|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/28/2008 5:06:12 PM
|
|
|
themoodyexperience
Posts: 154
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Tuscumbia, Alabama
Status: offline
|
I'm a big fan of the first Christian rap song 'Bible Break'. I learned the books of the Bible in order by listening to that song.
_____________________________
If you question what I'm teaching you
You rebel against the Father too.
- Steve Taylor from "I Manipulate"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/29/2008 8:22:27 AM
|
|
|
Biblefreak
Posts: 667
Joined: 8/10/2006
From: the spirit of God
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: themoodyexperience
I'm a big fan of the first Christian rap song 'Bible Break'. I learned the books of the Bible in order by listening to that song.
Here ya go.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bjmQQn6xYNw
_____________________________
"I'm blessed, I must confess
My heart is pounding in my chest
Cause this love's the best
I'm just a love addict"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/29/2008 8:27:05 AM
|
|
|
Biblefreak
Posts: 667
Joined: 8/10/2006
From: the spirit of God
Status: offline
|
I really like the blues:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L7iSTQdjm_0&feature=related
_____________________________
"I'm blessed, I must confess
My heart is pounding in my chest
Cause this love's the best
I'm just a love addict"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/29/2008 8:30:34 AM
|
|
|
Biblefreak
Posts: 667
Joined: 8/10/2006
From: the spirit of God
Status: offline
|
The late Stevie Ray Vaughan:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6T9baKeTCok
_____________________________
"I'm blessed, I must confess
My heart is pounding in my chest
Cause this love's the best
I'm just a love addict"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/29/2008 11:39:23 PM
|
|
|
sunshine4God
Posts: 5898
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Sterling Ct.
Status: offline
|
I like the beetles and Veggietales lol.I also like songs from High school musical and Spongebob.
_____________________________
Matthew 5:16.
"Let your light so shine before men that they will see
your good deeds and glorify your Lord".
Its me!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/30/2008 2:25:42 AM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 2003
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
How exactly are the Beatles are guilty pleasure?
_____________________________
-Ben-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/30/2008 6:43:00 PM
|
|
|
sunshine4God
Posts: 5898
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Sterling Ct.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way
How exactly are the Beatles are guilty pleasure?
I don't know,I guess since not many people my age like them as much as me it seems like.
_____________________________
Matthew 5:16.
"Let your light so shine before men that they will see
your good deeds and glorify your Lord".
Its me!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/30/2008 7:55:10 PM
|
|
|
WHTim
Posts: 157
Joined: 7/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunshine4God
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way
How exactly are the Beatles are guilty pleasure?
I don't know,I guess since not many people my age like them as much as me it seems like.
That is pathetic and a literal crying shame. My wife told me a couple of weeks ago after one of the American Idol kids sang "Bohemian Rhapsody" that there was a spike in searches for something called "Bohemian Rap City." The kids didn't even know there was a song called "Bohemian Rhapsody."
I feel sorry for anyone that doesn't experience Queen or the Beatles growing up. I'm sure they are well versed in Britney Spears and Fall Out Boy though. Again it's pathetic.
< Message edited by WHTim -- 3/30/2008 9:45:06 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/30/2008 8:32:18 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
I feel sorry for anyone that doesn't experience Queen or the Beatles growing up.
Nah, lets just keep it an old guys secret. 
Its all a matter of how a person (and therefore their taste in music) develops. I know there is a lot of music I didn't get when I was a teen or even a twenty something that I really like now. The Rolling Stones "Exile on Main Street" is a prime example. Queen's "The Game" is another. In my foolish youth I would have dismissed it as "not rockin' enough" (especially "Another One Bites the Dust"). Now I realize just cause it doesn't rock all the way through doesn't mean its lesser for it (well it is lesser than "A Night at the Opera" but so are most albums).
So its too bad they don't "get" it when their young but if they develop an interest in music they'll be well on their way once they get to college. And if they don't, they don't. I just hope that the dumbing down of pop radio doesn't stifle interest in music.
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/30/2008 9:11:26 PM
|
|
|
humbleinspirit
Posts: 15770
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WHTim
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunshine4God
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way
How exactly are the Beatles are guilty pleasure?
I don't know,I guess since not many people my age like them as much as me it seems like.
That is pathetic and a literal crying shame. My wife told me a couple of weeks ago after one of the American Idol kids sang "Bohemian Rhapsody" that there was a spike in searches for something called "Bohemian Rap City." The kids didn't even know there was a song called "Behemian Rhapsody."
I feel sorry for anyone that doesn't experience Queen or the Beatles growing up. I'm sure they are well versed in Britney Spears and Fall Out Boy though. Again it's pathetic.
I guess that even Wayne's World is a different generation now. 
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/30/2008 9:55:38 PM
|
|
|
humbleinspirit
Posts: 15770
Status: offline
|
I know someone who said the same thing about Springsteen as well.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/30/2008 10:06:25 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
I actually talked to a guy the a while back that said he didn't get what was so great about REM. After I questioned him a bit it came out that the only record he had heard of theirs was "Monster." I loaned him "Document", "Green", "Fables of the Reconstruction (my personal favorite), "Reckoning", "Murmer" and "Life's Rich Pageant."
Yeah, early R.E.M. is good R.E.M. THe later stuff isn't bad but the early stuff is better IMHO.
quote:
It's funny you mention "The Game" because that was the first Queen record I had. I was in 6th grade and "Another One Bites the Dust" was huge. Of course everyone was into "We are the Champions/We will rock you" regardless.
I think the first Stones song I heard, or at least remember hearing was "Sympathy for the Devil" and the first record of theirs I had was "Tattoo You."
The first Beatles album I owned was "Sgt. Pepper" an amazing place to start.
Sgt. Pepper is a great place to start for the Beatles. However "The Game" (though I like it) and "Tattoo You" (ditto) are not the ideal starting point for either of those bands. "Tattoo You" is probably the next Stones album I'll get, can't resist "start Me Up" or "Waiting on a Friend" (one of my all time favorite Stones songs).
I think The Stones are one of those few bands where I would start someone with a greatest hits package. Not "Forty Licks", its too uneven and jumpy for my tastes. I would do either "Jump Back" for 70s / early 80s era Stones or one of my favorites, "Hot Rocks" for 60s (and a couple of early 70s) era Stones. I think their studio albums would be a little much for a newbie to digest at first. They may have never even heard a song from "Exile on Main Street" (with the possible exception of "Tumbling Dice").
As far as Queen goes I would start with "A Night at the Opera", its all there in all its queenly glory. The rock, the soft, the flamboyance, the theater, the fun and the variety of styles that make Queen great. Alternately, "News of the World" wouldn't be bad either.
quote:
I know someone who said the same thing about Springsteen as well.
Just saw this. For the Boss I would start someone with "Born to Run". Absolutely, it has everything that made The Boss who he was in a very accessible package. Well metaphorically speaking, I have the 30th anniversary edition and the packaging is a bit of a pain but the remastered sound (as well as its great looks & contents) makes it worth it. I might suggest "Born in the USA" for a child of the 80s. Not ideal by any means but perhaps a good "gateway drug" to the wonder of Bruce.
To get back on topic: I feel no guilt whatsoever about listening to Queen, The Stones or The Beatles (or Springsteen). None whatsoever.
< Message edited by Rufas2000 -- 3/30/2008 10:24:11 PM >
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/30/2008 11:13:30 PM
|
|
|
sunshine4God
Posts: 5898
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Sterling Ct.
Status: offline
|
[
I don't know,I guess since not many people my age like them as much as me it seems like.
[/quote]
That is pathetic and a literal crying shame. My wife told me a couple of weeks ago after one of the American Idol kids sang "Bohemian Rhapsody" that there was a spike in searches for something called "Bohemian Rap City." The kids didn't even know there was a song called "Bohemian Rhapsody."
I feel sorry for anyone that doesn't experience Queen or the Beatles growing up. I'm sure they are well versed in Britney Spears and Fall Out Boy though. Again it's pathetic.
[/quote]
[
Lol thats funny about kids looking up bohemian rap city.I love that song Bohemian Rhapsody and other songs by queen also.I love the Beatles and the beach boys also.
_____________________________
Matthew 5:16.
"Let your light so shine before men that they will see
your good deeds and glorify your Lord".
Its me!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/31/2008 11:58:45 AM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2916
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
Mine are too many to name, but then I don't think of myself as being guilty. "To the pure all things are pure." I've always listened to the music long before the lyrics, and that's gotten some funny looks from Christians on many occasions. Probably the biggest "guilty pleasure" I can think of as far as other Christians are concerned is AC/DC or maybe Pink Floyd but then again it might be for Red Hot Chili Peppers. Who knows.
_____________________________
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/31/2008 12:55:08 PM
|
|
|
uncabeeil
Posts: 5647
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Joisey. Got a problem wit dat?
Status: offline
|
quote:
I actually talked to a guy the a while back that said he didn't get what was so great about REM. I can top that. I had a co-worker, maybe 15 years younger than me, ask me why everybody made such a big deal about Bob Dylan. He went so far as to say "the guy can't even sing"! It's like, where do you start?
_____________________________
Sniglet of the day: Waftic (wahf' tik) - adj. Describes any person in whose direction campfire or barbecue smoke always blows.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/31/2008 2:56:03 PM
|
|
|
amyk
Posts: 528
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I feel sorry for anyone that doesn't experience Queen or the Beatles growing up. I'm sure they are well versed in Britney Spears and Fall Out Boy though. Again it's pathetic.
This is probably the same way folks felt that people did not experience Glenn Miller and Tommy Dorsey and all those big bands growing up. The older generation probably thought it was pathetic that the "youth" were well versed in Elvis and the Beatles! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/31/2008 4:56:15 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
This is probably the same way folks felt that people did not experience Glenn Miller and Tommy Dorsey and all those big bands growing up. The older generation probably thought it was pathetic that the "youth" were well versed in Elvis and the Beatles!
True enough but I do think that we (as a society) aren't producing as many truly innovative music artists as we did in the past. I think that there are a number of reasons for this:
1) How far can the rock genre go?
Is there any room for innovation? As far as other genres Hip Hop has room for innovation but its been co-opted by gangsta rap, Pop by its nature isn't innovative as Pop is intended to have mass appeal and the masses very rarely flock to innovation.
2) Music is no longer an experience.
Music used to be an experience. You would hear an artist on the radio and think wow! You would rush out, buy the album, unwrap it, stick it on the turntable, put the needle down carefully and let the music play while you sat in your favorite spot perusing the killer artwork, reading the liner notes and allowing yourself to be taken to another world. Now music is background noise or a soundtrack to something else you are doing. The masses don't sit down and listen to music anymore, they play music while doing something else. Which is related to #3 ...
3) Competition for Leisure Time
In the 60s and 70s you had three stations on the tube and board games. Now you have hundreds of channels, easy access to movies, another immersive form of media called video games not to mention online connections. There is a lot more competition for leisure time (which most of us have less of now). Therefore people just are not as into music as they used to be. It's not a good or bad thing, just a new thing. Change happens.
4) Gutless Music Executives
Music executives have always been a backward conservative lot, even Berry Gordy of Motown fame balked at allowing Marvin Gaye to release his seminal opus "What's Going On?" because he failed to see the commercial appeal. Now its even worse, especially because record labels are part of big media conglomerates. they are run by corporate masters who only appreciate the bottom line for themselves and by extention their stockholders. They couldn't care less about artistic merit unless the public demands it. And in the realm of music for the aforementioned reasons the public isn't really demanding it (there are exceptions, certainly not all modern music is bad or mediocre but its probably not innovative). The one bright side is that the Internet allows artists a platform and if they catch on one of the "brave" music executives will sign them, knowing the artist already has a fan base.
So bottom line, I think very few rock artists (or artists of any genre) of this generation will be remembered as anything more than a pleasant nostalgic memory. There are no Elvis, Beatles, Stones, Bruce or Queen. I don't blame the artists, after all they gotta eat and not everyone can be Led Zeppelin, The Who or The Ramones. They are producing art they enjoy and so do their fans. But its a shame that our youth are conditioned that anything old is bad or just doesn't measure up. The artists of the 60s and 70s were producing incredible music in a social environment that (comparatively speaking) encouraged creativity and its a shame that our youth are blissfully unaware of it.
BTW: It is a shame that Miller, Dorsey and the big bands were forgotten in favor of Elvis & The Beatles. Ours is not the only generation that foolishly casts off the "old" in favor of the new.
< Message edited by Rufas2000 -- 3/31/2008 5:02:55 PM >
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/31/2008 5:25:07 PM
|
|
|
everythingat
Posts: 210
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
|
I think it's time for you to be introduced to the underground, Rufas2000. There are many innovative, brilliant bands/artists around, but you're not going to find them on the radio anymore. That's largely due to the early 80's when dj's no longer were allowed to play anything they want. I'm gonna address each of your points now.
1. Gangsta rap is gone, for the most part. Now all mainstream hip hop is club rap, which is just another phrase for pop. Take a look at the snap dance craze going around, about as credible as the electric slide. However, there is a lot of innovative hip hop in the underground. You're mostly right about pop not being innovative, although there usually is a record to come along every now and then to blow the others out of the water.
2. I agree. But that's mostly due to the corporate dinosaurs and dj's losing control over what they play. It's become quite literally pay to play. The only way you're getting on mainstream radio is if your major record label is putting forth the money to get you there.
3. This one is both a blessing and a curse. Because there are so many outlets, things in the entertainment field seem to have an early expiration date. But it has been quite a blessing for music. Bands can now be successful enough to live on their music without having to be on the airwaves, thanks to the internet.
4. I'm with you on this one.
I don't think your last paragraph is necessarily true. There will be many to be remembered, however, just not by everyone on the planet. Success doesn't necessarily guarantee that you'll be remembered at all, even if for a pleasant nostalgic memory. When it comes to art in the form of music, very few people have ever truly "got" it. There are embarrassments of pop from every decade, and truly innovative bands from every decade...including this one.
< Message edited by everythingat -- 3/31/2008 5:31:32 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/31/2008 6:14:47 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
I think it's time for you to be introduced to the underground, Rufas2000.
I know about the underground. In my mind there were three components that made Elvis, The Beatles etc. music icons: quality, popularity and uniqueness / innovation. In today's climate the last two have become almost mutually exclusive. The lack of exposure for innovative artists will prevent them from being icons.
quote:
There will be many to be remembered, however, just not by everyone on the planet.
Everybody is remembered by somebody. My point is that 20 years from now very few if any of today's artists will be universally remembered as musical icons. Mediocre artists are popular with the masses whereas innovative artists are lost in the underground. You may not value universal acceptance much but it doesn't mean that my point won't turn out to be true, that this generation will not produce many musical icons on the level of Elvis & The Beatles.
Also, how many innovative artists do we lose because they decide its more important to live comfortably rather than create great art that relatively few will ever hear? So they create decent music they can live with and will sell in the marketplace, allowing them to be rock stars rather than indy artists. I still maintain that today's social environment is not as condusive to great music as it was in the 60s and 70s.
quote:
Gangsta rap is gone, for the most part. Now all mainstream hip hop is club rap,
Which seems to be mostly watered down gangsta rap, talkin about their hos and how bad they are. Its just tamed down enough to not scare corporate executives. It may not be "Gangsta Rap Proper" but it still has those elements and its still defining Hip Hop in its narrow, negative terms. Rock was kinda the same way but it managed to expand due to the creative environment of the 60s and 70s.
quote:
However, there is a lot of innovative hip hop in the underground.
I'm sure there is but as long as it stays in the underground hip hop won't advance much as an artform / genre. Hopefully some of this innovation (especially lyrically) will begin to catch hold in the mainstream and Hip Hop will begin to realize its creative potential as more up and comers will see what hip hop can be.
Remember also I was responding to a post specifically about Elvis & The Beatles. I didn't delve into their importance in society either. No artist from this generation is likely to have that level of importance although Bono and to some extent Eminem & Kanye West might. But Kanye = Elvis, uh no. And that is why its a shame our young people are prone to dismiss them as old fogies.
Anyway, I didn't mean that today's artists are inferior to yesteryears but I will say that the room for innovation is lessened as are the motivations to innovate. Does the typical music fan appreciate a good solo or a great voice like they use to? Are there as many music lovers as there used to be? Does the general public listen to music as intently as they use to? I'm not talking about the fanatics but the general public. My experience is that music meant more to more people in generations past. Today's youth have short attention spans and a million things competing for their attention. As a group they just aren't as into music. That's OK but it does change how today's artists will be perceived by the next generation.
Nice thoughtful response. I know this is kinda scattershot but its been a long day. If I could focus I could get my meaning across better but its just as much a historical & social issue as its a music appreciation issue. Because you're right every generation has its genius and its junk with a whole lot in the middle.
< Message edited by Rufas2000 -- 3/31/2008 6:30:08 PM >
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/31/2008 6:24:59 PM
|
|
|
9drtr
Posts: 1585
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Toronto the Good
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
BTW: It is a shame that Miller, Dorsey and the big bands were forgotten in favor of Elvis & The Beatles. Ours is not the only generation that foolishly casts off the "old" in favor of the new.
It goes back at least as far as 17th century Bach, Handel and Scarlatti fans who left Thomas Tallis, William Byrd, Michael Pretorius and dozens of others to moulder in church basements until they were rescued at the tail end of the 20th century.
_____________________________
Edwin
When we know who is coming, how can we worry about what is coming? When the last hour belongs to us, how can we worry about the next minute?
Ross Crighton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/31/2008 6:27:42 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
It goes back at least as far as 17th century Bach, Handel and Scarlatti fans who left Thomas Tallis, William Byrd, Michael Pretorius and dozens of others to moulder in church basements until they were rescued at the tail end of the 20th century.
Thats true, thank God our media centric culture produces permanent records of our artists and their works so that it can't just disappear.
_____________________________
My Own Thread, Come See!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 3/31/2008 6:33:08 PM
|
|
|
everythingat
Posts: 210
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
|
By including popularity in your music icon test, you would be leaving out quite a few bands that weren't popular during that time period...but achieved success decades later. For example, The Velvet Underground. Or Love. And Nick Drake, who achieved success about 30 years after his death mostly due to a Volkswagen commercial. Nick Drake's influence can be heard in the majority of male singer/songwriters from the past decade or two. Due to his huge influence, Pink Moon still sounds modern if you listen to it. One of the few records from that era that truly holds up even today without sounding outdated in some way. Tom Waits is another icon who hasn't achieved nearly the success of many who would be considered icons due to popularity. Morrissey as well hasn't seen much success outside of Europe, he's held up to be an icon too. Then again, most United States youth would only know Morrissey as that guy who wrote the Charmed theme song. As you can see though, the list goes on a bit.
You know what today's mainstream music scene is kind of like? The era in the 50's, before bands/singers started writing their own music. Club rap's lyrics are irrelevant to them, it's mostly about coming up with catchy synths and a decent beat. Then have the one or two repetitive lyrics.
I really hope Kanye West isn't remembered for much. That man is terrible and incredibly overrated, in my opinion.
On a side note...have you ever noticed that a camera can't be near Bono without him sticking his face in it and tilting his head?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
RE: Guilty Pleasures? - 
