Popularity does not add to or detract from the value of a work of art.
Ultimately art has no value until each observer evaluates the work for themselves. That said - there are going to be large groups of people who have similar values. The use the same criteria to judge a piece of art (or they use different criteria but reach the same conclusions).
The fact is that it is pretentious to assume that you (or your groups') values should apply to everyone. Similarly it is pretentious to act as if people who do not share your system of evaluation are somehow less knowledgeable, intelligent or music savvy. This is particularly odious if you are simply followig the crowd. That is, finding some indie rock/folk/classical music loving friends and aligning your tastes with theirs in a sad attempt to be cool (I'm not saying you do this - but it does happen). It's even worse if a person has a little knowledge - say a year or two of basic music theory. People think they know it all when really they know very little.
Having said that, I do tend to identify with certain groups of people who share my musical taste. I have definitely been known to act like a prick towards those who have different ideas about what is good. But it is a good idea sometimes to step back and objectively look at the situation - that's really what this thread is about.
You have just listed a bunch of criteria which you think a work must have must have in order to be good art. Each time I have pointed out that it doesn't matter what you think is good - or even what is calssically considered good. The value of a work of art is entirely subjective.
The reason that I have had to be repetitive is because you don't like this conclusion and bang your head against the wall trying to refute it. So, you bring up methods that you use to judge a piece of art. I then point out that those are irrelevant - and around we go.
I agree that it is a little bit stupid to continue with this - but it was fun to see what you would come up with. Sadly, all you could muster was some semi-coherent arguments that amounted to:
1) Many people agree that Mozart is better than Pop music - therefore Mozart must be better than pop music
2)I took one year of music apprecation so I know that music is an "intellectual craft" - pop music is not intellectual and therefore is bad
It's sad really. In the end you were on the right track. The best way to go after someone arguing that "everything is subjective" is the same way you argue the nihilist argument that "everything is relative".
Maybe after a few more posts your dim mind will figure it out - I'm not sticking around to find out though
My experiment with you is over - you failed miserably - good luck with the rest of your life!
But I'm honestly not trolling. I am trying to exercise my objectivity. The truth is that neither argument is really right and the truth lies somewhere in between. But I like to push arguments to their logical limits in order to see what will come out of it.
As a side note - you did a terrible job of arguing on the other side - there are so many more valid points that you could have brought up.
Oh, and also, its funny how you got involved in the argument - you had/have a real hate going for me -put me on your enemies list and everything. In a way my manipulation of you was sort of like perofrmance art - neat huh?
The classic composeers were all great in their own way. But the contemporary tendency to deify their work at the expense of others is pretentious - and wrong.
But don't you think that there's a higher standard then just 'oh that guy likes it' to qualify something as truely great.
No, that's pretty much all there is. If one person appreciates a piece of art then it is good. There is no scale of "artistic goodness" for the rating of art with Mozart et al. at the top and Britney et al. at the bottom. It's all a matter of personal opinion.
2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
As an example of this behavior;
If you are aware enough to recognize art when you see or hear it, you are also aware enough to seek out venues that feature such artists. Such venues do not cater to mass marketing. These are the bars, honkey tonks, indie recording labels that have been showcasing the best artists for generations. You find them at the edge of the university district, in the raucus dives, the after hours clubs, in the back of the local news rag that nobody really reads, and in the small record stores in the old strip mall downtown.
What I'm saying is that on the larger scale of things, on what is going to stand the test of time and become truely recognized as great art vs. what is going to be forgot about in a week when the next single comes out, the bar is set signifigantly higher.
And I'm saying that you are wrong. There is plenty of great art is is largely forgotten. Standing the test of time; being "recgonized" by the community does not make art great. All art is good regardless of how well liked it is. That is the point.
And for pete's sake, can even go one post without using the word snobby...
Alright - Listen this time. I haven't sidestepped the issue. It isn't my problem that you don't have the capacity to understand where I am coming from.
Not everyone accepts that picasso is better than your preschool drawings. Maybe if we all had a look at your preschool scribblings some people would prefer them to Picasso. That is the nature of art. Your unwillingness to accept subjectivity is really disturbing - and snobby.
In your opinion they aren't in the same league. Maybe even in most people's opinions they aren't in the same league. But some people may not think that. Art is subjective - people have different opinions. This doesn't make them less good than anyone else. Just accept it and move along with yur life.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from concerning Wall St. - I was really referring to republican tendencies of management.
The real travesty of the perceived role reversal is that it stymies any real grassroots political movement. The republicans (and to a lesser extent he democrats) have co-opted the whole grass-roots phenomenon (which is typically where real political changes begins) and made it a part of the current political system. It's interesting... and scary.
Well I guess it depends on what we mean by looking out for the little guy. I figure that of the two prties the Democrats are more likely to support the middle classes. This doesn't mean that Dems aren't influenced by powerful lobby groups or that the Dem leaders aren't also a bunch of blue-bloods.
I just find it interesting that the republican spin has managed to alter the public's perception of their party. They have convinced the general public that tax cuts for the wealthy are in the best interests of the middle classes..it's amusing
Never if most of the middle class keep believing politicans who claim tax cuts/etc. are aimed at helping them out. I am shocked at how many educated smart people that believe these claims without even bothering to investigate to make sure they're valid. I don't hold much hope of the majority of middle class voters ever getting a clue on this, so I'm afraid the answer to your question may be "never".
I definitely agree with you here. It amazes me that the Republican party has convinced the middle class that it is acting on their behalf. Somehow the Republicans, who are controlled by wealthy northeastern families and funded by wall street, have convinced us that they are actually good o'l boys from the south with the interests of the working classes in mind.
Meanwhile the Democratic party members -the party that brought us the New Deal and social reform and who are funded in part by Labour Unions are painted as elitist, wall street funded snobs.
In the past 10 years the Republican party has slowly been undoing all the social reforms that have been enacted since Wilson - they have set us back 100 years. This has all be done with th esupport of the working classes.
It's the greatest bit of political spin I have ever seen. The wealthy/aristocratic party is deemed the party of the people while the people's party is considered elite and detached form the people. What a joke!
It is stupid of you to assume that I can't grasp complexity when I'm the one who brought it up. Yes, I understand that complexity can be subtle - "complexity through simplicity" - the basis of Detroit minimalism. And yes, I have only talked about the most basic elements of music theory (and not even all of them) - but it isn't my job to teach you music theory. I just assume you have learned some of that- if you haven't you probably should go ahead and do that.
I see that you are now introducing some more of your criteria for what constitutes "good art" - the conveyance of ideas and original and creative means of portraying the idea. Assuming I accpet your guidelines - which I don't - I can argue that pop music is original and interesting because it conveys ideas/messages (advertising) in an original way (blended into popular cultture via little pop tunes). This was brand-new in the 1970s and the way the message has mutated over time is incredibly interesting Maybe your problem is that you take the music at face value??
Anyway - my original point stands. Pop music can be good . Not everyone uses your criteria or even the classical criteria to decide what music is good. It is all subjective - to think otherwise makes one a pretentious snob...
This is where you go wrong. Take a class in music appreciation or music theory. These aren't just my definitions of what makes a song artistically good or not, and those aren't all that can make a song good, they were examples, not the whole pie.
I agree that it is the interplay of various elements that make a piece of music classically "correct". As you have pointed out, anyone who has taken a basic music theory/music appreciation course is taught these things.
I'm not debating you over whether pop music is art or not, all music is art. But the fact that it is art doesn't mean it's good art.
And this is where you start to get into trouble. You apply the basic musical theory that you learned in Music Appreciation 101 and use it as a yardstick to measure the artistic merit of a piece of music. So you figure - standard 4/4 time, all in the same key, only one or two voices - hey, this album is repetitive, derivitive and boring - it is not artistically good!! You confuse complexity and conformity to the classical forms with artistic value - this is wrong. In reality there is no bad art - there is only art that you enjoy and art that you do not enjoy.
Whether a work is artistically well done or not is an objective decision based on the artists manipulation of the underlying funtamentals of music.
Well, all musical works are a manipulation of the underlying fundamentals of music. Its just that some pieces are more complex than others. If an artist has a greater understanding of musical theory then they can make increasingly more complex pieces - this is interesting to people who like that kind of thing. But the value of a complex work is not necessarily greater than the value of a simple one. It is all a matter of personal taste.
As an example let's look at 20th Century Composer John Cage's 4'33. This piece is simply 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence in which the sounds that the audience make during the performance become the music. Does that sound like art to you? Is it artistically good? How does it measure on your scale?
Slap some new lyrics and a diffrent progression and your good to go. Is it art? Yes. Is it good art? No.
In your opinion, sure. But there is no absolute definition of what art is good and what art is bad. Art is art. How you interpret that art is your business. If people intrepret different works of art in different ways this does not make them worthy of your derision.
I have repeatedly said that a value judgement - for example "pop music sucks" is completely subjective. Additionally I have argued that pop music has artistic merit despite the fact that I do not personally enjoy it.
Your problem is that you have your own criteria for what is "artistically good" and what is just "good, but crappy artistically". For example, you have said that you look for innovative song structures, new ideas - to you that is part of what makes a song artistically good. Songs that do not have those qualities you might still enjoy but in your mind they are not art.
My point is that other people may have other criteria that defines what art is for them. They may also have other ideas about what is good. My initial post was pointing out that a person might find pop music both artistically relevant and also good. They should not be dumped on by snobs who have more limited definitions of what art is.
That's fine - nobody said you have to like pop music. But, as you have just agreed, pop music has artistic merit - even though you personally think it isn't very good. Which brings us back to my original point - pop music is an art form which some people enjoy. And those people should not be dumped on by elitist music snobs simply because the elitists don't share the same musical tastes as others...
Well that's my point. I might think that pop music is dull, contrived, poorly written and generally worthless - but that doesn't mean that it isn't valid art.
I mean even if you thought the Mona Lisa wasn't "artistically well done" (and I'm sure there are some people who feel that way)- it would still be art.
Sadly, yes. There is diffrence between how enjoyable a song is, and it's artistic merit. There are those that say good when they mean enjoyable, and there are those they say good when they mean artisticlly well done.
I would love for you to attempt to explain the difference between artistic merit and enjoyability.
One can appreciate art in many different ways. For many art is about the intellectual experience - trying to figure out the meaning in a work - if the work has "meaning" then it is art - otherwise not. For others it's about the aesthetic experience - if they consider a work and get that "feeling of aesthetic pleasure" then it is art - otherwise not.
Elitists will try to say that pop art is not really art because it has no message or because it doesn't present one with an aesthetic experience. They will say that it is "not well done" and not worthy even of the designation "art". But the truth is that if even one person appreciates a song (finds it enjoyable) then it is a valid art form - despite what the pretentious snobs might think.
I agree that there is no benefit in paying people to do nonproductive things (like digging and refilling holes in the ground). I also agree that the Broken Windows Fallacy is legitimate.
But building commuter rail is not a special case of the broken windows fallacy. The broken windows fallacy states that it is not productive to allocate resources to areas where there is no economic gain. The construction of a high-speed rail system has such a gain in that before the project there was no high-speed rail and after the project there is. This is not the same as breaking a window in order to employ people to fix it where the total gain is nil.
Additionally you are assuming that the country's resources are being efficiently allocated - this is not the case. Since there is already colossal waste within the system on other, less worthy projects it might be a good idea to fund a high-speed rail project (even if the project was not providing a net economic gain).
I definitely agree that traditional distribution models are challenged by filesharing however, I think it will be quite some time before the traditional record labels are a thing of the past.
Sure, in recent years the labels have noticed that they have gotten less profit than in previous years - but they still make billions of dollars. This money is invested in projects such as MTV which in turn creates pop celebrity which, in conjunction with stylists, marketing people, sports figures and movie stars creates a thing called "cool" or "hip" which is then attached to music/clothing/many other products for marketing purposes.
In the end the record labels are one element in a colossal marketing machine whose most important product is "cool". The music is, for the most part, irrelevant. Record labels aren't worried that one day alternate distribution methods will provide exposure to independent artists who will then sell more records and become cool. They have designed a system that tells people what is cool -and it requires a hell of a lot more than giving exposure to independent artists. Their major concern is that the money they have invested in creating cool isn't paying its full dividends because the kiddies they market to are downloading off of Kazaa.
If you are aware enough to recognize art when you see or hear it, you are also aware enough to seek out venues that feature such artists. Such venues do not cater to mass marketing. These are the bars, honkey tonks, indie recording labels that have been showcasing the best artists for generations. You find them at the edge of the university district, in the raucus dives, the after hours clubs, in the back of the local news rag that nobody really reads, and in the small record stores in the old strip mall downtown.
You do realize that you sound like a pompous ass right?
I guess all the people who like music that is popular just can't recognize "art" when they hear it. It's only people such as yourself who hang out at the local "honkey tonks" and "after hours clubs" that truly understand music.
The truth is that many people know that pop music is a marketing tool (I mean, it is pretty obvious) but enjoy it anway. The value of any work of art is completely subjective. So while you and I might prefer Johnny Cash to Justin Timberlake - this does not give us the authority to act like condescending assholes towards people who do like (in my opinion, overly manufactured and soulless) pop music.
I agree... this news is not really shocking.. if your album is crap and people find out before they spend their hard earned money on it... guess what? they're reluctant to buy it.
I'm not so sure that this is the case. The industry promotes the hell out of its crappy pop releases in order to sell more albums - everyone knows the quality of the songs before they make a purchase. The sad fact is that many people have no musical taste - they enjoy the manufactured pop stars and the tired chord progressions that form the base for modern rock.
Unfortuneately this lack of taste is not limited only to children I've known many adults who listen to Britney Spears or Justin Timerberlake - and when I call them on it they claim that "it's irony". But I don't buy it - wannabe hipsters use irony as a way to legitimize their awful musical tastes.
The point is that many people like crap. They will continue to buy whatever the pop music/MTV marketing machine tells them is cool this month (including CDs, clothing, video games, sports drinks, batteries and virtually every other product). Filesharing has virtually no affect on the buying habits of these people.
I don't know about that. You think a small private company is going to be able to compete with the big boys? Sorry, but I'd rather have a gov't. backed telco at low rates and comparable service than deal with Comcast.
I agree that it is difficult for the smaller service providers to compete with the big near-monopolies. But, the FCC has made competition one of its highest priorities. FCC decisions have required the former monopolies to unbundle local loops and enter into interconnection agreements in order to allow the smaller telcos to compete.
While this is a temporary solution, the ideas is that over time competition will take hold and the industry will no longer require regulation.
Allowing states to enter the telcom market would be a giant step backward. How can a smaller private enterprise be expected to compete with a publically owned coporation backed by the state treasury?
If humans never develop the technology for interstellar space travel, in about 500 million years there will be no "elsewhere" to spend the money.
But you must admit that 500 million years is a significant amount of time. Maybe we should consider rectifying more immediate problems (world hunger, disease and so on) for the first - I dunno - million or so years.
We can then use the remaining 499 million years to deal with colonizing other planets...
Look dude, I'm sorry that you don't understand the English language. Really, I am. The fact that you continued to argue this point long after you had been proven wrong is a testament to your own stupidity.
But it is fun to provoke you, much like it can be fun to tease a pet dog with his doggie treats...
C'mon, boy...C'mon..respond to my post...show me how smart you are...
Holy crap, how stupid are you? There have been several responses explaining why the original post was correct and yet you still fail to understand.
Let's review.
The original post said, "Definitely a few names that probably don't deserve to be on the list". So, there definitely were a few names on the list that were arguable; not all the names, but definitely a few. And, in the poster's opinion, those names probably don't belong on the list.
Therefore, there definitely are a few names that probably don't belong on the list. Get it now?
It's funny, I can just picture you reading this and furrowing your brow, in a desparate attempt to understand what's going on....amusing...
Slashdot Mirror
Popularity does not add to or detract from the value of a work of art.
Ultimately art has no value until each observer evaluates the work for themselves. That said - there are going to be large groups of people who have similar values. The use the same criteria to judge a piece of art (or they use different criteria but reach the same conclusions).
The fact is that it is pretentious to assume that you (or your groups') values should apply to everyone. Similarly it is pretentious to act as if people who do not share your system of evaluation are somehow less knowledgeable, intelligent or music savvy. This is particularly odious if you are simply followig the crowd. That is, finding some indie rock/folk/classical music loving friends and aligning your tastes with theirs in a sad attempt to be cool (I'm not saying you do this - but it does happen). It's even worse if a person has a little knowledge - say a year or two of basic music theory. People think they know it all when really they know very little.
Having said that, I do tend to identify with certain groups of people who share my musical taste. I have definitely been known to act like a prick towards those who have different ideas about what is good. But it is a good idea sometimes to step back and objectively look at the situation - that's really what this thread is about.
Um, what other points?
You have just listed a bunch of criteria which you think a work must have must have in order to be good art. Each time I have pointed out that it doesn't matter what you think is good - or even what is calssically considered good. The value of a work of art is entirely subjective.
The reason that I have had to be repetitive is because you don't like this conclusion and bang your head against the wall trying to refute it. So, you bring up methods that you use to judge a piece of art. I then point out that those are irrelevant - and around we go.
I agree that it is a little bit stupid to continue with this - but it was fun to see what you would come up with. Sadly, all you could muster was some semi-coherent arguments that amounted to:
1) Many people agree that Mozart is better than Pop music - therefore Mozart must be better than pop music
2)I took one year of music apprecation so I know that music is an "intellectual craft" - pop music is not intellectual and therefore is bad
It's sad really. In the end you were on the right track. The best way to go after someone arguing that "everything is subjective" is the same way you argue the nihilist argument that "everything is relative".
Maybe after a few more posts your dim mind will figure it out - I'm not sticking around to find out though
My experiment with you is over - you failed miserably - good luck with the rest of your life!
Hah! It took you long enough...
But I'm honestly not trolling. I am trying to exercise my objectivity. The truth is that neither argument is really right and the truth lies somewhere in between. But I like to push arguments to their logical limits in order to see what will come out of it.
As a side note - you did a terrible job of arguing on the other side - there are so many more valid points that you could have brought up.
Oh, and also, its funny how you got involved in the argument - you had/have a real hate going for me -put me on your enemies list and everything. In a way my manipulation of you was sort of like perofrmance art - neat huh?
The classic composeers were all great in their own way. But the contemporary tendency to deify their work at the expense of others is pretentious - and wrong.
But don't you think that there's a higher standard then just 'oh that guy likes it' to qualify something as truely great.
No, that's pretty much all there is. If one person appreciates a piece of art then it is good. There is no scale of "artistic goodness" for the rating of art with Mozart et al. at the top and Britney et al. at the bottom. It's all a matter of personal opinion.
I refer you to definition number 2.
2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
As an example of this behavior;
If you are aware enough to recognize art when you see or hear it, you are also aware enough to seek out venues that feature such artists. Such venues do not cater to mass marketing. These are the bars, honkey tonks, indie recording labels that have been showcasing the best artists for generations. You find them at the edge of the university district, in the raucus dives, the after hours clubs, in the back of the local news rag that nobody really reads, and in the small record stores in the old strip mall downtown.
What I'm saying is that on the larger scale of things, on what is going to stand the test of time and become truely recognized as great art vs. what is going to be forgot about in a week when the next single comes out, the bar is set signifigantly higher.
And I'm saying that you are wrong. There is plenty of great art is is largely forgotten. Standing the test of time; being "recgonized" by the community does not make art great. All art is good regardless of how well liked it is. That is the point.
And for pete's sake, can even go one post without using the word snobby...
If the shoe fits....
Alright - Listen this time. I haven't sidestepped the issue. It isn't my problem that you don't have the capacity to understand where I am coming from.
Not everyone accepts that picasso is better than your preschool drawings. Maybe if we all had a look at your preschool scribblings some people would prefer them to Picasso. That is the nature of art. Your unwillingness to accept subjectivity is really disturbing - and snobby.
In your opinion they aren't in the same league. Maybe even in most people's opinions they aren't in the same league. But some people may not think that. Art is subjective - people have different opinions. This doesn't make them less good than anyone else. Just accept it and move along with yur life.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from concerning Wall St. - I was really referring to republican tendencies of management.
The real travesty of the perceived role reversal is that it stymies any real grassroots political movement. The republicans (and to a lesser extent he democrats) have co-opted the whole grass-roots phenomenon (which is typically where real political changes begins) and made it a part of the current political system. It's interesting... and scary.
Well I guess it depends on what we mean by looking out for the little guy. I figure that of the two prties the Democrats are more likely to support the middle classes. This doesn't mean that Dems aren't influenced by powerful lobby groups or that the Dem leaders aren't also a bunch of blue-bloods.
I just find it interesting that the republican spin has managed to alter the public's perception of their party. They have convinced the general public that tax cuts for the wealthy are in the best interests of the middle classes..it's amusing
Never if most of the middle class keep believing politicans who claim tax cuts/etc. are aimed at helping them out. I am shocked at how many educated smart people that believe these claims without even bothering to investigate to make sure they're valid. I don't hold much hope of the majority of middle class voters ever getting a clue on this, so I'm afraid the answer to your question may be "never".
I definitely agree with you here. It amazes me that the Republican party has convinced the middle class that it is acting on their behalf. Somehow the Republicans, who are controlled by wealthy northeastern families and funded by wall street, have convinced us that they are actually good o'l boys from the south with the interests of the working classes in mind.
Meanwhile the Democratic party members -the party that brought us the New Deal and social reform and who are funded in part by Labour Unions are painted as elitist, wall street funded snobs.
In the past 10 years the Republican party has slowly been undoing all the social reforms that have been enacted since Wilson - they have set us back 100 years. This has all be done with th esupport of the working classes.
It's the greatest bit of political spin I have ever seen. The wealthy/aristocratic party is deemed the party of the people while the people's party is considered elite and detached form the people. What a joke!
It is stupid of you to assume that I can't grasp complexity when I'm the one who brought it up. Yes, I understand that complexity can be subtle - "complexity through simplicity" - the basis of Detroit minimalism. And yes, I have only talked about the most basic elements of music theory (and not even all of them) - but it isn't my job to teach you music theory. I just assume you have learned some of that- if you haven't you probably should go ahead and do that.
I see that you are now introducing some more of your criteria for what constitutes "good art" - the conveyance of ideas and original and creative means of portraying the idea. Assuming I accpet your guidelines - which I don't - I can argue that pop music is original and interesting because it conveys ideas/messages (advertising) in an original way (blended into popular cultture via little pop tunes). This was brand-new in the 1970s and the way the message has mutated over time is incredibly interesting Maybe your problem is that you take the music at face value??
Anyway - my original point stands. Pop music can be good . Not everyone uses your criteria or even the classical criteria to decide what music is good. It is all subjective - to think otherwise makes one a pretentious snob...
This is where you go wrong. Take a class in music appreciation or music theory. These aren't just my definitions of what makes a song artistically good or not, and those aren't all that can make a song good, they were examples, not the whole pie.
I agree that it is the interplay of various elements that make a piece of music classically "correct". As you have pointed out, anyone who has taken a basic music theory/music appreciation course is taught these things.
I'm not debating you over whether pop music is art or not, all music is art. But the fact that it is art doesn't mean it's good art.
And this is where you start to get into trouble. You apply the basic musical theory that you learned in Music Appreciation 101 and use it as a yardstick to measure the artistic merit of a piece of music. So you figure - standard 4/4 time, all in the same key, only one or two voices - hey, this album is repetitive, derivitive and boring - it is not artistically good!! You confuse complexity and conformity to the classical forms with artistic value - this is wrong. In reality there is no bad art - there is only art that you enjoy and art that you do not enjoy.
Whether a work is artistically well done or not is an objective decision based on the artists manipulation of the underlying funtamentals of music.
Well, all musical works are a manipulation of the underlying fundamentals of music. Its just that some pieces are more complex than others. If an artist has a greater understanding of musical theory then they can make increasingly more complex pieces - this is interesting to people who like that kind of thing. But the value of a complex work is not necessarily greater than the value of a simple one. It is all a matter of personal taste.
As an example let's look at 20th Century Composer John Cage's 4'33. This piece is simply 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence in which the sounds that the audience make during the performance become the music. Does that sound like art to you? Is it artistically good? How does it measure on your scale?
Slap some new lyrics and a diffrent progression and your good to go. Is it art? Yes. Is it good art? No.
In your opinion, sure. But there is no absolute definition of what art is good and what art is bad. Art is art. How you interpret that art is your business. If people intrepret different works of art in different ways this does not make them worthy of your derision.
I have repeatedly said that a value judgement - for example "pop music sucks" is completely subjective. Additionally I have argued that pop music has artistic merit despite the fact that I do not personally enjoy it.
Your problem is that you have your own criteria for what is "artistically good" and what is just "good, but crappy artistically". For example, you have said that you look for innovative song structures, new ideas - to you that is part of what makes a song artistically good. Songs that do not have those qualities you might still enjoy but in your mind they are not art.
My point is that other people may have other criteria that defines what art is for them. They may also have other ideas about what is good. My initial post was pointing out that a person might find pop music both artistically relevant and also good. They should not be dumped on by snobs who have more limited definitions of what art is.
That's fine - nobody said you have to like pop music. But, as you have just agreed, pop music has artistic merit - even though you personally think it isn't very good. Which brings us back to my original point - pop music is an art form which some people enjoy. And those people should not be dumped on by elitist music snobs simply because the elitists don't share the same musical tastes as others...
Well that's my point. I might think that pop music is dull, contrived, poorly written and generally worthless - but that doesn't mean that it isn't valid art.
I mean even if you thought the Mona Lisa wasn't "artistically well done" (and I'm sure there are some people who feel that way)- it would still be art.
Not the same thing at all - but you already know that, don't you?
Go troll someone else..
Sadly, yes. There is diffrence between how enjoyable a song is, and it's artistic merit. There are those that say good when they mean enjoyable, and there are those they say good when they mean artisticlly well done.
I would love for you to attempt to explain the difference between artistic merit and enjoyability.
One can appreciate art in many different ways. For many art is about the intellectual experience - trying to figure out the meaning in a work - if the work has "meaning" then it is art - otherwise not. For others it's about the aesthetic experience - if they consider a work and get that "feeling of aesthetic pleasure" then it is art - otherwise not.
Elitists will try to say that pop art is not really art because it has no message or because it doesn't present one with an aesthetic experience. They will say that it is "not well done" and not worthy even of the designation "art". But the truth is that if even one person appreciates a song (finds it enjoyable) then it is a valid art form - despite what the pretentious snobs might think.
I agree that there is no benefit in paying people to do nonproductive things (like digging and refilling holes in the ground). I also agree that the Broken Windows Fallacy is legitimate.
But building commuter rail is not a special case of the broken windows fallacy. The broken windows fallacy states that it is not productive to allocate resources to areas where there is no economic gain. The construction of a high-speed rail system has such a gain in that before the project there was no high-speed rail and after the project there is. This is not the same as breaking a window in order to employ people to fix it where the total gain is nil.
Additionally you are assuming that the country's resources are being efficiently allocated - this is not the case. Since there is already colossal waste within the system on other, less worthy projects it might be a good idea to fund a high-speed rail project (even if the project was not providing a net economic gain).
I definitely agree that traditional distribution models are challenged by filesharing however, I think it will be quite some time before the traditional record labels are a thing of the past.
Sure, in recent years the labels have noticed that they have gotten less profit than in previous years - but they still make billions of dollars. This money is invested in projects such as MTV which in turn creates pop celebrity which, in conjunction with stylists, marketing people, sports figures and movie stars creates a thing called "cool" or "hip" which is then attached to music/clothing/many other products for marketing purposes.
In the end the record labels are one element in a colossal marketing machine whose most important product is "cool". The music is, for the most part, irrelevant. Record labels aren't worried that one day alternate distribution methods will provide exposure to independent artists who will then sell more records and become cool. They have designed a system that tells people what is cool -and it requires a hell of a lot more than giving exposure to independent artists. Their major concern is that the money they have invested in creating cool isn't paying its full dividends because the kiddies they market to are downloading off of Kazaa.
If you are aware enough to recognize art when you see or hear it, you are also aware enough to seek out venues that feature such artists. Such venues do not cater to mass marketing. These are the bars, honkey tonks, indie recording labels that have been showcasing the best artists for generations. You find them at the edge of the university district, in the raucus dives, the after hours clubs, in the back of the local news rag that nobody really reads, and in the small record stores in the old strip mall downtown.
You do realize that you sound like a pompous ass right?
I guess all the people who like music that is popular just can't recognize "art" when they hear it. It's only people such as yourself who hang out at the local "honkey tonks" and "after hours clubs" that truly understand music.
The truth is that many people know that pop music is a marketing tool (I mean, it is pretty obvious) but enjoy it anway. The value of any work of art is completely subjective. So while you and I might prefer Johnny Cash to Justin Timberlake - this does not give us the authority to act like condescending assholes towards people who do like (in my opinion, overly manufactured and soulless) pop music.
I agree... this news is not really shocking.. if your album is crap and people find out before they spend their hard earned money on it... guess what? they're reluctant to buy it.
I'm not so sure that this is the case. The industry promotes the hell out of its crappy pop releases in order to sell more albums - everyone knows the quality of the songs before they make a purchase. The sad fact is that many people have no musical taste - they enjoy the manufactured pop stars and the tired chord progressions that form the base for modern rock.
Unfortuneately this lack of taste is not limited only to children I've known many adults who listen to Britney Spears or Justin Timerberlake - and when I call them on it they claim that "it's irony". But I don't buy it - wannabe hipsters use irony as a way to legitimize their awful musical tastes.
The point is that many people like crap. They will continue to buy whatever the pop music/MTV marketing machine tells them is cool this month (including CDs, clothing, video games, sports drinks, batteries and virtually every other product). Filesharing has virtually no affect on the buying habits of these people.
I don't know about that. You think a small private company is going to be able to compete with the big boys? Sorry, but I'd rather have a gov't. backed telco at low rates and comparable service than deal with Comcast.
I agree that it is difficult for the smaller service providers to compete with the big near-monopolies. But, the FCC has made competition one of its highest priorities. FCC decisions have required the former monopolies to unbundle local loops and enter into interconnection agreements in order to allow the smaller telcos to compete.
While this is a temporary solution, the ideas is that over time competition will take hold and the industry will no longer require regulation.
Allowing states to enter the telcom market would be a giant step backward. How can a smaller private enterprise be expected to compete with a publically owned coporation backed by the state treasury?
If humans never develop the technology for interstellar space travel, in about 500 million years there will be no "elsewhere" to spend the money.
But you must admit that 500 million years is a significant amount of time. Maybe we should consider rectifying more immediate problems (world hunger, disease and so on) for the first - I dunno - million or so years.
We can then use the remaining 499 million years to deal with colonizing other planets...
Look dude, I'm sorry that you don't understand the English language. Really, I am. The fact that you continued to argue this point long after you had been proven wrong is a testament to your own stupidity.
But it is fun to provoke you, much like it can be fun to tease a pet dog with his doggie treats...
C'mon, boy...C'mon..respond to my post...show me how smart you are...
Holy crap, how stupid are you? There have been several responses explaining why the original post was correct and yet you still fail to understand.
Let's review.
The original post said, "Definitely a few names that probably don't deserve to be on the list". So, there definitely were a few names on the list that were arguable; not all the names, but definitely a few. And, in the poster's opinion, those names probably don't belong on the list.
Therefore, there definitely are a few names that probably don't belong on the list. Get it now?
It's funny, I can just picture you reading this and furrowing your brow, in a desparate attempt to understand what's going on....amusing...