toppermost of the poppermost

January 28, 2011 6:08 PM

OK, y'all just get over to Metafilter Music and listen to loud magic song. That is all.
posted by flapjax at midnite to MetaFilter-Related at 6:08 PM (144 comments total)

OK, I did! But why does this need a metatalk thread?
posted by ericost at 6:12 PM on January 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

That was terrible.
posted by empath at 6:19 PM on January 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

song written by 3 year old? for the soundtrack to the AxeCop movie?

apologies, but while AxeCop was a hoot for the first 4-5 comics, by the time it got to Episode 20, I had completely lost all faith in the creative efforts of young children.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:27 PM on January 28, 2011

Q: But why does this need a metatalk thread?
A: OK, I did!

Yay!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:29 PM on January 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

I have kids too! Lots and lots of recordings!
posted by thinkpiece at 6:34 PM on January 28, 2011

See also: "Kaila Speaks" by Victor Wooten and daughter.
posted by danb at 6:43 PM on January 28, 2011

I have kids too! Lots and lots of recordings!

That's wonderful! Have you accompanied those recordings with instrumental backing tracks, creating something fun and well-crafted, that other people might enjoy listening to? If so, I hope you'll consider posting them to Metafilter Music! They'd be most welcome there!

Heck, even unaccompanied tracks of your kids singing would be fine to post as well, if you think they'd be of interest to others. Lots of folks who have no kids in their lives (as well as those who do) might like to hear such recordings. And the good part is that no one is required to listen to them, if they don't want to. Nor is anyone required to express opinions on them!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:46 PM on January 28, 2011 [7 favorites]

Q: But why does this need a metatalk thread?
A: OK, I did!

Yay!

I guess I should have mentioned that I wish I hadn't. Also that I don't think calling attention to your favorite songs on music.mefi is a good use of metatalk.
posted by ericost at 6:48 PM on January 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Your opinion is duly noted, ericost.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:49 PM on January 28, 2011

Don't just note it, flapjax at midnite, make a metatalk post about it!
posted by ericost at 6:55 PM on January 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

take it to metametatalk, boys.
posted by empath at 6:57 PM on January 28, 2011 [8 favorites]

I agree with ericost. The mechanism for calling people's attention to particularly awesome stuff is through the sidebar. If something is awesome enough, then you should ask the mods to add it there instead of making a MeTa thread.
posted by grouse at 6:58 PM on January 28, 2011

Ya'll should check out this MetaTalk post. Unless you don't want to. Hell, I didn't. Unless I did.
posted by Brocktoon at 7:07 PM on January 28, 2011

The mechanism for calling people's attention to particularly awesome stuff is through the sidebar.

As far as I'm aware, this is not some universally hailed law, carved in stone. There have been numerous instances in the past of people using MeTa to call attention to something noteworthy at some other part of the site. So, there are plenty of precedents. However, if the mods feel that this is strictly not to be a welcome or accepted practice from here on out, I expect they'll express their opinions about it here, as, of course, all members are encouraged and welcomed to do as well.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:12 PM on January 28, 2011

There have been numerous instances in the past of people using MeTa to call attention to something noteworthy at some other part of the site.

This is true.
posted by iconomy at 7:18 PM on January 28, 2011

flapjax, you might also LOVE the work of Anne Geddes. She also highlights the adorability of children.
posted by artlung at 7:23 PM on January 28, 2011

Not really my cuppa tea, artlung, but thanks anyway!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:24 PM on January 28, 2011

There have been numerous instances in the past of people using MeTa to call attention to something noteworthy at some other part of the site.

This is true. There are numerous instances where the only noteworthy thing about the other post was merely that the MeTa poster thought it was good. I didn't think those were good uses of MeTa either, but (a) this post seems particularly thin, and (b) it seems like there have been more of these recently, as more people notice others doing it and think it's an OK thing to do. But like using the grey for tryouts before a post or updates after it, it's something that doesn't scale and I think there's too much of it already.
posted by grouse at 7:27 PM on January 28, 2011

There have been numerous instances in the past of people using MeTa to call attention to something noteworthy

Yeah, and I asked you why this particular song deserved a metatalk thread (i.e. why is this noteworthy), and your answer was, well, not much of an answer. So again, why is this noteworthy among all the other songs on mefi? That it's a cute kid singing to a "fun and well-crafted" instrumental backing track? Come on.
posted by ericost at 7:29 PM on January 28, 2011

Gotta love the tags on that song:

disco
magic
preschool
punk

Sounds like cool new genre to me.
posted by philip-random at 7:31 PM on January 28, 2011

Well, I for one am deeply offended that someone used MeTa to highlight something they liked and thought others might like too.
posted by Dumsnill at 7:31 PM on January 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

I thought it was cool, and I wouldn't have heard it if not for this thread. I don't see why the occasional pointing out of cool thing would be banned from MetaTalk... especially if it's from the non blue/green/grey subsites.
posted by SAC at 7:33 PM on January 28, 2011

OH NO TOO MUCH NICENESS ON METATALK

A COMMUNITY MEMBER POINTING OUT GOOD THINGS

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I always thought Anne Geddes' stuff was dehumanizing of the babies in a disconcerting way that I find interesting. The baby-as-food-item ones in particular.
posted by the young rope-rider at 7:34 PM on January 28, 2011 [4 favorites]

Holy shit we are so close to running out of MetaTalk posts! There's only like three left in the bin and you're wasting it on this joyous awesome music? THINK OF THE CALLOUTS BEFORE YOU PULL STUNTS LIKE THIS ONE FLAPJAX.

No wait—Thanks for the heads up flapjax is what I meant to say. I love when kids make music. Parents can help.
That little girl remix one
Eyeball Skeleton
Kidz Bop
posted by carsonb at 7:41 PM on January 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

dehumanizing of the babies in a disconcerting way that I find interesting. The baby-as-food-item ones in particular.

SOUP'S ON!!
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 7:49 PM on January 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hey, Flapster....

thanks, I wouldn't have found that... and it made me smile and, as for the rest of these crabby folks... we'll talk and laugh about them when they've gone home...

and, someone tell me what the link is for metametatalk, 'cuz that's gotta really be something!
posted by HuronBob at 7:51 PM on January 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is kind of tangential/old, but it involves kids and music and I'll be goddamned if I can stop posting it: an Olsen twins song about pizza slowed down to sound awesome and demonic.
posted by danb at 8:00 PM on January 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Awesome song.
As far as I can tell, umbú records the impromptu songs that his son sings and then, using the melody and rhythm of his son's voice, he scores the accompanying music.
While completely unrelated, it's similar to the way that Charles Spearin's acclaimed Happiness Project composes.

It's really quite impressive.
posted by chococat at 8:05 PM on January 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Thank you for calling our attention to that. I don't usually check Music and I wouldn't have heard that otherwise. It was cute and in places it was kind of amazing, considering it was a three year old.

Also, it really sucks that "shit on it" is the default over "ignore it."
posted by bondcliff at 8:05 PM on January 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

Flapjax, I loved it, as well as your unbridled joy. I love it all so much I am going to make FOUR emoticons!

:) :) :) :)
posted by bluedaisy at 8:21 PM on January 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Also, it really sucks that "shit on it" is the default over "ignore it.""

I'm the first to admit that I've shieted on a few threads, but, I agree 100% with this.. a comment/post can be ignored, it can be flagged, a memail can be sent to a mod, the contact form can be filled out... but doodooing in the thread is the least productive way to change it...
posted by HuronBob at 8:21 PM on January 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

metal version
posted by puny human at 8:25 PM on January 28, 2011

but doodooing in the thread is the least productive way to change it...

Can't you just ignore it? Flag it? Memail it? Contact form it?
posted by Brocktoon at 8:27 PM on January 28, 2011

Yeah, I guess I could start a metatalk thread about a metatalk thread, but i figured since we were already here...
posted by empath at 8:27 PM on January 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks, flapjax, for the shout out. I think this one turned out fun, so I'm glad that more people are going to end up listening to it. I appreciate the kind words from folks that liked it.

chococat mentioned the way that I 'reverse engineer' these songs. It's a method that I started to get interested in exploring because of mefi music. By the Grace of God posted some of her incredible a capella songs, which you should check out if you haven't--her voice is amazing. Anyway, once I decided to try to play along with her already recorded voice, even though she wasn't singing to a strict pulse.

After that I realized that I could record my son as he runs around right before bed. He's in a free association mode even more than usually at that time of night, and he just naturally has this low, raspy voice for his size. So he's never singing along with a loud band. He just sings things, and I chop out the most melodic or rhythmic bits and build a song around it afterwards. It's actually a big challenge to make a drum machine sound like a sloppy drummer.

Anyway, thanks again for listening.
posted by umbú at 8:28 PM on January 28, 2011 [7 favorites]

Generally, MetaTalk is also an option if you want to discuss a site etiquette/policy concern.
posted by grouse at 8:30 PM on January 28, 2011

Here's the link for By the Grace of God's songs.
posted by umbú at 8:31 PM on January 28, 2011

It's actually a big challenge to make a drum machine sound like a sloppy drummer.

Quoted for truth.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:32 PM on January 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, and I asked you why this particular song deserved a metatalk thread (i.e. why is this noteworthy), and your answer was, well, not much of an answer. So again, why is this noteworthy among all the other songs on mefi? That it's a cute kid singing to a "fun and well-crafted" instrumental backing track? Come on.

I am sorry that this song didn't feature a pegasus sacrifice on a nuclear altar for you. How awesome does something have to be before you like it?
posted by Brent Parker at 8:47 PM on January 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

I would like a transcription of the lyrics, please. I intend to memorize this note for note.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:51 PM on January 28, 2011

As one of Music's unofficial curators, yeah, I do care what f@m thinks are notable. He's welcome to make these posts with fre quency up to and including of "WHY IS MY $badpost/$badcomment/ GONE" posts.
posted by boo_radley at 8:54 PM on January 28, 2011

I often forget to go into Music, but I did drop by yesterday because my brother tentatively posted his first song there. If it wasn't for the occasional "hey this is cool" posts for stuff I think we'd miss out on cool things just with the effort of filtering the filters.
posted by gomichild at 8:54 PM on January 28, 2011

I would like a transcription of the lyrics, please.

Seconded.

And if we're doing pony requests, I'd also like to see the whiners pilloried and shunned for their complete lack of taste.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:59 PM on January 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

That was terrible.

Yeah, Pitchfork totally gave it a 3.5.
posted by hellojed at 9:00 PM on January 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

For a few chocolate ducats I can arrange something with the Archbishop of Salzburg.
Geez, 3, and already with the critics.
posted by clavdivs at 9:07 PM on January 28, 2011

empath and I are better than your kids!
posted by cashman at 9:18 PM on January 28, 2011

This is the best I could do. I went back to the multitrack and soloed out the vocals:

You want a drum?
Sure, I have a drum.
It's a magic drum.

Doot dee deet deet deet dee
Deet dee deet deet deet dah
Deet dee deet deet deet dah

We go all crazy!

Doot dee deet deet deet dee
Deet dee deet deet deet dah
Deet dee deet deet deet dah

Hey, this is a loud song.
I should turn the volume down
shhhhhh.

Deet dah doht doht dai dah
Aye needah peenkah beedah
joh jah tree tree

Deet dah deet deet dee dee
woot joo joot jot bee dah
woot joo joot joot beet dah beedah

I think some magic song
can work
(Here comes the magic)

Put it down on the floor,
then it will bounce.
(deet dee deet doo) 3x

magic magic magic match
magic magic magic whoa
fairy fairy magic magic
fairy magic magic
fairy fairy magic magic
fairy

fairy fairy magic magic
fairy magic magic
fairy fairy magic magic
fairy
magic magic fairy

Deet dah deet deet dee dee
woot joo joot joht beedah
woot joo joot joot beet dah beedah (2x)

magic song
(Here comes the magic)

Put it down on the floor,
then it will bounce.
(deet dee deet doo)

magic magic magic match
magic magic magic whoa
fairy fairy magic magic
fairy magic magic
fairy fairy magic magic
fairy

Whoa. This is slippery.
(It is a little slippery, isn't it?)
posted by umbú at 9:18 PM on January 28, 2011 [35 favorites]

needs more noun.
posted by clavdivs at 9:32 PM on January 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Put it down on the floor,
then it will bounce."

I'm still laughing...
posted by HuronBob at 10:35 PM on January 28, 2011

This is horrible. Flapjax should know better than this...
posted by hal_c_on at 10:51 PM on January 28, 2011

This is the best thing ever. If you don't like this song, then you don't like music. And if you don't get that metatalk is a good place for pointing out things that are particularly notable, then you don't understand how metatalk works.

Thanks, flapjax.
posted by koeselitz at 10:59 PM on January 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

And if you don't get that metatalk is a good place for pointing out things that are particularly notable, then you don't understand how metatalk works.

I honestly do not believe this is what MetaTalk is for.

It is what favorites and the "Fantastic" flag are for, however.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:12 PM on January 28, 2011

that was awesome. a regular little mark e smith!
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:11 AM on January 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

recursive beanplating!
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 12:22 AM on January 29, 2011

dying to hear the remixes for this one. share the vocal track?
posted by naju at 12:29 AM on January 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

Lying in bed getting depressed reading the morning paper, this song cheered my morning - thanks flapjax!

I for one like the occasional use of meta to pointing me to noteworthy threads in the green or music or projects that I may have missed.
posted by charles kaapjes at 2:06 AM on January 29, 2011

I was all ready to do the kid-indulging-parent-hating snark on that and... well, fuck. Huge fun. Huge.
posted by Decani at 2:17 AM on January 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

I for one like the occasional use of meta to pointing me to noteworthy threads in the green or music or projects that I may have missed.

Absolutely.

flapjax is to music
as orange swan is to crafting
as kattullus is to collections of interesting stuff in libraries and so forth
as languagehat is to hats

On the blue, flapjax has pointed us time & time again in the direction of great music, from all kinds of genres & all corners of the world. Only, this particular song originated in mefi music, and was therefore not appropriate for a post on the blue (unless it somehow got there via projects).

So, as the blue wasn't appropriate, this to me is a perfectly good post on the grey.

Plus, I still want to see The Fall do a cover.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:52 AM on January 29, 2011 [3 favorites]

I didn't listen until now because I usually feel very meh about most stuff people get a boner over around here. But the song is amazing, especially if it was on the fly. Did he make up the words as he went along? Were you playing while he was singing or did you add the music afterwards? I can't believe how good it is. Hell.
posted by iconomy at 5:34 AM on January 29, 2011

Sys Rq: “I honestly do not believe this is what MetaTalk is for. It is what favorites and the "Fantastic" flag are for, however.”

If this isn't "metafilter related," what is? If the only thing allowed in metatalk is complaints, what kind of world would that be? We don't have these kinds of threads every day; we just have them every once in a while. It's odd that people start pooh-poohing them now.
posted by koeselitz at 6:07 AM on January 29, 2011

Nice editing too. Lifts it to a whole nother level. Great fun.
posted by Namlit at 6:28 AM on January 29, 2011

I liked it a lot, thanks for posting!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:19 AM on January 29, 2011

Wasn't there just a "hey, that was some tasty liveblogging" MeTa a few days ago? This is exactly what the grey is for. Dislike the singing kid all you want, but jeez.

Also: some upcoming Monthly Music Challenge should involve covering/remixing this.
posted by mintcake! at 8:18 AM on January 29, 2011

Flapjax at Midnight's taste in music is my favorite. I rarely go over there for whatever reason, so am happy that he brought it here.

If it's good enough for him to call out, it's loud and magical enough for me.

MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC!
posted by functionequalsform at 8:21 AM on January 29, 2011

Another call for soloed vocals.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:23 AM on January 29, 2011

Plus, I still want to see The Fall do a cover.

FAIRY MAGICAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
posted by mintcake! at 8:27 AM on January 29, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is absolutely fantastic, thanks for pointing this out. I think I say this in ever MeTa about Music, but I need to hang out over there more often. I just got Logic Express for xmas so I might even have something to contribute someday.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 8:47 AM on January 29, 2011

Holy freaking cow. People complaining about an occasional shout-out to an awesome song? I mean, seriously? I don't get it. This is MetaTalk. It's not hallowed ground. It's a place we talk about MetaFilter and its subsites in a variety of ways.

Yeesh.
posted by ORthey at 9:03 AM on January 29, 2011

I'm glad this was posted here. I would not have found it otherwise, and its great.

I know there's good stuff over on the music site, but I haven't figured out a way to find it without wasting my time with lots of stuff I don't like.
posted by DarkForest at 10:13 AM on January 29, 2011

Thanks again, all. Here is the vocal track soloed out.
posted by umbú at 12:11 PM on January 29, 2011 [2 favorites]

He doesn't stay in one place for long, does he.
posted by iconomy at 12:22 PM on January 29, 2011

Thanks for sharing this flapjax!

(umbú, serious quiestion; how does your kid do it man? Is it the cheerios? Legos? Juicy Jooce Boxes? I gotta know!)
posted by snsranch at 1:32 PM on January 29, 2011

This entertained me. Thank you, flapjax and umbú.
posted by EvaDestruction at 1:54 PM on January 29, 2011

Thanks, flapjax and umbu and umbu's kid! That was great.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:56 PM on January 29, 2011

... I don't think calling attention to your favorite songs on music.mefi is a good use of metatalk.
posted by ericost

Unless you're name is... flapjax at midnite!
posted by StickyCarpet at 2:34 PM on January 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

... I don't think calling attention to your favorite songs on music.mefi is a good use of metatalk.

Unless you're name is... flapjax at midnite!

Honestly not sure if that's a friendly-spirited comment or a sarcastic one, but either way, it is factually incorrect, as evidenced by a sampling of "check out this awesome song!" posts to MetaTalk:

The Whelk recommends MonsieurBon's Get Out!

Astro Zombie recommends joetrip's Jeff Buckley's Ozark Melody

Karlos the Jackal recommends Mefi Musician's Pandora's Music Box

mathowie recommends cortex's 88 Lines About 44 Mefites

mojohand recommends flapjax at midnite's I'm Waiting for the Man

stavrosthewonderchicken recommends cortex's matthewchen is spamming
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:11 PM on January 29, 2011 [4 favorites]

Flapjax at midnite, the day when you need to justify anything that you do here is the day when I retire from here. Not that anyone will miss me, but I'm sure they'll miss you. Cheers brother.
posted by snsranch at 8:49 PM on January 29, 2011 [4 favorites]

If someone finds joy in this song, what's the harm? None that I can see.

If someone finds the sentiment behind the posting of this song trite in the extreme, what's the harm?

After all, the value in this song is not musical - it's entirely extra-musical. It's the perfect illustration of what Ben Johnson was getting at:

"53. Dog walking on his hind legs; Expectations; Pioneers; Women preaching
I told him I had been that morning at a meeting of the people called Quakers, where I had heard a woman preach. Johnson: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
Boswell: Life"

So both parties are right. Musically it's shit, but the music part is irrelevant, what is relevant is that a wee kid of 3 manages to be oh so cute and he sorta kinda with the cooperation of dad, made a "song", and some people find joy in that.

I mean, if a dog sang rather than walked, Ben Johnson would have said the same thing, and been just as right. In this case it's a kid, and the mechanism is exactly the same.

So now we go to the issue of posting this to the gray. Some are happy because they got their fix of cute. Understandable. But what of the 'haters'? I suppose what they find disappointing, is that they thought flapjax at midnite was a reliable music guide, and if he draws attention to something by making a whole post about it, then they expect some solid piece of music, something amazing - instead, they are treated to a stunt, an equivalent of chain-mail posting of youtube cat shenanigans and laughing babies... that's not what flapjax at midnite is supposed to be about when it comes to music (he may do that about anything else that's outside of what he's famous for as his core competency).

And now that I've thoroughly beanplated this, I'm going back to my iTunes.
posted by VikingSword at 9:32 PM on January 29, 2011

Thank you for making this post! I am neglectful of MuFi and almost never interact with that subsite. If not for this post I wouldn't have spent the last day with 300 tabs open to delicious, flavorful beats, nor would I have formed an in-progress playlist to maximize my photoshoppery enjoyment, and maybe most importantly, my emotional equilibrium would still be majorly out of whack from this Egypt stuff. As it is, I'm sane, thanks to the power of ~music~.
posted by Mizu at 9:35 PM on January 29, 2011

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

That reminds me of the story of when a new English Viceroy of India, upon first seeing Lutyens' Viceregal palace in New Delhi, quipped: "If they had told me it was designed by a monkey, I'd say 'what a clever monkey - now take it out the back & shoot it, lest it do it again'"

This was not aimed in any way at the song or performer, just in response to the earlier quote.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:56 PM on January 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

After all, the value in this song is not musical - it's entirely extra-musical.

Musically it's shit...

Haha! You realize, of course, that this is an entirely subjective personal opinion of yours, right? And that whatever music you've 'gone back to on your iTunes' may well be considered "shit" (as you put it) by any number of other people, right? And that those people would not be correct in classifying it as "shit" simply because they, personally, don't find any "musical value" in it, right?

Right?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:59 PM on January 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

Musically it's shit...

Bullshit to that. I've listened to it twice now and for me it boils down to the two things:

1. a very little kid with a rudimentary/instinctual grasp of how to organize sound cut loose with some free form DADA, which is always an extreme/beautiful thing.

2. umbu did a beautiful job of further organizing the sound, laying down beats and loops etc

Thus, we have us a RECORD. If I was running a label, I'd press it tomorrow (7-inch, of course, with the acapella track on the b-side).

Keep on rockin' in the free world.
posted by philip-random at 11:41 PM on January 29, 2011 [5 favorites]

Haha! You realize, of course, that this is an entirely subjective personal opinion of yours, right? And that whatever music you've 'gone back to on your iTunes' may well be considered "shit" (as you put it) by any number of other people, right? And that those people would not be correct in classifying it as "shit" simply because they, personally, don't find any "musical value" in it, right?

Right?

How precious - subjective! It's merely your personal opinion, maaaan! 'All art is subjective' - I think that rejoinder was covered, when - in first grade? Once out of first grade, we realize that it's odd to say 'the sun will rise tomorrow is merely a subjective personal opinion', and naive to say "but art is different", because undeniably there are universal human responses and why some art moves great numbers of people, reliably and repeatedly (rather than utterly randomly), in a neurological fashion (example: it is universally true for people of all cultures to apprehend when a face is sad or happy; certain aspects of physical beauty are neurological rather than merely cultural, because even babies respond to symmetrical features etc.) And the other side of the argument loses too - should we accept that all art is utterly random subjective opinion where one cannot connect the aesthetic response to repeatable neurological phenomena in our biological species - well, then one may as well stop talking, ever about good art vs bad art... Bach is just as good/bad as any random youtube ditty or this baby tune for that matter - and brain-MRI studies showing pleasure centers light up with one vs the other, be damned. It's all personal opinion maaaan!

But there really is no point in demolishing as hopelessly flabby a retort as 'it's all subjective', the recourse of a schoolboy who did poor work.

After all, you are reduced to maintaining that this ditty has musical value, and wish to deny that the entire effect is derived from the "lookee it's a baaaby doing it!!!UNO!". There is no need for me to argue against that. Merely putting it as plainly as that is fully satisfactory.

Rather than have the grace and intelligence to admit that you posted this as a 'feel good' item (which decision I did not criticize on those grounds), you prefer to keep digging yourself in deeper with untenable positions - and so with a straight face you claim that there is musical value in this. Something one may listen to for musical reasons, perhaps pour over it's musical structure, and dissect the musical effects. This ditty - on an equal musical footing with even the greatest music known to man - since you have no idea what I may be listening to - the entire universe of music, music that has stood the test of time for centuries. OOOOKay... and now I know what you are made of, flapjax at midnite.
posted by VikingSword at 12:38 AM on January 30, 2011

What is that smell...
posted by Mizu at 1:28 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

VikingSword: in the spirit of objective critique, then, can you tell us exactly why this song has no musical value?
posted by girih knot at 1:58 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

De gustibus non est beanplatum.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:31 AM on January 30, 2011 [3 favorites]

Let me mention that "musical value" for professional musical beanplaters (like myself) is a very hard thing to capture, much harder than it is to say that some things by (for example [also: wow, great example]) Bach do have musical value.

In the case of this little song, the kid's input is what one would call the inspiration (one would use this term as well, when talking about, say, Beethoven improvising, who was known for first randomly playing some notes and then developing his thoughts from what he heard. Random notes: no musical quality. Beethoven developing his music from them: high musical quality [talking before 1804 or so, before he went deaf an stopped improvising]).
The musical quality in this case (about the level of which one may discuss, but which as and of itself is undeniable) is introduced by the editing, looping, adding beats and so on, which seems to have been quite an extensive job.
Now, one could work with these elements and say (in the manner of a composition teacher) that some solutions could have been made better, or different or what; the fact that there is some substance for such technical remarks shows that there is some musical quality here.

Besides.... "this is bad. This is good. This is bad because I said it first. This is good because my ears are better. This is bad and you're doing like a high school kid...etc." Don't we have youtube for this kind of discussion?
posted by Namlit at 3:06 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

and it is beanplateandum
posted by Namlit at 3:06 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

oh - second declension.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:36 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

That's a trick answer, right?
[I totally can't believe I'm doing this. I was total ugh at Latin. The Gerundive is probably the only thing I ever remembered]
posted by Namlit at 4:33 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

You are a funny little man, VikingSword. And I wish you well.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:14 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

Wow, VikingSword, of all the people here whose musical knowledge you could impugn, you picked flapjax at midnite?? That response he gave is more than you're worth.
posted by danb at 7:25 AM on January 30, 2011 [2 favorites]

Wow, what a fucked up thread. This song is funny, happy and musical in an interesting and non-standard way. If it was on Youtube, he could have posted it to the blue and no one would have complained but because IT IS MetaFilter related it was posted to the gray (and so commence the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments).
posted by doctor_negative at 8:08 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh, you know what I hate? Fun.
posted by .kobayashi. at 8:38 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

song - YAY
thread - BOO
VikingSword - Lucky for you and for all of us that, of two musics, you are able to objectively determine which is better. I hope that you will complete this promising work by producing a ranked list of bestness of all music across all known times and regions, so that we can know which music to stop making, for it would indeed be an ugly stain on the face of humanity if the ignorant production of lesser music were to continue.
posted by sleevener at 9:39 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

"I enjoyed this song, your expressions of non-enjoyment are wrong and not worthwhile."

"I did not enjoy this song, your expressions of enjoyment are wrong and not worthwhile."
posted by artlung at 10:18 AM on January 30, 2011

wow, of all the things to throw fits about. How in heck did this completely harmless and appropriate usage of meTa turn out this way? Why would metafilter users even bother posting such ill-informed, mean-spirited excrement?

It is time we all work together to change the tonality around here.
posted by archivist at 11:05 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

Now, if that song doesn't make you smile, your dead inside!
posted by ericb at 11:06 AM on January 30, 2011

Great gravy, what a fucking car-wreck.

Look, I fall solidly on the side of this is a great occaisionaluse for MetaTalk but as grouse rightly noted,

Generally, MetaTalk is also an option if you want to discuss a site etiquette/policy concern.

So, sure it is fine to call into question the 'point' of this post. On the other hand, I've generally seen the 'grey' as being sort of like the faculty lounge - where the topic is meta the other sites, but encompassing not just etiquette but also content. This post being about the content of a post on another site.

Whatever you might think of the music, this kind of post is well within the boundaries of standard operating procedure on the grey as established by precedence and general community consensus. If it weren't, a mod (responding to flags on the post) would likely stick his/her head in and address it.

I know that I would be the poorer for it if these kinds of posts went away. They add to the texture of the sight, they detract from it's function not one whit.

Now here comes the magic
posted by From Bklyn at 11:18 AM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

*you're*
posted by ericb at 11:19 AM on January 30, 2011

It's the perfect illustration of what Ben Johnson was getting at

Only on Metafilter would someone use a douchey, antiquated Samuel Johnson witticism (about how women are unfit to preach!) to justify calling something entirely unrelated "shit," while misattributing it to some fictional entity called "Ben Johnson." (Do you mean the playwright Ben Jonson who lived centuries earlier?) Hilarious. Can we get any more pompous?

Anyway, Sammy J is wrong, because women can preach, and so are you, because kids can make awesome music.
posted by speicus at 11:57 AM on January 30, 2011

Once out of first grade, we realize that it's odd to say 'the sun will rise tomorrow is merely a subjective personal opinion', and naive to say "but art is different"

Once out of second grade, ideally, we realize that "art is subjective" is a shorthand for "all art has subjective elements because it's a complex interaction between cultural, neurological, and maybe universal factors" and that it's naive to think of nature vs. nurture as a binary decision or a zero-sum game.

Ideally.
posted by speicus at 12:07 PM on January 30, 2011

VikingSword - it's ironic that you mention Bach, of all people, in support of your argument for the scientific & neurological objectivity of musical value.

Because what Bach did in his Well-tempered Klavier was to screw with the natural, scientific system of harmonies that had been known & used at least since Pythagoras had discovered the formal, physical relationship between the notes, in his project to allow the piano to be played in any key.

While this made the piano more versatile (and caused all other instruments to change their tunings to suit) it also violates the perfection of natural harmonies. Not in a massive way, and only a person with perfect pitch would really notice it, but it certainly was a project of consciously forcing square pegs into round holes.

So, if you wanted to point to the objective rules behind music, it would be better to say "except for Bach, and everything that came after him", because he was all about clever pragmatism triumphing over purity.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:04 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

ouch
posted by Namlit at 1:59 PM on January 30, 2011

it's ironic that you mention Bach, of all people, in support of your argument for the scientific & neurological objectivity of musical value.

Because what Bach did in his Well-tempered Klavier was to screw with the natural, scientific system of harmonies that had been known & used at least since Pythagoras had discovered the formal, physical relationship between the notes, in his project to allow the piano to be played in any key.

The science I'm referring to has nothing to do with "rules of harmony" - it has to do with the simple neurological fact that such a thing as aesthetic response exists in the first place. And critically, that the response differs depending on the quality of the music. It has nothing to do with "rules of harmony" - it is much more complex. Here are some quick examples:

Study Links Emotional and Neural Responses to Musical Performance

"It is well known that music arouses emotions. But why do some musical performances move us, while others leave us flat? Why do musicians spend years perfecting the subtle nuances that bring us to tears? Scientists at Florida Atlantic University have now identified key aspects of musical performance that cause emotion-related brain activity, and they have shown for the first time how these performance nuances work in the brain, in real-time."

The point being is that there is a scientific way of proving an objective reaction to certain quality of work - in direct opposition to the ignorant "it's all your subjective opinion maaan" claims. Poor work does not cause this reaction. Good work does. Another example:

Why Musicians Make Us Weep And Computers Don't

"Music can soothe the savage breast much better if played by musicians rather than clever computers, according to a new University of Sussex-led study."

The point is exactly that - it's not "all subjective". There *is* crap music, and there is great music, and everything in between. And it can be demonstrated. So only an ignoramus would pull out "it's subjective" as a defense of poor work, because neurology tells us otherwise.

And again. I certainly didn't castigate anyone for posting this ditty, or for that matter for enjoying it. I said so explicitly - there is value in the ditty. Extra-musical value, but value nonetheless.

Remember this recent viral phenom - the dancing merengue dog? Well, I certainly would not object to it being posted, and I certainly understand how millions of people can enjoy it. Just as with this ditty here. Nothing wrong with that. BUT certainly, what we enjoy here is the fact that it is a DOG that is doing the dancing. Nobody is claiming that what we enjoy is the beauty of the merengue dance moves as we would with a skilled dancer - it's not the dance art aspect of it that we enjoy. That's all I said. I was therefore astonished that someone would spring forward and claim that actually it is exactly the dance art that is the point here - an especially fine performance of the merengue meriting being called out - entirely apart from the "dog doing it" aspect.

And so it was here. I'm as willing to enjoy the ditty as the next person, but I wouldn't claim that it's based on the musical quality apart from the child aspect of it. And then someone feels the need to assert that a 3 year old child's performance is musically on the same footing as any other music in the world, Bach or not, because after all "it's all subjective personal opinion maaan!". It may give you equal joy - but that joy is not derived from the music. Pretty uncontroversial, seems to me.
posted by VikingSword at 2:52 PM on January 30, 2011

VikingSword - I don't think those studies say what you think they say, or else you're making a different point to what I thought.

For example, the first study compares neurological responses to the same Chopin piece, depending on whether it was played expressively or robotically. In the second study, the 'robotic' is taken one a step further, with a computer playing the piece.

This distinguishes different performances of the same piece, not that one piece is necessarily superior to another. Thus, for example, there was no attempt to 'objectively' compare the Chopin Etude with Hariprasad Chaurasia's Raga Chandrakauns: Gat In Medium Jhap Taal, against the Wiggles' I Want to Play With My Ding-a-ling.

So, those studies could potentially support a point that lil umbu's version of loud magic song may have been 'better' if more expressively performed by Sade (or whatever else you have in your iTunes), but they don't 'prove' that it's a bad song, or even a bad performance.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:23 PM on January 30, 2011 [4 favorites]

Oh, the laughter of children. How it cuts through me like a knife!

But seriously, the song is great and I'm glad flapjax called my attention to it.

Now, if we could steer this thread back to recordings of kids rocking out, here's my recommendation, which I'm guessing umbú in particular will like.
posted by hydrophonic at 3:36 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

So, those studies could potentially support a point that lil umbu's version of loud magic song may have been 'better' if more expressively performed by Sade (or whatever else you have in your iTunes), but they don't 'prove' that it's a bad song, or even a bad performance.

I'm afraid you you are missing an important point as to *why* they used the same piece of music in these studies - and that reason strengthens my point, not weakens, it. Take the studies of the same piece:

1)Chopin's Etude done well - strong response (can be objectively quantified by the size of area of the brain that lights up) we score that 9
2)Chopin's Etude done poorly - we score it 2

Imagine now that a scientist has not actually heard either performance - s/he can still tell which is the *better* performance just by looking at the brain scans! It's the one, where the larger area lights up for a more profound experience. It's as objective as it gets - blind study, where the scientist doesn't know ahead of time which piece is played.

Now, you present scores to the scientist for *various* pieces rather than the same piece. It doesn't matter what they are. What matters, is which gives a more *profound* aesthetic response as measured by the brain scan - entirely objective. And that is not dependent on it being the same piece at all. So if the Chopin Etude track scores 9 in a specific brain region associated with musical experiences, whereas a track by K-Fed scores 2 - well, at which point, we can accurately say, that the Chopin track is a better piece of music responsible for more profound aesthetic response. And so on for any and all pieces compared to each other for large numbers of people.

In fact the studies are even stronger - not only can we tell which pieces of music evoke a more profound experience, but which performances of the *same piece* are better! That is much more devastating to the "it's all purely subjective" thesis.
posted by VikingSword at 3:47 PM on January 30, 2011

The "it's all purely subjective" thesis is a strawman that you constructed when you gave your subjective opinion that this song had no musical value without providing any claim as to why.

I don't know a lot about music. I don't make music and I'm a lazy listener to music -- it's just not my passion. That being said, to me, this piece is a lot more than "aww a baby how cute." It's an expression of the pure joy of making music, a kind of deconstruction of the process that's innate in all of us, and a reminder to find sheer, unbridled joy in the act of expressing ourselves.

So again I ask you: in the spirit of objective critique, why doesn't this song have musical value to you?
posted by girih knot at 4:04 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

VikingSword - extrapolating from a study to presume what a completely different imaginary study might conclude is hand-wavery, not science, so don't pretend to be using SCIENCE! to justify your arguments.

Once you introduce various pieces of music, you introduce the element of personal or cultural subjectivity (eg Chopin v Hariprasad Chaurasia), so unless you control for those elements, your conclusions would be worse than meaningless & your imaginary study would be laughed so hard out of any respectable peer-reviewed editorial panel that you'd be wishing "F-" was somehow referring to the musical scale.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:15 PM on January 30, 2011

It's merely your personal opinion, maaaan!
It's all personal opinion maaaan!
"it's all subjective personal opinion maaan!"

This is weirdly attacky and an unpleasant rhetorical tack.

not only can we tell which pieces of music evoke a more profound experience, but which performances of the *same piece* are better!

Neither you, nor Roger Ebert, nor Jon Pareles, nor the Pope, nor the nice folks at Science Daily can tell me with any degree of accuracy which x I will enjoy more than any other x. Sorry.

"Loud Magic Song" tickles me in the same place that "John Somebody" or "Mom Dad" or much of the other work of Scott Johnson does. Johnson has explored examining the pitches within spoken tape pieces, and constructing melody and rhythm around those pieces. Those works make me happy and are interesting to examine structurally. Same with "Loud Magic Song." It has nothing to do with "aww, cute kid." There's solid craftsmanship and a smart, well-executed idea that ended up sounding really neat. It's super cool that you don't like the song itself. Please don't attempt to explain to me why I do.
posted by mintcake! at 4:27 PM on January 30, 2011

"I'm Going Back To My iTunes"
an epic limerick, by flapjax at midnite, dedicated to the noble VikingSword and his Superior Tastes

in my iTunes library, dear friends
artistic means justify ends
extra-musical shit?
you won't find a bit!
would you like it? well, that all depends...

i can demonstrate just why you should!
you see, science has proven it's good!
if you do not agree,
monkey, back in your tree!
alas! you have ne'er understood!

Bach and Chopin? now that's art!
not some savage's atonal fart!
hierarchies are clear
it says so right here
in this study! see? just read this part!

so, some crap your kid made yesterday,
has no musical value i say
and what's here on my 'Pod?
not a bit of it's odd
and with that, sir, I bid you good day!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:41 PM on January 30, 2011 [13 favorites]

Okay, now someone get umbú's kid to recite that, and I'm thinking some fiddle for backing?
posted by Mizu at 4:47 PM on January 30, 2011

Why Musicians Make Us Weep And Computers Don't

That study is stupid. You can be as expressive with computers as you can with a piano, they are both musical instruments being played by human beings.
posted by empath at 4:51 PM on January 30, 2011

flapjax: what scale would you set that to?

I'd suggest the Ironian Mode.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:56 PM on January 30, 2011 [3 favorites]

[...]Once you introduce various pieces of music, you introduce the element of personal or cultural subjectivity (eg Chopin v Hariprasad Chaurasia), so unless you control for those elements, your conclusions would be worse than meaningless[...]

But the "element of personal subjectivity" is controlled for - that is why you do a n-subject study, a group of people, rather than an individual. If large groups of people find Beethoven to give a more profound experience (per brain scans), than K-FED, then that's what obtains for the species homo sapiens sapiens. It doesn't mean you can't locate an outlier who gets a more profound experience than K-FED. But the conclusion is valid nonetheless - that's what statistically valid sampling is all about.

Further, it is also controlled for cultural factors - since the studies were performed for people of the same cultural background. But the study goes even further - from the first study: "Furthermore, musically experienced listeners were found to have increased activity in the emotion and reward centers of the brain." Human beings get better at tasks they perform more often - that's a truism. Experienced listeners are more discerning than inexperienced listeners. When you examine the group of experienced listeners, the gap between Beethoven and K-FED would grow. That's not subjective - that's something that can be measured. As happens, music is a pretty universal language and the cultural barriers to musical experiences are lower than, in f.ex. poetry appreciation. It would not be impossible to assemble a group of experienced listeners who are intimate with both the Western and Indian Classical music. And then you can rank away using scans, even pieces from different cultural traditions - either statistically significant numbers of experienced listeners have profound experiences, or they don't, and it can be quantified (that was the point of the study - it's very sensitive... it can tell the difference between different performances of the same piece).

In any case, the cross-cultural factor is not relevant in this particular case, since this piece can be submitted to a group of experienced listeners of the same Western culture.

In other words, it's not "all subjective" and a K-FED piece is not on equal aesthetic musical footing as each and every other piece of music.

What I am arguing against is the idea that aesthetic experiences are just a construct without objective neurological correspondents. Because that's the only way in which "it's all subjective" has any validity. That was the claim made.

If however someone wants to maintain that throwing down with K-FED is as profound an aesthetic experience as with any other music, well, it may be true for the, though they'd be outliers. And if someone wants to maintain that any child of 3 anywhere is physiologically capable of generating music as profound as to stand with any other, well, the same obtains... for that was the claim.
posted by VikingSword at 5:20 PM on January 30, 2011

I missed the part where VikingSword actually enumerates the specific musical elements that are aesthetically "shit" and describes how they would be made aesthetically correct or universal or whatever. Also, he would need to clarify whether he's making a metaphysical/transcendental claim to universal aesthetics (à la Plato; that aesthetic beauty exists independently of human value judgments) or an empirical-humanist one (à la Hume; that all humans share a set of aesthetic values).

I suspect that this debate/clusterfuck would've gone in a very different direction if the phrase that started it all had been "It's all cultural" instead of "It's all subjective." Or maybe not?
posted by LMGM at 5:28 PM on January 30, 2011

I missed the part where VikingSword actually enumerates the specific musical elements that are aesthetically "shit" and describes how they would be made aesthetically correct or universal or whatever.

Nor did I enumerate "the specific musical elements that are aesthetically "shit" in the work of K-FED. No doubt there's a flood of petitions for me to justify my calling K-FED's music shit.

I have also not enumerated any reasons as to why there are no large groups of dancers carefully studying the performance of the merengue dancing dog for aesthetic insights about their own dancing, just as I have not enumerated the reasons why chanting by a 3-year old is to be put on the same musical level as any and all music in history. I await the angry demands for proof that the way the dog danced the merengue was "shit", as there already are demands that I carefully enumerate why it is that a 3-year old's music is anything but shit from a musical point of view.
posted by VikingSword at 5:36 PM on January 30, 2011

So your version of controlling for a variable in a scientific study is not to try to isolate that variable & its possible effects, but simply to throw more subjects into the mix & tally up the results? Good luck with that research grant.

the studies were performed for people of the same cultural background

Citation please. I saw nothing in either article suggesting this.

When you examine the group of experienced listeners, the gap between Beethoven and K-FED would grow

Pure speculation on your part. The original studies showed that the neural response was greater in experienced listeners than in inexperienced (however that is defined). You have no data whatsoever to suggest that 'experienced' listeners don't light up more across the board, regardless of what they're listening to. It was even pointed out that this greater 'receptiveness' to music could've been the cause of their musical interest, not a learned response to it - another dubious & unfounded assumption on your part.

The rest of your pseudo-scientific hand-wavery was just a bunch of further confusion about how you think that subjective responses - once 'objectively' measured with fancy equipment - suddenly somehow become objective, which seems to be the logical fault at the root of your woolly-headed thinking.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:49 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

flapjax: what scale would you set that to? I'd suggest the Ironian Mode.

Sorry to say, Ubu, but I'm just not enough of an experienced listener to tell my Ironian from my Draconian, so, I just did my humble best...

I'm Going Back To My iTunes
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:16 PM on January 30, 2011

Well, UbuRoivas, since you appear to have very poor understanding of how studies work, the returns on discussing this with you are equally poor.

So your version of controlling for a variable in a scientific study is not to try to isolate that variable & its possible effects, but simply to throw more subjects into the mix & tally up the results? Good luck with that research grant.

It's not my version. It's how science works. A variable's "possible effects" are irrelevant unless, you know, those effects actually impact a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is that every subject in a group has a random preference to a given stimulus - driven by whatever factor - then you can test that hypothesis by exposing the subjects to that given stimulus. If now all align along one dimension, it immediately disproves that hypothesis - since it clearly is not random (and having a sufficiently large group insures the odds of it being purely accidental becomes extremely low). Now you say all have this thing called "subjective taste" and therefore all should respond differently - but they don't respond differently according to the brain scans, they all light up stronger with one track vs the other. That in fact isolates the variable ("subjective taste") perfectly from that point of view... which is what we are interested in in this case.

You have no data whatsoever to suggest that 'experienced' listeners don't light up more across the board, regardless of what they're listening to. It was even pointed out that this greater 'receptiveness' to music could've been the cause of their musical interest, not a learned response to it - another dubious & unfounded assumption on your part.

from the study:

"The fMRI data suggests that experienced listeners get a greater charge out of the music, although we can't say from this data whether the increased neural activation is due to their experience or whether these individuals seek out musical experiences because they derive greater pleasure from music."

Whether they get a greater charge/pleasure due to having extensive experience or they seek out musical experiences because they derive greater pleasure is irrelevant to the question of whether they would be more skilled at telling good music from bad. To put it another way - for whatever reason - they are experienced listeners; and being an experienced listener is definitionally more capable of dissecting a musical experience, simply due to familiarity with the form.

But seeing as the returns on this discussion are so poor due to the aforementioned problems, I am going to give it a rest. It is not necessary for you to grasp the science behind the aesthetics so you can enjoy the ditty. I wish you the best with whatever music it is you like, including this ditty. Good luck!
posted by VikingSword at 7:41 PM on January 30, 2011

Viking Sword, that's rhetorically shit and needs more ethos.
posted by Hoopo at 7:46 PM on January 30, 2011

And more ditty.
posted by puny human at 7:50 PM on January 30, 2011

Also your rhyme scheme needs to be tightened.
posted by Mizu at 7:54 PM on January 30, 2011

Won't somebody tell me what ditty wah ditty means?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:54 PM on January 30, 2011

It's part of a rhyme - the next line is "play him out, keyboard kitty"
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:31 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

...and now I feel better about my own personal flaws and their relative inoffensiveness...
posted by From Bklyn at 12:16 AM on January 31, 2011

I think that we can agree that appreciation of any kind of music is cultural. But if you are into western classical music, VikingSword, how can you be so sure that this kid isn't the next Bach ?
posted by nicolin at 1:48 AM on January 31, 2011

Get Bach to where you once belonged.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:53 AM on January 31, 2011

In the USSR, Bach gets in you!
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:32 AM on January 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

From me and many other modrən musickers:

"Wherever we are, what we hear is mostly noise. When we ignore it, it disturbs us. When we listen to it, we find it fascinating."

and

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."

-John Cage, king of all "non-music" music.

Dedicated to flapjax:

"Great musicians accept everything that they hear and find something good. They take what they like and they throw away what they don't like."

-John Zorn, king of all squeeeeeeely saxes.

I know it's atypical, but I just love sound. I love the way different sounds affect different people in different ways. I love simple music with direct harmony and melody; I love raucous, atonal, and dissonant music that challenges the listener as much as it does the player, and most everything in between.

This song is the purest kind of artistic expression I've seen in a long time; visceral, untamed, and wholly unapologetic. I'm not saying that a 3-year-old is actively trying to make some grand gesture of artistic credibility, flipping off the system of established popular music trends, but it's still pretty fucking cool. Umbú, your kid is at least seventeen flavours of awesome.
posted by askmeaboutLOOM at 3:23 AM on January 31, 2011 [6 favorites]

"I'm Going Back To My iTunes"

I always preferred Lamont Dozier's original to Richie Haven's remake -- despite Richie getting much more airplay and deck time in the clubs.

I'm done reading all the runes
I'm going back to my iTunes,
Yeah,
The music of my youth,
You know that it's the truth,
It's better than the rest,
Oh man I'm just not that impressed,
By this tune made by a dumb kid,
What happened to the 4/4 grid?
So, I'm done reading all the runes,
I'm going back to my iTunes,
Yeah,
Back to the music of my youth,
Everybody knows the truth,
Ain't talking 'bout no iTunes in this land,
I'm talking 'bout the iTunes in this man,
New music is all crap,
Death metal, gangster rap,
Prog rock's objectively superior,
And the muso's were all hairier,
I'll put my fingers in my ears,
That way I'll never have to hear,
The racket of those goons,
I'm going back to my iTunes,
Yeah...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:21 AM on January 31, 2011

Metatalk is the blue for mefi music, in such the way that the Blue is the blue for MefiProjects.
posted by frecklefaerie at 6:17 AM on January 31, 2011

Since this hasn't been mentioned in the thread yet:

((( hugs )))
posted by filthy light thief at 6:39 AM on January 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

Holy fuck can someone please reassure me that people are not actually arguing the merits of scientific musical studies in a thread about a song featuring a 3 year old lead singer because HOLY FUCK
posted by rollbiz at 7:53 AM on January 31, 2011 [3 favorites]

::offers soothing internet baked goods to rollbizz::

I think what happened is that the MAGIC FAIRY FAIRY MAGIC got a little dust in VikingSword's typing fingers and nobody offered a juice box or suggested a nap and some other people also probably needed perhaps a snack and some legos.
posted by Mizu at 9:05 AM on January 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

Unless you're[sic] name is... flapjax at midnite!

Honestly not sure if that's a friendly-spirited comment or a sarcastic one

I don't do sarcasm. Cynicism occasionally, but I'm trying to cut down. It clashes with my friendly spirit.
posted by StickyCarpet at 9:09 AM on January 31, 2011

Man, how did I miss this whole thing?

1. Pointing out a cool thing somewhere else on the site is one of the things Metatalk has historically been used for; that hasn't changed recently.

2. Presentation matters; something more like "hey, here's a link to a neat recording on Music and a little bit of explanation of why I think it's neat!" is generally going to go over a bit better than a blind "go do this now, that is all" thing, so I can sort of understand some of the chatter/pushback on the meta-question of the post.

3. That said, chilling a little bit in metatalk wouldn't do anyone any harm and there could have definitely been a bit more of that here on a couple different fronts at various points in the thread.

4. In my subjective personal and artistic opinion that song was totally fucking neat and I'm glad it was pointed out. It's totally okay to not think it's a good song; being pointlessly abrasive in arguing the point, not so great. Just giving the whole thing a pass instead is always a practical option.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:13 PM on January 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

Man, how did I miss this whole thing?

Someone put it down on the floor,
and made it bounce.
But the floor was slippery, and it bounced out of sight.
woot joo joot joht beedah,
Then we went all crazy; it's the magic of the Grey.

Talking neurology and musical quality is in fact unbelievably slippery (doing it in this fashion: depressing, too). Talking Bach, "pianos", musical temperament, the musical history of transposing into all the keys, and the history of ensemble intonation is extremely slippery too, but that's beside the point just here.

And I still like that song for its obvious musical qualities (I don't know that kid, see, so cutiecute doesn't work over here; I actually listened)
posted by Namlit at 2:49 PM on January 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

snacks & legos plz.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:03 PM on January 31, 2011

Dr. Zoidberg, I presume?
posted by speicus at 8:34 PM on January 31, 2011

I am offended by music and children, and also the internet.

And keyboards!
posted by everichon at 1:01 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Got no kids and have trouble dealing with loud noise for long, and I thought the song was great. If "Uncontrollable Urge" and "Ever Fallen In Love" had a love-child and raised it to age three and then gave it instruments, it might sound something like this.
posted by Lexica at 4:33 PM on February 2, 2011

That was better than any song I've ever written. Good work!
posted by XhaustedProphet at 1:24 AM on February 4, 2011