/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

Probably because the smiths fuckin sucked

People like to sing along, silly.

How are the Smiths not based around vocal melodies?

it's catchier

>>54056499
I sure do love the contrarian meme

>>54056509
The Smiths is extremely good for singing along, I don't get it

>>54056539
>OMG STOP PRETENDING TROLL
is this youtube

that's like asking why so many people like pop music

its easy on the ears, and gets stuck in your head

@54056479
>popular rock music
Does it even need to be explained further?

>>54056479
>>54056526

>>54056526

Are you deaf? Over 90% of The Smiths melodies, harmonies and progression come from Marr and Rourke. Morissey had a very poor vocal range.

>>54056614

>>54056499
>Probably because the smiths fuckin sucked

Came here to post this.

Fuck the Smiths.

>>54056654
Fuck you

>>54056614
I dunno, it's generally the vocal part that sticks out most to me in a Smiths song, and I think most people would say the same.
>poor vocal range
o_0

So, if the majority of popular rock music is based around the vocal melodies, how much does the instrumental actually matter? It seems like you can just play standard chords and be done with it. I'm listening to "In Utero" for the first time and dig the vocals, but I find the guitars kind of boring. Although, it can also be that I just prefer more clean guitars.

>>54056683

Morissey has very poor range and as a result the vocal melodies of the majority of Smiths songs are lacking. This is why nearly all Smiths songs were based around Marr's brilliant playing, not Morissey's singing.

>>54056826
(Not true, by the way)

>>54056671
The Smiths are boring and Morissey's singing/lyrics are melodramatic horseshit.

>>54056950

Most Smiths songs were based around Marr's playing. This has been stated many times by both Marr and Morrissey. And even if they had never said anything it's really, really obvious. Morrissey's baritone voice doesn't leave room for much else.

>>54057003
(Not true, by the way)

So is there a reason why vocal melodies are more interesting? I know that's a somewhat dumb question but I've only been studying music theory for a short time and I have a shit load of questions.

>>54056581
>@54056479

>>54056539
>>54056554
is it really that hard to believe someone doesn't like the smiths

>>54057765

I meant more pleasant, not interesting.

>why is the majority of popular rock music
>popular

you just answered your own question

>>54057882

I mean popular as in popular music (e.g., anything that's not art music). This also includes independent music.

>>54057835
>>54057765
Both words and pitches at the same time. The voice is also more versatile than most other instruments.

It's because in the end the Beatles beat the Rolling Stones.

>>54057922
>popular music (e.g., anything that's not art music)
That definition is the epitome of retardation though

>>54059026

>The voice is also more versatile than most other instruments.

Is this because the voice can use notes not found on Western instruments?

>>54059064

That's more or less a pretty standard definition.

lol the smiths fucking suck cock

>>54059042
this is why the world is wrong

>>54060103
>That's more or less a pretty standard definition.
It's not though.

The term popular music belongs to any of a number of musical genres "having wide appeal"[1][2] and typically distributed to large audiences through the music industry. It stands in contrast to both art music[3][4][5] and traditional music, which are typically disseminated academically or orally to smaller, local audiences.[3][4][5]

>b-but Wikipedia

Read the sources.

Other than Metal and instrumental genres, are there any genres where the majority of the works don't center around the vocals?

Bump.