Who is the 3rd headliner likely to be?

[Yellow_Fellow]

Yes, and there is evidence in terms of how bands sounded pre-TH and post-TH. It's not a proven fact, because it's not possible to rule out another band having influenced TH, however there is nothing to disprove it, and some to prove it, hence why I can objectively state it.

[Duw13]

Yes, and there is evidence in terms of how bands sounded pre-TH and post-TH. It's not a proven fact, because it's not possible to rule out another band having influenced TH, however there is nothing to disprove it, and some to prove it, hence why I can objectively state it.

Clarifying everything with 'In my opinion' is a pile of w*nk, there's no need to do that.

And some bands are objectively more talented than others, objectively more original than others, and objectively better than others. The idea that music is an entirely subjective issue is WRONG.

[2rare2die]

What makes a band not be shit, is doing something different to everyone else (not necessarily phenomenally ground-breakingly different), or doing something better.

[kaosmark2]

Talking Heads were around for a good 16 years, of course bands sounded different before and after, that doesn't mean that it was all down to or even more than partly down to them. "I'd say bands sound different in 2013 than they did in 2001- I'd say this is down to Girls Aloud" is a statement with just as much credibility.

It's not a pile of w*nk, it's the sensible, mature thing to do in order to not insult people or start an argument for no good reason other than your own egotistical opinions.

Fact is it IS all down to opinion, just chucking the word "objectively" on top as if it's some divine justification doesn't make any difference.

[kaosmark2]

Didn't you just undermine your whole argument?

[Duw13]

Objectivity and subjectivity BOTH have a place in music. Music can be objectively analysed. That doesn't mean everyone has to, but it can be.

[Yellow_Fellow]

It can be objectively analysed - but it's your subjective interpretation of the analysis, as well as your response to the human element of music which makes it so pointless to purely exercise an objective stance. I understand that point per point analysis can and does exist; At The Drive In use more technical polyrhythms than All Saints. But some will like this, some won't. It's a trait, not a strength.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Yellow_Fellow

[kaosmark2]

It can be objectively analysed - but it's your subjective interpretation of the analysis, as well as your response to the human element of music which makes it so pointless to purely exercise an objective stance. I understand that point per point analysis can and does exist; At The Drive In use more technical polyrhythms than All Saints. But some will like this, some won't. It's a trait, not a strength.

[Duw13]

Well said.

I'm not trying to argue against subjectivity in music, I'm arguing that objectivity has its place, and to ignore its worth universally (as opposed to not caring personally), is wrong.

[Yellow_Fellow]

Oh for sure. I'm still undecided on objective quality per se - quality being how good it is. Not convinced it is actually... objective. But I dunno.

[2rare2die]

I clarified that later.

[kaosmark2]

But it's the use of objectivity that matters- you can state that this band's a rock band, that bloke's a rapper, that band uses synths, etc. but you can't state that that band's shit and that band's good.

[Yellow_Fellow]

That last sentence is it all. That's exactly it.

[kaosmark2]

Yeah I've just read it.

But by the same argument, Dookie sounded different to the other punk pop bands of the time, and was arguably the best album of the genre at that time, so is that an example of Green Day not being shit? To be honest, this has all gotten rather silly, if you enjoy a band, for whatever reason, then who cares what anybody else thinks. Because at the end of the day, first and foremost, music should be about the enjoyment of the listener (from a consumers point of view at least).

[Duw13]

Define: "shit".

Define: "Good"

Musical talent, imagination, complexity of play are things I use in that. I can objectively reason why, under my definitions of good and shit, certain bands are one and others another. Objective analysis of subjective preference.

[2rare2die]

I like to objectively analyse my music tastes. I mean, I have my "guilty" pleasures (I don't argue that AC/DC are a fundamentally imaginative and complex band), but in general, I like to critique music, argue about its qualities, analyse it personally. I don't expect everyone else to. People that like Green Day can listen to Green Day. I won't. I'll still take the piss out of them if I feel it'll amuse me to do so though, just like others here will take the piss out of bands they don't like.

[Duw13]

I guess that's your prerogative, but for me that takes away some of the beauty of what music can be about. For me it doesn't always have to come down to complexity, I think there's a skill to writing a simple catchy melody and having the ability to make someone smile through music. It must be hard work having to analyse everything before you can truly enjoy it.

[kaosmark2]

Not to mention lyricism, which is a whole complex best in itself.

[eFestivals]

That Talking Heads point isn't quantifiable.

round these parts it feckin' is. It's the law.

[Yellow_Fellow]

I was waiting for that, you and bloody TH

[Asdaprice]

A good example of this whole shebang is me with 2 albums. Nevermind, and American idiot. I love nevermind, it just is a good listen, however, as a songwriter, I think the songs are so simple, and its easy to replicate similar sounding songs. As song structures, a lot of it is the same chords for verse chorus, just boosted with distortion, and that to me is as simple as it gets. Even the solo to teen spirit is just the vocal melody. Same for American idiot, you could argue "shit" guitarists and musicians could make it, but sometimes, when you don't focus too much on that and just on how the song makes you feel, then it can sound great.

[mrtourette]

Question I would ask would foo fighters be as big without nirvana? I think we know the answer.

[thetime]

Does it matter when deciding if they're any good or not?

Edited February 25, 2013 by thetime

[dentalplan]

Theres plenty of good bands doing the toilet circuit around rather than getting a leg up from a band he had limitied input with.

Unsure if your asking if foo fighters are any good, grohl has been good at making the most of his opportunities.

[mrtourette]

If Foo Fighters got a leg up off Nirvana, what the hell did Hole get?