Grindcore

[bluewine]

The concept, however, is totally related Blue.

Statements like, "If an Aretha Franklin or a Stevie Wonder came along today, they would probably never get signed." are totally unsubstantiated claims, the sort of thing pushed by tabloid newspapers, based on nothing but supposition.

For YOU, the greatest singers/songwriters were in the 60s and 70s, but you're very much mixing up opinion with fact.

No, absolutely not.I am not sure you read my threads. I love Black Keys, Interpol, The Eighty Eights, Dear Hunter, Lame Elephants plenty of newer bands. If you look back at some of my quotes;

The future of music lies in the hands of the New Generation, not the Pepsi Generation

You seem fairly intelligent, for the like of me I don't get why you don't get me.

Now the whole Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin thing is suposition. Its just the way I see things.

I think the market these days wants an Alicia Keys not an Aretha Franklin,a Taylor Swift not a Janis Joplin, a John Legend not an Otis Redding.And there is a reason for it, and I am not against it or necessarily for it either.

And, you know, if you weren't there you really only have a fraction of what it takes to understand those artist.

 

[bluewine]

And yes... i see that almost all of the people on your list were viewed as drugged out losers.

Really, you need to study Pop History and Culture a little closer.You my friend, are very wrong.

That was not an invitation to a debate.

Regarding your druged out loser remark. I'm right, your dead wrong,and of story.

 

[dj150888]

No, absolutely not.I am not sure you read my threads. I love Black Keys, Interpol, The Eighty Eights, Dear Hunter, Lame Elephants plenty of newer bands. If you look back at some of my quotes;

and funny enough, I reckon all of those bands are absolute muck.

The future of music lies in the hands of the New Generation, not the Pepsi Generation

You seem fairly intelligent, for the like of me I don't get why you don't get me.

Now the whole Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin thing is suposition. Its just the way I see things.

I think the market these days wants an Alicia Keys not an Aretha Franklin,a Taylor Swift not a Janis Joplin, a John Legend not an Otis Redding.And there is a reason for it, and I am not against it or necessarily for it either.

And, you know, if you weren't there you really only have a fraction of what it takes to understand those artist.

See, you measure success on sales, I measure success on how well a band connects with me personally. As far as I'm concerned, real music has gone back to where it belongs, the underground. As soon as music moves towards mainstream appeal, it very regularly becomes a watered down version of what you can find in the underground. I'll take the concentrated version very much.

Again, you say , "I seem intelligent". It seems to me that your measure of intelligence is agreeing with you. I'd like to think I'm reasonably intelligent, but that doesn't mean I'm going to immediately share opinions with you. Understanding someones perspective without clouding it with your own is one of the marks of intellect you seem to be missing. (Not suggesting that you're not a very intelligent guy in other ways, I don't know you, I wouldn't make an assumption based on a very limited amount of words I've read from you online!).

 

[LaklandBass]

And yes... i see that almost all of the people on your list were viewed as drugged out losers.

Really, you need to study Pop History and Culture a little closer.You my friend, are very wrong.

That was not an invitation to a debate.

Regarding your druged out loser remark. I'm right, your dead wrong,and of story.

Well I guess I wont comment back lol. Since Im dead wrong and all that people like Janis Joplin during their peak werent viewed as drugged out losers by a large amount of previous generation adults. You are right sir.... I am DEAD wrong. I should go study pop history and culture a little closer.

 

[LaklandBass]

and funny enough, I reckon all of those bands are absolute muck.



See, you measure success on sales, I measure success on how well a band connects with me personally. As far as I'm concerned, real music has gone back to where it belongs, the underground. As soon as music moves towards mainstream appeal, it very regularly becomes a watered down version of what you can find in the underground. I'll take the concentrated version very much.

Again, you say , "I seem intelligent". It seems to me that your measure of intelligence is agreeing with you. I'd like to think I'm reasonably intelligent, but that doesn't mean I'm going to immediately share opinions with you. Understanding someones perspective without clouding it with your own is one of the marks of intellect you seem to be missing. (Not suggesting that you're not a very intelligent guy in other ways, I don't know you, I wouldn't make an assumption based on a very limited amount of words I've read from you online!).

Nail on the Head.
That is an excellent statement sir.

 

[LaklandBass]

And yes... i see that almost all of the people on your list were viewed as drugged out losers.

Really, you need to study Pop History and Culture a little closer.You my friend, are very wrong.

That was not an invitation to a debate.

Regarding your druged out loser remark. I'm right, your dead wrong,and of story.

BTW nice job taking a PORTION of my post and quoting it.

"And yes... i see that almost all of the people on your list were viewed as drugged out losers by many "adults" during the high point of their careers. Most of them were also thought of as making horrible music by many adults at that time."

THAT is the full quote of my previous post.

Hendrix?
Joplin?
Morrison?

Yea... Im waaaaaaaaaaay off.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Bluewine, you're just as ignorant and close minded as all the fools who said Hendrix wasn't anything special and was just recording noise back in the 60s.

Welcome to being an old, close minded fool.

 

[KayXero]

What about those who still think half of it is noise? lolz

 

[lousybassplayer]

See, you measure success on sales, I measure success on how well a band connects with me personally.

This statement sort of contadicts itself. You can't call a band successful because it connects with you, you call that a band you like. I measure success by how many people they connect with personally. This can be measured by album sales, unless someone can conclusively prove that the huge numbers of people who buy commercially succesful albums have another reason for buying them. I for one don't get why most popular music is popular, but commercial success, though no indicator of "quality", is the only quantitative measure of success there is. Success means meeting a goal. Well, whether their goal was to get rich or connect with people, I imagine when 10000 people show up to a Taylor Swift show and sing along to her (IMO awful) music, she is accomplishing both.

 

[scorpionldr]

yes for the most part the fan base is. i can even admit that as a huge fan of punk music...which i see the fanbase age as similar...and part of why i gave up wanting to play street punk a few years ago....it was musically limiting on bass and all the people in the scene were for the most part immature kids bitching about the government but living comfy lives with mom and dad buying crap.

nyc punk scene btw

I love how a musical genre's qualifications for people can be based on whether or not the person is living in poverty or not. Cuz after all, THATS WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT, RIGHT?

Grindcore is more of an extension of punk rock than anything to me, just focused on pushing the envelope as far as you can. Its done by playing faster, harder, and coming up with thoroughly more developed material. Blast beats, double bass, and fast changes are all part of it.

Examples: Extreme Noise Terror

Its hardcore punk with musicians that know how to play, rather than musicians that write everything half-@$$ed, can't play for ****, and the only qualification they have is an attitude.

 

[Burlington]

GET OFF MY LAWN

 

[dj150888]

This statement sort of contadicts itself. You can't call a band successful because it connects with you, you call that a band you like. I measure success by how many people they connect with personally. This can be measured by album sales, unless someone can conclusively prove that the huge numbers of people who buy commercially succesful albums have another reason for buying them. I for one don't get why most popular music is popular, but commercial success, though no indicator of "quality", is the only quantitative measure of success there is. Success means meeting a goal. Well, whether their goal was to get rich or connect with people, I imagine when 10000 people show up to a Taylor Swift show and sing along to her (IMO awful) music, she is accomplishing both.

Commercial success is not the only form of success that exists, indeed, that was kind of my point. I don't feel the need to quantitatively define how successful a band is. While quality obviously can't be measured quantitatively, I'd place it in much higher regard when I form my opinion of what makes a band successful. The other ways a band can be successful tend to be more relevant in the smaller, underground music scenes, this is where I generally find music I like, so commercialism and overall sales are fairly irrelevant within those scenes.

The ten thousand people who go to a Taylor Swift show.....how many of those people, forty years down the line, are going to think back to that show and feel the same emotional connection that they did then? I know there are shows that I'll be able to do that with.

How many of the people at a Taylor Swift show are going to be listening to it in five years time? I know that a lot of the music I listen to, I'll still be listening to in five years time.

What about musical integrity? May not be important to some people, but it is to me. Do you really think Taylor Swift has even the smallest bit of musical integrity, or does she just get up and sing exactly what the big company tell her, with no artistic input herself?

And this girl is considered a success? Maybe to some people this is success, but its not what I would consider even remotely successful when aligned with my own musical goals.

 

[lousybassplayer]

....The ten thousand people who go to a Taylor Swift show.....how many of those people, forty years down the line, are going to think back to that show and feel the same emotional connection that they did then?....

....How many of the people at a Taylor Swift show are going to be listening to it in five years time? ...

...What about musical integrity? May not be important to some people, but it is to me. Do you really think Taylor Swift has even the smallest bit of musical integrity, or does she just get up and sing exactly what the big company tell her, with no artistic input herself?...

..And this girl is considered a success? Maybe to some people this is success, but its not what I would consider even remotely successful when aligned with my own musical goals.

In order:

1: Who can say what emotions move people, or what they will care about in afew years. I am sure that many Taylor Swift fans (who are usually kids) will hear her stuff when they are adults and look back sentimentally on that concert and what they were doing as kids. Further, I bet they could never imagine how anyone could care about going to see Nile as a kid (which I did about 10 years ago and remember fondly)

2: Who knows? It's a big world. But considering the number of her fans, I'd say the odds are good that quite a few will

3: How can you get on a high horse about lofty musical goals and then call into question the artistic integrity of another musician? Most of her stuff is sappy sentimental teenage crush garbage, but its not for people who don't like that stuff, and might mean a lot to her as she herself falls into her general target audience. I don't propose to know what she feels about the integrity of ger music, but I am in no more position to question that than I am to question how people can find any "art" in the wall of noise that is grindcore music (which I like)

4: Well there ya go, YOUR musical goals. And if your musical goals involve people connecting with your music, how do you plan on measuring your success at it?

The overwhelming irony of people getting all over bluewine for stating an opinion and then turning around and trying to "prove" that some other kind of music is somehow not good enough is humorous. Just say you don't like stuff and you like other stuff. That's what I do. I get more crap for saying I don't like something than for saying that success can be measured by album sales. That's pretty funny too.

 

[lousybassplayer]

Oh and forgot:

And this girl is considered a success?

Goal: Become pop country superstar
Outcome: Became pop country superstar.

Yep, that's usually considered success.

 

[LaklandBass]

Im going to agree on Lousybassplayer on this whole thread.
Let us remember that the thread was first about one dude flat out ripping on the caliber of some musicians that he never met or heard play... he ripped on them because of their genre.

 

[dj150888]

In order:

1: Who can say what emotions move people, or what they will care about in afew years. I am sure that many Taylor Swift fans (who are usually kids) will hear her stuff when they are adults and look back sentimentally on that concert and what they were doing as kids. Further, I bet they could never imagine how anyone could care about going to see Nile as a kid (which I did about 10 years ago and remember fondly)

Looking back at something sentimentally and smiling is an entirely different emotional connection. The connection isn't with the music, its with their childhood. The fact that it was a Taylor Swift concert is totally irrelevant in your example, that just so happened to be what they were doing.

Your example of the Nile gig is precisely why I think music is too personal to be measured in terms of commercial success.

2: Who knows? It's a big world. But considering the number of her fans, I'd say the odds are good that quite a few will

Realistically, this will be nothing but a TINY fraction of the people listening now. This has been proven time and time again by the thousands of, "where are they now" bands whos target market were kids of a young age.

3: How can you get on a high horse about lofty musical goals and then call into question the artistic integrity of another musician? Most of her stuff is sappy sentimental teenage crush garbage, but its not for people who don't like that stuff, and might mean a lot to her as she herself falls into her general target audience. I don't propose to know what she feels about the integrity of ger music, but I am in no more position to question that than I am to question how people can find any "art" in the wall of noise that is grindcore music (which I like)

I can call her artistic integrity into question simply because I very much doubt she has very much artistic input into it at all. I could, of course, be wrong. I still think its unlikely, not because I know her personally, but because of the nature of the end of the business shes involved with. I'm not saying her music isn't artistically valid, who the hell am I to claim one thing is valid and another thing isn't? I'm merely stating that I have doubts about how involved she actually is in the creation of her art.

4: Well there ya go, YOUR musical goals. And if your musical goals involve people connecting with your music, how do you plan on measuring your success at it?

I don't plan on measuring it. Why do I have to quantify it? I'll keep on playing what I enjoy, if its "successful", so be it, if not, I'm still enjoying it. I don't really feel the need to label or quantify just how successful it is. If people connect with it, thats great, because I do enjoy playing music in front of people, however, if they don't, I'm still connecting with what I'm playing, and thats my main priority.

The overwhelming irony of people getting all over bluewine for stating an opinion and then turning around and trying to "prove" that some other kind of music is somehow not good enough is humorous. Just say you don't like stuff and you like other stuff. That's what I do. I get more crap for saying I don't like something than for saying that success can be measured by album sales. That's pretty funny too.

I think you misinterpreted my point, that could well be my fault, I probably wasn't very clear about it. I've no problem with Taylor Swift, I wish her all the "commercial success" in the world! All I'm saying is, "its not for me", and that just because a band sells less than her, doesn't necessarily make them less successful, because they may have totally different goals to her.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Commercial success is not the only form of success that exists, indeed, that was kind of my point. I don't feel the need to quantitatively define how successful a band is. While quality obviously can't be measured quantitatively, I'd place it in much higher regard when I form my opinion of what makes a band successful. The other ways a band can be successful tend to be more relevant in the smaller, underground music scenes, this is where I generally find music I like, so commercialism and overall sales are fairly irrelevant within those scenes.

A band can be successful in connecting with individuals, but not be a successful band, because the members aren't able to connect with enough people for long enough to be able to quit their day jobs and continue making music. Bands are not merely musical endeavors, but also business ones as well, and must be treated as such. It's great that you find more appealing bands in the underground market, so do I, but your definition of successful and nearly everyone else's will be different.

The ten thousand people who go to a Taylor Swift show.....how many of those people, forty years down the line, are going to think back to that show and feel the same emotional connection that they did then? I know there are shows that I'll be able to do that with.

You don't know that, that's just what you think you'll be able to do based on your current state of mind. I'm willing to wager you that of those 10,000 people at that Taylor Swift concert, many of them, at least the ones who wanted to go in the first place, will say that they'll be able to remember 40 years down the line what it was like to be at that concert, and still connect emotionally with the memories.

How many of the people at a Taylor Swift show are going to be listening to it in five years time? I know that a lot of the music I listen to, I'll still be listening to in five years time.

And you're assuming that people won't be listening to Taylor Swift in 5 years? She released her first album in 2006, so people have been listening to her for nearly 5 years now as it is in some form or fashion. Will she have the huge draw she has now? Maybe, maybe not, but there's no way to tell.

What about musical integrity? May not be important to some people, but it is to me. Do you really think Taylor Swift has even the smallest bit of musical integrity, or does she just get up and sing exactly what the big company tell her, with no artistic input herself?

Taylor swift writes her own songs and her own lyrics. People all over the industry have confirmed this.

And this girl is considered a success? Maybe to some people this is success, but its not what I would consider even remotely successful when aligned with my own musical goals.

I hate to tell you this DJ, since you seem for the most part to be a cool guy, but Taylor Swift IS a success, by pretty much any measuring stick except for yours, which you might want to remove from your butt.

What you feel is a "successful" artist or group is your business, but be prepared for the rest of the world to tell you that's a narrow minded view.

 

[dj150888]

Taylor swift writes her own songs and her own lyrics. People all over the industry have confirmed this.

Since I called her artistic integrity into question, I feel like I should respond to this one. I was obviously mistaken, and as such, take back the comments I made about artistic integrity.

The rest of your points have been addressed in my reply to Lousybassplayer.

To use the proper definition of success - "The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted"

This doesn't necessarily have to include music sales at ALL, unless that is part of what the person sets as one of their goals. This is the basis of my entire point.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Since I called her artistic integrity into question, I feel like I should respond to this one. I was obviously mistaken, and as such, take back the comments I made about artistic integrity.

The rest of your points have been addressed in my reply to Lousybassplayer.

To use the proper definition of success - "The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted"

This doesn't necessarily have to include music sales at ALL, unless that is part of what the person sets as one of their goals. This is the basis of my entire point.

I understand your point, that you don't measure bands as successful by their ability to sell records, but for nearly everyone in the music industry, the ultimate goal is to be able to play their music as a full time job, and not have to sit at a desk again unless they want to. Therefore, using the proper definition of success, if a band sets out to be full time musicians, and through sales of their merch, music, and tickets to see them live, becomes a group of full time musicians who earn enough to be able to devote their full attention to the band, does that not make them a success? Is Taylor Swift not a perfect example of this?

Because success, as you have made so painfully obvious in this thread, is a personal matter, and using the definition you provided, you HAVE to accept that Taylor Swift is a success at what she's done, because she has achieved something she had previously desired. Your opinion on whether or not it's any good is irrelevant in measuring her success.

 

[djshawn47]

I love Grindcore. I have since I was 13. Im 32 years old now. Growing up-my dad listend to classic rock in the house, my mom listened to soul and funk in the car. I dont just listen, but love almost every genre of music including country music, rap, radio pop, funk,techno, Jazz, etc...Every genre of music has its time and place throught my day or week. They all evoke different emotions for me. Im not "too cool" to only listen to certain genres and I wont not listen to country because I like hip hop, or not listen to pop because I love grindcore.

I am stoked that I am open minded enough to enjoy almost every genre because each one has at least a handful of bands or musicians that really do an amazing job of nailing what they are trying to do musically.

All that being said...Gindcore is probably my comfort music. When Im feeling angry or insecure...I'll crank my car or home stereo to "11" with some oldskool Napalm Death, Brutal Truth, Agoraphobic Nosebleed, Disrupt, Exit 13, Destroy, etc...and its like a warm cozy blanket for me.

Yes its loud, yes they growl like freakin bears, yes its obnoxious, no- from a technical standpoint theyre not even close to any of the all time great musicians...but you know what at 32 years old I still find myself listening to more Carcass or Captain Cleanoff than I do Weather Report....and I love Weather Report.

Im not ashamed to say I dig Taylor Swift either. She's got catchy tunes and it makes my daughter happy when I play her in the car...which makes me happy.

I love music...even grindcore.