Panic! At the Disco

[sunshinebrighter]

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.

Oh I read your posts alright. Music is subjective blah blah everyone have different tastes YET you continually attacking people who are expressing their subjective opinions. WTF dude? Seriously?

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.

I think it usually comes out bland. Sorry that is not good enough for you. Your view what is bland music maybe different from mine BUT that's fine. You can disagree BUT you don't have to go off putting words in others mouth and project YOUR elitist feelings on to them. It's sickening.

 

[Thalassa]

Oh I read your posts alright. Music is subjective blah blah everyone have different tastes YET you continually attacking people who are expressing their subjective opinions. WTF dude? Seriously?



I think it usually comes out bland. Sorry that is not good enough for you. Your view what is bland music maybe different from mine BUT that's fine. You can disagree BUT you don't have to go off putting words in others mouth and project YOUR elitist feelings on to them. It's sickening.

I think Simulated World's arguments are actually some of the least elitist in this thread.

That's just my subjective opinion, of course.

 

[jixmixfix]

nickleback sucks.

 

[Snuggletron]

nickleback sucks.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7F3O6WYfHQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7F3O6WYfHQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[simulatedworld]

nickleback sucks.

Leave it to ISTP to contribute meaningful content.

 

[simulatedworld]

Oh I read your posts alright. Music is subjective blah blah everyone have different tastes YET you continually attacking people who are expressing their subjective opinions. WTF dude? Seriously?



I think it usually comes out bland. Sorry that is not good enough for you. Your view what is bland music maybe different from mine BUT that's fine. You can disagree BUT you don't have to go off putting words in others mouth and project YOUR elitist feelings on to them. It's sickening.

You know, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're illiterate/too lazy to read, but apparently you'd rather make it abundantly clear to the whole thread that the real problem here is your reading comprehension.

My point was that you should separate "I dislike it" from "It's bad", which has absolutely nothing to do with disputing the idea that people have different opinions on music, and in fact wholly and completely contradicts any such claim.

But hey, don't let the facts confuse you--your FEELINGS have already defined me as the bad guy here and arbitrarily decided that you're somehow being attacked, and lord knows you can't ever question an INFP's feelings, or you're just an asshole!

 

[sunshinebrighter]

My point was that you should separate "I dislike it" from "It's bad", which has absolutely nothing to do with disputing the idea that people have different opinions on music, and in fact wholly and completely contradicts any such claim.

So that's all this drama is about? Semantics? Wow. I never knew someone who would go so overboard about it. Music being subjective is so obvious. Only a NT would feel the need to point it out and ramble about it.

*sigh* Fine I should have said "I don't like it" instead of "It's bad." Sorry.

 

[simulatedworld]

So that's all this drama is about? Semantics? Wow. I never knew someone who would go so overboard about it. Music being subjective is so obvious. Only a NT would feel the need to point it out and ramble about it.

*sigh* Fine I should have said "I don't like it" instead of "It's bad." Sorry.

You just pointed it out and rambled about it when no one had even attempted to dispute it, and I can assure you you're not an NT.

 

[sunshinebrighter]

You just pointed it out and rambled about it when no one had even attempted to dispute it, and I can assure you you're not an NT.

I couldn't take it seriously. Thought you were telling someone they are a musical elitist when they don't have your views after you talked about subjectivity. A hypocritical troll. Turns out you are just super anal.

Either way. This is my last post. Go ahead and call everyone you come across a "musical elitist" when they use the common wording of "it's bad". Good luck with your mission of cleaning the world of pedestrian talk.

 

[simulatedworld]

I couldn't take it seriously. Thought you were telling someone they are a musical elitist when they don't have your views after you talked about subjectivity. A hypocritical troll. Turns out you are just super anal.

Either way. This is my last post. Go ahead and call everyone you come across a "musical elitist" when they use the common wording of "it's bad". Good luck with your mission of cleaning the world of pedestrian talk.

Translation: "I really really really hate admitting I'm wrong, especially when I think someone is being rude to me."

I don't understand how you could draw any of these conclusions from what I've written here. You are really stretching to save face and it's not working.

 

[Thalassa]

I couldn't take it seriously. Thought you were telling someone they are a musical elitist when they don't have your views after you talked about subjectivity. A hypocritical troll. Turns out you are just super anal.

Either way. This is my last post. Go ahead and call everyone you come across a "musical elitist" when they use the common wording of "it's bad". Good luck with your mission of cleaning the world of pedestrian talk.

Actually, I've seen him troll before, and I don't think that's what he was doing here. I think he had extremely valid points, and for the record, your wording did make you seem a bit elitist. I thought so in the beginning, too. I'm not an NT, but I'm a lit major and I'll tell you that one of the most important factors in communication is clarity. If you're going to get pissed off every time someone misunderstands you, perhaps you should make an attempt to be better understood.

 

[jixmixfix]

Leave it to ISTP to contribute meaningful content.

At least I don't spend hours of my time trying to prove my desperate opinions to randoms on a forum.

 

[pure_mercury]

"Elitist" shouldn't be a dirty word. Especially if it means "someone who delineates between good and bad in art" as it seem to mean in this thread.

 

[Thalassa]

"Elitist" shouldn't be a dirty word. Especially if it means "someone who delineates between good and bad in art" as it seem to mean in this thread.

Pure mercury thinks that elitist is not a dirty word: quel surprise!

I'd still love to see your supposedly "objective" argument for Usher being better than Panic! at the Disco.

 

[simulatedworld]

At least I don't spend hours of my time trying to prove my desperate opinions to randoms on a forum.

lol Se argument: "Oh YEAH? Well you're a loser!"

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

This thread is quality entertainment.

I especially like the part where the Nickelback fan argues against corporate, bland music.

 

[Snuggletron]

lord knows you can't ever question an INFP's feelings, or you're just an asshole!

DON'T YOU DARE EVEN GO THERE, MAN. :steam:

 

[pure_mercury]

Pure mercury thinks that elitist is not a dirty word: quel surprise!

I'd still love to see your supposedly "objective" argument for Usher being better than Panic! at the Disco.

Several reasons.

1) Quality songwriting - Usher has had songs written by people like Jermaine Dupri, Babyface, Seal, and the Avilas, who can put together excellent contemporary R&B songs. He co-writes, but usually leaves it up Panic! at the Disco tend to write shoddy pop songs with lots of studio flourishes, but no real hooks. The oversinging and stuffed-to-the-gills lyrics are infuriating.

2) Singing - Usher is a talented (but not amazing) vocalist who always make appropriate choices for the material. His voice is elastic and supple enough to do both ballads and upbeat, dancefloor-oriented songs well. Brendon Urie make really bad choices often. The whining, the constant changes in pitch and speed. It's exhausting to the ear.

3) Style - Usher is an engaging star. He sings, dances, acts, and writes. He puts on excellent live performances, and he is discerning in his projects. Panic! at the Disco manage to try way too hard while not breaking any new ground. They assimilate their influences in the worst ways. They have the literary aspirations (and lengthy song titles) of The Smiths without the ringing hooks of Johnny Marr or wry, knowing observations of Morrissey. They have the glammy image of Bowie, T. Rex, et al. without the cleverness or ironical appropriation of rock history. They have the guitar attack of punk rock without the confrontational stance or back-to-basics aesthetic. Overall, it's a mishmash of lightweight mainstream rock, studio gadgetry, and bratty punk. Given their clear influence by him, it's not surprising how much Panic! at the Disco are like a bad Chuck Palahniuk novel: nothing shocking or unsettling, just cringe-inducing and sad.

P.S. Here is some side-by-side comparison.


[YOUTUBE=8AZxUtZ2ZgI]Panic! at the Disco - Lying Is the Most Fun a Girl Can Have Without Taking Her Clothes off[/YOUTUBE]


[YOUTUBE=8ylrlxQz5So]Usher - You Make Me Wanna[/YOUTUBE]



This isn't even close.

 

[Thalassa]

Several reasons.

1) Quality songwriting - Usher has had songs written by people like Jermaine Dupri, Babyface, Seal, and the Avilas, who can put together excellent contemporary R&B songs. He co-writes, but usually leaves it up Panic! at the Disco tend to write shoddy pop songs with lots of studio flourishes, but no real hooks. The oversinging and stuffed-to-the-gills lyrics are infuriating.

Infuriating is a subjective term. I'm not impressed by big names. Using names of famous musicians is not necessarily more impressive in terms of song writing. I'm very impressed that Panic! writes their own songs, even if Seal isn't involved. That's what real musicians do. I love the variety of instruments and styles of music that they employ. Plus, I find their lyrics to be part of the appeal. To me the lyrics are poetic, witty, and clever... not "infuriating." Urie's use of extensive vocabulary is quite frankly refreshing.

2) Singing - Usher is a talented (but not amazing) vocalist who always make appropriate choices for the material. His voice is elastic and supple enough to do both ballads and upbeat, dancefloor-oriented songs well. Brendon Urie make really bad choices often. The whining, the constant changes in pitch and speed. It's exhausting to the ear.

I love Brandon Urie's voice. I think his voice is intensely emotional and subtley sexual. He can actually do quite a few different things with his voice, what you call "constant changes in pitch and speed," gives his songs great energy and variety - and on Pretty.Odd. (which you obviously haven't listened to all the way through) his voice is consistently melodic. Again, you're being subjective. Sure, Usher has a nice voice. But it doesn't make his music any easier for me to listen to.

3) Style - Usher is an engaging star. He sings, dances, acts, and writes. He puts on excellent live performances, and he is discerning in his projects. Panic! at the Disco manage to try way too hard while not breaking any new ground. They assimilate their influences in the worst ways. They have the literary aspirations (and lengthy song titles) of The Smiths without the ringing hooks of Johnny Marr or wry, knowing observations of Morrissey. They have the glammy image of Bowie, T. Rex, et al. without the cleverness or ironical appropriation of rock history. They have the guitar attack of punk rock without the confrontational stance or back-to-basics aesthetic. Overall, it's a mishmash of lightweight mainstream rock, studio gadgetry, and bratty punk. Given their clear influence by him, it's not surprising how much Panic! at the Disco are like a bad Chuck Palahniuk novel: nothing shocking or unsettling, just cringe-inducing and sad.

This is an extremely emotional appraisal for what is supposed to be an objective argument.

P.S. Here is some side-by-side comparison.


[YOUTUBE=8AZxUtZ2ZgI]Panic! at the Disco - Lying Is the Most Fun a Girl Can Have Without Taking Her Clothes off[/YOUTUBE]


[YOUTUBE=8ylrlxQz5So]Usher - You Make Me Wanna[/YOUTUBE]



This isn't even close.

You're so right. I like the Panic! at the Disco song soooooo much better. It makes my panties wet. Unlike the Usher song, which has merely been played to death on Top 40 radio.

I'm not saying Usher is worse, because he's obviously talented, but I like Panic! at the Disco much better, and for me Usher's music just blends into a sea of boring R&B....and, no, it's not because I don't like R&B as a rule. I love Al Green, for example.

It's not that your argument isn't effective, either. Of course you have a well-constructed argument for why you subjectively prefer Usher.

Objective argument: FAIL.

 

[jixmixfix]

lol Se argument: "Oh YEAH? Well you're a loser!"

Ne argument: Oh well let me just waste endless hours of my trivial life on proving to the world I'm l33t. Oh FUK MY STOVE IS ON FIRE!.