Crunkcore discussion thread

[GammaBlaster]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

screw it

what the hell am I doing

[kommisar]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

yeah I couldn't find anything as great as Holler Till You Pass Out. I've been looking and it's been a constant dry spell



you've said something like this before, associating genres with age groups like that impinges on them

I am interested in how you derive your associations of music and age, shit seems arbitrary playa

most people on this website associate speedcore to angry 15 year olds too

[.Layne.]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

yeah I couldn't find anything as great as Holler Till You Pass Out. I've been looking and it's been a constant dry spell



you've said something like this before, associating genres with age groups like that impinges on them

I am interested in how you derive your associations of music and age, shit seems arbitrary playa

shots fired

yes

[Arch0wl]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

it seems like there's two kinds of crunkcore

* the kind that's like Holler Till You Pass Out where it's like exaggerated crunk with electro and possibly dubstep influences

* the kind that has emo or screamo singing in it

don't care for the second kind, I really like the first kind but it's so hard to find D:

[Crazyjayde]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

Basically, there's more than just two branches in crunkcore. Scrunk, fundamentally takes "crunk" and adds harsh vocals/rap or screaming onto it (screamo vocals). There's nothing to categorize the instrumentation adjoined to it.
So it can vary from rap rock to electropop to post-hardcore and could probably go elsewhere if most of the bands you'd find in this wouldn't be young adults growing into late prepubescent phase like you. It's not because you like it, it's how you claim to like it.

Family Force Five's "Business Up Front / Party In the Back" and Hollywood Undead's "Swan Song" are crunkcore albums I know that ranges in the decent tier on a quality scale. 3OH!3 is tolerable, but if you try to look further for something alike, you'll end up doing a circle.

* If it's so hard to find, it's simply because it's a genre that grew to be dead at the start simply because it centers a specific minority and was unfavorably acclaimed by the critics. It's also utterly repulsive.

[Arch0wl]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

critics are irrelevant when considering the viability of a genre, for many reasons

and anyway, if trap can experience a revival, I have faith in heavy electro rock-crunk

I want to believe

[Crazyjayde]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

Critics are irrelevant? You mean, the only form of opinion directly related to the appreciation and perception of a musical direction and is also critical to its development becomes irrelevant when it comes to evaluating its potential growth?
Understand that when I mean "critics", I don't mean the opinions of self-procclaimed columnists like Pitchfork's goblins, but I do mean the overall opinion gathered by most of the audience.

There may be a future wave of interest in crunkcore, but expect that it will only be an offshoot emerging from the genre. Most music enthusiasts associated crunkcore and its derivatives to being unappealing, it's quite pointless to try and freshen an already questionable genre. The sound will die within the few bands that represents it.

But hey, what do I know. The world is acclimated to hearing dung music all day on radio. You do have a point with trap music revival. But hey, isn't 3OH!3 and the likes a revival in a way too?

[Choofers]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

if crunkcore actually sees a revival I'll laugh my fucking dick off

critics are irrelevant when considering the viability of a genre, for many reasons

for some genres, critics are terribly relevant and if you're not aware of this I recommend you listen to some... better music

[Arch0wl]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

Audience opinion is distinct from critic opinion; audience opinion matters a lot, but critics are people whose position is founded on the assumption that their opinion is in some way worth elevation above audience opinion. Your initial claim was that critic opinion is responsible for the viability of a genre in some way. I find this dubious; this would entail audiences valuing critic opinion enough to base their purchasing decisions on it in a substantial way, and I seriously doubt that has ever been the case for genres where the fans don't have pretenses to a kind of aesthetic objectivity. Maybe for certain indie genres this is the case, but it's not true for genres like dubstep and it has never been true for any genre where visceral qualities of the music take precedence over the results of formal analysis.

My skepticism of the value of music criticism is compounded by the fact that most music criticism is argumentatively vacuous. Any conclusion you give ("x is y", "this is more of the same", "this is good", "this is bad") needs to be demonstrated with supporting reasoning, and music criticism rarely does this. Mainstream music criticism is a chain of conclusions (I mean conclusions in the logical sense of an argument's conclusion, not in the sense of conclusions as "ideas" or "thoughts"), with no backing for those conclusions. Discerning the critic's criteria for their star rating is difficult, because they rarely state this outright; they will instead list a string of pros/cons, with the pros and cons implying what they think an album should be.

This problem exists because most music critics are not formally analyzing the music and are instead approaching it journalistically. Similar criticisms have been raised of food critics who did not go to culinary school. Even when they do have formal training, they do not invoke these formal analyses in their criticism. You will find formal analyses of music in academia, but in that environment I understand it's frowned upon to presuppose the universality of quality; worse, most of what academia likes, re: music, is music that the vast majority of the population (FFR included) would deem unlistenable, since after a certain point the music becomes less something to provoke a visceral response and more of a puzzle with the aid of viscerality. The value of this is questionable when it becomes a game of status-reinforcement for critics.

The state of music journalism and by extension music criticism is based on a Wizard of Oz-like authority smokescreen, because most music criticism amounts to making declarative statements with the most novel adjectives the author can think of, like "while the execution has changed, the content is still more or less the same as it has ever been." There isn't any kind of standard of substantive proof for music criticism. It's either proof-by-authority, proof-by-cred or proof-by-audience approval. And in all cases, it will reduce to audience approval anyway

So while there are some genres of music where this mythology of the critic is valued, like I said, critics by definition are anti-visceral because their job presumes the value of taking a step back and reflecting on the novelty or meaningfulness of the music. The idea that they would have an influence on something like crunkcore or dubstep or any genre that doesn't aspire to critic praise is silly. I will listen to critics for book reviews, but I can't think of a single person whose opinion would be influenced by a review of Excision - X-Rated. At best, critics in that instance serve as people who can echo a more intelligent version of audience opinion to people who would otherwise dismiss the music because it doesn't gel with their view of what music should be, serving as a kind of social mediator. But no, I don't think they would ever influence album sales.

[Crazyjayde]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

Good read. I'd like to partake in this argumentation, if it wasn't for the fact that you misread my standpoint. I corrected myself on the usage of the word "critics" But don't worry bud, I'm in accord with your analysis, although there's no need to go all out for something I did not actively state.
You should read my earlier post as: "the audience's appreciation is directly related to the growth of a musical tendency".

Are you sure you are okay?

[Arch0wl]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

i'm solid bro don't worry

i'm even a little...

..crunk...

[Choofers]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

Audience opinion is distinct from critic opinion; audience opinion matters a lot, but critics are people whose position is founded on the assumption that their opinion is in some way worth elevation above audience opinion. Your initial claim was that critic opinion is responsible for the viability of a genre in some way. I find this dubious; this would entail audiences valuing critic opinion enough to base their purchasing decisions on it in a substantial way, and I seriously doubt that has ever been the case for genres where the fans don't have pretenses to a kind of aesthetic objectivity. Maybe for certain indie genres this is the case, but it's not true for genres like dubstep and it has never been true for any genre where visceral qualities of the music take precedence over the results of formal analysis.

My skepticism of the value of music criticism is compounded by the fact that most music criticism is argumentatively vacuous. Any conclusion you give ("x is y", "this is more of the same", "this is good", "this is bad") needs to be demonstrated with supporting reasoning, and music criticism rarely does this. Mainstream music criticism is a chain of conclusions (I mean conclusions in the logical sense of an argument's conclusion, not in the sense of conclusions as "ideas" or "thoughts"), with no backing for those conclusions. Discerning the critic's criteria for their star rating is difficult, because they rarely state this outright; they will instead list a string of pros/cons, with the pros and cons implying what they think an album should be.

This problem exists because most music critics are not formally analyzing the music and are instead approaching it journalistically. Similar criticisms have been raised of food critics who did not go to culinary school. Even when they do have formal training, they do not invoke these formal analyses in their criticism. You will find formal analyses of music in academia, but in that environment I understand it's frowned upon to presuppose the universality of quality; worse, most of what academia likes, re: music, is music that the vast majority of the population (FFR included) would deem unlistenable, since after a certain point the music becomes less something to provoke a visceral response and more of a puzzle with the aid of viscerality. The value of this is questionable when it becomes a game of status-reinforcement for critics.

The state of music journalism and by extension music criticism is based on a Wizard of Oz-like authority smokescreen, because most music criticism amounts to making declarative statements with the most novel adjectives the author can think of, like "while the execution has changed, the content is still more or less the same as it has ever been." There isn't any kind of standard of substantive proof for music criticism. It's either proof-by-authority, proof-by-cred or proof-by-audience approval. And in all cases, it will reduce to audience approval anyway

So while there are some genres of music where this mythology of the critic is valued, like I said, critics by definition are anti-visceral because their job presumes the value of taking a step back and reflecting on the novelty or meaningfulness of the music. The idea that they would have an influence on something like crunkcore or dubstep or any genre that doesn't aspire to critic praise is silly. I will listen to critics for book reviews, but I can't think of a single person whose opinion would be influenced by a review of Excision - X-Rated. At best, critics in that instance serve as people who can echo a more intelligent version of audience opinion to people who would otherwise dismiss the music because it doesn't gel with their view of what music should be, serving as a kind of social mediator. But no, I don't think they would ever influence album sales.

crunkcore/10

[GammaBlaster]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

what the fuck am I doing

[EzExZeRo7497]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

I agree with Crazyjayde's posts overall. Audience opinion is definitely the key driving force for musical growth.

I don't know about you but I don't see the relevance between music criticism and viability to begin with. Music reviews/criticisms are an evaluation of an album, track or piece and not to advertise, that's a plus more than anything.

The fact if it's baseless or not is basically irrelevant because it's mainly subjectivity and aren't reviews supposed to be biased to an extent, otherwise wouldn't every review essentially deliver the same message?

I do agree with most of your points, but honestly I don't understand why you brought up critic opinions and album sales in the same post, lmao. If an album became popular because of the fact that it's universally acclaimed (The Fall of Math, Loveless, The Disintegration Loops)/panned (I'm Not A Fan, But The Kids Like It) by many critics out there, I wouldn't say that the critics wanted to make the album more popular, but more to say that it is a good album.

why am i even posting about this wow

[Kraezymann]

Re: Crunkcore discussion thread

I have absolutely zero understanding in this department but I do have one question; I was always under the impression that critics were around to help a creator make something better than what he/she made before.

Maybe there are different kinds of critics?

If I made a song that someone didn't like because they just didn't like the song, I can't call them a critic because they aren't helping me "critique" my song, or telling me what could be better. Outright saying you don't like it is less helpful than saying nothing at all. So why do some people like that continue to review?

Reviews and critics in general have always been interesting to me; I should really look into getting more info about it.

ON TOPIC THOUGH

I have never really heard this kind of music before. But in Arch's first post when I heard that I immediately thought of The Lonely Island or Swing by Savage. I just get the impression its not supposed to be taken too seriously lol. Maybe its BECAUSE of TLI that I feel like that