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.
blackwasp said: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.
Classical music has no vocals. It is amazing.blackwasp said:Where would music be as a whole without vocals. Are
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.ps139 said: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 said: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.
blackwasp said: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.
As Jack Black of Tenacious D sings in "Rock your Socks off" :nadroj1985 said: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 said: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!
If the Beatles were pop then U2 most certainly is.indigo tree said: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 said: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.blackwasp said:If the Beatles were pop then U2 most certainly is.
blackwasp said: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.
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.brettnolan said: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...
brettnolan said: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?
blackwasp said: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.
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.brettnolan said: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.
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?