RANTING/VENTING MEGATHREAD 3.0

Pretty much every professional musician will disagree with you. You get a call from a client, "Hi, we need a track for our laxative commercial by 5pm" You look at the storyboard and it's a guy in discomfort, followed by him being given the product and finally relief. You've got 3hrs to compose, record and mix the track.
From your training, you know exactly how to convey these emotions through sound. Discomfort has a sound and it's very tense and dissonant, ok, so maybe starting with some dominant or augmented chords to give that jaring and uncomfortable feel, the tension builds up to say the min/Maj 7th chord, which you use as a bridge and to convey the idea of discovering a clue, finally it resolves to a basic triad tonic, or a sus2 if you want to add a bit of extra openness. The resolution creates a feeling of relief  and release. If you wanted extra campiness, you could arpeggiate the final chord with a harp to give it that stereotypical light and airy feel. 

Done, you record, mix and send off your work. You get a call back, client loves it, but the melody is to similar to a popular song and the client is afraid of a copyright issues. No problem, you quickly reharmonize the entire track, modulate it a bit and boom, similar thing but somehow different. "How did you do that?" client asks, "magic" you reply, remembering the time your parents thought you were a computer whizz when you turned the router on and off to get the internet back online.

That emotion, feeling, and subjectivism is what separates a forgotten advertising jingle from a successful one. And what separates an advertising jingle from a Top-10 hit. It's not simply structure. There's something beyond it.

He knew exactly which emotion and feel he wanted his listener to experience and when. It's no lucky accident that each movement sounds like it's respective season.

I'd agree and also say that with someone like Vivaldi, he doesn't just "force" or show one emotion. It offers something that allows the listener to project their emotions and also reflect those of the artist. It's why someone may listen to one of the movements for the 4 seasons and have different but equally strong emotional experiences.

While a story is a very useful starting point, the true creative process of composition is actually rather dull, frustrating, logical and mechanical.

While there is certainly an element of this, given the massive amounts of drugs many were on, or the lack of formal music education many musicians have had, you can't discount raw inspiration, experimentation and just jamming. There's certainly a technical foundation, but the creative process for artists and musicians, while it CAN take on a more technical form, does not always do so.

Much of the music of the world has been created by people, often repressed or illiterate, in rough conditions. They didn't have formal theoretical training. They just had their voice and their hands. Or maybe a harmonica or a fiddle or a banjo. And they made music.

I'm not slagging anyone off. I'm simply pointing out how if someone is going to make a bunch of disparaging remarks about Kpopstans, that one could do the same thing about the people slagging them off and that maybe, just maybe, it might cause someone to realize "Hey, bashing people for their taste in music is a crappy thing to do. Maybe I shouldn't do that. Maybe there are some gaps in my taste. Maybe I'm doing the same thing that I think they're doing."

Yes you are slagging people off. You said people who still bang on about Nirvana should get over it and age gracefully. What's the difference between saying that and saying something like people who still like k pop into their twenties need to grow up a bit, for example. I don't think anyone's saying k pop fans are bad people or anything like that.

2) Related to the first, if you're going to go down the "their fans are awful and have issues" route, do the rock fans bashing on Kpop really want to go down that route?
3) We're almost at the 30th anniversary of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'. Get over it. Time passes you by. Learn to age gracefully.
4) Also, music in the 90s does not stop and start with Nirvana. Just as music in the 60s does not stop and start with the Beatles. Sorry, but Kurt Cobain's death was not the biggest music death of the 90s. That was 2Pac. A figure far bigger and more significant than Cobain and whose genre of music still persists to this day. And Motown was bigger AND better than the Beatles+The Beach Boys+The Rolling Stones. Yeah, I said it.

If no one's saying Kpop fans are bad people, then what is people's beef? Who cares what they listen to? Why does it bother you so much?

Also, not on this thread, but on others people have said that they actually do judge people based on what music they listen to and their character. I know because I've specifically brought up this point and people have said that yes they would judge someone.

Why does it bother you so much?

I'm only seeing one person bothered so much in this thread.

I'm not slagging anyone off. I'm simply pointing out how if someone is going to make a bunch of disparaging remarks about Kpopstans, that one could do the same thing about the people slagging them off and that maybe, just maybe, it might cause someone to realize "Hey, bashing people for their taste in music is a crappy thing to do. Maybe I shouldn't do that. Maybe there are some gaps in my taste. Maybe I'm doing the same thing that I think they're doing."

Yes you are slagging people off. You said people who still bang on about Nirvana should get over it and age gracefully. What's the difference between saying that and saying something like people who still like k pop into their twenties need to grow up a bit, for example. I don't think anyone's saying k pop fans are bad people or anything like that.

2) Related to the first, if you're going to go down the "their fans are awful and have issues" route, do the rock fans bashing on Kpop really want to go down that route?
3) We're almost at the 30th anniversary of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'. Get over it. Time passes you by. Learn to age gracefully.
4) Also, music in the 90s does not stop and start with Nirvana. Just as music in the 60s does not stop and start with the Beatles. Sorry, but Kurt Cobain's death was not the biggest music death of the 90s. That was 2Pac. A figure far bigger and more significant than Cobain and whose genre of music still persists to this day. And Motown was bigger AND better than the Beatles+The Beach Boys+The Rolling Stones. Yeah, I said it.

If no one's saying Kpop fans are bad people, then what is people's beef? Who cares what they listen to? Why does it bother you so much?

Also, not on this thread, but on others people have said that they actually do judge people based on what music they listen to and their character. I know because I've specifically brought up this point and people have said that yes they would judge someone.

Mate, as with most of these things, it's a little discussion on an online forum. Like stoat says, out of all the replies, yours  appears to be the most annoyed/angry.

Edit: You know, at this stage I would much prefer someone come in here and actually defend Kpop properly. It would be more interesting than this repeat argument you present every 3 months.

IT'S OK TO THINK SOMETHINGS ARE SHITE AND OTHER THINGS AREN'T. Of course kids can like what they want. As if they could ever begin to give 2 shits what me, some mid 30s **** thinks about their musical taste. About the same amount of fukcs I give about their opinions on the new Opeth that came out yesterday. And that's fine.

Edit: You know, at this stage I would much prefer someone come in here and actually defend Kpop properly. It would be more interesting than this repeat argument you present every 3 months.

I already gave a proper defense: If you like it, listen to it.

Nothing more needs to be said when it comes to music.

Why does it bother you so much?

I'm only seeing one person bothered so much in this thread.

"These people's taste in music sucks."
"No it doesn't, why are you so bothered about it?"
"I'm not bothered. You're the one that's bothered."
 

Edit: You know, at this stage I would much prefer someone come in here and actually defend Kpop properly. It would be more interesting than this repeat argument you present every 3 months.

I already gave a proper defense: If you like it, listen to it.

Nothing more needs to be said when it comes to music.

Millennia of art criticism disagrees.

Why does it bother you so much?

I'm only seeing one person bothered so much in this thread.

"These people's taste in music sucks."
"No it doesn't, why are you so bothered about it?"
"I'm not bothered. You're the one that's bothered."
 

Except that the conversation spread over several pages and you wrote by far the most and were most vociferous in defence of your points. Nothing wrong with being passionate about something but don't then claim the person you are arguing against is more angry/passionate as a point scoring manoeuvre. 

Edit: You know, at this stage I would much prefer someone come in here and actually defend Kpop properly. It would be more interesting than this repeat argument you present every 3 months.

I already gave a proper defense: If you like it, listen to it.

Nothing more needs to be said when it comes to music.

Millenniums of art criticism disagrees.

Millennia of art criticism disagree?

I recall from my Philosophy of Music class that music as an art form emerged in the 1600's. The Ancient philosophers treated music as akin to science, education and morality.

Edit: You know, at this stage I would much prefer someone come in here and actually defend Kpop properly. It would be more interesting than this repeat argument you present every 3 months.

I already gave a proper defense: If you like it, listen to it.

Nothing more needs to be said when it comes to music.

Millenniums of art criticism disagrees.

Millennia of art criticism disagree?

I recall from my Philosophy of Music class that music as an art form emerged in the 1600's. The Ancient philosophers treated music as akin to science, education and morality.

Shockingly eurocentric view.
Regardless, I said art criticism, which i promise you was around well before the 1600s.

Edit: And would you look at that "Critical references to music (often deprecating performers or styles) can be found in early literature, including, for example, in Plato's Laws and in the writings of medieval music theorists."

2. what's wrong with rock music fans? seriously. did i miss something?

What's wrong with Kpop fans? I think in both cases nothing is wrong. But if you're going to belittle one group, then turnabout is fair play and there is a lot that can be said about people getting into their mid-late 30 or are in their 50s and 60s and are stuck in 1993 or 1970 listening to the same old stuff and getting upset that kids are listening to something different and getting butthurt that people don't like their band or don't care about their music. If there's ever a group of music fans that is the mirror image of Kpopstans, its rock fans. Not everyone has put rock at the center of their musical existence for the past 60 years, but some rock fans act like it should be.

yeah sure. but the fact people still listen to it 30 years later must mean something. i'd be surprised if any current kpop song is listened to 30 years from now

Why? People still listen to Bobby Brown, New Edition, Kylie Minogue, etc. etc. 30 years later. People still listen to The Supremes and the Delfonics. People still listen to Disco. As for actual old Kpop, people still listen to stuff from back in the day. If something still gets airplay 10 years later, it's probably going to get airplay 30 years later.

Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean it will be forgotten.

do western pop artists ever lip sync while dancing? not sure they would get away with it (i swear i've just "scandals" in the past of artists being accused of it. so i guess it's not acceptable generally?)

Depends on how much they're dancing. If you're doing any kind of dance that would require heavy activity and respiration while performing it, you're going to lipsync.

but the fans are often insane. that's my only point. i wouldn't be upset if someone said my favourite band sucked. but getting defensive over (wrongly) perceived slights? ughhh

Like I said, I think rock fans are some of the most insecure music fans out there. As I've said- How many threads do Kpop fans go on and tell other people their music sucks? Zero. How many threads do rock fans go on and tell kpop fans their music sucks? A ton." That's like, the definition of insecure. It's the rock fans who blow a gasket when you don't agree that "Insert Rock Band X" was the greatest of all time or the greatest of the decade.
 Heck, 30 years ago rock fans blew up a bunch of disco records and started a riot because of that insecurity. It's kind of similar to what you're seeing here with their Kpop hatred. "OMG, these people of different backgrounds are coming in and making this music that's taking the spotlight off of us and casting it somewhere else, and even worse, instead of being moody and anger filled, they are happy and bubbly. We need to trash it!"

Or how about the shock that you don't know/care about some "legendary" rock band?
"You don't know who Green Day is?!?!?!?!?!"
"No, do you know who Patti LaBelle is?"

In some ways rock fans come across as culturally isolated as Kpopstans.

1. all i'm saying is that compared to people who like other genres, kpop fans are next level. i'm 99% sure everyone agrees about this. at this point i don't even think it's debatable

2. i have literally never heard of Bobby Brown, New Edition, The Supremes, Delfonics. i only know kylie from your list

3. yeah. more about performance than music ability

4. i'm saying kpop fans suck, not kpop (although, kpop does suck, but that' not my point)

5. i would only say "you don't know <band>?" because it's some famous band that everyone in that country must know. if you've never heard of the beatles, that's a bit weird (not having not listened to them, just not having heard of them)

5. i would only say "you don't know <band>?" because it's some famous band that everyone in that country must know. if you've never heard of the beatles, that's a bit weird (not having not listened to them, just not having heard of them)

At the risk of inflaming things further, I feel like this is a good place to point out that I once had dinner with a group of Korean in their early 30s who had no idea who Prince was. They'd never heard of him, didn't recognize any of his songs, and showed the same lack of recognition when I showed them his picture. I have to say, I found that pretty shocking. I know we should take cultural factors into account, but to me that feels like reaching adulthood and saying you've never heard of a book called Harry Potter or a movie called Star Wars.

Pretty much every professional musician will disagree with you. You get a call from a client, "Hi, we need a track for our laxative commercial by 5pm" You look at the storyboard and it's a guy in discomfort, followed by him being given the product and finally relief. You've got 3hrs to compose, record and mix the track.
From your training, you know exactly how to convey these emotions through sound. Discomfort has a sound and it's very tense and dissonant, ok, so maybe starting with some dominant or augmented chords to give that jaring and uncomfortable feel, the tension builds up to say the min/Maj 7th chord, which you use as a bridge and to convey the idea of discovering a clue, finally it resolves to a basic triad tonic, or a sus2 if you want to add a bit of extra openness. The resolution creates a feeling of relief  and release. If you wanted extra campiness, you could arpeggiate the final chord with a harp to give it that stereotypical light and airy feel. 

Done, you record, mix and send off your work. You get a call back, client loves it, but the melody is to similar to a popular song and the client is afraid of a copyright issues. No problem, you quickly reharmonize the entire track, modulate it a bit and boom, similar thing but somehow different. "How did you do that?" client asks, "magic" you reply, remembering the time your parents thought you were a computer whizz when you turned the router on and off to get the internet back online.

That emotion, feeling, and subjectivism is what separates a forgotten advertising jingle from a successful one. And what separates an advertising jingle from a Top-10 hit. It's not simply structure. There's something beyond it.

You're oversimplifying and, frankly, it's very common for those with limited musical experience to use words like 'feeling', 'magic' and 'subjectivity' to refer to a process they don't understand, a process that has as much in common with mathematics as art. Of course, there are those magical moments of inspiration, but that accounts for like 5% of a composers work. Movies, documentaries and media like to pick stories of these magical moments of inspiration and retell them because, it's romantic and makes good T.V. They don't tell stories of the vast majority of compositions made the slow and tedious way.

The vast majority of top-10 songs are, were and always will be pop songs. Do I need to remind you that pop is short for 'popular'? Pop music is supposed to have broad appeal and it's got a stronger marketing hand involved than, say, metal. The top-10 is not a metric of quality.

While there is certainly an element of this, given the massive amounts of drugs many were on, or the lack of formal music education many musicians have had, you can't discount raw inspiration, experimentation and just jamming. There's certainly a technical foundation, but the creative process for artists and musicians, while it CAN take on a more technical form, does not always do so.

Much of the music of the world has been created by people, often repressed or illiterate, in rough conditions. They didn't have formal theoretical training. They just had their voice and their hands. Or maybe a harmonica or a fiddle or a banjo. And they made music.

Yeah, well this argument has always gone on, even amongst musicians and it's  always the lazy, sub-par or stubborn musicians who say things like "I don't wanna learn theory, it ruins the feel, man." or "Just feel the groove, bro, theories for nerds." 
The argument that Hendrix had no formal training and pretty much revolutionised how we approach the guitar is always used, to which I ask "Are you Hendrix?" and "Did Hendrix's lack of theory make him a better guitarist?" The vast majority or pioneering musicians knew their craft, inside and out,  and only a few prodigies didn't... of course, these are the most documented; everyone knows John Lennon couldn't read music and everyone remembers that because it's an interesting factoid, but the thousands of brilliant musicians who could read music... why would people remember that? It's not noteworthy.

You're also not taking into account the context. The Beatles revolutionised everything as the opportunity was there, they were the right guys, in the right place at the right time. Before the Beatles, boys  tried to emulate adults and their fathers, during their teenage years and daughters began emulating their mothers. The Beatles took the opportunity to create youth culture.
Chuck Berry grew up in a time and place where country and blues music were hitting their stride. It was only a matter of time before someone got the idea to combine the two and speed up the tempo to create Rock 'n Roll; right person in the right place at the right time.

A trained ear will tell you that drugs, sex and rock 'n roll rock is all pretty... samey.  Don't get me wrong, I love it, but when you don't have any music training, you usually just copy what you've heard from someone else and rock music has a pretty damn simple formula. It's like trying to write great poetry or a great novel with extremely limited vocabulary. It's possible, yes, but much more difficult. Experimentation? Huh? You think a musician just hits random notes on the neck till something sounds nice? You experiment by understanding something, then breaking it down and adding different elements, this requires a certain degree of theory.

Finally, have you jammed with other musicians? I have, I've played in bands and got paid to do it. When playing with other musicians, your chops aren't nearly as important as your ability to communicate with your fellow band members. Do you know how frustrating and difficult it is for everyone when that one guy doesn't know what you mean if you're asking for a ii-V-I?
Theory is the language musicians use to communicate. I'm sure we can all relate to how frustrating it is to work with someone who doesn't speak your language. 

I hope this helps argue that there's almost universal consensus among competent recreational and professional musicians that magical inspiration from la-la land to compose masterpieces plays, at best, a tiny and unreliable role in the making of great music. Great music is made the same way as most other great things in life, persistence, discipline and hard work... It sounds less inspiring and magical as the movies, but that's reality.

5. i would only say "you don't know <band>?" because it's some famous band that everyone in that country must know. if you've never heard of the beatles, that's a bit weird (not having not listened to them, just not having heard of them)

At the risk of inflaming things further, I feel like this is a good place to point out that I once had dinner with a group of Korean in their early 30s who had no idea who Prince was. They'd never heard of him, didn't recognize any of his songs, and showed the same lack of recognition when I showed them his picture. I have to say, I found that pretty shocking. I know we should take cultural factors into account, but to me that feels like reaching adulthood and saying you've never heard of a book called Harry Potter or a movie called Star Wars.

tbh i've never really listened to prince. or seen star wars. i couldn't name many "classic" korean singers though, to be fair (which is my point in the first place)

fka: At the risk of inflaming things further, I feel like this is a good place to point out that I once had dinner with a group of Korean in their early 30s who had no idea who Prince was. They'd never heard of him, didn't recognize any of his songs, and showed the same lack of recognition when I showed them his picture. I have to say, I found that pretty shocking. I know we should take cultural factors into account, but to me that feels like reaching adulthood and saying you've never heard of a book called Harry Potter or a movie called Star Wars.

I was in my early teens when Prince got big.  I absolutely hated when Doves Cry came on the radio.  I would actually be surprised if any Koreans knew who Prince was.  Purple Rain was huge and he had already gotten big after that album with 1999 and Little Red Corvette, but it just wasn't on the same level as the Thriller phenomenon.  This was the days before internet and Michael Jackson was front and centre whether you liked it or not for a couple of years.  Prince didn't hit that level.  Everyone knew about him, but I couldn't have told you much about him beyond his music other than I think he once dated Sheila E. 

Aristocrat: Still holding out on the long winded and boring rejoinder I see.  I would go the more succinct route. 

Studied musicians generally need a day job.  The only people who are interested in hearing about music theory are other people who have studied music theory.  Accomplished musicians proficient in music theory feel better about their job in the non-music related field when they can put down popular artists for being trite and simplistic. 

High five Of Teenagers!

Guys, I'm not saying that everyone has to love Prince. I'm just saying it's weird that in globalized society with an internet-savvy population, a group of four educated Korean people had never heard of a global pop star who was, commercially speaking, the most successful chart act of the 1980s, who sold over 100 million records worldwide, played in massive Japanese arenas dozens of times, and was the subject of enormous international media attention when he died a few years ago. 

Not judging them for it... Just expressing my surprise.

   Korean people had never heard of a global pop star who was, commercially speaking, the most successful chart act of the 19i80s

Michael jackson surely

Not judging them for it... Just expressing my surprise.

Exactly. There are many times where I think that people aren't STUPID, but I really can't believe that they simply aren't aware of some things.

My friend in Canada, smart guy, great guy, but he asked me what John Lennon was doing these days and he wasn't joking.

Like, you don't have to tell me about the making of Imagine. But to not know that he was shot? Like, Jesus.

commercially speaking, the most successful chart act of the 1980s,

I'd always give Koreans a pass on most things around the 80s considering until the Olympics in 1988, they didn't really have freedom of movement outside of the country.  That was when Korea started to open up.  The political and social climate around that time wasn't exactly global as there were military dictators.  I suppose even after Roh Tae Woo (1993) western cultural and music influence was increasing but it was still limited.   

John Lemon

John Lemon was shot in the pips and lost a lot of juice.