This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

A Crash-Course in Recent Music

2

Comments

  • The point is more to educate her about this kind of music (music written after the year 1800). I hope she enjoys it, and I think that there's bound to be something on here she likes. Knowing her, she'd probably go for the classic rock more than anything else, and most of the songs on the list are generally agreed upon to be rather good, so I'd say that there's a good chance she'd like much of this.
  • edited October 2008
    Usually mix-tapes work better with the widest possible variety of artists, but some of the songs are so fundamental she should know of their existence.
    Good luck.
    Post edited by Adelbert on
  • I would skip the mix tape idea and go for a mix Audio DVD. That way, you can pack several hundred songs in there.
  • I would skip the mix tape idea and go for a mix Audio DVD. That way, you can pack several hundred songs in there.
    That's too duanting. She wouldn't know where to start. If she likes the mix tape, then he can get her a DVD of all the full albums.
  • I would skip the mix tape idea and go for a mix Audio DVD. That way, you can pack several hundred songs in there.
    That's too duanting. She wouldn't know where to start. If she likes the mix tape, then he can get her a DVD of all the full albums.
    Exactly... The point is not to overwhelm, and as it stands I think it is even a bit too long.
  • No Lynyrd Skynyrd? Fuck. I should have suggested them like 10 posts ago. Shit. Oh well, it's a staple of classic rock.
  • edited October 2008
    For a little more variety, I'd recommend Daft Punk
    I also find everyone's lack of (good) Weezer disturbing...
    And I believe the Pixies song that needs to be on the list is Debaser
    Finally, throw some Strokes or Vampire Weekend in to represent the last few years (not everything that's come out recently sucks!)

    Just my 2 cents...

    EDIT: Also, for the order of the songlist, I'd recommend organizing everything chronologically. For some reason I feel like that would enhance the crash coursey-ness.
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • This list is incomplete. I see no Slayer.
  • This list is incomplete. I see no Slayer.
    Oh man. To be able to hear Slayer again, for the first time.
  • Slayer might not be a good addition to this list, not everyone likes metal.
  • Slayer might not be a good addition to this list, not everyone likes metal.
    It's a good litmus test, though. If you're compiling recent music, I'd rather see a single representative of multiple different styles.
  • ......
    edited October 2008
    Do you honestly think that she will enjoy any of this music?
    No Lynyrd Skynyrd? Fuck.
    I also find everyone's lack of (good) Weezer disturbing...
    This list is incomplete. I see no Slayer.
    I think there is nothing left of my face after reading these comments. Objectively good, classic, come on people, fall of the damned horses you're prancing on.

    EDIT:
    It's a good litmus test, though. If you're compiling recent music, I'd rather see a single representative of multiple different styles.
    You do have a point. Then again, I never considered the topic name to be correct with its 'recent'.
    Post edited by ... on
  • The list is definitely a bit out of whack. 3 Nirvana songs but no Black Sabbath? If you were to make a chart of the evolution of modern rock, you'd need to include BOTH Zeppelin and Sabbath, as they each took hard rock in different directions.

    While I advocate Slayer all the time, if you were to include any metal on there (I'm not counting Sabbath as metal for this purpose), you should really put Metallica on there.
  • I think there is nothing left of my face after reading these comments. Objectively good, classic, come on people, fall of the damned horses you're prancing on.
    1. There's no such thing as objectively good music.
    2. Making a mix tape to educate someone without caring about how much they enjoy it is a really douchey thing to do.
  • 1. There's no such thing as objectively good music.
    Eh, yes there is. Just like there's objectively good films, books, etc. You're a musician, you should know this.
  • 1. There's no such thing as objectively good music.
    Rebuttal: Stravinsky.
  • Eh, yes there is. Just like there's objectively good films, books, etc. You're a musician, you should know this.
    What makes music objectively good? Just because something is influential does not mean it has to be good.
  • Eh, yes there is. Just like there's objectively good films, books, etc.
    Things can be objectively influential, things can be objectively complex, and things can be objectively revolutionary, but things can not be objectively good or enjoyable. Such is an oxymoron.
  • 1. There's no such thing as objectively good music.
    Eh, yes there is. Just like there's objectively good films, books, etc. You're a musician, you should know this.
    So what's an objectively "good" film? The ability to evaluate a piece academically and objectively does not necessarily mean that said piece is better than anything else; you can simply objectively explain its elements.
  • Things can be objectively influential, things can be objectively complex, and things can be objectively revolutionary
    And those are not good qualities? Really now, no sense in dissecting the meaning of good here. Bugger off will ya.
  • edited October 2008
    Bugger off will ya.
    But... someone is wrong on the internet! What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then you'll keep begin wrong!
    Post edited by Sail on
  • ......
    edited October 2008
    Bugger off will ya.
    But... someone is wrong on the internet! What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then you'll keep begin wrong!
    That's only in your imagination, you young being.
    Post edited by ... on
  • edited October 2008
    So what's an objectively "good" film? The ability to evaluate a piece academically and objectively does not necessarily mean that said piece is better than anything else; you can simply objectively explain its elements.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • edited October 2008
    >>Lynyrd Skynyrd
    >>Objectively good, classic

    Uh, yeah, I think I'm on the right track...
    Post edited by Dkong on
  • I would suggest that you only include one song from each band, partly so that a single band will not dominate and also in the odd occurrence that the audience doesn't like a particular band.
  • edited October 2008
    WE MULTIPLY - AIDS WOLF
    UNTITLED - ANIMAL COLLECTIVE
    RIBS OUT - FUCK BUTTONS
    ZOOTHORNS - HEALTH
    SEX BOY - LIARS

    OBJECTIVELY GOOD.
    Post edited by whatever on
  • I would suggest that you only include one song from each band, partly so that a single band will not dominate and also in the odd occurrence that the audience doesn't like a particular band.
    The thing about that, though, is that there are certain bands (The Beatles, Hendrix, etc.) which have more than one iconic song.
  • I would suggest that you only include one song from each band, partly so that a single band will not dominate and also in the odd occurrence that the audience doesn't like a particular band.
    The thing about that, though, is that there are certain bands (The Beatles, Hendrix, etc.) which have more than one iconic song.
    Still, it's where you could cut the line up a bit. Two songs from any given band should be enough.
    WE MULTIPLY - AIDS WOLF
    UNTITLED - ANIMAL COLLECTIVE
    RIBS OUT - FUCK BUTTONS
    ZOOTHORNS - HEALTH
    SEX BOY - LIARS
    Cooooooooooooooooooooooooool man, wicked.
  • I would suggest that you only include one song from each band, partly so that a single band will not dominate
    I believe Speckospock really meant to educate her less about recent music in general, and more about the popular music everybody else knows.
    The entire accident started because everyone else but her knew the songs played in the background. Not knowing these songs does not equal to not having general understanding in 70's to 90's Pop and Rock, but rather to not listening to a radio at work.
    The final list is quite fitting - although it doesn't contain many genres and bands, it will definitely introduce her to many of the popular sing-a-longs. If she never heard Yesterday or Smells Like Teen Spirit, she has a bigger "problem" than narrow musical horizons.
    I don't think the final list will make her like modern music more, but it will fill most major gaps she have compared to the majority of people.
  • I believe Speckospock really meant to educate her less about recent music in general, and more about the popular music everybody else knows.
    I definitely would not be able to name 99% of the songs they play on the radio these days that 99% of the people at my school probably can name, does that mean I have a problem too?
Sign In or Register to comment.