I hate all her music. I don't like it.ever heard of a metaphor
SHE SINGS ABOUT A FUCKING UMBRELLA
who the fuck is rihannaThat's what I was wondering.
who the fuck is rihanna
I hate all her music. I don't like it.
SHE SINGS ABOUT A FUCKING UMBRELLA
holy shit she has that many singles? I thought it was unfaithful, sos and then something I don't remember.
who the fuck is rihanna
Wait isn't SOS the song that samples Soft Cell? Fuk u Rihanna
UGH SHES MAINSTREAM SHE MAKES MY EARS BLEED!!!!!
holy shit she has that many singles? I thought it was unfaithful, sos and then something I don't remember.Yeah, I didn't realize that either but Wiki says so.
(http://ubl.artistdirect.com/Images/artd/amg/music/bio/3273392_rihanna3_200x200.jpg)
Why all the Rihanna hate, by the way?
oh shit memoria!
i have not heard any of rihanna's shit but you were really one of the coolest guys ever so i will give it a try (i am trystero/steel btw).
hey is this the lipgloss girl?
It's not like Soft Cell wrote it either. It was originally recorded by Gloria Jones.
EDIT: For those who don't like Rihanna, what is about her music that you don't like?well for one thing she is not attractive hello bronze skin and too much makeup ick
well for one thing she is not attractive hello bronze skin and too much makeup ick
(though honestly I dont know who the fuck she is, but I'm sure I've heard her music on the hip hop/rnb station that everyone at work listens to cause they are so thugggg, and I can say truthfully that nothing that is played on that station has any musical merit for any of these reasons a) no real musicians b) the artists dont write their own songs c) the artists actually cant really sing and either use like pitch bending or 5 million fucking takes to get one perfect note/word/syllable *cough britney spears cough*)
a) real musicians as in ones that are living and breathing and play instruments. everything in those horrible rap/rnb songs is synthesized
b) the people who wrote the songs that classical performers play were pretty fucking good at what they do. the people who write pop songs are not.
c) yeah as of like 1999, any time after that, pop music stars are pretty much manufactured at least 80% of the time
and also no rihanna is not attractive
a) real musicians as in ones that are living and breathing and play instruments. everything in those horrible rap/rnb songs is synthesized
b) the people who wrote the songs that classical performers play were pretty fucking good at what they do. the people who write pop songs are not.
c) yeah as of like 1999, any time after that, pop music stars are pretty much manufactured at least 80% of the time
Synthesized instruments are great in conjunction with real instruments.
And they are also great when they are used to make music that is more complex than the random song you might hear on the radio, for example large sections of the album Bitches Brew have synthesizer, Joe Zawinul was a genius on the instrument, and his contribution to one of the greatest albums of the 20th century is massive. But when I hear a song that is composed of... a drum machine, something that sounds like a midi patch for bass, a random simple melody and some like random sound effects with someone singing pretty shittly over top of I am not excited.
I would consider them artists because of the reason that I stated. They are artists because the music they interperate requires a) skill to play and b) the ability to memorize lengthy pieces of complicated music and play it in their own style (this is why people listen to different performers of the same piece, because no one plays it the same way twice)
It matters in the listening experience because if I know the performance is fake or contrived I'm not going to enjoy it.
the umbrella song is dumb as fuck (umbarella ella ay ay ay) but i have nothing against rihanna in general
@Memoria: I give pop/r&b singers credit for being able to dance around on stage and still sing. I personally don't like the music but it does take skill to be able to remember lengthy coreographed pieces and sing at the same time. But as a musician, this type of music does not musically stimulate me. I'm not saying "Lol, Rihanna isn't s00pers teksnikal!!!", no, I just don't like it. I'd rather listen to Meshuggah (thats right) or Frank Gambale. But that doesn't mean you can't listen to Rihanna. If you like her music, then by all means, listen to it. Its your right.
I hate her music... and even if she is hot, what the hell does that do? It doesn't change her music.
Memoria, producing a pop record that uses pretty only synths is a lot more easy than say recording a whole frickin' orchestra or a 6 piece band and such. Also, most producers have a huge role dude.
One thing I really hate about pop music now is the drums. They'll often actually use REAL drummers but then they run it through programs like Drumagog and such. People prefer a drum that sounds completely synthetic. And the thing is that it just sounds completely like a fake drum. I don't mind artists/musician using drum programming but please make it sound good (like The Fall Of Every Season has a great sounding drum even though it's fake)
Man, and she probably doesn't even have anything to do with her music. Does she even write hers? I'm not claiming for sure she doesn't, but I want to ask since it's dumb to argue her musical talent if she doesn't even do any of her own work.
And I don't doubt that producers have a huge role, but Wash Cycle makes it sound like they ask the performer to go into the recording booth, recite the Gettysburg Address, and then somehow turn that audio into a track like "Umbrella." All I'm saying is that without the unique talent of the performer, there is no record.yeah, there have been plenty of records made over the course of pop music in which no talent whatsoever went into it. Nysnc had several multi-platinum albums didnt they?
The important thing is the end product. Even discussion about how involved a person needs to be to be considered an artist is ultimately useless because it says nothing about the music; it only serves to boost or break someone's ego (and why be concerned with something like that?). I asked for reasons why some people don't like her music and so far there's been hardly any comments actually about her music.are you a musician or just a listener of music? seriously... because yes ultimately the end product is what you end up hearing, but the process is JUST AS IMPORTANT. I hate to use this example because not everyone agrees on the musical value of this band, but Opeth's take on songwriting creates far more interesting output than fucking anything you hear on the radio. Mikael starts with the shell of a song, and the members of the band improvise their own parts in the studio, writing the music as they go, so that as much of the soul of the individual musician is infused into the final product. This can be done in extensively planned out music as well, ala Mark Knopfler's solo material, but when a pop musician goes into the studio, and the song is already written for them, the tracks have been recorded and all they do is sing the lines that have been given them, the final product sounds mechanical, boring and contrived. Not to mention that most pop-singers either a) have extremely boring stock-type singing voices or b) are graced with a technically amazing set of vocal chords but they have no soul whatsoever
Why wash cycle, why. Just because you play an instrument does not give you the right to rag on artist/musicians. If you don't like pop music, thats fine, but you need to understand that sometimes people want to write the music they like to play/preform. Opeth plays what they like and Pop artist enjoy what they do. Also, I may not like N'SYNC, but I know it takes talent to sing. I know, I've tried. Now just because you don't like the way they sing doesn't mean they have no talent. That'd be Like me saying that Jimi Page had no talent just because I don't like Led Zep. Its ignorant.but thats the thing, sometimes the singing you are hearing isnt sung at all, its created in the studio and that takes no talent.
are you a musician or just a listener of music? seriously... because yes ultimately the end product is what you end up hearing, but the process is JUST AS IMPORTANT. I hate to use this example because not everyone agrees on the musical value of this band, but Opeth's take on songwriting creates far more interesting output than fucking anything you hear on the radio. Mikael starts with the shell of a song, and the members of the band improvise their own parts in the studio, writing the music as they go, so that as much of the soul of the individual musician is infused into the final product. This can be done in extensively planned out music as well, ala Mark Knopfler's solo material, but when a pop musician goes into the studio, and the song is already written for them, the tracks have been recorded and all they do is sing the lines that have been given them, the final product sounds mechanical, boring and contrived. Not to mention that most pop-singers either a) have extremely boring stock-type singing voices or b) are graced with a technically amazing set of vocal chords but they have no soul whatsoever
well you pretty much trashed me there
but at the same time, it is impossible to listen to music in the hypothetical situation that you have created.
Maybe this is part of the 'mature listening experience' that you have mentioned previously, but I'm gonna be a dick here for a second. I think that this sense of open-mindedness that you have given yourself is merely something you've come up with to justify your guilty pleasures. You enjoy Justin Timberlakes music, or Rihanna or whatever, but the difference between you and I here, is it that while yeah I may find something that I like, I still realize that the music I am listening to is pretty much awful by all musical standards. You listen to music based upon how much pleasure you get out of hearing it. Many people do... and I dont think that there is anything wrong with pleasure seeking, I have hedonistic tendencies, but I also consider myself an artist and thus there is far more to get out of embracing other people's work in the field than simple amusement or enjoyment.
I disagree that I would appreciate and approve of pop music recording process if I enjoyed pop music. case and point: I hate the sound of animals fighting. I absolutely cannot stand their music, but I absolutely love the way that they record music. It is a brilliant idea, but the final product of their experimentation is jarring and not pleasant to listen to. Thus conversely I make my case.
but anyway, I am a musician first and foremost, I listen to a lot of music for reasons other than pleasure, and I think that this is at the heart of why I dislike pop music. There is nothing for me to get out of it. Granted I'm not saying I dont listen to music to gain pleasure from it, but at the same time, I feel that listening to music improves me as a musician. One does not become good at something without imitating those who have come before, no one sits down at an easel and paints Starry Night, you know what I mean? Often times, the music I listen to, I listen to first to get a musical idea out of it, a certain emotion or vibe that is unique to a particular artist (and especially in my case, with the drummers). I have always been a jazz drummer, but for the longest time my style was stagnant, and then I discovered bebop and cool jazz, and the drummers therein opened up a whole new rhythmic world for me, the jarring syncopation and accent patterns completely revolutionized the way I play music. I dont get that from Justin Timberlake, and since I dont find his melodies to be catchy or find his voice to be interesting, I dont enjoy it, and thus there is no reason for me to listen to his music.
I suppose that puts me in no place to judge whether his music is 'good' or 'bad', but I can certainly say from my standpoint that it is completely devoid of substance and thus worthless to me
Why is it so difficult for you to just say that you don't like something because you don't dig the way it sounds? Of course Rihanna's music is a lot different stylistically than Prokofiev's but neither one is necessarily anymore pleasurable than the other to me. This distinction you make between candy and vegetables just does not exist for me. I listen to all genres with the exact same ears and I'm willing to completely submit myself to any music and experience it on its terms (listen to it as fun music if it's designed to be fun, somber if designed to be somber, campy if designed to be campy, etc.). I pay just as much attention to a Beethoven Symphony as I do a Christina Aguilera song. I get as much raw, euphoric pleasure from Justin Timberlake as I do Bach; of course they elicit this from me in completely different ways, but they still both supply genuine, chills-down-the-spine, moist-eyed pleasure. The way you break music up into two brands of pleasure, one genuine and one frivolous, is simply a result of your erroneous thinking that I pointed out in my last post, which results in undue prejudice towards genres you don't like with creative processes that differ from your own. It's your loss, though.I also have an extreme issue here, and this is mostly on principle. If I know that the music that I'm listening to was made for one reason, to be marketed to the masses, then I am much less apt to like it. And your pure listening experience argument doesnt apply here either, becuase I can tell what something is by listening to it. I can tell the difference between music in the 'pop' genre made by people who are musicians (for example Maroon5) and those who are not (Fergie) just by listening to it. If the people are only making the music to make money then I am going to have some serious issues with it and thus most likely not enjoy it.
Rephrase...I have no idea what you're trying to say. Animals fighting, recording music, what?The Sound of Animals Fighting is a band, look them up, their recording process is difficult to describe concisely, but it is fascinating imo
I listen to all music for pleasure and of course as a music fan and composer myself I learn from the music by noticing what parts of the music I enjoy the most. This is different from factoring the means into the aesthetic experience because these things I'm noticing are purely sensory (or extra-sensory if used for aesthetic purposes; campiness). The irony of this little quoted bit is that you actually sound like you agree with me here. You don't enjoy Timberlake's voice, his melodies, or anything about his music. Thus, it's not a pleasurable experience and there is nothing to learn from it (because there are no especially pleasurable parts to notice). Nothing wrong with that. All you're saying is that Timberlake doesn't line up with your taste, which is exactly what I've been trying to get you to realize since this argument began. You're right, there is no reason for you to listen to it, just like there's no reason for me to listen to most jazz, because it's not very pleasurable to me and I also gain nothing from it as a consequence.but see when you look at it objectively, jazz is far superior to pop music in literally every way except for the enjoyment factor that people get out of it at the macro level. The difference between you and I is that you're all about the subjective experience, and I take the objective into account more when I listen to music.
Completely devoid of substance in relation to your own personal taste, yes.Because Justin Timberlakes lyrics (that he didnt write) and song structures (that he didnt write) are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo interesting.
I also have an extreme issue here, and this is mostly on principle. If I know that the music that I'm listening to was made for one reason, to be marketed to the masses, then I am much less apt to like it. And your pure listening experience argument doesnt apply here either, becuase I can tell what something is by listening to it. I can tell the difference between music in the 'pop' genre made by people who are musicians (for example Maroon5) and those who are not (Fergie) just by listening to it. If the people are only making the music to make money then I am going to have some serious issues with it and thus most likely not enjoy it.
The Sound of Animals Fighting is a band, look them up, their recording process is difficult to describe concisely, but it is fascinating imo
but see when you look at it objectively, jazz is far superior to pop music in literally every way except for the enjoyment factor that people get out of it at the macro level. The difference between you and I is that you're all about the subjective experience, and I take the objective into account more when I listen to music.
Because Justin Timberlakes lyrics (that he didnt write) and song structures (that he didnt write) are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo interesting.
Clearly though, you are far more educated about music than I am, you study music in college or whatever you're doing. You're more qualified to make objective judgements on music, and yet you discard them in favor of the subjective experience, which you have hinted at as being the 'mature listening experience'. You listen to music to gain pleasure from it, I listen to music for different reasons and therein lies the subjective difference in taste between the two of us. Ultimately no one is better or worse for it in the end.
uh didn't read this topic but justin timberlake rules
heh couch dont you make sounds for money
Anyway, enough of this, back to Rihanna. I was shown this yesterday ( http://www.totes-isotoner.com/category/totes/rihanna+.do ). :laugh: Best.idea.ever. I'm totally ordering one (that cheap, pink one :grin: ).
AHH Velfarre beat me to it!!
yeah except you find it awesome and i find it really dumb
i mean i'm all for merchandising but anyone that was talking about SYMBOLISM and stuff...this kind of stabs that in the ribs
It's like if Johnathan Swift sold chocolate babies. Suddenly A Modest Proposal would start looking pretty dumb.
you people make it sound as like pop producers/singers don't even like music, no one makes music JUST for money, even the pop-per of pop artists, has to enjoy music to be able to produce it. it's too much of a work to do if you don't even like music for starting.so compromises do not exist
think about this, everyone likes money, and every artist likes music, the only difference is how much they like money and hoy much they like music, but it's not like popr artists only care about money, and the rest only care about music, things aren't as black and white, you know? What if I was a really great singer, with an awesome vocal range, and impressive skills, and realized it, and then decided to make profit of it? just because I care about money, doesn't limit my skills as an artist.
no one makes music JUST for money
“All the bands judge each other by how much merch they sell,” says Daniel.
that doesn't mean that the band themselves don't enjoy making music.
Kurt Cobain killed himself rather than make more "sellout" music.Whats the best thing Kurt Cobain has ever released
Wentz himself aspires to be like his mentor and Island/Def Jam president Jay-ZI found this to be very interesting.
i listen to justie when im feelin down... reminds me things could be worse
surprisingly uplifting music
anyone who seriously dislikes Justin Timberlake's new album has no taste at all!
although this Rihanna album sucked kind of (Memoriaaaaaaaaaaaaaa).
wait steel are you being serious? i was under the impression timberlake was just a product of mediocre pop!! maybe i will have to check him out!(?)
EDIT: I dunno if you were joking dangerousned, but I do think Timberlake has an assload of talent. I though he was a totally meh pop artist but his latest album with Timbaland was above and beyond anything I ever thought he could do. I genuinely enjoyed that album. I still play Chop Me Up on mixes.Yeah, I think Timbaland was the reason the album was so good. But he also worked on Justin's first solo album, and that one wasn't very good, so I dunno it's weird.
why does anyone think I am kidding ffffff.
this was an album that got a lot of accolades, if I was joking I would bring up idk some really shitty metal!
why does anyone think I am kidding ffffff.because its justin fucking timberlake (I'll need to see him perform live before I believe that the schlock vocals that he puts on his albums are even real and not studio doctored in the first place)
this was an album that got a lot of accolades, if I was joking I would bring up idk some really shitty metal!
because its justin fucking timberlake (I'll need to see him perform live before I believe that the schlock vocals that he puts on his albums are even real and not studio doctored in the first place)
I had a lot of grave oversimplifications and used examples I thought people would know so yes I am aware the Beatles were not first and I didn't talk about Joy Division or a lot of influential bands, I'M JUST PROVIDING A MARXIST CRITIQUE OF MUSIC HEH.well all that aside... I find the same pleasure in listening to jazz for the same reasons you find pleasure in timberlake. I've noticed over the course of a long while that lyrics mean a lot to you, all the bands you've recommended to me have great lyrics period end that is just how it is. You are a words dude. I am.. a notes dude. And thus I think that all this super produced electronic pop music is a cheapening of what I hold most dear, but at the same time I realize that I am not the target market for it anyway (also I highly doubt that people like Rihanna make music for any reason other than to make money anyway... and I can be regailed with 50 examples of people who arent that way, but I can certainly come up with 5 people who are like that to every 1 that isnt)
well all that aside... I find the same pleasure in listening to jazz for the same reasons you find pleasure in timberlake. I've noticed over the course of a long while that lyrics mean a lot to you, all the bands you've recommended to me have great lyrics period end that is just how it is. You are a words dude. I am.. a notes dude. And thus I think that all this super produced electronic pop music is a cheapening of what I hold most dear, but at the same time I realize that I am not the target market for it anyway (also I highly doubt that people like Rihanna make music for any reason other than to make money anyway... and I can be regailed with 50 examples of people who arent that way, but I can certainly come up with 5 people who are like that to every 1 that isnt)
I guess what I am trying to say is... to each his own, but this stuff definitely isnt for me. This isnt do say I dont like music that is created electronically.. I just.. I dont get any sonic pleasure out of listening to repetitive synthesized music that is manufactured by people that arent musicians. This isnt also to say that I consciously think 'oh my this sounds created by a studio engineer I must HATE IT BY PRINCIPLE' when I am listening to music either but yeah I digress
I mean ffs Weather Report is one of my favorite bands (once you go josef you never go back)
the problem comes when I cant tell who is honest and who isn
why does anyone think I am kidding ffffff.
this was an album that got a lot of accolades, if I was joking I would bring up idk some really shitty metal!
you are here
|
|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|
serious ironic pitchfork meta-tasteThe problem is that even if you really do think it's a good album, and it may very well be by your tastes, it's definitely become an album where people only like it because pitchfork told them to.
And then there's the fact that it might be a decent album but I've heard a couple songs and it's nothing outstanding. I can see someone listening to it, but it has no real depth to it, which is fine, but I can't see why you would be able to listen to it seriously. I mean, I can say I occasionally enjoy listening to Andrew WK, because it's fun music and that's all there is to it. But I wouldn't claim that Andrew WK makes particularly good music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIYXHLlxD8U
seriously this song rules (too bad it's edited to be a single in this and the full version is even better).
I've heard Andrew WK is a really nice guy btw from people that worked with him. I really hate his music and it's kind of an example of that synthpop music-devoid-of-passion stuff I talked about, but as a human being he's a really cool dude, so try and hang out with him after a concert.See, I admire that. You may not like someone's music, but that doesn't make them any less of a human being.
Your about to enter a realm
A realm where people actually have different taste in music
As unbelievable as it seems
it exist
I've always thought that's a bullshit excuse. Yeah, all music is subjective. But you should be able to justify your tastes. Wash Cycle is more of a technical guy. I think it's a shame, but at least I get that! I don't like it when people just say HEH...IT SUCKS...at least elaborate slightly!
David Banner and Ludacris are ridiculously intelligent.
if by meta you mean the reverse of Pitchfork, I love the National (Boxer is the best album this year still and it's been a great year!) and thought Clipse had an incredibly underrated release with Hell Hath No Fury.
I know I'm late here and everything but...someone actually listened to Umbrella and liked it?
I'm fucking confused.
Well I think some of the songs she is singing could be realy good if they were sang by a person who has a nice voice!
I'm sorry to say that, I guess a lot of people who love Rihanna post in this thread but I think her voice is terrible and everything else but good or nice.
She destroys the songs with her voice.
hey memoria this rihanna album kind of sucked other than umbrella!!!
also as far as pop goes have you heard the new Stars album (ollldddd but still) which I thought was way good, as was the sister release by The Most Serene Republic. also the new Los Campesinos rules, and if you are into dumb Russian shit, the new Gogol Bordello is pretty good.
if you mean mainstream, IDK, Girls Aloud's new album was the same as usual and they have fantastic production usually.
hey memoria this rihanna album kind of sucked other than umbrella!!!new stars was alright, it was good but none of it really stuck in my mind unlike set yourself on fire which will probably always be their best album
also as far as pop goes have you heard the new Stars album (ollldddd but still) which I thought was way good, as was the sister release by The Most Serene Republic. also the new Los Campesinos rules, and if you are into dumb Russian shit, the new Gogol Bordello is pretty good.
if you mean mainstream, IDK, Girls Aloud's new album was the same as usual and they have fantastic production usually.
you're kidding, Kala fucking ruled GET BANNED FOREVER MEMORIA.
I really liked the new Stars, I thought the themes appealed to me.barricade was awesome
but guess what I'm the only person ever who liked Barricade.