Does Kids Bop suck...

LinkManDX · #41

^ I might be wrong, but here's three: Queen, Pink Floyd, and Led Zepplin.

YouTube · #42

[QUOTE=LinkManDX]^ I might be wrong, but here's three: Queen, Pink Floyd, and Led Zepplin.[/QUOTE]
You might be right. And They Might Be Giants. And the White Stripes. And the Who. And Frank-flipping-Zappa. And, even though you won't believe me, the Monkees. And Bob Dylan, without whom the Beatles probably never would have become as innovative as they were. And the assorted guitar gods Hendrix, Clapton, Santana, et cet.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

mushroom · #43

Queen

Pure cheese.

Pink Floyd

Aside from some innovations in production, nothing special.

Led Zepplin

I've seen too many car commercials to be able to take them seriously. That's not exactly fair, but still.

They Might Be Giants

Fun to listen to, but that's it, really.

the White Stripes

Granted, they're catchy as hell, but the whole lo-fi gimmick got stale pretty quickly.

Frank-flipping-Zappa

I'm in full agreement on this one.

the assorted guitar gods Hendrix, Clapton, Santana

The quality of music shouldn't be judged by the skill of the performer, but by the skill of the composer. There's too much hero worship in rock; too much emphasis on the shallow. So what if someone can perform a really badass guitar solo if it just amounts to the same song being written over and over again?

I don't know, I guess the whole guitar/bass/drums/vocals aesthetic just got boring for me.

YouTube · #44

Fun to listen to, but that's it, really.

As Dylan once put it, "Listen to the words, man!"
Besides that, they've got some of the most innovative arrangements I've ever heard.

The quality of music shouldn't be judged by the skill of the performer, but by the skill of the composer. There's too much hero worship in rock; too much emphasis on the shallow. So what if someone can perform a really badass guitar solo if it just amounts to the same song being written over and over again?

I agree about the hero worship, but those awesome guitar solos usually are composed by the performer. And I'll tell you this straight up, you're gonna like someone like George Harrison playing "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" a lot better than someone like me playing "Ode to Joy," because I'm a terrible guitarist; great songs suffer if they're not played by great musicians.

I don't know, I guess the whole guitar/bass/drums/vocals aesthetic just got boring for me.

A) Again, I refer you to TMBG.
B) But the whole synth beat/sample/vocals aesthetic didn't?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

mushroom · #45

I agree about the hero worship, but those awesome guitar solos usually are composed by the performer.

I think you missed my point; I meant there is too much emphasis on the performer's ability to play badass guitar solos when badass guitar solos don't really make a good composition.

But the whole synth beat/sample/vocals aesthetic didn't?

I just posted that track because I thought it was really catchy. It's essentially pop music compared to what I usually listen to.

YouTube · #46

They're creating beautiful music; how is that not good composition? Go listen to some jazz, right now. Not elevator muzak, either, but real jazz.

My point was that saying the only rock aesthetic is guitar/bass/drum/voice is like saying the only rap aesthetic is synth beat/sample/voice.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

mushroom · #47

They're creating beautiful music; how is that not good composition? Go listen to some jazz, right now. Not elevator muzak, either, but real jazz.

Composition relies on how well all the elements of a piece come together. Improvisation works well in jazz (which I have plenty of, thanks) because jazz tracks are usually extremely long, so it has time to build and make some kind of impact rather than just jumping from a chorus to a bridge. Dropping a solo after the chorus is too jarring a change for something as structured as rock.

My point was that saying the only rock aesthetic is guitar/bass/drum/voice is like saying the only rap aesthetic is synth beat/sample/voice.

That was a generalization, there definitely can be other elements. However, rock still has a specific sound, and it's not really a sound I can get excited over anymore.

Maximum Spider · #48

britney spears. ive said all i need to say.

Lurch1982 · #49

I'd rather any kids I had look at this than kids bop:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGnYw-OuCnI[/video]

Oh and to the dumb kid who doesn't think Pink Floyd or Zepp are innovative or influential: they were pioneers and in the 30 or so years since they put out their albums, they've been ripped off by every stem of rock and even hip hop. Same goes for Sabbath. It may sound cheesy and overplayed NOW, but it wasn't then and has since influenced almost every genre of modern music.

Valigarmander · #50

A lot of music really sucks. And sometimes, people like to make it even worse in the hopes that someone might fall for it. Thus, money is made.

YouTube · #51

Composition relies on how well all the elements of a piece come together. Improvisation works well in jazz (which I have plenty of, thanks) because jazz tracks are usually extremely long, so it has time to build and make some kind of impact rather than just jumping from a chorus to a bridge. Dropping a solo after the chorus is too jarring a change for something as structured as rock.

Well, it just seems to me like we have different thresholds of what "jars" us; I've rarely been shocked by sudden changes.
But then again, Frank-flipping-Zappa and the other goofball rockers might have something to do with that. I mean, I listen to the Monkees, for Pete's sake; there you have soul-pop followed by country-rock followed by chanting followed by raw psychedelia all in one album, so I might just be extra difficult to jar.
Don't try to force structure onto rock, man; the structures get broken or tossed out or restructured all the time.

Now that I think about it, though, why was composition even brought up? Your original comment was about innovation. Those guitarists were extremely innovative.

However, rock still has a specific sound, and it's not really a sound I can get excited over anymore.

'Cause the Polyphonic Spree sounds oh-so-similar to Metallica.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

mushroom · #52

Oh and to the dumb kid who doesn't think Pink Floyd or Zepp are innovative or influential: they were pioneers and in the 30 or so years since they put out their albums, they've been ripped off by every stem of rock and even hip hop. Same goes for Sabbath. It may sound cheesy and overplayed NOW, but it wasn't then and has since influenced almost every genre of modern music.

If it wasn't cheesy then, then it was a fad. If they can create a new style, but thirty years later it sounds like sh*t, does it really matter who they influenced?

Now that I think about it, though, why was composition even brought up? Your original comment was about innovation. Those guitarists were extremely innovative.

Yeah, but this is a Kids Bop thread, so I'm not entirely sure that this argument demands cohesiveness. It's not like this is the first time a debate has derailed on VGF.

Lurch1982 · #53

Because that's why today Stairway to Heaven is still considered the best rock song ever, and The Wall is still considered one of the best albums ever. You lose.

mushroom · #54

So what if some f*ckhead DJ at a classic rock station decides it's the greatest album ever? Anyone with a hint of taste and any resistance to nostalgia knows it's a huge hunk of cheese. If you can sincerely listen to The Wall (or hell, any Pink Floyd) right now, and then tell me with a straight face it's one of the best albums ever, then you have no taste.

Valigarmander · #55

The Wall = Win

Lurch1982 · #56

Oh you're right, songs and albums that are universally praised by critics are obviously garbage.

GTFO, you have no point to stand on.

ZeldaGirl · #57

I really think this debate is unnecessary. Let's go back to bashing Kids Bop, k thx.

Valigarmander · #58

Yeah, what she said.

Kids Bop sucks.