KVR Audio

eidenk · Post by **eidenk** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:21 am

Distorted_Mastermind wrote:
Benedict wrote:The average listener does not value talent, only self affirmation, so it takes a while for the deeply talented to be appreciated (not to say that pop singers aren't talented) and the more modern audience hasn't the time to appreciate
acronyms are cool....K.I.S.S. keep it simple stupid.

I always thought that one meant Kids In Satan's Slavery.

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:23 am

eidenk wrote:
stefancrs wrote: But I'd still rate quite a lot of artists / bands as more talented than for instance Mozart, even if the rest of the world won't agree with me
Who for example ? Not that I like Mozart myself.

U2 and Depeche Mode are the first to spring to mind. The first actual tune to spring to mind is "Everlong" by Foo Fighters. I still haven't decided upon how talented The Knife really are, give me a few years

arke · Post by **arke** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:24 am

Rush - YYZ comes to mind

stevieb19 · Post by **stevieb19** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:34 am

Whilst some of the comments here are valid.

I do think that the spread of technology has helped certain artists to come through who would not normally have been heard.

Two who spring to mind are Daniel Beddingfield and the other is "The Streets.

I know I will probably get flamed for those two but they are only examples

Both of these guys started out in bedrooms on computers and would probably never got heard or record deals otherwise.

eidenk · Post by **eidenk** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:36 am

Me too I can quote good oldies like that. Though they ain't dead they are almost in the Mozart category with regards to age. They belong to the past.

But today ?

Anything new in pop that's worth a real shot ?

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:38 am

eidenk wrote:Me too I can quote good oldies like that. Though they ain't dead they are almost in the Mozart category with regards to age. They belong to the past.

But today ?

Anything new in pop that's worth a real shot ?

Most likely so, we just don't see it yet.

Josmoker · Post by **Josmoker** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:45 am

U2? No way!

No really, I think this discussion is useless really. Talent is something you cannot measure, it's not even defined. So you can argue and argue and argue. To me Luke Vibert and Amon Tobin are both musical geniuses, certainly as much as Mozart.

Distorted Mask wrote:To an extent there's quite a bit of truth in that......music is about feeling, so expression is going to be much better on an instrument rather than a synthesised version of that instrument.

Bollocks. Feeling does not come from an instrument, it comes from the way it is used - i've heard real instruments be played in a oompletely lifeless way and drowned in emotion over an programmed track.
Besides it makes no sense at all to compare Mozart to any modern musician - everything has changed.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:49 am

Let's not forget the "best" or "greatest" (whatever that means to you) composers of their times have allways used the top technology available - heck, Bach probably revolutionized the way pianos could be played.

These days they'd probably be involved in host betatests

Josmoker · Post by **Josmoker** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:49 am

eidenk wrote:Anything new in pop that's worth a real shot ?

Cake. They might not be in the Top20 often enough to qualify as pop for some people but I still consider their music pop (the only pop that I love).

bugbug · Post by **bugbug** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:55 am

Hi
Call me stuck in time if you will!!BUT!!!!
The music of today is mainly boring especially repetative electronic music.
Jean Michel jarre had the right idea and at least changes the chord.
With the technology at peoples fingertips,masterpieces should be made.
If you look back at the late 60s and 70s music was for me and still is the best.
There was a lot of variation back then with the likes of Tamla-Motown, Stax, Pop,rock Progressive rock.
The music skills had to be better because of going live without all of the electronics at their disposal.
Also in my opinion a lot of groups today play with background tapes and you can easily tell the difference with LIVE and ENHANCED.
There are still good groups around today but I can't help getting the feeling that a lot of songs today making the top 10 would have never made the back end of the top 100 way back in the early days.
I wish CAMEL were back on the road!!!

advaya · Post by **advaya** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:00 am

eidenk wrote:
Distorted_Mastermind wrote:
Benedict wrote:The average listener does not value talent, only self affirmation, so it takes a while for the deeply talented to be appreciated (not to say that pop singers aren't talented) and the more modern audience hasn't the time to appreciate
acronyms are cool....K.I.S.S. keep it simple stupid.
I always thought that one meant Kids In Satan's Slavery.

Did Jerry Falwell tell you that???

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:02 am

Josmoker wrote:U2? No way!

No really, I think this discussion is useless really. Talent is something you cannot measure, it's not even defined. So you can argue and argue and argue. To me Luke Vibert and Amon Tobin are both musical geniuses, certainly as much as Mozart.

Distorted Mask wrote:To an extent there's quite a bit of truth in that......music is about feeling, so expression is going to be much better on an instrument rather than a synthesised version of that instrument.
Bollocks. Feeling does not come from an instrument, it comes from the way it is used - i've heard real instruments be played in a oompletely lifeless way and drowned in emotion over an programmed track.
Besides it makes no sense at all to compare Mozart to any modern musician - everything has changed.

Indeed. I think 2400_AD.SID by Jeroen Tel is amazingly expressive. Even if it's not played on a violin

Josmoker · Post by **Josmoker** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:02 am

bugbug wrote:Call me stuck in time if you will!!BUT!!!!

Yes you are. Or well, rather than stuck in time you are stuck in paradigm. Most of the electronic music of today isn't about chord changes at all.

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:06 am

Josmoker wrote:
bugbug wrote:Call me stuck in time if you will!!BUT!!!!
Yes you are. Or well, rather than stuck in time you are stuck in paradigm. Most of the electronic music of today isn't about chord changes at all.

Otoh, _lots_ of it is

Or well, it plays a major roll atleast. On a side note, on the composition side, I find most of Jarre's work quite basic / cheezy for it's time. I always felt that Jarre is more about the production than the composition. I really enjoy listening to a lot of his albums though, so don't take what I said the wrong way

eidenk · Post by **eidenk** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:14 am

advaya wrote:
eidenk wrote:
Distorted_Mastermind wrote:
Benedict wrote:The average listener does not value talent, only self affirmation, so it takes a while for the deeply talented to be appreciated (not to say that pop singers aren't talented) and the more modern audience hasn't the time to appreciate
acronyms are cool....K.I.S.S. keep it simple stupid.
I always thought that one meant Kids In Satan's Slavery.
Did Jerry Falwell tell you that???

Who's Jerry Falwell ? Too lazy to google.

Were the good old days better