The Britney Spears thread, enhanced version

[nadroj1985]

Sigh, nadro we were doing so well. We actually started to agree. Let's just stop the argument and call a truce saying that instrumentation and vocals depend on the song and the artist.

Ah, you're no fun black, no fun at all

 

[Axver]

I'm so glad I started this thread; reading over the last few pages has given me a lot of laughs!

 

[ps139]

Where would music be as a whole without vocals. Are

Classical music has no vocals. It is amazing.

I think vocals are the least important part of a song.
When I listen to a song I do not even listen to the lyrics, I like to listen to the guitar melody, the bass line, the drum beat, whatever else is thrown in. But vocals are last for me, I do not think they are important. The best they do for me is make a song fun to sing along to.

 

[blackwasp]

Classical music has no vocals. It is amazing.

I think vocals are the least important part of a song.
When I listen to a song I do not even listen to the lyrics, I like to listen to the guitar melody, the bass line, the drum beat, whatever else is thrown in. But vocals are last for me, I do not think they are important. The best they do for me is make a song fun to sing along to.

True, but their is something about a melody that gives a song new depth. The ultimate songwriter produces music that has great instrumentation, thought provoking lyrics, and a memorable melody.

 

[Breetai]

woah, man cant you just post once and have all info in one post?

He's got a point. It's pretty annoying.

 

[nadroj1985]

True, but their is something about a melody that gives a song new depth. The ultimate songwriter produces music that has great instrumentation, thought provoking lyrics, and a memorable melody.

But what makes the melody more important than great instrumentation?

 

[blackwasp]

But what makes the melody more important than great instrumentation?

Coupled with the lyrics, it gives a song direction or adds complexity. It adds new emotion to the material and guides the listener through the song.

 

[nadroj1985]

Coupled with the lyrics, it gives a song direction or adds complexity. It adds new emotion to the material and guides the listener through the song.

1) Why does a song have to have direction?
2) Why does it have to be complex?
3) Why does new emotion need to be added?
4) Why does the listener need to be guided through the song?

See where I'm going with this? I don't see much in the way of rules for music. You could give me answers to each of the 4 questions above and I'd still have "Why" questions to follow up. Those that truly defined music as it is today took the rules that were set up on music and broke them, in order to take music to places it had never been before.

 

[ps139]

1) Why does a song have to have direction?
2) Why does it have to be complex?
3) Why does new emotion need to be added?
4) Why does the listener need to be guided through the song?

See where I'm going with this? I don't see much in the way of rules for music. You could give me answers to each of the 4 questions above and I'd still have "Why" questions to follow up. Those that truly defined music as it is today took the rules that were set up on music and broke them, in order to take music to places it had never been before.

As Jack Black of Tenacious D sings in "Rock your Socks off" :
It doesn't matter if it is good
It only matters if it rocks!

 

[nadroj1985]

As Jack Black of Tenacious D sings in "Rock your Socks off" :
It doesn't matter if it is good
It only matters if it rocks!

Well said, Mr. Black, well said

 

[indigo tree]

To the person who asked the question to weather U2 is pop, no, they are not. They are a rock band. The word pop is too often much abused, and sometimes they are categorized under pop. Pop is is more like what Britaney and N'sync does.

But, back on the subject. I don't care to much for Briteny. I feel kinda bad for her, she sells out for shock value, alot.

 

[blackwasp]

To the person who asked the question to weather U2 is pop, no, they are not. They are a rock band. The word pop is too often much abused, and sometimes they are categorized under pop. Pop is is more like what Britaney and N'sync does.

But, back on the subject. I don't care to much for Briteny. I feel kinda bad for her, she sells out for shock value, alot.

If the Beatles were pop then U2 most certainly is.

 

[nadroj1985]

If the Beatles were pop then U2 most certainly is.

I'd say they both were, maybe U2 was "pop-rock." I dunno. Who cares anyway?

 

[ps139]

If the Beatles were pop then U2 most certainly is.

What is pop (popular) is completely dependent on the times, not the music style or value. U2 has some "poppy" songs (in the more modern, close to ****, sense), but overall they're not current pop. You don't see them on MTV, the pop radio stations play a few of their songs - a small, small sample - and whiney 13 year old girls aren't running in droves to Sam Goody when their new album comes out.

 

[Axver]

Yep, right on ps139.

"There's been a lot of talk about old music and new music lately. Well let me tell you, we make U2 music." - Bono, before Surrender, 30 May 1983

"We're the loudest folk band on earth." - Bono

Personally, I feel that if you put aside Sweetest Thing and a few songs off All That You Can't Leave Behind, U2's rock. However, they've been labelled a lot of things - in the early days, some actually called them heavy metal! Various labels I've heard, with the appropriate era in brackets: post-punk, Irish rock (Boy), punk-rock, Christian rock (October), political rock (War), atmospheric/alternative rock (Unforgettable Fire), mainstream rock (The Joshua Tree, Rattle And Hum), various different forms of rock (Achtung Baby),alternative (Zooropa), alternative rock (Pop), adult/soft rock (ATYCLB).

 

[brettnolan]

Talent isn't everything Cincy Warrior, Yngwie Malmsteem might be the greatest guitarist alive, but he couldn't record a popular song to save his life. When all is said and done, melody is the life of a song. Period.

Why on earth would I pop into a Britney Spears thread? I have no idea. Hoping to find pics...she IS gorgeous if you haven't noticed...I don't know?

Nevertheless, I'm glad I did. All right wasp and nadroj...what's going on here? Defending talent-less nymphs in one thread and blasting CCM & the Beatles in others?

I think this quote sums it all up nicely. Thought?

BTW - I agree with you, not really a Britney fan but I can't argue with her appeal. "Sometimes" is actually a pretty good tune...

 

[blackwasp]

Why on earth would I pop into a Britney Spears thread? I have no idea. Hoping to find pics...she IS gorgeous if you haven't noticed...I don't know?

Nevertheless, I'm glad I did. All right wasp and nadroj...what's going on here? Defending talent-less nymphs in one thread and blasting CCM & the Beatles in others?

I think this quote sums it all up nicely. Thought?

BTW - I agree with you, not really a Britney fan but I can't argue with her appeal. "Sometimes" is actually a pretty good tune...

If you didn't notice, Britney was the beginning of a new generation of young pop stars. When her first cd hit, Britney was the biggest thing in pop music. I wouldn't necessarily say she is talentless...her voice isn't that bad, and, as mentioned before, she is a good entertainer.

I don't think nadro would go as far as to say that the Beatles were without talent, I think most of his anger towards them stems from the fact that they are overrated (although they are very good). As far as CCM, if there was a CCM artist who came out and changed the current music scene, I would give them their dues. However, a mild pop hit with "I Can Only Imagine" or a mild pop-rock hit with "Meant to Live" is less than a blip on the radar screen of the music scene.

 

[nadroj1985]

Nevertheless, I'm glad I did. All right wasp and nadroj...what's going on here? Defending talent-less nymphs in one thread and blasting CCM & the Beatles in others?

My defense of Britney goes for any other artist, including the Beatles. My problem with the Beatles is that everyone thinks they are the best band of all time and I don't see that. If anyone came in here and said that the Beatles were horrible and no one should listen to them, I would say the same things for the Beatles I've said for Britney in this thread. Oh, and I hope you didn't take my posts on CCM as a condemnation of the whole genre. I have no problem at all with CCM or people that like it--I just haven't heard much of it that I like personally.

 

[brettnolan]

If you didn't notice, Britney was the beginning of a new generation of young pop stars. When her first cd hit, Britney was the biggest thing in pop music. I wouldn't necessarily say she is talentless...her voice isn't that bad, and, as mentioned before, she is a good entertainer.

I don't think nadro would go as far as to say that the Beatles were without talent, I think most of his anger towards them stems from the fact that they are overrated (although they are very good). As far as CCM, if there was a CCM artist who came out and changed the current music scene, I would give them their dues. However, a mild pop hit with "I Can Only Imagine" or a mild pop-rock hit with "Meant to Live" is less than a blip on the radar screen of the music scene.

It was a couple of things you said that I thought were at odds with your other posts.

1) "Talent isn't everything" - yet you claim that CCM artists are untalented and that's why you don't like them.

2) Your point about Y. Malmsteem - There may not be a musician in CCM that you might argue as "one of the best" but there is talent there that will NEVER record a "popular" song.

3) "When all is said and done, melody is the life of a song. Period." - If this is true then there is nothing wrong with CCM.

As for the current post, I DID notice that Britney was the first of a "new generation" of young pop stars. So what does that prove? She didn't do anything earth shattering. Christina Aquilera and Jessica Simpson's albums came out in the same year, so it's not like they were latecomers. She has had only slightly more staying power than Debbie Gibson and that only because she doesn't wear nearly as many clothes. Christina and Jessica (I own her 1st cd ) are much better singers...Britney is seen (believe it or not) as the "clean one," at least up until "The Kiss." I don't see how changing the current music scene is a requirement of quality music.

BTW - For a song as openly Christian as "I Can Only Imagine" to even get a sniff of the top 100 (outside of country music) is a MAJOR achievement.

 

[blackwasp]

It was a couple of things you said that I thought were at odds with your other posts.

1) "Talent isn't everything" - yet you claim that CCM artists are untalented and that's why you don't like them.

2) Your point about Y. Malmsteem - There may not be a musician in CCM that you might argue as "one of the best" but there is talent there that will NEVER record a "popular" song.

3) "When all is said and done, melody is the life of a song. Period." - If this is true then there is nothing wrong with CCM.

As for the current post, I DID notice that Britney was the first of a "new generation" of young pop stars. So what does that prove? She didn't do anything earth shattering. Christina Aquilera and Jessica Simpson's albums came out in the same year, so it's not like they were latecomers. She has had only slightly more staying power than Debbie Gibson and that only because she doesn't wear nearly as many clothes. Christina and Jessica (I own her 1st cd ) are much better singers...Britney is seen (believe it or not) as the "clean one," at least up until "The Kiss." I don't see how changing the current music scene is a requirement of quality music.

BTW - For a song as openly Christian as "I Can Only Imagine" to even get a sniff of the top 100 (outside of country music) is a MAJOR achievement.

1. No, talent isn't everything, but that is not the only area where CCM musicians fall short. Where to begin? More important than talent is creativity and originality, which is even more void in the christian scene. Also very important is a band's image. Because of this, christian musicians will never succeed in the arms of the christian industry unless they are a pop/pop-rock band. It is also important for a band to be genuine and connect with the audience. I'm a conservative christian and I can't even identify with any of these bands for Pete's sake! Take a look at almost any band in the christian subculture -- if there were no christian labels they wouldn't be signed based on their inability to connect.
2. I'd like to know exactly where you think all the talent in the CCM is, I sure haven't noticed it. People in this thread (or perhaps it was in another?) mentioned how Reliant K is one of the most talented bands in the pop-punk genre. I don't see this and neither do my nonchristian compadres who harp on bands like Reliant K because they are regarded as a joke. The only christian musicians I can think of who rank talentwise are the late Keith Green and Rich Mullins, accompanied by Phil Keagy -- not too current.
3. Yes, the melody is the life of the song. But when the blind squirrel finds the nut (the very rare occasion where a contemporary christian song has a decent melody) the other elements of the song do their best to suffocate this life.

If you are so certain that the CCM is producing quality music, name me 5 songs that deserve to be hits secularly. In actuality, I would like to hear the name of an authentic, legitimate christian rock song.