Originally Posted by Mondo Bungle (Post 1547954)

Nah my pinto bean song rocks.

And the original Trouble Salad tape has me playing drums with a bicycle... my friend didn't like me ruining his drums though.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1547956)

^Lemme hear your porcupine song bro.



Nice. In the early WISK days I played a bicycle wheel for percussion. I found out later that it had been done by Frank Zappa and was also in Les Triplettes de Belleville so I guess I've lost my innovation card. I'm just another derivative asshole now.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1547941)

Obviously it would be in your opinion, please don't sidestep the question. Say that the introduction of the idea is poorly done and doesn't seem thought out whathaveyou and then a second artist comes along, takes that idea, and makes an album that really speaks to you, what would you make of the situation then?

Originally Posted by grtwhtgrvty (Post 1547959)

I didn't sidestep anything. You asked me a loaded question with an analogy that didn't make any sense.

If the introduction was poorly done, well, I don't know, I've never had that experience. Usually when an introduction is poorly done it is perfected when the artist releases their second album, but even that being said, I've never looked at an artist's first album when I really enjoyed them and thought "This is poorly done." I tend to appreciate it for what is.

Never happened to me before. I find that usually (not 100% of the time) artists I love are inspired by music that isn't similar to them. The Knife is probably my favorite of all time and they were inspired by Sonic Youth, Kate Bush, Donnie Darko, David Lynch, etc. I guess you can draw similarities from Kate Bush, but I feel like Kate Bush is such a widely influential artist that it is to be expected. I mean, you just linked me two artists that Death Grips supposedly copied that, to me, sound nothing like Death Grips.

Bear in mind I'm not trying to say that my opinion is factual. It's completely subjective.

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1547856)

Music is usually accompanied by onstage dancing in some way, in fact a lot/most music is especially composed for dancing purposes. If it's just a guy/woman standing in one spot like when they sing the national anthem then that's fine, I have no objections to that, but that kind of music is rare.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1547964)

Cool stuff grindy, it's difficult for me to use prepared guitar in a "conventional" setting. It's always very atonal.



I thought the analogy made perfect sense, given that architecture and music are two forms of art. You seriously think B L A C K I E sounds nothing like Death Grips? You might want to check this out then.

I think derivative music can still be interesting as long as it sounds good to me, that's my only criteria. Renaldo and the Loaf is a blatant Residents ripoff band but Songs for Swinging Larvae is still one of my favourite records. It's cool if you want to keep your opinion the way it is, you'll just be missing out on a lot of music that you may enjoy because it's "derivative" of something else that you really like that got firsties.

EDIT: You gonna get cut Mondo.

Originally Posted by Overcast (Post 1547908)

Well, there's your problem.

I don't see the problem with an adult dancing or expressing themselves in a sexual nature to music or in any appropriate context. Do you hate fun or something?

No, stop dancing! Bad adult, bad! Stop doing natural things in your natural habitat like some kind of disgusting human being.

Originally Posted by grtwhtgrvty (Post 1547913)

I don't even have words for that opinion.

My controversial opinion... I believe that music and art in general should always always always be innovative and progressive. If you aren't innovative, in my opinion... I wouldn't say that you SHOULDN'T be making music, but I do see it as completely pointless and less valuable as music as opposed to something that is innovative. I feel like if an artist isn't constantly striving to push the boundaries, they have failed as an artist.

Anything that is derivative is a waste of time to me. Mainstream pop is a waste of time. Bands like Artic Monkeys -- waste of time. iamamiwhoami's new album was a complete waste of time to me, like a complete and utter disappointment that had absolutely no reason to even be made.

I also deem derivative music like Lady Gaga or Katy Perry to generally (not all the time) be listened to people who are less intelligent than me, at least on an artistic standpoint. I know someone who straight up cried to Donatella by Lady Gaga. The only way that I have been able to justify people being engaged by mainstream pop and other hyper derivative genres of music is that they aren't artistically intelligent.

There are a couple of Madonna songs that I can enjoy and I can enjoy dance music but when someone's entire musical spectrum revolves around that type of music I sort of have a tendency to instinctively deem them as lesser in that regard.

Also -- anyone who walks around wearing only one earbud is an ******* who is missing half the song and obviously doesn't care about the quality of the music they are listening to.

Originally Posted by Mondo Bungle (Post 1547914)

All music is just ripping off other music, why don't we stop making music ever

Originally Posted by Zyrada (Post 1547909)

I feel like the only ingredients missing from these posts are "that rap music" and "the youths." Then we'd have the complete portrait of Turn of the Millennium moral panic.

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ? (Post 1547911)

Yeah, this is a new opinion.

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548010)

I don't think *I'm* the one with the problem, that's my point. :D It looks all silly to me, adults dancing around like kids, it's not natural c'mon, otherwise we'd all be doing the same thing during our lunch break at work like school kids in the playground hoping around and bouncing during their lunch hour. :tramp:

It's precisely *not* natural, which is why people take a huge interest when adults do it, try dancing as a grown adult in a public square at random and you'll see how many heads turn wondering what you've sniffed that morning. Kids can do it of course, now that's natural hehe

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548010)

Kids can do it of course, now that's natural hehe

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548010)

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548010)

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548010)

I don't think *I'm* the one with the problem, that's my point. :D It looks all silly to me, adults dancing around like kids, it's not natural c'mon, otherwise we'd all be doing the same thing during our lunch break at work like school kids in the playground hoping around and bouncing during their lunch hour. :tramp:

It's precisely *not* natural, which is why people take a huge interest when adults do it, try dancing as a grown adult in a public square at random and you'll see how many heads turn wondering what you've sniffed that morning. Kids can do it of course, now that's natural hehe

Originally Posted by Overcast (Post 1548022)

You mean to say that you've never stripped down to your underwear and mounted your kitchen table? You didn't feel the warm bliss of your mortal human body as you began your joyful ascent into an endless circling pattern, flailing your arms and legs around like a headless frog as your delicate spinning motion grew upon itself into an eventual departure from earth propelled by your toes and sustained in flight by your excess fat? You didn't find yourself in a place devoid of sound except for the faint and distant painful hums of your great grandmother's favorite Gregorian past-time chant music? There wasn't a choir there that was comprised solely of spooky scary skeletons dancing their skeletal dance? The leader didn't walk up to you, lean in close enough that you could smell his decay and whisper into your ear, "Why are you so afraid to dance, Tray? Who hurt you?"

I thought this experience was mandatory procedure for all adults. If you haven't experienced this, how could you even claim to be alive? This might explain your disdain for sexy dancing and dancing adults in general.

Originally Posted by Overcast (Post 1548022)

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1548025)

Performing Shakespeare onstage isn't natural, otherwise we'd all be doing it on lunch break at work like little kids on the playground. So cringeworthy! Adults on stage should confine themselves to lunch break activities like eating lunch, making phone calls and surfing the internet.

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548032)

I don't agree with the analogy between acting and music and would like to stick with the topic on music if you don't mind!

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1548033)

Why don't you agree with it?

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548036)

Well, in my opinion anyway, acting by definition requires a high level of maturity and a very high level of talent and skill.

At the risk of turning this into an acting vs singing debate let me put it this way, anybody can sing and dance around, it's just a fact especially in today's world of autotune, playbacks etc. pretty much anybody can sing, now more than ever before it's a talentless profession.

In fact, the art in the music industry is actually in the writing in my opinion, not the singing or dancing. Writing unique songs with good lyrics, that's where the talent lies. I appreciate good writing, I am a big fan of Eminem's work, Lose Yourself is a classic example of genuine creativity. Did I enjoy seeing Eminem perform it by moving around like a drunken hobo on stage? No. But I can see the talent in the words.

Acting on the other hand, takes genuine talent and skill. To perform a story like Shakespeare on stage and appear as the characters on the script, memorize all those lines and try to appear as closely resembling the character as possible takes an immense amount of dedication and skill. It's a raw profession where it's clear who is good at it and who is not. The same cannot be said about music. It takes no skill to shake your booty and jump around like a kid.

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1548037)

What about opera singers? I mean they're singers so they're obviously not talented and yet they're on stage acting. They should be ashamed.

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548039)

For every rule there are exceptions! Opera singers are quite dignified in the way they go about doing their thing, they don't act like kids usually. Maybe that's why they're not in popular demand ;)

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1548040)

Opera singers sing loudly in public. Who does that? Only little kids.

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548041)

You're entitled to your opinion, this is all subjective so yeah.

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548041)

You're entitled to your opinion, this is all subjective so yeah.

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548036)

Well, in my opinion anyway, acting by definition requires a high level of maturity and a very high level of talent and skill.

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ? (Post 1548043)

Ah the old 'this is all subjective' quote.
What people resort to when they've run out of anything to say.
If you're just going to reach that conclusion why start the thread at all?

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1548048)

Have you seen actors?

Originally Posted by tray (Post 1548050)

Yeah I have :D Care to elaborate? I have a feeling I know what you're going to say but I'm going to wait for you to say it!

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1548051)

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1548047)

No, it's an objective fact that opera singers sing loudly in public.

Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds (Post 1548054)

Let me make sure I've got this straight. You have a problem with adults acting like children?

Originally Posted by grtwhtgrvty (Post 1548055)

NO! It's all a matter of PERSPECTIVE