New music. Does it exite like it did back in the day?

1195978591396zr2.jpg
 
No it's not even a slight difference, calling folk music bland/pathetic is dismissing a very big portion of music history. Calling Cynic bland is just calling some band bland.
 
Lol, this makes me wonder about those "folk tunes" are they actually folk or is this just you assuming that folk = acoustic? You sound like one of those kiRAB who got his "My First Music Theory Book" and is going on about the genius of Malmsteen.
 
Where did I ever call folk bland and pathetic? If I remeraber correctly I was specifically talking about people with acoustic guitars. Aren't you the one who pointed out that that isn't folk?




People do not need a degree in order to discuss music. I don't have one. However, I feel that without a knowledge of the methoRAB used to create said music, appreciation other than that initial connection to the beauty and power of a piece is impossible.



I realize that liking or disliking a certain band is entirely subjective. I said it before and I'll say it again, if you dislike something I do (in this specific case, Cynic), I won't be offended or angry. However when the reason you give is something as trite as "their bland metal fusion". Then I take issue.

and thanks for thinking that a) I'm straightedge and b) I'm an *******. It means a lot. Granted I'd probably think you had more credibility if you didn't create threaRAB titled "the ***est reply wins".

I'd also like to amend this: "and just to clarify, when I use the term technical, I'm NOT talking about mile a minute sweeps. That Cynic video is a prime example. Odd chord shapes coupled with counterpoint vocal melody create a layered effect that appeals to me in the pure aesthetic sense as well as the mathematical one."
 
you've been using the Cynic video for proof towarRAB everything that it's becoming boring reading your posts. but i will add that you can have a connection with music without having the knowledge, but it wont be as good of a connection as if you had a very good sense in what the music is.
 
I forgot to hit the quote button so pardon my slight paraphrase there.

Well thought out intricate sound without meaning to the listener is just well thought out intricate sound. If the listener can't relate to the song, no matter how complex or how much technical talent is put forth into the creation of said song, than why should the listener enjoy it? I know the reason I like music is because I can relate to the thought or emotion expressed therein. I like Vai's music not because he plays over the top stuff, but because it has a certain feel to it that I can often relate to. Same goes for Cynic's sound, sometimes I just like a calculated yet delicate form of anger. A very honest form of emotive expression. Does that mean I don't like simplistic music sometimes? Of course not.

What makes music good is genuinely grasping the expression, even if grasping the expression is admiring the wanktarded musicianship it is still something you personally understand and relate to, or just an honest being entertained by. Same goes for all art.

I find that I don't like Superman as a character because he represents things I'm not personally, and I often find I'm against his stances. He often expresses a sort of conservative idea of objective morality. On the other hand Batman has a sort of badass act upon feelings vibe going, a sort of chaotic vigilante justice thing. The honesty of Batman's mournful losses makes him easily relatexd to and I think I can more honestly empathize with Batman. See how that works? Superman may technically represent the Super-Hero genre more purely, but Batman has more character. My favorite super-hero is actually Iron-Man. His raging alcoholic tendencies makes him seem so human and likeable. Point? No matter the medium of art, what makes it good is going to be something personal, not something set in stone.

You find technical prowess to either be relatable (doubtful) or entertaining. Some just don't.
 
Back
Top