what if I don't like rap and I think your is particularly bad?

>>349

It's rap. By default it's bad.

On the other hand, he wasn't actually asking for a preference for rap. He just wanted us to watch it, and rate it "good". Therefore, we should oblige and rate it "bad". Or not. Whichever.

>It's rap. By default it's bad.

Your ignorance is showing. No genre is inherently bad

Fair enough. Let me amend what I posted.

Rap, as a genre, can be entertaining. That stated, however, I've spoken with professional musicians who work on film scores, and they have repeatedly expressed to me just how simplistic Rap is. Not only that, they have found that this genre has a strict set of unwritten laws governing how the music is put together. It has to operate with a certain range or type of beats or rhythms. Simply put, if the rhythm doesn't go a certain way, it's not Rap. Thus, Rap, as a musical form, is simplistic, placing more emphasis on rhythmic speech than actual musical complexity or interest. I guess you could call it a kind of recitative.

This speech, in my experience, is largely uninteresting to listen to. The beats may be catchy, occasionally, but I've never wanted to spend time listening to the stories put forth by the words themselves. There's just nothing there to interest me in any cultural, musical, or overall social context.

The point is, in my opinion, Rap is bad. It's a bad genre, to me, because it's consistently uninteresting musically, verbally, and seems to be propogated by artists who don't generally seem to be people I'd respect or want the respect of. I don't listen to Norwegian Death Metal for the same reasons.

And this comes from a guy who likes listening to Noise music, Baroque, Pop, Country, and stuff written by that guy who wrote the fake history of the Funerary Violin. I like a lot of stuff, but I've never liked Rap. There's never been anything there for me.

>>372
I respect your opinion. But I will say that music doesn't need to be complex to be good (example: most British Invasion bands. Musically simple, but pioneered most popular music since the 60s). And it doesn't have to be simple to be bad (example: Emerson Lake and Palmer. Complex as hell, but it's just soulless, self-indulgent wankery).

>>373
I have to say, I'm kind of underwhelmed by the Rolling Stones. Lots of people do covers of their work, and they do a good job, but when I listen to the Stones themselves, I get this feeling like it wasn't really mixed, just recorded straight up. Like they had the writing talent there, but there was no proper production to give it life beyond a garage band's demo tape.

Also, The Beatles reputation is somewhat over-inflated. I'm a fan, but if you listen from a neutral POV, about the first half of their career was fairly generic pop music for that time period. They caught on because they had some good promotional backing, luck, and a wide open market to be filled.
If they had been trying to it from the beginning today, they wouldn't make it. What we have now is basically the big name rich musicians who headline tours and get criticized by older fans for selling out their sound; and flavor-of-the-month cult bands that might have one or two songs make it to the radio but get lost in time.

song related; one of those bands that everybody had forgotten about a year later. I'm pretty sure the only way to get this song online is from ripping a live youtube video.

>>377
The Rolling Stones are kind of funky. They started out in one genre, Blues, I think, and converted to Rock later. The Stones and Beatles really were products of their time. You're absolutely right that they weren't the musical atom bombs that history and nostalgia makes them out to be. Today, they wouldn't have stood a chance with the demographic they were popular in. It's all dominated by the Gagas and Biebers of the world now.

>>379
>biebers
ugh. if there's one thing out there that honestly pisses me off about music even more than record labels steering a band's work, it's manufactured Disney Idols. Hillary Duff, Miley Cyrus, Jonas Brothers, Justin Beiber...

lolcaptcha

>>377
>there was no proper production to give it life beyond a garage band's demo tape.

That's arguably part of the Rolling Stones' appeal.

I'm totally with you on the Beatles, though. They had some great songs, but as far as revolutionizing the music world? Not really. They were just better at what everyone else did.

Later Beatles albums may be more influential, but honestly, it wast his period the Beatles were doing 60s shit like dropping acid in India and fucking Japanese conceptual artists. It might have expanded their creative horizons, but it also incredibly dates their music.

tl;dr-Early Beatles are timeless but not revolutionary, later Beatles are more creative but are incredibly dated.

>>381
>>377
>>there was no proper production to give it life beyond a garage band's demo tape.

>That's arguably part of the Rolling Stones' appeal.

I should probably explain that point better. I don't mean to say that they need more production, like you have with modern music. It just seems like the mix isn't balanced, in that the instruments don't really stick out. It feels more one-dimensional; as if you put a single mic in the room and then recorded a session with just the one mic.