PDA

View Full Version : popular "music" is dead to me



mynamewastaken
05-23-2009, 06:45 PM
"i don't know you. You don't know me. Let's go have sex in a bar!"


wtf?

Mrfreak
05-24-2009, 03:58 AM
People listen to shit today. why they don't want to listen rock music? (such as offspring?:) ) I think that it is caused by this that disco and pop music is easy to listen it. we don't need to think while we listening it.

ad8
05-24-2009, 06:00 AM
I guess many people listen to popular music because they don't like music itself but want to have something "cool" running in the background.

Grimesy da Offspringfan
05-24-2009, 06:58 AM
those people don't care about the music itself...Papa Roach lead singer Jacoby said in an interview that he heard one of these popular hollywood whores talking about her new record, and she said "ooh i like this song, because i wrote some of it's lyrics"...So Jacoby said those people are not artist, more like entertainers, and rock bands paint masterpieces, while the people in the popular culture music just fingerpaint

T-6005
05-24-2009, 09:57 AM
At the same time, it never ceases to amaze me that people who listen almost exclusively to rock music feel the right to be elitist.

Everybody wants to feel good about the music they listen to - why get in the way of that? I could lord it over y'alls on the fact that right now I'm listening to Vivaldi while you're all listening to "simplistic" rock songs, but what would that accomplish? It just takes everything out of context to try and judge people. I mean, I enjoy Vivaldi tremendously, but don't listen to it all that often, and thus I don't expect people to judge me on what they see me listen to once or twice - or even what I'm seen listening to on a regular basis, because in the end what right do you have to judge other people's musical tastes?

You're taking the position that the music you like is automatically good, when nothing is further from the truth. So before you go bashing millions of other people's taste, why don't you take a look at your own?

coke_a_holic
05-24-2009, 10:41 AM
You have no idea how much self-restraint I'm exhibiting right now.

mip_04
05-24-2009, 10:43 AM
People listen to shit today. why they don't want to listen rock music? (such as offspring?:) ) I think that it is caused by this that disco and pop music is easy to listen it. we don't need to think while we listening it.

Yeah!!! I felt a different child, cause when I was 7/8/9 I listened to rock music, and my fellows listened to stupid popular music... They made me feel different cause I was one, and they was many... But, I didn't care, I didn't and I don't like popular music and I like being as I am...

ad8
05-24-2009, 10:46 AM
At the same time, it never ceases to amaze me that people who listen almost exclusively to rock music feel the right to be elitist.

Everybody wants to feel good about the music they listen to - why get in the way of that? I could lord it over y'alls on the fact that right now I'm listening to Vivaldi while you're all listening to "simplistic" rock songs, but what would that accomplish? It just takes everything out of context to try and judge people. I mean, I enjoy Vivaldi tremendously, but don't listen to it all that often, and thus I don't expect people to judge me on what they see me listen to once or twice - or even what I'm seen listening to on a regular basis, because in the end what right do you have to judge other people's musical tastes?

You're taking the position that the music you like is automatically good, when nothing is further from the truth. So before you go bashing millions of other people's taste, why don't you take a look at your own?
I guess that wasn't exactly the point of this thread. I think the thread creator was trying to express his anger about people who are not
loving music but just listening to it 'cause everyone does.
But yeah, generally you are right. Even if those people hate music and just do it because everyone else does, we can't really say anything against it as we listen to music that expresses the "Do whatever the fuck you want"-opinion.

coke_a_holic
05-24-2009, 10:46 AM
No, really, you guys have absolutely no idea.

bighead384
05-24-2009, 10:54 AM
I've seen that rockers who listen to more underground/alternative stuff can be pretentious, but after growing up and going to a giant "MTV highschool", I find myself much more annoyed by people who listen to pop music exclusively than a few pretentious indie rockers. In my experience, these "pop zombies" are incredibly judgmental about people who listen to any kind of alternative music. It's like to them, you're automatically "different" if you listen to that kind of music or wear a rock band t-shirt. These people basically just listen to whatever is forced down their throats by the mainstream media, and then they have the audacity to be so judgmental about what other people listen to. That's ridiculous.

Thomas
05-24-2009, 12:01 PM
you have no idea how much self-restraint i'm exhibiting right now.


no, really, you guys have absolutely no idea.

+100000000

bighead384
05-24-2009, 12:35 PM
Why is it okay to bash pretentious indie/alternative rockers, but it's not okay to bash the type of people who listen to whatever is forced down their throat by mainstream media and judge people who listen to other music? It's especially mind boggling to me because I've seen the latter dish out a lot more judgment than the former, especially in the type of town I grew up in.

I mean, I get that the point is just not to judge people over music to begin with, but why is one group being overlooked so much compared to the other? What is the goal with that? I've seen that a lot in this forum over time.

T-6005
05-24-2009, 12:47 PM
Why is it okay to bash pretentious indie/alternative rockers, but it's not okay to bash the type of people who listen to whatever is forced down their throat by mainstream media and judge people who listen to other music? It's especially mind boggling to me because I've seen the latter dish out a lot more judgment than the former, especially in the type of town I grew up in.

I mean, I get that the point is just not to judge people over music to begin with, but why is one group being overlooked so much compared to the other? What is the goal with that? I've seen that a lot in this forum over time.

I don't know where you've seen it, especially considering the nature of the forum.

And it isn't acceptable for either party to be bashing other people to begin with. The thing is that people who listen to rock music seem to believe that they live in an edgy cult somewhere on the end of the social sphere, misunderstood and alone but for their superior taste. As much as people might make fun of those kids, people who listen to mainstream music rarely affect an air of superiority where their music choice is concerned.

The kicker, though, is that people who listen to The Offspring act like they hate the "trash that gets played on the radio," as if the bands they listen to are really truly underground in any meaningful way. The way these people act is preachy, it's unfounded, and most of all it's just hypocritical.

bighead384
05-24-2009, 12:58 PM
As much as people might make fun of those kids, people who listen to mainstream music rarely affect an air of superiority where their music choice is concerned.

I just find this so obnoxiously wrong that I don't even know where to begin. I can't help but wonder how different the place you must have grown up is from where I grew up. The people in question that listen to mainstream music may not think their music taste is "superior", but what you aren't realizing is, it's not an issue of musical superiority with them. I find that it's more of a matter of "normal" vs "weird" music for these types of people. So yeah, those kinds of people won't tell you that their taste is "superior"...but they'll tell you you're listening to "fags music" if you play Blink 182. They're still being judgmental, and to me, it doesn't matter whether they make an argument for superiority in music taste or not.

Outerspaceman21
05-24-2009, 01:53 PM
Music is music. Listen to whatever the fuck you want to listen to. There is no complex reasoning to explain why you want to listen to a certain type of music other then you like it.

Free?
05-24-2009, 03:42 PM
Another pop sux thread and another duel of two intellectual opponents who can't just leave it be. Grow up, people, you don't have to explain to each other how things are when both of you are far from the thread-starter's level. Don't over use stereotyping / generalization too, in the end what matters is what each of us think, not the tendencies of majority. I have a feeling that I've seen this discussion for like over 10 times on these boards alone.

Alison
05-24-2009, 04:45 PM
Ok...so basically, people who listen to mainstream music think people who like alternative music are "weird". And people who like alternative music think people who like mainstream music are nonthinking zombies?
:confused:
Also, everyone has different views on whats alternative/mainstream, you can't just group people into these two categories. Who caaaarrreess.

+1 on what Free? said

Hossa
05-24-2009, 06:20 PM
There is no complex reasoning to explain why you want to listen to a certain type of music other then you like it.
THERE IS. But most people aren't smart enough to tackle the problem and put it into words.

Bipolar Bear
05-24-2009, 06:22 PM
Oh look at that kid, he's listening to music for entertainment. What a faggot.

Llamas
05-24-2009, 07:35 PM
those people don't care about the music itself...Papa Roach lead singer Jacoby said in an interview that he heard one of these popular hollywood whores talking about her new record, and she said "ooh i like this song, because i wrote some of it's lyrics"...So Jacoby said those people are not artist, more like entertainers, and rock bands paint masterpieces, while the people in the popular culture music just fingerpaint

omg. EL OH EL at the singer of Papa Roach preaching about what makes a person an artist and being elitist. Sorry, but Jacoby is far from what I consider an artist.


You have no idea how much self-restraint I'm exhibiting right now.

Seriously.

Just to touch on a few things:

- The attempted dichotomy of "pop" versus "rock" is ridiculous. So much music fits into both. And most rock is also pop (especially stuff like Blink 182 and Papa Roach).

- Going off of what T said, the rock most people here are bragging about liking is mindless dribble compared to a TON of music out there. The whole "people listen to pop music because they don't have to think" argument makes me want to cry. Really? Original Prankster requires more thought than a Dexter Gordon song? Come on.

- People judge each other's musical tastes all across the board. It's so fucking trite to sit here and bitch about it. Taste is broad, and if it's not, you suck. People used to go on all the time here about how bad my taste in music is... and then they started to realize they had no idea what my taste was; they were just basing it off a few bands I'd mentioned. I never judge people's tastes in music, but I find it obscenely annoying when someone gets in my face cause I like the new Rhianna song... or I sing along to a Justin Timberlake song... sorry, I can't help what I like, and I'm not going to force myself NOT to like it so you'll be happy.

bighead384
05-24-2009, 08:01 PM
Sorry, but Jacoby is far from what I consider an artist.


This is just what I'm talking about. Why? Why isn't Jacoby an artist? Now if you say that about about a pop or pop-rap musician on these forums, people will go against you and tell you how you wrongly think you're some edgy nonconformist. Why is it so important to people on these forums single out pretentious rockers, but not closed minded pop zombies? Both parties are judgmental in their own way. I went to a giant "MTV high school" and I've seen so much more judgmental bullshit from people who listen to pop and pop-rap. I would imagine it's pretty similar anywhere in America for the most part. So why single out the rockers? What is your motivation? What is in for you to constantly do this?

Llamas
05-24-2009, 08:10 PM
This is just what I'm talking about. Why? Why isn't Jacoby an artist? Now if you say that about about a pop or rap musician on these forums, people will go against you and tell you how you wrongly think you're some edgy nonconformist. Why is it so important to people on these forums single out pretentious rockers, but not closed minded pop zombies? I went to a giant "MTV high school" and I've seen so much more judgmental bullshit from people who listen to pop and pop-rap. I would imagine it's pretty similar anywhere in America for the most part. So why single out the rockers? What is your motivation? What is in for you to constantly do this?

I'm just saying that he is in no position to single anyone out as being an artist or not an artist. I personally don't lump him in with my definition of "artists", but that doesn't mean that I try to preach to everyone who is and isn't an artist like he does.

And I don't think Rhianna is any more of an artist than Jacoby is. I don't single anyone out; I think it's ridiculous overall for ANYONE to try to put him or herself on a pedestal above others musically, which is what people in this thread are doing.

bighead384
05-24-2009, 08:19 PM
I'm just saying that he is in no position to single anyone out as being an artist or not an artist. I personally don't lump him in with my definition of "artists", but that doesn't mean that I try to preach to everyone who is and isn't an artist like he does.

And I don't think Rhianna is any more of an artist than Jacoby is. I don't single anyone out; I think it's ridiculous overall for ANYONE to try to put him or herself on a pedestal above others musically, which is what people in this thread are doing.
I have no problem with what Jacoby said. I think it's a shame that people who don't write the melody or lyrics are dominating the music business.

Llamas
05-24-2009, 08:28 PM
Performance is a MAJOR part of art. People in a rock band are no more of artists than people in a symphony orchestra... yet most orchestral musicians will never once write a song.

bighead384
05-24-2009, 08:34 PM
Performance is a MAJOR part of art.

Ok, but writing the song is more important than performing it.

Llamas
05-24-2009, 09:12 PM
I fully disagree. Improvised music, rap (as in, not rehearsed), etc.. none of that is written; it's all performance. Plus interpretation plays a huge role. Performance is far more important to me than writing.

This is off topic. I'm gonna refrain from going more into this in this thread...

bighead384
05-24-2009, 09:13 PM
I fully disagree. Improvised music, rap (as in, not rehearsed), etc.. none of that is written; it's all performance. Plus interpretation plays a huge role. Performance is far more important to me than writing.

This is off topic. I'm gonna refrain from going more into this in this thread...

Why do you do this?

Ok, fine. Creating the song is more important than performing it. Happy?

nieh
05-24-2009, 09:27 PM
Didn't the Offspring recently have their highest charting single ever?

Jebus
05-25-2009, 02:10 PM
Once I got past high school, I never met anyone who made such a big deal out of music preference. Obviously it still helps with meeting new people, but I never see it as a source of animosity anymore. It could all be summed up to just teens being teens trying to find a group to fit in with. The only reason I could think of why such stupid rivalries exist is that these groups just don't know how to relate to each other. After all, music is the ultimate ice breaker.

Little_Miss_1565
05-25-2009, 07:34 PM
Llamas, just because YOU don't like someone's art doesn't mean they're not an artist. Jayzis.


Oh look at that kid, he's listening to music for entertainment. What a faggot.

Kudos.


Didn't the Offspring recently have their highest charting single ever?

THIS. THE OFFSPRING IS POPULAR MUSIC. If you are so deluded as to think otherwise, I am sad for you.

I listen to a lot of metal. Like, a lot. And not all of it is particularly popular. I love Lamb of God but I happen to think Municipal Waste blew them off the stage on this most recent tour. I also love Britney Spears in a completely non-ironic way and I see no dichotomy in this. I am also a musician. I could not possibly care less about whether or not I am upholding someone's definition of art when I am listening to or creating music. I feel like the people who feel like it's okay to cast aspersions on what others do when it comes to music are sad. Music is music and if you really love music, you don't make statements like people who listen to pop music are mindless drones who can't think for themselves.

Also, "I don't know you you don't know me let's go have sex in a bar" sounds like a great way to spend a Saturday night, amirite uguyz? ;)

bighead384
05-25-2009, 07:46 PM
Music is music and if you really love music, you don't make statements like people who listen to pop music are mindless drones who can't think for themselves.


True, but from my experience, a shitload of the people who basically listen to pop music exclusively are mindless drones who are judgmental assholes that think listening to any kind of alternative/underground music makes you "weird" or "different". I'm not saying everyone is like that, just some of them.

^If it's okay to say shit about pretentious indie/alternative/punk fans, then it's okay to say that. If that's okay, then there's no reason why I should be challenged as some kind of cliche pseudo-nonconformist just for making a statement like the above statement. Unless I'm going out of my way to preach about it.

And again, I wish these generalizations would never come up and people would just like what they like without question, but it just bothers me that when it comes up, you're allowed to diss some of the things alternative fans do, but you get called out on it if you diss some of the things pop fans do, especially since I've seen alternative fans get more shit than pop fans.

JohnnyNemesis
05-25-2009, 07:58 PM
Still, that Papa Roach dude saying anything is pretty funny, considering the fact that he's one of the absolute worst songwriters of all time.

Little_Miss_1565
05-25-2009, 08:04 PM
True, but from my experience, a shitload of the people who basically listen to pop music exclusively are mindless drones who are judgmental assholes that think listening to any kind of alternative/underground music makes you "weird" or "different". I'm not saying everyone is like that, just some of them.

^If it's okay to say shit about pretentious indie/alternative/punk fans, then it's okay to say that. If that's okay, then there's no reason why I should be challenged as some kind of cliche pseudo-nonconformist just for making a statement like the above statement. Unless I'm going out of my way to preach about it.

And again, I wish these generalizations would never come up and people would just like what they like without question, but it just bothers me that you're allowed to diss some of the things alternative fans do, but you get called out on it if you diss some of the things pop fans do, especially since I've seen alternative fans get more shit than pop fans.

Who's saying shit about pretentious indie/alt/punk fans? It's not okay to say shit about the New Pornographers, because that shit is amazing, and don't get me started on Neko Case -- I have the WORST crush on her voice. She is a red fox. No girl, THIS tornado loves YOU. I've endured death threats based on the music I listen to and being punk rock then goth in high school, and I don't think it's okay for anyone to generalize about entire swaths of a music-listening public.

I read a lot of posts on this forum that read like "mindless drones who are judgmental assholes," toeing the line on what someone somewhere thinks is punk rock.

Going back to something you said earlier here, I don't think writing songs is that important for someone to be a musician. Milo wrote very few Descendents songs, as one example.

Llamas
05-25-2009, 10:13 PM
Once I got past high school, I never met anyone who made such a big deal out of music preference. Obviously it still helps with meeting new people, but I never see it as a source of animosity anymore. It could all be summed up to just teens being teens trying to find a group to fit in with. The only reason I could think of why such stupid rivalries exist is that these groups just don't know how to relate to each other. After all, music is the ultimate ice breaker.

So fucking true.


Llamas, just because YOU don't like someone's art doesn't mean they're not an artist. Jayzis.

Uhh, that was pretty much the point I was trying to make. It's all personal perspective. Everyone has a different definition of art, and it's pointless and wrong to try to tell anyone that their definition is wrong.

bighead384
05-25-2009, 10:18 PM
Uhh, that was pretty much the point I was trying to make. It's all personal perspective. Everyone has a different definition of art, and it's pointless and wrong to try to tell anyone that their definition is wrong.

Yeah, but you said he's not even an artist at all. That's a little different from what you're saying here if I understand you correctly. Jacoby Shaddix not an artist at all because you don't like him, yet you're defending people who don't write their own songs as artists?

Bipolar Bear
05-25-2009, 10:28 PM
I think writing your own music is a very important part of being an artist. Isn't that the way that artists communicate their emotions and show their creativity? I'm not saying you can't be an artist without composing, but I have much more respect for those who do.

Thomas
05-25-2009, 10:51 PM
I really don't want to take much of a part in this conversation, but this is really bugging me. Are you guys saying that artists who don't compose their own music or art are less artists than those who do?

I mean, like, look at ANY orchestra, concert band, drum and bugle corps, etc. VERY RARELY do those musicians perform their own compositions, but those are the places to look to find the best musicians in the world. I'll take someone playing a masterpiece written 200 years ago, who has never composed his own music, over kids who write a song a day using the same three chords ANY day.

If I'm misunderstand something, my apologies, but this is the impression I am getting.

XYlophonetreeZ
05-25-2009, 10:55 PM
An individual's right to listen to the type of music he deems worthy is not what concerns me. Anyone who doesn't already know they have that right is an idiot of mondo proportions. Rather, I feel that an individual's right to make fun of whatever type of music he deems worthy is at stake here. Goddamn, if I didn't have terrible music to make fun of, my life would be an empty black hole. I love music because it's the most subjective thing ever. When someone trashes my music tastes, there is absolutely NO REASON to feel bad or even to get angry. Just trash theirs back. It's not a personal attack, however much someone may attempt to make it sound like one. But do so with a grain of salt. And if you don't like popular music, stop getting mad about it and start making fun of it with gusto- you should embrace it- its existence gives you something to trash, which is an important thing to have in life.

There is never, ever, ever a good reason to get angry about music.

Bipolar Bear
05-25-2009, 11:01 PM
I really don't want to take much of a part in this conversation, but this is really bugging me. Are you guys saying that artists who don't compose their own music or art are less artists than those who do?

I mean, like, look at ANY orchestra, concert band, drum and bugle corps, etc. VERY RARELY do those musicians perform their own compositions, but those are the places to look to find the best musicians in the world. I'll take someone playing a masterpiece written 200 years ago, who has never composed his own music, over kids who write a song a day using the same three chords ANY day.

If I'm misunderstand something, my apologies, but this is the impression I am getting.

They're excellent, talented musicians but maybe just lacking in the "creativity" department. I'm not saying that people who compose music are all very good at it, but at least when they do they create something which is their own. I think it's important for an artist (notice that I've used the word artist rather than musician all along) to be original and creative.

bighead384
05-25-2009, 11:02 PM
I really don't want to take much of a part in this conversation, but this is really bugging me. Are you guys saying that artists who don't compose their own music or art are less artists than those who do?

I mean, like, look at ANY orchestra, concert band, drum and bugle corps, etc. VERY RARELY do those musicians perform their own compositions, but those are the places to look to find the best musicians in the world. I'll take someone playing a masterpiece written 200 years ago, who has never composed his own music, over kids who write a song a day using the same three chords ANY day.

If I'm misunderstand something, my apologies, but this is the impression I am getting.
Look, people are going to put people who create music, and people who only perform music, into different categories. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be. They are both artists according to the definition, but music was created for expressing your own emotions. You're not really doing that in a significant way if you don't create your own music. That doesn't mean I don't respect artists that only perform, but I respect artists that create art more.

T-6005
05-25-2009, 11:22 PM
This conversation has gone way off topic, which is that Blink and The Offspring are pop.

Now, on to the more interesting discussion. I think both types of musicians can be artists, those which create and those who interpret. It all depends on how much of yourself you put into what you do, I suppose - would I call a kid in his basement earnestly chugging away at three chords and struggling to put his juvenile feelings into comprehensible lyrics?

Obviously not. But that's only because every art form has multiple levels of complexity and accessibility within it. I wouldn't classify it as "art," but it would be stupid to deny that it's a form of expression which fits into the larger art form known as music, and that it exists somewhere on an artistic spectrum.

Thomas
05-26-2009, 12:23 AM
Look, people are going to put people who create music, and people who only perform music, into different categories. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be. They are both artists according to the definition, but music was created for expressing your own emotions. You're not really doing that in a significant way if you don't create your own music. That doesn't mean I don't respect artists that only perform, but I respect artists that create art more.

I'd have to respectfully disagree. Take myself, for example. I performed a show with the University of Arizona marching band. I didn't write ANY of the music or drill, but I sure as hell expressed myself throughout the entire 13 minute show. I felt an incredibly strong emotional connection to that music. That connection was MUCH stronger than any of the original pieces I have performed before in various settings. Thinking about it now, about half a year since I've performed that music, still changes my mood in an instant.

The same goes with any other artist who performs another composer's music. They take the original piece and interpret it in their own way in order to convey the performer's message. The notes may be exactly the same between two people performing the same piece by another artist, but the message conveyed can be (and most likely will be) extremely different between the two of them.

I don't know if it's me personally, but I definitely have a much stronger emotional connection with music I didn't write than the music I did write.

Outerspaceman21
05-26-2009, 01:46 AM
Jesus, this thread had gone way out of control.

Llama's already said, as did I and many other people. IT'S PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE!!!



I'd have to respectfully disagree. Take myself, for example. I performed a show with the University of Arizona marching band. I didn't write ANY of the music or drill, but I sure as hell expressed myself throughout the entire 13 minute show. I felt an incredibly strong emotional connection to that music. That connection was MUCH stronger than any of the original pieces I have performed before in various settings. Thinking about it now, about half a year since I've performed that music, still changes my mood in an instant.

The same goes with any other artist who performs another composer's music. They take the original piece and interpret it in their own way in order to convey the performer's message. The notes may be exactly the same between two people performing the same piece by another artist, but the message conveyed can be (and most likely will be) extremely different between the two of them.

I don't know if it's me personally, but I definitely have a much stronger emotional connection with music I didn't write than the music I did write.

From one marching band performer to another, I totally agree

Bipolar Bear
05-26-2009, 11:04 AM
Since you guys are actually somewhat of professional musicians, I'll take your word for it. There does seem to be a difference between composing and interpreting in terms of expressing yourself, though. Maybe both do so but the composer expresses himself even more, if you wish.

Thomas
05-26-2009, 11:25 AM
Since you guys are actually somewhat of professional musicians, I'll take your word for it. There does seem to be a difference between composing and interpreting in terms of expressing yourself, though. Maybe both do so but the composer expresses himself even more, if you wish.

Yeah, again, I'd have to disagree. I've written many of my own songs before and they almost always never mean as much to me as when I play music someone else has written.

Llamas
05-26-2009, 11:32 AM
Yeah, but you said he's not even an artist at all. That's a little different from what you're saying here if I understand you correctly.

From my personal perspective of what I consider art, there is a lot of stuff out there that I don't consider art. However, I would never argue that with someone or tell someone that their stuff isn't art.

Llamas
05-26-2009, 11:42 AM
Sorry, double post.

Thomas is dead on. I've written plenty of songs, and they are a nice way to express feelings, but by creating my own interpretation of a song someone else wrote I can express feelings just as well, if not better. I'll be damned if busting out my alto sax and playing some Chailleaux or Heydn didn't get me through terrible depression in high school.

My step father has a collection of hundreds of classical CDs, and when I was a kid, I'd look at his collection and say "This is stupid. He has like 5 of the SAME SYMPHONY. Why would you need that many copies of the same songs?" When I got older, I realized they were the same symphonies performed by different orchestras, and now I am able to appreciate that. I can hear the differences of interpretation among various orchestras, and different feelings are always achieved. I've seen Holst's "The Planets" performed by various symphonies, and it's always a different interpretation.


Now, on to the more interesting discussion. I think both types of musicians can be artists, those which create and those who interpret. It all depends on how much of yourself you put into what you do, I suppose - would I call a kid in his basement earnestly chugging away at three chords and struggling to put his juvenile feelings into comprehensible lyrics?

Obviously not. But that's only because every art form has multiple levels of complexity and accessibility within it. I wouldn't classify it as "art," but it would be stupid to deny that it's a form of expression which fits into the larger art form known as music, and that it exists somewhere on an artistic spectrum.

Yes, exactly what I was trying to say, but put more eloquently.

bd007h
05-26-2009, 11:49 AM
The statement one man's trash is another man's treasure applies to music taste too. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what music is trash and what is "treasure".

Llamas
05-26-2009, 11:56 AM
The statement one man's trash is another man's treasure applies to music taste too. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what music is trash and what is "treasure".

Dude, seriously.

By the way, I listen to fuckin STATIC X. I have all their albums and I love them! But I don't even think I'd ever call them art. I barely even consider them music, haha.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 11:56 AM
But when you create a song, you're using your feelings and emotions to create something that is based entirely off of your own feelings and emotion. That's not the case when you perform somebody elses work.

Llamas
05-26-2009, 12:01 PM
But when you perform someone else's song, you get to connect with someone you've never met by intertwining your own emotions with theirs and creating something completely new. That's not the case when performing your own song. But I don't expect you to understand, since you're not a performer. You should probably take it from people who've written their own music and performed both that and the works of other people, because right now you're just sounding pretty uninformed.

Thomas
05-26-2009, 12:02 PM
But when you create a song, you're using your feelings and emotions to create something that is based entirely off of your own feelings and emotion. That's not the case when you perform somebody elses work.

When I perform somebody else's work, I'm much less concerned about the notes than I am the meaning of the song. Like, when I write a song of my own, I have to make sure that musically speaking, everything makes sense and is cohesive. When I play music composed by someone else, I'm only going to play it if it already has significant meaning to me, whether it was the original composer's intentions or not, and I can focus more on the meaning of the song (to myself personally) than just creating music that I hope the audience may enjoy. In that sense, playing someone else's work actually has more feeling and emotion than playing one of your own songs because you know how much the song means to you before you ever learn it.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 12:11 PM
When I perform somebody else's work, I'm much less concerned about the notes than I am the meaning of the song. Like, when I write a song of my own, I have to make sure that musically speaking, everything makes sense and is cohesive. When I play music composed by someone else, I'm only going to play it if it already has significant meaning to me, whether it was the original composer's intentions or not, and I can focus more on the meaning of the song (to myself personally) than just creating music that I hope the audience may enjoy. In that sense, playing someone else's work actually has more feeling and emotion than playing one of your own songs because you know how much the song means to you before you ever learn it.

All this is is one scenario where playing someone elses music COULD mean more than playing your own thing compared to someone in a symphony orchestra. That really doesn't prove anything. In fact, it's impossible to prove or disprove either side of the argument since you can't get any meaningful statistic. I just thought it was something that everyone understood. Putting your own little twist on an existing song isn't the same as creating something from your emotions.

You talk about some angtsy teen playing three chords of his own stuff compared to someone in a symphony orchestra performing someone elses work. Well what about comparing Stevie Ray Vaughn's work to a pit percussion player in a concert band that plays about 10 notes in one song? These examples can go both ways to suport either idea, so they're pointless.

But I don't expect you to understand, since you're not a performer. You should probably take it from people who've written their own music and performed both that and the works of other people, because right now you're just sounding pretty uninformed.

I'm currently in a cover band and I did marching band for three years.

Thomas
05-26-2009, 12:15 PM
I know it can't be proved either way. The same goes with just about any topic in music. There is no "right answer" to anything in music (unless you are taking a theory exam, in which case there probably is...). I was just bugged by the fact that some people here seem to think that playing someone else's music makes a person any less of an artist...

EDIT: There were several piece I played last year where I only had a few notes, and those pieces still stick out in my mind as being the most significant to me. I played Carl Orff's Carmina Burana last year (in Carnegie Hall, actually, which is a different story unto itself...) and the only part I got was at the end of the (I think it was) 13th movement where there's a huge crescendo and ritardando where all the percussion instruments are playing a long roll. I only played bass drum for that one part of that one movement, but the entire piece still had quite an emotional impact on myself.

Llamas
05-26-2009, 12:19 PM
bighead, you now say you can't argue either way, but just a bit ago you were arguing up and down that creating your own music is definitely the most important part. Backpedaling much?

Bipolar Bear
05-26-2009, 12:22 PM
Okay, maybe for you composing allows you to express your emotions less, but a good composer has much more potential to express himself than a song interpreter. Basically, in a lot of cases interpreting a song can show a great deal of artistic talent, but composing has the potential to be much more if done correctly. ie. in my opinion kurt cobain could have never been such a great artist if he hadn't composed his songs.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 12:22 PM
bighead, you now say you can't argue either way, but just a bit ago you were arguing up and down that creating your own music is definitely the most important part. Backpedaling much?

No, I said you can make up an example to support either idea. And immediately after, I said "I thought it was something that everyone understood", backing my original idea.

And since you're trying to corner me and make me look bad- Let's be real here: your explanation on Jacoby not being an artist doesn't make sense. Whether something makes sense or not has NOTHING to do with whether or not you would "actually say that to someone". Jacoby Shaddix is an artist. Period.

(on some level, I lol at that last statement)

Llamas
05-26-2009, 12:30 PM
EDIT: There were several piece I played last year where I only had a few notes, and those pieces still stick out in my mind as being the most significant to me. I played Carl Orff's Carmina Burana last year (in Carnegie Hall, actually, which is a different story unto itself...) and the only part I got was at the end of the (I think it was) 13th movement where there's a huge crescendo and ritardando where all the percussion instruments are playing a long roll. I only played bass drum for that one part of that one movement, but the entire piece still had quite an emotional impact on myself.

This reminds me of when I played the alto flute part in a flute choir performing Canon in D by Pachelbel. That has always been one of my favorite songs (even though it is massively overused), and my part consisted of playing the same eight half notes over and over for the entire song. Yet every time we performed that piece, I got chills - and I didn't get chills from listening to a recording - only from performing it. Man, that brings back some strong memories.

I have so many stronger memories and feelings from performing songs I didn't write than ones I did. Damn.

Edit:
Let's be real here: your explanation on Jacoby not being an artist doesn't make sense. Whether something makes sense or not has NOTHING to do with whether or not you would "actually say that to someone". Jacoby Shaddix is an artist. Period.
In my opinion, he's not. And I actually like a Papa Roach album (Lovehatetragedy). Get over it.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 12:35 PM
In my opinion, he's not. And I actually like a Papa Roach album (Lovehatetragedy). Get over it.

No, in your opinion, he's an artist that you don't like. That doesn't mean he's "not an artist". Get over it.

IamSam
05-26-2009, 12:46 PM
Boom! Roasted! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXIYBlRuEuI)

Little_Miss_1565
05-26-2009, 12:47 PM
But when you create a song, you're using your feelings and emotions to create something that is based entirely off of your own feelings and emotion. That's not the case when you perform somebody elses work.

I think there is more emotional content in my shower performances of "This Tornado Loves You" by Neko Case than when Motley Crue wrote "Kickstart My Heart." It's what you put into it, not what you do to create the thing itself.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 12:52 PM
There are some exceptions, but what I'm saying is generally true. Also, I second what Bipolar Bear said, original artists have more potential to express themselves through original music created based entirely off their emotions.

Llamas
05-26-2009, 12:54 PM
Bighead, you fail to accept that there is more than one definition, and that definitions are not absolute.

Here are a few definitions for you:

-somebody who does something skillfully and creatively

-somebody who is very good at a particular thing, especially something cunning

-one skilled or versed in learned arts

-one who professes and practices an imaginative art

-a skilled performer

Look at that. Look at how subjective it is. I don't believe Jacoby fits into most of those definitions. In my personal view of what an artist is, he's not one. And I'm seriously done with this retarded argument about Jacoby because 1) it's derailing the thread, 2) it's retarded and going around in circles, 3) I don't really give a fuck enough to keep talking about it.

Bipolar Bear
05-26-2009, 12:59 PM
Bighead, you fail to accept that there is more than one definition, and that definitions are not absolute.

Here are a few definitions for you:

-somebody who does something skillfully and creatively

-somebody who is very good at a particular thing, especially something cunning

-one skilled or versed in learned arts

-one who professes and practices an imaginative art

-a skilled performer

Look at that. Look at how subjective it is. I don't believe Jacoby fits into most of those definitions. In my personal view of what an artist is, he's not one. And I'm seriously done with this retarded argument about Jacoby because 1) it's derailing the thread, 2) it's retarded and going around in circles, 3) I don't really give a fuck enough to keep talking about it.

Yes to some extent, except that resorting to the "everything is relative/an opinion" to end an argument is kind of weak and boring. Conversations would never happen.

"Why do you punch little babies, that's wrong!"
"No, I don't want to argue with you, that's only your opinion"

I think we've come to a point where we can all accept that interprets are artists too, and in a lot of cases better than composers, but composers have a greater artistic potential. Does that make sense?

bighead384
05-26-2009, 01:06 PM
ilovellamas is allowed to pick and choose when it comes to Jacoby even being an artist, but I'm not allowed to think that original artists create more expressive art than someone who performs someone elses work. Why?

Thomas
05-26-2009, 01:09 PM
This reminds me of when I played the alto flute part in a flute choir performing Canon in D by Pachelbel. That has always been one of my favorite songs (even though it is massively overused), and my part consisted of playing the same eight half notes over and over for the entire song. Yet every time we performed that piece, I got chills - and I didn't get chills from listening to a recording - only from performing it. Man, that brings back some strong memories.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
:p





I think we've come to a point where we can all accept that interprets are artists too, and in a lot of cases better than composers, but composers have a greater artistic potential. Does that make sense?

Valid point. But just for shits and giggles, riddle me this: Wouldn't the added challenge of making someone else's work your own require more creativity than creating an original piece where no matter what you do, it's going to be original?

Llamas
05-26-2009, 01:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
:p




Valid point. But just for shits and giggles, riddle me this: Wouldn't the added challenge of making someone else's work your own require more creativity than creating an original piece where no matter what you do, it's going to be original?

haha yeah I love that rant. It's good. And I still love the song :D

Also, I <3 you. But this argument is getting so stupid. Let's just stop.

Bipolar Bear
05-26-2009, 01:16 PM
Valid point. But just for shits and giggles, riddle me this: Wouldn't the added challenge of making someone else's work your own require more creativity than creating an original piece where no matter what you do, it's going to be original?

Nice try! But creating an original piece will require more creativity if done correctly, since you make it your own and play it your way after having created it. Basically, interpreting the song is included after creating it, so any argument you use for interpretation is going to add to the broader category of composition.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 01:16 PM
[
Valid point. But just for shits and giggles, riddle me this: Wouldn't the added challenge of making someone else's work your own require more creativity than creating an original piece where no matter what you do, it's going to be original?

See, I think there's a difference between a straight up cover of a song, and then making a song your own arrangement. Like Korn's cover of Another Brick in the Wall. Or Imagine by APC.

Llamas
05-26-2009, 01:19 PM
ilovellamas is allowed to pick and choose when it comes to Jacoby even being an artist, but I'm not allowed to think that original artists create more expressive art than someone who performs someone elses work. Why?

Ignore list is about to happen here, but before I do that, I wanted to point out how dumb this is. I never said you're not allowed to think anything; all I said is that I disagree. You are more than welcome to disagree with me that Jacoby is not an artist, and I am welcome to disagree that writing music is more important than interpreting/performing. That is all.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 01:27 PM
Ignore list is about to happen here, but before I do that, I wanted to point out how dumb this is. I never said you're not allowed to think anything; all I said is that I disagree. You are more than welcome to disagree with me that Jacoby is not an artist, and I am welcome to disagree that writing music is more important than interpreting/performing. That is all.
Am I welcome to think that writing original music is usually more expressive then playing a cover note for note? Or is that "wrong" as you've been trying to convince me?

Thomas
05-26-2009, 01:39 PM
Am I welcome to think that writing original music is usually more expressive then playing a cover note for note? Or is that "wrong" as you've been trying to convince me?

No, it isn't. We were just stating our opinions, just as you were yours.

Also, even playing someone else's music note-for-note leaves a lot of room for personal expression.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 01:42 PM
No, it isn't. We were just stating our opinions, just as you were yours.
No, you were telling me it's wrong to think that. Also, llamas was saying Jacoby isn't even an artist, which is still ridiculous. I think that's a little more extreme.


Also, even playing someone else's music note-for-note leaves a lot of room for personal expression.
Not compared to original music.

Little_Miss_1565
05-26-2009, 01:46 PM
Not compared to original music.

Do you play music or is this purely an intellectual exercise for you?

bighead384
05-26-2009, 01:50 PM
Do you play music or is this purely an intellectual exercise for you?

I've recently begun writing original music on my own time, but I'm currently in a cover band and I've done marching/concert band for a total of three years. Oh and I've played drums and done a little help with song writing in original bands over the years.

And speaking of intellectual, I find some of the posts in this thread to be the intellectual version of "nany nany boo boo, you can't prove it even though we all know it's true!"

IamSam
05-26-2009, 01:59 PM
Not to sound like a complete buffoon/nerd, but I was a choir boy for four years (sang in Carnegie Hall like Thomas...but without the drums) and I have to say that this is very open to interpretation. I know that covering a great piece such as a Moses Hogan spiritual can be more expressive than original works. Why? Because the original work may suck, simply, or there is more to covering a master work.

2

Little_Miss_1565
05-26-2009, 02:09 PM
ilovellamas is allowed to pick and choose when it comes to Jacoby even being an artist, but I'm not allowed to think that original artists create more expressive art than someone who performs someone elses work. Why?

Um, I've already called out this particular statement of hers. I don't generally enjoy beating dead horses.

T-6005
05-26-2009, 03:03 PM
All this is is one scenario where playing someone elses music COULD mean more than playing your own thing compared to someone in a symphony orchestra. That really doesn't prove anything. In fact, it's impossible to prove or disprove either side of the argument since you can't get any meaningful statistic. I just thought it was something that everyone understood. Putting your own little twist on an existing song isn't the same as creating something from your emotions.

You talk about some angtsy teen playing three chords of his own stuff compared to someone in a symphony orchestra performing someone elses work. Well what about comparing Stevie Ray Vaughn's work to a pit percussion player in a concert band that plays about 10 notes in one song? These examples can go both ways to suport either idea, so they're pointless.
That was the entire point of my post. Art isn't something that exists - it's a whole spectrum. On the one hand you've mass, popular, exceedingly simple forms of art. On the other, you find increasingly complex and abstract forms of expression which open themselves up to entirely new forms of interpretation, or which even require a base of understanding before they can be enjoyed (some forms of free jazz, for example - I just can't get into it at all).

I will forever refuse to believe that someone playing Beethoven's Fifth is more of an artist than Beethoven himself was, for example - but again, that doesn't mean that the person playing isn't having a transcendental experience playing such a powerful piece and isn't expressing themselves with every fiber of their being.

Yes to some extent, except that resorting to the "everything is relative/an opinion" to end an argument is kind of weak and boring. Conversations would never happen.

"Why do you punch little babies, that's wrong!"
"No, I don't want to argue with you, that's only your opinion"

I think we've come to a point where we can all accept that interprets are artists too, and in a lot of cases better than composers, but composers have a greater artistic potential. Does that make sense?
The "everything is relative" approach wouldn't make sense when applied to everything, it's true. That's why it doesn't - it applies specifically to this discussion. Art in all its forms is probably man's single most subjective creation - in all but the most clear-cut cases, (and sometimes not even then) it's impossible to assign merit or value to a form of artistic expression. Discussions of this sort have a tendency to either founder or to find themselves endlessly repeated. Of course, in this thread it seems we've found the latter.

Bipolar Bear
05-26-2009, 03:07 PM
The "everything is relative" approach wouldn't make sense when applied to everything, it's true. That's why it doesn't - it applies specifically to this discussion. Art in all its forms is probably man's single most subjective creation - in all but the most clear-cut cases, (and sometimes not even then) it's impossible to assign merit or value to a form of artistic expression. Discussions of this sort have a tendency to either founder or to find themselves endlessly repeated. Of course, in this thread it seems we've found the latter.

If this is true, why did we start discussing this in the first place? The people advocating this are the same ones who have been arguing a few posts back to convince people of their position - forgive me for seeing the hypocrisy.

JohnnyNemesis
05-26-2009, 03:16 PM
Related topics: abortion, death penalty.

Sigh.

Thomas
05-26-2009, 03:22 PM
Related topics: abortion, death penalty, how "punk" The Offspring are.

Sigh.

fixed .

T-6005
05-26-2009, 03:43 PM
If this is true, why did we start discussing this in the first place? The people advocating this are the same ones who have been arguing a few posts back to convince people of their position - forgive me for seeing the hypocrisy.

Because there is a prevalent tendency to assume that whatever you like is superior, or more artistic - rather than admitting that it exists as an undefined point along an artistic scale.

That doesn't deter from the fact that attempting to actively judge a specific piece of music or art is a fallacious endeavor.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 04:20 PM
Um, I've already called out this particular statement of hers. I don't generally enjoy beating dead horses.

Yeah, and she still won't admit it.

I realized that the whole thing about this argument is that when you start using certain terms "more and less artistic", "expression", "emotion", you leave the person you are arguing with with a shitload of wiggle room because of how subjective all that shit is, and how hard it is to gauge those things. To me, it's just a matter of understanding the limits that exist with creating music compared to performing something note for note, but I guess it's not like that to some people. Don't know why, but it is.

Llamas
05-26-2009, 05:09 PM
Because there is a prevalent tendency to assume that whatever you like is superior, or more artistic - rather than admitting that it exists as an undefined point along an artistic scale.

That doesn't deter from the fact that attempting to actively judge a specific piece of music or art is a fallacious endeavor.

I definitely agree that it's wrong and fallacious to objectively argue about art. All I think is possible is to have opinions about art, but there's no real way to truly justify them. I think everyone is guilty (especially in this thread, but generally in life) of saying that one song, one band/singer/artist/musician, one album, one instrument, one "style" is somehow objectively superior, more artistic, more talented, etc. It is very subjective, and my opinion on who is and isn't an artist isn't going to change just because people say it's true using objective ideas. :P

What's funny about all this is that, about a week ago, I got into a discussion with a friend who is a die-hard "country" fan, and I was talking about how all my favorite music (in the popular realm) is written by the people who perform it, and how part of why I don't really dig a lot of modern popular country music is because it's written by people whose jobs are to churn out music for singers who can't write. This discussion here has actually pointed out to me that I was being too absolute in my discussion with my friend, and hadn't considered a lot of things.

Vera
05-26-2009, 05:13 PM
As somebody who grew up listening to pop but only got into music hardcore with bands like The Offspring, AFI, The Vandals and such-like punkrock and later Britpop/rock and THEN moved back to listening to pop, though of the Asian and South-Asian variety, as well as more underground acts from countries far far away, and discovered hiphop somewhere along the way, it's kind of tough for me to define artistry in a way that satisfies everything I like.

At the end of the day, it's about giving credit where credit is due. I think if you make the music you perform and put out there, good on you, even if your band's name is Nickelback. But even artists, whose light shines bright due to the effort of producers/composers/arrangers/lyricists who put their music together for them, have to possess a certain talent. Sure, there's a lot of shit out there - there always is. Still, I think a pop act produced to please masses is an artist just as an indie band's guitarist who writes his own lyrics.

Like I can value an artist even if they're just a pretty face who can sing - shit, I even value them if I know the record company and a bunch of singing coaches are responsible for the singing voice. The credit is just more spread out, I guess, in that scenario - the people who trained the artist, the composers and writers of their songs get to share the credit in my head along with the face and voice that is on the record. I'm not delusional - I can read CD booklets to find out who did what to make an album.

An example: In South-Korea I saw two big concerts; one of a hiphop group that had just gone independent, creating their own label. I know everybody in the group was hugely invested in their music, and created it from scratch (though with occasional collaborations by their friends). I give them so much credit for that - I realize how creative and talented they truly are. I also saw a concert of a ballad singer, who'd been trained under the biggest pop group factory in South-Korea. Later he went onto becoming a solo artist, working with talented people, gaining success and learning how to write and compose songs himself. But since most of his music is by other people, I appreciate him for what he is: a stunning voice, a great performer, a charming personality.

The two examples are on different tiers but both still valued in my head.

Free?
05-26-2009, 06:19 PM
To put it shortly: there are talented musicians who can truly call themselves artists and there are really shitty performers in any genre. There are cool open minded people in any auditory along with dumb fanboys. A singer/instrument player can be as artistic as a song writer/composer. It's an obvious truth, I can't see how some of you can keep arguing on what is more or less artistic. You CAN'T define that because to do it you have to take an exact artist, not whole groups of popstars or orchestra players or astronauts.

It's more artistic to flawlessly play note-to-note than to compose some cheap shit, it's all matter of quality not your role, writer or performer, or both.

IamSam
05-26-2009, 10:57 PM
Boom! Roasted! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXIYBlRuEuI)

After consulting with the judges (in this case the Anti-Authority group) I just wanted to point out that this post was not off topic. I was giving bighead props because he actually had a valid point with the whole "Papa Roach" and llamas thing.

So in plain English, which I hope is more understandable to you, nice burn/point bighead.

bighead384
05-26-2009, 11:12 PM
Ah I get it. I guess I never thought I'd see you agree with me lol.

coke_a_holic
05-27-2009, 12:11 AM
Ah I get it. I guess I never thought I'd see you agree with me lol.

Soon, you'll figure out that there is no 1337 conspiracy. You're just wrong a lot. In this case, you aren't. Congrats.

Llamas
05-27-2009, 12:13 AM
omg everyone disagrees with llamas :( :( TIME TO FORM ANTI-ASSHOLES GROUP.

ad8
05-27-2009, 04:47 AM
Related topics: abortion, death penalty, how punk the Offspring is, nude mod debate, JN Penis

Sigh.


fixed .

Now it's fixed. ;)

Little_Miss_1565
05-27-2009, 08:16 AM
Ah I get it. I guess I never thought I'd see you agree with me lol.

And I accept your apology on behalf of Anti Authority for being such a dick to me over it.

Bipolar Bear
05-27-2009, 12:17 PM
After consulting with the judges (in this case the Anti-Authority group) I just wanted to point out that this post was not off topic. I was giving bighead props because he actually had a valid point with the whole "Papa Roach" and llamas thing.

So in plain English, which I hope is more understandable to you, nice burn/point bighead.


Ah I get it. I guess I never thought I'd see you agree with me lol.

Time for a reconciliatory hug! :cool:

Anyway, personally I sort of understood it had something to do with someone owning another, but I didn't think Sam was agreeing with bighead either. I guess it was pretty obvious but it's just the last thing I had in mind.

mynamewastaken
06-05-2009, 04:26 PM
one thing that really did bother me last month was the greenday tour. Greenday got so much attention for their tour. the radio played more Greenday then ever before and i never once saw a single thing on tv or heard anything about the shit is fucked up tour.

mynamewastaken
06-06-2009, 08:49 PM
one thing that really did bother me last month was the greenday tour. Greenday got so much attention for their tour. the radio played more Greenday then ever before and i never once saw a single thing on tv or heard anything about the shit is fucked up tour.

THAT shit is fucked up =]

IamSam
06-06-2009, 09:30 PM
Quoting and replying to yourself is so ungodly pitiful that the only thing more pitiful is Michael J. Fox trying to thread a needle.

jacknife737
06-06-2009, 11:38 PM
Quoting and replying to yourself is so ungodly pitiful that the only thing more pitiful is Michael J. Fox trying to thread a needle.

Oh, you. (10 characters)

IamSam
06-07-2009, 03:57 AM
Oh, you. (10 characters)

What? Too soon? ;)

jacknife737
06-07-2009, 11:59 AM
Haha, no, i laughed. I just always feel bad at laughing at M.J.Fox jokes.

Big_Fan_Of_Offspring
06-12-2009, 04:57 PM
lt's easy to listen pop music because the stupid magazines always write about pop stars and radio stations always play guess again pop music and if you find somebody who don't know what to listen or don't have friend suggest some music, damn he's domed he's gonna be some silly man in pink shirt singing about girl who wanna ask out , and people buys that shit. Why? l still don't get it:confused: