- Jun 18, 2014
- 30,522
- 16,853
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Maybe a little, but that could be said about all popular artists. IMO he merits more acclaim than most popular artists, especially from the 60s.Do you think he's overrated? I mean, not bad, but people exxagarate his iconicness and importance to music history? On Youtube once I saw somebody say that Bob Dylan has more impact on music history than Michael Jackson, who had more impact on "show buisness", and on another video they said he's more iconic.
He wrote a lot of songs that people covered, lol. Like "All Along the Watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix and "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" by Guns N Roses.I started to like his music after I found out that Make You Feel My Love by Adele is a cover of his song.
Some people, such as myself, love odd-ball, unique voices. I appreciate artists who can't hit all the notes, who don't know how to stay in pitch consistently...but sing from the heart. An off-kilter singer who is stumbling over his words but pouring out his soul is much more impacting to me than some really pretty voice singing a mathematically written pop melody.
Some people are just attracted to the weirdos, the underground, against the grain, different, anything-but-accessible/popular.
All but one of my favorite artists have either strange voices, or strange vocal delivery techniques (Geoff Rickly of Thursday, Daniel Johnston, Joanna Newsom, Blind Willie Johnson, Ian Curtis of Joy Division...). It's appealing because it's unique and because it's refreshing to hear someone who doesn't care what they sound like or whatever people think, they're just doing what they love. And Bob Dylan is just doing what he loves. He's a rebel and will sing about and talk about whatever he wants, however he wants...and change things whenever he wants (like when we went electric and some fans hated it), because he's a drifter and a rebel and he keeps his creativity flowing for the most part without chains.
His music is mostly just a rythymic back-drop for his words (since he has SO MUCH to say, he's used half the words in the dictionary probably lol)...but when he's playing guitar while singing and alternating to the harmonica, the sound can be very pleasing too. And sometimes you can get lost in some of the drum-loops, such as the rata-tat-tat in "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands". And again, there's the occasional vocal melody which is very enjoyable to sing=along to (like "Tangled up in bluuuueeee".
Why do some people like music that is not catchy?
My sister is another example. She likes music like the Pixies, the Smiths, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, The Cure, Wilco (there's more examples I could give but I think mine are good enough)- music that doesnt have beautiful sounding melodies and voices-rather, it just seems very spacey and while I think it's interesting sounding, it's boring to most people.
You don't like Pink Floyd? That's unacceptable
You don't like Pink Floyd? That's unacceptable
What songs of theirs are good? It seems all slow and boring to me. Maybe if you name some songs you like, I might change my mind.
Many times music that isn't instantly catchy is more rewarding...and more enjoyable in the long run because you don't get tired of it as fast. It increases variety and often contains more information to think about (lyrically & musically), so the challenge of sifting through everything brings pleasure to people. Music like this can often be considered "growers"...usually a song or an album would be "a grower" if it slowly becomes more and more enjoyable as time goes on. Most of my favorite music is like this.Why do some people like music that is not catchy?
My sister is another example. She likes music like the Pixies, the Smiths, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, The Cure, Wilco (there's more examples I could give but I think mine are good enough)- music that doesnt have beautiful sounding melodies and voices-rather, it just seems very spacey and while I think it's interesting sounding, it's boring to most people.
Pink Floyd, generally speaking, are "an album band"...they are best experienced by taking a whole album because they write conceptual music. Just like you wouldn't only read a couple chapters from a book of fiction, you wouldn't just pull out random songs from Pink Floyd's discography.What songs of theirs are good? It seems all slow and boring to me. Maybe if you name some songs you like, I might change my mind.
According to the band members, it's purely coincidental...By the way, Superhero Sam, it was discovered nearly 2 decades after the release of Dark Side of the Moon that it was written to go with the movie The Wizard of Oz.
How they kept from revealing that is beyond my understanding. I don't recall how it was discovered but I do not remember it being a member of the band. .just a guy sitting at home who stumble on it.
If you want to explore that start the album playing at the 3rd roar or the MGM lion. Too many "coincedences" not to rule out a hoax. You"ll understand when you play the 2 together.
Of course you'll want mute the sound on the movie.
I've done it twice myself. It is neat, but there's not enough coincidences for me to think it was intentional.Have you played the 2 together yet?
I've watched them 2 or 3 times and there are a whole lot of coincidences.
If you haven't I encourage you to check it out.
Many times music that isn't instantly catchy is more rewarding...and more enjoyable in the long run because you don't get tired of it as fast. It increases variety and often contains more information to think about (lyrically & musically), so the challenge of sifting through everything brings pleasure to people. Music like this can often be considered "growers"...usually a song or an album would be "a grower" if it slowly becomes more and more enjoyable as time goes on. Most of my favorite music is like this.
I'm sure there's psychological explanations beyond that as well.
Plus it comes down to taste sometimes...like there are people I know that don't eat dessert, they just don't do sweets. So maybe that's a parallel to people that don't really get into pop music.
I would actually say The Cure and The Smiths are definitely catchy, and even Radiohead from time to time.
Pink Floyd, generally speaking, are "an album band"...they are best experienced by taking a whole album because they write conceptual music. Just like you wouldn't only read a couple chapters from a book of fiction, you wouldn't just pull out random songs from Pink Floyd's discography.
But they're not like that 100% of the time. And actually they're first album 'The Piper at the Gates of Dawn' is very poppy, not really conceptual at all except with its sound.
Maybe check out "Lucifer Sam", "Fat Old Sun", and "Welcome to the Machine" to get a decent idea of why they have to offer...and these songs stand on their own quite well.
No...Aren't they all depressing though? I don't expect all music to be super uplifting, but depressing music isnt that good for the mind and mood.
No...
Gloomy themes in music might occur rmore-so outside of the Pop realm, but there are plenty of Pop songs that are gloomy (sometimes unexpectedly so, because they sound happy but lyrically they're the opposite--for example, "Semi-Charmed Life" by Third Eye Blind or "Jump" by Van Halen).
I will admit though that I enjoy depressing music more than happy music. So that might have a little to do with why I mostly stay away from Pop.
I never heard of light-themed being a requirement.Wouldnt that go against the definition of pop? I thought pop was short, light themed songs that young people like.
What's wrong with happy music?
Any other reasons?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?