Unpopular Opinions AKA "there, I've said it"

Moderators: cristy, Spartan, king_oxymoron

 

Postby sambo9 » Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:14 pm

Just because an artist or group doesn't play their instruments does not mean that they aren't "real" music.
User avatar
sambo9
Legend
 
Posts: 19153
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006

Postby Skelofect » Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:22 pm

Dalmatin wrote:a lot of rock music is crap too - indie turned into just a bonus to pop music, something for pop fans to feel like they listen to something more "serious" too. Scouring For Girls? Kooks? Nickelback? pop music
I don't think that's fair.

There are artists who are huge pop music fans so they want to write pop music but at the same time they are a band writing their own stuff - so they become a crossover, I don't think they exist for pop fans to feel like they like a bit of rock, they make that sound as it's what they set out to do.

Why would music be in black and white. People can combine dance and rock music these days to great effect.

But that said those artists you mentioned are rubbish to me so... :lol:
Johnny wanted cream buns for his birthday tea...
Skelofect
Legend
 
Posts: 23781
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002
Location: Home Sweet Vortex

Postby DC34ever » Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:26 pm

westhammer wrote:
*People whose music taste includes The Beatles, Metallica, Simon & Garfunkel, Rolling Stones, etc., think that just because they love this music, anyone who doesnt like it and likes new or more poppy stuff... has no music taste/doesnt appreciate lyrics/takes no depth or meaning from music/is uncultured/is unmoved :roll:
thanks for sayin what i think!

some friend of mine loves Queen and he always says that noone of my favourites will be so successful like Queen! :roll:
It tastes better with music
www.2live4music.com
User avatar
DC34ever
Legend
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002
Location: H-Town, Germany

Postby Wayne » Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:29 pm

sambo9 wrote:Just because an artist or group doesn't play their instruments does not mean that they aren't "real" music.
Thankyou! Also, because an artist doesn't write all of their songs, they are less credible

Complete bullsh*t IMO
User avatar
Wayne
Legend
 
Posts: 27486
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006
Location: United Kingdom

Postby sambo9 » Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:43 pm

04wayne wrote:
sambo9 wrote:Just because an artist or group doesn't play their instruments does not mean that they aren't "real" music.
Thankyou! Also, because an artist doesn't write all of their songs, they are less credible

Complete bullsh*t IMO
I just think that if a singer doesn't write their own songs, then that's okay because they're still doing their job. A singer is a singer. Their voice is their instrument, and their talent is their vocals. They do not need to write or play an instrument to be a great singer.

I think sometimes, people forget that music is supposed to be enjoyed, and as long as the music is good, then what's the problem?
User avatar
sambo9
Legend
 
Posts: 19153
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006

Postby SholasBoy » Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:07 pm

sambo9 wrote:
04wayne wrote:
sambo9 wrote:Just because an artist or group doesn't play their instruments does not mean that they aren't "real" music.
Thankyou! Also, because an artist doesn't write all of their songs, they are less credible

Complete bullsh*t IMO
I just think that if a singer doesn't write their own songs, then that's okay because they're still doing their job. A singer is a singer. Their voice is their instrument, and their talent is their vocals. They do not need to write or play an instrument to be a great singer.

I think sometimes, people forget that music is supposed to be enjoyed, and as long as the music is good, then what's the problem?
This is a good point. Good actors aren't criticized for not writing their parts.
User avatar
SholasBoy
Chief Wig Snatcher
 
Posts: 31537
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002
Location: Leeds

Postby urbanmusik » Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:11 pm

SholasBoy wrote:
sambo9 wrote:
04wayne wrote:
sambo9 wrote:Just because an artist or group doesn't play their instruments does not mean that they aren't "real" music.
Thankyou! Also, because an artist doesn't write all of their songs, they are less credible

Complete bullsh*t IMO
I just think that if a singer doesn't write their own songs, then that's okay because they're still doing their job. A singer is a singer. Their voice is their instrument, and their talent is their vocals. They do not need to write or play an instrument to be a great singer.

I think sometimes, people forget that music is supposed to be enjoyed, and as long as the music is good, then what's the problem?
This is a good point. Good actors aren't criticized for not writing their parts.
'Tis an excellent point! :D
User avatar
urbanmusik
The College Dropout
 
Posts: 14219
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006
Location: Belfast

Postby Loose » Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:03 pm

Should a model also sew her own clothes or what?
Ils m'ont fait métis.
User avatar
Loose
Legend
 
Posts: 10327
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006
Location: Switzerland

Postby Skelofect » Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:24 pm

Loose wrote:Should a model also sew her own clothes or what?
Yeah, I agree here.

I only have a problem with singers who don't write their own material if it's passed on that they do...or they're basically people who dont actually have a huge musical talent even vocally.

I love Girls Aloud but it's always in my mind that it's Xenomania that are what makes them amazing.
Johnny wanted cream buns for his birthday tea...
Skelofect
Legend
 
Posts: 23781
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002
Location: Home Sweet Vortex

Postby Loose » Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:07 pm

I differ between singer and artists. That's the easiest way and it shouldn't offend anyone. ;)
Ils m'ont fait métis.
User avatar
Loose
Legend
 
Posts: 10327
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006
Location: Switzerland

Postby John » Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:09 pm

We seem to have drifted away from the point here. It's not "things other people think which I disagree with", it's "things I think which other people disagree with". Subtle difference.

Like, for example, my opinion that everyone under the age of 18 should be thrown into a quarry and nuked. Certain exceptions would be spared, but only two: my nephew and my mate's brother, the former because he's like a trainee version of me, and the latter because he's a bit like Tourette's in human form, you never know what he's gonna do next and neither does he... top bloke.

...this opinion may be (read: is) inspired by the fact that I can hear next door's brat screaming through the wall. :x
User avatar
John
Chief Kitten Herder
 
Posts: 18985
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002
Location: Innit-ville

Postby tcatron565 » Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:42 pm

thelazyboy wrote:Like, for example, my opinion that everyone under the age of 18 should be thrown into a quarry and nuked.
No. Parents just need to learn to control their kids.
Kelly Clarkson, Rihanna, Hilary Duff, Miley Cyrus, Aly & AJ, Ashley Tisdale, Avril Lavigne, Taylor Swift, P!nk, Katy Perry, Ke$ha, Natasha Bedingfield
User avatar
tcatron565
Manager
 
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006
Location: Eldon, Missouri

Postby Thriller » Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:34 pm

But you can't always blame the parents. A parent can't stop their 16 year old son/daughter going out, getting drunk and beating somebody to death if they choose to do that, regardless of how good the child's upbringing has been.
User avatar
Thriller
Moderator
 
Posts: 48171
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003
Location: UK

Postby jason2379 » Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:54 am

Thriller wrote:But you can't always blame the parents. A parent can't stop their 16 year old son/daughter going out, getting drunk and beating somebody to death if they choose to do that, regardless of how good the child's upbringing has been.
My parents could....so could anyone's :-?
Embarrassed to be apart of this mess 8-)
User avatar
jason2379
Superstar
 
Posts: 8070
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005
Location: Sunnydale

Postby Thriller » Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:07 pm

How? Physical restraint? You can't keep kids or teenagers under lock and key all of the time and when they're out of sight how can a parent control what they do? People under 18 are still responsible for their own actions.
User avatar
Thriller
Moderator
 
Posts: 48171
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003
Location: UK

Postby jason2379 » Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:25 pm

Parents have the biggest influence on their children especially under the age of 18. Parents have the responsibility to teach their children what's right and wrong. It's not physical restraint it's discipline.
Embarrassed to be apart of this mess 8-)
User avatar
jason2379
Superstar
 
Posts: 8070
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005
Location: Sunnydale

Postby Colin » Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:52 pm

Why wasn't "Proud" #1? :cry:
LONG LIVE GIRLS ALOUD
User avatar
Colin
In The Zone
 
Posts: 25300
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005
Location: L-O-V-E!

Postby Wayne » Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:56 pm

col89 wrote:Why wasn't "Proud" #1? :cry:
I agree :P

Why was Bob the Builder no1? :x

PS does anyone else think that the angry face icon looks kind of constipated :-?
User avatar
Wayne
Legend
 
Posts: 27486
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Colin » Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:03 am

04wayne wrote:
col89 wrote:Why wasn't "Proud" #1? :cry:
PS does anyone else think that the angry face icon looks kind of constipated :-?
That's such a random change of subject, I love it. :lol:

I agree actually, though.

And I think the confused one looks more angry instead of confused. ---> :-?

The evil one is just too evil. :evil:
LONG LIVE GIRLS ALOUD
User avatar
Colin
In The Zone
 
Posts: 25300
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005
Location: L-O-V-E!

Postby gaz_uk » Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:03 am

jason2379 wrote:
Thriller wrote:But you can't always blame the parents. A parent can't stop their 16 year old son/daughter going out, getting drunk and beating somebody to death if they choose to do that, regardless of how good the child's upbringing has been.
My parents could....so could anyone's :-?
But that could say a lot about your character, rather than just your parents' parenting techniques.

My parents were quite strict on me and my sisters when we were growing up and neither myself nor my sisters would ever disobey them because it just isn't in our character to do so. But I also know some kids who have had exactly the same type of upbringing but choose to rebel against their parents anyway.

I think that a lot of young people are more often influenced by their peers, rather than their parents.
"I want a man who's kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?"
User avatar
gaz_uk
Superstar
 
Posts: 8670
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004
Location: Pasty Heaven

Postby Skelofect » Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:09 am

One word:

BEALE

Image
Johnny wanted cream buns for his birthday tea...
Skelofect
Legend
 
Posts: 23781
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002
Location: Home Sweet Vortex

Postby AyumiH » Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:36 am

gaz_uk wrote:
jason2379 wrote:
Thriller wrote:But you can't always blame the parents. A parent can't stop their 16 year old son/daughter going out, getting drunk and beating somebody to death if they choose to do that, regardless of how good the child's upbringing has been.
My parents could....so could anyone's :-?
But that could say a lot about your character, rather than just your parents' parenting techniques.

My parents were quite strict on me and my sisters when we were growing up and neither myself nor my sisters would ever disobey them because it just isn't in our character to do so. But I also know some kids who have had exactly the same type of upbringing but choose to rebel against their parents anyway.

I think that a lot of young people are more often influenced by their peers, rather than their parents.
Yes, exactly. They can always try but the teens will always find ways around. Parents can only influence them the best they can, because once they get out of the house it's the teen who makes those choices based on who they are.
User avatar
AyumiH
Legend
 
Posts: 10000
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007
Location: Mirrorcle World

Postby westhammer » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:39 am

Thriller wrote:But you can't always blame the parents. A parent can't stop their 16 year old son/daughter going out, getting drunk and beating somebody to death if they choose to do that, regardless of how good the child's upbringing has been.
You should see the kids in America! They stuff they do at 16 is appauling I think! The kids in Ireland arent half as bad (dunno if I can speak for England though :lol: ) I guess despite that, the ones I met who were 'out of control' were actually very under control of themselves and very nice, but drugs and sex is disturbingly big among young teens here. Or maybe Im just naive at home :oops:
You say that I must eat so many lemons, cos I am so Bitt-er
User avatar
westhammer
Legend
 
Posts: 10587
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004

Postby sambo9 » Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:32 pm

col89 wrote:And I think the confused one looks more angry instead of confused. ---> :-?
I completely agree. The confused smilie is frowning more than anything, and I'm often stuck what to do for a confusion emoticon.
User avatar
sambo9
Legend
 
Posts: 19153
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006

Postby gaz_uk » Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:59 pm

sambo9 wrote:
col89 wrote:And I think the confused one looks more angry instead of confused. ---> :-?
I completely agree. The confused smilie is frowning more than anything, and I'm often stuck what to do for a confusion emoticon.
And whilst on the subject of emoticons, I always think the laughing one ( :lol: ) looks a little bit dodgy. Like he's high on something.

:lol:
"I want a man who's kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?"
User avatar
gaz_uk
Superstar
 
Posts: 8670
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004
Location: Pasty Heaven

Return to This 'n' That