Quote:
Perhaps fans of the genre(s) enjoy it because they hear it in a club first, and enjoy the experience of being in a club. Therefore it's approval by association?
Plausible, but in my opinion someone who has their earliest and/or most meaningful musical experience in a club is either:
a) too young to be in the club;
or,
b) a person who was deprived of joy as a child.
Quote:
Chart pop is a subgenre of EDM (electronic dance music, or just electronic). The main difference in the two is that EDM also has a lot of different styles in it that are miles away from the chart pop you're used to. For instance these songs fit in to EDM but not into chart pop:
And one can go on and on. It's like the relationship between progressive rock and rock. Yes, progressive rock is rock, but not all rock is progressive rock.
@Erik C
Propably not because a lot of fans of the genre aren't old enough to go to clubs, and only listen to it on the radio. It is the music that is the most present in our world so one can grow accustomed to it faster than one can grow accustomed to other genres because of the abundancy of airtime.
Thank you for that clarification. I am curious about your logic here too -- are you saying that popular music is a sort of "catch-22," wherein music is popularized because it is played on the radio, and also played on the radio because it is popular? Or is there some innate characteristic of the music that makes it popular in the first place?
Quote:
Ahahhaah I see, well, good luck trying to break it down scientifically
.
At the end of the day, it's just 'sounds', so it's really no different from any other music to be honest.
I reckon it's up to the perspective and interpretation of the listener to allow the sounds we hear to become 'music', which is supposed to be some kind of pathway to the expression/emotion of the artist and all that pizzazz.
And from that, we get enjoyment, kind of a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that 'you are on the same page' as the artist, ahahahahahahah.
Whether it's the delightful singing of a stradivarius violin, or some very very naughty words being spoken by a gansta in tha' hood, the final destination strangely seems to have nothing to do with the actual sounds.
That's kind of explains how each and every one of us can listen to completely different kinds of music, but fascinatingly, the enjoyment we feel is all the same.
Sorry mate, that's the best I could come up with
Come on guys, music is supposed to be some kind of art(?), much like how you can't exactly explain 'why' a certain painting 'moves you', even though it's really just a bunch of paintbrush strokes on some paper in the end.
I completely agree. Music
IS art, my favorite form of it, I might add.
I love how you said it! (bolded text). But I still think there are ways to analytically discuss music. Maybe a better way to think about it would be to ask yourself how you'd feel if any single aspect of the music was removed. I noticed earlier you mentioned that you don't care precisely what the lyrics are. But how would you feel if a female vocalist was replaced by a male singer, or if the lyrics consisted entirely of "na na ba ba" repeated sixty times? What if one of the instruments in a song was removed? What if cowbell was added? Or what if the song was played an octave higher than the original recording? It may be difficult to imagine each of these scenarios given that you already know the songs you love.
Have you ever listened to a remix of a song that you already knew? What was different about the remixed version and how did that impact you differently? I'm interested in specific emotions (simple or complex), mental associations or cultural references, reminders of or ties to personal experiences, etc.
Quote:
One possibility may be personal background/experience/memory in my case. As a anime lover, huge portion of my playlist is filled with anime related songs and osts, I think most likely those are not only just 'sounds' to me.
I do agree with deadlylover as I see none numerical parameter to measure 'goodness' of a music, i.e. I see nowhere for science talk to begin with..
I don't want to argue about the "goodness" or "badness" of music, simply discuss what aspects of the music
impact people and
how they are able to do so. It's not scientific by any means; it's meant to be a personal, informal, and subjective evaluation. An example might be, "Artist X's lyrics in song Y make me feel emotion Z because they pay tribute to the naivete of American youth yet recognize how unrestrained freedom can also be dangerous," or something along those lines. I hope I've cleared things up a little!
Quote:
Your words are the deepest consideration I have ever read on the subject. But I haven't read up much on it tbh. My thoughts on the hi-lighted would be that all the useful melodies and repetitive chord progressions (riffz) in music have already been used in other music, so it logically follows that modern 'pop' music does not have the intelligent creativity to come up with anything original at all, ever again. And thus the progression you have illustrated in a weird fleshy-coloured font
has been mathematically deduced to be the most suitable mode to see out the currently evolved status of commonly evolved human musical intelligence, of the "lowest common denominator" etc..
That's my drunken rant for tonight. Remind me, Unkle Erik to never take you anywhere.
Hehe, I've primarily browsed Wikipedia and Pandora Radio. Nothing too deep (yet)! I don't think that all the "useful melodies" have already been used, simply because individual notions about what constitutes a "useful melody" differ so widely. That's not to say that certain melodic/harmonic progressions are repeatedly used, even to the point of overuse. So I guess what you are saying is that modern pop appeals to listeners because it targets familiar chords and note progressions? Is that correct? Maybe the question about whether pop artists actually
have creativity is moot, because if one buys into the idea that art is intentional, then it follows that many artists simply don't want to inject creativity into that particular aspect of their music. After all, if all music was unique in every aspect... well, it wouldn't be very enjoyable, would it?
When all's said and done, I don't want to chew up music like some kind of mathematical machine and spit out lifeless analysis, but I
am interested to know what drives the fan-dom.
Quote:
Ke$ha is far from the eurodance I linked to, first there's no proper enjoyable melody/tune, just a random mess, the voice of Ke$ha is IMO annoying and doesn't contribute anything to the music, the music is more simple and doesn't stick to any solid construction.
The 2nd and 3rd I don't know what kind of genre to classify it even, dance or pop songs doesn't contain rap in europe. The 3rd I'd classify more like rap than dance or pop.
I see! I was thinking something similar. The lack of a melody (in Ke$ha's music, anyway) is surprisingly obvious, and I can't believe I didn't notice that before. When you say the music is "simple," how do you mean? American dance-chart-pop seems to focus on simple harmonic repetition while emphasizing the lyrics and lyrical presentation. Eurodance, on the other hand, is more complex on the synthetic-instrumental front, while the lyrics (to me) almost bounce off my skull.
Despite their musical differences, I also think it's important to recognize their similarities. So I ask you, how does Eurodance music make you
feel? Does it bring cultural connotations to mind (e.g., what emotions are commonly associated with this sort of music?) and how/why did those connotations form?
