Why do people praise non-mainstream music here so much?

It's a phase people go through in college.

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]But then Madonna and subsequent pop tarts wouldn't have had careers....:o

LJS9502_basic

It's a phase people go through in college.

sonicare

And some people never grow out of it.

Not that there's anything wrong with praising non-mainstream music if that's what you like, but I know some people that like non-mainstream music because it's non-mainstream and that, IMO, has nothing to do with the actual music.

Prove that most pop music is made "solely" for the reason of making money.

I don't deny that it's partially made for money, but the notion that it is "solely" is going to need proof.

There can be multiple motivations.

Creativity and wanting to make money are not mututally exclusive.

I like all kinds of music and that includes mass appeal pop.

That's your subjective opinion and nothing more than your opinion.

"Best" is a subjective term.

[quote="LJ"]In the other thread you held up Madonna as something fantastic. And while subjectively that is fine...it's your opinion after all.GreySeal9

And when you say an artist you like is fantastic, that's your opinion, so what's your point?

Objectively her music was never much of a stretch. Not inventive and nothing risky. It was cIassic pop formula. Nothing under the hood...it was all right there on the surface. Some people do want more than bubblegum.LJ

You are merely giving your opinion, so the word "objectively" does not apply. It makes no sense to use the word objectively and then go on to give your opinion. That's ridiculous.

Also, there is nothing that says that music needs to be inventive and risky.

I value solid songwriting over making something "risky". If it something is arguably inventive, but has a **** melody, forget about it (I do appreciate inventiveness when it is paired with good songwriting tho). You might have different values in music, but don't try to pass them off as objective. They are not.

You are confusing my comment of liking to make music with making the music one likes and not worrying about sales. Pop is always about the sales.

LJ

You've made an absolute statement here, so care to prove it?

No creativity and making are not mutually exclusive but when you have pure pop artists there is rarely creativety.
What pure pop artist constantly reinvented their music?

I have yet to hear you mention a band that isn't mass appeal except for maybe a song or two but then not mention any of their work that wasn't played on the radio etc.

Subjective opinion that pop isn't the best? It's not. Compare Lucky Star to Moolight Sonata and tell me they are even close.

I haven't mentioned anything as fantastic and I can tell by the way you have answered my posts that you confused the two.

[QUOTE="digimonkey12"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

Underground artists generally have more freedom than mainstream ones, they can do pretty much anything with their music without an idiot telling them to write generic 4 cord acoustic love songs an order to appeal to more people. Nobody should get in the way of an artist's goals and visions. You obviously weren't listening to the right bands.

mexicangordo

Does not necessarily has to be underground. It depends on the record label.

One Little Indian - Sugarcubes - BJORK etc /

Sub POP - Nirvana - Sonic Youth - Soundgarden etc.

Anyway your banner - Nexus Polaris, I love that album, especially - Bringer of the Sixth Sun . btw I love all kinds of music and genres, from ( GOOD ) mainstream pop to black metal to Hip Hop to folk - music to opera to alternative country to electronic etc.

What I find interesting is how what is or isn't mainstream is completely irrelevant to me, and not merely by concious choice. I don't have cable TV, I use Adblock, my only use for the radio is news or emergency info when I'm driving. I've found the vast majority of music I like by browsing through random youtube videos or wikipedia articles. I never become informed about what is or isn't mainstream music period.

Modern technology allows a person to almost completely isolate themselves from regional marketing and culture. It kind of seems to me that the only place where music still thrives as a mass-market commodity is in public schools.

[QUOTE="digimonkey12"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

Underground artists generally have more freedom than mainstream ones, they can do pretty much anything with their music without an idiot telling them to write generic 4 cord acoustic love songs an order to appeal to more people. Nobody should get in the way of an artist's goals and visions. You obviously weren't listening to the right bands.

mexicangordo

Does not necessarily has to be underground. It depends on the record label.

One Little Indian - Sugarcubes - BJORK etc /

Sub POP - Nirvana - Sonic Youth - Soundgarden etc.

Anyway your banner - Nexus Polaris, I love that album, especially - Bringer of the Sixth Sun . btw I love all kinds of music and genres, from ( GOOD ) mainstream pop to black metal to Hip Hop to folk - music to opera to alternative country to electronic etc.

What I find interesting is how what is or isn't mainstream is completely irrelevant to me, and not merely by concious choice. I don't have cable TV, I use Adblock, my only use for the radio is news or emergency info when I'm driving. I've found the vast majority of music I like by browsing through random youtube videos or wikipedia articles.

Modern technology allows a person to almost completely isolate themselves from regional marketing and culture. It kind of seems to me that the only place where music still thrives as a mass-market commodity is in public schools.

superfluidity

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

[QUOTE="digimonkey12"]

Does not necessarily has to be underground. It depends on the record label.

One Little Indian - Sugarcubes - BJORK etc /

Sub POP - Nirvana - Sonic Youth - Soundgarden etc.

Anyway your banner - Nexus Polaris, I love that album, especially - Bringer of the Sixth Sun . btw I love all kinds of music and genres, from ( GOOD ) mainstream pop to black metal to Hip Hop to folk - music to opera to alternative country to electronic etc.

digimonkey12

[QUOTE="freek666"]

because hipsters

dkdk999

you just explained

not really an explaination

har har

Sigur Ros is okay but I always liked Mogwai better.

Because they like it. Because they find something abhorrent or fundamentally lacking in mainstream music?

It'sa business first and foremost. And when the company gets an artist for image....that is what they are selling. Music is second.LJS9502_basic

This might apply to some pop artists, but can you demonstrate, with actual evidence, that this is true of all pop artists.

No creativity and making are not mutually exclusive but when you have pure pop artists there is rarely creativety.LJ

Depends on what one thinks is creative.

What pure pop artist constantly reinvented their music?LJ

Madonna.

Let's take your example, Lucky Star, and compare it to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrJ1G16Byqk&feature=related

I have yet to hear you mention a band that isn't mass appeal except for maybe a song or two but then not mention any of their work that wasn't played on the radio etc.LJ

So what?

My favorite artists (the ones I like the most) tend to be mainstream, but that doesn't mean that's all I like.

Subjective opinion that pop isn't the best? It's not. Compare Lucky Star to Moolight Sonata and tell me they are even close.

LJ

An opinion is neccesarily subjective.

Even I said to you "Moonlight Sonata is clearly better", that would be my opinion. Not a fact. Opinions are always subjective.

It'sa business first and foremost. And when the company gets an artist for image....that is what they are selling. Music is second.LJS9502_basic

This might apply to some pop artists, but can you demonstrate, with actual evidence, that this is true of all pop artists.

No creativity and making are not mutually exclusive but when you have pure pop artists there is rarely creativety.LJ

Depends on what one thinks is creative.

What pure pop artist constantly reinvented their music?LJ

Madonna.

Let's take your example, Lucky Star, and compare it to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrJ1G16Byqk&feature=related

I have yet to hear you mention a band that isn't mass appeal except for maybe a song or two but then not mention any of their work that wasn't played on the radio etc.LJ

So what?

My favorite artists (the ones I like the most and I talk about my favorites most) tend to be mainstream, but that doesn't mean that's all I like.

Subjective opinion that pop isn't the best? It's not. Compare Lucky Star to Moolight Sonata and tell me they are even close.

LJ

An opinion is neccesarily subjective.

Even I said to you "Moonlight Sonata is clearly better", that would be my opinion. Not a fact. Opinions are always subjective.

I haven't mentioned anything as fantastic and I can tell by the way you have answered my posts that you confused the two.

LJS9502_basic

OK. You've mentioned things as being "better" than others and that is your opinion, so what's your point?

This might apply to some pop artists, but can you demonstrate, with actual evidence, that this is true of all pop artists.

Depends on what one thinks is creative.

Madonna.

Let's take your example, Lucky Star, and compare it to this:

So what?

My favorite artists (the ones I like the most) tend to be mainstream, but that doesn't mean that's all I like.

[quote="LJ"]Subjective opinion that pop isn't the best? It's not. Compare Lucky Star to Moolight Sonata and tell me they are even close.

GreySeal9

An opinion is neccesarily subjective.

Even I said to you "Moonlight Sonata is clearly better", that would be my opinion. Not a fact. Opinions are always subjective.

Again employing a standard formula and not deviating tends to not be creative.
Because if one were creative...they'd not follow a formula. They cannot both occur.

Madonna never deviated from pop.:lol:

If you have no experience with non mainstream music then you can't really compare it to the mainstream now can you? Which means this discussion is futile because you haven't anything we can compare.

Music can be both subjective and objective by the way. Talent is not subjective. Taste is.....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I haven't mentioned anything as fantastic and I can tell by the way you have answered my posts that you confused the two.

GreySeal9

OK. You've mentioned things as being "better" than others and that is your opinion, so what's your point?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I haven't mentioned anything as fantastic and I can tell by the way you have answered my posts that you confused the two.

Animatronic64

OK. You've mentioned things as being "better" than others and that is your opinion, so what's your point?

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

OK. You've mentioned things as being "better" than others and that is your opinion, so what's your point?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Animatronic64"] It's his opinion, so it's fact. Everyone knows that. Like, if I say mine is better than yours, that means mine is factually better than yours. Duh! Animatronic64

I don't know how you can say that using a proven formula to guarantee monetary success isn't the goal when one employs that very formula plus is initially backed by a company rather than working to get the company to sign them.LJS9502_basic

Again, not all pop artists are the same in these regards. So can you prove that they all are?

Again employing a standard formula and not deviating tends to not be creative.

Because if one were creative...they'd not follow a formula. They cannot both occur.LJ

It's possible to be creative within a formula. Are you going to tell me that The Beatles were not creative at all because they operated within a formula?

Seriously, your arguments are a bunch of false dichotomies based on nothing but your opinions and biases.

Madonna never deviated from pop.:lol:LJ

I didn't say she did, but that doesn't mean she did not re-invent her sound.

Lucky Star and the song that I linked are markedly different.

If you have no experience with non mainstream music then you can't really compare it to the mainstream now can you? Which means this discussion is futile because you haven't anything we can compare.

LJ

Who said I have no experience with non mainstream music? Like I said, the artists I love the most are mainstream and those are the ones I tend to talk about. But I do like some artists that you'd atleast consider non mainstream.

The discussion is futile because you don't know the definition of objectivity.

If you think that "best" can be objective, why not prove that one artist is better than another without once employing your opinion?

Sigur Ros is okay but I always liked Mogwai better.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

OK. You've mentioned things as being "better" than others and that is your opinion, so what's your point?

LJS9502_basic

Can you show me where I've done that?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Sigur Ros is okay but I always liked Mogwai better.

mexicangordo

Music can be both subjective and objective by the way. Talent is not subjective. Taste is.....

LJS9502_basic

Talent is not objective. It relies on standards, which are inherently subjective, and there can be plenty of disagreement on which band is more talented. Objectivity only deals with things that are factual, not things that people judge.

If there's room for disagreement, objectivity does not exist.

If you disagree, take two bands and prove to me that one is more talented without employing your opinion.

Also, what kind of music one thinks is better has alot to do with taste.

Even if I agreed that talent is objective (it isn't), what music one thinks is "better" is an opinion.

What I find interesting is how what is or isn't mainstream is completely irrelevant to me, and not merely by concious choice. I don't have cable TV, I use Adblock, my only use for the radio is news or emergency info when I'm driving. I've found the vast majority of music I like by browsing through random youtube videos or wikipedia articles.

Modern technology allows a person to almost completely isolate themselves from regional marketing and culture. It kind of seems to me that the only place where music still thrives as a mass-market commodity is in public schools.

Sigur Ros is A MUST. One of the greatest modern bands period. However they did not stay with One Little Indian if I'm not mistaken. They have moved on, and yes Sub-Pop did an EP with the SP name on it. It had a few songs that were on Gish like I am One, and Tristessa with other demo's, one of the demo's was Glynis which I highly recommend you checking out. Such an amazing b-side.

mexicangordo

Checked "Glynis", sounds really good with the bass and the guiter following each other.

Again, not all pop artists are the same in these regards. So can you prove that they all are?

It's possible to be creative within a formula. Are you going to tell me that The Beatles were not creative at all because they operated within a formula?

Seriously, your arguments are a bunch of false dichotomies based on nothing but your opinions and biases.

I didn't say she did, but that doesn't mean she did not re-invent her sound.

Lucky Star and the song that I linked are markedly different.

Who said I have no experience with non mainstream music? Like I said, the artists I love the most are mainstream and those are the ones I tend to talk about. But I do like some artists that you'd atleast consider non mainstream.

The discussion is futile because you don't know the definition of objectivity.

If you think that "best" can be objective, why not prove that one artist is better than another without once employing your opinion?

GreySeal9

The Beatles' music developed and changed. In no way was their music at the end of their career similar to what it was at the beginning of their career.

So you say Madonna didn't deviate but that she was creative. Uh....that doesn't actually make sense. Even if one were creative at the beginning of their career (not that she was and she is not the reason for this analogy)....but if one doesn't deviate they are no longer creative but continuing the same.

I can only refer to the information in front of me and I've not seen you talk about non mainstream music.

I know the definition of objective. What I said was TALENT was objective. Not best. If you are going to editorialize and add words to my posts to change them....yeah it's futile.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Music can be both subjective and objective by the way. Talent is not subjective. Taste is.....

GreySeal9

Talent is not objective. It relies on standards, which are inherently subjective, and there can be plenty of disagreement on which band is more talented. Objectivity only deals with things that are factual, not things that people judge.

If there's room for disagreement, objectivity does not exist.

If you disagree, take two bands and prove to me that one is more talented without employing your opinion.

Also, what kind of music one thinks is better has alot to do with taste.

Even if I agreed that talent is objective (it isn't), what music one thinks is "better" is an opinion.

Because we don't have pleb ears.

Nature of the business...if you haver an example where pop wasn't about money in some fashion feel free to mention it...but don't bother with Madonna because that wouldn't be true.LJS9502_basic

I didn't say pop wasn't about money. What I said is that it is not neccesarily the only motivation.

The Beatles' music developed and changed. In no way was their music at the end of their career similar to what it was at the beginning of their career.LJ

Oh boy. Their music might have changed, but at the end of their career, their music was still clearly followed a formula and it was still a mixture of fairly mainstream rock and pop.

And, although Madonna's music was always pop, she clearly made much different types of pop music later on.

Again, compare Lucky Star with the song in the link. They are nothing the same.

So you say Madonna didn't deviate but that she was creative. Uh....that doesn't actually make sense. Even if one were creative at the beginning of their career (not that she was and she is not the reason for this analogy)....but if one doesn't deviate they are no longer creative but continuing the same.LJ

I've all ready told you that she did change up her music. She didn't ever make non-pop music, but her sound was different throughout her career. It would be downright asburd to argue that Ray of Light sounds like her first album.

I don't operate under the flawed assumption that one has to go outside of their genre to be creative. There are many types of pop music.

I can only refer to the information in front of me and I've not seen you talk about non mainstream music.LJ

Your information is limited, so maybe it's best not to make assumptions then? They are hardly neccesary to discuss this issue.

I know the definition of objective. What I said was TALENT was objective. Not best. If you are going to editorialize and add words to my posts to change them....yeah it's futile.

LJ

You did imply that "best" was objective.

You said this:

"I'm not discussing what you like though from your comments here and in other threads....you do like mass appeal pop. That's fine. But it's not the best music out there." And then when I told you that was opinion, you suggested that Moonlight Sonata is objectively better than Lucky Star.Also, talent is not objective. It is something to be judged and thus can't be objective.

If you truly agreed that "best" is not objective, then why try to force your opinion of what's not the best music on me? Why even bother?

Ahh the meaning of POP in pop music, so hard to define, but when music is made for pure money, then theres no doubt.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Music can be both subjective and objective by the way. Talent is not subjective. Taste is.....

LJS9502_basic

Talent is not objective. It relies on standards, which are inherently subjective, and there can be plenty of disagreement on which band is more talented. Objectivity only deals with things that are factual, not things that people judge.

If there's room for disagreement, objectivity does not exist.

If you disagree, take two bands and prove to me that one is more talented without employing your opinion.

Also, what kind of music one thinks is better has alot to do with taste.

Even if I agreed that talent is objective (it isn't), what music one thinks is "better" is an opinion.

Standards in general are not objective. Standards cannot exist without somebody forming that standard base on what they value. The realm of objectivity exists apart from human judgment and values.

Preference may not detract from talent, but a judgment of talent is by no means a fact.

Ahh the meaning of POP in pop music, so hard to define, but when music is made for pure money, then theres no doubt.

digimonkey12

The thing is, you're never going to prove what's made "purely for money" unless the artist comes right out and says it.

I didn't say pop wasn't about money. What I said is that it is not neccesarily the only motivation.

Oh boy. Their music might have changed, but at the end of their career, their music was still clearly followed a formula and it was still a mixture of fairly mainstream rock and pop.

And, although Madonna's music was always pop, she clearly made much different types of pop music later on.

Again, compare Lucky Star with the song in the link. They are nothing the same.

I've all ready told you that she did change up her music. She didn't ever make non-pop music, but her sound was different throughout her career. It would be downright asburd to argue that Ray of Light sounds like her first album.

I don't operate under the flawed assumption that one has to go outside of their genre to be creative. There are many types of pop music.

Your information is limited, so maybe it's best not to make assumptions then? They are hardly neccesary to discuss this issue.

You did imply that "best" was objective.

You said this:

"I'm not discussing what you like though from your comments here and in other threads....you do like mass appeal pop. That's fine. But it's not the best music out there." And then when I told you that was opinion, you suggested that Moonlight Sonata is objectively better than Lucky Star.Also, talent is not objective. It is something to be judged and thus can't be objective.

GreySeal9

You are the first person I've encountered that doesn't mention the change in The Beatles music. Wow.

I've heard enough Madonna on the radio at work......all we have.....to know there was no change in her music. Which song did you link? Ray of light was pop. Nothing more. Perhaps to you that sounds different but under the hood it was the same Madonna. Let me get this straight....you are saying Madonna was innovative but not The Beatles...okay then.

By it's nature pop is pop. Unless you can find me some unusual pop. Thus far, it hasn't happened.

Best in terms of objectivity though. You aren't implying the disposible pop song Lucky Star is technically better than Moolight Sonata are you?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Talent is not objective. It relies on standards, which are inherently subjective, and there can be plenty of disagreement on which band is more talented. Objectivity only deals with things that are factual, not things that people judge.

If there's room for disagreement, objectivity does not exist.

If you disagree, take two bands and prove to me that one is more talented without employing your opinion.

Also, what kind of music one thinks is better has alot to do with taste.

Even if I agreed that talent is objective (it isn't), what music one thinks is "better" is an opinion.

GreySeal9

Standards in general are not objective. Standards cannot exist without somebody forming that standard base on what they value. The realm of objectivity exists apart from human judgment and values.

Preference may not detract from talent, but a judgment of talent is by no means a fact.

There is someone that can sing with mechican fixes...and someone who cannot. Not opinion.

Opinion is whether or not you like it. Not the talent inherent in the individual.

[QUOTE="digimonkey12"]

Ahh the meaning of POP in pop music, so hard to define, but when music is made for pure money, then theres no doubt.

GreySeal9

The thing is, you're never going to prove what's made "purely for money" unless the artist comes right out and says it.

EDIT: I feel this should be explained better. hmmmmm !

You are the first person I've encountered that doesn't mention the change in The Beatles music. Wow.LJS9502_basic

I didn't say it didn't change. I said that it still followed a formula and that is absolutely true. Of course it changed, but it didn't break a very basic songwriting formula. But yes, the sound of it was different. But that applies to Madonna as well as evidenced by my link.

I've heard enough Madonna on the radio at work......all we have.....to know there was no change in her music. Which song did you link? Ray of light was pop. Nothing more. Perhaps to you that sounds different but under the hood it was the same Madonna. Let me get this straight....you are saying Madonna was innovative but not The Beatles...okay then.LJ

I didn't say Madonna as innovative. Ever. I said her music changed and I never denied that The Beatle's music never changed.

Also, hearing Madonna on the radio doesn't really qualify you talking about what degree of change there was in her music.

It's quite hyprocritical for you to say that I can't talk about this because I have limited experience with non mainstream music, yet you somehow think that Madonna's radio play qualifies you to discuss the degree of change in her music?

By it's nature pop is pop. Unless you can find me some unusual pop. Thus far, it hasn't happened.LJ

Pop may be pop, but that doesn't mean there can't be vast differences between the way pop songs sound. Also, pop takes on several different genres under its umbrella. The song I linked was a pop/jazz hybrid.

These thing are not as simple as you make them out to be.

Best in terms of objectivity though. You aren't implying the disposible pop song Lucky Star is technically better than Moolight Sonata are you?

LJ

There's no such thing as best in terms of objectivity. "Best" is an opinion.

That Lucky Star is disposable is merely your opinion.

I think Moonlight Sonata is better, but that is merely an opinion. Nothing more.

Absolutely false. There is someone who can sing in key....someone who cannot. Not opinion.LJS9502_basic

Whether someone can sing in key may be objective, but when one puts a value on it, as in saying a person is talented because of their on key singing, it becomes subjective. The only objective part is that the singer can sing on key.

There are few things that are objective in this world.

There is someone who can play a guitar with emotion and technical proficiency. And someone that can strum a few chords and not very well. Not opinion. There is someone who can keep time with a drum.....and someone who cannot. Not opinion.

There is someone that can sing with mechican fixes...and someone who cannot. Not opinion.LJ

Oh boy. Emotion is objective? Really? :roll:

Like I said, this is a fact: "Bob can keep time with a drum."

This is an opinion: "Bob is talented at the drums because he can keep time".

If you take off the "talented" part, then it becomes an objective statement.

Opinion is whether or not you like it. Not the talent inherent in the individual.

LJ

Opinion can be whether you like something, whether you think something is quality, whether you think someone is talented.

Anything that can be judged is subjective. Objective things maintain their essence regardless of human judgment.

Your statement about what an opinion is is non-comprehensive.

I didn't say it didn't change. I said that it still followed a formula and that is absolutely true. Of course it changed, but it didn't break a very basic songwriting formula. But yes, the sound of it was different. But that applies to Madonna as well as evidenced by my link.

I didn't say Madonna as innovative. Ever. I said her music changed and I never denied that The Beatle's music never changed.

Also, hearing Madonna on the radio doesn't really qualify you talking about what degree of change there was in her music.

It's quite hyprocritical for you to say that I can't talk about this because I have limited experience with non mainstream music, yet you somehow think that Madonna's radio play qualifies you to discuss the degree of change in her music?

Pop may be pop, but that doesn't mean there can't be vast differences between the way pop songs sound. Also, pop takes on several different genres under its umbrella. The song I linked was a pop/jazz hybrid.

These thing are not as simple as you make them out to be.

There's no such thing as best in terms of objectivity. "Best" is an opinion.

That Lucky Star is disposable is merely your opinion.

I think Moonlight Sonata is better, but that is merely an opinion. Nothing more.

GreySeal9

Ah well my sister played all the Madonna music as well so I don't think I'm unfamiliar with that fluff.

When talking about the pure pop...which I am...there is no difference.

Short catchy music with verses interpersed with hooks. I see no mention of that varies so I take it that while you will deny the formula...you can't find anything outside it either.

No best can objectively stated as well. You confuse the objective talent with subjective taste.

Please stop breaking up my posts. Keep them as I wrote them because then I have to erase them and the reading isn't as smooth.

Some of the songs are Ok. But if you've ever listened to any of the 'Hit Music stations' one can understand the hate. Its terrible imo.

Whether someone can sing in key may be objective, but when one puts a value on it, as in saying a person is talented because of their on key singing, it becomes subjective. The only objective part is that the singer can sing on key.

There are few things that are objective in this world.

Oh boy. Emotion is objective? Really? :roll:

Like I said, this is a fact: "Bob can keep time with a drum."

This is an opinion: "Bob is talented at the drums because he can keep time".

If you take off the "talented" part, then it becomes an objective statement.

Opinion can be whether you like something, whether you think something is quality, whether you think someone is talented.

Anything that can be judged is subjective. Objective things maintain their essence regardless of human judgment.

Your statement about what an opinion is is non-comprehensive.

GreySeal9

You said you knew about music. Good music DOES have emotion in it. Emotion is an important aspect of music.

You seem to dismiss talent as not important. Talent is important. Someone who CAN sing in key is talented.

No opinion should NOT be about whether someone is talented unless one is biased that what they like is always the best. Opinion is subjective. And the fact that you like or do not like a musician in NO WAY changes their ability to play their instrument with proficiency.

It seems you cannot separate the two. Queen is a bad I subjectively dislike. I can't stand their music. Objectively I can admit they had talent and used it well. See the difference?

Again...please stop butchering my posts.

Enjoy the read.

Different than their early work so it's disingenious to say they continued to follow a formula.LJS9502_basic

They did tho. Their songs never really devitated from a standard rock/pop formula in terms of structure. What changed was the type of instruments used, the atmosphere, the lyrical themes, etc, and the same thing can be said about Madonna.

Ah well my sister played all the Madonna music as well so I don't think I'm unfamiliar with that fluff.LJ

Now you're just making it up as you go along. First it was, "I heard her stuff on the radio", now it's "my sister played it all."

I was not born yesterday.

When talking about the pure pop...which I am...there is no difference.LJ

Definite "pure pop".

And like I said, the song I linked was a pop/jazz hybrid. If you had the kind of experience you say, you would know that.

Short catchy music with verses interpersed with hooks. I see no mention of that varies so I take it that while you will deny the formula...you can't find anything outside it either.LJ

I didn't deny that there was a formula. Please get my arguments straight.

What I'm saying is that change can take place within a formula.

No best can objectively stated as well. You confuse the objective talent with subjective taste.LJ

Best is inherently an opinion because what one person thinks is best another may not.

If you disagree, prove to me that a song is better than other without resorting to your opinion.

Please stop breaking up my posts. Keep them as I wrote them because then I have to erase them and the reading isn't as smooth.

LJ

Breaking them up makes it easier, but I will not break up your next post.

The only reason I broke this one up is because it would be hard to change it now, but from now on, I won't break them up.

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

Sigur Ros is A MUST. One of the greatest modern bands period. However they did not stay with One Little Indian if I'm not mistaken. They have moved on, and yes Sub-Pop did an EP with the SP name on it. It had a few songs that were on Gish like I am One, and Tristessa with other demo's, one of the demo's was Glynis which I highly recommend you checking out. Such an amazing b-side.

digimonkey12

Checked "Glynis", sounds really good with the bass and the guiter following each other.

You said you knew about music. Good music DOES have emotion in it. Emotion is an important aspect of music.

You seem to dismiss talent as not important. Talent is important. Someone who CAN sing in key is talented.

Please show where I said that talent is not important.

Talent is important, but judgments of talent vary among people.

Someone who can sing in key is talented according to subjective standards. It is not a FACT that they are talented. Facts don't contain judgments.No opinion should NOT be about whether someone is talented unless one is biased that what they like is always the best. Opinion is subjective. And the fact that you like or do not like a musician in NO WAY changes their ability to play their instrument with proficiency.

It seems you cannot separate the two. Queen is a bad I subjectively dislike. I can't stand their music. Objectively I can admit they had talent and used it well. See the difference?

Again...please stop butchering my posts.

Enjoy the read.

LJS9502_basic

It is your opinion that good music needs emotion.

Emotion is what you subjectively value. I value it too, but that doesn't make it any less of a subjective value. Other people might think there are more important things than emotion.

Objectivity is not based on what one values.

Also, Please show where I said that talent is not important.

Talent is important, but judgments of talent vary among people.

Someone who can sing in key is talented according to subjective standards. It is not a FACT that they are talented, though there is consensus that they are. Facts don't contain judgments. Facts exist even when people die. Judgments of talent don't.

As far as Queen is concerned, that you dislike them and think they are talented are BOTH subjective judgments. The judgment may be based partially on things that objective, but the overall conclusion is an opinion.

If you think that talent is objective, then prove, without your own personal opinion, that one band is more talented than the other.

I'm not going to read the article if it's posted out of spite or just to attack something I like.

[QUOTE="digimonkey12"]

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

Sigur Ros is A MUST. One of the greatest modern bands period. However they did not stay with One Little Indian if I'm not mistaken. They have moved on, and yes Sub-Pop did an EP with the SP name on it. It had a few songs that were on Gish like I am One, and Tristessa with other demo's, one of the demo's was Glynis which I highly recommend you checking out. Such an amazing b-side.

mexicangordo

Checked "Glynis", sounds really good with the bass and the guiter following each other.

Talking about productions, I love the fact how Rick Rubin produces or should I say "the lack of producing". Ever heard about ( Jeff Buckleys hero ! ) Nusrat Fatih Ali Khan ? and the Rick Rubin produced album The Final Studio Recordings from 2001. < --- amazing stuff. ( talk about emotions ! )

Unless you quit butchering my quotes which makes a mess of trying to respond...I'm not going to continue. I already explained pages ago what I mean when I say pop. Yes...Madonna is pop. There is a difference between songs having structure and following a pop formula. The Beatles had structure. Emotion is expected in music. It is a part of the discipline. When absent the music is sterile. See Yngwie for one not able to replicate emotion.

Spite?:lol: I don't have any emotion in regard to you so no.

Unless you quit butchering my quotes which makes a mess of trying to respond...I'm not going to continue. I already explained pages ago what I mean when I say pop. Yes...Madonna is pop. There is a difference between songs having structure and following a pop formula. The Beatles had structure. Emotion is expected in music. It is a part of the discipline. When absent the music is sterile. See Yngwie for one not able to replicate emotion.

LJS9502_basic