Hi all.
First of all I would like to encourage people to show some respect for the threadstarter. Meaningless posts and stupid jokes aren't funny for the threadstarter that actually started the thread with a purpose.
Molloy wrote:I'd massively dissagree with the idea that danceable = good music. I think it's a balance. What I'm complaining about basically is lack of variety. A set should build. You can't maintain a high point right through the set. You have to build it up over a period. Start lighter and slower, then go to heavy and loud. If it starts heavy and loud then you've nowhere left to go and it just gets monotinous.
I agree with you. I've never been to a rave party, so before I express my thoughts, I would like to stress that fact that this is my own thoughts. Sometimes Dubstep sounds monotous to me, it's all the same drum sounds, wobble- and subbasses with a modest melody. I totally agree with Molloy, that just because you can freak out to the music or dance, doesn't mean it's good. I like to dance, but it doesn't have to be about moving your legs only, there needs to be something for your mind too.
Molloy wrote:That's not a popular assessment I know. I used to work in shops where I had to listen to Coldplay and the like all day and it made me pretty antagonistic towards mainstream music. Again, there is great popular music. But the vast majority of it is shit. Exceptions to the rule and all that.
I feel the same way to, that's why I rarely listen to radio. Some pop singers are just selling their looks and their body, most of it is made in the studio by a professional producer.
From experience I keep that assessment to myself and try to remember what pop music actually is about.
Molloy wrote:Pop music would be better if it was about what people actually wanted to buy, rather than all distorted by massive marketing budgets, advertising tie ins and computerised radio playlisting etc.
Well said, Molloy.