Techno?

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Techno?

But why are the artists shallow? Why is the music terrible? Record companies, billboard charts, MTV and legions of fans all aside, what makes the artists and music universally definable as bad?

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

We already went through this. BRB quoting.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

Tell me what is better music...

Music that you can listen to for years and years, in the case of jazz and classic rock, decades, and in the case of classical music, centuries...

Or music that cycles every couple weeks then magically appears 5 years later on Soft Rock 106.5FM.

Music is something that it's pointless to use popularity as a factor in your opinion of it as.

Pop music is little more than a few "catchy" (the most dispicable thing in the world) chord progressions with incredibly generic and horrible singing and production. Anyone who likes it is an idiotic sheep who'll accept anything. Pop music is the aural equivalent of 2+2=5.

... the music on top charts isn't innovative, creative, or challenging. You will not hear creative original talented music on top charts. Why? Because they want you to mindlessly listen to shit and eat it all up, not to actually think about what you're listening to.
... it's what they've handed to you and told you to like.

...it's catchy because it's made in order to manipulate you and get all your money.

"Hit" music isn't on the top charts because it's good, it's on the top charts because big companies want you to listen to pointless mind-numbing catchy garbage and hand them all your dinero.

~~

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Techno?

Tell me what is better music...

Music that you can listen to for years and years, in the case of jazz and classic rock, decades, and in the case of classical music, centuries...

Or music that cycles every couple weeks then magically appears 5 years later on Soft Rock 106.5FM.

This post is made under the assumption that those statements are the only universal requirements for labeling music as good or bad. Since their logical validity is not readily obvious, they require proofs to hold any water.

Pop music is little more than a few "catchy" (the most dispicable thing in the world) chord progressions with incredibly generic and horrible singing and production.

"Catchy" being despicable, and someone's singing being "incredibly generic and horrible" are both subjective statements, not at all useful for the task of universally defining "good" music.

... the music on top charts isn't innovative, creative, or challenging. You will not hear creative original talented music on top charts. Why? Because they want you to mindlessly listen to **** and eat it all up, not to actually think about what you're listening to.
... it's what they've handed to you and told you to like.

The first part about creativity and challenge is subjective, and there is nothing present stating that innovation is a universal prerequisite to being "good" music. If you would like to make such a statement, be prepared to logically back it up. The rest is an attack on billboard companies.

...it's catchy because it's made in order to manipulate you and get all your money.

This contradicts something else you said.

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

So the artists aren't in it for the money, but they intentionally make their music in such a form that their goal in doing so is to make money?

"Hit" music isn't on the top charts because it's good, it's on the top charts because big companies want you to listen to pointless mind-numbing catchy garbage and hand them all your dinero.

This is another attack on the billboard charts and companies, which I believe is a point we agreed upon. It is not, however, any sort of statement involving infallible evidence toward what makes music "good".

[justaguy]

Re: Techno?

summary: everyone with music has aids

[justaguy]

Re: Techno?

ps: good is subjective

youre all retarded if you think you can universally define good music.

curbstompt

[justaguy]

Re: Techno?

i took a dump at my friends house and out came this topic

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

This post is made under the assumption that those statements are the only universal requirements for labeling music as good or bad. Since their logical validity is not readily obvious, they require proofs to hold any water.

It's not made under any such impression, it is only pointed out as one bit of reasoning as to why top charts music is incredibly inferior in quality to interesting, creative, and well-crafted music such as Jazz and Classical.

"Catchy" being despicable, and someone's singing being "incredibly generic and horrible" are both subjective statements, not at all useful for the task of universally defining "good" music.

"Catchy" being despicable is an opinion in part, and a relatively valid statement in the idea that I presented, which is that catchiness exists to hook ignorant listeners (unless you think that that concept is just dandy).
"Horrible" is an opinion, "generic" is not. "Generic" is part of the main point, too. The suggestion that all the songs on, say, MTV's top charts are all remarkably similar in structure is not an opinion, and the fact that most popular singers sing in nearly exactly the same way as most other singers of their respective genres, as Moogy said, is not an opinion.
You also intentionally ignored his statement about chord progressions, which is an extremely important one when talking music. The suggestion here is that when two songs use all the same chord progressions with the same structure, it might as well be the same song with a different artist's title to label it.

The first part about creativity and challenge is subjective, and there is nothing present stating that innovation is a universal prerequisite to being "good" music. If you would like to make such a statement, be prepared to logically back it up. The rest is an attack on billboard companies.

The part about creativity and challenge is not, in fact, subjective. Take any song off of the VH1 Top Hits list and tell me it's more creative or challenging than P.:NTIL by Autechre. You will be wrong.
Also, with the universal idea that "good" [anything] is particularly desirable or distinguishing, we can agree that music that stands apart from other music in a positive way as far as it's musical depth is "good music." If top charts music was "good music," it would be generally acknowledged as so by those who study music and by the world's greatest composers. Instead, it gets great ridicule from both, and that's for a reason.

This contradicts something else you said.

No, it doesn't. You must be confused. =)

So the artists aren't in it for the money, but they intentionally make their music in such a form that their goal in doing so is to make money?

The usual case is that the artist is in it for the cash AS WELL AS to make "RUL KOO MUSIC" and to get to the tops of charts and be popular and/or get laid a bunch. It's in their best interest to make catchy shallow music, because they care more about how many fans they have than how good their music is. This is generally why they sell out in the first place.

This is another attack on the billboard charts and companies, which I believe is a point we agreed upon. It is not, however, any sort of statement involving infallible evidence toward what makes music "good".

Again with the idea of unarguable evidence; may as well not get your vaccines, they might make you grow an extra eyebrow!

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

ps: good is subjective

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=good

Good is definitive.

People who are incorrect and stubborn force themselves to think good is subjective.

[justaguy]

Re: Techno?

your mom was good last nite

[Kefit]

Re: Techno?

You also intentionally ignored his statement about chord progressions, which is an extremely important one when talking music. The suggestion here is that when two songs use all the same chord progressions with the same structure, it might as well be the same song with a different artist's title to label it.

Good to know that all of those hours I spent trading 12 measures of improv with others in my high school Jazz Band went to waste. I will have to make sure I go to all the high schools I can and stop all the kids from doing something so utterly worthless.

Take any song off of the VH1 Top Hits list and tell me it's more creative or challenging than P.:NTIL by Autechre.

And Autechre is complete garbage.

What is your point?

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

And Autechre is complete garbage.

What is your point?

You think Autechre is garbage because you can't comprehend it. You listen to it and don't even hear half of the presented sounds.

I know because if you knew anything about the mechanics of that type of music, you would realize how creative, deep, and awe-inspiring it is.

There is a lot of music that I don't enjoy, but that I respect as creative and well-crafted music. If you can't see that Autechre is original, in-depth, and talented, whether you enjoy their pieces or not, you don't have any place arguing about music.

[Kefit]

Re: Techno?

Autechre is creative and innovative, certainly.

It is also garbage, and nothing I would ever call good.

The two have nothing to do with eachother.

Oh, and I like how you can read my mind and tell me exactly why I don't like a piece of music. Good to know that you are capable of immediately assessing my musical faculties.

ps Good job editting your post to try to make it look like you preempted my response.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

They have quite a bit to do with each other. The term "garbage" implies that something is so poor that it is unrespectable and should be ignored and thrown away like rubbish.

If you admit that it's creative and innovative, you can't also tell me "it shouldn't exist and can't be respected."

Also, what makes you think it's garbage? I'm willing to bet it's for an extremely shallow and uneducated reason. Also, what do you listen to?

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Techno?

It's not made under any such impression, it is only pointed out as one bit of reasoning as to why top charts music is incredibly inferior in quality to interesting, creative, and well-crafted music such as Jazz and Classical.

Then it is the opinions of one man, and as such serves no purpose toward backing his point.

"Catchy" being despicable is an opinion in part, and a relatively valid statement in the idea that I presented, which is that catchiness exists to hook ignorant listeners (unless you think that that concept is just dandy).
"Horrible" is an opinion, "generic" is not. "Generic" is part of the main point, too. The suggestion that all the songs on, say, MTV's top charts are all remarkably similar in structure is not an opinion, and the fact that most popular singers sing in nearly exactly the same way as most other singers of their respective genres, as Moogy said, is not an opinion.

I realized after the fact that "generic" was a black-and-white issue, my mistake. However, as such, that means it needs to be proven that being generic is a universal qualifier for "bad" music, or else the point is still null.

You also intentionally ignored his statement about chord progressions, which is an extremely important one when talking music. The suggestion here is that when two songs use all the same chord progressions with the same structure, it might as well be the same song with a different artist's title to label it.

All right, so you have two songs with the same chord progression. How does its duplicate existance make that particular chord progression "bad music"?

The part about creativity and challenge is not, in fact, subjective. Take any song off of the VH1 Top Hits list and tell me it's more creative or challenging than P.:NTIL by Autechre. You will be wrong.

The mediums are not exactly the same, and thus the creativity put in and the challenge produced are not comparable. Could Autechre perform, say, "Yellow Submarine" perfectly as original conceptualized by the Beatles, right down the the subtle nuances their voices made while singing it?

Also, with the universal idea that "good" [anything] is particularly desirable or distinguishing, we can agree that music that stands apart from other music in a positive way as far as it's musical depth is "good music." If top charts music was "good music," it would be generally acknowledged as so by those who study music and by the world's greatest composers. Instead, it gets great ridicule from both, and that's for a reason.

This statement is made under the assumption that those who study music and the world's greatest composers are at liberty to universally define what quanitifes "good" music, which they are not.

The usual case is that the artist is in it for the cash AS WELL AS to make "RUL KOO MUSIC" and to get to the tops of charts and be popular and/or get laid a bunch. It's in their best interest to make catchy shallow music, because they care more about how many fans they have than how good their music is. This is generally why they sell out in the first place.

Can you back up any of those statements with the exact thought processes of today's popular artists? Can you prove the artists are in it to get laid or that they care more about their fan count than the quality of their music?

Again with the idea of unarguable evidence; may as well not get your vaccines, they might make you grow an extra eyebrow!

Attacking the arguer instead of the argument is a logical fallicy, and does nothing at all to help your case. I would suggest refraining from doing so in the future, especially considering that if it is done in enough volume the site staff may decide to step in.