The Good, The Bad & The Ticky

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Plenty of you out there in poptimistsland like writing about music, and even perhaps earn some money for doing so.

Do you find it easier to write about

1) songs you love
2) songs you hate
3) songs you find mediocre?

I can usually find plenty of scathing words about dull music that just isn’t any cop, sometimes even suggesting improvements! However I am loathe to say I 'hate' something as if it has sparked such a reaction in me then I will probably end up loving it eventually. Case in point: when the Spice Girls first arrived I loathed them with such intense obsession that I made sure I paid attention to every song, television appearance and promotional tie-in they did in order to make sure my hatred was well-informed. Now they are one of my favourite pop bands ever, possibly because of my negative reaction: they signified my attraction to pop music was inevitable even though I was an utter indie snob at the time. Well done girls!

As for songs I love, when writing reviews I find it far more difficult to get across *just how much* I love them and why. Of course I can say 'omg this bassline is GREAT' or 'her voice is amazing', but the one thing I can never describe properly is the ZING factor that some songs have, and some songs just don't, even if they sound very similar. Usually the ZING factor ensures that the song remains enjoyable despite repeated plays. For example, Justin Timberlake's Sexyback was interesting and enjoyable but I grew tired of it after a while. My Love on the other hand had the ZING that went straight to a certain bit of my brain, meaning I will happily listen to it forever more. I found the former much easier to write a end-of-year blurb for than the latter.

What do you think, poptimists? If you don't really write about songs then do you find it easier to tick a good song or to 'not tick' a bad song? Is a bad song merely mediocre or does mediocre fall under 'any good at all'?

Comments

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Yes. I posted the above becaues of my GnR dribblings earlier today. I felt the need to question why everyone liked them so much and I didn't. I'm still not sure if I can rate them as 'bad' or just 'dull/mediocre'. If they were the latter then would I have bothered writing about them? I don't know! But if they really are 'bad' then they must at least be 'interesting', and therefore 'any good at all'. I'm in a bit of a quandary as I like being consistent!

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

dude, they RAWKED! what more is there to say?

(i am not reading the poll threads at the mo, as i'm off polls)

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

b-but polls rock d00d

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

i am bored of them now (sorry)

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

do you like h!tler/fate phun/enjoy yr A!Ds ect

"you had to be there"

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

I don't know if that's *really* the case, but I remember when A4D came out, it really was a kind of breath of fresh air - I had three roommates at the time, and although we had some overlap in our tastes, you could caricature us pretty easily as four diverse people. And we all liked GnR. One of the reasons was the fact that Axel could pull off so many different voices. Also, if you remember your guitar-playing days, I would think you would relish "Welcome to the Jungle," which has like four different riffs, each of which would be enough to build a quite good song on.

Re: "you had to be there"

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

As said elsewhere, I quite like WTTJ.

Re: "you had to be there"

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

I thought I remembered that. Just me more explaining why *I* like them, although to be honest the only track of theirs I've probably wanted to hear in the last, say, five years is "November Rain."

What I always wonder about, though, is how things relate to or are received in the particular times. e.g., R.E.M. are cool, R.E.M. are brilliant, this R.E.M. isn't as good as the last, oi this isn't so good either, OH WOW this is amazing, oh it was a fluke this sucks, OH PLEASE GOD I DON'T EVER WANT TO HEAR STIPE'S VOICE AGAIN. And then at some point in the future, even the bad later stuff might sound okay. U2 strung out their timeline a bit longer, but I physically shudder when I hear them come on now. U2 are about as uncool as they come. But I don't think that's entirely their fault, or an accurate reflection of their music.