[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Popular Music
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Paul Christian Glenn wrote:
> With all the recent discussion about "bad" music and groups like Backstreet
> Boys and NKOTB, I just thought I would toss a couple of cents in.
>
> I detest (most) radio music. Most of the music is insincere and the
> industry relies on marketability rather than art. But I think it's
> presumptuous to classify *any* music as being bad. It is, of course, much
> more accurate to simply say that you don't care for it, or it makes your
> skin crawl, or whatever. Because everything is subjective, no one can
> seriously define whether or not music is bad.
hear, hear ... i could not agree more with paul. the stations play what
is considered marketable. the tendency to pigeonhole acts is truly sad.
> Myself, I prefer the stuff that gets me thinking. It can be heavy
> industrial, wacked-out alternative, soul, jazz, and yes - even catchy pop
> music. It doesn't matter. If the music moves me (physically or
> emotionally) and the words get my mind working, then I'm happy. Now, there
> are certain types of music that very, very rarely fit my criteria (country
> and hip-hop spring to mind), but even then there are exceptions. IMO, one
> risks one's own credibility when one begins to designate certain
> groups/styles as "good" or "bad".
ah, yes ... music to think by. the man has got a point here. kudos,
paul. active versus passive listening was a debate that robert fripp and
brian eno had. many people tend to lean towards the latter category,
using music as wallpaper. active listening presents more work, yets
yields more rewards for the listener. "difficult listening hour," anyone?
this has been another outburst of, "thoughts from the neglected north."
ciao--vc
np: prefab sprout _steve mcqueen_
References: