It's simple: not everyone likes the same kind of music. No one genre is universally popular.
Why do I absolutely loathe rock music? Because it's a dull and redundant form of music that severely lacks variety, and yet so many practitioners act like rock is dynamic. It's not at all. It's a very needy and repetitive genre. It runs on a narrow road, and it will never thrive much further than it has because of its overdependence on a specific instrument. That's how I'll always feel about it.
This argument could probably be turned on pop with synthesizer in place of guitar.
It's simple: not everyone likes the same kind of music. No one genre is universally popular.
Why do I absolutely loathe rock music? Because it's a dull and redundant form of music that severely lacks variety, and yet so many practitioners act like rock is dynamic. It's not at all. It's a very needy and repetitive genre. It runs on a narrow road, and it will never thrive much further than it has because of its overdependence on a specific instrument. That's how I'll always feel about it.
This argument could probably be turned on pop with synthesizer in place of guitar.
>>>Implying that pop music is dependent on a synthesizer to define its sound.
It's simple: not everyone likes the same kind of music. No one genre is universally popular.
Why do I absolutely loathe rock music? Because it's a dull and redundant form of music that severely lacks variety, and yet so many practitioners act like rock is dynamic. It's not at all. It's a very needy and repetitive genre. It runs on a narrow road, and it will never thrive much further than it has because of its overdependence on a specific instrument. That's how I'll always feel about it.
This argument could probably be turned on pop with synthesizer in place of guitar.
>>>Implying that pop music is dependent on a synthesizer to define its sound.
Quote:
overdependence on a specific instrument
This is the part I'm talking about. If rock abhorrently overuses guitar (which it does), then pop overdoses on synthesizers (not always bad thing). If you deny this, you're full of it. Your argument goes both ways, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. Most pop uses a ton of synth, as well as electronically produced drums or synthesized vocal effects, and most rock artists can't figure out how to play anything except guitar. Granted, synthesizer is an extremely diverse instrument and is capable of way more than guitar ever will be, but it gets obnoxious when music uses an extreme amount of synth.
I like pop that uses noticeable guitar mixed in with the synth.
And rock with prominent synth lines.
long story short too much of either instrument sucks
It's simple: not everyone likes the same kind of music. No one genre is universally popular.
Why do I absolutely loathe rock music? Because it's a dull and redundant form of music that severely lacks variety, and yet so many practitioners act like rock is dynamic. It's not at all. It's a very needy and repetitive genre. It runs on a narrow road, and it will never thrive much further than it has because of its overdependence on a specific instrument. That's how I'll always feel about it.
This argument could probably be turned on pop with synthesizer in place of guitar.
>>>Implying that pop music is dependent on a synthesizer to define its sound.
Quote:
overdependence on a specific instrument
This is the part I'm talking about. If rock abhorrently overuses guitar (which it does), then pop overdoses on synthesizers (not always bad thing). If you deny this, you're full of it. Your argument goes both ways, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. Most pop uses a ton of synth, as well as electronically produced drums or synthesized vocal effects, and most rock artists can't figure out how to play anything except guitar. Granted, synthesizer is an extremely diverse instrument and is capable of way more than guitar ever will be, but it gets obnoxious when music uses an extreme amount of synth.
I like pop that uses noticeable guitar mixed in with the synth.
And rock with prominent synth lines.
long story short too much of either instrument sucks
Nothing I'm saying is difficult to understand. I will put it as simply as possible: rock needs a guitar in order to define its sound. Pop does not need a synthesizer in order to be pop. Rock is almost entirely inflexible because its reliant on an instrument that can only do but so much with its sound.
Pop music does use a lot of synthesizers, but what does that have to do with its overall flexibility. I'm speaking of the genre as a whole, rather than certain individuals who exclude themselves to a specific sound. Pop still doesn't have to use it to solidify its sound, and I could argue that its still able to produce a greater variety of sounds than a guitar. If a guitar could do more than it currently does, then it wouldn't be so much of a problem.
Nothing I'm saying is difficult to understand. I will put it as simply as possible: rock needs a guitar in order to define its sound. Pop does not need a synthesizer in order to be pop. Rock is almost entirely inflexible because its reliant on an instrument that can only do but so much with its sound.
Pop music does use a lot of synthesizers, but what does that have to do with its overall flexibility. I'm speaking of the genre as a whole, rather than certain individuals who exclude themselves to a specific sound. Pop still doesn't have to use it to solidify its sound, and I could argue that its still able to produce a greater variety of sounds than a guitar. If a guitar could do more than it currently does, then it wouldn't be so much of a problem.
I stated the bolded part in my post. Synth can in general do more than guitar.
So the guitar is limited, we both agree on that. But you're saying that because of this all rock bands sound the same?
Plenty of rock bands don't even use guitar and are still considered rock but w/e
The people i ran into that dont like rock love rap. That is the problem.
I don't like rock, and I don't listen to hip hop.
Where is your god now?
in Heaven where he always is.
Which is why you specifically chose a Bible verse in which Jesus is not mentioned in that specific translation, while in every other translation he is?
"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." - Traditional KJV
"I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me." - 21st Century KJV
"I have strength for all things in Christ Who empowers me." - Amplified Bible
"Christ gives me the strength to face anything." - Contemporary English Version
"I can do all things because Christ gives me the strength." - New Life Version
You have plenty of other versions to use that gives the proper credit, but with your version, who is "him"? Joe Pesci? Al Pacino? Bill Gates? Bob the Builder? Well, I suppose Bob the Builder could work, because he can fix it.
Honestly only a moron would think it were any of those you suggested.
The people i ran into that dont like rock love rap. That is the problem.
I don't like rock, and I don't listen to hip hop.
Where is your god now?
in Heaven where he always is.
Which is why you specifically chose a Bible verse in which Jesus is not mentioned in that specific translation, while in every other translation he is?
"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." - Traditional KJV
"I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me." - 21st Century KJV
"I have strength for all things in Christ Who empowers me." - Amplified Bible
"Christ gives me the strength to face anything." - Contemporary English Version
"I can do all things because Christ gives me the strength." - New Life Version
You have plenty of other versions to use that gives the proper credit, but with your version, who is "him"? Joe Pesci? Al Pacino? Bill Gates? Bob the Builder? Well, I suppose Bob the Builder could work, because he can fix it.
Honestly only a moron would think it were any of those you suggested.
George Carlin prayed to Joe Pesci, so that would be a reasonable guess.
The people i ran into that dont like rock love rap. That is the problem.
I don't like rock, and I don't listen to hip hop.
Where is your god now?
in Heaven where he always is.
Which is why you specifically chose a Bible verse in which Jesus is not mentioned in that specific translation, while in every other translation he is?
"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." - Traditional KJV
"I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me." - 21st Century KJV
"I have strength for all things in Christ Who empowers me." - Amplified Bible
"Christ gives me the strength to face anything." - Contemporary English Version
"I can do all things because Christ gives me the strength." - New Life Version
You have plenty of other versions to use that gives the proper credit, but with your version, who is "him"? Joe Pesci? Al Pacino? Bill Gates? Bob the Builder? Well, I suppose Bob the Builder could work, because he can fix it.
Honestly only a moron would think it were any of those you suggested.
George Carlin prayed to Joe Pesci, so that would be a reasonable guess.
Honestly, I've moved away from it a little bit; same goes for behavioral patterns like being antagonistic for the sake of it. Conversational terrorism got boring.