Post your unpopular music-related opinions here

Post Reply New Topic

Although I don't watch The Voice, I absolutely agree with you.

On another note, I'm also glad American Idol is no longer on the air because it only produced two contestants who managed to find success: Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood.

IMO, aside from those you mentioned, most of the actual good artists didn't even win like Chris Daughtry and Adam Lambert.

"So, how do you define "objectively good" or "objectively bad"? Seems a little too broad and vague, if you ask me. If you're talking about "pleasant" versus "unpleasant," than I agree that music is largely subjective in that aspect. Some people like certain genres or types of music and dislike others, and they often change overtime. However, I also believe that people can be "musically intelligent," or "insightful" or "informed," or "musically unintelligent," "ignorant," or "insensible." As an avid musician, I constantly strive to be as musically intelligent as I can be, because just as Dr. Grandin "thinks in pictures," I think in music."

My thoughts: Music is subjective, and there is no objectively 'good' or 'bad' music.

However, there are subjective opinions on what is good sound quality that have been near-universally agreed on by the vast majority of music engineers, professionals and the music industry.

Most musicians will strive to achieve this subjectively good sound quality, and that is to mix and master properly, with balanced EQing, proper use of compressors and other filters, to achieve a clean, pristine, clear, balanced sound that will sound good in the MP3 lossy format, and on most-to-all types of speakers and headphones, from computer speakers, to car speakers, to Ipod earphones, etc.

Otherwise, a poorly produced piece will sound muddy, unbalanced, distorted, etc. and be filled with a variety of unwanted audio artifacts.

Most professionals and the industry may be aware that poor sound quality or alternative sound quality may appeal to some niche markets (e.g. Lo-fi), but otherwise the rules are pretty set and restrictive in the industry.

For me, the difference between 'musically intelligent' and 'musically ignorant' is:

- Musically intelligent people know enough about music to take both artistry and subjective sound quality into account. They know enough to know when they are hearing 'good' or 'bad' sound quality (e.g. I can tell when a song sounds distorted and poorly mixed, by subjective 'professional' standards).

- Musically ignorant only take artistry into account.

- The worst of the musically ignorant do not value the instrumentals at all but merely the vocals, only really value pop music, and don't mind at all or never analyse how simplistically written, unoriginal and generic their favorite lyrics may be.

http://anonhq.com/analysis-intelligence ... ic-lyrics/

Ironically, I find today's industry standards to be poor sound quality, as producers value LOUDNESS over dynamics, have the vocals so loud it crushes the instrumentals, so loud it causes distortion, and don't mind audio artifacts.

See most modern pop music, David Guetta, and...*shudder* Big Room House music.





(WARNING: Listening to both of these to the end may result in terrible headache - always happens to me).

Good production:



"I. I find Iggy Azalea to be really obnoxious and don't get why people are as crazy about her as they are.
II. I don't like Adele's singing voice. I'm sorry. I'm sure she's a nice person, but I can't stand her music.
III. I think that Coldplay is just a cheap ripoff of U2.
IV. I don't hate Miley Cyrus as much as other people do. I find her to be a decent person, if a little eccentric at times, but hey I know that I have my own eccentricities. I think everyone does to a certain level."

I. Agreed.
II. Same here. She's far too overrated, and I still see 'Set fire to the rain' jokes and quotes even though that song is so old and I'm sick of it. Her voice is not appealing to me, and considering I listen to a bit of Maria Callas and opera, it's not just because she has an opera like voice.
III. Yep, they're pretty bad.
IV. Neutral. She's not the first celebrity to be some 'bad influence'.

"Personally, that's the reason I like The Voice because it relies more on vocal talent than outward appearance."

Disagree. I find those types of shows rely on pop/mainstream appeal more than anything else - even The Voice.

I still think it's an absolute insult that Shannon Noll lost to Guy Sebastian in Australian Idol.

Problem was, Shannon Noll was more of a country singer, and country was basically dead in the early-2000's, but R&B, Sebastian's genre, was in.

"On another note, I'm also glad American Idol is no longer on the air because it only produced two contestants who managed to find success: Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood."

One man's success is another's unrealistic dream.

Simply put I think most independent musicians and artists would love to make it at least to the final 10 or 5 of a musical singing talent show, if just to gain more publicity/attention to their music.

I'd say most people are less likely to look up someone who made it into the final 25 or such, but there comes a point where you can still find some success even if you won in a later American Idol, or were only a runner-up.

Australian Idol's Shannon Noll, runner-up of an early-2000's one, had pretty good success.

I'd love to make it into the top 5 of a music show if just so that having 100 soundcloud followers could grow to 500.

Taylor Swift is an awful singer. Yes, she's released some catchy songs, but most of her recent hits cover the same subject matter {unrequited love, breakups, jealously} that her music isn't worth listening to anymore.

I'm pretty much over her by this point. There's really nothing more worth listening to.

You did happen to notice the title of the thread correct? Key word- opinion. I'm not claiming anything other than what my own opinion is. Not to mention it's an unpopular one. And it's about music. Holy s**t... ON TOPIC!?!?!

If one doesn't like classical music, that's their choice.

In fact, it's fairly common today that the vast majority of people don't.

Your opinion isn't that unpopular beakybird - it doesn't belong here.

Nevermind the fact that it's some of the most musically complex stuff of all time; most people find it 'dull' and 'boring' - and that's fine. Complex ≠ good. Listener preference = good.

The stuff I like is fairly simple and fun, but certainly more complex than lowest common denominator pop music and hip-hop, which basically just repeats Middle-C over and over again.

I listen to a bit of classical, but personally prefer Baroque and Chamber Music myself...

Why does liking a certain type of music make you a lesser person?

It's not the people that's stupid, it's just the music.

You like what you like, and taste is of course subjective, but it is my subjective opinion that most pop and rap are awful.

Even the rap I like, I still admit it's very simple music (too simple for my subjective tastes).

My issues with rap music are it is possibly even more musically simplistic than pop, the instrumentals serve no melodic or musical purpose other than to add 'a beat' to the rapping.

Rapping might as well be a-cappella/no instruments, as the entire purpose of the instruments is to just add metronome.

It's very minimalist (read: empty) and repetitive, generic and derivative (even early rap was mostly sampled stuff with lyrics just put over it). Most music that is repetitive usually has slight variations and subtle changes - I can listen to most electronic and analyse it, and most of it is not as repetitive as it seems. Pop and rap, however, basically are the same sounds over and over again.

Just listen to the instrumental version of the song 'Fancy' by Iggy Azealae, the most cringeworth rap song I've ever heard:

Then again, every criticism i have of rap is the exact same reasons I dislike pop music. Pop music also puts far too much emphasis on the vocals and smushes everything else.

I like music where the instrumentals would hold up as a legitimate song if the vocals were actually removed - something very possible in most forms of electronic music.

Case in point: Alan Walker - Faded vs. Fade

-
-

She is a businesswoman, putting on a fake 'good girl' image to the public - notice how most of her fans who defend her, their primary argument is she's a 'nice person' and 'hardworking'.

Her target demographic, the young women aged 12-18, the music she sings is entirely designed to appeal to them so they eat that cr*p up - just like what nOne Direction do.

Her voice is heavily auto-tuned, and, if you actually have a good look, it's very difficult to find any videos of her singing well live, and the one's where she does sing well live are usually lip-synched.

Her lyrics are generic and pathetic:

"And baby now we got bad blood...
Now we got problems (no sh*t, sherlock, you just said you've got 'bad blood', does that mean you two are best friends forever now or something?)"

Note, I said she only sings, as nearly everything else - songwriting, producing, recording, mastering, distribution, promotion, are done by people she's hired.

Even songs where she may be credited as a writer, what they don't tell you is sometimes popping in for 5mins and saying 'change knock it off to shake it off' will get you writing credit, something explained here in detail in this Cracked.com article (not the best source, so bear with me): http://www.cracked.com/article_23644_5- ... think.html

And, the reason her songs are 'catchy', is because they are the same formulaic pop - 3:30 length, typical intro-verse-bridge-chorus-verse structure, and typical pop chords a la the I–V–vi–IV progression (see here: ,

and here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I–V–vi–IV_progression)

And lyrics on average written at a third-grade level (source:http://anonhq.com/analysis-intelligence-levels-of-popular-music-lyrics/ )

No ambition, no boundary-breaking or crossing, no experimentation. Taylor Swift's music has no redeeming qualities, nor does the other 99% of current pop music.

*Deep breath*.

I'm done.

(For now)

All Time favorite band:

DEVO

Okay, lol, I get what you're saying - but I still don't think that even though this is an "unpopular opinion" thread that should mean we should simply say "oh, well that was just my opinion, nothing more." Be proud of it! Even if it's an unpopular opinion, it's still a perfectly valid opinion - I just thought backing it up a bit might be a little helpful.

Okay, that whole sentence makes almost NO sense to me whatsoever - "near-universally agreed on by the vast majority of music engineers, professionals and the music industry," and yet STILL based on "subjective opinions"? Seems more "objective" to me if it has a unanimous consensus by music professionals.

Now, that I really cannot agree with. I'll admit that they don't know about mastering and producing music, which "can be" an important role, at least in recorded music, but it certainly DOES NOT make them completely musically ignorant. In fact, I would argue that someone who knows only about mastering/producing, but nothing about the art/theory is several orders of magnitude more ignorant about music than someone who is the reverse. Because at least they could put on a live performance and demonstrate that they know what the hell they're doing when it comes to music (just as that's been done for centuries prior to the advent of sound recording).

"Okay, that whole sentence makes almost NO sense to me whatsoever - "near-universally agreed on by the vast majority of music engineers, professionals and the music industry," and yet STILL based on "subjective opinions"? Seems more "objective" to me if it has a unanimous consensus by music professionals."

Kind of like the argument that beauty is subjective, but there are some in this world that are considered universally attractive - there is a clear mass consensous.

Taste in movies is also 'objective', but that doesn't mean there won't be some movies that get extremely popular ratings from both critics and fans alike.

Who's to say a subjective opinion, must be an individual one or unpopular one? Plenty of subjective opinions that can be agreed upon and shared by more than one person.

"I subjectively like Ice Cream. Liking ice cream is subjective. Oh, you like ice cream too? Cool. That means we both find ice cream subjectively good."

The standards have been set - they aren't necessarily correct, but it's in my experiences what most musicians who worry about sound production, including myself, for some reason strive towards. Why? Because it's popular!

"Now, that I really cannot agree with. I'll admit that they don't know about mastering and producing music, which "can be" an important role, at least in recorded music, but it certainly DOES NOT make them completely musically ignorant. In fact, I would argue that someone who knows only about mastering/producing, but nothing about the art/theory is several orders of magnitude more ignorant about music than someone who is the reverse. Because at least they could put on a live performance and demonstrate that they know what the hell they're doing when it comes to music (just as that's been done for centuries prior to the advent of sound recording)."

Okay, you got me there. My entire definition of that was a bit clumsily stated.

All I meant was, majority of people who listen to music, do not have 'musician's ear', and by that I mean an ear trained to hear music better. I'm sure you share 'musician's ear' and cannot deny it feels different listening to music as an actual musician than before you started creating music.

All I meant was the musically ignorant, those that do not know anything about music and merely listen to it, simply are concerned with how it sounds. Nothing more.

Now, granted, if they like the sound, then it's good.

But maybe its a pop song using very simplistic, easy to create, paint-by-the-numbers power chords, maybe the lyrics are quite generic and at a 2nd or 3rd grade literary level, maybe it has been poorly recorded, maybe it is lacking in both artistry/musical complexity and good sound quality.

Again, doesn't mean it's bad, just that those that are 'musically ignorant', musically ignrorant being they know almost nothing about music, the majority, if not all, of these details will pass over their head.

I listen to music myself passively sometimes and just enjoy it for what it sounds like, but can you as a fellow musician honestly say you don't ever have a bit of fun and 'analyse' music?

"In fact, I would argue that someone who knows only about mastering/producing, but nothing about the art/theory is several orders of magnitude more ignorant about music than someone who is the reverse. Because at least they could put on a live performance and demonstrate that they know what the hell they're doing when it comes to music"

Oh, here we go....is it fair for me to argue I believe it's equal?

Sure, you could put on a live performance with your electronic keyboard or even just your acoustic guitar, but if you're completely oblivious to good live equipment (speakers, microphone, and all those other technical gear that goes into it) you may just buy whatever you can and play around and, once you actually play live, there goes the microphone making a loud, constant ringing noise, so you can't use it.

It would only work so long as you're using an instrument that requires no technology to back it up. I would also have to be practical to transport/portable. Your only option is the acoustic guitar.

And that's just the basics. Sound engineering has entire courses that take years of hard work and dedication to learn just as musical theory does.

And what does being able to publicly demonstrate your skill have to do with actual skill level?

That's kind of like if I can play video games in front of people, I must be more talented than a video game coder, as all he can show others is himself typing what looks like meaningless strings of words and numbers and pushing 'Enter'.

If it is 'publicly demonstratable' to the average viewer, you mean, and not the coders fellow peers who would actually know what he's doing.

Just like a guy playing acoustic guitar publicly, they know what he's doing - but me using FL Studio or Ableton? It looks like the Matrix to people who don't know any better.



vs.

A person, to me, is 'musically ignorant' when they are incapable of anaylsing the small, intricate details, and instead look at the bigger picture.

Just as I might watch a dance performance, and all that I am concerned with is 'does it entertain me'?

Meanwhile a fellow dancer may be paying attention to the posture, form, movements, etc. of the other performer.

They just have a different way of looking at things - a way in which the lyrics of their pop song and the chord progressions being very simplistic and such may pass over their head.

Maybe people who like pop music may be musically educated enough, and still enjoy the sound of it - but I don't see much of them. Maybe they like it for being simple and fun, even if it is in no way creative.

This also means a musically ignorant person who does not like a song, all they can say is that the sound displeases them, while someone musically educated can go into further details.

And on the topic of sound engineering: It is a disciple that has been vastly researched since recording equipment was first invented in the late-1800's, and over 100 years later today is still what I would consider its infancy regarding potential.

I am not afraid to admit I'd consider the greatest sound engineers and producers of all time, their knowledge of the technology is so great I would consider it equivalent/on-par to many great musicians that were vastly educated in theory (not on the level of Beethoven or Mozart, of course, but still the greatest sound engineers certainly have more knowledge and skill than a young singer/acoustic guitar player who knows little of the technology), it's just that, of course, the young singer is far more accessible to the public. But hopefully sound engineers and producers won't be less accessible for very long, as it is the direction music is going.

I'm glad Ariana Grande has lost a lot of her fans.