iTunes music downloads we regret
Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:32 AM
Some people call me a mac Fan-Boy...
Some say that I hang out with snobs.
some people call me Chis! Breen!
'cause I play like a puppet of Jobs...
Hopefully it'll even the fight.
(Oh crap! Now it's stuck in MY head!)
This post has been edited by ingus: 27 April 2013 - 05:41 AM
Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:45 AM
But then again, I use for a ringtone David Seville's pre-Chipmonk song "Witch Doctor" just to be annoying.
I got the Counting Crows song only because it was a free download and realized why it was free afterwards.
Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:22 AM
To my provably lousy ear, Debby Boone sounded off pitch.
Late in 1977, Saturday Night Fever came out and some mostly great disco records began to dominate the charts for a couple of years. That year had also seen the summer of safety pins, as the Sex Pistols were sending heart-felt wishes to their Queen.
If one wishes to explore a newly-identified sub-genre, I recommend Warren Zevon's Accidentally Like A Martyr, which comes with this disclaimer, I do like SoCal 70s singer-songwriter things. If one doesn't, and that's fine, please ignore.
Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:25 AM
And I quote:
Please alert my errors that the song was specifically downloaded for this podcast episode...
You may, ahem, want to alert your heirs that they were not, in fact, errors, right?
Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:36 AM
Dictated, not read.
It's corrected now. We regret the heir.
Posted 27 April 2013 - 07:02 AM
iTunes store should be ashamed of itself that it would offer such inferior dreck, when the originals are so readily available.
Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:36 AM
Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:39 AM
Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:39 AM
Posted 27 April 2013 - 09:01 AM
This comment pretty much reflects my views on this whole thing.
Oh, and, imo, Dio was ten times the singer Ozzy ever was. Heaven and Hell is my favorite Sabbath song. RIP RJD.
Posted 27 April 2013 - 09:16 AM
It depends on how you listen to music and, to a point, how great your understanding is of what's going on. Like architecture, photography, painting, writing, and any other art you can think of, there are elements that make a musical work objectively "better" than another. Bach's fugues and chorales were "better" than Joe the Choral Director From Down the Street's because the way they were put together was a tremendous thing -- the movement of the voices, the quality of the melody, etc. Lennon's "In My Life" is a "better" song than Harrison's "I'm Happy Just to Dance With You."
I'm with you on "catchiness." You can enjoy music and any other hunk of art for its catchiness (even though it's poorly constructed or trashy). But simply liking a tune because it catches your ear doesn't mean that it's as great as something that's beautifully crafted. Likewise, you can respect a musical work for the craft behind it, but still not enjoy it.
Posted 27 April 2013 - 12:26 PM
Posted 27 April 2013 - 01:03 PM
I agree, up to a point. Bach's musical constructions are "better" than Joe's because the result is more engaging, pleasant, emotive, and so on. In other words, whatever Bach did you "like" to hear that more than what Joe did. These are, essentially, objective metrics that reflect subjective values. The only reason that sound quality, composition, harmony, timing, tonality, or rhythm is "better" is when we enjoy the end result more.
I've studied music theory, played a variety of instruments (once professionally in a local orchestra). I've played classical, written jazz, been in the pit for Broadway shows, and performed on stage. I've heard all kinds of theories and opinions about what makes "good' music, and my conclusion is that's it's the music you like to hear.
P.S. I really enjoy your writing and look forward to every piece. If you'll tolerate an uneducated, subjective, option, here's mine: "Chris Breen is a great writer." Why? Because I like to read his articles.