popular music just as good as popular fastfood bars
popular music just as good as popular fastfood bars
This video seems at first glance sympathetic because its critcising Taylor Swift but lo and behold its made by the enemy. He is using swift as a punchingbag to discredit mainstream music. He is trying to lure you in so that you will listen to crappy underground music like metal,punk or indierock and we are gonna expose that. This guy echo chamberlain has a name that goes well with what he is doing because he is just echoing what others are saying. His voice sounds a bit AI generated and he probably is AI which explains the inpersonal style of this video which is just as bland as taylor swifts music. The whole way this video is edited is hugely frustrating with irritating snippets of movie popping up all the time. If you want to know what i meant with memes being annoying just watch this guys video and you know what i mean. This guy wants you to believe Taylor Swift is what huge selling music is all about and that only bands that that play to three men and a dog are good. Well let me tell you that a few months ago i was walking in a bookstore and there was this book called '100 best selling albums of the 80s'. Do you know what the second best selling album was after thriller by michael jackson. ACDC's Back in Black. Yes that rock classic is the second best selling album of the 1980s. Another classic rock record that was in it was Blizzard Of Oz the debut album of Ozzy Osbourne. How on of can mainstream music be bad of such great music sold so much. It also contains records by ZZ Top, Journey, Prince, Van Halen etc. so why he gets the idea that famous music is bad is a mystery. I still think he gives taylor swift to much credit by saying that her lyrics are good and she has an interesting image. I personally find her lyrics just as bad as her music and imagewise she is no different than all the other bland singeresses like Adele, Lady Gaga, Myley Cyrus, Billy Eillish. Fuck em all they are just awfull
One of the best ways to tell if somebody is a phony if they dont like Mcdonalds. This guy makes the dreaded mcdonalds is bad comment. Clearly people like him think thats something incredibly clever to say but shows how unoriginal they are. The type of people that think they are smart if they talk about the 'meaning of life' or something pretentious like that. Which actually shows that they are shallow because saying that you want to talk about the meaning of life to show how much of deep thinker you is such a cliche thing to say. The type of thing somebody who is just pretending to sound smart would say. Its the same way people hating mcdonalds think they sound smart but sound quite stupid because mcdonalds food tastes delicious. Also if you dont like mcdonalds you are a communist fair and simple. People that hate mcdonalds dont hate it because it tastes bad they hate it for some bullshit anti-corperate reason. The predictable 'capitalism is bad thinking'. Joe Mccarthy would be rolling in his grave if he heard the current batch of musicreviewers. Comparing taylor swift to macdonalds is an insult to macdonalds. Taylor swift is definitely an example of something popular thats bad but macdonalds surely aint. I think a guy like this would rather be eating insects thats more up his alley. But you can hear that he is an ignorant person because he uses the word misogny. Everyone that uses shame language like racism, misogyny, antisemetism,homophobia is just trying to deflect justified criticism against a certain group of people. Whats this with not liking things because its mediocre. Taylor Swift is not mediocre its full on bad. Mediocre is somebody like Robbie Williams and i rather hear him than Swift.
A perfect example whats wrong with this 'popular music is bad' syndrome is this guy. Serge Droban. This guy is just an idiot and i dont mind calling him an idiot because he consideres people who like taylor swift idiots which is a bit hypocritical because there are no bigger idiots in music than metalfans. This video has the title 'modern music is designed for idiots' which is appropiate because metal is modern music so he is admitting metalheads are idiots. Bravo thank you for making my point for me. So we have another case of shallow underground music reacting against shallow popular music. And ofcourse he rehashes the whole mcdonalds is bad stuff again because being ignorant and repeating what other people say is exactly what we can expect from metalheads. So he actually eats at mcdonalds regularly yet claims to hate the food. I dont know about you but if i do not like the food of a certain restaurant im definately not going to eat there. So he actually does like it but just claims to hate the stuff because than he would be like the normal people that eat there and you cant do that of your are part of the underground. You would be just like all those taylor swift fans. It only makes sense that a shallow metalhead like this does not like macdonalds because his similarly shallow friends say that macdonalds is bad even though it actually tastes really good but his friends would hate him for it. That would be too mainstream and like you'd expect the mainstream is right.
The food equivalant of metal would be if you would squash a load spiders put them in a frying pan urinate on it and then finish it of with a healthy dose of water coming freshly from the sewer pipe of an oil refinary thats what metal would taste like. What would you rather have mcdonalds or squashed spiders ofcourse you go for mcdonalds. The fact that he does something predictable like hating mcdonalds shows that he just follows the herd. Metalheads and all those other lunkheaded members of subcultures are all incapable of independent thought. Then he also complains about popmusic being to repetative. That there doing the same thing all the time which describes metal perfectly. At least they have things like melody or songstructure. Metal despite having the same issues as the popmusic that he hates does not even have those things. It has no melody, no groove, no songstructure, the playing is shitty, the lyrics are just plain stupid. Its just a big piece of nothing. Musical equivalant of horse manure. Than he uses Led Zeppelin and the Beatles as examples of what good music should be which only proves how good popular music is because they are two of the most famous bands there are more famous than all the max martin aided popacts out there. The beatles and zeppelin are the musical version of macdonalds its popular and it tastes really good. He just like a lot of other metallosers should stop mentioning classical music. Its odd that such simpletons claim to like sophisticated composers like Liszt or Rachmaninov. Its an insult that they even mention those names because classical music is probably the highest from of music there is and metal one of the lowest. So that does not compute. So to round it of modern popular music does suck but so does unknown music. If music is shit in the charts its shit in the underground. Powermetal sucks signing out for ya. Exposing the crap that gets made in the underground. Lets go to the mcdonalds and have a tasty big mac
how the critics guilttrip you
how the critics guilttrip you
You would think it would be the critics job to make you excited to listen to music. That they generate interest in young people to listen to all those great records so that they maybe will be motivated to start making music themselves. The reality is that critics tend to scare people away from listening to music than that they encourage them to like it. If you show your enjoyment for a certain band and get pleasure from that these killjoys will do everything to crush that enthousiasm. Dont you dare to show your praise for a band that does not get the blessing from these guys because they will directly quell such spontanious reactions. If you think that the first witchfynde album is a special record or that Kansas actually made really special songs they will put end to that. Whats definately not allowed to say is that something is original or innovative. They will compare it with something that superficially resembles it and say 'see they make the same music' even though levelheaded people can see that its different sounding. If they say that Kiss sounds like say Led Zeppelin than the more knowledgable person can clearly hear that its not true because the vocals, guitarriffs and songstructures clearly are very different. You just know that they are trying to ruin the good name of such a band. It reminds me of childish people who use the word 'ripoff' about every band they know. They probably think they are cool sounding but they are just slagging of the bands with all the damage that ensues. But the more insecure among us will be initimidated by these kind of guys and will not dare to give their opinion or worse they start quoting what these guys are saying so that their bullshit will be repeated. I am very much a selfassured person so its time to counter this.
Then we arrived at mister Christopher West. He is a good example of a condescending artcritic with his cumbersome jabber. This is about paintings not music but the point is the same. That art isnt about making a nice painting but you have to meat impossible high standards to be sattisfied. You notice this with the subject that he is talking about namely that in the tennies because of the fake bankcrisis of 2008 that people started making bad art so bussinesmen could make a profit of that or something like that. He says that the paintings they make are no different than those of the past but i can allready see that the painting at 5:24 is not the same as those of Jackson Pollock. He painted in dribbles while this guy is painting in dots whats clearly different which ironically shows that he has done something new. That shows that Wests statement that there is no progress made is false. Zombieart he calls it. To some degree he is right about that there paintings look ugly but abstract art allways looked like that just people randomly throwing paint on the canvas. He tries to put a 'money is the root of all evil' spin on to it but thats just anti-capitalist bullshit. You dont need sleazy bussinesmen for that the artists themselves with their poor taste will do that. There is also something called zombie jounalism. Mr West is perfect example of the but also the bloke of the newyork times belongs in that catagory. He is clearly a gatekeeper that must protect the artworld from all these philistines with their independent opinion. They are clearly all hand in glove with each other.
The gatekeeper mentality also comes through when he tries to feed us all those artmovements onto us. All the movements that end with an -ism. Like impresionism, cubism, postmodernism, surealism etc. They are arbitrary catagories to put you into a striaghtjacket. Notice how he says at 5:33 'these paintings are not made because of arthistory but for the artmarket' whats a strange thing to say. Not art itself is important but arthistory. He is basically saying 'you should stick to the rules we have layed for to you and dont think about leaving the framework we have placed you in'. Forget about arthistory and al the rubbish genres that go along with that. There just as useless as the genres in popmusic. The normal history that they teach you at school is allready quite shaky let alone arthistory. You can see that he's trying to shove that avantgarde thinking onto us. Just doing something slightly different is not good enough you must differ completely from the norm to do something that is new. You can see this when he uses a painting that consists of dots as a work that is innovative or a toilet or cans of soup. Only then can you say that your being original. If you paint a pretty looking forrest or a bunch of zebras thats oldfashioned your just being corny. This is not being 'somewhat innovative' thats being all out weird. You can be a lot less weird and still make something thats new and fresh. This is what i call the originality armsrace. They are all constantly trying to one up each other in how original they can be.
You see this avantgarde mentality show up in popmusic. An obvious example is Frank Zappa who is often presented as somebody 'thats original'. If you are not like him you are just making predictable music. This is absurd because frank zappa doesnt just make original music his music is batshit crazy. All those socalled normal groups like Foreigner, Gillan, Ratt, Soundgarden are all innovative bands. Not because they are weird but because they have their own style, Recognizabilty that is what its all about. Something that a stooge like Christopher West does not seem to understand. For him originalty is a sort of quest where you constantly have to push bounderies otherwise "its not going to be new". What allways leads to these desperate gimmicks to grab your attention that come over as more annoying than praiseworthy. Its like saying that Jethro Tull is only original because they use a flute something thats unusual in rockmusic. But thats not what makes Tull special. They sound unique because they have a destinctive JT sound. That they use a flute is just an extention of there originalty. Its like with Kansas. If you would take away the violin it will still sound like kansas. The violin just gives their music a little bit more character. Its actually in contrary to what all those moaners say really easy to be original. You do not need to push bounderies to be unique. You can be innovative in more subtle ways. A good example are the singers of Rainbow. All three singers have a unique way of singing who sound very different from each other which gives rainbow a special sound even though its all ritchie blackmores guitar. So watch out for these avantgarde types they will do everything to ruin your pride in music so that you become just as insecure as them.