appreciate Perry and GaGa from a musical and performance point of view, Bieber is ok, but I've yet to find any appreciation for his live performances.

 

[Nick]

The thing is, the problem I think that music has come to is that vocalists are put ahead of the actual music. As music has progressed, from classical (no vocals) to jazz (few vocals) to rock (vocals on top of good music) and now (mainly vocals) it's lost it's essence, that instruments are the most important part of music.

Now, don't get me wrong, the voice is clearly and instrument, and should be used, but only if the music behind it is any decent. As Kurt Cobain said, "Music comes first and lyrics come second", and he's right. Artists that focus on the melody of the song, and less on the vocals, are always going preferred (by me at least) than ones who focus solely on the singing.

Again, sometimes vocal performances can be very strong and emotional, and I'm not saying vocals with limited backing should be abolished, just I prefer it with a strong instrumental backing behind it.

 

[TheMan]

In terms of live acts, I would disagree, I would say GaGa has a better stage presence. They at least sing live in their pop concerts. I think Beiber sings on his acoustic sets, but at his pop concerts he does lip sing, as shown in his vomming video!

But moving on, again that is personal preference and opinion. (Not that I would buy tickets for a performance by either! But I can appreciate Perry and GaGa from a musical and performance point of view, Bieber is ok, but I've yet to find any appreciation for his live performances.

Sorry mate think I relayed what I meant wrong, I meant Beiber in terms of VS 1D etc, I am not fans of any you mention, but I can imagine their stage shows they at least bother to sing - surely a minimum requirement of a singer? ... Not nowadays clearly lol!!

Jessie J is another I felt very pop, but seeing one her live performances where she did a heavy blues number, her voice and performance were exquisite!

So yeah we are making the same point mate I get you, my fault, worded and quoted wrong - one of those days mate lol!

 

[TheMan]

Again, sometimes vocal performances can be very strong and emotional, and I'm not saying vocals with limited backing should be abolished, just I prefer it with a strong instrumental backing behind it.

I think this is an example of preference though Nick. For example, there are Eastern chanting choirs that can train their voices to resonate upon two completely different planes of tone - resulting in very unique timbre, and actually using their voices in exactly the same way as you play an instrument (vibrations/tone).

A true master of vocals, is an instrument within itself - here is a rather amusing example (I have posted before), and another reason why there is simply no excuse for lip-syncing, auto tuned tripe!!

Incredible acapella group!!

I have other great examples of incredible vocals, from a multitude of cultures.

 

[Nick]

I think this is an example of preference though Nick.

Yes, I did state "prefer" in the quote, so stating my opinion. As I said, voices are very good and powerful, but I enjoy listening to music than singing. Some of my favourite songs are instrumentals.

Anyway, although that vocal performance is very impressive, and I understand the technical brilliance, a voice will never match the strength of a killer guitar solo, bass riff or drum fill for me.

 

[Harv]

You think Iron Maiden had choreographers pmsl???

So what's with the fire, the huge skull and the abundance of leather clothing?

---

Music is about image. You move with the times. Being 'metal' was cool at the time when Iron Maiden were around. Nowadays;

Younger guys in skinny jeans are what the times demand. Now that is what is perceived as desirable by the public - if it wasn't, One Direction wouldn't enjoy such chart success.

I'm not getting into a strong debate - personally, I cannot abide the X Factor - but I do feel that Iron Maiden played just as much on creating an image as One Direction does.

 

[Fredward]

the huge skull

that's not a skull. That's Eddie.

Being 'metal' was cool at the time when Iron Maiden were around.

Your picture you have shared is from their current world tour going on right now, also there is no leather. just jeans and Black T-shirts (but they do have a sort of semi stylist, that is the metal fashion) Plenty of leather from their '80s years though! lol.

Sorry Maiden pedantics.

I would say you have a point but chose the wrong band, Maiden are choreographed in terms of stage show, but that musicians don't have a routine, besides a set-list, well everyone except Bruce, he does like to be theatrical on occasion throughout the show.

If you want a metal band who is heavily choreographed to prove your point, where they have to stick to specific routines all throughout there show, or risk.. well dying...

 

[TheMan]

I'm not getting into a strong debate - personally, I cannot abide the X Factor - but I do feel that Iron Maiden played just as much on creating an image as One Direction does.

There isn't a need for one, there is a big difference between putting on a performance, great staging, great lighting to support fantastic music - and a "band" that sings/dresses/dances exactly as it is told too.

No metal/stadium band do that. There is a big difference between staging, a great production, and all round show - that requires fantastic teamwork, brilliant creative directors, artists from many disciplines who come together to support an act in its own right.

Again, not even remotely credible. They are not the modern day show/stadium bands.

For example, I would go and watch bands like Muse or that weird German band everyone goes on about, why? I don't like the style of music, but they are real bands, with a real passion, and a real show that conveys that to the audience. I can appreciate quality musical shows and performances of any real integrity - which 1D have absolutely none of.

Sorry to burst any fan girls bubbles here, but they do nothing except look pretty, don't care about you, and are in it for the fame and money. I don't blame them for it either lol! To compare them to real bands and stage productions though...

Just no, has zero professional merit at all, just a fact sorry - not an opinion.

As I say to reiterate, I am not debating here, I am presenting industry facts - like them or not.

 

[Harv]

There isn't a need for one, there is a big difference between putting on a performance, great staging, great lighting to support fantastic music - and a "band" that sings/dresses/dances exactly as it is told too.

But the latter is now more popular? I don't really understand how that directly approaches my statement, either way.

No metal/stadium band do that. There is a big difference between staging, a great production, and all round show - that requires fantastic teamwork, brilliant creative directors, artists from many disciplines who come together to support an act in its own right.

What a bizarre statement; because a band plays metal, this automatically means that their team is more dedicated? I don't get it, to be honest. One Direction may put on a great show, for all I know. I'm sure with all the money that they make they can afford fantastic creativity directors and such.

Again, not even remotely credible. They are not the modern day show/stadium bands.

You say this, but after doing a quick Google, I see that they have a huge stadium tour lined up, all across Europe and America, that's just started. It must say something that tickets are highly in demand for this?

For example, I would go and watch bands like Muse or that weird German band everyone goes on about, why? I don't like the style of music, but they are real bands, with a real passion, and a real show that conveys that to the audience. I can appreciate quality musical shows and performances of any real integrity - which 1D have absolutely none of.

Without being rude, I think you're pretty much on your own in saying that you'd pay to go to a concert of a band you don't know the name of, and you don't like the style of, just because they put on passionate shows.

Sorry to burst any fan girls bubbles here, but they do nothing except look pretty, don't care about you, and are in it for the fame and money. I don't blame them for it either lol! To compare them to real bands and stage productions though...

I'm certainly not a fan, don't worry.

I agree that One Direction are, essentially, money whores. All they do is smile for merchandise and such. But they're still popular. And they do produce music. Sure, it's cheesy, average and all the songs are similar. But it is well liked. I can compare them though; because they are a 'real' band.

What makes a band 'real'? What exactly is 'real' music? Because to me, no matter how ghastly, One Direction's songs are real. I can hear them, they have a tune, they are thus 'real'.

Just no, has zero professional merit at all, just a fact sorry - not an opinion.

If we're gonna talk professionally, they are economically one of the biggest things in music. They are sought after for TV interviews, and they are highly respected in their profession for gaining such popularity in such a short space of time.

As I say to reiterate, I am not debating here, I am presenting industry facts - like them or not.

Well, some are facts and some are opinions. It really does depend what viewpoint you want to take on things.

---

TheMan, I apologize for picking your post apart, but it just seemed the best way to refer directly to your points.

No hard feelings, though.

 

[TheMan]

Hey don't worry mate, I can enjoy a tasty discussion with anyone - it isn't personal, neither have made it so, we are simply discussing the points at hand.

To clarify what I meant again though, and then leave it I guess as we wont agree.

1D are not a band, they are a group of people who have everything done for them, they are manufactured and are popular because this is what people have been told is good, and they saturate the market to out do anything independent because they cannot cope with the multi million dollar marketing machine. That is it. Really, it is.

When an independent band or artist make it, they generally work harder, longer, and go through way more turbulence to get there believe me.

I say this as someone who has been involved and experienced both sides of this industry - working with pop writers who got out, and grass roots mentoring of bands and tackling the crap side of the industry to try and wrestle back some credibility.

I am now involved in other things to give unsigned independent artists a leg up - believe me dude, 20 years experience talking - I started gigging when I was 15 and it went from there.

I didn't enter the thread to dismiss what people like music wise, or taste, but just to deliver real hard facts so people can make informed decisions as to the style of artist they wish to support. I get passionate on the way, as I have seen too many great artists be cast aside for this utter tripe rammed down peoples throats - and it is, they dominate marketing and sales in a very premeditated fashion.

It is my passion, and my industry, and one I know very very well - and it is utter carp to work in believe me. Even great independent artists can be utter tools though, and as I say, all power to the boys for seizing their opportunities! Can't fault em. The people behind that though, and the damage they do to the industry, they have much to answer for.

I just ask that you consider my professional prose in that, the ways real musicians and bands work, and the way boy bands work, are so unbelievably different it is like a completely different world.

As you say though, nothing at all personal, and when it boils down to what I do much of it is to educate and enlighten people who perhaps don't realise what goes on - this way they can make a more informed choice. Nowt wrong with that is there dude to be fair?

Also, I like the fact you took time to discuss it bit by bit, to me all it did was showed you were considered in your opinions.

Again, this is where I wish they would give me a thumbs up icon to use lol!! ;D

 

[josht]

If your still watching the X factor after British music between the early 60's and late 90's your mental there's nothing good coming out of Britain ATM

 

[Nick]

If your still watching the X factor after British music between the early 60's and late 90's your mental there's nothing good coming out of Britain ATM

Rubbish. Not only is music very, very good at the moment, but pre-60's music is also excellent. This is really a typical viewpoint of someone who can't use the Internet to find good music. When you rely solely on publications such as Rolling Stone and NME, who's pedestal-placing of certain bands and genres really means their opinions are outdated and invalid, you're always going to come out with the typical "60's music is the best" and "music died" rubbish. It is literally so easy nowadays to listen to music; I feel bad for the people who don't take advantage of it.

 

[josht]

If your still watching the X factor after British music between the early 60's and late 90's your mental there's nothing good coming out of Britain ATM

Rubbish. Not only is music very, very good at the moment, but pre-60's music is also excellent. This is really a typical viewpoint of someone who can't use the Internet to find good music. When you rely solely on publications such as Rolling Stone and NME, who's pedestal-placing of certain bands and genres really means their opinions are outdated and invalid, you're always going to come out with the typical "60's music is the best" and "music died" rubbish. It is literally so easy nowadays to listen to music; I feel bad for the people who don't take advantage of it.

Music changed Britain in 60's and carried on till the late 90's there's no good new bands they've got bloody kasabian headlining Glastonbury great music

 

[Nick]

If your still watching the X factor after British music between the early 60's and late 90's your mental there's nothing good coming out of Britain ATM

Rubbish. Not only is music very, very good at the moment, but pre-60's music is also excellent. This is really a typical viewpoint of someone who can't use the Internet to find good music. When you rely solely on publications such as Rolling Stone and NME, who's pedestal-placing of certain bands and genres really means their opinions are outdated and invalid, you're always going to come out with the typical "60's music is the best" and "music died" rubbish. It is literally so easy nowadays to listen to music; I feel bad for the people who don't take advantage of it.

Music changed Britain in 60's and carried on till the late 90's there's no good new bands they've got bloody kasabian headlining Glastonbury great music

And you would know there's no "good new bands" because you've listened to loads of modern music.

Oh wait, no. Actually, you've not even given it a chance.

Pure ignorance.

 

[josht]

If your still watching the X factor after British music between the early 60's and late 90's your mental there's nothing good coming out of Britain ATM

Rubbish. Not only is music very, very good at the moment, but pre-60's music is also excellent. This is really a typical viewpoint of someone who can't use the Internet to find good music. When you rely solely on publications such as Rolling Stone and NME, who's pedestal-placing of certain bands and genres really means their opinions are outdated and invalid, you're always going to come out with the typical "60's music is the best" and "music died" rubbish. It is literally so easy nowadays to listen to music; I feel bad for the people who don't take advantage of it.

Music changed Britain in 60's and carried on till the late 90's there's no good new bands they've got bloody kasabian headlining Glastonbury great music

And you would know there's no "good new bands" because you've listened to loads of modern music.

Oh wait, no. Actually, you've not even given it a chance.

Pure ignorance.

Yeah ok modern music is amazing loads of great artist around

Joke of course

 

[Towers freak]

In terms of live acts, I would disagree, I would say GaGa has a better stage presence. They at least sing live in their pop concerts. I think Beiber sings on his acoustic sets, but at his pop concerts he does lip sing, as shown in his vomming video!

What bugs me about artists that lip sync is fans have paid good money to see you perform live. If they wanted to see them lip sync or hear pre-recorded you would watch the music video on Youtube or put on the CD at home for almost nothing. There is nothing more insulting to your fans than basically saying I can't be bothered to do this properly f**K you. You wouldn't expect to go to a restaurant where the chef doesn't care about the customers and nukes everything and pay good money for it, so why accept it at a concert.

NB: Didn't realise most of this topic is from over a year ago...how come it has returned from the dead?