Hardcore!

Which one do you like better?

  • I like shitty eurotrash hardcore better

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • I like shitty random noises hardcore better

    Votes: 6 50.0%

  • I am a sheep and have no opinion because I never decide anything for myself

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • Total voters
    12
Kinslayer

Kinslayer

Spy
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
379
Reaction score
0
Vegeta + someotherpersonIcan'tremember and I were talking about styles of hardcore in chat. So, I decided to make this poll.

Which one do you like better!

Do you like uninspired, unimaginitive, lack of musicality Hardcore techno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qj-pcSQS7U

Or do you like random shit mashed into a sequence of other noises Breakcore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8BNuJWOqFc

I have described the genres in such a way that my post will not influence your decision.
 
VSnares.

I think that breakcore is better than what you've labelled 'Euro hardcore'.
 
KineticAesthetic said:
VSnares.

I think that breakcore is better than what you've labelled 'Euro hardcore'.
Click to expand...

Couldn't think of anything else to call it, so if you have a suggestion, shoot.

Edit: Nevermind, stopped being lazy and looked it up.
 
You heard Venetian Snares and you said that's freaky.
 
Hardcore sounds even more pretentious and narcissistic than art rock. I think my opinion is the same as Monkey's.
 
They're both shit.
I'll return to my not-random-noises, thank you.
[art rock]
 
They're both shit, and I thought this thread was about metalcore hardcore.

I was gonna come in and bash that too, anyways.
 
This topic is full of tools that can suck cream.

Go listen to your ******-ass guitars and vocal mewling. My drum machine has more expression to boot than your garbage.

art rock
Click to expand...

Don't make me vomit.
 
Art Rock.. Rush, Dream Theatre, Pink Floyd.. Get the **** out, you techno raving club scene fag.

Drum machine has about as much soul as a peanut, and it will never match a skilled drummer. Ever. I don't care if you make it do 400bpm, so what, anyone can make a computer do that, if I seen a drummer do 400bpm I'd shit brix. And speed isn't what drumming is about anyways.. Like.. Gaw **** that post just made me hate you so god damn much, Absinthe..
 
First of all, Absinthe didn't say anything about skilled drummers. He didn't even compare a drum machine to a drum set.

I don't know how you are comparing a skilled drummer to a machine. How are they even comparable. One is a creative person and one is a tool for a creative person to use. What the **** are you talking about.

He's saying he can get more expression out of his drum machine than what is found in most rock music.
 
Most rock music doesn't use drummers? Boy have I been doing it wrong.
 
Just because a drummer CAN be expressive doesn't mean all of the music he performs in is expressive.
 
Likewise just because a creative person can program a drum machine doesn't mean anything it plays is creative (or expressive).

Most drum tracks really have to be played in context to be considered expressive or creative anyways.
 
Listen to something on Hard Normal Daddy by Squarepusher and tell me his drum machine is not being expressive.
 
Hence why I said "most". Listen to Der Trommler by Neil Peart, he's a rock drummer and that solo is amazing.
 
Who said anything about speed. Match a drummer? How about exceeding one. The machine is a conduit for creativity that does not rely on physical constraint, but the scope of your imagination. Possibilities are limitless. I find that to be more impressive and genuine than some ape beating out the same, tired patterns on a kit. Anyone can make a drum machine go to 400 BPM, but not everybody can put forth the effort to make something interesting with such a capability.

And Pink Floyd is the most overrated piece of crap this side of the Beatles.

This is a bit of devil's advocate. but I really do tire of this outdated, stupid idea that music made on a computer is somehow not "real" or is even trying to be a substitute for actual band members.
 
It's real music, you can do some things on a computer that you physically cannot do, but it seems to lack the 'emotion' (I know that sound cliche and douche-like to say), it's usually all in PERFECT time, the notes are hit perfectly.. Sometimes mistakes and human error make it better.

And I agree with Pink Floyd, not a big fan, but they are 'art rock'.

Absinthe said:
I find that to be more impressive and genuine than some ape beating out the same, tired patterns on a kit.
Click to expand...


This statement of yours however, just makes me think you are a retard. Without 'apes' beating on a drum kit, your drum machines wouldn't exist.

Watch this and tell me it's the same tired pattern over and over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEVrN9SdRuk
 
This thread derailed very easily. Can you guys talk about this elsewhere?
 
Dog-- said:
Watch this and tell me it's the same tired pattern over and over.
Click to expand...

Except that's not a song, it's a drum solo. You don't really see something like that often in 99 percent of rock music.
 
I don't think you watched more then 30 seconds in then..

And also, most (not all) techno/electronica songs just have a bass/snare throughout the whole song with keyboards and other things above that..

I hate to keep bringing up Rush, but listen to most of their songs, the drums change constantly. La Villa Strangiato.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbSWzK4nKQA

EDIT: I have no beef with you, vegeta, you know your music.. Absinthe is just being an amazingly generalizing dick though, he's pretty much saying if it's not done on a computer, it's shit. I realize there are good and bad of all genres, so we will just sit here arguing the best of each genre against eachother, they are both good, leave it at that. Absinthe you just suck.
 
Dog-- said:
I don't think you watched more then 30 seconds in then..

And also, most (not all) techno/electronica songs just have a bass/snare throughout the whole song with keyboards and other things above that..
Click to expand...
Sorry, but no. Very little of the electronic music I listen to has repetitive or rather unimaginative drum tracks.

lol at you attempting to say things about what most electronic music has. You've heard nothing. I'd guess you've mostly heard what most people have, dance music. Quite a pain in the ass when that's all people think of when they hear "electronic"
 
Sometimes mistakes and human error make it better.
Click to expand...

l157.jpg


While I understand that sentiment, although I do dig a lot of material with hyper-perfectionist, clinical precision, there is plenty of room for mistakes and other assorted "happy accidents". Listen to some old Aphex LPs and you can hear the hand-tuning on so much. Layers will unevenly fade in and out, audio glitches click and pop intermittently, timings will subtly deviate from their preset pace, sounds will abruptly and sometimes painfully clip from being too loud. And it's some of the warmest and expressive music I've heard.

You can chalk some of that up to analogue equipment, I guess. But the human touch can find its way onto a track through nearly any medium.

Besides, I'm one of those people who wholly accepts the idea of instruments having just as much creative significance as the user's input. I don't listen to a synthesizer or a breakbeat to "match" some physical equivalent, because they're two totally different worlds.
 
Vegeta897 said:
Sorry, but no. Very little of the electronic music I listen to has repetitive or rather unimaginative drum tracks.

lol at you attempting to say things about what most electronic music has. You've heard nothing. I'd guess you've mostly heard what most people have, dance music. Quite a pain in the ass when that's all people think of when they hear "electronic"
Click to expand...

I could pretty much say this to you vice versa the genres.. I could show you some retardedly amazing rock music, you probably haven't heard the best, like I haven't heard the best of techno.
 
There is no "best of techno"

Techno can have far far FAR too many different styles to be able to consider one style the best. Rock and techno can't be compared as genres. By their definitions they are just completely unequal. Rock is defined by its instruments. It's quite confined. Techno, being anything electronic, and electronic being able to reproduce any sound, it's just too much to call it one genre in the same sense of the word as rock is a genre. It's completely unlimited in almost every way music can be quantified. Rhythm, tempo, melody, mood, timbre, pace, composition all things that normally describe a genre, become entirely limitless and freeform. You could say techno is genreless. It's an entirely different form of music in itself.

I know that sort of sounds pretentious, but when you think about it, it's true.
 
Holy shit, it's all electronica, just different sub genres, just like rock has prog rock, acid rock, glam rock, hard rock, rockabilly, etc, etc. It's still rock.

Just like techno, dance, rave, etc, etc is all electronica.

Best is subjective, it depends on YOUR musical tastes, I meant I could show you what I think is the best of rock and you could show me what you think is the best of electronica.
 
I REFUSE TO CALL IT TECHNO

Needs more pretentiousness. Let's call it electronica. :D:D:D:D:D

EDIT: Shit, got beaten.
 
See my edit. They're not just sub genres.

I refuse to accept that electronica can be sub categorized in the same way that rock can.
 
Why not. All genres have sub genres.. Now you're just being an elitist douche vegeta...

Why can't it be sub categorized?

EDIT: ok I read your edit.. It's all a load of shit, vegeta. By your definition, slow songs should be a genre, and fast songs a different genre, heavy songs a different genre, and then all those sub categorized even further.... All songs have a different feel, if they were all the same we wouldn't have music.

Electronica = computized music
Rock = music with physical instruments.

I don't see whats so degrading about that. They are different genres.
 
Umm. What? You're seriously not reading my post right at all.

I don't know how else to explain this to you so all I can say is try again.

Genres of music are defined by how we can describe the various aspects of a piece of music. Like the elements I listed. I didn't say that one genre of music has to have only one value for each of those aspects. There are ranges and room for flexibility. But there are still things that remain which is how we can tell what the **** genre something is in the first place.

Electronic music isn't bound by any of that. Or at least, not most of it.

Rock = music with physical instruments.

Umm... rock means a lot more than just the use of physical instruments. It is far more specific than electronica. Incredibly more.
 
So if I did a cover of a electronica song on a keyboard/drums/guitar/etc, then what is it? It's whatever style I make it... A light clean feel and it's jazz, crank the distortion it's metal, add some delay and some hard reverb, it's art rock..

It's a genre, sorry to tell you.

EDIT: to above, there's always cross overs in genres, but those few don't over rule the many that make the genre.
 
Rock's more specific than just using physical instruments. I mean, classical music?
 
Electronica just creates a paradox when you try to call it a genre.

What if I make something using drum samples, guitar samples, bass samples, all composed electronically, and it sounded just like a rock song. Is it still electronica? Is it rock? This is why I disagree with viewing it as a mere genre.

Rock isn't defined only by the use of guitar drums and bass either. I could make a song with banging on a bunch of tom drums tuned to various notes and wail on a single low bass note with some weird pedal fx, with no real bpm and rhythm of any kind, is it still rock? I think not. If you were to play it to someone and ask them what it is, they'd either say it's not music at all or it's some kind of ambient.

With electronica however, you can take these kinds of odd directions and you're still in the realm of techno. Does this demonstrate to you the difference in amount of creative space that rock encompasses vs. the amount of space techno encompasses?
 
I explained those genres badly.. I dunno, it's hard to explain, when I hear a song I would know.. If you created that rock song, vegeta, then it is a rock song, and that second one.. idk how it would sound. Really I can't explain (I know, I know), but when you hear a song most of the time you know "oh thats *insert genre here*.. Like you could create any genre on any instrument really.. It's just the sound of it I suppose.

But then again, vegeta, using your same logic and even your second example, I could use the EXACT same argument saying 'you can't call rock a genre', I mean even you said it, I could create any sound using rock instruments, so I could be a electronica guy playing it all on guitars and basses, and you could be a rocker making computer rock songs.

You're being to technical, I think. It's not really how you make it, I suppose, it's how it sounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shakermaker
Remember Populous and Black & White?
2
Replies
79
Views
4K
Barnz
B
W
My Gman Theory
Replies
23
Views
4K
C.AdrianShephard
C
Krynn72
Make me some music already. (paying work)
Replies
10
Views
917
Krynn72
Krynn72
Dekstar
Counter-Strike: GOing Deep - Part 1
Replies
17
Views
5K
Ennui
Ennui
Majestic XII
Do you change your music style depending on what season it is?
Replies
5
Views
638
Kouler
Kouler
Back
Top