Posts by granitecrane

wearygardener13 said:You clearly don't have much of a sense of humor. There is no such thing as Joe and Bob. It's always John and Bob. Occasionally in America you might hear about John and George, but Americans wouldn't know the difference if it hit them in the face.

Oh, please, that's simply not how it works! 🙂

🤣

Xena2000 said:The absolute anthem of 1970 was Bridge Over Troubled Water Simon & Garfunkel... it sat at the top of the charts for two full months. I suppose nowadays hits cycle through the top spots much faster—perhaps we are living in an era defined by such fleeting, synthetic trends—but if that's the case, where have all the true artists gone, the ones this discussion is actually about? 😁

If you actually knew who they were, wouldn't you agree they aren't exactly "washed up"? 😁

Jeremy Flores10 said:I was just snacking on some cookies🙂

Well, cookies are one thing. Can you imagine if you had just finished drinking orange juice—the kind with those massive chunks of fruit floating in it? 😁 😈

Jason Chavez32 said:So, in your opinion, what’s actually the difference between slime and mucus?

Slime tends to be much more slippery, whereas mucus is a bit more compact and possesses a higher density of rigid elements.

Do you recall that old joke?
Joe and Bob are trekking through the desert when they run out of water. They decide to collect their saliva and spit into a bottle, planning to drink it once the thirst becomes unbearable. Eventually, they have enough gathered, and they agree that Joe will take the first sip. Well, Joe starts drinking and proceeds to finish the entire supply. When Bob looks at him in disbelief and asks, "Hey Joe, why on earth did you drink it all?", Joe simply replies, "Well, damn, I couldn't take a second bite."

Have you grasped the distinction between slime and mucus now?

Everything I care for amounts to little more than pure nonsense, and frankly, I find a certain pride in that 😁

Ponor said:Oh, please—unlike you, who had to spend endless hours digging through the dark corners of the internet just to stumble upon Elton John... God, I really need to stop waiting for my big break if this is what life is going to be like.🙂

Have you noticed, darling, how I haven't been responding to your deeply "spiritual" sense of humor? 😬
Well, now you have me; you caught me mid-offense.😬

analogharbor442 said:Look, if you actually care about music, you shouldn't be sitting around waiting for some television network to spoon-feed you what’s relevant, right? And besides, if you truly didn't give a damn about other people's opinions regarding your musical taste, why on earth would you be here posting your own version of a Socratic defense in a series of newsstand installments? 😉

The reality of the situation is quite simple: I have the freedom to write whatever I want, as much as I want, and I can be as contradictory as my mood dictates. 😉
I don't particularly care what the networks decide to broadcast, but there will always be the uninformed masses who rely on them. When they realize their options are limited to nothing more than Aguilera and Beyoncé, they’ll foolishly conclude that's all there is to music.

Xena2000 said:granitecrane, hold on a second—it isn't just one single MTV. I was actually watching David Gray on MTV just five minutes ago, maybe six years ago... if you look at channels like Pop, New, Center, or Europe, you realize it’s not all just "commercial garbage" on MTV (though this specific version of MTV we watch hardly plays any music videos at all).

Thank God for VH1.

It is true that high-quality artists—the ones you actually prefer—show up less frequently than they used to, but they are still out there. For me, that might be Paolo Nutini; for you, it'll be someone else. Regardless, I would much rather listen to Justin than Tom Waits. What I cannot stand is how people immediately label you just because of your choices. I can enjoy Otis Redding just as much as I can enjoy Justin Timberlake. Naturally, they aren't comparable, but I find myself revolted by the posers who feel they *must* listen to Nick Cave simply because it's deemed "quality." Listen to him if you actually like him, not for some other ulterior motive.

You mentioned Robbie... if he were some newcomer, nobody would bother with his ballads; they’d dismiss him as pure pop. But since he’s known for being a complete madman, everyone has swallowed his music. That's effective marketing. Plus, Robbie has the charisma, so everything aligned perfectly. Otherwise, his music is fine by me, but I can't help but wonder: what if he wore glasses, acted like a total geek, and only sang about love? They would have spat on him just like they did James Blunt (who, quite ironically, critics adore).

Take Green Day, for instance; I never particularly liked them, yet their new album is excellent (not that I’d put it among my top ten favorites, but it’s good).

Then there's Ayo, being billed as the next Tracy Chapman... but to me, she’s nowhere near her level. Some will think Ayo is better than Tracy, others won't. It’s simply a matter of taste, and you can't argue with that. However, if you truly care about music, you will inevitably stumble upon something that resonates with you from time to time.

Fine... everyone has different tastes and everyone loves different music. No one should label you for what you like, because you like it for a reason. Who is doing the labeling? And why does it even matter? The person doing it is clearly an idiot. You only label someone when you allow trends to wash your brain out, or when you believe nothing else exists or holds value. Liking something simply because you like it is a different matter entirely, whether it’s Britney or Nick Cave. I don't like Justin because of the music; I like Robbie's music specifically, and his best album is Escapology, though the others are decent enough too. I listen to Nick Cave occasionally, but I don't really care for him... he repeats the same tired themes over and over until I'm bored.
It isn't "uncool" to love Elton John, and I have loved him forever. I will always love Elton John and I will maintain that he is better than Cave, Waits, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan. But that is my opinion, and I don't expect anyone to agree. I also love Billy Joel, Ennio Morricone, Vangelis, Yanni, Phil Collins, Coldplay, Loreena McKennitt, and I've been obsessed with Mark Knopfler's solo work lately. I love Angela Badalamentija, Julee Cruise, Shelby Lynne, Chris Reau, a bit of Massive Attack, several albums from Waits (especially The Heart of Saturday Night), Sarah Brightman, Beth Gibbons, ABBA, Ella Fitzgerald, classical, film scores, pop-rock, country, blues, jazz, and just about everything else I can't remember. It varies from group to group and artist to artist, and that is my taste. Honestly, I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of my taste, because I know I actually listen to this music because I enjoy it—not because some windbags label things as "quality" because they have no lives of their own. They spend their time acting as critics or amateur listeners, telling me that what I love is kitsch or shallow; they can take their opinions and shove them.
Everyone loves something different, and that is precisely why television and various music programs exist: to allow us to discover all sorts of performers and bands, rather than just those manufactured by the trend machine.
And true, when you hold VH1 up against the rest of the music programming out there, it really does stand head and shoulders above the pack.

analogharbor442 said:GIVE THIS PERSON SOMETHING POSITIVE FOR ONCE!

God, I am just so "sweet," aren't I? 😈

stormyviper11 said:There have been a handful of brief windows in the history of popular music where genuinely innovative and thrilling sounds actually managed to achieve commercial success—most notably during the sixties. Perhaps the last true instance was the late seventies with the rise of New Wave. Even then, if you look at any annual compilation of Billboard hits, even from those supposedly "golden" eras, you’ll find that the vast majority of hits in any given decade were nothing more than pure commercial garbage. I wouldn't go so far as to say things have become significantly worse since the advent of MTV, but perhaps we simply hold earlier eras in an idealized light; we remember the quality tracks that endured, while the surrounding mediocrity fades from our collective memory.

There is certainly truth to be found in that assessment. However, the depressing reality is one of diminishing returns: back in the sixties, out of perhaps 100,000 mediocre commercial tracks, you could still stumble upon at least 1,000 phenomenal ones. Today, amidst a sea of a million songs climbing the charts, you might be lucky to find ten that are actually worth listening to.
I am simply waiting for that one final song—the kind that makes your blood pressure spike just like it did when I first heard Ben E. King's "Stand by Me," or Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms," or Procol Harum's "A Whiter Shade of Pale." Because, quite frankly, this modern landscape is utterly frustrating.

Honestly, Xena, does it even say anywhere that I’m required to agree with you? It’s perfectly fine by me if people don't see eye to eye with my perspective. In fact, I’ve grown quite accustomed to the friction; there is a certain, albeit cynical, charm in knowing that everyone is going to lose their minds over what I post. 🤣

Stars like Britney Spears aren't stars because they possess some innate celestial quality; they are stars because an entire industry manufactured them to be so. Britney has lived her entire life under a glass bell jar, a sheltered existence where she didn't even know who John Lennon was when asked. There is a fundamental distinction between my own lack of knowledge and a professional singer lacking such basic cultural literacy. I’m sorry, but her music is nothing more than the most egregious commercial pop drivel currently in existence. I won't deny the catchiness or the melodic pull of several of her tracks, but the sole purpose of such music is to extract money. There is zero authenticity or originality to be found there. She isn't even creating her own music. And no, I wouldn't go so far as to call it absolute garbage or objectively "bad," but her output—much like most boy bands—is utterly soulless and characterless, built upon banal, generic melodies. Even I can't deny that I found certain songs by the Backstreet Boys, like "As Long As You Love Me" or "I Want It That Way," quite infectious, but unfortunately, such melodic hooks cannot save bands of that ilk. The Backstreet Boys were perhaps the pinnacle of boy bands in the 90s—though calling them "good" is a stretch—while every other similar group was a pathetic display of forced posturing.

Xena, you haven't quite grasped the crux of my argument, though I don't hold it against you since I failed to articulate it properly. The issue is that someone like David Gray could release at least five albums before anyone even realized he existed. Why? Because he wasn't "in," and because your precious MTV was systematically dismantling the foundations of music. MTV had no interest in playing videos for artists who weren't hyper-commercialized; they refused to air clips from "unattractive" performers or groups, and even before those arbitrary standards, they wouldn't touch anyone over the age of thirty. These are established facts. Various managers and record labels, driven by a thirst for easy profit, dictated exactly what kind of music singers had to perform if they wanted their albums released. This is how instant superstars are manufactured.
Of course, all of them could more or less sing, and those boy bands and such... but frankly, I couldn't care less about their stage performances, their choreographed dancing, or their desperate posturing in music videos. I couldn't care less about ten women from Harlem gyrating on my screen while guys behind them, decked out in oversized hats and gold chains, strike bizarre poses and gesture wildly as if they’re looking for a fight. Suddenly, every kid from Harlem became "high art." Since everyone was part of the gang culture, people were getting killed left and right, yet they managed to package that ghetto subculture and sell it to the youth as something "cool."
Okayyyy, whatever, I suppose. But why was it that I couldn't see anything of actual substance on television besides things like SCOOTER: "PIPL, WAKE UP.... IT'S A FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING..... DAMN ALARM ALARM.... BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM.... and then after five minutes, BOOM BOOM BOOM..."
You can defend them all you want, but I believe it is patently obvious how much authenticity a musician possesses and whether they are actually evolving. The programming provided by MTV was a mountain of rubbish. I feel the same about Justin Timberlake; his music is just as vapid as Beyoncé's. I am not denying their vocal abilities, but a man like Tom Waits might not even be able to "sing" in a traditional sense, yet he is a million times better than they are. Justin refuses to step outside the realm of extreme commercialism. I listened to his latest album, and it is nothing more than the most pedestrian synthetic trash.
Robbie Williams is decent because he does exactly what he wants and doesn't aim for the commercial limpness exhibited by someone like Justin. Even Christina Aguilera's new album stands as a masterpiece in comparison to Justin's.
It is evident that you are unwilling to consider the full picture or the consequences of the narrow-minded policies pursued by MTV. Ten years ago, MTV held a monopoly over the entire musical landscape, and a mediocre outlet like VIVE certainly didn't help matters.
My intention isn't to generalize, Xena, but please be aware that there are countless brilliant musicians and bands out there whom you might actually enjoy, but you will never encounter them. You will never know they exist because no one will ever agree to release their albums or play them on the radio or television. That is the point: there is no bread for good music today. If you want to succeed through sheer quality, you need more luck than intellect. Though, I suppose the situation is slightly better now than it was a decade ago, especially as MTV loses its credibility and spends more time focusing on everything except actually playing music videos.

As for the whole jazz situation, I must admit I don't claim to be much of an expert. However, I do have a certain fondness for that classic sound—the kind that truly feels like jazz to my ears, featuring legends like Ella Fitzgerald or Glenn Miller. I wouldn't call myself a purist or anything, but when you consider that jazz is a profound art form in its own right, and its influence permeates nearly every genre of music, it feels somewhat reductive to compare true jazz to the stuff they play on MTV.

Xena2000 said:Why does everything commercial that gets played on MTV have to be absolute garbage?!😕

As if nothing else matters except some niche alternative underground music....🙄
.

The issue isn't that something is commercial; the issue is that it’s trash. And unfortunately, about 90% of what MTV broadcasts is commercial trash.
Commercialism has always existed, but it morphed into this specific kind of filth when MTV exploded in the 90s, ushering in a massive, heavy-handed commercial machine. MTV became the gatekeeper, deciding what would be a hit simply by choosing what to play and what to ignore. They pushed the most tasteless music imaginable, and record labels began tailoring their entire output to suit MTV's whims. Artists were forced to manufacture music designed for easy consumption by a numbed mass, specifically targeting the teenage demographic—which, predictably, is the loudest group and the one most obsessed with following trends.
It’s true; music history has been plagued by such periods. Fortunately, over the last few years, MTV has been steadily losing its credibility, allowing better music to slowly reclaim its place on the scene.
Do you really think we had those countless pathetic boy bands in the 90s because all those young men suddenly felt an overwhelming urge for artistic expression? Where are they now? They vanished, because they didn't create themselves; they were manufactured by people looking to turn a profit. And where is all that dreadful 90s dance-techno-trance? If it even still exists, nobody plays it, and nobody listens to it. Today, the commercial zeitgeist is R&B, but R&B, Beyoncé, and similar nonsense won't exist in fifteen years. No one will remember them, and no one will be listening to their tracks. Why? Because it all boils down to "instant stars" who are required to be quantitatively popular rather than contributing any qualitative value to music or satisfying a discerning listener. You might find the occasional tolerable act like Alicia Keys or Macy Gray, but who is going to have the patience fifteen years from now to sift through wheat from the chaff? Nobody, of course. People will much rather listen to Boney M, ABBA, or the Bee Gees—who were the commercial giants of the 70s—than the commercial junk of the 90s like Scooter and DJ Bobo, or today's current fluff. The reason is simple: the former is actually good music, while the latter, sadly, is not.
Ultimately, MTV isn't the culprit; it's the audience that allowed MTV to brainwash them.

The reality is quite grim: the music industry and its various managers are busy manufacturing overnight sensations who are forced to churn out hyper-commercialized garbage just so those managers and their cohorts can line their pockets. These "stars" only last as long as whatever fleeting musical trend they happen to be riding. It’s a sad truth, but it holds up. This is precisely why the last decade or so has been flooded with such abysmal music. It isn't about art; it's purely about the almighty dollar. There is zero passion left for the craft itself. Those who actually possess genuine talent often don't even have the luck required to get a major label to release an album today, let alone get any airplay on the radio or MTV. And in case they actually do manage to get an album released, nobody even knows who they are. In this era, achieving success through actual quality requires a staggering amount of luck.
Furthermore, if you are already an established name with a legacy, the labels will continue to push your work. But if you are a newcomer? You are facing a bleak future—one that, in reality, barely exists at all.

Emily Hernandez28 said:There's some new Loreena out around 😍



I noticed there was some stuff available to download on Soulseek

Is that actually true? Well, if you say so! 🙂

Emily Hernandez28 said:🤣 What kind of sentence is that?

If we lived in a world where decapitation were once again a legal form of dispute resolution, I can’t help but wonder how many men would choose that violent path instead of simply going through the tedious process of a divorce. Is the finality of an axe more appealing than the endless paperwork of a settlement? One has to ponder if the sheer exhaustion of modern relationships has made even the most extreme acts seem almost... efficient. 😁

It is a grim reality, isn't it? A heavy truth to swallow. One tends to see the true face of humanity only when the veneer of civilization strips away during wartime—when villages are overrun and the most innocent among us, the children, are subjected to unspeakable violence and massacres. It is a harrowing sight to contemplate, the sheer brutality inflicted upon civilians. And yet, I find myself clinging to a sliver of optimism. Hasn't the collective conscience of our global society progressed enough that decapitation and mindless slaughter are no longer the default solutions to our conflicts? One would hope we have moved past such primal savagery.
How on earth did we pivot from discussing Loreena McKennitt to talking about decapitations?
Hasn't it been nearly a decade since Loreena released her last album? If my memory serves me correctly—and I do try to keep it sharp—it has certainly felt that long. It makes one wonder, doesn't it? Why the prolonged silence?

Emily Hernandez28 said:granitecrane 😘

Henry wrote that stunning poem, and he was also the very same man who saw fit to decapitate several of his wives 😕 🙄

To me, Dustflower brings to mind Loreena—or rather, that’s how I imagine her, wandering through ancient castles and enchanted gardens... 😁

But let’s be realistic: this was the Middle Ages, an era where people were being executed left and right. Human life back then held far less value than the life of a chicken at a Tyson Foods processing plant today.
Generally speaking, the melody is lovely, but it isn't actually his; the lyrics feel a bit kitschy, clearly lacking the authenticity of that period. I suspect this is the same Henry who pursued countless women yet failed to produce a male heir—and naturally, he placed the blame squarely on the women. Had he possessed even a rudimentary understanding of modern genetics, he might have realized that he was the actual source of the issue. ☕

I find myself recommending Loreena McKennitt’s album "The Visitors." It is saturated with those chilling, medieval atmospheres—full of Celtic and Irish motifs that leave you feeling as though you’ve been transported to some ancient, freezing, and somber castle in the Scottish Highlands. The track "Greensleeves" is included, which was composed by Henry VIII or some such figure—the melody is traditional, after all—but alongside several other folk standards, Loreena herself penned and arranged many of the pieces. It is a phenomenal record: effortless, yet deeply distinctive. You might even recognize "Bonnie Portmore," which featured in the film *Highlander* during that scene where Lambert goes sprinting through the highlands with a sword.
It is far better to listen to something possessing actual soul than those garish, overproduced, plastic hybrids offered by acts like Within Temptation. Their recent work feels incredibly cheap to me; everything is forced and amplified to an absurd degree, from the vocals to those strained metal fusions layered with quasi-orchestral sounds that, frankly, amount to nothing more than inexpensive filler... well, what am I rambling about? I suppose I am just venting.😬

Ella Fitzgerald 🙂

WE AREN'T OVERWEIGHT; WE ARE SIMPLY CORRUPT 😬