this is important
 

there are some people on this forum that understand what music is.

and many more that don't. for those that don't here are a few pointers.


1. Mainstream isn't code for bad music. Many mainstream acts bring talent and originality to the masses and act as gateway bands into the more underground forms of music. Simply because the radio started playing AFI or Coldplay doesn't mean they lose their talent. They are better than most of what you like. Deal with it.

2. Original doesn't mean better. City of Dis is a perfect example. Horns do not belong in a metal song. Nor does a clapper in a techno bit. Nor a breakdown with acoustic tinkling in the background. Sad thing is all that happened in one song. Point is just because something isn't groundbreaking, doesn't mean its not worth listening to. I'll take a good pop hook over a mediocre breakdown or some avant-garde art rock crap.

3. MTV is, and always will be, not be worthy of air time.

4. Not every band needs a keyboardist.

5. "Gangsta Rap" is not music. It usually consist of a petty thug recounting his "crimes" and sexual exploits over a simple boom-chik drum beat.

6. Technicallity overules flair. I'm not saying that a band can't be dramatic or anything but often times musical acts will focus more on the delivery rather than the musicianship. A life changing solo (such as the one found in Necrophagist's song Stabwound) will always outdo a smokebomb onstage.

7. Technically profuse does not neccessarily mean who plays fastest.


That is all for now I guess. If i think of more i'll add them. Feel free to post your opinions or possible rebuttals.

thanks for helping, dude :)

I LOVE YOU!!!!!!

*kisses*

1. Yes I agree
2. Depends , sometimes it does sometimes it doesn`t
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Disagree , does that mean for instance that Led Zep is just some guy recounting his sexual exploits over some old blues song?
6. Nope , I`d take originality AND flair over technicality everytime.
7. Don`t really care about it

agree with all of your points

I concur.

My opinion is that he's right on with most of that. I'd agree with all of it except I need this cleared up. There seems to be a contradiction in that

You want technicallity over flair

yeah you'll take a pop hook over some avant garde peice.

That seems to cancel each other out in my mind.

But as for hatemonger. Are you ****ting me? Zeppelin to gangsta rap? It really is how awesome they am because they kill people and have emotionless sex with woman who are addressed in durogatory slang.

Gangsta rap is mostly who can out "man" each other and its for drunk people who want to try to **** women at clubs. And the fact thats its marketed to children who are corrupted by it (I work with kids) makes it less credible than ever before.

I really can't believe you made the comparison, or even insinuated.

Read it again , I never said it did.

I was suggesting that if gangsta rap is what he says " is not music. It usually consist of a petty thug recounting his "crimes" and sexual exploits over a simple boom-chik drum beat" Then the same arguement can be used against any music.

Songs without drums wouldn't qualify, so no it can't. And furthermore, You rely on the technicality of arguments to bail you out, I think you know damn well theres a massive diffrence between the two.

I can honestly say these are the only two points that I disagree with you on. I think horns can work beautifully with metal, and would like to see them utilized more often.
And although It would be an understatement to say that I'm not the biggest gangsta rap fan, saying that gangsta rap is not music and consists of a petty thug recounting is "crimes" and sexual exploits over a simple boom-chik drum beat is on the level with saying that emo is not music just a bunch of pansy boys with tight pants and eyeliner whining about how much they're heartbroken and want to cut themselves.