Patriots Unveil New Uniforms

[Gothamite]

13 minutes ago, MDGP said:

The fact is, it's been shown that music, especially pop music, is getting less complex and more repetitive over time.

 

Still doesn’t excuse Jay-Z. 

 

[Krz]

Y’all are forgetting Jay-Z’s verse on monster, almost ruined the song. 

Sasquatch, Godzilla, King Kong
Lochness, Goblin, Ghoul, a zombie with no conscience
Question what do all these things have in common
Everybody knows I'm a mother f ing monster

[MDGP]

Just now, Gothamite said:

 

Still doesn’t excuse Jay-Z. 

 

 

It doesn't excuse anyone except like, EDM artists. Repetition is kinda the whole point there (and even then, a lot is overly simplistic).

[monkeypower]

This thread started for the Patriots jerseys, pivoted into a discussion on brutalist architecture and is now about sharing hot takes about music (did you know if an artist/band has mainstream success, they’re actually bad?)
 

Do you think that anybody who posted on page one of this thread could have fathomed where we would be by page 76?

[gosioux76]

1 minute ago, monkeypower said:

This thread started for the Patriots jerseys, pivoted into a discussion on brutalist architecture and is now about sharing hot takes about music (did you know if an artist/band has mainstream success, they’re actually bad?)
 

Do you think that anybody posted on page one of this thread could have fathomed where we would be by page 76.

I don't even know what the new Patriots uniforms look like anymore. 

[MDGP]

4 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

(did you know if an artist/band has mainstream success, they’re actually bad?)
 

 

popularity =/= quality. If it did, McDonald's would have 3 Michelin Stars.

[Krz]

Can we keep this thread for a while mods? I’m kinda loving it.

[SFGiants58]

8 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

This thread started for the Patriots jerseys, pivoted into a discussion on brutalist architecture and is now about sharing hot takes about music (did you know if an artist/band has mainstream success, they’re actually bad?)
 

Do you think that anybody posted on page one of this thread could have fathomed where we would be by page 76.

 

Well, conversations frequently tend to drift and nobody really pays attention to The Lounge anymore. We made this section the new lounge because people actually read and engage here, even if it’s musical hot take about how becoming popular means you and the music are now bad and stupid (it can apply for modern pop, to an extent). 
 

Conversations always drift around and because moderators don’t mind drifting, we’re good (nothing in the rules about “staying on topic”). Heck, I went on a long bit about Yandere Simulator in the LA football thread, comparing Demoff to an incel who writes hilariously inefficient code. 

[MDGP]

3 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Conversations always drift around and because moderators don’t mind drifting, we’re good (nothing in the rules about “staying on topic”).

 

Quite frankly, most of the old goldmine and classic threads that I remember on this site were ones that went absolutely off the rails.

[monkeypower]

3 minutes ago, MDGP said:

popularity =/= quality. If it did, McDonald's would have 3 Michelin Stars.

 

No it doesn't, but this...

 

7 hours ago, MDGP said:

A good rule of thumb, if a musical artist has significant main stream success, they're usually not very good. Gotta keep it dumbed down for the masses.

 

this is a bad take. There is plenty of good music out there, that isn't "dumbed down" by people who have found mainstream success.

 

It reads like the 12 year-olds in YouTube comment sections of a Beatles song or any song before 2000. "Rap? More like crap!!!11!!. People my age have no music tastes, I was born in the wrong generation!11!!"

[monkeypower]

6 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Well, conversations frequently tend to drift and nobody really pays attention to The Lounge anymore. We made this section the new lounge because people actually read and engage here, even if it’s musical hot take about how becoming popular means you and the music are now bad and stupid (it can apply for modern pop, to an extent). 
 

Conversations always drift around and because moderators don’t mind drifting, we’re good (nothing in the rules about “staying on topic”). Heck, I went on a long bit about Yandere Simulator in the LA football thread, comparing Demoff to an incel who writes hilariously inefficient code. 

 

I was just more making a joke about the whole situation. I find it funny. I'm pretty sure I accidentally started the Jay-Z thing.

[MDGP]

Just now, monkeypower said:

 

No it doesn't, but this...

 

 

this is a bad take. There is plenty of good music out there, that isn't "dumbed down" by people who have found mainstream success.

 

It reads like the 12 year-olds in YouTube comment sections of a Beatles song or any song before 2000. "Rap? More like crap!!!11!!. People my age have no music tastes, I was born in the wrong generation!11!!"

 

I mean, I admit I was being a bit glib when I made that statement. And at no point did I say that being popular automatically makes you bad like people are taking it. My actual stance is more nuanced than my one sentence post.

 

I just think that the nature of the industry and getting to the top requires doing what the people at the top want, and that's making music that will make the most money, which a lot of the time is schlocky crap. But there are also popular bands that are great. I'm a big fan of early Coldplay (their new stuff not so much), and the Struts are my absolute favorite band right now. Both have had plenty of mainstream success.

 

Seriously, who gives a :censored: about my opinions anyway? If you wanna like crap (or what I think is crap) like crap, and like it proudly. People are acting like I dishonored their mothers.

[-Akronite-]

On 5/6/2020 at 6:54 PM, Gothamite said:

I don’t want to speak for anybody, but @dont care treated it like a joke because the lyric was a joke. Seemed like some people were actually taking Jay-Z seriously.  

 

 

1 hour ago, MDGP said:

 

I mean, I admit I was being a bit glib when I made that statement. And at no point did I say that being popular automatically makes you bad like people are taking it. My actual stance is more nuanced than my one sentence post.

 

I just think that the nature of the industry and getting to the top requires doing what the people at the top want, and that's making music that will make the most money, which a lot of the time is schlocky crap. But there are also popular bands that are great. I'm a big fan of early Coldplay (their new stuff not so much), and the Struts are my absolute favorite band right now. Both have had plenty of mainstream success.

 

Seriously, who gives a about my opinions anyway? If you wanna like crap (or what I think is crap) like crap, and like it proudly. People are acting like I dishonored their mothers.

Yep, it's not universal but it's nearly a rule in music that a band's "older stuff" is their better stuff. I think a lot of artists hit the scene with a unique voice, but it's just hard to maintain success, artistic integrity, staying true to your work to satisfy the fans, AND evolving your sound (BUT NOT TOO MUCH OH NO) to satisfy critics. 

 

I mean, if you have a hit album, how do you follow that up? Change the sound drastically and people will hate you. Stick to your schtick and people get bored. Plus, once you have success it becomes more difficult to maintain perspective and the money will change you. It's harder to find relatable themes for your lyrics because you're likely not struggling anymore. Artists that are able to elevate their introspection can overcome this but it's tough.

[Brass]

Music is like wrestling. Is the best one to do it the one who is the most talented or the one who draws the most money?

[Gothamite]

35 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

I mean, if you have a hit album, how do you follow that up? Change the sound drastically and people will hate you. Stick to your schtick and people get bored.

 

Good artists change, and the audience will follow.  Led Zeppelin III was practically a folk album, for crying out loud.  The Beatles of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are a far cry from the bubblegum boys of their early days.   

[Brass]

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

 

Good artists change, and the audience will follow.  Led Zeppelin III was practically a folk album, for crying out loud.  The Beatles of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are a far cry from the bubblegum boys of their early days.  

 

There is truth to this statement.

 

[Gothamite]

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with the notion that successful artists can't change.  Are there any two Radiohead albums that sound the same?  Depeche Mode started off as a happy, upbeat synth band before transitioning into a dark, depressing synth band.

 

Sure, some get complacent and stuck with their early successes.  But I would argue that more of them, the really great ones, don't.

 

 

Still not my favorite transition, though.

 

 

Lookin' good, boys.  But I really meant this one:

 

 

[MDGP]

26 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

Yep, it's not universal but it's nearly a rule in music that a band's "older stuff" is their better stuff. I think a lot of artists hit the scene with a unique voice, but it's just hard to maintain success, artistic integrity, staying true to your work to satisfy the fans, AND evolving your sound (BUT NOT TOO MUCH OH NO) to satisfy critics. 

 

I mean, if you have a hit album, how do you follow that up? Change the sound drastically and people will hate you. Stick to your schtick and people get bored. Plus, once you have success it becomes more difficult to maintain perspective and the money will change you. It's harder to find relatable themes for your lyrics because you're likely not struggling anymore. Artists that are able to elevate their introspection can overcome this but it's tough.

 

Right, a lot of what I was saying has to do with the capitalist parts of the industry, and less about the musicians or their abilities. Being massively popular requires navigation that very regularly leads to simplified pop, not always but certainly a lot.

 

My favorite example of someone like this is Charlie Puth (the guy who's performance ended the Monday Night Football "halftime shows"for good). That dude is a classically trained Berklee School of Music graduate. He's an uber-uber-uber talent. But ultimately, he's most famous for that Fast and Furious song See You Again, which is the epitome of the horrifying corporate cynicism of both the music industry and the movie industry.

 

My issue is more with corporate capitalism than anything, it's just that it become visible in the artists works.

 

Just now, Gothamite said:

 

Good artists change, and the audience will follow.  Led Zeppelin III was practically a folk album, for crying out loud.  The Beatles of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are a far cry from the bubblegum boys of their early days.  

 

Very true, and these are both examples, as well Brass's example of bands that transcended what I'm talking about. They're the 1% of the 1% and they could just :censored: gold if they wanted. Those bands exist today as well, and probably not in any less numbers.

[-Akronite-]

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

 

Good artists change, and the audience will follow.  Led Zeppelin III was practically a folk album, for crying out loud.  The Beatles of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are a far cry from the bubblegum boys of their early days.  

 

It's true, although a lot of mediocre artists also change and it doesn't always pay off because not everyone can be The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. I love Weezer, for instance, and their debut had a somewhat poppy, polished sound. Their followup Pinkerton was a complete shift to raw, emotional rock. In hindsight it was a great artistic achievement, but it was panned at the time and wasn't a great follow-up commercially. They've been able to convince some people to stick around or come back to them, but it's easy to make the argument that the band never really recovered.

[The_Admiral]

5 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with the notion that successful artists can't change.  Are there any Radiohead albums that sound the same?  Depeche Mode started off as a happy, upbeat synth band before transitioning into a dark, depressing synth band.

 

There's no greater career transition than Talk Talk going from mediocre synth-pop to jazz-orchestral oneness with the universe.