• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Panic! At the Disco

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Whatever happened to liking music because it makes you happy and you're able to relate with it?

That's my point. If you're making music that a lot of people feel an emotional connection to, that they can identify with and find meaning in, then you're making good music.

You can make up arbitrary standards for what constitutes "creativity" or "good music" all you want, but they're still meaningless.
 

sunshinebrighter

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
82
MBTI Type
IXFP
I have a hard time believing that they are underrated. They had several singles on the radio, music videos on MTV and have strong followers.

I only listened to the first album and went to one of their concerts. A lot of their lyrics are cheesy. Their quirkiness makes them stand out in the sea of emo music. I always saw them as a novelty band. It was cool at first, but I got tired of them pretty quickly.

Musical they sound messy. Half of the time I don't know what is going on. I love all the instruments they use as well, but they don't need to use them all in every song. I felt like they were trying too hard to impress.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
lol let me guess, you listen to Dream Theater?

A lot of INTPs have this bone-stupid pretentious "IT'S NOT GOOD UNLESS I SAY SO" attitude about music and it's retarded.

Hint for INTP musicians: Nobody gives a fuck how many notes you can cram into that measure. Being able to play every Danny Carey part does not make you a good drummer; being able to play a part that's tasteful and appropriate to the feel of the song does. People want to hear cohesive songs that produce an emotional response. You don't make "good music" by going so far outside the box that you reinvent every single piece of the entire thing--nobody wants to hear your 22-minute prog epic!

You make good music by taking the same established pieces and rearranging them into a new combination that people find compelling. Panic at the Disco (they dropped the exclamation point from their name) is doing this exceptionally well, especially for their young age.

I know, I know--they'll revoke your musical elitist license if you admit that any "pop" band is good, but trust me...if you think pop music is inherently bad/automatically unoriginal/stupid because it sells a lot of records and a lot of people like it, you don't know the first thing about making music.

It's not about you; it's about the audience. Try and consider that for a bit before you mouth off about how any band that doesn't play harmonized 64th note Mixolydian dueling solos over alternating time signatures and show off their chops at every possible opportunity is "totally unoriginal!" Chances are you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and that your playing stinks of tasteless wankery.

If pop music is so easy and requires so little creativity, why aren't you a pop star yet?


You know, I agree with all of this, but I STILL really hate Panic! at the Disco.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
That's my point. If you're making music that a lot of people feel an emotional connection to, that they can identify with and find meaning in, then you're making good music.

I totally DISAGREE with this. You can go on YouTube and read comments from people about how Nickelback really speak to them. People fall in love with bad music every day.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I totally DISAGREE with this. You can go on YouTube and read comments from people about how Nickelback really speak to them. People fall in love with bad music every day.

Do tell, then, how you define good music. If you don't like Nickelback, fair enough--I'm not a particularly big fan either...but you don't have any grounds on which to declare that they're bad.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Oh come on. Nickelback is one of the better mainstream bands.

See, Merc? There's no consensus on this.

I think numerous factors need to be taken into account, including but not limited to:

--The standards of that artist's genre
--What goal the artist had in creating the music
--How the music compares to that of other artists producing similar music in a similar style during the same time period
--How the work compares to that artist's previous works (does it show progression and development?)
--What kind of new combinations of components (note that I'm not saying "new components", because there aren't any) the work contributed (but note that this one only matters if those new combinations actually create sounds that people find pleasing to hear! Being different doesn't accomplish anything if nobody thinks it sounds good.)
--What cultural and artistic impact the music had at the time and how it may have influenced future music

That's a good starting point. You can't really decide whether an artist has succeeded until you define what that artist's goal was in the first place.

Nickelback's goal is evidently to create simple, catchy and mass marketable hard rock songs that a lot of people will be able to enjoy--and in that regard they're a fantastic band.

Granted, they may not be as innovative as other bands, but in simple economic terms they're obviously doing something right or they wouldn't be making millions in record/merch/ticket sales every year.

Whatever it is in your mind that causes you to define Nickelback as "bad music" is based on some arbitrary personal criteria on your part which can't really be used to objectively measure anything.

"I don't enjoy it" =/= "It's bad"
 

sunshinebrighter

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
82
MBTI Type
IXFP
Granted, they may not be as innovative as other bands, but in simple economic terms they're obviously doing something right or they wouldn't be making millions in record/merch/ticket sales every year.

That's really only thing bad about Nickelback. Everything they make seem safe and salable. Heck they are trying to market to both gender. Half of their stuff are love songs for women and the other half are rock songs that tries to make them look like bad asses for the men.

This makes them into both a good and bad band, but they are better then the most of the crap playing on the radio.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
That's really only thing bad about Nickelback. Everything they make seem safe and salable. Heck they are trying to market to both gender. Half of their stuff are love songs for women and the other half are rock songs that tries to make them look like bad asses for the men.

This makes them into a good and bad band, but they are better then the most of the crap playing on the radio.

Why is safe and salable bad? Most people prefer music that fits a certain kind of mold, because that's what they enjoy. That doesn't make them stupid or bad people.

The fact is, every commercially successful artist is doing something original or otherwise innovative, whether or not you're perceptive enough to figure out what it is--otherwise they wouldn't be commercially successful. They'd be one of the 10 million mediocre unsigned bands out there that nobody listens to because there really is nothing interesting about them.

The key is to balance artistry with marketability. Too far in one direction and you don't have any fans because you're too out there for anyone to get into it, but too far to the other and you blend in and sound too generic for anyone to notice. It's all a question of balance.

xNxP musicians tend to err toward the side of "really out there" (Ne) without putting much emphasis at all on marketability, and they tend to label anything that doesn't fit their arbitrary, narrow conception of "good music" (Ti/Fi) as automatically bad. They identify themselves as "good" because they see themselves as really original, and they figure that since originality is the only value that matters, anyone who listens to so-called "unoriginal" music is wrong and stupid for not liking their "original" material.

Trust me; I did this for a long time and then I finally realized the problem was with me, not with the audience.
 

sunshinebrighter

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
82
MBTI Type
IXFP
Why is safe and salable bad? Most people prefer music that fits a certain kind of mold, because that's what they enjoy. That doesn't make them stupid or bad people.

Safe and salable usually equal to mediocre music. It tries to annoy the least amount of people. This is a little hard to explain, but this type of music don't excel in any one genre. It tries to cram a little bit of every type of music to attract every type of music fan. Then it comes out tasting bland.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Safe and salable usually equal to mediocre music. It tries to annoy the least amount of people. This is a little hard to explain, but this type of music don't excel in any one genre. It tries to cram a little bit of every type of music to attract every type of music fan. Then it comes out tasting bland.

Combining little bits of different genres is now more bland than sticking strictly to one? What? :confused:

I think most musical elitists just arbitrarily declare anything that's really popular to be bad, and then backpedal to make up reasons for it. For most people, it seems like "I don't like it"+"It was made with the intention of a lot of people liking it" are taken to mean music is automatically bad, and there's really just no justification for that.

All you're doing is trying to dream up objective justifications for your own subjective opinions.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Combining little bits of different genres is now more bland than sticking strictly to one? What? :confused:

I think most musical elitists just arbitrarily declare anything that's really popular to be bad, and then backpedal to make up reasons for it. For most people, it seems like "I don't like it"+"It was made with the intention of a lot of people liking it" are taken to mean music is automatically bad, and there's really just no justification for that.

All you're doing is trying to dream up objective justifications for your own subjective opinions.


If that is true, why do I enjoy Madonna or Usher or ABBA (or The Beatles, for that matter), but dislike Panic! at the Disco or Nickelback? I feel that there are more objectives at play than most people are willing to admit. People get VERY uneasy when it's suggested that there are objectives when it comes to criticism of art, since they often don't have any objective criteria for like or disliking it. But let's think about it this way: were The Beatles better than Backstreet Boys? The answer is yes, no matter how many people loved Backstreet (and they had some OK songs). Most people would answer yes, but they end up with reasons like "Come on, they were The Beatles! BSB was. . . BSB," which is NOT a reason at all. I can at least explain preferring one over the other.


P.S. I have to take issue with Nickelback being "one of the better mainstream bands," too. I know you didn't post that, but it still needs to be challenged. Everyone should watch/read/listen to this video and then try to justify that. This song BLOWS. They are NOT a catchy band.


[YOUTUBE=qZxuNqUZqpM]Nickelback - Never Again[/YOUTUBE]
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
If that is true, why do I enjoy Madonna or Usher or ABBA (or The Beatles, for that matter), but dislike Panic! at the Disco or Nickelback?


I don't know, because I pretty much HATE Usher. Are you trying to say he's a "superior" pop star? Oh dear. I can't imagine that your explanation for preferring Usher is going to convince me that he's "better" than Panic! at the Disco.

This is the ONE song I evar liked by Usher (honestly don't care for it as much now though), they are both early efforts, and I still don't see how we can "objectively" say that one is better than the other.

[YOUTUBE="e8otWyLx6IQ"]Usher - My Way[/YOUTUBE]

VS.

[YOUTUBE="TFSIm3Zeecg"]PATD - Build God, Then We'll Talk[/YOUTUBE]





P.S. I have to take issue with Nickelback being "one of the better mainstream bands," too. I know you didn't post that, but it still needs to be challenged. Everyone should watch/read/listen to this video and then try to justify that. This song BLOWS. They are NOT a catchy band.

Oh, that's just not their good song. This is their good song.

[YOUTUBE="2y50s6-8S0g"]Nickelback - How You Remind Me[/YOUTUBE]

:newwink:
 

vince

New member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
320
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w
Pretty good for a boysband
in other words, they're pretty creative for a mainstream band.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If that is true, why do I enjoy Madonna or Usher or ABBA (or The Beatles, for that matter), but dislike Panic! at the Disco or Nickelback?

Because those artists speak to you and the latter ones don't.


I feel that there are more objectives at play than most people are willing to admit. People get VERY uneasy when it's suggested that there are objectives when it comes to criticism of art, since they often don't have any objective criteria for like or disliking it.

There is a degree of quasi-objectivity that can come from years of critical analysis by well-informed people, but it's still ultimately subjective because we're dealing with art critique (an inherently subjective field.)

But let's think about it this way: were The Beatles better than Backstreet Boys? The answer is yes, no matter how many people loved Backstreet (and they had some OK songs). Most people would answer yes, but they end up with reasons like "Come on, they were The Beatles! BSB was. . . BSB," which is NOT a reason at all. I can at least explain preferring one over the other.

Are the Beatles better than the Backstreet Boys? Probably. But that's the best we can say--critical analysis would certainly lead us to believe so, but that doesn't make someone wrong for enjoying the Backstreet Boys more than he enjoys the Beatles. From our quasi-objective critical standpoint, yes, it's generally accepted that the Beatles are much better, but that only goes so far.


P.S. I have to take issue with Nickelback being "one of the better mainstream bands," too. I know you didn't post that, but it still needs to be challenged. Everyone should watch/read/listen to this video and then try to justify that. This song BLOWS. They are NOT a catchy band.

Tell that to their millions of adoring fans. I don't particularly like Madonna either, but I'd be stupid to say she isn't good.

Your "but look at THIS song, it REALLY sucks!" argument is pointless because to people who like Nickelback, the song doesn't suck. We can apply some quasi-objective standards to evaluating the song's quality, but if we do that then it's got a lot going for it because it's composed, arranged and produced in the way that's most conducive to a lot of mainstream rock fans enjoying it, and it has clearly accomplished that goal with flying colors.

Again, why are you holding them up to some goal or standard they never purported to meet? They're not trying to make deep social commentary or push the boundaries of what their instruments can do; that's not what their music is about. Their music is about entertaining mainstream rock fans, and they do that extremely well. You can't just pick some arbitrary critical standard that the band had no interest in achieving and then say that they're bad for not achieving it.

Suppose I make a smooth jazz album, and that you really dislike smooth jazz in general. You can't start complaining that it's "not good" because it doesn't contain the elements of whatever music you like, because then you're holding the artist to a different standard than he purported to meet in the creation of the work. If you do that, you're bound to think most music sucks because your criteria for evaluation are so narrow and arbitrary.
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
"Fire in the disco!" is better

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4gyJsY0mc"]Danger! High Voltage[/YOUTUBE]
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
"Fire in the disco!" is better

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4gyJsY0mc"]Danger! High Voltage[/YOUTUBE]

Is he sayiing "Fire in the disco, fire in the Taco Bell"???
 

sunshinebrighter

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
82
MBTI Type
IXFP
All you're doing is trying to dream up objective justifications for your own subjective opinions.

I think you are trying to start an argument for the sack of arguing. Really it starting to annoy me. Sorry that I don't like unoriginal music being made over and over just because it is salable. When did I ever claim this was objective? Oh yeah! I NEVER DID!!!! Stop living in a fantasy world.

I was the one trying to dream up objective justifications? oh please look at you here.

I think numerous factors need to be taken into account, including but not limited to:

--The standards of that artist's genre
--What goal the artist had in creating the music
--How the music compares to that of other artists producing similar music in a similar style during the same time period
--How the work compares to that artist's previous works (does it show progression and development?)
--What kind of new combinations of components (note that I'm not saying "new components", because there aren't any) the work contributed (but note that this one only matters if those new combinations actually create sounds that people find pleasing to hear! Being different doesn't accomplish anything if nobody thinks it sounds good.)
--What cultural and artistic impact the music had at the time and how it may have influenced future music

Why is safe and salable bad? Most people prefer music that fits a certain kind of mold, because that's what they enjoy. That doesn't make them stupid or bad people.

I didn't say they were stupid or bad people. When I say something is bad music I mean that I think it's bad music. By no means do I try to convince everyone to have my musical tastes. Stop putting words in people's mouth.

Again this is all my subjective opinion on music if I don't care if you don't like it. Get off your fucking high horse, we all have different opinions of music and if you can't deal with it then leave.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think you are trying to start an argument for the sack of arguing. Really it starting to annoy me. Sorry that I don't like unoriginal music being made over and over just because it is salable. When did I ever claim this was objective? Oh yeah! I NEVER DID!!!! Stop living in a fantasy world.

I was the one trying to dream up objective justifications? oh please look at you here.





I didn't say they were stupid or bad people. When I say something is bad music I mean that I think it's bad music. By no means do I try to convince everyone to have my musical tastes. Stop putting words in people's mouth.

Again this is all my subjective opinion on music if I don't care if you don't like it. Get off your fucking high horse, we all have different opinions of music and if you can't deal with it then leave.

You're clearly not reading my posts if you think I don't believe that people all have different opinions on music. My last three or four posts have all been about just that, in fact, so maybe if you're not willing to read what I've written before you mouth off, you should leave the thread. I just spent most of this thread explaining why I think it's important to evaluate music in context and explaining that I think most people are too quick to declare music "bad" because it doesn't fit their arbitrary standards.

Did you bother to read this part, or were you too busy whining?

I wanted to know why salable = bad and why you've decided that all such music is inherently unoriginal. That was my question--I didn't ask for an irrelevant rant about how everyone has different opinions on music. I'm well aware of that fact, thank you--I wanted to know why any music that's easily accessible to a lot of people is automatically bad, as per your claim here:

Safe and salable usually equal to mediocre music. It tries to annoy the least amount of people. This is a little hard to explain, but this type of music don't excel in any one genre. It tries to cram a little bit of every type of music to attract every type of music fan. Then it comes out tasting bland.

Here you've directly stated that music that draws influence from a variety of genres is inherently bland. I'd really like to hear a justification for this statement, not indignant and totally irrelevant whining, thx.

Leave it to INFP to miss the point entirely, imagine a personal attack on himself and then respond totally inappropriately. 0 for 3, champ. ;)
 
Top