Red Hot Chili Peppers: Love 'em, Hate 'em, or somewhere inbetween?

[twerk_face]

So on the least favorite music thread, alot of people were discussing the chili peppers. And, as a diehard fan, i just wanted to get other people's opinions on them, good and bad. Open debate. Keep it clean people.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Hate 'em with a passion. I absolutely despise funk metal and Red Hot Chilli Peppers is the forefront of the movement- the bilge on the crest of the wave. It isn't that they ever sold out or anything, I just really despise funk metal. There are some forms of alternative metal I can deal with, namely post-metal, but nu metal, funk metal and industrial metal rub me the wrong way.

[pestilenceawaits]

I have been a fan of the peppers for a long time. I love Fleas bass lines. Their antics and what not are of no interest to me but I like the music.

[The Prince of Cats]

It all depends on the song. Some of their stuff I like, some of it I don't...

Generally-speaking, the slower stuff interests me more than the faster.

[LadyGlutter]

I LOVE Mother's Milk. Blood Sugar Sex Magic is good, too.

Past that, I'll skip em. They're really talented, I'll grant you that. But it's just been a while since they came up with something new. Well, except for that stint with Dave Navarro -- that was just embarrassing. I really did not like them then. Okay, except for My Friends and Aeroplane. But after that, NOTHING was either new or exciting or even particularly good.

[Hoggy]

Love 'em:smallbiggrin:

[Telonius]

Like 'em. They're a decent band with some flashes of awesome.

[Andiamo]

They're great! Not my favourite band by a long shot, but they're really good. Flea is simply amazing. Californication, Can't Stop, and Under The Bridge... great songs.

[Amotis]

Hate 'em. I can say the exact same thing I said in the last thread. They do nothing. They have done nothing. And they will continue to do nothing. Just cause you're jumping up and down with passion and slamming the bass and screaming the lyrics, you still ain't going anywhere. You're just jumping in the same place, over and over. Sooner or later you're gonna get fat with your own arrogance and unoriginal music and land on your ankle, thus breaking and ending your meaningless uneventful career. I won't miss them when they slip from the mainstream crowd that is the only thing that keeps them alive.

[GeeVee]

Hate 'em. I can say the exact same thing I said in the last thread. They do nothing. They have done nothing. And they will continue to do nothing. Just cause you're jumping up and down with passion and slamming the bass and screaming the lyrics, you still ain't going anywhere. You're just jumping in the same place, over and over. Sooner or later you're gonna get fat with your own arrogance and unoriginal music and land on your ankle, thus breaking and ending your meaningless uneventful career. I won't miss them when they slip from the mainstream crowd that is the only thing that keeps them alive.

That's just ridiculously harsh. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's elitist music-bashing. "They have done nothing"? Well, according to last.fm (http://www.last.fm/charts/music/artist/) they're the most popular band in the world that's still making music. How's that for doing something? I'm not much of a fan of the band, but to spew such hate about a simple rock group is just immature.

[ElfLad]

I only know one song, "Higher Ground." It's a good song, I like it, but it's not really enough to get me interested in the rest of their work yet.

My friend is a huge RHCP fan, so I suppose it's an inevitability that I will one day hear more of their music and come to a decision.

[Tom_Violence]

If I hear that new song of theirs one more bloody time something terrible might happen. And I'm sure there's not a jury in the world that would convict me.

[Argent]

Like 'em. They're a decent band with some flashes of awesome.

My thoughts exactly. I really enjoy "Don't Stop" and their cover of "Higher Ground", but some of their other stuff leaves me cold.

[Amotis]

That's just ridiculously harsh. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's elitist music-bashing. "They have done nothing"? Well, according to last.fm (http://www.last.fm/charts/music/artist/) they're the most popular band in the world that's still making music. How's that for doing something? I'm not much of a fan of the band, but to spew such hate about a simple rock group is just immature.

Fine, they have done nothing musically. Music; it's hypothetically what bands are suppost to do. Just cause there's a number attached to them doesn't mean anything. Your stance states that since they're popular they have achieved something. So are indie bands completely removed from doing anything? That's not the case. The thread is whether we like the band or not, not if they're popular or most listened to (on a internet radio, not the world). So if I state my claim it can't be proven wrong.

[bosssmiley]

Chilli Peppers? Their existence and musical output is a matter of complete and sublime indifference I'm afraid. I understand that they exist, and that they make music, but I don't like 'em or hate 'em. Kinda like a lot of Cali' bands in that respect really. :smallconfused:

[Mauril Everleaf]

I don't hate them. If they come on the radio, I don't change the station or anything. I think I might even own the Californication cd (I have waaaaaaay too many cds). That said, I think that their music is unoriginal and their lyrics are trite and copy-pasted. Just count the number of songs that are about California. Yeah, sure California is great and all, but do we really need to hear about it every third song? They are, what I consider, the epitome of popular music (along with a few other bands). They drone out what people want to hear with little musical innovation and no variance. So I guess that puts me somewhere in between.

[FdL]

I don't like them. They have some decent moments, but they always sound the same. Terribly commercial/shallow stuff IMHO. I can understand that some people might like them, but there's probably better music to listen to even in their style. The singer has like a single way of speak/singing. Honestly, they are overrated. The fact that they sell a lot of records doesn't mean that they're good. At all, that would be a fallacy.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I don't even know if I've ever heard a single song of theirs. I know the name, and that is the complete and total limit to my knowledge.

That said, from what I've read about them here I doubt I would. Don't go into that type of music genre at all.

[Arcane_Secrets]

I'd say they used to be good-emphasis on used. Their downfall as far as I'm concerned is when they started making songs like Californication all the time and stopped being interesting to listen to.

Red Hot Chili Peppers? They're more like Bell Peppers now.

[Sundog]

Fine, they have done nothing musically. Music; it's hypothetically what bands are suppost to do. Just cause there's a number attached to them doesn't mean anything. Your stance states that since they're popular they have achieved something. So are indie bands completely removed from doing anything? That's not the case. The thread is whether we like the band or not, not if they're popular or most listened to (on a internet radio, not the world). So if I state my claim it can't be proven wrong.

Au Contraire. The Red Hot Chili Peppers have created music enjoyed by literally millions of people. They have inspired musicians and wannabes.

This is not "nothing musically". No, they are not David Bowie, who has started more musical trends than almost anyone in history; nor are they Frank Zappa or Peter Gabriel, who have explored every concept of music in existence. But they are not "nothing".

[Amotis]

Have they created music? Or played music?
There is a huge difference between a musician and an instrument stand. If it isn't pushing, if it isn't creative (which is what art is suppose to be!), then it's not worth it.

[ZombieRockStar]

They're kind of a guilty pleasure for me. They've got catchy tunes, but that isn't what I like to listen to most of the time.

As far as whether they're good or not...meh. They're middling. There's worse stuff in mainstream alterna-rock. (I hardly need to point out the oxymoron there, but I will)

[Sundog]

Have they created music? Or played music?
There is a huge difference between a musician and an instrument stand. If it isn't pushing, if it isn't creative (which is what art is suppose to be!), then it's not worth it.

Now, i'm confused. The Peppers have a more or less unique sound, they write and perform pieces dealing with what they see and know, and while they do do some covers, their interpretations are invariably their own interpretations. How is this uncreative?

Not everyone can be a Mozart. Not everyone can change the musical world. If you're holding bands to that standard, you must figure just about everyone is a hack.

[zachol]

Meh. I like them a lot.
I generally dislike lyrics, but I don't terribly mind their songs, which puts them in an odd place (along with some others, such as Pink Floyd).

Perhaps it's just because I haven't heard anything else from whatever genre they come from, but I like RHCP for the music itself.
The majority of my music either comes from listening to the CDs a friend has (RHCP, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd came from there), or listening to some specific internet outlets which are, for the most part, trance music.

I seriously found RHCP from a few CDs, and, unlike many many many other bands that I was listening to, actually liked them and decided to remember that name.
I honestly don't know what they're doing now, nor do I really care, all I know is that I enjoy listening to them.

*shrug*

[Raistlin1040]

Probably cliched but I love Dani California.

[twerk_face]

Hate 'em. I can say the exact same thing I said in the last thread. They do nothing. They have done nothing. And they will continue to do nothing. Just cause you're jumping up and down with passion and slamming the bass and screaming the lyrics, you still ain't going anywhere. You're just jumping in the same place, over and over. Sooner or later you're gonna get fat with your own arrogance and unoriginal music and land on your ankle, thus breaking and ending your meaningless uneventful career. I won't miss them when they slip from the mainstream crowd that is the only thing that keeps them alive.
Amotis, you say they have done nothing musicaly many times throughout this thread. try this: THEY CREATED A GENRE. Look people, i'm sorry, but the chili peppers created the funk metal genre. they came from the underground L.A. scene, and hit it huge with Blood Sugar Sex Magic. All in their own, UNIQE style of funk metal. Other bands have followed in their footsteps, and you may even think they did it better (you are entitled to your own opinion), but it cannot be dennied that they were it's inventors. If this isnt a musical accomplishement, then I do not knw what is.

Oh, and Amotis? Try listening to an entire album of theirs. I really feel like you are basing your impressions off their radio hits, which are indeed often static and unempresive (Dani California, for one). But alot of their songs on their most recent album are really fantastic, original, beutifully played, and well sung/written. Try "Wet Sand", "Desecration Smile", "Animal Bar", "Warlocks", and so many others.

Also people, listen to Blood Sugar Sex Magic. One of the best albums ever made, hands down.

[Amotis]

Heh, I'm not that bad. I do own all their albums, I wouldn't insult a band without listening to them first. For example, I own every tool album.

But not exactly, they didn't invent funk metal. Faith No More and Jane's Addiction came out of the same genre era they did. And Extreme was years before all of them.

And if you want to talk about their other genre's they're called (alt rock, funk rock, etc) there are many many other bands that come before them. Funkadelic, especially their later work, screams what RHCP are doing right now.

No band can create a genre, no music springs without influence. RHCP practically live off of George Clinton and other pushing modern funk artists.

And if we're moving of the topic of love/hate/meh, I'll be glad to analyize their music on a technical level. Just name a song and I'll try to find sheet music or just listen really hard.

edito - And are you really praising their latest album? I mean...I don't even have to argue anything really, just point to that album and raise my eyebrows in question.

[SDF]

To me they are one of those background noise radio bands that never really do anything interesting to grab my attention. I don't hate them, but they've just never impressed me.

I do like Flea's work in Chrono Trigger, though.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Amotis, let me make an analogy...

Suppose an engineer builds a car. It's the best car in the world, most economical, safest, etc, and will remain so for at least a few decades. But no one wants to drive it because it has no seats.. and no one wants to stand while driving. You can't deny it, it's a good car. Just that it's not popular (except with hippies because it runs on sunlight).

Or you can be Henry Ford. Make a car that has nothing really original to it, but make it accessible to everyone. It's exactly the same as all the other cars out there technology wise (except maybe it's slower and less comfortable). But it's enjoyed and driven by millions.

Which car is better? Neither. Each one is good in its own right.

[twerk_face]

Don, i really do not understand you. at all. hahaha.

But Amotis, ill suply a song. "Sir Psycho Sexy."

Analyze.

[Ted_Stryker]

They reside solidly in "in between" territory for me. I own Mother's Milk and Blood Sugar Sex Magik, and they are both fine albums, but that's where my RHCP collection ends. They're OK.

[Amotis]

Amotis, let me make an analogy...

Suppose an engineer builds a car. It's the best car in the world, most economical, safest, etc, and will remain so for at least a few decades. But no one wants to drive it because it has no seats.. and no one wants to stand while driving. You can't deny it, it's a good car. Just that it's not popular (except with hippies because it runs on sunlight).

Or you can be Henry Ford. Make a car that has nothing really original to it, but make it accessible to everyone. It's exactly the same as all the other cars out there technology wise (except maybe it's slower and less comfortable). But it's enjoyed and driven by millions.

Which car is better? Neither. Each one is good in its own right.

Okay, but suppose the Henry Ford becomes so popular and accepted that the "super car" disappears. No one buys it. It's wonderful being just doesn't sell, the company goes out of buisness, and the car is no longer made or driven.

Now the enviroment is getting screwed up, the atmosphere is getting worse, and the general health of the earth is going down. But nothing can be done, because the Model Ford is the standard, it's what everyone drives and what everyone declairs a "car." It becomes, "the car." The super car is long forgotten. Not even considered a car. Because the Model Ford is "the car." The only "car."

Some people try to push up this super car again, they are horrified of what's become of "the car"(as a whole, not just what people define as "a car") and attemp to fix this, but since everyone is so set on this Model Ford, that their efforts are wasted. In fact, Ford, having bought the super car's makers long ago, basically has a monopoly on the car industry. So the super car fails again.

And the earth dies. Hehe, okay maybe not that far. But you get the point.

Tower Records died a few years ago (an event for another thread). Artists can now only sell in two ways, the big companies (WalMart, Target, etc) or the internet. But there's a problem. The big companies won't sell new stuff, creative pushing experimental stuff. 'Cause they don't sell that well. So those bands have to go to the internet. Where there's another problem. Piracy.

So do you see the vicious circle? For me it's not enough to shrug and say "oh...well a lot of people like them so I guess it's okay they suck." Not for me, 'cause bands like that only power the monopoly on music that exists today.

*goes off to listen to da track*

[GeeVee]

Okay, but suppose the Henry Ford becomes so popular and accepted that the "super car" disappears. No one buys it. It's wonderful being just doesn't sell, the company goes out of buisness, and the car is no longer made or driven.

Now the enviroment is getting screwed up, the atmosphere is getting worse, and the general health of the earth is going down. But nothing can be done, because the Model Ford is the standard, it's what everyone drives and what everyone declairs a "car." It becomes, "the car." The super car is long forgotten. Not even considered a car. Because the Model Ford is "the car." The only "car."

Some people try to push up this super car again, they are horrified of what's become of "the car"(as a whole, not just what people define as "a car") and attemp to fix this, but since everyone is so set on this Model Ford, that their efforts are wasted. In fact, Ford, having bought the super car's makers long ago, basically has a monopoly on the car industry. So the super car fails again.

And the earth dies. Hehe, okay maybe not that far. But you get the point.

Tower Records died a few years ago (an event for another thread). Artists can now only sell in two ways, the big companies (WalMart, Target, etc) or the internet. But there's a problem. The big companies won't sell new stuff, creative pushing experimental stuff. 'Cause they don't sell that well. So those bands have to go to the internet. Where there's another problem. Piracy.

So do you see the vicious circle? For me it's not enough to shrug and say "oh...well a lot of people like them so I guess it's okay they suck." Not for me, 'cause bands like that only power the monopoly on music that exists today.

*goes off to listen to da track*


Your whole analogy is flawed in that it assumes that mainstream equals bad. Stop being so judgmental, please.
Good music does, in fact, sell. It's just that many "good" (an entirely subjective value) bands don't realize the importance of advertising and marketing. It's an industry, so people should start treating it as such. Led Zeppelin broke through mainly because of how ruthless their manager was in their promotion. Music elitists everywhere despised them, and look where they stand three decades later.

Also, sometimes bands that have made "good" music aren't stable, for lack of a better word. And by stable I mean consistently good, free of inter-band problems or drug abuse and, most importantly, dependable. This article (http://ultimate-guitar.com/columns/general_music/how_to_become_a_professional_guitarist__musician_f acts_and_myths.html) sums it up quite nicely.

You talked about mainstream music not pushing any boundaries. Well, the thing is, a lot of so-called "experimental/progressive" musicians aren't as progressive as they'd like to think. Pushing boundaries for its own sake has already been done in the mainstream by 70's prog-rock, and people quickly got bored of that. It's nothing new.

Anyway, despite all my defending of the mainstream, I have to admit that I really don't like a lot of modern music. I think pop-punk, indie and alt-rock all has a tendency to sound the same. I really wish I could turn on the radio and find some music I like. Of course, this is just my humble opinion, and I'm sure people who don't listen a lot to my kind of music, for example blues-rock, think that it sounds the same.
In the end, it all comes down to an individual's taste, and none is inherently better than another.

[FdL]

The car analogy is horrifyingly true to life. Amotis said it clear enough. It's so sad that people are given mediocre stuff and are actually ok with it. And so people's minds get duller and people gets dumber and keep buying the garbage "smart" people with power want to sell them.

Music is art, and art should strive to go beyond what is normal or what people take for granted. Music as an industry is wrong, because it leaves little room for individual artistic expressions while is ruled by whatever appeals and can be sold to the largest amount of people.

If all music were like that, there would be no music. The RHCP of tomorrow would not have any Clinton/Hendrix/whatever to copy from.

Which is kind of what is happening lately. Most new bands only copy or combine elements of past bands, take no artistic risks, are all image/no content...Luckily there's plenty exceptions, but if it were for the music industry, there wouldn't be any. Because they can't sell that to just everyone.

BTW, "Sir Psycho Sexy"? Is it supposed to be good because it's 8 minutes long? 'Cause it's not.

[Amotis]

I don't understand how you can bring up the topic of individual taste, and say that "good music sells." And then the next sentence put emphisas on how "good" is a subjective term.

There certainly is such things as good and bad music. Else the very definition of music would fall apart. There is most certainly bands that are inherently better then another. It's absurd to not be able to compare, to judge. Without contrast or critism, it's not an art. It's not music. If everything came down to personal taste, well then why is the market split like it is? Why are there the ideas of music floating around as they are?

I don't believe that article and your statement of good bands not being stable is true at all. That seems like a gross sterotype...or some reasoning I can't grasp. Saying good bands tend to be arguing among themselves, using drugs, and arn't dependable...well that's not true. I'm sure some are, sure. But certainly not all.

And yes, mainstream music does not push boundaries. They don't have to and they can't. It's stating falsities if you state that record companies let artists experiment. Look at the huge bands who released experimental records. The Beatles, had their own. Frank Zappa, had his own. Radiohead, had to break out with PH then unsigned right now. Record companies don't allow experimentation, especially when trying to hire someone. Look back (wayyyy back, back before records and people bought sheet music and got money from that) into Tin Pan Alley. The ragtime times. That little street in NYC that completely took over the record industry in the USA. Run by whites and hired blacks. Nothing, and I mean nothing, new was accepted. Because people don't buy stuff like that. New doesn't sell. People want to hear what's popular, not what's gonna be or might be popular.

If what I call experimental and pushing musicians arn't doing said thing, who is? They're not as progressive as I'd like to think? I don't understand that reasoning either. Nor do I understand your pushing boundaries for its own sake reasoning. Could you elaborate on this?

But moving on. Example. Serialism. Probably the most significant creation of modern classical music in the 20th century. Yet out of the very small sales of classical music, serialism, maybe, makes up 10-15 percent of that. High moderism at it's best and yet it doesn't sell anything. Why? It basically takes apart hundreds of years of music and makes it's own, completely seperate from everything. Experimentation at it's finest.

Oh and also, my analogy doesn't assume mainstream = bad. It assumes mainstream = static. Which is something you can't deny.

[FdL]

Couple of remarks after Amotis' post:

- Relating good art to personal unstability is something I couldn't disagree more. You don't have to be a drug addict to make music, most people think that way, and musicians probably think it and do it because they are stupid.

And the article linked about becoming a "good guitarist" gave me the cold shivers. It's like a robot factory :S

- Mainstream does not push any boundaries AT ALL. By definition, mainstream feeds off real art, digests it, incorporates it and hands it back in a pleasant marketable package. It happens all the time. See, with U2 for example, in the beginning they were influenced by obscure acts like Joy Division. But they made it, and every now and then they make "critically praised, groundbreaking albums" like Achtung Baby, which is nothing but a compilation of sounds and trends of more adventurous people from the underground (I always recall people like JAMC and Curve and that stuff when I think of that album).
Coldplay, Travis and Keane and all those boring british bands did the same with Radiohead. They took the "nice", non threatening, "easy songs", acoustic guitar ballads like "Fake Plastic Trees" and turned them into a soul-less, castrated music style, which is oh-so marketable because it's nice and easy. Unlike Radiohead, who make music that is challenging and shakes your guts even when it's quiet and acoustic. Think about "Exit Music (for a film)" and then compare it to anything Coldplay has written (plus they stole some sounds from the Cocteau Twins, for which they should die :) )


- It's not true like someone said that the last time music's boundaries were pushed was in 70's progressive rock. In fact, I think there were only a handful of people who came up with truly original stuff and interesting music, most of those artists just jumped into the genre and repeated formulas until they distorted it. And that's what it killed it, turning into a genre.

See, whenever there's a new original kind of music, usually it spans imitators and people who adhere to the aesthetic, but by doing so it turns into a genre, which invariably ends up distorting and thinning the original idea.

Personally I think that more exciting and creative music came after prog-rock and as a reaction against it, and this happened through all the decades and is still happening. It's like when people used to say "the guitar is long dead". Put a record like "Loveless" and tell that to my face :) Now, if you say it with Oasis in your mind I have to agree, but that's not well reasoned.

- Classical Music: I don't listen classical music, and even though I'm a musician I don't want to have nothing to do with it. My ex-girlfriend studied classical music in a conservatory. I could never in my life was able to see the point of making a career from playing music that has been played for centuries. It's a genre that bites its own tail and ignores so many things. Well, thing is that when I tried to play with her (musically) found out that she couldn't improvise, she wasn't any good when not playing to sheet music, whereas I'm the exact opposite, I play by ear and from the guts. I think technically it might be a wonderful way of learning to play, but you run the risk of narrowing your mind.

So to me classical music equals "pretty but nothing new" = no point. And it's also kind of snob :p

[Don Julio Anejo]

You guys are approaching music from the point of view that it's art. And it's true. But music is also entertainment. Many people who listen to music don't listen to it to appreciate the sounds, beats, musical skill of the artist and originality. They listen to it because its a type of entertainment. And they don't really care if it's not original, as long as it sounds how they like.

Look at DnD.. most of the adventures are exactly the same if you look at it.. "a party of adventurers hired by an authority figure or doing so out of their moral standards undertake a quest to defeat the ultimate evil or find a powerful artifact to either use it to defeat evil later on or keep out of someone's evil hands." Oots even stereotypes it this.

So a lot of music doesn't have any artistic value. It's just there to entertain people. And the artists themselves do it because they like the spotlight, not because they like to play music. People like Rihanna would star in movies just as well (and Britney and J-Lo do exactly that), or do something else that grabs them a lot of attention.

[Amotis]

Waaa...as a classical musician and a music major...I cry at your comment fdl. Hehe, but no. I think you have a bad taste of classical in your mouth. Early and some late classical music had a lot of space for improv. Also for interpretation. Look at any good and famous player and they will have interpretations far far different from other artists playing the same piece. I can't stress this enough. Richer. Romero. Williams. All masters but all musicians. Musicians, not recordings. I know this is hard to explain to someone who doesn't like the genre and doesn't play classical music...but man, there's an entire world out there that's massively beautiful and emotional and I'd hate for someone to wrap it up by saying "pretty but nothing new." It hurts. : (

For example, youtube Pepe Romera. Listen to him. Then youtube John Williams. Listen to him. They'll play some of the same pieces, but just listen to how different they are. How their interpretation is so massively different. Heck, if classical was the same I could play like Pepe. But I can't. Interpretation is everything.

And okay, GeeVee, I apologize for being overly aggresive in my hate to RHCP. I'm sorry that I do come off as being pretencious and a musical elitist. (I'm not really...just a music nerd.) I hate that image that's attached to people who like indie music. I hate it. I hate pitchfork. I hate bands that fall into that nitch of indie rock that all sound the same. I hate it probably as much as you do. But look at this. You know RHCP are static. You know that record companies don't let artists experiment. It's basically fact. So just look at it in a vacuum, not coming from me. People loving RHCP is a bad thing, because they accept that as music, as really good music. But it's not. It's boring and it's static. So as people look up to RHCP...they ignore the lesser bands who arn't boring and static. Keeping them down when they already have enough problems. Like I said, a vicious circle. I hate RHCP with a passion (as you can tell) not because who they personally and the personal music they make, but what they represent. The popularity of unoriginal music and acceptance of said music.

[twerk_face]

Amotis, I agree that, for the most part, mainstream music is static. But lets set a few things straight. It seems to me that you are saying that music can't be good unless it is brand new and "pushes the boundries." This is simply not true. There is plenty of fantastic music that is very similar to other music in it's residing genre. The differenc between the 2 groups is the the GOOD one is GOOD. they are similar, not the same.

Take the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I agree that they havn't done any real inventive stuff like they used to for along time, but all of their stuff they HAVE done is very, very good. Good does not have to meen pushing boundries and doing what hasn't been done before. It can meen having an amazingly firm grasp on your instuments workings. It can meen incredible syncing within the group you play with. It can meen sounding downright amazing, both live, and in the studio. And the Red Hot Chili Peppers fit all of these.

Their latest album is amazing. I don't care what anybody says. While it doesn't push any boundries (I admit this), it still improves on the ones that exist in every single way. Every single fricken song on that CD is an amazing experiance to listen to (with the exception of Dani California. *shuders*). You can't say that because it's not a new style and progresive, it is necesarily bad. If you listen to the lyrics in "Death of a Martian" and "Wet Sand,"the amazing instumentals and coordination between Kiedis, Flea, Fruchiante (sp.?), and Smith in "Warlocks" and "Hump de Bump," and aply the terms i related in the last 2 example to EVERY SONG ON THE CD (except Dani California), you will see why it is their Second Best CD and an incredibly good album.
Please, try not to be an elitist, and don't say that because it's not progresive, it's not good.
please.

[Hoggy]

I try not to like music based on how one can compare it to cars.:smallsmile: I try not to like it on how complex/boundary-poushing it is also. And whilst RHCP don't play complex music, it sounds good to me. Same with Rammstein, music ain't overly complex but it sounds good to me, so I like it. Same with Nirvana. I don't like Fall Out Boy, the sound they make isn't my thing, but many others I knwo like it. Therefore, and I'm probably lacking a lot of detail because I forgot what I was meant to put in this post halfway through writing it, it is impossible to prove that a band does/doesn't suck. One can merely state whether they like it or not. Trying to prove why they do/don't suck is, IMO, futile.

[FdL]

Awww, Amotis...I didn't want to make you feel bad with what I said :( :(

Actually, I'm the one at a loss because I can't appreciate classical music. I'm the one incapable of enjoying it. And I don't think that it got through what I wrote, but I actually respect classical musicians a great deal, because they take their music very seriously and live for it with a special kind of compromise. I've been around that world when I was with my gf. Of course they (& you) are all above me in terms of education and appreciation of culture, it's highly valued in society to be able to enjoy classical music. Maybe it's not that way at all but feels like an elitist thing. And maybe I envy that :s

But then I do value the creation of new music beyond interpretation, and sort of think better of musicians who write works even in the classical genre. I don't know, I probably have those preconceptions because I come from outside that world. I like popular music. It has a language that speaks to me directly, and I've learned that language, as I surely could learn the language of classical if I really wanted to. I just feel that it's not for me.

[cthulhu_waits23]

I liked Mother's Milk and Bloodsugarsexmagic, but after that, I tuned out. Now I dislike Anthony Kiedis so much I can't stand anything RHCP does. I will explain: I'm a HUGE Faith No More fan, and a big fan of just about anything Mike Patton does. When FNM came out, Kiedis and Patton got into this big feud because Keidis called Patton a clone. Then years later when Mr. Bungle (another band of Mike Patton's) were trying to get booked on some European festivals where the Peppers were also playing Kiedis demanded that the promoters drop Mr. Bungle from the line-up or else RHCP wouldn't play. The fact that Kiedis was using his clout to keep Mr. Bungle, a a band that has a fraction of the sales that RHCP does, is just stupid. I fully admit I'm biased on this issue.

My theory is that Kiedis was sore about the fact that while his band was churning out radio song after radio song, Faith No More was pushing the bounds of music in new and interesting directions.

Having said all that, I have to give respect to Flea. That guy is phenominal.

[Amotis]

Here I'll explain why static = bad. And why RCHP is the worse culript of this.

When we accept a static band (as even twerk face said they were) as a good band, we make a dangerous assumption. If we accept static unoriginal music as good music, what is the point to make original music? Why do it? If we define RHCP as good music, what is there to make better? What's the point of pushing the envelope if there's no reason to? If doing unoriginal music is just as good and just as respected?

The fact that RHCP is most listened to on that web site, that they are a VERY popular band, that their latest (and worst) album sold like hotcakes and won like number one album of the year, makes this assumption even worse. Now image millions of people accepting RHCP as good music. And awesome music. Encouraging the assumption. Encouraging RHCP to make another static disaster. What a horrid way to congradulate a band.

To quote one of my favorite teachers, “Rock needs to take risks or it's just contrived, pretentious and lame.” (here's (http://hecticwatermelon.com/index.cfm) his band's site if you want to doubt his validity or just wanna hear a cool new fusion band).

And twerk face, I think the fact that you enjoy ever one of those songs and that album...well means your a diehard fan. I'm probably not gonna convence you of anything.

To Fdl - Like I said, don't worry. I understand your point of view. But please don't think all classical players can't improvise (I can!) or just read from sheet music. Or that we are only as good as the composer. I love pop music, yes, but I wouldn't be where I am without classical...and well, yeah I'm just glad I'm not a classical vocalist cause one can't sing while weeping. Classical is such a wide genre and moves me more then anything in this world.

[FdL]

Oh, Flea IS a great bass player, that's for sure.

[Amotis]

Haha, I forget what music video it was (the audition one where they kept bring in normal people to play their song) but I remember Flea doing his thing in the back left corner. And this one shot where he climbs up on the file cabnet back there, stands up, sticks his head through the roof, and continues playing. Hahaha.

[Hoggy]

Because sometimes, static unoriginal music sounds good. To others, it sounds bad. I'm not sure which of us seems to be missing the point of the other, but it seems to me you just spent 3 paragraphs trying to justify your opinions on music to me through fact. And opinion =/= fact. :smallsmile:

[twerk_face]

Amotis, you misunderstood me. Yes, RHCP is static in the sense that it does not try to push any boundries, and in the sense that it sounds like (key word like) alot of other stuff. But this does not, in any way, make it unoriginal.

What i meant is that they take an established sound that they created for themselves, and wrote alot of fantastic new songs using the same sound. But the key thing is, the new songs the created, while they sound similar and have the same basic musical theme, are all different from what they have done before.

Think about it this way. Band R is the leading band in its genre of music. The genre of music that it belongs to has been established by both them and bands that came before them. They are continualy making new, original music, influenced by their previous works, along with the works of bands like A and D that came before them. It is the same style of music, but it is not the same music, and it is certainly original.

Kind of a weird way of saying it (dont try to place real band names with A and D, I just chose 2 random letters not thinking of any band), but its the truth. Their music is still original. Its just not breaking the boundries of it's genre.

[Amotis]

@ Hoggy - But again, I go back to my point that there is a seperation of good and bad music. And that static music, though people may like, is not good music. And though you may think I'm just talking opinion, which may be the case, you still have to acknowledge that such opinions are true and do express the dangers of the musical industry now, no? You can't deny that the massive popularity of unoriginal boring music is unhealthy. That is only hurts the people who try to do new things. This is fact, no?

@twerk face - I don't really understand your point. You state they're the same, but then you conclude that they're some how different. How? Could you explain. You example is flawed because new original music has no connection to established genre. There's a huge huge difference between influence and a comfortable area that bands don't venture out of. That's fine, bands can be in genres. Not every band can define genres. But that doesn't mean that every indie pop band has to sound the same, us the same chordal progressions, use the same beats, the same feel, the same lyrical content, the same image, the same style. Compare say, Pavement. With Belle and Sebastian. Both very indie pop. Yet they differ on every single on of those aspects. I mean completely differ, like 180 degrees.

Saying RHCP is original because they release a cd and that it's okay it sounds the same because it's in its own genre...well it's encouraging said behavior.

You also seem to be drawing a line where I don't see a place to. You say it doesn't push, that it sounds like a lot of stuff, that they use the same sound, same musical theme, but then you say that it's original. I don't see the connection at all.

[Annarrkkii]

Er, you guys do realize that this is, in essence, arguing about whose favorite color is better?

Like saying that a girl who likes pink is in the wrong because she's not being progressive or forward-thinking and is succumbing to societal pressures? Or whatever.

Taste in music is really not worth arguing about. As interesting as your analogies are, and as well-thought out as your arguments are, logic isn't going to help you convince someone else that the music they like is, in fact, bad, and that they are wrong for listening to it.

That said, I adore the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

[Hoggy]

Then clearly Amotis, me and you have two different ideas of what constitutes good music, and again we find ourselves unlikely to come to a conclusion anytiem soon. :smallsmile:

[SDF]

Er, you guys do realize that this is, in essence, arguing about whose favorite color is better?

Like saying that a girl who likes pink is in the wrong because she's not being progressive or forward-thinking and is succumbing to societal pressures? Or whatever.

Taste in music is really not worth arguing about. As interesting as your analogies are, and as well-thought out as your arguments are, logic isn't going to help you convince someone else that the music they like is, in fact, bad, and that they are wrong for listening to it.

That said, I adore the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Music is much deeper than a wavelength. There is intelligence, skill, and a thousand other factors that make music listenable or not. I think much of the debate has been, in so many word, whether the current state of popular music should stay, and continue the way it is or evolve to something more. I believe taste in music is worth arguing about, because it comes down to more than just preference.

[Amotis]

Bah...you guys aren't getting it. This isn't arguing trivial stuff, this isn't me saying your bands sucks because I say so. This is acutally prevelent stuff that refers to the future of how we accept music.

Let's try these statements:
1. RHCP don't experiment, they don't push. They are a mainstream band.
2. Most people only listen to mainstream music. It's their only source of music
3. People accept RHCP as good music. As only music.
----------------
Conclusion: People accept static non-experimental music as good music as the only music.

No? Any arguments with that? Can't you see how dangerous that is? And how much it hurts artists that do experiment and that do try to push music forward?

[FdL]

Like saying that a girl who likes pink is in the wrong because she's not being progressive or forward-thinking and is succumbing to societal pressures? Or whatever.


In a way, yes. If she likes/wears pink because it's in fashion and everyone wears it, and you can only buy clothes of a few colors, among which one is pink, then yes, that's actually a good example of my point.

I'm talking about socio-cultural impact on taste and consumption, be it clothing colors or music.

To most people, mainstream music is the only music. People listen exclusively to the music they hear on the radio, television and commercials. They lack a critical attitude towards it, and they are not making a real choice based on what they like and what is available, because they are limited in their alternatives.

People's options for liking music are limited by what record companies dictate, which in turn is based on parameters related to what is easier and safer to sell.

I think that the only way to be free from this is to be able to think critically outside what others choose for us and the limited options our socio-cultural environment determines for us. And that comes from education and culture, which give you an open mind. And which are lost values these days, particularly because it's the key for the powers that be to keep controlling people and making money out of them.

[twerk_face]

Amotis, your implying that I (and other people) think that the red hot chili peppers are the only good music. i DONT THINK THIS. they are very, very good. But they arnt the only kind of good music there is. they do not define good, as you said.
Musicians that push boundries are good because they are experimental and creative and do things completely different from what has done before. Then there is the type of good that dictates original music, but not completely new and stuff.
Experimental can=Good
but
Static can=good
also. There isn't one definition.
And i agree that there is not enough experimental music in the mainstream today, but then again, that contradicts the definition of experimental.
oh, and FDL? Sir Psycho Sexy is not good because it's 8 minutes long. Its good because it's f*cking good. IMHO : )

[FdL]

oh, and FDL? Sir Psycho Sexy is not good because it's 8 minutes long. Its good because it's f*cking good. IMHO : )

Got it ;)

I'm going to try to tone down the negativity on my comments, because I've noticed I tend to get carried away in the bile-spilling department :s

So I'm going to say something positive about that song: I like that it has a mellotron.

[zachol]

And that static music, though people may like, is not good music.

Ok, this appears to be the problem.

You actually need to defend this point. You can't just say that "static mustic is bad music," and you can't say "the popularity of static music stifles creativity, thus making static music bad music."


Also,

And i agree that there is not enough experimental music in the mainstream today, but then again, that contradicts the definition of experimental.

Experimental music cannot be mainstream, and even if you somehow change the definition or rephrase it, there is a very key fact - not all experimental music is good.

Some experimental music sucks.
Again, some experimental music sucks - you don't really know if it's going to be good until you try, and you're not always going to get something that's good when you do.

Even the "good" experimental music is not appreciated by everyone, and even if people were "educated enough" to appreciate "good" experimental music, some people are not going to like some things because they just don't like it.
For example, I am not going to appreciate good, experimental thrash metal, because I strongly dislike listening to it. Even if someone gives me what is, in their opinion and in the opinion of most fans of that genre, an example of the "best" thrash, I am not going to like it because I just don't like the sound of it, in the same way that I dislike the sound of babies crying.


Also, from my standpoint, I do not care about the RHCP themselves.
I do not care about the music scene, and how their prevelance is affecting everyone else.
Why?

Because I am 17, and I don't care at all about "popular" music beyond "hey that sounds nice."
I'm confused how you can determine if something is good beyond determining if "I like to listen to this band."

[Amotis]

Twerk face, I'm not talking about you. You're part of equation, yes, but you're not the target. When I say people, I don't mean specifically you. When I say mainstream listeners, I don't mean specifically you. Therefore, you can't say "Well since I think RHCP is good music but they're not the only type of good music." Because of two reason.
a) That's a very personal statement. You can't apply that to who I'm trying to talk about.
b) I'm also not just talking about RHCP, if you may have noticed. They're a metaphor because they're the worst culprit.

And I still do not understand your reasoning. Like in my post before. You state many many things to the contrary of your conclusion. And just in your last post you state, "static can = good" with no explaination at all. If you're trying to explain to me why even though RHCP is a static band, why this can still be good music, please explain it without a equals sign please.

And I completely disagree with your statement that mainstream experimental music is contradictory. In no was whatsoever does mainstream HAVE to be static. The only reason it is, or tends to be, is because of record companies, selling of records, blahblah you've heard this before. But this in no way means that all you can't be experimental and mainstream. Stating that such things are contradictory is banal right up the ear. Mainstream (popular) music by definition is suppose to be catchy. Hear it the first time and you like it. Not music that grows on you, not music that's takes extra time/effort to make it good music. But experimental music does not have to grow on you, or require extra things. Therefore, hypothetically, experimental music can indeed by mainstream.


And okay, zachol, I will explain.

Static music is bad music because music can only be so much. You have to take risks or else you're not trying. Or else you're just reading. If you don't strive to be better, if you don't push, you stay in the same place, no? And in this same place, well, you have no where to go. If you're not trying you're not putting effort into the music. If you're not putting effort into the music you're not making music. Notes can come out, sure, but you're just a music stand. A recording. Background noise. Static music is bad because it's not art. It doesn't strive to be better. It doesn't strive to see what art is.

For example, take the very philisophical question of "What is music?" A question that's been around ever since...well ever. The question even went into the other arts for a while, (the art for art sake movements, the pop art movements, the toliet seat...movement. you get the point). You've probably heard of John Cage (a personal fav of mine.) Or Chance Music. Or minamalism? Or even composers like Stravinski ask the question "what defines music?" Where is the line that seperates music from noise? Music from sound. What the bloody hell is music? Does it have to be written? Does it even have to be heard? To quote a famous minamlist composer "Could letting a butterfly out of a jar be considered music?"

Hell if I know, but the point is that the question persists. That it hasn't dissappeared. Even the hundreds of years music has existed, people still ask today, "What is music?" You know why it's still around? Because the question is connected to the very thing it asks. We ask "what is music?" because there is music. We play and create music because there is the question "what is music?" If one or the other was to disappear, the other would fall as well.

My point being, if the question of "what is music?" dies. So does music. Do you see the danger of static music then? There is no question. Scary, ain't it?

*shivers*

Okay, moving on. Experimental music. Of course a lot of it sucks. It's music. There's bound to be crap. That's why it's called a risk. Because you won't win every time. But the point is the effort. Not the outcome. I'll say that Explosions In The Sky's first two albums sucked. They did. Yet here I sit, typing, with my EitS t-shirt on. Why? Because their post rock pushing band wins. Because they don't have to release awesome albums everytime. No band will (or can). But the fact remains is that every album is new, that the triping and scraping of the knee on the way is just part of the experimental process. Heck, it's even part of the definition.

[twerk_face]

Amotis, I have explained many times why the red hot chili peppers are good, as well as mainstream and somewhat static, but i will do it again.
These guys can play. They know their way around their instrument. The write excelent songs, each of which is original and interesting. They don't change style with every song, but it's not a bad thing. The style works. The lyrics they have are beutiful. The harmony between all 4 band member is phenomonel. I think thats enough to say.
And i understand what you are saying about experimental music being necesary in order for music to progress ("Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible"-Frank Zappa).
But the thing is that just because a non-experimental band exists in a experimental band deprived musical society (like ours now), doesn't necesarily make them a bad band.
So yes, i agree that there really shoud be more experimental music produced nowadays. But first off, there isn't none. Look at Oysterheads "The Grand Pecking Order." Unlike anything the world has ever seen, and fantastic, yet only a few years old. And second off, just because a band exists that is NOT experimental in our society, doesn't make it bad.
I understand your very real concerns. I just don't think that there can't be non-experimantal band that are good.

[zachol]

Hmm.

I am unsure how to respond.

The thing I see is that you dislike RHCP because of the band and the band's habits, while I like them because I enjoy listening to their music.

I agree a great deal with your last post, and understand what you're saying.


However, until about... 2 days ago, I really had no idea what RHCP was doing now, and was unaware that they're still putting out music that is essentially the same as... what, 15 years ago?
I was more aware that, of the many albums I've gotten, a handful are by this band RHCP, and I happen to like them.

Meh, shame on me for not bothering to look deeper into where my music is coming from.


Also, letting a butterfly out of a jar is music if people listen to it for the sake of listening to it.

[0wca]

Love 'em! Their funkish groove always makes me mooove. :smallbiggrin:

[zachol]

Okay, and honestly, do you need a better reason than "their funkish groove always makes me mooove" to like a band?

Seriously, Amotis, answer me that. :smallwink:

[Amotis]

The lyrics are beautiful? Whaa? Okay, that's probably the thing I will flat out put by foot down and say...what?! I thought everyone was avoiding the topic of lyrics because we all knew they certainly arn't the high point of RHCP. ...I'm still confused. What?!

Anyway, technical profeciency does not equal good band. Never does and never will. Ask even Shadow of the Sun, who loves da shredders, but he's say that even the best shredders in the world are nothing without a good songwritter behind them. And it's true.

The fact that you think that every one of their songs is new and original...is well, beyond me. The fact that you won't admit that yes, they don't have 100 perfect music, shows that...well, you're beyond listening to the music. I'm sure even the RHCP themselves would immediately point out all their crappy songs. (At least I hope so.)

Anyhoo, I still don't understand how you agree with me and then still state they are good. Especially when quoteing Frank Zappa. Zappa! The mainstream killer. He hated, with a passion almost as big as his hatred for 'Nam and the current trends in government, the sterile non-moving music industry. Hated! The man could rave on and on for hours about such things. The point being, that your statement that RHCP is a good band goes contrary to what you say and agree with me on.


But the thing is that just because a non-experimental band exists in a experimental band deprived musical society (like ours now), doesn't necesarily make them a bad band.

It does, watch; let's go back to my point about accepting music. About how if we accept RHCP as good music it only helps bring down experimental music. This is bad. It doesn't matter that RHCP isn't literailly going into experimental band's rehersals and kicking their asses and breaking their instruments. Their mere presence at the top of this mainstream heirarchy is just as strong. Their presence there and their acceptance as a "good" band, keeps those experimental bands down just as much as it would if they were physically keeping them down. No windows, man. No need for such windows.

And yes. There is experimental music nowadays. Of course there is. A million times yes. If you want names of bands, pm me. I'll be happy to list you some of my favs. Your statement just proves mine. You state there are no experimental bands now. Well there is, that's a simple fact. But the fact that you don't think there is proves that bands like RHCP and the basic blindness of mainstream media is a dangerous thing. You've been cut off from the experimental part of music. And it's not your fault, it's bands like RHCP's fault. You've just proved that indeed accepting RHCP as a good band makes it even harder for experimental bands to exist and get noticed.

[SDF]

Amotis, I have explained many times why the red hot chili peppers are good, as well as mainstream and somewhat static, but i will do it again.
These guys can play. They know their way around their instrument. The write excelent songs, each of which is original and interesting. They don't change style with every song.

Aren't those, opposite things?

[Amotis]

Hmm.

I am unsure how to respond.

The thing I see is that you dislike RHCP because of the band and the band's habits, while I like them because I enjoy listening to their music.

I agree a great deal with your last post, and understand what you're saying.


However, until about... 2 days ago, I really had no idea what RHCP was doing now, and was unaware that they're still putting out music that is essentially the same as... what, 15 years ago?
I was more aware that, of the many albums I've gotten, a handful are by this band RHCP, and I happen to like them.

Meh, shame on me for not bothering to look deeper into where my music is coming from.


Also, letting a butterfly out of a jar is music if people listen to it for the sake of listening to it.

You're right when you say I don't like the band and the band's habits. How they're uber famous and still crank out same stuff. That I don't like the band because their presence beats down the experimental bands and doesn't let them up. How RHCP existance just powers the cycle of bands not getting any listeners or money because they are experimental.

But all this wouldn't matter unless their music wasn't static. The fact that they are a unmoving, unoriginal band that doesn't push the limits, doesn't ask that very important question, means their music is bad. Hardly even music at all. And definetly not art.

So I guess it's a double thing. I hate them because their music is bad and not art. And I hate them because they are why experimental bands can't get up.

[zachol]

Anyway, technical profeciency does not equal good band.

You need to stress this more. I think the argument is based a lot on what is "good" and what is "enjoyable" and whether those two are the same.


Edit:

But all this wouldn't matter unless their music wasn't static. The fact that they are a unmoving, unoriginal band that doesn't push the limits, doesn't ask that very important question, means their music is bad. Hardly even music at all. And definetly not art.

What?
No, no way.

Static might equal bad, but it does not equal "not art" or "not music."
If people listen to something for the sake of listening to it, it is music and it is art.

Also, I don't think you can apply the social concerns of the band to the music itself.
I enjoy listening to their music, thus it is art.

Even if one person enjoys listening to something, it is music and it is art.

What I'm annoyed about is the fact that you are taking "RHCP beats experimental music into the ground" and turning that into "RHCP makes bad music."
Static does not mean that the music itself is bad.
At most it means that the band is bad, but the music itself cannot be judged by the performer's other habits, or other music.
The quality of a song can only be judged for itself.

[Amotis]

You need to stress this more. I think the argument is based a lot on what is "good" and what is "enjoyable" and whether those two are the same.

Well either way you interrept it, as good or as enjoyable, technical ability doesn't equal either. Not everyone enjoys fusion. Metal shredders, while can be, arn't inherrently good simply because of their techinical ability. Works either way.




What?
No, no way.

Static might equal bad, but it does not equal "not art" or "not music."
If people listen to something for the sake of listening to it, it is music and it is art.

Also, I don't think you can apply the social concerns of the band to the music itself.
I enjoy listening to their music, thus it is art.

Even if one person enjoys listening to something, it is music and it is art.

This goes back to my example with the philisophical question. It's not art if it doesn't try. Static music doesn't try. I'm not sure weather it's music or not but you can definety say static music doesn't try. It doesn't attempt to be better. Thus being not art. Art is something that you must work with. Working means trying. Art is not something that just pops up randomly. You have to seek to make art. Static music doesn't do that.

[zachol]

My point is that I am saying "RHCP is enjoyable, thus they are good," and you are saying "RHCP stifles creativity, thus they are bad."

We are judging whether they are "good" or "bad" from different angles.

[Amotis]

Static does not mean that the music itself is bad.
At most it means that the band is bad, but the music itself cannot be judged by the performer's other habits, or other music.
The quality of a song can only be judged for itself.

Aahhh. Okay, I've answered this a lot of times. Let me go and eat and drink and watch the game and I'll come back and try to explain it coming a different way. I need a break from typing anyway.

[SDF]

My point is that I am saying "RHCP is enjoyable, thus they are good," and you are saying "RHCP stifles creativity, thus they are bad."

We are judging whether they are "good" or "bad" from different angles.

Heh, well I would say there are bands I "enjoy" that are just terrible :P

[zachol]

Aahhh. Okay, I've answered this a lot of times. Let me go and eat and drink and watch the game and I'll come back and try to explain it coming a different way. I need a break from typing anyway.

Hmm.... why don't you avoid that, and I'll attempt to find where you answered that again instead of just stupidly revoicing things like an idiot?

Clearly better in the long run.


Edit:

You know, let's just leave it at

Heh, well I would say there are bands I "enjoy" that are just terrible

You're entirely right that it all sounds the same.


Although... well, is a hamburger an example of food?
Of art?
What if it's made really nicely?
Is Wolfgang Puck's cuisine art?
Is it food?

Personally, I'd equate RHCP to a hamburger.
Hamburger = food, not art.
RHCP = music, not art.

Of course, there's the question of whether some of what Puck has done is actually food, and you could say the same thing of some pieces of "music."


There, I used the crappy analogy I was attempting to avoid. :smallwink:

[Deepblue706]

I like a few songs by RHCP, but at the same time, I absolutely hate the group. Could say a lot more, but I don't feel like it. Just couldn't pass the opportunity to support the idea of hating something.

[twerk_face]

Amotis, your taking words out of my mouth. Yes, it did sound a bit like i was defending 100 % of RHCP's music. Not at all. They have made some truly bad songs (dani california for one). and i did not say that there is no experimental. i said there is a shortage. and maybe i only think this because my love of the peppers brings down experimental music and destroys the medium blah blah blah, wtvr. my point is you toook works out of my mouth.
And listen, please, don't lecture me on frank zappa's beliefs. i could go into them. But it would take an essay, and i'm not going to write one. Believe me when i know what i'm talking about.
Listen, i just do not agree with you on your opinion that their existance is, by, well, existance, a bad thing and makes them a bad band. this just seems like opinion and i feel we have to split hairs on this one.
Here, let me ask you this. If the red hot chili peppers were not in mainstream and produced their music from an underground record label and did not stand for everything you say they stand for (im not saying they do, mind), would you think they were good?
Because your point about them ruining music because of their existance is, quite frakly, opinion. IMO : )
Zappa would not support Walmart. But he would support the peppers. and you wanna know why? because they are writing music because they want to and lov to. If you deny this, then this convorsation might as well be ver, because its the cold hard truth. They are representing themselves (for the vast most part), and creating art. Frank Zappa wouldn't judge them based on their label, as you are apparently doing.

[Amotis]

Okay, I'm full and a bit tipsy. Time to talk about music.

@zachol

You say that good or bad is defined by the listener. That if a person enjoys listening to the band, it's a good band. But that's just your answer to the question "what is music?" There is no answer to that question. You say that music is defined by the listener. That's an answer. There is no answer. There never will be (for example, people say music is defined by the composer, by the 3rd party, by music when it's on paper, by no one at all, that music is undefinable, etc etc. The answers to the question keep comming). You take is simply that, your take. My take, however, is that there is no answer. A "no-take", if you will. Which is the very defintion of the question and music itself. Therefore, cannot be denied.

I state that there is no answer to the question, "what is music?" This is true. Therefore, my statement that is based of off the "no-take" is true as well.

To address your food analogy (which, I admit was tempted to make as well), the question of "what is art?" still applies. It doesn't matter the medium. The question "what is music?" was brought up by me simply because this is a musical conversation. There is no answer. Hence, we must keep asking the question over and over else we destory what we are talking about.

But let me state this. One cannot divide what is music and what is art. It's part of the question. "What is music?" So when you say RHCP is music but not art, who are you to draw that line? Because they don't ask the question "what is art?" No, that just makes them a bad band. There isn't the less harsh path of "well...they don't ask the question, so let's not hold them to the same standard and just call them music." No, that's letting them off way too easy. Making excuses for their blunders. You can't draw a line from music to art, or vice versa. It's part of the question. Therefore, one cannot give the excuse to a band who is not art, the veil of music.

[twerk_face]

ok, i'm going to double post, and i'm sorry. But i just reread something that Amotis said up there, and i had to comment.
You said that Static music does not try. Try what? Try to push musical boundries and create masterpieces that are unlike anything the world has ever seen? yeah, i guess your right. But if you only consider art things like that, the you wouldnt consider any of norman rockwell's paintings art. They were all excedingly similar. But every one of them was a work of art.
This analogy isn't perfect, because in most ways, he did not try to continualy improve on his form. The Peppers do. They take a style they have esstablished and improve ont it. And if you don't think that's art, then there is another point where we have to split hairs.

[Amotis]

Amotis, your taking words out of my mouth. Yes, it did sound a bit like i was defending 100 % of RHCP's music. Not at all. They have made some truly bad songs (dani california for one). and i did not say that there is no experimental. i said there is a shortage. and maybe i only think this because my love of the peppers brings down experimental music and destroys the medium blah blah blah, wtvr. my point is you toook works out of my mouth.
And listen, please, don't lecture me on frank zappa's beliefs. i could go into them. But it would take an essay, and i'm not going to write one. Believe me when i know what i'm talking about.
Listen, i just do not agree with you on your opinion that their existance is, by, well, existance, a bad thing and makes them a bad band. this just seems like opinion and i feel we have to split hairs on this one.
Here, let me ask you this. If the red hot chili peppers were not in mainstream and produced their music from an underground record label and did not stand for everything you say they stand for (im not saying they do, mind), would you think they were good?
Because your point about them ruining music because of their existance is, quite frakly, opinion. IMO : )
Zappa would not support Walmart. But he would support the peppers. and you wanna know why? because they are writing music because they want to and lov to. If you deny this, then this convorsation might as well be ver, because its the cold hard truth. They are representing themselves (for the vast most part), and creating art. Frank Zappa wouldn't judge them based on their label, as you are apparently doing.

I took the words right out of your mouth? It musta been while you were kissing me. [/singsmeatloaf]

I personally think Zappa would of make a song making a mockery of their style. Like he did with The Secret Carlos Santana Chord Progression, or whatever that song was. But okay, no more quoting or speaking for Zappa. He's not us and he doesn't really have anything to do with this subject besides the fact his opinions and quotes line up with some things said.

And no, (and you probably knew I would answer this way) if RHCP were indie, I would still hate them. But not as much, because as a little known band the RHCP would not of been praised as good music and thus not spreading their static music as good music. My hatred to RHCP is entensified by their popularity and acceptance as good music. Not driven from it though. Static music, mainstream or not, is bad music. I hate Wolf Parade. :smallfurious: (wow, first time I've used the angry smiley since I got back. It feels...angry.)

And I think, out of anything I've said from this thread, my statements about their existance as a popular static band and how this is a bad thing, would be the farthest from opinion.

Here, I'll give some more premises (or repeat them). Feel free to contradict any of them, thus proving the conclusion wrong.

1. RHCP is a static mainstream band.
2. People accept RHCP as a good band that produces good music.
Conclusion: People accept static mainstream bands as good music.

If 1 and 2 are correct, the conclusion is correct.

A. People accept static mainstream bands as good music.
B. People want to listen to what they think is good music.
C. Record Companies and People won't hire/listen to experimental music because they are happy with static mainstream bands which they define as good music. Money is being made.
Conclusion: If people accept RHCP as good music, experimental bands won't hire or consider experimental music.


Okay, if 1 and 2 as well as A,B, and, C are correct, then the final conclusion is correct. It's simple logical reasoning. Please bring up any flaws. See how this is probably the most logic based of all my arguments I've broughten up.

[twerk_face]

I

And I think, out of anything I've said from this thread, my statements about their existance as a popular static band and how this is a bad thing, would be the farthest from opinion.

Here, I'll give some more premises (or repeat them). Feel free to contradict any of them, thus proving the conclusion wrong.

1. RHCP is a static mainstream band.
2. People accept RHCP as a good band that produces good music.
Conclusion: People accept static mainstream bands as good music.

If 1 and 2 are correct, the conclusion is correct.

A. People accept static mainstream bands as good music.
B. People want to listen to what they think is good music.
C. Record Companies and People won't hire/listen to experimental music because they are happy with static mainstream bands which they define as good music. Money is being made.
Conclusion: If people accept RHCP as good music, experimental bands won't hire or consider experimental music.


Okay, if 1 and 2 as well as A,B, and, C are correct, then the final conclusion is correct. It's simple logical reasoning. Please bring up any flaws. See how this is probably the most logic based of all my arguments I've broughten up.

I think you are forgetting one key thing. RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS ARE NOT THE ONLY GOOD MUSIC. looool iim sorry, but it seems like your thinking that just because i think they are good i t hink all static mainstream music is good and that nothing else is. not. at. all. I do not think this in any way shape or form. And i don not believe that record companies never produce experimental music because i accept RHCP as good. Because i Accept alot of other experimental music as good also.
And THATS what your missing. They are good, but they are not the only good.

[FdL]

Hamburger? Those hamburgers people eat in McDonalds etc are trash. You're right, I agree in that RHCP are the hamburguer of music. Both are products corporations sell to millions with no regard to its quality, with the only intent of making money out of consumers who don't know better.

"Static" music is not art. Art is not static, art questions and breaks the status quo. Art is not settling with what works, but going beyond. And art is risk.

Now, as I've stated before, without people who create real music-as-art and take risks and often fail, there would be no "static music" whatsoever.

Now, it's not like Amotis (if I understand her fully) and I are saying for example that they should play William Basinski in the supermarket and elevators.

The point is that even if people like it RHCP is not good music. Because as Amotis said, there's a difference between art and something that is mass produced to sell (mainstream music). And if RHCP's music was ever original, or alternative or anything, it's long past. Now it's the mainstream, it has been assimilated.

Take the example of The Beatles. They started making their stuff, combining influences of their time into something new. They broke through the limits of what music was in their age. They had huge commercial success. They could have made thousands of albums with that style and make a lot of money. But no, they went beyond that, they kept making innovative music at the risk of losing their audiences. They matured, evolved, and that's why you can say without a doubt that everthing they did is art.

Without artists like The Beatles, or countless others innovators, there can be no music.

The problem is that music has turned more and more commercial, and more into a bussiness. And also there's the fact that audiences accept anything they are given through relentless promotion.

[Amotis]

ok, i'm going to double post, and i'm sorry. But i just reread something that Amotis said up there, and i had to comment.
You said that Static music does not try. Try what? Try to push musical boundries and create masterpieces that are unlike anything the world has ever seen? yeah, i guess your right. But if you only consider art things like that, the you wouldnt consider any of norman rockwell's paintings art. They were all excedingly similar. But every one of them was a work of art.
This analogy isn't perfect, because in most ways, he did not try to continualy improve on his form. The Peppers do. They take a style they have esstablished and improve ont it. And if you don't think that's art, then there is another point where we have to split hairs.

Oooh, cross art discussion. Me like. :smallbiggrin:

Okay, the first thing you should note about Rockwell is the time period. His most famous work being during 1910ish to 1970ish. A very different time period. You may not think that was that long ago. But WWII? That was a while ago. What may seem "normal" and "same" now was certainly not "normal" and "same" then. Different time periods, different ways of experimentation.

Okay, one would think a man who primarily works for the advertisement industry would be pretty static and banal. But Rockwell is far far from that. He was a master of detail and fitting hordes of feeling and emotion into one picture. A mag cover, of all things. He exlored everything from childhood wide eyes, to racial issues, to war, to freedom of speech, to unity, to freedom of worship, etc. He pushed. And though it may not seem like those things are major things today, you have to look in his time period. It wasn't long ago that racial hate was rampart. That things likes addressing war was taboo. That addressing governmental powers, especially on a everyday man's reading material, was something huge. The man was a pusher and an artist.

(Side Note - Or, on the other hand, a lot of people hate Norman. Calling him an illustrator and such. Not an artist. That his work is horrible nothings and have no point. An opinion that undermines both of ours.)

[zachol]

Hmm.


I honestly think that "bad" and "good" have far too many possible meanings for us to have a reasonable argument about whether something is "good" or "bad."
The terms are just too general.
I'm not attempting to "cop out" (at least, I don't think so...), I just think that those terms have been overused and could mean a lot of things, and that there's not much point arguing over the words themselves.


So... yeah.
You hate the RHCP because their music is bland and because they stifle creativity among experimental bands by staying at the top.
I like the RHCP because I enjoy listening to their music.


Hmm.


But let me state this. One cannot divide what is music and what is art. It's part of the question. "What is music?" So when you say RHCP is music but not art, who are you to draw that line? Because they don't ask the question "what is art?" No, that just makes them a bad band. There isn't the less harsh path of "well...they don't ask the question, so let's not hold them to the same standard and just call them music." No, that's letting them off way too easy. Making excuses for their blunders. You can't draw a line from music to art, or vice versa. It's part of the question. Therefore, one cannot give the excuse to a band who is not art, the veil of music.

So... let's take five things.
One, RHCP's Sir Psycho Sexy.
Two, a recording of nails screeching on a chalkboard.
Three, 4'33".
Four, Pink Floyd's Pow R. Toc H.
Five, anything by Bach.

Which of these are art, and which of these are music?
I ask you.

My opinion is they are all both, though #2 is highly suspect.


Edit:

Hamburger? Those hamburgers people eat in McDonalds etc are trash. You're right, I agree in that RHCP are the hamburguer of music. Both are products corporations sell to millions with no regard to its quality, with the only intent of making money out of consumers who don't know better.

You missed the point.
What about your standard hamburger made at the local grill?
The ones that are not trash?


The point is that even if people like it RHCP is not good music.

And don't just say that without some sort of reasonable backing.
You need to have a relatively cohesive definition of "good," or you should use a different, more accurate word.

[Amotis]

So... let's take five things.
One, RHCP's Sir Psycho Sexy.
Two, a recording of nails screeching on a chalkboard.
Three, 4'33".
Four, Pink Floyd's Pow R. Toc H.
Five, anything by Bach.

Which of these are art, and which of these are music?
I ask you.

My opinion is they are all both, though #2 is highly suspect.

Nooo no no no no n o no n on on on on on . *bangs head on keyboard*

Don't you understand my point? That the question "what is music?" cannot be answered. That if it was then music would disappear. There is no answer to your question. There are what you think, yes. But the answer is that there is no answer. "What is music?" is a question that creates music and art. You can't say what is music and what isn't. You can't can't can't.

The fact that people say only 5. Or all. Or none. Or potato. THAT is the reason why musical art exists. Because there is no set definition of what is music. The fact that there is no answer means there IS music. The fact that you say 1 or I say 5 or he says 2, THAT is the reason why there is music. If music was definable we would have used it all up long ago.


I think you are forgetting one key thing. RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS ARE NOT THE ONLY GOOD MUSIC. looool iim sorry, but it seems like your thinking that just because i think they are good i t hink all static mainstream music is good and that nothing else is. not. at. all. I do not think this in any way shape or form. And i don not believe that record companies never produce experimental music because i accept RHCP as good. Because i Accept alot of other experimental music as good also.
And THATS what your missing. They are good, but they are not the only good.

Again, I'm not talking about you and I'm not just talking about RHCP. Think beyond what the names say.

[twerk_face]

Amotis, im saying norman rockwell was an amazing artist. i love everything he has ever done (to an extent. exageration for effect people), and hold nothing but the greatest respect for him. True, he pushed boundries and did new and original work, but that was all within his own style of painting. RHCP is exactly the same way. They do original work, but within their own style. It's a perfect analogy.

And FDL, who are you to say what art is and isn't? I personaly do not agree with your definition of art. Anything can be art, in my opinion. But that's a philosophical debate for another thread. And also, RHCP do not make music just to make mone. The make music, and the music makes money. Please don't accuse them of this slander, lol.

[Amotis]

Amotis, im saying norman rockwell was an amazing artist. i love everything he has ever done (to an extent. exageration for effect people), and hold nothing but the greatest respect for him. True, he pushed boundries and did new and original work, but that was all within his own style of painting. RHCP is exactly the same way. They do original work, but within their own style. It's a perfect analogy.


Acutally, nothing is perfect analogy. But yeah, I get what you mean. But it's incorrect. RHCP do not experiment, they don't do things out of the norm. They don't try to do things they haven't done before. Rockwell did. Hence the falsity of your analogy.

[FdL]

You missed the point.
What about your standard hamburger made at the local grill?
The ones that are not trash?


Those are still a controversial food, you know, carbohydrates, fat and all. Let's better not start analysing American's eating habits because you probably know the statistics. Also I think Moore or other one of those hip documentarists already done it. :p



And don't just say that without some sort of reasonable backing.
You need to have a relatively cohesive definition of "good," or you should use a different, more accurate word.

I've said it in my post and a couple of times already. It's not good music because it's music created with the sole intention of selling records. So it's not art, it's a product. And therefore is not good as "music2 because "music" is art.

I wouldn't say that RHCP are directly responsible for the fact that more creative bands don't get promotion. I've said it before, it's the music industry who's to blame. They are the ones who choose to put money in whatever sells more easily. They don't take risks, so there's little room for unique, creative music.

[zachol]

Nooo no no no no n o no n on on on on on . *bangs head on keyboard*

Don't you understand my point? That the question "what is music?" cannot be answered. That if it was then music would disappear. There is no answer to your question. There are what you think, yes. But the answer is that there is no answer. "What is music?" is a question that creates music and art. You can't say what is music and what isn't. You can't can't can't.

The fact that people say only 5. Or all. Or none. Or potato. THAT is the reason why musical art exists. Because there is no set definition of what is music. The fact that there is no answer means there IS music. The fact that you say 1 or I say 5 or he says 2, THAT is the reason why there is music. If music was definable we would have used it all up long ago.

Then how can you possibly say that RHCP is not art or not music or "bad"??

Wait... you're not saying that. Maybe FdL is.
Or something.

Um... maybe I'm just confused at this point.


Those are still a controversial food, you know, carbohydrates, fat and all. Let's better not start analysing American's eating habits because you probably know the statistics. Also I think Moore or other one of those hip documentarists already done it. :p

Bah. Celery sticks then.


I've said it in my post and a couple of times already. It's not good music because it's music created with the sole intention of selling records. So it's not art, it's a product. And therefore is not good as "music" because "music" is art.

Hmm?
I doubt that RHCP creates music "with the sole intention of selling records."


Okay... shift.
What about RHCP... 10 years ago. Or 15.
Was their music good... then?
In the way that it's not now?

Or have they always been a "bad band"?

[Amotis]

Then how can you possibly say that RHCP is not art or not music or "bad"??


Because they don't ask the question "what is music?" Hence they can't be art. If you don't ask, you can't make. See a lot of my other posts to see how art = creative. And how the question must be asked to be art.

[FdL]

Hmm?
I doubt that RHCP creates music "with the sole intention of selling records."

Well, clearly they don't have anything new to say artistically. Hey, like the Rolling Stones or U2, for citing other examples. So it's not like they're putting out new music to express themselves. I guess it's turned into a job for them. Success and fame does that...
Same happened to R.E.M., that's really did break my heart. They should have split in the year 2000 like they had planned originally. Oh well.



Okay... shift.
What about RHCP... 10 years ago. Or 15.
Was their music good... then?
In the way that it's not now?

Or have they always been a "bad band"?

I said it already. I think that maybe when they started what they did was probably new and creative to some extent. At one point they obviously stalled and engaged creative autopilot. The mainstream accepted their music as a product and they conformed to it.

As I understand it, and as with the example of Rockwell, you have to take into view the context into which something is created. What was new and creative in the late eighties (I guess) when they came out, is no longer so, and they are doing the same kind of music.

[Amotis]

Okay, Let me augment a few things I've said.

A. RHCP is a static mainstream band.
B. People accept RHCP as a good band that produces good music.
C. RHCP is accepted as good music and sells a lot of records. A very popular and very wealthy band.
D. Record companies have no reason to look for better bands if RHCP are considered good music and sell so well.

Conclusion - RHCP prevent the rise of better more creative bands. As well as creating an envoirment where static music sells and is hailed as good music.


Now on to the music question.

"What is music?" is a question that cannot be answered, yes?
But to create art you must ask the question. It's not the fact that there is no answer to "what is music?", it's the fact that people attempt to answer "what is music?" It's the debate. It's the guy saying that John Cage is music, that another says no, it's Pink Floyd. Another says no, it's the noises he hears in his dorm room at night. It's the fact that people attempt to make music the pushes "what is music?" in attemp to answer it. It's the fight, the attempts the answer, the debate. The effort and attempt.

RHCP does not attempt to answer "what is music?" They ignore the question. Hence, they are not art.

[zachol]

Hmm.

I think we essentially agree at this point.


And I must say that my enjoyment of RHCP's music has been significantly deteriorated.

[clarkvalentine]

Because they don't ask the question "what is music?" Hence they can't be art.

Having read the thread, I have to be honest - I find this definition rather arbitrary.

I'm not a good musician, but I know a few chords and play a bit when the spirit moves me. I don't innovate, I don't ask grand questions like "What is music?" when I play. I just like to, you know, play music. It feels right when a progression comes together and a harmony works, and I like doing that.

People can and do make music for reasons other than Pondering Grand Questions and Creating Art.

[Amotis]

Having read the thread, I have to be honest - I find this definition rather arbitrary.

I'm not a good musician, but I know a few chords and play a bit when the spirit moves me. I don't innovate, I don't ask grand questions like "What is music?" when I play. I just like to, you know, play music. It feels right when a progression comes together and a harmony works, and I like doing that.

People can and do make music for reasons other than Pondering Grand Questions and Creating Art.

It's not pondering really. It's not elistist music talk. You don't have to be a philosopher.

Think of the Delta bluesman. Hell, pick one of my favorites, Robert Johnson. A hell of a musician. Never video taped. He recorded only 23 songs (plus like 12 more recordings of different takes on those songs). Any decent blues guitarist knows every one of those songs. Every one. The guy had every woman who would have him. In every city. He died between a fight between two jealous lovers. An end anyone could of seen 10 thousand miles away. Now this was way back. Back when people learned music not because they wanted to create something, but because records or recordings weren't a public thing. People learned music because they wanted to play the songs they liked. I remember a more modern bluesman saying "Hell, I only learned guitar 'cause I liked three songs and wanted to hear them." That's basically it. No records, so people had to make their own music. No philisophical motivation. Nothing like this.

Yet, Robert Johnson, a black bluesman from down south, probably a first generation african-america, created some of the most down right musical pieces of the genre. A genre, if I may add, the world thinks is the only thing us Americans did. Ever.

You don't have to be aware of the question to ask it. But you do have to ask it.

@ zachol - you agree? On the internet? Is that allowed? :smallwink:
But at least you're telling me, that makes me happy.

[clarkvalentine]

You don't have to be aware of the question to ask it. But you do have to ask it.

So what is "asking the question"? Is a musician playing music he loves not asking the question if it sounds too similar to music he's played in the past?

Edit: Bedtime for me in the East - I look forward to more examination of this, but it'll have to be tomorrow for me... :)

[Amotis]

Asking the question is basically creativity. There are so many ways of asking the question (okay..."asking the question" is starting to sound like a euphanism...but okay moving on) that I can't really list 'em all. But for example, one can say "I want to write a song like this." or "I love this kind of music but it get's boring after a while. Let's try this." or "Man, I haven't played it like that before. Let's try it." or "Nah, this is my interpretation." or "Oh that's a good tune. But try it like this." or "Nah, I don't like it. Like try again." or "Hmm, I don't know. I'll listen to it tommorrow and we'll see."

It goes on and on. It's basically questioning. Avoiding arrogance. If you reconize your music going static, simply stopping and looking at it again is asking the question. Ignoring the question would be continuing. A musician playing the music he loves even though it sounds the same as before depends on what he thinks about his music. Does he know it sounds the same? Does he care? And so on and so on.

[zachol]

@ zachol - you agree? On the internet? Is that allowed? :smallwink:
But at least you're telling me, that makes me happy.

No, it's not allowed! Never!

I'm still listening to them, mostly because I never "bought into" them due to them being mainstream, and because I don't really think that by somehow not listening to music I already have I'm going to reduce their prevelance and make them "less mainstream" and thus help experimental music fellows.

And besides, I'd never look into a band just because it hit the "top 100" or whatever charts.
I don't even know how to phrase that. I'm hopeless that way. :smallbiggrin:

Also,

It goes on and on. It's basically questioning. Avoiding arrogance. If you reconize your music going static, simply stopping and looking at it again is asking the question. Ignoring the question would be continuing. A musician playing the music he loves even though it sounds the same as before depends on what he thinks about his music. Does he know it sounds the same? Does he care? And so on and so on.

They do this? That honestly makes me sad, though I'm suspicious exactly how that's such a known fact.

[Amotis]

No, it's not allowed! Never!

I'm still listening to them, mostly because I never "bought into" them due to them being mainstream, and because I don't really think that by somehow not listening to music I already have I'm going to reduce their prevelance and make them "less mainstream" and thus help experimental music fellows.

And besides, I'd never look into a band just because it hit the "top 100" or whatever charts.
I don't even know how to phrase that. I'm hopeless that way. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah but it's like the vegetarian argument. You know that even if you don't eat meat that the companies will continue to slaughter animals no matter what. Enough people buy it that one person doesn't matter. But people are still vegetarians for moral reasons.

Heh, I'm not saying listen to RHCP and you're evil, I'm just explaining why I don't.




They do this? That honestly makes me sad, though I'm suspicious exactly how that's such a known fact.

Hmm, I don't think you're taking it who I mean it. I mean that if you play static music and you don't know it or you don't care, well then you're creating bad music. If you're doing what you love and playing static music but you know it and you don't care because it's what you love, well then there's the difference. I'm not saying love = music. I'm saying that arrogance over your music makes bad music.

[zachol]

Yeah but it's like the vegetarian argument. You know that even if you don't eat meat that the companies will continue to slaughter animals no matter what. Enough people buy it that one person doesn't matter. But people are still vegetarians for moral reasons.

Heh, I'm not saying listen to RHCP and you're evil, I'm just explaining why I don't.

That would probably work better if I actually bought their music.
Again, in my opinion, gifts = 90% absolvement.


Then again, it could just be that I'm a hypocrite.
I mean, it works for vegetarianism, and if I'm willing to eat meat despite all the problems around today with the meat industry, I don't think that the problem of "oh noes stifling" really compares. :smallamused:
But we can avoid that for now.



Hmm, I don't think you're taking it who I mean it. I mean that if you play static music and you don't know it or you don't care, well then you're creating bad music. If you're doing what you love and playing static music but you know it and you don't care because it's what you love, well then there's the difference. I'm not saying love = music. I'm saying that arrogance over your music makes bad music.

'k, I think I get it.

My point is I don't think either of us (at least I don't) know enough about the RHCP's personal activities, and what they do when they're trying to write new music, to say that they are arrogant or "don't try new things."

But, whatever.

[FdL]

Last night before I went to bed I kept thinking about this, and about "the question". Then I realized its meaning. Asking the question is creating, making something that is not there, something new.

One does not need to create anything new if you take for granted and accept what already exists. Thus, asking the question (literally to have a critical attitude) is to think beyond, to say "ok, this is all very well, but what if...". "What else is there".

I used to know a girl from college who only listened to The Beatles. I mean, that's great, they're amazing, but only listen to one band?????? There's a universe of music out there! I'm probably the polar opposite. I keep thinking that my favorite band, song or record is yet to be discovered, waiting for me somewhere lost in time and space.

[Amotis]

Actually clarkvalentine's question, or statement rather, has probably had me the most stumped throughout this whole thread. Had me thinking last night as well. If someone plays music he loves, but that music isn't creative or art, is that good? Man...tough question. Probably cause love is a hard thing to define. And the we are inclined to say that love, for something healthy (like music), is always good. No matter what.

Okay, I have a few takes on this so far, nothing really good but just stuff I want to say.

1. Responsibility. If a little boy in some third world country picks up a diddley bow (a one string instrument usually played with a slide) and sings some blues song his dad taught him but he only knows that song, doesn't learn any other songs, and doesn't bother to, or doesn't care, about making his own music or improving on what he knows, but he loves it, does it matter? Or, on the other hand, RHCP, a very popular band with sales and fans numbering in the millions. A power in which comes responsibility. If they are doing what they love but they churn out static bad music, does this make their music good? Or still bad? Does love redeem bad music? I say no but things like love and music and circumstance are so very broad that I think it has to be addressed on an individual level. So even if Flea (haha, I see the short man with a tear in his eye and playing his bass tenderly) loves what he does but makes no effort to improve what he does. Or make what he does more. Or ask the question about what he does. He still does not produce good music. That doesn't make him a bad person (I'll explain this in point 2) but it does not redeem his music.

2. Love is stupid. It's blind, deaf, and dumb. Anyone who's been in love can tell you this. I state this as true from first hand experience as well. Love for music is a good thing. Love for playing music is good as well. But it doesn't mean that the music you love is good. Loving the music = good. But love the music does not equal good music.

Will think about this more, I will.

[zeratul]

I like 'em, Im not a huge fan but I like them ."By the way" is a great song.

[twerk_face]

Acutally, nothing is perfect analogy. But yeah, I get what you mean. But it's incorrect. RHCP do not experiment, they don't do things out of the norm. They don't try to do things they haven't done before. Rockwell did. Hence the falsity of your analogy.

i guess this is where you and I disagree, fundamentely, in terms of sheer opinion. I really do think they try new things. You don't. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think this is where we differ fairly, because this is opinion.

If you d on't think so, feel free to say why

[Amotis]

i guess this is where you and I disagree, fundamentely, in terms of sheer opinion. I really do think they try new things. You don't. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think this is where we differ fairly, because this is opinion.

If you d on't think so, feel free to say why

What is "new things?" Let's try to define that first. New things, I think, would be stuff that sounds new, tries to be new, looks back at past things and tries to differ from what was done before. How does (specifically) RHCP do this?

[clarkvalentine]

Glad I made you think. :smallwink:


If they are doing what they love but they churn out static bad music, does this make their music good?

I suppose this is where I disagree with your analysis: the postulate that statis necessarily equals bad. If something speaks to a musician - a certain chord progression, a certain style, a certain whatever - why not keep going with it until it doesn't anymore? And if other people find that speaks to them too, let 'em listen until they're no longer moved by it.

Now, sometimes artists do get into ruts and just keep churning out the same stuff because they've forgotten how to do anything else. Other times, maybe they keep going for no reason other than because they're still grooving on it. Gods know there are some things I'll just never get sick of hearing.

Maybe some folks just move on faster than others. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with lingering, either.

I don't like the notion of BadWrongFun. That term originated in RPG gaming (people slagging munchkin powergamers, telling them they're having the wrong kind of fun for enjoying that style of game). It strikes me it shouldn't be applied to art, either.

[Shadow of the Sun]

RHCP do indeed try new things- within boundaries that are imposed on them by the way mainstream music works and by the fact that they do not want to starve. Experimental music is about moving beyond the boundaries of what is considered mainstream in a specific genre. But if people never encouraged music to move outside of boundaries classical music would be all we have to listen too- not a bad thing in itself. My favourite band is an experimental metal band in that they take a lot of influence from other genres- folk, neofolk, post-industrial etc. But had not experimentation been encouraged or their label not signed them on, no-one would hear the excellence that is Agalloch, or Flogging Molly, or Black Sabbath or even the Beatles. Unless the mainstream music industry signs on new bands that push and change the boundaries music will never evolve. Which happens to be why most revolutionary, experimental music is produced by indie labels. It is until the mainstream media is encouraged to allow this experimentation to happen that music will not get better. RHCP are considered by many to be a good band, so people buy them, so the company only signs on their type of music. This doesn't mean that RHCP are bad in any sense. It means that they are inadvertently reinforcing musical stagnation. Do not stop listening to them by any means, but go out of your way to support experimental bands, and the stagnation will be cleanse.

Amotis: Thanks for referencing me :-). Yup, I love shred. But it has to be written well to be good, which is the same for all music. Which is why I prefer Agalloch to Yngwie Malmsteen. But there are some good shredders who are also good songwriters, such as Shawn Lane. When it comes to shred the best place to find it is fusion- they have to be able to compose well because most people who listen to fusion are already musicians and can pick out a bad tune where your average person might not. I love fusion. So blues is NOT the only good thing to come from America. Jazz and Jazz Fusion did too:smallwink:

[Amotis]

I suppose we can apply the rule of three here. One, from the composer. Two, from the paper (technical stuff). Three, from the listener. If it speaks to each of those and triggers a love for it, that might be the case. But from your view you can assume love redeems bad music. Or makes good music. But love and enjoyment aren't the only ingredients to good music. You view gives way to the exploitation of "well I love my music and I love what I do so I don't have to change or be creative but people will still consider it good music." Like I said, love is stupid. It crowds the mind and more often then not, blinds the eyes. I'm not saying not to love your music. That's stupid. What I'm saying is there is no direct correlation between good music and love.

I understand you view about ruts (especially ruts) and lingering. But I think that's way too specific to address with a broad statement like love = good music or love doesn't equal good music. It would have to be much more specific, to the point of not even really addressing the issue.

[slipnslide]

love 'em. i saw them in concert once and got to slap flea 5. sweeet!

[clarkvalentine]

But love and enjoyment aren't the only ingredients to good music.

And again, we come back to a fundamental disagreement about the definition of "good" in this context - specifically, whether an objective definition even exists.

A side discussion that could occur here is whether such labels are even useful.

[twerk_face]

RHCP do indeed try new things- within boundaries that are imposed on them by the way mainstream music works and by the fact that they do not want to starve. Experimental music is about moving beyond the boundaries of what is considered mainstream in a specific genre. But if people never encouraged music to move outside of boundaries classical music would be all we have to listen too- not a bad thing in itself. My favourite band is an experimental metal band in that they take a lot of influence from other genres- folk, neofolk, post-industrial etc. But had not experimentation been encouraged or their label not signed them on, no-one would hear the excellence that is Agalloch, or Flogging Molly, or Black Sabbath or even the Beatles. Unless the mainstream music industry signs on new bands that push and change the boundaries music will never evolve. Which happens to be why most revolutionary, experimental music is produced by indie labels. It is until the mainstream media is encouraged to allow this experimentation to happen that music will not get better. RHCP are considered by many to be a good band, so people buy them, so the company only signs on their type of music. This doesn't mean that RHCP are bad in any sense. It means that they are inadvertently reinforcing musical stagnation. Do not stop listening to them by any means, but go out of your way to support experimental bands, and the stagnation will be cleanse.

I almost completely agree, except with the fact you say the try new things with limits mainstream puts on them. Yes, mainstream does put alot of limits, but they also are in the mainstream and play that kind of music because the love to. Just clarifying that they are not just playing what they are because of the mainstream status they curently have.:smallwink:

Also, I completely agree with your point about supporting experimental bands. "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible"--Frank Zappa. This is why I LOVE Oysterhead. They are extremely experimental.

Also they rawk hard. :smallbiggrin:

[Shadow of the Sun]

Just because they love to play what they do does not mean that they would not experiment more if they were not bound by the industry. I think experimentation leads to even more fun in the music you play- you get to try stuff you are not familiar with and have fun with it. But I get your point.

I seem to have a lot of eloquence- many people agree with what I say and I enjoy saying it. I find that awesome.

[LCR]

I somewhat couldn't stand to read the last to pages of this thread, but why are you trying to analyse good music? Im pretty simple: If I like what I hear, I call it good music, regardless of the fact whether that particular band is popular or underground. I mean, you don't go around telling people that hamburgers taste bad, just because they didn't try paté (or some other fancy French dish).
My favourite band is Oasis. And yeah, they sometimes do sound like a Beatles/Kinks/Stones-ripoff. But still, I think it is good music.



Oh yes, I do like the Peppers.

[Amotis]

But again, that's still only your answer to the question "what is music?"

Is music in the ear of the beholder?

Is it in the pen of the artist?

Is it in the scream of the guitar?

Is it in the words of the critic?

Like I've said before, don't assume your answer to the question is right because there really is no correct answer.

@clarkvalentine - I've been thinking, is there a definition of good music? I've certainly assumed there's been one, and so has everyone else in this thread. Do you accept my rule of three explanation or have you disagreed with that?

[clarkvalentine]

@clarkvalentine - I've been thinking, is there a definition of good music? I've certainly assumed there's been one, and so has everyone else in this thread.

I have yet to see any objective definition of "good." (In almost any context, not just music.)


Do you accept my rule of three explanation or have you disagreed with that?If I've parsed your position correctly, it's that if it appeals to the composer, the listener, and both composition and performance demonstrate technical proficiency then it is good. I accept that is a sufficient condition to be called good music - from the point of view of the composer, listener, and whoever judges the music's technical aspects. They can only speak for themselves, of course.

However, I would disagree that it is a necessary condition.

By the way, if I'm just derailing an otherwise interesting discussion by being a pedantic jerk, let me know and I'll skulk away. :smallwink:

- Clark

[FdL]

I like some stuff that I know it's not very good but I can enjoy it. But the difference is that I know that it isn't good.

[clarkvalentine]

But the difference is that I know that it isn't good.


How do you know, and why is it important?

[FdL]

I know it because I know about music and can tell that this particular band is not making anything new or of artistic importance/relevance.

Bands like Madder Rose, Buffalo Tom, Jale, etc, just make regular alternative guitar pop, which you can like as I do, but anyone can tell that are not anything special.

You want to know how do you know what I said above? You know from the context. Compared to other bands that do create special, above average music, they are inferior and somewhat generic.

That's why having a broad knowledge of music and culture helps in its appreciation. Let's put it this way, if you're stuck on an island and salvage one record from a shipwreck, said record being, say, "Frampton Comes Alive" or anything by Weezer :p, maybe you'll love it, because you don't have anything else to compare it. In that case you don't know that there's better stuff, so your "universe" is small and so is your "scale" of knowledge of what is good and what is not.

You can like anything, of course. But IMHO something being good is not a subjective, individual expression of taste, it's beyond the individual, and works within a cultural system.

Conversely, there's music that I consider to be good but that I don't like. That doesn't make it any worse.

Think of any good novel and compare it to Eragon or something of the like. Think of any work of art masterpiece and compare it to the picture of dogs playing poker (I guess).

[clarkvalentine]

... this particular band is not making anything new or of artistic importance/relevance.

OK, but that's different than "This music is not good."

You keep using words like "above average," "inferior," and "better". There are no ways to measure, in any repeatable and objective way, whatever quality you're using these words to describe. It's undefinable and unquantifiable. You'll never get more than a small handful to agree on a definition of good or a way to measure how good music is - hence some people passionately calling RHCP "good" while other people just as strenuously call it "bad."

Who's right? Depends how you define "good" in the context of music. I've not seen one person's definition look any better or more useful than any other.

Good/bad is subjective.

[Amotis]

But what if you bring high art into it? Classical music and such?

I'm not really set on any decision yet but I'm wondering if you bring something like that into the equation. Classical music requires immense creativity, concentration, devotion, and things like this. You can't just be a composer. You have to learn theory (especially theory), history, musicology, orchestration, individual instruments, and an excess of other things. I'm not saying all classical is good (that's far from the truth), I'm just asking what about another facet of music?

[FdL]

I think that classical music is somehow above it, as you said it's a higher form of art.

And probably for most people from the classical music sphere, popular music is bad.

[Xerillum]

Dani California was pretty good.

[clarkvalentine]

But what if you bring high art into it? Classical music and such?

What about it (I say not to be flippant, but genuinely because I'm not sure where you're going)? Yes, it requires a much greater degree of training and technical skill to compose orchestral music - it's simply so much more complicated. There are an awful lot more self taught singer/songwriters and folkies out there than classical composers, without a doubt.

But just as it takes a much higher degree of skill to perform neurosurgery than it does to sew up a kid who needs a few stitches. It doesn't mean that the pediatrician sewing up the kid is performing a not-good job - he might do a brilliant job. It's just mode mundane.

[FdL]

Yeah, a masterpiece.

[Amotis]

Yeah, Dani California rocks.

And clarkvalentine...hehe...that analogy sucks. But yeah, sans comparing sugery, I get what you're saying. But here's my problem with the entire argument; You're saying good and bad are subjective? But doesn't that tear at the very core that holds together what things are? If a masterpiece that is both beautiful and modern is no better then a guy farting, what is the point? I know what you're saying, that none of us are in the possition of saying what is good or bad, it's a statement that applies to any art. Music, especially. But I feel that I can't get my head around how subjectivity can work. I can't imagine bluring the line between what is good and what people say is good. I know I just fall in the latter category, but that's not my point.

Another thing, I also think your "good=subjective" argument just falls back to the question I was poseing before ("what is music?"). Because you're saying good music is subjective to the listener, etc. Well that's just saying the answer to "what is music?" is that music is in the ear of the beholder.

[clarkvalentine]

If a masterpiece that is both beautiful and modern is no better then a guy farting, what is the point?

Depends - who's doing the farting? (I kid, I kid!)


But I feel that I can't get my head around how subjectivity can work. I can't imagine bluring the line between what is good and what people say is good. I know I just fall in the latter category, but that's not my point.

I suppose my problem with it is that any observation must be repeatably measurable to be objective (I'm a scientist by profession), and good music just isn't measurable. "Good" in the context of music completely depends on who's commenting on it. There's no real

This doesn't prevent us from saying "Ye gods, this music is bad," and talking about why we think it's bad, or why it's bad to us. Hell, I do it all the time. What I think we shouldn't do is declare from on high "This is bad, and you cannot correctly say otherwise because I know What Is Good In Music (tm)."


Well that's just saying the answer to "what is music?" is that music is in the ear of the beholder.

I listen to music for enjoyment. I judge good or bad (read: whether I wish to listen to it) on that basis. Other people (I'm assuming folks like you and FdL) are more analytical than I am and look at music differently, judging good or bad based on how it advances the art.

I can't say which is right, because they both serve our own purposes. Maybe I'm just a hopeless utilitarian in that sense, at least.

[Amotis]

Well the way I'm taking it is that if there is no good, then why? Or if there is no good then there is no higher place, no transcendence. That's why I can't figure out a music world where good is subjective. A world were music can indeed be good without being subjective but I personally cannot draw the difference, I'm fine with that. I just can't figure out how music can exist with everything being subjective, I think that's creating a too personal and existence based decision.

[clarkvalentine]

Well the way I'm taking it is that if there is no good, then why? Or if there is no good then there is no higher place, no transcendence.

Sure there is - it's just that different people will find different things transcendent and find their hearts touched, souls flung to the heavens, and minds inspired by very different things.


... I think that's creating a too personal and existence based decision.

What is experiencing music if not personal?

[Amotis]

Ah, but see I mean existence of the music. That the quality of music can be judged without a listener. Hmm...that's a big difference. You're on a completely different page from me...let think about it and try to explain it your way.

[clarkvalentine]

That the quality of music can be judged without a listener.


Even if you could, I'd have two different observations:

1) Why would you want to? What purpose could such a thing serve?

2) You still couldn't get people to fully agree on criteria for judgment, rendering any judgments subjective.

[sktarq]

Right-very nice philosophy session you have cooked up.

anyway I like them. In a fun and silly way.

[Sewer_Bandito]

I'd just like to say that this is the most fascinating discussion on music and philosophy I've ever seen (it's also the only one, but that's beside the point :smallcool: ) And has completely changed my view on the mainstream and how I view music and different artists in general :smallconfused:

[Amotis]

Even if you could, I'd have two different observations:

1) Why would you want to? What purpose could such a thing serve?

To validate that there is a higher interpretation then our own judgement? The thing that erks me about subjective goodness is that nothing can be called good with truth in it. I can't second guess everything I make, I just can't. I'm not asking for the power to say what is good and what isn't, I'm just searching for a reason that there is a good.



2) You still couldn't get people to fully agree on criteria for judgment, rendering any judgments subjective.

That wouldn't matter really, I'm not trying to convince anyone.

[clarkvalentine]

To validate that there is a higher interpretation then our own judgement?

I don't think there is; perhaps this is our fundamental disconnect.


The thing that erks me about subjective goodness is that nothing can be called good with truth in it.

I strongly disagree. I call music "good" or "bad" all the time - but it's only good or bad as far as I judge it. I don't pretend to know what's good or bad for anyone else - what music serves their purposes, or (to put it in your terms) what their answer is to the question "what is music."

But that makes what I find good no less true.


That wouldn't matter really, I'm not trying to convince anyone.This seems to run counter to your assertions earlier in the thread that I originally objected to, that musicians (especially commercially successful ones) have a responsibility to create music that is good as you define it. Please, correct me if I misinterpreted.

[zachol]

How can you truly "objectively" judge anything?

And furthermore, how can you actually say that a classical piece of music is in any way "better" than a fart?
No, that's not a joke - there's no line of reasoning that doesn't eventually fall back on itself or rely on some sort of irrational belief.


It is all subjective.
I mean, everything is subjective - the most that we can have is general consensus.

[FdL]

How can you truly "objectively" judge anything?

And furthermore, how can you actually say that a classical piece of music is in any way "better" than a fart?
No, that's not a joke - there's no line of reasoning that doesn't eventually fall back on itself or rely on some sort of irrational belief.

It is all subjective.
I mean, everything is subjective - the most that we can have is general consensus.

It is based in consensus, but also beyond it. What constitutes music is not totally subjective. If someone records a fart AS music, making an artistic statement, then it's music.




I listen to music for enjoyment. I judge good or bad (read: whether I wish to listen to it) on that basis. Other people (I'm assuming folks like you and FdL) are more analytical than I am and look at music differently, judging good or bad based on how it advances the art.

I can't say which is right, because they both serve our own purposes. Maybe I'm just a hopeless utilitarian in that sense, at least.

See, there you have point. One thing I've noticed beyond this particular discussion is that people have a different "use" for music, which describes their degree of involvement with the its artistic aspect.

Some people are happy with just listening to whatever play on the radio, in Mtv and "what everyone listens to". I know people who justify liking objectively horrible, truly stupid(izing) music downplaying its importance by saying that "it's just fun music to dance and party to".
Other people have a deeper interest in music, collect records, research, take risks in listening to new music, look for new styles or artists that may or may not sound like something they know/like.
Another bunch of people just make music their life, take it seriously, and consider it a form of art regardless of its popularity or commercial success.
There's people who like to have music as background, without paying too much attention to it. There's people who listened to a certain style of music in a period of their lives, but then refuse to listen to anything beyond it. There's people who think cellphone ringtones are actual music (well, you know what I mean :p)

Etc.

[clarkvalentine]

I mean, everything is subjective - the most that we can have is general consensus.

Well, some things are not - it was five degrees here in central Pennsylvania Wednesday afternoon last week. This was a measurable quantity.

What is subjective is me saying "Damn, it's cold." Because my buddy from Alaska would say "Cold? You call this cold?"

[zachol]

And then there's people who randomly discover things and then have a habit of occasionally looking at what they like and maybe writing it down in case they ever feel like listening to it again.

As in, me. And no, that's different than your first group.
I don't "listen to something because everyone else does."
Then again, I don't automatically discredit anything just "because it's popular." That's like saying "agh their commercials are so stupid, so I'll not buy their stuff even though I actually like it for what it is!"


Edit:


Well, some things are not - it was five degrees here in central Pennsylvania Wednesday afternoon last week. This was a measurable quantity.

First off, I am, indeed, talking more about "fuzzy" things like "it's cold" or "that's dumb."

Second off, no that's not "not subjective."
I seriously don't want to get into it.
I'm not saying you wouldn't get it, but it's... oblique?
Is that a good word?
It's not fun to try to explain or understand, especially on a message board.

[clarkvalentine]

It's not fun to try to explain or understand, especially on a message board.

Fair enough, but I'm pretty familiar with getting physical measurements right. Yeah, there are tolerances and miscalibrated gear, local variations, deviations from standard procedure, plain ol' operator screwups, and so on. But if you do your homework you can get that sort of thing pretty well nailed down - repeatable, quantifiable, independent of the observer.

But that's way OT, as you say.

[zachol]

Umm... I think you missed what I was trying to imply.
It's sort of a step or two beyond that.
As in, a "what is knowledge" sort of argument.
Sort of like idealism.

[Amotis]

Fundemental disconnection aside, I stated before that bands like RHCP are bad not because of just their music (which is what this post-argument is about) but because of the hurt it puts on bands that are creative and are experimental. They don't have a responsibity per say...people can ignore responsiblity all the time, but it's something dealing with the power over the media and people that should be expressed in the form of responsiblitiy.

And I see this thread getting philosophical beyond the realms of music. Decartes "evil demon" and doubting system, eh? I'm down for that but probably not here.

[zachol]

Fundemental disconnection aside, I stated before that bands like RHCP are bad not because of just their music (which is what this post-argument is about) but because of the hurt it puts on bands that are creative and are experimental. They don't have a responsibity per say...people can ignore responsiblity all the time, but it's something dealing with the power over the media and people that should be expressed in the form of responsiblitiy.

And I agree with that.
And, again, that doesn't change the fact I enjoy listening to their music, and that my "patronage" (whatever) of the RHCP has nothing to do with their popularity or other such thing.



And I see this thread getting philosophical beyond the realms of music. Decartes "evil demon" and doubting system, eh? I'm down for that but probably not here.

A thread devoted to a similar philosophical topic would be amusing.
To the Friendly Banter area!

[clarkvalentine]

They don't have a responsibity per say...people can ignore responsiblity all the time, but it's something dealing with the power over the media and people that should be expressed in the form of responsiblitiy.

OK, I think I get you. It's not the making music that isn't worthwhile, it's that they dominate the marketplace with music that isn't worthwhile, squeezing out others. Yeah, I can see how that'd be maddening to a more innovative musician trying to get noticed.


Umm... I think you missed what I was trying to imply.
It's sort of a step or two beyond that.
As in, a "what is knowledge" sort of argument.
Sort of like idealism.

OK, gotcha. Again, my utilitarianism rears its head... I'm a scientist, sometimes we need hard numbers. :smallwink:

[Amotis]

No! No agreeing! Stop that! Stop that right now! That's silly!

[zachol]

If it makes you feel better, you're a big fat stupid-head?



Oh, I know! Isn't the "constant progress" an exercise in futility?
I mean, if the point of music is to "break new ground," then why?
If what you're struggling to create is simply going to serve as what you're going to struggle out of in a few years, what is the point?
And if the point is "the struggle," then... um...


Sisyphus?

[0wca]

Oh, I know! Isn't the "constant progress" an exercise in futility?
I mean, if the point of music is to "break new ground," then why?
If what you're struggling to create is simply going to serve as what you're going to struggle out of in a few years, what is the point?



The point is not doing the alternative = sitting in a corner playing 2 chords, or something that you've allready played 3 billion times before..

You have 2 choices: either you create something new, or recycle the same crap over and over again, which is boring.

[FdL]

Yeah, make another bar-rock band, that's great. It's 1950-something forever...
Why change what works? Why dream? Why work for progress, invent? Why struggle when you can sleep in the warm comfort of what you know and have? How small does your world become when you accept and take everything as it is?

[Amotis]

Hey, I've played a few bar gigs :D

Trust me, they don't want original stuff. Not because people don't want it, but 'cause in a bar they wanna dance to music they know, not new stuff. You play your own tune they sit, drink, and talk. People have concerts for that.

[FdL]

I meant it as a musical style :p You know, just amped-up, greasy rock'n'roll fun, nothing more, nothing new. There's a lot of bands that play it and don't play covers...

[zachol]

I didn't mean you have to settle for what you have, but I did mean that what you do have is, at times, acceptable if you like it.

Why discard what works?