Trollheart's Room 101 (Music Version) is open for business!
 

You know the deal with the show: you choose something that really gets under your skin and if the host agrees it's forever banished to Room 101, symbolically removing it from the world forever. Course, it doesn't do anything really (if only we had that power!) but it's a bit of fun.

So I'd like to try it with music as the only required criterion.

Outside of that, it can be a band you hate, an artist, a song, an album, a style or genre of music, a producer, a trend in music, anything music or music related, and there are only a few loose rules.

1. Each specific thing can only be successful once, ie if someone sends Westlife into Room 101, they can't be chosen again. Neither, in fairness, can any of the members, though specific music by them can. Think of it as the band is in Room 101 but their music is still out there (god help us!). Additionally, you could vote for something related to Westlife, for instance, like boybands in general, or Louis Walsh, or bands trying to play swing or jazz etc. But again, once a specific thing, person, idea or whatever is in Room 101 it can't be put in there again, which should really be obvious.

2. You can't really just say "I hate Motorhead" or "All jazz is crap": you need to have a reasonably considered argument, as, if this gets enough interest, I will pit three choices against each other, with only one getting the chance to send their chosen item to Room 101. Of course, anyone failing can always try again. Be creative: remember, you are trying to convince me, and as with the show, the final word is mine.

I guess that's it really, just the two rules. If this gets popular I'll post a regular "inventory" of what's in Room 101, so newcomers will know what they should or can not pick. Also, no fighting, though debate, conducted in a civilised way and with a clear head by all, is as always welcomed. You can sort of jockey for position, as it were, trying to convince me why your item is better than his or hers, but no glib put-downs please. Any nastiness will result in your item being summarily ejected, and quite possibly your own future choices ignored. As in all things, it's fun so play nice.

To nominate something, simply post and wait to see when I reply. If you haven't quite convinced me I'll tell you, and give you a chance to do so, or if I have any questions or concerns about your choice that'll be in my reply post(s) too.

So, Room 101 is open for business: who's first through the door? ;)

Great idea. I will surely contribute soon :)

Here's what I would like banished to room 101: the notion that subdued acoustic music is somehow more honest, more emotional or more "real" than other music. This concept has to be one of the most annoying ideas in all of music. It's not that subdued acoustic music can't be great—it certainly can—but it's not more or less inherently "honest" than other types of music, it's simply one way among many of producing sounds. The problem is that so many people buy into this concept that musicians of this variety are inclined toward disappearing up their own assholess, thus creating a sizable chunk of music that not just shallow but also mind-numbingly boring.

I'd like to banish all those decrepit 70s classic rock fans with their whole 'Disco Sucks' attitude.

I remember one such guy coming here and saying that he used his Ted Nugent albums to cover up his girlfriends disco albums so he wasn't embarrassed about them being there or something.

Well, Nile Rodgers has more talent in one fingernail than Ted Nugent has in his entire body, so f*ck you.

And another thing.

I Was Made For Loving You was the best song Kiss ever wrote.

"Beth" was Kiss best song because of the string arrangement for some reason there is so much more honesty, feeling and depth in acoustic instruments like violins and stuff.

QUEEN
A band that very much has an unmistakeable, distinctive sound and I hate absolutely everything about it. It makes me cringe just to think about it.

A band with flamboyance, charisma and a knack for producing catchy, infectious stadium rock anthems. Personally all I hear is music I cannot possibly take seriously as all I hear is novelty, comedy rock that draws absolutely zero emotion from me of any kind whatsoever. I find it impossible to connect with Queens music on any level at all and am baffled by anyone who can find anything in there to love so much - something that baffles me even more when you consider the massive amount of hardcore fans who will tell you that Queen are the absolutely epitome of rock music. The greatest band to ever live.

Overly dramatic, theatric nonsense with zero substance whatsoever.

Morning guys, thanks for getting this started.

I have a lot to think about now, with your --- I must say, considered and eloquent --- selections.

They're great ideas, but I will probably not be mojopinuk's biggest fan when I say that I won't be considering Queen. Whether you like or hate them --- I just like them, I have their greatest hits and one or two other albums and that's about it --- there's no denying that they brought a particular flair to rock music and have legions of fans. Should this latter exclude them from being thrown into Room 101 on its own? Obviously not, otherwise virtually no-one could be considered, even (spit!) Daniel O'Donnell!

But after my writeup on "Who wants to live forever" in my journal, I feel it's impossible to consider Queen: who would then play at my funeral? :) As for their songs not eliciting emotion? Surely the likes of "The show must go on", "Days of our lives" and the above move you, especially given the circumstances of Freddie Mercury's death?

You're free to argue your point further, mojo, but I really don't think I can be convinced on this.

I'll make a decision on the others shortly and I'll let you guys know.

Thanx guys! :)
:thumb:
http://www.trollheart.com/door101open.jpg

I think Queen is a great shout.

I can't think of any other rock band that put out so many average albums out in succession. Every single Queen album is packed with filler tracks & novelty songs. Even the album that is considered their masterpiece A Night At The Opera has loads of filler and novelty songs (Bohemian Rhapsody being the biggest novelty song on there).

And there's also the one thing that Queen fans always like to sweep under the carpet when you mentioned it. For all their so-called greatness they never cracked the American market. Yeah they toured there, yeah they may have sold out a few gigs there but they never became big stars over there.

Let's face it, a movie with 4 guys headbanging in a car did more for Queen's popularity in the States than their whole discography & touring there ever did.

I'd like to second Queen going in.

Personally, I think the sight of however-many-thousand fans all clapping in basic rhythm to "Radio gaga" at LiveAid says a lot more about Queen than their albums ever did. Sorry guys but though you may not like them, I still think they contributed a lot to music history and I can't sanction their being sent to Room 101 (plus, my sister would kill me!) :)

I'll have a decision in the next hour or so...

As said Queen would be a great choice, a whole load of average albums highlighted by a couple of decent tracks, they're Room 101 material.

What does this mean? Why would that say more about a band than their music? Why would this be criteria not to put them in?

If thats criteria for not putting them in, then 95% of bands arent gonna go in.

Well, what it means is that a whole hell of a lot of people knew their songs, even though it wasn't exclusively a Queen gig, and it's widely accepted that they more or less became the headlining act there.

No of course it's not a reason not to put them in: I've already explained that I won't be doing that. It's more a reaction to UH's post that their albums aren't that great --- which they may not be --- but they're certainly appreciated, as shown by that example.

That's all I was saying.

But just in case there's any ambiguity or doubt:
Queen will not be going into Room 101.

I see the angle you're coming at it from. It still seems that popularity is reason enough for a band anyone puts forward not to go in though.

They should go in there for Brian May's hair alone.

I think in fairness they must have something about them that a lot of people don't like. I would put Westlife or Boyzone in, but could I do that just on my own dislike of them? Perhaps not, but for tackling Ol' Blue Eyes' classics... maybe....

Just a footnote: don't bother nominating any of the bands I like, as since I have final say you won't be successful in putting Springsteen, Waits, Marillion or any of my other faves in. ;)

And now, the moment you'll all (three of you) been waiting for...

I like the idea of these acoustic guys'n'girls going in, but then again, is it their fault that people often worship them? And aren't they just playing music anyway? Should they be penalised for that? Maybe, but I'll have to think more on that, for a possible return to that topic.

For now, I think Urban's idea of these seventies rock fans who think only their music is good get the nod. Apart from the fact that I despise elitism and close-mindedness in music, and try to expose myself (not literally!) to as many genres/sub-genres as I can outside what I usually listen to, I don't believe it's fair for one group to declare their music great and all the rest ****e. It shows a lack of tolerance, and a lack of understanding of other music genres.

As I found out and demonstrated with my recent investigation into the music of boybands, you can't slag something off unless/until you know enough about them. It's easy to criticise (fun, too!) but you need to criticise, if at all, with an informed mind. And sometimes when you make the effort to look a little deeper, scratch beneath the surface as it were, you find that there's something there after all.

So, for close-mindedness and intolerance, and a general air of superiority that they neither deserve nor fully understand, "decrepit 70s classic rock fans with their whole 'Disco Sucks' attitude" are the first ones to go into Room 101!

http://www.trollheart.com/doorclose.jpg

My nomination isn't to throw the acoustic musicians in, it's to throw in the idea that that kind of music is somehow more "real" than other kinds.

Okay, I can see your point, however I haven't really encountered this attitude, so perhaps you may need to expand on it so that I understand fully.

Are you talking about the trend started by MTV with their "Unplugged" series, or is it only musicians who do acoustic and nothing else? I always found that an artiste playing acoustically shows they don't rely heavily on tech and effects to make their music, and that certainly does make it more, as you say, honest, and real.

So is it artistes who only play acoustic, and thus get lauded by their fans, or have my fingers lost their tentative grip on the ledge of understanding and have I gone hurtling into the chasm of confusion here?

Sorry if I seem to be obtuse, but I really don't get the concept you're describing. Maybe some examples?

The best way I can describe what I'm talking about is with the sentence I've bolded. That's basically the idea that I'm referring to, this notion that music is somehow more "real" or more emotional if it is subdued and acoustic. It's a bizarre sonic prejudice many people seem to have, but there really is no basis for it.

But there is, isn't there? The worst band in the world can be made sound great with the right technology (look at Milli Vanilli and Frankie Goes to Hollywood, for example, and for a great satire on this the Simpsons episode where all the local kids are made into a boyband, even though none of them can sing --- "God bless NASA!"), but if you can really play, you shouldn't have to rely on all that tech. It should be as simple as guitar, chair, voice, audience, and away you go.

I'm sure most of you who can play began that way, acoustically, so surely going back to it for musicians is just their way of showing they haven't lost touch with their roots, aren't relying on technology to "make" or "enhance" their sound, and are still in touch with what first made them pick up a guitar, sit at a piano or whatever?

Would you not agree with that?

You're looking at it from a point of view that says, without a band or anything else to mask weakness, an acoustic performer can be more exposed and rely more on a stripped, raw talent for singing and songwriting.

But Janszoons point is that a lot of people consider this kind of performer to be more connected with their emotions, more "real", and produce music of a higher level of substance because of it. But why cant a metal band produce music with the same kind of qualities? If an individual can hear all of those traits in one and not the other then maybe thats just down to personal preference and perspective?

I can be moved by certain black metal bands more than I can certain acoustic singer/songwriters. Some of them are great and may well produce everything that "these" people say they do. Some of them are whiney and up their own arse and produce nothing but plastic bull****, probably aimed at the kind of person who would hear things in it than arent there, simply because its acoustic and its "real".

Right. I'm not saying I prefer acoustic bands --- sometimes it is just a gimmick, and sometimes it really doesn't work: I HATE Clapton's acoustic version of "Layla" with a passion! I was just clarifying why I think acoustic music can be seen as more honest. Doesn't mean it necessarily is, but I would definitely rather know that my chosen band/artiste(s) CAN play acoustic, that they're not limited by the tech they employ.

Can't see Art of Noise doing an acoustic set, can you? ;)

But as for bands or artistes who profess (or whose fans do) that acoustic is more real than other music, I would not agree with that as a blanket statement. Certainly, sometimes banks of keyboards, screaming guitar solos (or intensive but restrained ones) can move me almost to tears, as can string sections, flute solos, and a whole lot more. It's not only acoustic music that moves me, and I don't consider it better than amplified music, for want of a better term. I think you need both to get the proper flavour of music, personally.

It can be interesting to hear a band who are not normally expected to use acoustic music, eg Metallica, in that setting, though sometimes, if they try too hard, something is lost within that effort. I guess you could also make the argument that people who ONLY play acoustic music can't handle electronic instruments, and maybe that makes them less musicians than those who can?

I don't know: there are so many sides to this argument. I do enjoy a good acoustic session, but they can get overlong and a bit boring,and sometimes you just want someone to rip off a power chord or do a few synth runs. Depends on your preferences I guess...

Okay, well after a small flurry of activity it seems everyone has forgotten about this. Hmm.

So, is anyone else interested? Post and let me know, otherwise this thread will end up in Room 101 itself... oh no! ;)

How about Western-style boy bands? One Direction, N Sync, Backstreet Boys, and the like. They are a bane upon society. And just when I thought they were gone, we get another.

I think you're considering what is causing the shadow as opposed to the actual shadow (which is what Janszoon, Mojo, and now myself are pitching towards the room).

Technology doesn't diminish the honesty, or emotional integrity of a piece of music when performed by an actual musician (so forget the Milli Vanilli example). All the technology does is accentuate the talent that's already there. There is absolutely no way to illicit the same emotional response that a listener gets upon hearing a power chord held through a Marshall stack until it starts to break apart and transform into a wailing squeal of feedback with an acoustic. This doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

The issue is the attitude that somehow acoustic music is more pure, and that non-acoustic music is somehow compromised or faked. It's no longer about accepting and recognizing a difference but rating one as superior to the other. If anything I think a lot that attitude stems from ignorance of the technology or a desire to be seen as special or unique or a somehow more refined listener, none of which is worth much in my eyes.

Cheap remixes and remakes.
I know, although I don't ever listen to techno, that there are some talented DJs out there that can do some really great stuff. But I just hate it when one of my friends sends me a video and tells me to check out this "awesome remix" but the only awesome thing about this song is the original riff/intro/melody and the rest is just an awfull beat and maybe some other random stuff thrown in.
The best example I've got right now are all the pirates of the caribbean remixes I heard.
I just always get sick by these people profiting off of someone others awesome work

Boybands are a given, but is this too easy a target? I would prefer, as I said, to have some other item to argue this against, but then, if there's no opponent there's no opposition.

I'll give it till tomorrow, if there's nothing else by then I'll throw boybands into Room 101, and not give it a thought! :D

And thanks for playing...

Can we throw Linkin Park in there? Mainly 'cause they rip-off NIN, but I'm sure if bands going in for ripping off other bands is the case, a lot of bands will be going in. But, not just that they rip them off, but it seems to me they pretty much haven't changed or experimented to really seem original to me and their whole career just seems based off of ripping off NIN. I'd rather listen to Stabbing Westward. Plus, they have elements of boy band and weak rap in it. It just screams generic weak sauce all around and I think the world would be a better place without them. Maybe someone else can throw in a vote and argue it better.

Okay, cool! So we now have three legitimate ideas. Excellent...

Let me turn this one over in the old noggin and I'll come back with a decision either tomorrow or more likely Sunday...

Thx guys

We have more than three ideas, no?

Well, three new ideas....
I know, I'm still mulling your acoustic thingy over. But not everything can go in.
As Eddie Hitler once remarked to Richie Rich "Well of course there's something outside Richie! You can't expect the entire universe to be contained within the confines of a small camping tent!" :D

To add a little more to mine, if you look at the concepts of Year Zero from NIN and Thousand Suns from LP, it seems too sickeningly obvious to me.

Couple nominations

1. The attitude that classical is the most superior form of music, and no jazz, rock, or EDM will ever be as good or "fine" as any of it.
2. The opposite attitude that classical is snobbery, not music since its become all proper.
3.Black Veil Brides. Banish them NOW. If you don't know who they are, you've been spared.

You have all of my support for all three of these nominations, good work/ranting.

Guys, you have given me a lot to ponder!
I now have to go and do some heavy drinking.
I mean, drinking!
I mean, drinking!
Okay then, thinking...! :)

Rack 'em up!

I shall return with my decision when totally drunk/ready...

To add more to the opposition of BVB, the fake Sixx was born to a very wealthy family in Beverly Hills, and he's desperately trying to be a guy who was a complete gangster before he made it big. Pathetic.

Another point that I've got to kind of contrast the musical snobbery already mentioned:
People that think music is solely a matter of taste. That will defend their own awfull taste in music by saying that music is never better or worse but just a matter of taste.
I think we all agree that, although music is very subjective and differs from person to person, there really is an objectiv part to it that is very big. I am able to defend most of my musical preferences with arguments other than "they're awesome" or "they rock".
There are many artists out there that are just objectively bad or at least way overrated. If I say that Lil Wayne is annoying it isn't because Hip-Hop isn't my taste (even though that is true) but because he just doesn't have any talent whatsoever. I don't like hip-hop but there are rappers that I respect for the talent they have, that I would never call bad although I don't like their music.
I hope you guys understand what I'm getting at here.

I do, yes. That's the whole reason (or most of it) that I started the "Stranger in a strange land" section, where I purposely --- and often painfully --- explore a genre or sub-genre of music I not only am not knowledgeable about, but generally regard as not to my taste. My reasoning is, if I take the time to get to know this genre as best I can, by sampling a cross-section of the bands/artistes who practice it, it can work one of two ways:

1. I can suddenly and to my surprise find the music is not as bad as I thought it was, and therefore not be so cutting in my criticism of it or

2. I can now be informed enough to be able to support any arguments I make, citing examples and thereby being even more cutting in my criticism of this genre or whatever.

Of course, as you say, music taste is subjective, and there are people who will generalise with comments like "all metal is loud therefore crap" or "boyband music is all manufactured". While the latter maybe true, it doesn't necessarily disqualify the genre as ... well, it does, but you know what I mean!

Basically, if you don't know about it, don't rant about it, is where I'm coming from.

And now, the results of the second choice for Room 101...

Having generated the best, and indeed the most interesting debate, I really can't do anything other than put Janszoon's request for, shall we call it, acoustical snobbery? into Room 101. I still don't fully understand all the nuances, but often the point is not that the item deserves it that much than that it's argued the best, and this certainly was.

So... "Acoustical snobbery" is the second item to be booted into Room 101!

http://www.trollheart.com/doorclose.jpg

A decison on the third item will be reached soon. Watch for the white smoke!

http://www.trollheart.com/door101open.jpg

Yay!