The soundtrack to Hamilton isn't even good

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > The soundtrack to Hamilton isn't even good

Salem Saberhagen: Feb 23, 2009

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Meanwhile, Trump is going to legalize weed, and then hang out on the front porch blasting every Rush album in sequence for four years.

Holy poo poo i can't wait for january. I hope he keeps Hillary tied on a chain wearing the slave girl leia outfit.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 05:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 09:50

JakeP: Apr 27, 2003; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Lipstick Apathy

Salem Saberhagen posted:

Holy poo poo i can't wait for january. I hope he keeps Hillary tied on a chain wearing the slave girl leia outfit.

in guantanamo bay

# ? Dec 25, 2016 05:20

guns for tits: Dec 25, 2014

Les Liaisons Dangereuses is a good Broadway show.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 05:21

Nanomashoes: Aug 18, 2012

rabble rabble posted:

actually, despite being one of the most popular bands of the decade, let me tell u why the beatles are in fact terrible,

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 06:13

8-Bit Scholar: Jan 23, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Nanomashoes posted:

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

Yo Strawberry Fields forever though

# ? Dec 25, 2016 06:15

JakeP: Apr 27, 2003; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Lipstick Apathy

Nanomashoes posted:

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

ya hamilton is for simple stupid plebs

# ? Dec 25, 2016 06:15

JakeP: Apr 27, 2003; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Lipstick Apathy

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Yo Strawberry Fields forever though

ya unironically

# ? Dec 25, 2016 06:16

The Dennis System: Aug 4, 2014; Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth.

Nanomashoes posted:

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

Disagreed.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 06:32

The Muppets On PCP: Nov 13, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

Nanomashoes posted:

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

Extended note from 2010. The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith. They have turned me into some kind of Internet celebrity not because of the 6,000 bios that i have written, not because of the 800-page book that i published, not because of the 30 years of cultural events that i organized, but simply because i downplayed the artistic merits of the Beatles, an action that they consider as disgraceful as the 2001 terrorist attacks.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 06:49

JakeP: Apr 27, 2003; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Lipstick Apathy

lmbo

# ? Dec 25, 2016 06:59

Cactus Ghost: Dec 20, 2003; you can actually inflate your scrote pretty safely with sterile saline, syringes, needles, and aseptic technique. its a niche kink iirc

the saline just slowly gets absorbed into your blood but in the meantime you got a big round smooth distended nutsack

art isn't objective op, sorry bout it

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:00

Hustlin Floh: Jul 20, 2009; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Man some crazy poo poo going down itt. Apple carts are being upset like gangbusters

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:07

Madness: Jan 23, 2007

Ride The Gravitron posted:

I'm actually listening to the full symphonic recording of les Miserables right now

It's so good! And so is Hamilton.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:10

Locke Dunnegan: Apr 25, 2005; Respectable Bespectacled Receptacle

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Yeah, apparently the Obamas patronize this mediocre crap that serves to ignore the fact that this country was founded by wealthy slave-owning capitalists too arrogant to pay taxes.

I can see why it's popular in the White House.

Meanwhile, Trump is going to legalize weed, and then hang out on the front porch blasting every Rush album in sequence for four years.

If you want a historical musical to give more than lip service to every single change in societal and institutional norms between its setting and current day then I guess buckle up for one waaaaay longer than Hamilton's three hours or else maybe understand some limitations in how some art is made?

Or do you think that nothing good can come from people who have done terrible things? Because the Nazis made Fanta and it's pretty tasty.

Edit: also I like the soundtrack, though it drags on a bit in the later parts. Wait For It, Satisfied, and Dear Theodosia are probably my favorites.

Locke Dunnegan fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Dec 25, 2016

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:12

Nefarious 2.0: Apr 22, 2008; Offense is overrated anyway.

OMGVBFLOL posted:

art isn't objective op, sorry bout it

no but poo poo is and hamilton is objectively poo poo

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:15

Cactus Ghost: Dec 20, 2003; you can actually inflate your scrote pretty safely with sterile saline, syringes, needles, and aseptic technique. its a niche kink iirc

the saline just slowly gets absorbed into your blood but in the meantime you got a big round smooth distended nutsack

JakeP posted:

Does anyone who likes hamilton in this thread not have a tumblr?

yes

does anyone who doesn't like hamilton not have a computers job

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:19

Cactus Ghost: Dec 20, 2003; you can actually inflate your scrote pretty safely with sterile saline, syringes, needles, and aseptic technique. its a niche kink iirc

the saline just slowly gets absorbed into your blood but in the meantime you got a big round smooth distended nutsack

maybe this is just SF 2016 but ive literally never heard anyone but the most cringeworthy insufferable engineer types complain irl about hamilton

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:25

JakeP: Apr 27, 2003; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Lipstick Apathy

OMGVBFLOL posted:

maybe this is just SF 2016 but ive literally never heard anyone but the most cringeworthy insufferable engineer types complain irl about hamilton

ive never complained about hamilton irl for what its worth

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:27

JakeP: Apr 27, 2003; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Lipstick Apathy

just itt

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:27

Nefarious 2.0: Apr 22, 2008; Offense is overrated anyway.

OMGVBFLOL posted:

maybe this is just SF 2016 but ive literally never heard anyone but the most cringeworthy insufferable engineer types complain irl about hamilton

hang out with better people. we hate white people rear end after school special rap too

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:27

butterbar: Dec 14, 2016; If I'm posting while Quick Draw McGraw is on probation report me for my permaban!

OMGVBFLOL posted:

maybe this is just SF 2016 but ive literally never heard anyone but the most cringeworthy insufferable engineer types complain irl about hamilton

I recommend leaving sf, at least for a bit to reset your idea of normal

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:28

JakeP: Apr 27, 2003; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Lipstick Apathy

honestly i just decided to check out the soundtrack last night because I am staying at my parents for xmas, was bored, and people keep talking about it. I actually like most popular musicals, and musicals in general because im gay as gently caress, but I just don't find any of the songs in Hamilton to be very catchy, or funny in any way. Not trying to be a contrarian, I just don't get the hype on this one

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:29

JakeP: Apr 27, 2003; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Lipstick Apathy

also t oclarify, I am only gay in the sense that i like musicals, not that i like men,

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:32

Cactus Ghost: Dec 20, 2003; you can actually inflate your scrote pretty safely with sterile saline, syringes, needles, and aseptic technique. its a niche kink iirc

the saline just slowly gets absorbed into your blood but in the meantime you got a big round smooth distended nutsack

JakeP posted:

honestly i just decided to check out the soundtrack last night because I am staying at my parents for xmas, was bored, and people keep talking about it. I actually like most popular musicals, and musicals in general because im gay as gently caress, but I just don't find any of the songs in Hamilton to be very catchy, or funny in any way. Not trying to be a contrarian, I just don't get the hype on this one

it's hard to point to any one part and say "that is why I like it" so honestly it's not hard to believe someone else could just as easily listen to it and come away feeling vaguely unimpressed

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:43

Cactus Ghost: Dec 20, 2003; you can actually inflate your scrote pretty safely with sterile saline, syringes, needles, and aseptic technique. its a niche kink iirc

the saline just slowly gets absorbed into your blood but in the meantime you got a big round smooth distended nutsack

if there's one part about it that kinda stands out to me, it was probably the playful vocal delivery, especially the punchlines. there was kind of an oldschool/throwback kind of feel to a lot of the rapping. but im not an expert on either musicals or hip hop

# ? Dec 25, 2016 07:47

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

i have to assume the je m'appelle lafayette and im here to say "death to kings" in a major way bit is a joke but other than that it was ok, probably better if youre not watching some tumblr animation instead of the actors but still not thousands of dollars good

also let it be is one of the best drugs albums of all time possibly better than dark side of the moon and if you havent dropped something hallucinogenic and huffed your way through several boxes of nitrous listening to it you havent really listened to it

theyre pretty good drug music in general

and lol at the no challenging or innovative music line, they must literally have listened to the first couple of generic rock and roll albums and nothing else because theres all the sitar poo poo and a bunch of unlistenable experimental garbage like revolution 9 which i would not say was particularly commercial

# ? Dec 25, 2016 08:43

JakeP: Apr 27, 2003; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Lipstick Apathy

i like a bunch of beatles songs

# ? Dec 25, 2016 09:20

poopnanners: May 3, 2016; hey guys lets party

XMNN posted:

also let it be is one of the best drugs albums of all time possibly better than dark side of the moon and if you havent dropped something hallucinogenic and huffed your way through several boxes of nitrous listening to it you havent really listened to it

Drugs are cool, but it's pretty sad if you can't properly enjoy music without being hosed up. Maybe the music isn't that good. Maybe the audience isn't that good.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 17:29

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Get this. It's possible for things that are good... to be enhanced on drugs.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 17:37

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

The Protagonist posted:

Get this. It's possible for things that are good... to be enhanced on drugs.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 17:38

an adult beverage: Aug 13, 2005; 1,2,3,4,5 dem gators don't take no jive. go gator -US Rep. Corrine Brown (D) FL

Musical Theater is the lowest form of art. It's low brow art disguised as high brow.

# ? Dec 25, 2016 18:00

Locke Dunnegan: Apr 25, 2005; Respectable Bespectacled Receptacle

The Protagonist posted:

Get this. It's possible for things that are good... to be enhanced on drugs.

Sure drugs are good, but have you done drugs... on Hamilton?

# ? Dec 25, 2016 18:00

Blue Train: Jun 17, 2012

I think it would be better+more authentic if the actors performed in whiteface

# ? Dec 25, 2016 18:24

EugeneJ: Feb 5, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

an adult beverage posted:

Musical Theater is the lowest form of art. It's low brow art disguised as high brow.

It's regular theater watered down for retards.

"So the main character's daughter was just murdered...let's have him sing about it!"

# ? Dec 25, 2016 18:45

Locke Dunnegan: Apr 25, 2005; Respectable Bespectacled Receptacle

EugeneJ posted:

It's regular theater watered down for retards.

"So the main character's daughter was just murdered...let's have him sing about it!"

Any theatre that isn't in the original Greek is for literal retard babies

# ? Dec 25, 2016 19:13

Vlonald Prump: Aug 28, 2011; Here in America, you grab them by pussy. In old country, pussy grab you!!; Buglord

Nanomashoes posted:

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creat ive depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

You should really go see a doctor if your butt hurts that much

# ? Dec 25, 2016 19:28

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

it's cringeworthy edutainment horseshit that i couldn't get through five minutes of. fwiw my parents didn't much care for the music of Hamilton either but they liked the production. i'm not about to waste a lot of time and money to find that out myself, though

# ? Dec 25, 2016 21:22

Roadie: Jun 30, 2013

I like Hamilton because it's nice to have more musicals where all the songs relate to the plot in some way instead of having the obligatory long stretches of content-free and not particularly impressive dancing/choreography that a lot of musicals insist on having.

For contrast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EoXr07bmAs&t=50s

# ? Dec 25, 2016 21:37

Jonny 290: May 5, 2005; [ASK] me about OS/2 Warp

Bip Roberts posted:

When is someone going to write a Mathcore musical?

One of these was in the planning stages btw, but they weren't able to get the signatures in time

# ? Dec 25, 2016 21:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 09:50

Nefarious 2.0: Apr 22, 2008; Offense is overrated anyway.

Roadie posted:

I like Hamilton because it's nice to have more musicals where all the songs relate to the plot in some way instead of having the obligatory long stretches of content-free and not particularly impressive dancing/choreography that a lot of musicals insist on having.

For contrast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EoXr07bmAs&t=50s

this is better than hamilton

# ? Dec 25, 2016 22:16

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > The soundtrack to Hamilton isn't even good

«‹›6 »