User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 94

  1. #51
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinebrighter View Post
    Safe and salable usually equal to mediocre music. It tries to annoy the least amount of people. This is a little hard to explain, but this type of music don't excel in any one genre. It tries to cram a little bit of every type of music to attract every type of music fan. Then it comes out tasting bland.
    Combining little bits of different genres is now more bland than sticking strictly to one? What? :confused:

    I think most musical elitists just arbitrarily declare anything that's really popular to be bad, and then backpedal to make up reasons for it. For most people, it seems like "I don't like it"+"It was made with the intention of a lot of people liking it" are taken to mean music is automatically bad, and there's really just no justification for that.

    All you're doing is trying to dream up objective justifications for your own subjective opinions.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #52
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Combining little bits of different genres is now more bland than sticking strictly to one? What? :confused:

    I think most musical elitists just arbitrarily declare anything that's really popular to be bad, and then backpedal to make up reasons for it. For most people, it seems like "I don't like it"+"It was made with the intention of a lot of people liking it" are taken to mean music is automatically bad, and there's really just no justification for that.

    All you're doing is trying to dream up objective justifications for your own subjective opinions.

    If that is true, why do I enjoy Madonna or Usher or ABBA (or The Beatles, for that matter), but dislike Panic! at the Disco or Nickelback? I feel that there are more objectives at play than most people are willing to admit. People get VERY uneasy when it's suggested that there are objectives when it comes to criticism of art, since they often don't have any objective criteria for like or disliking it. But let's think about it this way: were The Beatles better than Backstreet Boys? The answer is yes, no matter how many people loved Backstreet (and they had some OK songs). Most people would answer yes, but they end up with reasons like "Come on, they were The Beatles! BSB was. . . BSB," which is NOT a reason at all. I can at least explain preferring one over the other.


    P.S. I have to take issue with Nickelback being "one of the better mainstream bands," too. I know you didn't post that, but it still needs to be challenged. Everyone should watch/read/listen to this video and then try to justify that. This song BLOWS. They are NOT a catchy band.


    [YOUTUBE=qZxuNqUZqpM]Nickelback - Never Again[/YOUTUBE]
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #53
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinebrighter View Post
    Heck they are trying to market to both gender.
    So...umm...you go to men's only or women's only shows?

    WTF???!!!!

  4. #54
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    If that is true, why do I enjoy Madonna or Usher or ABBA (or The Beatles, for that matter), but dislike Panic! at the Disco or Nickelback?

    I don't know, because I pretty much HATE Usher. Are you trying to say he's a "superior" pop star? Oh dear. I can't imagine that your explanation for preferring Usher is going to convince me that he's "better" than Panic! at the Disco.

    This is the ONE song I evar liked by Usher (honestly don't care for it as much now though), they are both early efforts, and I still don't see how we can "objectively" say that one is better than the other.

    [YOUTUBE="e8otWyLx6IQ"]Usher - My Way[/YOUTUBE]

    VS.

    [YOUTUBE="TFSIm3Zeecg"]PATD - Build God, Then We'll Talk[/YOUTUBE]





    P.S. I have to take issue with Nickelback being "one of the better mainstream bands," too. I know you didn't post that, but it still needs to be challenged. Everyone should watch/read/listen to this video and then try to justify that. This song BLOWS. They are NOT a catchy band.
    Oh, that's just not their good song. This is their good song.

    [YOUTUBE="2y50s6-8S0g"]Nickelback - How You Remind Me[/YOUTUBE]


  5. #55
    Senior Member vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Pretty good for a boysband
    in other words, they're pretty creative for a mainstream band.

  6. #56
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    If that is true, why do I enjoy Madonna or Usher or ABBA (or The Beatles, for that matter), but dislike Panic! at the Disco or Nickelback?
    Because those artists speak to you and the latter ones don't.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I feel that there are more objectives at play than most people are willing to admit. People get VERY uneasy when it's suggested that there are objectives when it comes to criticism of art, since they often don't have any objective criteria for like or disliking it.
    There is a degree of quasi-objectivity that can come from years of critical analysis by well-informed people, but it's still ultimately subjective because we're dealing with art critique (an inherently subjective field.)

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    But let's think about it this way: were The Beatles better than Backstreet Boys? The answer is yes, no matter how many people loved Backstreet (and they had some OK songs). Most people would answer yes, but they end up with reasons like "Come on, they were The Beatles! BSB was. . . BSB," which is NOT a reason at all. I can at least explain preferring one over the other.
    Are the Beatles better than the Backstreet Boys? Probably. But that's the best we can say--critical analysis would certainly lead us to believe so, but that doesn't make someone wrong for enjoying the Backstreet Boys more than he enjoys the Beatles. From our quasi-objective critical standpoint, yes, it's generally accepted that the Beatles are much better, but that only goes so far.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    P.S. I have to take issue with Nickelback being "one of the better mainstream bands," too. I know you didn't post that, but it still needs to be challenged. Everyone should watch/read/listen to this video and then try to justify that. This song BLOWS. They are NOT a catchy band.
    Tell that to their millions of adoring fans. I don't particularly like Madonna either, but I'd be stupid to say she isn't good.

    Your "but look at THIS song, it REALLY sucks!" argument is pointless because to people who like Nickelback, the song doesn't suck. We can apply some quasi-objective standards to evaluating the song's quality, but if we do that then it's got a lot going for it because it's composed, arranged and produced in the way that's most conducive to a lot of mainstream rock fans enjoying it, and it has clearly accomplished that goal with flying colors.

    Again, why are you holding them up to some goal or standard they never purported to meet? They're not trying to make deep social commentary or push the boundaries of what their instruments can do; that's not what their music is about. Their music is about entertaining mainstream rock fans, and they do that extremely well. You can't just pick some arbitrary critical standard that the band had no interest in achieving and then say that they're bad for not achieving it.

    Suppose I make a smooth jazz album, and that you really dislike smooth jazz in general. You can't start complaining that it's "not good" because it doesn't contain the elements of whatever music you like, because then you're holding the artist to a different standard than he purported to meet in the creation of the work. If you do that, you're bound to think most music sucks because your criteria for evaluation are so narrow and arbitrary.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #57
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    "Fire in the disco!" is better

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4gyJsY0mc"]Danger! High Voltage[/YOUTUBE]
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  8. #58
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    "Fire in the disco!" is better

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4gyJsY0mc"]Danger! High Voltage[/YOUTUBE]
    Is he sayiing "Fire in the disco, fire in the Taco Bell"???

  9. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    IXFP
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    All you're doing is trying to dream up objective justifications for your own subjective opinions.
    I think you are trying to start an argument for the sack of arguing. Really it starting to annoy me. Sorry that I don't like unoriginal music being made over and over just because it is salable. When did I ever claim this was objective? Oh yeah! I NEVER DID!!!! Stop living in a fantasy world.

    I was the one trying to dream up objective justifications? oh please look at you here.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I think numerous factors need to be taken into account, including but not limited to:

    --The standards of that artist's genre
    --What goal the artist had in creating the music
    --How the music compares to that of other artists producing similar music in a similar style during the same time period
    --How the work compares to that artist's previous works (does it show progression and development?)
    --What kind of new combinations of components (note that I'm not saying "new components", because there aren't any) the work contributed (but note that this one only matters if those new combinations actually create sounds that people find pleasing to hear! Being different doesn't accomplish anything if nobody thinks it sounds good.)
    --What cultural and artistic impact the music had at the time and how it may have influenced future music
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why is safe and salable bad? Most people prefer music that fits a certain kind of mold, because that's what they enjoy. That doesn't make them stupid or bad people.
    I didn't say they were stupid or bad people. When I say something is bad music I mean that I think it's bad music. By no means do I try to convince everyone to have my musical tastes. Stop putting words in people's mouth.

    Again this is all my subjective opinion on music if I don't care if you don't like it. Get off your fucking high horse, we all have different opinions of music and if you can't deal with it then leave.

  10. #60
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinebrighter View Post
    I think you are trying to start an argument for the sack of arguing. Really it starting to annoy me. Sorry that I don't like unoriginal music being made over and over just because it is salable. When did I ever claim this was objective? Oh yeah! I NEVER DID!!!! Stop living in a fantasy world.

    I was the one trying to dream up objective justifications? oh please look at you here.





    I didn't say they were stupid or bad people. When I say something is bad music I mean that I think it's bad music. By no means do I try to convince everyone to have my musical tastes. Stop putting words in people's mouth.

    Again this is all my subjective opinion on music if I don't care if you don't like it. Get off your fucking high horse, we all have different opinions of music and if you can't deal with it then leave.
    You're clearly not reading my posts if you think I don't believe that people all have different opinions on music. My last three or four posts have all been about just that, in fact, so maybe if you're not willing to read what I've written before you mouth off, you should leave the thread. I just spent most of this thread explaining why I think it's important to evaluate music in context and explaining that I think most people are too quick to declare music "bad" because it doesn't fit their arbitrary standards.

    Did you bother to read this part, or were you too busy whining?

    I wanted to know why salable = bad and why you've decided that all such music is inherently unoriginal. That was my question--I didn't ask for an irrelevant rant about how everyone has different opinions on music. I'm well aware of that fact, thank you--I wanted to know why any music that's easily accessible to a lot of people is automatically bad, as per your claim here:

    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinebrighter View Post
    Safe and salable usually equal to mediocre music. It tries to annoy the least amount of people. This is a little hard to explain, but this type of music don't excel in any one genre. It tries to cram a little bit of every type of music to attract every type of music fan. Then it comes out tasting bland.
    Here you've directly stated that music that draws influence from a variety of genres is inherently bland. I'd really like to hear a justification for this statement, not indignant and totally irrelevant whining, thx.

    Leave it to INFP to miss the point entirely, imagine a personal attack on himself and then respond totally inappropriately. 0 for 3, champ.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Open mic night at the MBTIc karaoke and waffle bar
    By Martoon in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08-08-2008, 12:42 PM
  2. panic! at the disco
    By cheap in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2008, 12:08 AM
  3. [NT] NTs are at the bottom of society
    By Jgib5328 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 03-27-2008, 12:10 PM
  4. [Other] A day at the Point...
    By The Ü™ in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 10:56 AM
  5. My avatar at the moment
    By rivercrow in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 09:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO