Your original point is that pop music can be good?? Right, so then all along when I've been saying that there's some pop music out their that is good you just conveniently ignored the fact that I was agreeing with you? You still have yet to adress the main point I've been making all along which is that what makes a song artistically good and what makes a song enjoyable are not allways the same thing. Lets go back to the example of the painting. My mom liked my scribbling in preschool, does that mean she thought I was a better artist then picasso? No, she knew damn well that picasso was a better artist, she just enjoyed mine better. And again the mona lisa, does the fact that that painting bores the hell out of me diminish its standing as a great work of art?? No. You can continually call me a snob and pretentious while sidestepping my points and ignoring my main argument, but don't pretend that it somehow supports your side.
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.
Again with your straw man... The things you've mentioned are the basics of music, your oversimlifying. Not everything in music has to be 100% orginal. The entire album can be 4/4, one singer, same key, even same chord structure and still be musically interesting. That's the key, it has to be musicially interesting, there has to be something. Complex pieces are not just for people who like "that kind of thing". Even pieces that are simple on the surface can be complex, complexity is often very subtle. Just because that complexity escapes you is not a reason to deny its existance or to call someone elietist because they can grasp it. As for John Cage, yes, I definitly consider that art. I don't think it neccisarily belongs in the same catagory as music, but certainly art. Why? Because he had an idea that he wanted to convey and he conveyed it in a way that was original and creative. Obviosly there's no comprehensive stone definition to what is good and what is bad. But there are certainly guidlines to what criteria you judge on. Some works are on the fence, it's debatable whether they're good or not, some works are undeniably good, and some works just aren't good. A large portion of pop music falls into that last catagory.
Supposidly your record someone talking, reverse it, and mix it really low into the music. But really it's all just a crock of shit. Just something bands did in the 80's to freak out their fan's parents.
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.
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'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. Your argument is that you get to define what is art to you, but as I've said, you're not seperating your personal opinion of a work from your opinion of it's artistic merit. You get to decide for yourself what you like. But because you like a work does not mean it's artistically good, because I like a work does not mean it's artistically good. Whether a work is artistically well done or not is an objective decision based on the artists manipulation of the underlying funtamentals of music. There are songs out their who are simply not artistically well done. They have the same ideas, same song structure, same overall sound as the 10 songs that played on the radio before it. Slap some new lyrics and a diffrent progression and your good to go. Is it art? Yes. Is it good art? No.
As I said, you're confusing the meaning of 'good' here. I don't listen to pop music because I don't find it enjoyable. But when I say it's not 'good' I'm referring to it's artistic merit. Music is a very intellectual craft. There is alot going on in songs in terms of rhythms, harmonies, song structure, the arrangement, keys and key changes, not to mention the sound design possibilities of todays synthesisers. Most pop music is not good in the artistic sense because it does not do anything in those areas that has not been done before. There's no real innovation, just the repetition of stale musical ideas. You need to seperate your personal feelings about a song from your assessment of it. Whether a song is artistically good is an objective decision based on how the artist uses the tools of his craft to convey his message. Whether you like the song or not is based on your personal reaction to it. There are plenty of songs that I don't enjoy listening to but I think are artistically genius, there are also songs I love that I admit are artistically a piece of crap. Most people don't make the distinction, but they are two seperate judgements,
The list of things that if done wrong could create a minor catastrophe is long and only getting longer. We simply cannot avoid all of them. It makes more sense to start learning about how to deal with the dangers so they aren't so.. well... dangerous.
The diffrence between artist merit and enjoyablity... hard to put into words, but still exists none the less.
i.e. I think the Mona Lisa is a boring fucking painting. I wouldn't want it hanging on my wall. But that does not mean it's not artistically well done.
This get's done alot in TV. Often in sports games and other live broadcasts certain areas are left blank. Then cable companies can sell that space to local buisnesses and the ad will be digitally placed in the shot. As for movies, there really isn't a need to do it digitally. Advertising in movies is the number 1 source of income for the movie budget to begin with. Some of it is obviose and fairly well know, hold cans label out, drive certain cars, shop in a certain chain store. But the level that it's actually being done is unbelievable, not only in simple logo placement but in subliminal placement too. Some movies will have the main charector allways using a certain brand and the villan uses the competeing brand, etc. It's a fairly large issue with filmakers pushing to keep the films realistic while advertisers are pushing for the placements to be more obviose, to have attention called to them, etc.
People who whine about the artist have little understanding of the distrobution of revenue in most projects. Artists rarely make much of anything from CD sales. The CD has to be enourmously successfull before it will pay off. The majority of an artists revenue comes from touring, sponsorship, and merchandise.
I guess all the people who like music that is popular just can't recognize "art" when they hear it.
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.
You've made two false assumptions. 1, that it's the artist that will be gathering and analying this data. 2, that the data will necessarily support the artist's wishes in terms of album programming. It's the record company that would be gathering and analysing this data. They would never fight to let a song on an album if it can be shown that consumers are statistically likely to respond favorably. Artists will still fight the record companies over programming. The change will be the record company wanting a song included/excluded because of the actual responce of the consumer as opposed to the percieved responce of the consumer.
Gravitational fields are infinite. You have never totally escaped, it's just become weak enough that its force is negligable. Definitions of escape velocity that rely on terms like 'totally escape' are outdated.
"Escape velocity is defined to be the minimum velocity an object must have in order to escape the gravitational field of the earth, that is, escape the earth without ever falling back." -Yasar Safkan, B.S. Phsyics Ph.D. Candidate, M.I.T.
If an object is in orbit it will not "fall back". It has escaped the earths gravitational field in the sense that the remaining effect of the field is no longer strong enough to reduce the altitude of the object.
Escape velocity doesn't just apply to objects on the surface. It also applies to objects in the atmosphere. Escape velocity is reduced as your distance from the point of mass increases. At some point the escape velocity will lower itself below the speed of the rocket, at which time you can turn the rocket off and not Wiley E Coyote back to Earth. For escape velocity to truely not apply you would have to burn constantly the entirety of the time you are in orbit, when a space mission lasts more then a couple minutes this just isn't possible.
The space shuttle doesn't constantly burn fuel for the entirety of the time that it is in orbit. They have to shut off the engines. No additional thrust is being applied so they do in fact have to hit escape velocity, that velocity just happens to be considerably less because of the altitude they hit it at.
Binomial expansion : for 1>>|x| (and n not insanely large), (1+x)^n ~= 1+(x*n)
I'm sorry, but isn't the point of a Taylor expansion that as n approaches infinity the series approaches an exact approximation within the bounds?? Wouldn't that mean that an insanely large n would be more accurate then a smaller sized n?
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I don't inderstand about your point. How can you not admit that those two artists aren't even in the same league??
Your original point is that pop music can be good?? Right, so then all along when I've been saying that there's some pop music out their that is good you just conveniently ignored the fact that I was agreeing with you? You still have yet to adress the main point I've been making all along which is that what makes a song artistically good and what makes a song enjoyable are not allways the same thing. Lets go back to the example of the painting. My mom liked my scribbling in preschool, does that mean she thought I was a better artist then picasso? No, she knew damn well that picasso was a better artist, she just enjoyed mine better. And again the mona lisa, does the fact that that painting bores the hell out of me diminish its standing as a great work of art?? No. You can continually call me a snob and pretentious while sidestepping my points and ignoring my main argument, but don't pretend that it somehow supports your side.
Again with your straw man... The things you've mentioned are the basics of music, your oversimlifying. Not everything in music has to be 100% orginal. The entire album can be 4/4, one singer, same key, even same chord structure and still be musically interesting. That's the key, it has to be musicially interesting, there has to be something. Complex pieces are not just for people who like "that kind of thing". Even pieces that are simple on the surface can be complex, complexity is often very subtle. Just because that complexity escapes you is not a reason to deny its existance or to call someone elietist because they can grasp it. As for John Cage, yes, I definitly consider that art. I don't think it neccisarily belongs in the same catagory as music, but certainly art. Why? Because he had an idea that he wanted to convey and he conveyed it in a way that was original and creative. Obviosly there's no comprehensive stone definition to what is good and what is bad. But there are certainly guidlines to what criteria you judge on. Some works are on the fence, it's debatable whether they're good or not, some works are undeniably good, and some works just aren't good. A large portion of pop music falls into that last catagory.
Supposidly your record someone talking, reverse it, and mix it really low into the music. But really it's all just a crock of shit. Just something bands did in the 80's to freak out their fan's parents.
Oh I see, your just talking about 1st order expansions. I was thinking that n is the order of the taylor expansion. My mistake.
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'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. Your argument is that you get to define what is art to you, but as I've said, you're not seperating your personal opinion of a work from your opinion of it's artistic merit. You get to decide for yourself what you like. But because you like a work does not mean it's artistically good, because I like a work does not mean it's artistically good. Whether a work is artistically well done or not is an objective decision based on the artists manipulation of the underlying funtamentals of music. There are songs out their who are simply not artistically well done. They have the same ideas, same song structure, same overall sound as the 10 songs that played on the radio before it. Slap some new lyrics and a diffrent progression and your good to go. Is it art? Yes. Is it good art? No.
As I said, you're confusing the meaning of 'good' here. I don't listen to pop music because I don't find it enjoyable. But when I say it's not 'good' I'm referring to it's artistic merit. Music is a very intellectual craft. There is alot going on in songs in terms of rhythms, harmonies, song structure, the arrangement, keys and key changes, not to mention the sound design possibilities of todays synthesisers. Most pop music is not good in the artistic sense because it does not do anything in those areas that has not been done before. There's no real innovation, just the repetition of stale musical ideas. You need to seperate your personal feelings about a song from your assessment of it. Whether a song is artistically good is an objective decision based on how the artist uses the tools of his craft to convey his message. Whether you like the song or not is based on your personal reaction to it. There are plenty of songs that I don't enjoy listening to but I think are artistically genius, there are also songs I love that I admit are artistically a piece of crap. Most people don't make the distinction, but they are two seperate judgements,
I'm not saying that as art it isn't valid. I'm saying that as art it isn't good.
The list of things that if done wrong could create a minor catastrophe is long and only getting longer. We simply cannot avoid all of them. It makes more sense to start learning about how to deal with the dangers so they aren't so.. well... dangerous.
i.e. I think the Mona Lisa is a boring fucking painting. I wouldn't want it hanging on my wall. But that does not mean it's not artistically well done.
This get's done alot in TV. Often in sports games and other live broadcasts certain areas are left blank. Then cable companies can sell that space to local buisnesses and the ad will be digitally placed in the shot. As for movies, there really isn't a need to do it digitally. Advertising in movies is the number 1 source of income for the movie budget to begin with. Some of it is obviose and fairly well know, hold cans label out, drive certain cars, shop in a certain chain store. But the level that it's actually being done is unbelievable, not only in simple logo placement but in subliminal placement too. Some movies will have the main charector allways using a certain brand and the villan uses the competeing brand, etc. It's a fairly large issue with filmakers pushing to keep the films realistic while advertisers are pushing for the placements to be more obviose, to have attention called to them, etc.
People who whine about the artist have little understanding of the distrobution of revenue in most projects. Artists rarely make much of anything from CD sales. The CD has to be enourmously successfull before it will pay off. The majority of an artists revenue comes from touring, sponsorship, and merchandise.
Puff did not invent the remix. Remix's have been around for a long time grashopper. It's just that now they're gaining a little popularity :)
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.
You've made two false assumptions. 1, that it's the artist that will be gathering and analying this data. 2, that the data will necessarily support the artist's wishes in terms of album programming. It's the record company that would be gathering and analysing this data. They would never fight to let a song on an album if it can be shown that consumers are statistically likely to respond favorably. Artists will still fight the record companies over programming. The change will be the record company wanting a song included/excluded because of the actual responce of the consumer as opposed to the percieved responce of the consumer.
"Escape velocity is defined to be the minimum velocity an object must have in order to escape the gravitational field of the earth, that is, escape the earth without ever falling back." -Yasar Safkan, B.S. Phsyics Ph.D. Candidate, M.I.T.
If an object is in orbit it will not "fall back". It has escaped the earths gravitational field in the sense that the remaining effect of the field is no longer strong enough to reduce the altitude of the object.
Why would it? It's a linux distro. Most linux users already don't use IE.
You seem to be missing the point...
I think your missing the entire point of a scramjet. It's designed to deal with the fact that airflow does matter.
They do obtain escape velocity, it's just signifigantly lower then 11km/s because it's hit at a high altitude.
No, exact escape velocity will put you into a perfect orbit. Anything above escape velocity will send you floating off.
Escape velocity doesn't just apply to objects on the surface. It also applies to objects in the atmosphere. Escape velocity is reduced as your distance from the point of mass increases. At some point the escape velocity will lower itself below the speed of the rocket, at which time you can turn the rocket off and not Wiley E Coyote back to Earth. For escape velocity to truely not apply you would have to burn constantly the entirety of the time you are in orbit, when a space mission lasts more then a couple minutes this just isn't possible.
The space shuttle doesn't constantly burn fuel for the entirety of the time that it is in orbit. They have to shut off the engines. No additional thrust is being applied so they do in fact have to hit escape velocity, that velocity just happens to be considerably less because of the altitude they hit it at.
I'm sorry, but isn't the point of a Taylor expansion that as n approaches infinity the series approaches an exact approximation within the bounds?? Wouldn't that mean that an insanely large n would be more accurate then a smaller sized n?
And if it points down?? ;)