stephaniewazhere wrote:That's not true!! a lot of Britney Spear's song relate to her daily life, even "Kill The Lights". Do you ever study the life of a huge pop artist.
Its all part being an artist, people have a vision and that vision reflects themselves. When does it matter anyway if its real or not. Music is meant to entertain you in some way otherwise what's the point of it. No one's music is 100% real. If you are singing about loving Dragons, are dragons real? no. But the story within the song is about loving which is real.
I think you missed my point. Just because Britney Spears has experienced love, doesn't mean every love song she does is 100% a reflection of reality. For one thing, pop songs generally rhyme. That means the words are chosen because they sound good. I said that there is basis in truth, at least in most of the songs people feel deep connections to, and it's this central core idea that was only true at the conception of the song, that is no longer true in the performance of the song, because it is performed so many times over the years that it cannot always reflect the same meaning every single time.
The love song for example, maybe the person that inspired it has since left you, and you are now with someone else. Every time you perform that song, it no longer means what it did when it was written - and yet it may mean the same thing to people in the audience. The reality of a performed song is created in the minds of those listening, and is often more true for those people than for the artist performing it.
stephaniewazhere wrote:
Listen retard, your music is shit, your music is noise compared to mine! And music is never 100% real. I show interest into what I find interesting, If I don't like something I won't show interest to it and if you think screaming is music then get your ears checked dumb ass. I know a lot about music, you don't know what music is, you grew up and someone told you making noises like a construction site is music, blame that person for not teaching you the real value of music.
I like noise. Your definition of noise in this context is probably woefully inaccurate. The vast majority of metal music is very carefully arranged and composed music, simply in a language you do not understand. Actual noise? I refer you to noise music 101, Wolf Eyes (complete with irrelevant video).
Now, this is obviously within the area of noise, but you should note that even this vile contemptible noise still uses musical structure - a rhythm, verses, repetition. It is however pushed to an extreme most people would not find pleasant. Abrasive noise, distorted screaming vocals, extreme dissonance and distortion. Is this noise or music? Maybe it's both. Maybe it is just noise. That's fair. I happen to love it.
Stepping backwards from this, we have, say, The Locust.
Now. This has all the features I described above, and yet, it is an extremely complex musical composition. That opening section may seem random since you don't know the language of the genre, but even you can hear the complexity of the rhythms, the way it stops and starts, tempo and time changes, all kinds of things completely absent from that Wolf Eyes song. The Locust are not a noise band, nor is their music "just noise", though it is clearly an important component and influence in the sound. Even to the average metalhead or punk well versed in the basics of the language, this is getting towards the point they switch off their brains and dismiss it as random valueless noise.
And now to a band you've actually heard of. Laughing stock of elitist metalheads the world over, Slipknot.
Now this one has a great deal of overt melody, traditional song structure, and yet, to your ears, I'm sure you would regard this noise. But compared to Wolf Eyes, this is extremely accessible and very melodic. The guitars, though distorted, play simple repeating and catchy riffs, while the melodic vocal hook contrasts against the screaming. This is clearly not noise, and is simply aggressive, highly produced music. For the average pop fan, this is too much. For the average metalhead, this is too little, or too popular.
My point in all this is simple:
noise in your definition is a relative term that depends on your perspective.My understanding of noise-as-music (which goes quite a bit further into the extreme than Wolf Eyes actually) is far removed from what you would consider noise. That music you call repulsive noise is most likely something I consider accessible and easy to swallow - even tame and bland.
As someone who enjoys noise music, I get offended by the very limited scope of most people's listening knowledge. They dismiss as noise, music that is slightly too aggressive, or loud, or distorted for them to handle, meaning that long before they get close to hearing actual noise music they simply stop listening.
People really aren't aware of the extremes of some of this stuff because they're exposed only to what lies on the surface. They assume that's all there is to it and they never go deep enough to realise in fact that their limited view of it was entirely incorrect. Now I'm not saying that if people went deeper they'd be any more likely to find something they like. I'm just saying, what you're mistakingly calling noise says more about you than it does about the music.
Edited by user 20 September 2009 08:25:01(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
