Harlepolis said:

CrabalockerFishwife said:

But you're assuming that they don't like rock, country when they didn't even imply such for all you know, they might like that type of music, but they revere the artists they listed more. It could be possible.

Here's one thing you should never analyze and put a label on if you wanna live a headache-free life; you can't help what you love. Don't expect everybody to have versatile taste in music just because you and other people do. Even if they're snubbing all other music, the question is, does it affect anybody beside them? I think not.

I don't know anything about that person's tastes in music, and I didn't claim to. I just used a list from another thread to give an example of what I consider a music snob. And no, their taste in music doesn't affect me or anybody else. But this is a thread to discuss 'music snobs', so I gave my definition of a music snob.

My definition of music snob is:

Only liking a certain type of music

Not being open to other types of music

Looking down on people who like other types of music

I wasn't trying to insult the person who made that list (though I think I did), but a list claiming that the only great music artists are all r&b or funk artists is an indication of what I consider a music snob. If I said "The only great artists are Bob Dylan, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Band and Jimi Hendrix".. and I constantly went around this forum criticizing all artists who aren't classic rock, I'd be labeled a music snob.

[Edited 4/29/12 4:50am]

AsherFierce said:

Ain't nothing worst than a music snob.

NOTHING!

maniac, a fascist, a skinhead, a sadist ......

any of these people a million times worse than a musical snob. Come on here!

I think most music fans have an element of music snobbery in them....I do, though I'm trying to be more open minded.

I think alot of it comes down to rose tinted glasses. There is alot of crap around today (thanks to X-Factor, American Idol etc elevating karaoke singers, and the internet giving a platform to anyone regardless of talent)......but......those that bang on about the 80s, 70s, 60s etc being so much better seem to forget rubbish like Black Lace, The Wombles, Ernie the Fastest Milkman and all the of the other junk that was topping the charts in decades gone by.

Also, like a favourite sports team, people want the artists they love to be considered they best, as they think that some how elevates them as well. Conversely they think this gives them the right to look down on people who favour artists that aren't as good as their favourite.

[Edited 4/29/12 6:17am]

mjscarousal said:

What IS snobbish to me personally is when people formulate opinions about artists and they havent even listen to ANY of their music to come to their conclusion about their music or when people dislike an artist because of what they choose to do in their personal life. I just think thats snobbish and ignorant honestly...

[Edited 4/29/12 10:43am]

CrabalockerFishwife said:

I really don't understand why a musician's race matters to people..

But I do consider it being a music snob when people say artists like Bob Dylan and The Beatles suck (usually without much knowledge of their music), and that the only artists who ever mattered are Prince, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc..

Here is an example from another thread:

Musical Genius:

Prince

Stevie Wonder

Ray Charles

Bootsy

Donny Hathaway

Quincy Jones (maybe)

................................that is it 4 human existence.

This to me is being a music snob, as all of the musicans listed are black r&b/funk/soul artists..

[Edited 4/28/12 20:46pm]

The thing is, you are misunderstanding the term "black music". As smoothcriminal suggests, it's more of a cultural association just as classical music is associated with Europe, for example.

Anyhoo, I think that one of the factors that distinguishes the snob from the casual listener is depth. For some people, music is just pleasant background noise or a momentary diversion. For others like me, it actually means something that they can relate to on various levels. If that can be called snobbish then I am guilty as charged.

I can hear a piano concerto that brings me to tears or a blistering guitar solo that will transport me to the stratosphere whereas casual listeners seldom engage their hearts and minds in music...only their ears, or so it seems.

I mean, if I'm talking music with casual listeners and I'm going on and on about a killer baseline or a wicked sax solo they will look at me like I have two heads because they don't get it.

But I do see your point about people who dismiss things out of hand when it doesn't suit their tastes. I tend to do that with only a few genres such as gangsta rap and metal, for example so there's my snobbishness showing again,

I sometimes enjoy listening to music snobs for what they are: CLOWNS

fams, on the other hand, just annoy me...

CrabalockerFishwife said:

I've always considered a music snob to be somebody who likes one particular type of music (usually classic rock), and thinks all other music is terrible (often stating their opinions as facts), without even giving the music a fair chance.

that's an accurate definition

not only classic rock, but also jazz, and classical music, of course...

At this point I don't think it's music snobbery in most cases so much as a legitimate grievance.

Let's all be honest here - the quality in music in general has declined significantly in recent decades, as well as the level of talent of the artists.

Compare the songs that were coming out in the 60s and 70s, the top ten countdowns from that era, to the stuff that's at the top of the charts now.

Nuff said.

And most of the artists that people wax rhapsodic about now would've never gotten a contract back then. Beyonce up against someone like Chaka Khan? Oh, please.

And she's actually the best of the current crop of music stars, so that says alot.

Most people aren't even on my musical intellectual level for me to consider their opinions about music.

I'll be back with an opinion.

I educate myself about all forms of music that I find interesting and cool. I left the snob side years ago.

Timmy84 said:

I educate myself about all forms of music that I find interesting and cool. I left the snob side years ago.

TD3 said:

Most people aren't even on my musical intellectual level for me to consider their opinions about music.

Dren5 said:

At this point I don't think it's music snobbery in most cases so much as a legitimate grievance.

Let's all be honest here - the quality in music in general has declined significantly in recent decades, as well as the level of talent of the artists.

Compare the songs that were coming out in the 60s and 70s, the top ten countdowns from that era, to the stuff that's at the top of the charts now.

Nuff said.

And most of the artists that people wax rhapsodic about now would've never gotten a contract back then. Beyonce up against someone like Chaka Khan? Oh, please.

And she's actually the best of the current crop of music stars, so that says alot.

Agree. But then again most people who get into these debates dont have a clue about the history of music and how it has change. Those are the FACTS no getting around it . There is nothing snobbery about that with pointing out how music and how people define "talent" has changed in the mainstream music industry. Its all mostly centered around looks and catchy radio beats currently.

And what also irritates me when it comes to this arguement specifically is when people who do know that it has changed try to pass it off or downplay the fucked up shit that has occured because of it. I dont like being negative either but its a disgrace what has happened to the music industry and it brings on interesting discussion. I dont see anything wrong with talking about it and I dont think it should be downplayed.

People every day single casually call these no talent hacks above and beyond and its good to have real music discussions thats puts everything in accurate perspective in other words no hollywood bullshit. Because none of these artists aside from Adele maybe would have a record deal in the same era of artists Chaka, Aretha, Whitney, Prince, Donny, Teddy, Teena etc came from...

Dren5 said:

At this point I don't think it's music snobbery in most cases so much as a legitimate grievance.

Let's all be honest here - the quality in music in general has declined significantly in recent decades, as well as the level of talent of the artists.

Compare the songs that were coming out in the 60s and 70s, the top ten countdowns from that era, to the stuff that's at the top of the charts now.

Nuff said.

And most of the artists that people wax rhapsodic about now would've never gotten a contract back then. Beyonce up against someone like Chaka Khan? Oh, please.

And she's actually the best of the current crop of music stars, so that says alot.

Chaka Khan would never get a deal now either.

Music is a tool to me.

I use music for different things.

Sometimes I use music as a tool to calm me.

Sometimes I use music to dance to.

Sometimes I use music to get me out of a funk.

etc.,

Sometimes I just like to listen, but other times I need to move.

So I need MANY different types of music to suit my needs and why I listen to any specific type of music.

Those of you who only use music for one need only just close yourselves off to the diversity in the wonder of all sounds. Its like only using one hammer to build an entire house.

Like for example dance music, those who can't dance will never come to appreciate its full effects on the body and mind.

So that's my take on the subject. I remember when rap music first came out and how many people hated it. I see how many people hate Salsa music because they don't speak Spanish. Its sad really how intolerant we all can be, and music tastes reflect that.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Dren5 said:

At this point I don't think it's music snobbery in most cases so much as a legitimate grievance.

Let's all be honest here - the quality in music in general has declined significantly in recent decades, as well as the level of talent of the artists.

Compare the songs that were coming out in the 60s and 70s, the top ten countdowns from that era, to the stuff that's at the top of the charts now.

Nuff said.

And most of the artists that people wax rhapsodic about now would've never gotten a contract back then. Beyonce up against someone like Chaka Khan? Oh, please.

And she's actually the best of the current crop of music stars, so that says alot.

Chaka Khan would never get a deal now either.

Yes she would if looks is what your refering to

There were plenty of people who had limited voices back in the day. Madonna, Janet, TLC just to name a few. Tammi Terrell's voice wasn't that great either.

at all you music snobs.

mjscarousal said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Chaka Khan would never get a deal now either.

Yes she would if looks is what your refering to

We weren't talking about looks.

Terrib3Towel said:

There were plenty of people who had limited voices back in the day. Madonna, Janet, TLC just to name a few. Tammi Terrell's voice wasn't that great either.

at all you music snobs.

ALWAYS calling the kettle black.. and dont read either... Nobody never said their were NO people with limited ranges back in the day. However, you rarely heard them on the radio..

The eras Dre was primarily speaking on were 60s and 70s act. TLC is NOT old school.. Janet and Madonna while not popular for their vocals and are not that old neither. They are late 80s and 90s acts. Tammi Terrell had a great voice but to each is own.

I dont see the point in people going on message boards if they call everyone a snob who holds a different opinion from theres, so childih

smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said:

Yes she would if looks is what your refering to

We weren't talking about looks.

Then what point were you implying? Her music?

mjscarousal said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

We weren't talking about looks.

Then what point were you implying? Her music?

Musically, Chaka Khan would not get a deal in today's industry.

smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said:

Then what point were you implying? Her music?

Musically, Chaka Khan would not get a deal in today's industry.

Agree!

smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said:

Then what point were you implying? Her music?

Musically, Chaka Khan would not get a deal in today's industry.

Why not?

Terrib3Towel said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Musically, Chaka Khan would not get a deal in today's industry.

Why not?

The business has changed to the point where you have to be fully developed by the time you reach a label - they will not sign you in hopes that you will soon get better. You have to be an automatic hit or no deal for you.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Terrib3Towel said:

Why not?

The business has changed to the point where you have to be fully developed by the time you reach a label - they will not sign you in hopes that you will soon get better. You have to be an automatic hit or no deal for you.

I'm not that into Chaka's music, but I think she has a great voice. She could have a hit with the right song. I'm not understanding your logic smooth..

She definitly would have had a better shot at independent or indie label where she would have more control over the direction of her music.

The more mainstream labels are interested in selling an image and generating quick hits with a catchy beat (which really doesnt require alot of talent) which I doubt Chaka would have been interested in.

There are alot of great great singers that dont get heavy rotation on the radio but not because their talent is un notice but because they dont sale an image or make pop shit. You have to be a willing participant in allowing record companies to control your image which I doubt Chaka would have allowed. So she probably would have gotten a deal but I highly doubt she would have gotten a mainstream one which Im assuming thats the one Smooth is talking about.

[Edited 4/29/12 13:36pm]

Terrib3Towel said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

The business has changed to the point where you have to be fully developed by the time you reach a label - they will not sign you in hopes that you will soon get better. You have to be an automatic hit or no deal for you.

I'm not that into Chaka's music, but I think she has a great voice. She could have a hit with the right song. I'm not understanding your logic smooth..

In 1974, Rufus released their self-titled debut album. Despite their fiery rendition of Stevie Wonder's "Maybe Your Baby" from Wonder's acclaimed Talking Book and the modest success of the Khan-led ballad "Whoever's Thrilling You (Is Killing Me)", the album failed to garner attention.

That's a no go for labels right there. You either hit it right the first time or don't hit it at all...you don't get any chances to develop, you have to be a hit right from the start or you will be dropped. Possibly she'd get a deal, (I should have wored it better), but she would not be a hit.

It also depends on the music she makes. Chaka would definitely not get a deal making what she did in the 80's.

Oh ok I get what you saying. I only know of her Rufus recordings other than "Ain't Nobody" and "I'm Every Woman." I do enjoy Rufus tho.

Terrib3Towel said:

Oh ok I get what you saying. I only know of her Rufus recordings other than "Ain't Nobody" and "I'm Every Woman." I do enjoy Rufus tho.

Me too.