Techno?

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

I'm not trying to make anyone listen to the music that I listen to.

But I am telling them that the music they listen to is an insult to the word "music," and that anyone who actually respects the whole concept behind art can realize that.

[Kilgamayan]

So you are attacking their opinions and degrading the people themselves by suggesting that they are ignorant to a grand concept.

All right, we'll leave it at that. I want to go a different route.

You make your statement as if there are universal, objective prerequisites for a medium to be considered "good art" or "good music". If you wouldn't mind, could you produce these prerequisites, and then logically prove why they are universal, objective prerequisites?

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Yes, yes I would. Thank you for asking, Kilga.

Art is creative expression, therefore, "art" that is neither creative nor earnestly expressive, but rather is constructed for the sake of making cash, is not "good art."

[Kilgamayan]

All right, now can you logically prove that all popular music is neither creative nor expressive, but merely contructed for the sake of making cash?

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Yes, yes I can.

http://www.mtv.com/

[Kilgamayan]

That is not sufficient proof. I require a logical, step-by-step argument, where each statement involved can be logically concluded from any number of previous statements.

[Hr2]

Originally Posted by TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons

Yes, yes I can.

http://www.mtv.com/

We have a winner, folks.

The problem is that the music industry as a whole is not about music, therefore it is just an industry. An industry to make money, music is not meant to be a consumable product, it is meant to last forever.

ps kilga you're being ridiculous

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by Hr2

The problem is that the music industry as a whole is not about music, therefore it is just an industry. An industry to make money, music is not meant to be a consumable product, it is meant to last forever.

Can you logically prove that the music industry, as a whole, is not about music?

Originally Posted by Hr2

ps kilga you're being ridiculous

I am sorry, I didn't realize asking people to back up their statements with irrefutable proof was "being ridiculous". I merely knew it as "having a debate".

Although debates about opinions are incredibly pointless because neither side will ever make any headway into the other's argument simply by virtue of universal morals an opinions failing to exist. So maybe we're all being ridiculous.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

If you want a serious response, I can say that I'm sure there exists some music on a top chart somewhere which is creative and/or expressive.

However, I can say honestly that usually the creativity comes from a source other than the "artist" being idolized (aka a music producer), or if it does come from the artist, then the song only got on the top charts because the artist sold out.

Also, even if so, the amount of music that falls under this category is rediculously slim, and I can guarantee that the best of this music is much poorer than the poorest works by the leading experimental artists in the world today.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

ps asking for irrefutable proof for anything is, in fact, "ridiculous," as it's essentially impossible to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt

This is why Christians exist.

You could even say "2+2=4" and someone might say WHAT IF OUR ENTIRE NUMBER SYSTEM IS WRONG AND EVERYTHING IS A MULTIPLE OF PI

[Hr2]

The fact that the indie music scene is gaining size constantly is proof that artists don't want to be part of the music industry. Music artists obviously want to make music that is, well music! Which is art. Some of these bands have great amounts of skill on their instruments and would be very "radio friendly", yet they opt to go underground while making less money and getting less exposure, just so they can play their own music.

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons

it's essentially impossible to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt

My point entirely. This is why you need to stop throwing your opinions around as fact and degrading the opinions of others, because the possibility very much exists that you're not right.

I'm glad we had this little talk.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Originally Posted by Hr2

The fact that the indie music scene is gaining size constantly is proof that artists don't want to be part of the music industry. Music artists obviously want to make music that is, well music! Which is art. Some of these bands have great amounts of skill on their instruments and would be very "radio friendly", yet they opt to go underground while making less money and getting less exposure, just so they can play their own music.

QFE

When Aphex Twin's Come To Daddy suddenly hit #6 on top charts, he pulled it out.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

My point entirely. This is why you need to stop throwing your opinions around as fact and degrading the opinions of others, because the possibility very much exists that you're not right.

I'm glad we had this little talk.

More like

I said that we couldn't give you "irrefutable proof." However, we can give you logic, reason, experience, and intelligence.

If you're going to tell us our points aren't valid because we don't have irrefutable proof, you might as well cut off your electricity because it might not power your house.

[Kilgamayan]

You provided me with nothing more than your opinion on MTV and your assumptions on the thought processes of every single "popular music" artist. One is, well, an opinion, and thus not a tangible basis for an argument, and the other is in no way guarateed to be a fact.

If you can prove to me that everyone who creates "popular music" is in the industry solely for the money-making aspect and not at all for the music-making aspect, then you will have proven your point about good music and good art.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

No, I provided you with much more than that, and you know that; you've read my posts from just before you came into the conversation.

Also, it is a fact that the music industry is an industry, and it is a fact that MTV exists to make money.

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

If you can prove to me that everyone who creates "popular music" is in the industry solely for the money-making aspect and not at all for the music-making aspect, then you will have proven your point about good music and good art.

Wrong, as my point about good music and good art was not that "EVERY SINGLE POPULAR MUSIC ARTIST IN THE WORLD DOES EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING OTHER THAN MONEY LOL", but was that the music they make is shallow and uncreative and that it is popular because it's catchy and shallow, and because the music industry (NOT THE MUSICIAN), which cares about nothing other than making money, promotes it

[Kilgamayan]

MTV existing to make money does nothing to prove what the intentions of the individual artists are.

I accept your proposal that MTV, in and of itself, is not a good medium for artists, because I agree that it is not in the music industry for the art aspect.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

I accept your proposal that MTV, in and of itself, is not a good medium for artists, because I agree that it is not in the music industry for the art aspect.

And nor are companies that run "top charts."

Which is my point.

Creative and original music is not on top charts because top charts don't want to have music that is deep or innovative. That's when people start actually thinking about the music they're listening to as art rather than as "THIS IS CATCHY =) =)"

That's not my opinion, that's the point of top charts.

[Kilgamayan]

So those companies are not good mediums for art either.

This still does nothing for or against the idea that the individual artists are in the music industry for the money.

It seems you are hating popular music by extension of it being on a Top ## chart. Yet your point seems to be directed at the companies that form the charts themselves. This seems more or less like watching an artist take a paint can, splashing it willy-nilly all over the canvas to produce whatever it is his goal is to produce, selling the canvas to make millions, and then blaming the paint for all the events that occured, for being in the bucket in the first place or dripping down the canvas in the fashion it did or whatever. The paint isn't what deserves your anger and hatred, the artist is. Same thing applies to Top ## charts - the music shouldn't be your target of anger and hatred, the Top ## lists and companies that make them should be.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

I never said the artists were just in it for the money.

I said the artists are terrible and the companies promote them for the money, because they're catchy and shallow rather than innovative.

That was my entire point which you were arguing against. You disagree with that? Because if you think I said that the artists make their music just for the money, you misread my point. Most of the artists honestly think they're making good music and are just as shallow as their listeners.