Nate wrote:They're just ripping off classic rock, Tears For Fears did that back in the 80s with Shout.
The difference is that Tears for Fears is actually good.
Nate wrote:They're just ripping off classic rock, Tears For Fears did that back in the 80s with Shout.
Xeno wrote:Nate wrote:They're just ripping off classic rock, Tears For Fears did that back in the 80s with Shout.
The difference is that Tears for Fears is actually good.
Davidizer13 wrote:Xeno wrote:Nate wrote:They're just ripping off classic rock, Tears For Fears did that back in the 80s with Shout.
The difference is that Tears for Fears is actually good.
And that Shout did indeed have verses. And even if it didn't, dat layering and buildup, son.
...I like Tears for Fears.
But the whole repeating one verse thing is hardly a modern thing - I dare you to withstand this, which, through the terrible magics of the 70s, managed to get to the top of the charts in 1975. It's perfect for whipping out if you see someone getting too smug about how much better music was back in the day.
(And honestly, being a connoisseur of terrible music, most of what those people complain about isn't awful, just aggressively mediocre. In ten years the good stuff from the era will shake out and end up on the classics stations - stretching the definition of "good stuff," hearing Smash Mouth on the radio alongside stuff from the '80s was a revelation.)
Xeno wrote:Jonathan wrote:As for CCM I'm not that big of a fan, It has similar problems imho that that secular modern rock/alterrnative/indie music has, Mainly being that the songs are too average and overly simplistic for me.
I'm more into Classic Rock than Modern Rock/Punk, I'm also really into Prog Rock and Metal (Unless it's Grindcore or Deathcore or Metalcore.)
A lot of alternative, punk, and indie rock lean very heavily on their lyrics as opposed to the actual music being played. So I agree that it's much less technical than a Dream Theater or Led Zeppelin track, but I would disagree that it's average and overly simplistic. Of course, there is modern top 40 rock that is just a single verse repeated for four minutes, so I can certainly understand where you're getting that impression.
Some examples of what I'm talking about (these are all secular groups/musicians):
"Harder than Stone" - City and Colour
"23" - Jimmy Eat World
"Silver Lining" - Jenny Lewis (cover of a song by her old band Rilo Kiley)
Jonathan wrote:My problem with some of the Traditional 70's Punk Bands and Grunge Bands like Nirvana is that the lyrics are too whiny and negative IMHO. I don't mind if people like these bands but it's just not for me.
As for New Wave and Post Punk and maybe even Hardcore Punk, At least they tried to do something different than Traditional Punk. Even if I'm not a big fan of these genres, I like some New Wave and Post-Punk bands. The thing is, if the instrumentation isn't challeging enough or complex for me then if it had good sung vocals then I would give it a chance.
I'm actually thinking about listening to more Hardcore Punk though only if it had good guitar solos.
Also, When I said I liked Classic Rock and Progressive Rock, I wasn't saying that I liked every single one of these artists from the 70's.
I don't really like Bruce Springteen that much for example or Meat Loaf. But that's just me.
And as for why I don't care for Traditional Metalcore, Deathcore, and Grindcore is that the music is WAY too loud and fast imho. (I should point out that I'm a bit sensitive to loud noises.)
And also Grindcore's lyrics are a bit too disturbing imho. I'm not saying every one of these bands has lyrics like that, just the ones I've heard personally. Again, as long as the music doesn't condone anything bad or stupid then I'm fine with people liking it.
Kraavdran wrote:Yes, I think I should clarify what I said. I hadn't considered that what I said could be understood as "Music can't teach as well" or anything like that. So, let me rephrase: The necessity of teaching from music is no longer held in such high regard due to the common avaliability of knowledge from other sources.
Kraavdran wrote:But what about songs that don't focus on emotional states but still, for a specific individual, feel like they are mocking God or just singing the song for the sake of completing the words?
Kraavdran wrote:From what you have described, I'm glad to hear how balanced (all encompassing) the songs are in terms of human nature etc.. That sounds really cool.
Kraavdran wrote:But, I feel like I have to ask. Given everything said this far (in this thread as a whole), I am really curious to ask you (and anyone else who wants to): Can you accept (theologically and practically) that a person does not like music and thus does not participate in music as worship? If not, on what grounds? Also, what would be a proposed solution?
Xeno wrote:This post is going to come across as condescending, please understand that is isn't.Jonathan wrote:My problem with some of the Traditional 70's Punk Bands and Grunge Bands like Nirvana is that the lyrics are too whiny and negative IMHO. I don't mind if people like these bands but it's just not for me.
It makes sense than punk bands of the 70s and grunge bands of the early 90s would be whiny and negative. Both were formed out of counterculture, notably different ones, but still counterculture. Grunge, in particular, addressed the general feelings of the late 80s and early 90s of apathetic misanthropy, so it only makes sense that the lyrics to these songs would be negative to someone not in tune with the mindset of where they came from.As for New Wave and Post Punk and maybe even Hardcore Punk, At least they tried to do something different than Traditional Punk. Even if I'm not a big fan of these genres, I like some New Wave and Post-Punk bands. The thing is, if the instrumentation isn't challeging enough or complex for me then if it had good sung vocals then I would give it a chance.
I'm actually thinking about listening to more Hardcore Punk though only if it had good guitar solos.
This falls back to the earlier conversation in here about bands experimenting with sounds. Punk, as the original genre, is directly responsible for the majority of music we have today, whether rock or pop music. Punk had a massive influence on what could be done in music, which caused further experimentations making new age, hardcore, emo/emocore, general post punk, etc. But again, the lyrics aren't as optimistic as one would hope because of where it came from.Also, When I said I liked Classic Rock and Progressive Rock, I wasn't saying that I liked every single one of these artists from the 70's.
I don't really like Bruce Springteen that much for example or Meat Loaf. But that's just me.
I'd be surprised if you did like every prog rock or classic rock band. There are a lot of them that really, really bad.And as for why I don't care for Traditional Metalcore, Deathcore, and Grindcore is that the music is WAY too loud and fast imho. (I should point out that I'm a bit sensitive to loud noises.)
And also Grindcore's lyrics are a bit too disturbing imho. I'm not saying every one of these bands has lyrics like that, just the ones I've heard personally. Again, as long as the music doesn't condone anything bad or stupid then I'm fine with people liking it.
Those aren't good genres. You've made a good choice in not listening to them.
You don't have to like a particular genre just because someone else likes it, but you also shouldn't just write off while genres because the instrumentation isn't super technical or he lyric a are a bit of a downer.
Kaori wrote:Kraavdran wrote:But what about songs that don't focus on emotional states but still, for a specific individual, feel like they are mocking God or just singing the song for the sake of completing the words?
Could you give me an example? I'm not sure what this would look like.
Kaori wrote:Kraavdran wrote:From what you have described, I'm glad to hear how balanced (all encompassing) the songs are in terms of human nature etc.. That sounds really cool.
So when are you going to visit an Orthodox church?
Kaori wrote: Please take this with a grain of salt because I am not a pastor and don't speak authoritatively for the Church (on the contrary, I am just a beginner in learning about Orthodoxy), but I'd like to cautiously say that probably the ideal would be attentive listening. To listen to the lyrics and contemplate the teaching and doctrine in them, to mentally engage and think about how those lyrics could be true and what they mean: for you, that would be participation. Generally, I think as long as you are mentally engaged that is a good thing.
Kaori wrote: Speaking of my not being a pastor, have you considered asking your pastor what he (or she) thinks?
Kaori wrote:Because you've been saying some things about feeling pressure to conform to what others are doing and being worried about not fitting in if you do not, it kind of sounds like you might benefit from going to a church that doesn't have much congregational singing and in which most people in the congregation don't sing (some Orthodox churches are like this, depending on the parish, and the RCC is also known for not having strong congregational singing, and my experience with the Catholic churches I have visited matches this stereotype). Some churches tend to have a few people who sing for the benefit of others, and while a few people in the congregation might join in, most do not. However, the kind of churches I can think of that are like this are liturgical (Orthodox and Catholic), so I guess you would not like their liturgical style.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 279 guests