Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The only people who say this are people who have shit taste. In everything.
However taste is.
some people can eat shit and die.
I am intelligent enough to be able to differentiate between a personal preference and a reflection of something's universal worth.
the 'worth' of a piece of music come from? If not from how it is liked?
You have to respect - acknowledge 'worth' - of what makes it liked.
I don't like lots of things, but I can appreciate their worth in terms of how well they have achieved their purpose.
Thus I hate crazy frog. It seems awful to me. BUT I can't seriously call it 'shit', because it has not failed in any way whatsoever. So how can it be shit? It must have worth if tons of people bought it? Someone help me - this is something I think about a lot and it drives me mad!
How do I decide if something's shit or not without reverting to personal preference which is ultimately a result of individual experience and therefore not applicable as a rule??
I want top be able to bandy the term "shit" about as well!
unless you have 1.000000000000 ratings similarity to me on DiS, you are wronger than bono's 'person of the year' award.
by Arcade Fire then your music taste is shit, OMGperiod
to have shit musicla taste
i mean, I didn't hate it, it just didn't really grab me
the only people who say this are on their last resort point in an argument. it's like say 'let's just agree to differ, shall we?'
But the fact that my taste is best is FACT.
FACT FACT FACT.
Everyoneshould have that attitude.
Otherwise you are not true to yourself.
However U2 are rubbbish I an say this as I have said that I liked them, that I still like NewYearsDay, I will not allow what 'Bono the arse' has become to take this pleasure away from me, but I have known them for 23 years now and have seen their relative worth/relevance decline although their relative wealth power and fame has increased, pomposity and hypocrassy are not objective, they are subjective, to where the person has come from and their contempories and the opportunities they have had.
Radiohead have moved to a place that is strange to me and I do not enjoy where they are now as much as I did, however they have done that for their own reasons, not commercial ones, they have not sold out, they are indulging in the luxory of not having to follow the commercial path, and that is artistically valid, even if I am not that keen on it.
Some bands we say are sh*t, are maybe just for kids....Robbie Williams for example, I know loads of pre teens who like him...is that terrible? I don't think so, McFly also spring to mind.
I think you're right. I think calling things "shit" (for example) is essentially a throwaway, jokey reaction to things, no to be taken seriously. I do this as much as anyone. But it seems to have been elevated to a higher status as people seem desperate to present a punky, arrogant disdain for anything they don't like personally. It's part of culture I suppose, but it's still annoying to me. I read a BBC (!) review of that new Paul Anka album recently and it was ludicrous because it ended with something like "it's not funny, it's not postmodern, it's crap". This seems to be evidence of this unpleasant and unhelpful attitude becoming accepted practise. Clearly lots of people would hate the album, but when "it's crap" is presented as critical examination, nobody wins.
but I remember having kind of this conversation with you about me wondering whether I 'talk myself into' liking things. and whether I should just trust my initial reactions.
But then I've just bought Feels and the first time I listened to the first few tracks I thought 'well this is a bit bollocks' - the second half won me over and now I love the first half as well.
I occasionally flirt with the idea that because there's so much genuinely knock your socks off music out there, propped up by a vastly expanding pyramid of the okay the mediocre and the downright cock-awful that if something isn't genuinely great you might as well say it's shit. Why waste your time on anything other than brilliance?
Other times I think this is bollocks. Citing reasons such as the fact that bands have to grow, and that you can support a band because you believe they have the potential for greatness, or moments of greatness.
You were talking about Crazy Frog. I've never been able to drum up any kind of hatred for him/it. Why bother? I'm much more offended by a band who are playing in a genre I like - like indie or electronica but who are making mediocre music but being succesful because of it. Such as Kasabian - one of the most genuinely awful bands I've ever heard riding high in the charts. Or Starsailor or the Magic Numbers.
Now there's a good example - the Magic Numbers. Their music doesn't bother me, it's pleasant it's unpretentious and quite enjoyable. But it's their success that makes me hate them because they don't deserve it compared to so many other bands who are so much more unique. So I'll say the Magic Numbers are 'shit'. Even though they're not 'shit', and I'd probably quite enjoy bopping along to that big hit song they did if it came on in the Warehouse or something.
Do you know what I mean?
Definitely think that most music can be good if seen in a certain light. For example, if you listen to something you didn't like with a friend who does, seeing their reaction can make you understand the music in a different way, and appreciate it more. I think this constant unfolding and expansion of understanding is why people's taste tends to broaden as they are exposed to more and more music - and a new kind of acceptance starts to happen. Which is why punk is mostly done by young people. Because that singularity of vision evolves as people get older, and that singular anger fades too.
You are Durutti.
JDT? he isn't as old is he?
Or would you use another adjective for JDT?
I am older and have definately lost my anger, I'm as fluffy as the squirrel and zoodlepuff
I don't see Traynor shouting about how he wants to burn down Cambridge live onstage. He just carps and bellyaches, which is more bitter than angry. Or misdirectedly angry that other people like other things. And maybe angry that it's illegal to (*edits out bad-taste joke about Young ladies*).
what happened to me.
What makes your opinion seem more reasonable than those of the "shit-slingers" is the fact that you have reached the term through some sort of vaguely logical (if rather flippant) process and have an understanding of the factors that are at work here. As opposed to just seeing something, thinking "I don't like this" and then labelling it shit as an instant reaction.
That's what I can't stand. I totally agree about the injustice involved in *lesser* bands being more successful. I think that harsh criticism is a small price to pay for the advantages that a hugely popular band usually reaps. They are in a position to ignore this if they choose.
With this in mind, I do find it hard to swallow when people apply the same harsh criticism to a less successful band that has some sort of talent/potential (even if it is not of the sort that they personally enjoy). Because I think that ANY creative expression (within reason) should be encouraged and negative criticism almost always has a negative effect on a band/artist.
often plays a major part in us calljng bands shit that perhaps are not 'shit' if you have never heard other bands.
Franz Ferdinand were in danger of being played so ubiquitously that they would be hated, luckily they were new, and they had good follow up tracks, and we percieved that the overplaying (On Radio/TV/in shoeshops/shopping malls everywhere) so most of us have not ended up hating them, they actually manage to fit/live up to all the hype.
When I first came to the Libertines it was on the back of massive praise/critical and hype, and they did not fit that. Once I had dismissed them as 'shit' I was able to come across some tracks of theirs anonymously that blew me away, am I a hippocrit, maybe, but I'm honest.
PS my sons really really love the Kaiser Chiefs and I guess I can see why they do, although I had slightly initially dismissed them as having a theme of going 'Woooooooaaaaaaaaaaaah' on every track.
We should not measure new bands with the same rules as established bands, we want established bands to progress (except for the Cure....Robert Smith should stay making the same sort of records, cos I love them)
P.S. I know this will garner ridicule for me but whilst I am being honest, I like 'The Bravery' and 'Battle'
If I'm watching a unsigned band at a gig and they aren't interesting me then I'll just say they're shit (in my own mind anyway, I wouldn't say it to them). Whereas perhaps if I listened to the same band on record I might be more inclined to be objective, which is odd.
That's why I like all this myspace business. I can just dip in here and there. It's beautifully concise. You can just listen and if you don't like it you move on. You don't have to be critical of it. Whereas if you're 'reviewing' something you have to do an assesment of it, and if it's shit you have to say so whether you want to hurt a new young band or not.
I don't think saying something is 'shit' on a messageboard really hurts. I've stopped taking things like this seriously. Any band who are famous enough to be hated on here are probably too busy to come and read it anyway. And I don't really notice if people on here slag off unsigned/new/small bands.
I think it comes down to judging things on their merits. What can you gain from this artist? If they are well-liked/critically acclaimed, then there must be SOMETHING to take away from their product. Even if you don't choose to act upon this (because you don't happen to like it), it's worth acknowledging. Thus I might not like a band cos they are not of a genre I'm into, but unless they singularly failed to do what they set out to do, then I would try not to be critical without also acknowledging good points (there are always some if the band has been booked to play a 'proper' gig).
new bands as much as you would established ones cos they deserve to be cut some slack for their effort thus far, they are also going to change/develop so I would rather not discourage them enough to totally give up
apart from the Fog Band obviously.
these days if a band's getting 'proper' gigs or getting favourable reviews there's a very good chance it's cos they've had money spent on them by someone who thinks they're 'saleable'.
Of course any band who plays a gig that they haven't paid for themselves is getting promoted by having money spent on them (hopefully). But there's a difference between a gig/label where people risk their own money on a band they like (Purr for example), and a big label that thinks 'if we spend Â£1million pounds on this band they will make us Â£5million' rather than 'we really like this band, let's nurture and promote their talent'.
Basically I'll always trust the opinions of certain people on this board and, to some extent, pitchfork, because I feel it's an honest opinion. Whereas I might actively avoid checking out a band that were hyped in NME cos I would suspect that it was paid for hype.
At least all the ones we've played for have seemed genuine enough.
We havent ever been paid more than 50 quid (even for playing at The tate!). I think it's important for potential slaggers to get their facts right before getting all critical.
eg we've been criticised for being style-obsessed (I'm the only one in a suit remember! And I was doing that before I joined the band) which almost exclusively come from the imagination of the slaggers! I don't think that's fair. I think it's assumed that unless a band looks recognisably scruffy and "genuine", then they must be a product of some cynical marketing plan. When in fact it's just as often vice-versa. This is an example of how criticism without proper experience/knowledge of a band leads to problems. You can't assume from one or two gigs that a band is secure enough to start undermining them.
Maybe people take a dis-like towards certain (sadly often visual) signifiers and go from there, rather than judging the music on its own terms.
well I did take the piss out of the suits a bit.
But i was joking. :)
Sadly Bobby you can't expect everyone to get their facts straight before they slag yr band off. If you don't impress them then some people will just say you're shit. You've just got to ignore it. Also you can't overlook that fact that some people probably do just get jealous.
Be secure in the knowledge that Pete Waterman loves you.
The other side of it is that if you do have a record out/get put on a proper bill/look the part some, if not most, people will be more inclined to listen to you cos it gives you credibility.
sadly 'unsigned band night' is a great thing to put on a poster if you want to put people off. Whereas if we all really liked John Peel as much as we say then we'd be going to them all the time looking for the new Beatles.
I don't care if people slag us off these days. Although I do feel the urge to ask them for reasons if they choose to do so!
When you're in a band and are just starting out, it's pretty horrid to do a google search looking for reviews and get to some message board saying your shit and making personal insults. You can rationalise it, but it still hurts. Of course new bands will be ropey. Stands to reason.
If you just signed a contract for joining McFly or whatever, you might comfort yourself with the fact that you are destined for lots of money at the very least. So it's like what Creaky says, really. If you have to be nasty, at least do it to bands/artists who are in an enviable/secure position.
I love constructive criticism. My music may be ramshackle/lo-fi/simplistic but i'm also quite perfectionist about it. I always appreciate it when people point out something specific about why a song didn't work for them or could be improved or something (other than "because you can't actually play 'insert name of instrument' can you?"). Things have been improved that way. And no one's more critical of my own stuff than me.
If people just say 'it's shit' then I just nod.
And you know people getting personal on messageboards are just people who know you, who are probably in less succesful bands, being quims cos they're jealous. Or they act as though, in some way, there's only room for one band in any given local scene to succeed commercially. Which is a bollocks attitude.
but i have shit taste...
all this reminds me of Pierre Bourdieu, who I thought had some interesting ideas. I may be remembering this wrong (I can't be bothered to go look up my notes), but as far as I recall, he argued that the old economic divisions of class were no longer suitable. He suggested that society was now divided into various 'hierarchies of taste', which overlap in different groups and situations, which sometimes reflect the old divisions of working class/middle class/upper class, but there are whole new hierarchies too, which take place in different 'fields'. So, for example, to put this in a DiS context:
'Jim' loves music. His favourite bands are U2, Coldplay, Keane, Stereophonics etc. He wears band T-shirts and plays guitar. In his office, people see him as the music expert, and ask him for advice about what to buy their kids for Xmas, that kind of thing. In this social hierarchy of 'music knowledge', Jim is at the top.
Jim posts on DiS. He hasn't heard of a lot of the music everyone talks about, although he is interested in learning about it. In this social hierarchy of taste, Jim is much lower down.
So, therefore, 'taste' is always relative, depending on the context of the social grouping, and is created by members of a particular group.
Does this make sense? I hope so!
Jim = Prole.
I've figured it out haven't I?
'Jim' sounds like a right cunt.
lets get him!!
I knew my example would get this reaction. Silly people. But it makes sense, eh?
for DiS !
relativity says there is no absolute measure of any speed, time, space, mass, energy, blah blah. i'd;ve thought thisn should link to music.
anyway, while we're discussing how crap westlife are, on their forum they're busy saying "hmm, swiss cheese is quite nice."
and I've wasted 1130 posts on this shite?
Go now !
The fans will probably appreciate your myspace tunes as well.