NationStates Jolt Archive

Man I fucking hate it when people say how they hate all rap. Christ. You can't make one blanket statement that covers every single rap group/rapper.

Admittedly the mainstream of rap is awful at the minute, people like Sean Paul, Eminem, 50 cent, N.E.R.D and Joe motherfucking Budden give a bad name to the entire style.But there are so many different styles of rap- you people have to look beyond what's being played on MTV (mindless television) and try to form your own opinion before having it handed to you on a plate. Have a listen to some decent artists like Jurassic 5, Cypress Hill, DJ Format, Ozomatli, NWA, etc etc.

There are so many good groups out there, don't assume they're all the same as Eminem.

He sucks. Real hard.

I'm not exaclty a Rap fan but I'll give you credit in the fact that both Jurassic 5 and Cypress Hill are some of the more better sounding (and musically gifted) groups in the Rap Genre.

Vanilla Ice was the best!!!!

Vanilla Ice was the best!!!!
*slaps you for stating the obvious*

*slaps you for stating the obvious*
How about MC Hammer then?

How about MC Hammer then?
it's tempting but im gonna have to go with vanilla

Bleh. I find a lot of "rap" repetitive. Same thing with heavy metal and other genres.

it's tempting but im gonna have to go with vanilla
Oh yeah Baby. The Ice man rocks!!!! He realy does. I think he has a metal band nowadays.

No way, Vanilla just added words to David Bowie and Queen's Under Pressure. It's Hammer Time.

All of rap and hip hop sucks. Don't believe me? Then listen to Bill Cosby.

I hate rap too. Classic rock all the way

No way, Vanilla just added words to David Bowie and Queen's Under Pressure. It's Hammer Time.

Hammer's "Can't Touch This" == Rick James' "Super Freak"

*shrug*

Beastie Boys owns you all.

I like some rap, just like I like some country and some death metal.

For me it's mostly Jazz and Classic Rock though.

And I agree, the blanket satatemets are really supid. Unless you've heard EVERY song by EVERY artist, you can't be sure you hate it all...

Street rap, with the whole "I live in the streets and by barely getting stuff to rhyme to the tune of repetitive drumming I can amass a huge fortune of fans and bitches" is su sucky. Hip-hop, like Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer is respectable, though. Learn the difference between the two.

All of rap and hip hop sucks. Don't believe me? Then listen to Bill Cosby.
After seeing "Leonard part 6" i lost all respect for him

Man I fucking hate it when people say how they hate all rap. Christ. You can't make one blanket statement that covers every single rap group/rapper.

Admittedly the mainstream of rap is awful at the minute, people like Sean Paul, Eminem, 50 cent, N.E.R.D and Joe motherfucking Budden give a bad name to the entire style.But there are so many different styles of rap- you people have to look beyond what's being played on MTV (mindless television) and try to form your own opinion before having it handed to you on a plate. Have a listen to some decent artists like Jurassic 5, Cypress Hill, DJ Format, Ozomatli, NWA, etc etc.

There are so many good groups out there, don't assume they're all the same as Eminem.

He sucks. Real hard.
I am a dedicated rock fan, when i was a teenager I "Hated All Rap".
However, I liked 36 ChambersWu Tang
Then came Esham.Funny super Funny evil rapper.
Then after I got into jazz and blues beats behind rock, I heard the Album SouthernPlayalisticCaddilacMusic OutKast great work those guys do.
I was also into the Peas(BlackEye Peas) they do have good beats and catchy songs.
Cypress Hill is a favorite of anyone who grew up with their music and smoked pot.
Long story short, as you get older you can find your musical tastes have expanded to encompass things you wouldnt have originally given a chance.

I'm really not a rap fan. I hate mainstream rap and hiphop with a passion. However, I was fortunate enough both to see a local hiphop group called Adopted Monkey who were great, and hear music by the artist Sage Francis. I implore everyone out there who claims to not like rap to find his (free, online) single "Makeshift Patriot". It's brilliant.

So yes, blanket statements really are unhelpful. Plus almost any genre probably sounds same-ish if you're new to it.

Eh, rap isn't my favorite genre of music, but some it to me is pretty good, and I listen to it. To each their own.

I like some rap, just like I like some country and some death metal.

For me it's mostly Jazz and Classic Rock though.

And I agree, the blanket satatemets are really supid. Unless you've heard EVERY song by EVERY artist, you can't be sure you hate it all...

So unless Post counts the number of raisins in every single box of Raisin Bran they make, they can't claim it has two scoops of raisins? And Mr. Christie can't claim there are 1000 chips in every bag of Chips Ahoy! cookies unless someone hand counts every single chip in every single bag?

It's a representative statement based on a sample. It's efficient, logical, and it works the vast majority of the time. The alternative - having to check every last [thing here] before being able to make a statement about them, is foolish and inefficient of both time and money (when involved).

It is equally foolish to suggest every statement needs a disclaimer if you are not 100% certain that it applies 100% of the time. There are exceptions to every rule, however this is a given, and does not need to be stated. It is implied when someone makes a blanket statement.

So unless Post counts the number of raisins in every single box of Raisin Bran they make, they can't claim it has two scoops of raisins? And Mr. Christie can't claim there are 1000 chips in every bag of Chips Ahoy! cookies unless someone hand counts every single chip in every single bag?

It's a representative statement based on a sample. It's efficient, logical, and it works the vast majority of the time. The alternative - having to check every last [thing here] before being able to make a statement about them, is foolish and inefficient of both time and money (when involved).

It is equally foolish to suggest every statement needs a disclaimer if you are not 100% certain that it applies 100% of the time. There are exceptions to every rule, however this is a given, and does not need to be stated. It is implied when someone makes a blanket statement.
I don't like your post,and I disagree.
Therefore I disagree with everything you have ever said and will say in the future.
This is an official Blanket statement from the Luckdonian Government.

Man I fucking hate it when people say how they hate all rap. Christ. You can't make one blanket statement that covers every single rap group/rapper.

Admittedly the mainstream of rap is awful at the minute, people like Sean Paul, Eminem, 50 cent, N.E.R.D and Joe motherfucking Budden give a bad name to the entire style.But there are so many different styles of rap- you people have to look beyond what's being played on MTV (mindless television) and try to form your own opinion before having it handed to you on a plate. Have a listen to some decent artists like Jurassic 5, Cypress Hill, DJ Format, Ozomatli, NWA, etc etc.

There are so many good groups out there, don't assume they're all the same as Eminem.

He sucks. Real hard.

I hate all rap and it sucks.

I have found some enjoyable rap.

I enjoy good rap.

It's rappers I can't abide. Ignorance isn't a lifestyle choice.

tru dat wigga

I don't like your post,and I disagree.
Therefore I disagree with everything you have ever said and will say in the future.
This is an official Blanket statement from the Luckdonian Government.

Usually people base their blanket statements on representative samples. :rolleyes: Post doesn't check 1 box out of 1 million for the raisin count, but they don't check 90% either. They check a reasonably small sample and base their assumption on that sample.

If I have 402 posts then, you have based your statement on a rather small .25% of my entire posting history. Usually the smaller the number of total things to be counted, the higher the percentage checked. For something like 400, I would expect at least 10%, possibly even 20%.

But I think we both know you didn't plan to use logic from the start. :rolleyes: By all means, you are free to form your opinions however you please.

Vanilla Ice? Hammer? :headbang:

All rap absolutely sucks, except for rap that I like.

(To expound further in anticipation: if I haven't heard it yet, but would like it if I had, it still sucks.)

I'm definitely not a rap fan, but some of it is okay, like Jurassic 5. The only reason I dont have What's Golden on my computer is the fact that I would go to hell for playing it with such crappy bass.

Usually people base their blanket statements on representative samples. :rolleyes: Post doesn't check 1 box out of 1 million for the raisin count, but they don't check 90% either. They check a reasonably small sample and base their assumption on that sample.

If I have 402 posts then, you have based your statement on a rather small .25% of my entire posting history. Usually the smaller the number of total things to be counted, the higher the percentage checked. For something like 400, I would expect at least 10%, possibly even 20%.

But I think we both know you didn't plan to use logic from the start. :rolleyes: By all means, you are free to form your opinions however you please.
Christ,it was a joke!
I checked 40 of your posts anyway,that is 10% (approx.)
You appear to be liberal as I am.
and you appear to love blowing holes in ignorant peoples theories,too.
Stay lucky!

Good Rap is like an oxymoron. The music takes little or no talent to make, it relies on a computer, and there is no talent in rhyming.

At least rock music has instruments, a tune, and talent is required.

Ozomatli is the most talented group out there right now. Also, if your looking for a good rap group along the lines of J5 and ozomatli, check out blackalicious. Particularly their cd, "NIA" amazing stuff. Peace all

personally, i've only got problems with rap that brags too much (cops, killing, money, chicks, sex, how much of each, how amazing you are); there's just way too much of it. other than that, it's fine. rap's not my favorite stuff to listen to, but i listen to it.
my personal favorites have to go to classical, electronic, and rock (not punk)

I prefer rap over any other music style. However, I do enjoy other music styles.

personally, i've only got problems with rap that brags too much (cops, killing, money, chicks, sex, how much of each, how amazing you are); there's just way too much of it. other than that, it's fine.

same here. i love kanye west's new album, as well as talib kweli's. both of them rap about their own personal experiences, as well as the current fake trend in hip hop that you mention. they have a lot to say, and they say it well.

No way, Vanilla just added words to David Bowie and Queen's Under Pressure. It's Hammer Time.
Bowie is really good...

What people need is NIN and lots of it!

Street rap, with the whole "I live in the streets and by barely getting stuff to rhyme to the tune of repetitive drumming I can amass a huge fortune of fans and bitches" is su sucky. Hip-hop, like Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer is respectable, though. Learn the difference between the two.

I've always wondered what the difference is, could you please explain it to me?

Most people who say they hate rap can only offer music I consider crappy instead. They say their musical taste is "eclectic" and only express their opinion in situations where they're sure no one is going to give them real ugly looks for doing so. And rarely do such people know about actual music harmony or theory or composition or history anyway, other than listening to random stuff and making harsh socio-economically based judgements of quality.

Most people who say they hate rap can only offer music I consider crappy instead. They say their musical taste is "eclectic" and only express their opinion in situations where they're sure no one is going to give them real ugly looks for doing so. And rarely do such people know about actual music harmony or theory or composition or history anyway, other than listening to random stuff and making harsh socio-economically based judgements of quality.

I would be so bold as to say harmony, music theory, composition and history are all pretty much irrelevant. Perhaps not to the musician, but to the listener. While certainly oversimplified, we either like a musical piece or we do not.

If we like it, any inherent flaws don't really matter. It simply appeals to us on some base level. If we dislike it, it could be a technical masterpiece, and we'll still think it sucks. In the end music isn't good or bad based on technical merits, but on the number of people who take enjoyment in listening to it.

But that's just my crazy theories. :p

I can't stand bling rappers and their attitude, however I love hip-hop, and there's nothing like a good rhymer laying down a tight rap. Listening to artists like Doseone, Sole, Jurrasic 5, Dilated Peoples, Buck 65, Why?, the whole Solesides Crew and other such musical wonders it's hard not to be amazed at their skills.

I would be so bold as to say harmony, music theory, composition and history are all pretty much irrelevant. Perhaps not to the musician, but to the listener. While certainly oversimplified, we either like a musical piece or we do not.

If we like it, any inherent flaws don't really matter. It simply appeals to us on some base level. If we dislike it, it could be a technical masterpiece, and we'll still think it sucks. In the end music isn't good or bad based on technical merits, but on the number of people who take enjoyment in listening to it.

But that's just my crazy theories. :p

Irrelevant to liking something you hear? Perhaps. Irrelevant to not sounding like a jerkoff when you proclaim how such-and-such a genre is bad music, primarily because of your own socioeconomic biases and sense of subcultural identity? No.


And no, music isnt good just because a lot of people take enjoyment in listening to it. God I hate that popularist crap. Sheesh, do you think music doesnt even EXIST if, for example, only ONE person has heard it? Or that it must be bad music? Is record sales the true indicator of quality, hence Britney Spears makes better music than Bartok? Democracy is great for politics. It doesn't cut it for judging music, or any other form of personal expression.

Not all rap is crap. I'm not a big fan (my taste runs to jazz and classical) and some of it is bad stuff but I've had a fair amount of exposure. I live in a neighborhood with a growing Black population and am a librarian at a business college with a largely Black student body and for most, this is their music. I've heard the good along with the bad and I've heard the people spinning spontaneous rhyme in the hallways and on the bus so I appreciate the ties to that tradition of urban poetry.
I think too, that most of my students can see through the whole "gangsta" bit--"He's got a big house and a big car and a million dollar contract and he's still talking about getting beat by cops in the 'hood?--Get real!"
As to the content, my parents were not to happy to hear me listening to Bob Marley's "I Shot the Sheriff" in my college days.

Man I fucking hate it when people say how they hate all rap. Christ. You can't make one blanket statement that covers every single rap group/rapper.

Admittedly the mainstream of rap is awful at the minute, people like Sean Paul, Eminem, 50 cent, N.E.R.D and Joe motherfucking Budden give a bad name to the entire style.But there are so many different styles of rap- you people have to look beyond what's being played on MTV (mindless television) and try to form your own opinion before having it handed to you on a plate. Have a listen to some decent artists like Jurassic 5, Cypress Hill, DJ Format, Ozomatli, NWA, etc etc.

There are so many good groups out there, don't assume they're all the same as Eminem.

He sucks. Real hard.
thank god, some one else knows who jurassic 5 is, jurassic 5 whips the llamas ass, period. also, check out optimus rhyme

it's tempting but im gonna have to go with vanilla


no,Vanilla Ice was good but MC Hammer was the best and always will be.Besides,Vanilla Ice stole beats from old hippie guys.

Irrelevant to liking something you hear? Perhaps. Irrelevant to not sounding like a jerkoff when you proclaim how such-and-such a genre is bad music, primarily because of your own socioeconomic biases and sense of subcultural identity? No.

Rather than try to cram my opinion of how to define music as good or bad (further), please feel free to explain how you feel music should be judged. You've stated how you feel it shouldn't be judged. But on what merits do you feel music is either good or bad?

And no, music isnt good just because a lot of people take enjoyment in listening to it. God I hate that popularist crap. Sheesh, do you think music doesnt even EXIST if, for example, only ONE person has heard it? Or that it must be bad music? Is record sales the true indicator of quality, hence Britney Spears makes better music than Bartok? Democracy is great for politics. It doesn't cut it for judging music, or any other form of personal expression.

I'll try rephrasing, though it may have no impact.

If there are 6 billion people who listen to a song, and 10 people enjoy it while the rest hate it, the song is bad. Perhaps to those 10 people, it isn't bad. Perhaps to them it's paradise.

I'm sure there are people out there, somewhere, who think human suffering is great. But, I think we can safely assume that most people deem suffering to be bad, and therefore it is (excluding the obvious relativity of good and bad).

Nobody can say with absolution that something is good or bad for everyone. But we can make a pretty accurate statement in saying that something is good or bad, generally speaking. The same can be applied to music. If you create a musical piece and people hate it, then it is bad.

The artist could argue the masses just don't appreciate their genius. I could create a house that is only a foot tall, and accuse anyone who doesn't care for it of just being too close-minded. The fact is, when producing music (much like with the house), there are only two reasons to do so:

a) You want it to be enjoyed by other people. If people do not enjoy it, your product sucks.

b) You create it for personal enjoyment. As long as you like it, that is what matters.

...but that's just my opinion.

So unless Post counts the number of raisins in every single box of Raisin Bran they make, they can't claim it has two scoops of raisins? And Mr. Christie can't claim there are 1000 chips in every bag of Chips Ahoy! cookies unless someone hand counts every single chip in every single bag?

It's a representative statement based on a sample. It's efficient, logical, and it works the vast majority of the time. The alternative - having to check every last [thing here] before being able to make a statement about them, is foolish and inefficient of both time and money (when involved).

It is equally foolish to suggest every statement needs a disclaimer if you are not 100% certain that it applies 100% of the time. There are exceptions to every rule, however this is a given, and does not need to be stated. It is implied when someone makes a blanket statement.
horrible miscomparison

we arn't counting jelly beans in a jar, you are judging a genre of music by a few hand picked selections. it doesnt matter how many beans are in the jar, but you cant rate a whole damn genre of something from observing just one thing in the group. completely different comparison. and even IF you had made the comparison that all chocolate chips are the same, its different for genres in the different arts, people may play the same genre, but styles and rhythms and the like are different from person to person

horrible miscomparison

we arn't counting jelly beans in a jar, you are judging a genre of music by a few hand picked selections. it doesnt matter how many beans are in the jar, but you cant rate a whole damn genre of something from observing just one thing in the group. completely different comparison. and even IF you had made the comparison that all chocolate chips are the same, its different for genres in the different arts, people may play the same genre, but styles and rhythms and the like are different from person to person

And yet in being in the same genre, they by definition must have at least one thing in common. If one happens to dislike that common element, one can immediately dismiss all things of that genre.

If I dislike cake because of the texture, changing the flavour won't matter. You can create it in a thousand flavours, which is entirely pointless since they all share the texture in common.

So yes, you can judge an entire genre by a few small samples. You only need to listen to enough to distinguish the common detail between them and decide if you like it or not.

Good Rap is like an oxymoron. The music takes little or no talent to make, it relies on a computer, and there is no talent in rhyming.

At least rock music has instruments, a tune, and talent is required.
hey, uh moron, you do realise music is usually generated by isntruments, even if generated by the computer, it is a copy of some instrument, you can rap and play isntruments

Jay-Z has done stuff a'cupella and look at Tupac - Thugz Mansion (acoustic)

and Buck 56 or whoever isn't a rapper,he's just a crazy weird techno guy.Not that he's bad.

And Usher is not rap,he's techno pop.Lucky bastard though.My friend have illigitamate child,he pays child support for life.He has one,he has a double platinum.

An its so true.MTV and all that other crap is stupid.Music was never meant to be watched on TV.

Wish I could have joined this thread sooner.

But what really piss me off the most is goddamn middle class white kids thinking they "ghetto" some how.THAT is the worst.They make me want to stab them to death.And the thing is,the mainstream"rappers" now are targeting them as an audience.It sucks.Death to those bastards.

this is trully a great thread,guys.

And yet in being in the same genre, they by definition must have at least one thing in common. If one happens to dislike that common element, one can immediately dismiss all things of that genre.

If I dislike cake because of the texture, changing the flavour won't matter. You can create it in a thousand flavours, which is entirely pointless since they all share the texture in common.

So yes, you can judge an entire genre by a few small samples. You only need to listen to enough to distinguish the common detail between them and decide if you like it or not.
i have yet to find people who hate rap because of a universal rap element, its just whining about one thing or another that changes depending who you listen to

and Buck 56 or whoever isn't a rapper,he's just a crazy weird techno guy.Not that he's bad.

And Usher is not rap,he's techno pop.Lucky bastard though.My friend have illigitamate child,he pays child support for life.He has one,he has a double platinum.

An its so true.MTV and all that other crap is stupid.Music was never meant to be watched on TV.

Wish I could have joined this thread sooner.

But what really piss me off the most is goddamn middle class white kids thinking they "ghetto" some how.THAT is the worst.They make me want to stab them to death.And the thing is,the mainstream"rappers" now are targeting them as an audience.It sucks.Death to those bastards.
no, if you ask me the worse thing that ever happened to rap was supporters on message boards who have no clue as to what "sentence structure" is and speaking 'ghetto' like its intelligent or something

rap groups that > you


Jurassic 5
Optimus Rhyme
Nappy Roots

i havnt heard some of the other groups brought up but i think ill go look them up

i have yet to find people who hate rap because of a universal rap element, its just whining about one thing or another that changes depending who you listen to

I see.

it doesnt matter how many beans are in the jar, but you cant rate a whole damn genre of something from observing just one thing in the group.

See, it would seem to me that claim had nothing to do with rap. You made the very broad claim that you cannot dismiss a genre based on one thing. On the contrary, you can do just that.

If I don't like foods that taste like carrot, I can immediately dismiss carrot-flavoured soup, bread, muffins, cookies, cake, pasta, etc. You only need one element you dislike that is shared between the genre to dismiss it as a whole.

hey,what the hell your problem man?don't be an ass for no reason.What,I can't dislike middle class white kids who think that they're poor and from Harlem?What your problem with me?Really,what?

and I not saying ghetto like it intelegent,I'm just saying that people don't know what it means anymore and the middle class white kids thinks its some sort of style.

See, it would seem to me that claim had nothing to do with rap. You made the very broad claim that you cannot dismiss a genre based on one thing. On the contrary, you can do just that.

If I don't like foods that taste like carrot, I can immediately dismiss carrot-flavoured soup, bread, muffins, cookies, cake, pasta, etc. You only need one element you dislike that is shared between the genre to dismiss it as a whole.
i see you decided to pick and choose for your own purposes what to quote


and even IF you had made the comparison that all chocolate chips are the same, its different for genres in the different arts, people may play the same genre, but styles and rhythms and the like are different from person to person

try again please

hey,what the hell your problem man?don't be an ass for no reason.What,I can't dislike middle class white kids who think that they're poor and from Harlem?What your problem with me?Really,what?
my problem? your english makes me want to stab out my eyes with a spork

I dislike most rap, but I agree that some of it is okay. Eminem is just trash. If you want good white boy rap, listen to Beastie Boys. At least they don't talk about sticking their girlfriends in the trunk and beating them or how much they hate their parents. I suppose that and some old school rap like Run DMC are okay in my book, I just really can't this Gansta Rap bull. It's just ruining society.

Not all rap is bad, but yes there are the few that ruin the name of the entire genre.

i see you decided to pick and choose for your own purposes what to quote

try again please

Your quote was already dismissed, but I'll reiterate.

and even IF you had made the comparison that all chocolate chips are the same, its different for genres in the different arts, people may play the same genre, but styles and rhythms and the like are different from person to person

All things in a genre must, by the definition of genre, have something in common. If you dislike the common element in the genre, you can dislike the genre as a whole. It doesn't matter how different the things in the genre are, as they must hold (at least) that one thing in common.

I've actually explained that twice, to be technical, but they say the third time is the charm. You can in fact base your dislike of a genre on the common element(s). If the things in the genre are so different that they do not have any common grounds, they are not part of that genre.

Here is my take on the whole "genre-bashing" thing: It is like going fishing, catching a boot and then claiming that you hate fish.

Just because you don't like a particular song or group, that does not necessarily make the entire genre bad. I do not listen to rap on a regular basis, but just like anything else, if the song is good I will listen to it. The same with country. I do not voluntarily listen to either, but I will if I hear it, and I will listen to it again if I like it.

I am into what some people call "emo" rock, and usually the bands that people immediately place into that category are either Dashboard Confessional or Thursday. I will listen to DC but I haven't heard anything by Thursday that I can stand. My favorites right now are SoCo and AM Radio, but you will dismiss them because you don't like that DC song from Spiderman 2 and that is "emo".

Rather than try to cram my opinion of how to define music as good or bad (further), please feel free to explain how you feel music should be judged. You've stated how you feel it shouldn't be judged. But on what merits do you feel music is either good or bad?



I don't want to try to cram my opinion on that here either. My opinion is far too large.


I'll try rephrasing, though it may have no impact.

If there are 6 billion people who listen to a song, and 10 people enjoy it while the rest hate it, the song is bad. Perhaps to those 10 people, it isn't bad.

Fine. But that situation is rare. More likely, for any given type of music or song, it'll be 1 or 10 people out of 100. And that 1 or 10 people's opinion, you are completely dismissing as irrelevant simply because there are 90 or 99 other people who think otherwise. In logic, thats called argumentum ad populus (or something... ;) ) and it's a fallacy.



I'm sure there are people out there, somewhere, who think human suffering is great. But, I think we can safely assume that most people deem suffering to be bad, and therefore it is (excluding the obvious relativity of good and bad).

There's a crowd of people. For some reason a majority of them decide to take one of the crowd, string his neck to a rope and drag him around before beating him to death. Can we safely assume that since most people in that situation deem this a good idea morally speaking, it is?

To go back to the song analogy, you say if 6 billion hear it and only 10 like it, its bad. But people don't listen in groups of 6 billion. They listen in small crowds... like the one above. Still majority = right?


Nobody can say with absolution that something is good or bad for everyone. But we can make a pretty accurate statement in saying that something is good or bad, generally speaking. The same can be applied to music. If you create a musical piece and people hate it, then it is bad.

Soooo Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, which caused a riot in Paris when it was first performed and decided by the majority to be a terrible piece of music - they were right? Oh ho hum, later on the majority decided to change it's opinion. Must be, the music is terrible one minute, and good the next?

No. Reality is objective. Music is good if it's good, not if a bunch of ignorant fucktards decide they enjoy it. The only thing widespread appeal denotes for sure is that it appeals to the lowest common demoninator.


The fact is, when producing music (much like with the house), there are only two reasons to do so:

a) You want it to be enjoyed by other people. If people do not enjoy it, your product sucks.

b) You create it for personal enjoyment. As long as you like it, that is what matters.



Well... no. See, unlike house building, which is essential to the development of civilization (it's practically the defining aspect, or one of them), music is art. Art doesn't necessitate function. Your 2 foot tall house IS bad, because a house has a function that it cannot do if it's only 2 feet tall.

But a piece of music doesnt have to fall into EITHER of the two categories! Those are generalized, longterm goals of the musician, not a specific function for a piece of music. Sometimes, we create things just because the idea pops into the head. Thats all! No goal to make people, not even oneself, happy, just random brain farts.

(And even if we assumed your two purposes for music composition are true, thats TWO functions. How do we categorize the quality now? If both are true, than the piece of music which 5,999,999,990 people hated and 10 people liked, is both good and both bad depending on which function we assume the composer had in mind.)

In other words, popularity means nothing, is transient, and dependent on cultural norms, fads, economics, political trends, and doesnt really indicate quality, unless you really do think Britney Spears makes better quality music than Bela Bartok did, in which case you're an idiot.

yes.Old school is the best in my opnion.It is much better than this new commercial shit.


Chess squares,I appologize that my first language is not that of you Capitalist Empire(america,no offence)I appologize,it cannot be helped though.Don't get so annoyed.I speak better some at least.Really man,America is not only nation in the world.

Your quote was already dismissed, but I'll reiterate.



All things in a genre must, by the definition of genre, have something in common. If you dislike the common element in the genre, you can dislike the genre as a whole. It doesn't matter how different the things in the genre are, as they must hold (at least) that one thing in common.

I've actually explained that twice, to be technical, but they say the third time is the charm. You can in fact base your dislike of a genre on the common element(s). If the things in the genre are so different that they do not have any common grounds, they are not part of that genre.
and i already refuted you, somewhere around ZERO people hate rap because of a common rap element, they hate rap because of what certain groups sing about, and thus ASSUME all rap is like that, which is an ignorant blanket statement, you find me some one who hates rap because of something that all rap has in common, oh wait you cant, unless people hate rhyming to music, because that is the ONLY thing all rap has in common. but then again you cut out alot of music in OTHER genres

yes.Old school is the best in my opnion.It is much better than this new commercial shit.


Chess squares,I appologize that my first language is not that of you Capitalist Empire(america,no offence)I appologize,it cannot be helped though.Don't get so annoyed.I speak better some at least.Really man,America is not only nation in the world.
sorry my mistake, i assume everyone speaks fluent english andi have seen people that speak fluent english, talk like that.

and just as a note, put a space or two behind the periods

Rap is a problem like disposable drinking cups are a problem. It's just so much more litter. The 'problem' isn't all to do with rap, though- there's more than enough dreary 'classic' rock songs that should be laid to rest as well. Ditto disco. In fact, it's a 'problem' with all forms of music, and further, all forms of media.

I like applying 'Sturgeon's Law', wherein Ted Sturgeon, the late SF writer, said, "...ninety percent of science fiction is crud. That's because ninety percent of everything is crud"- it's up to the consumer to wade through all the junk to find the occasional gem. And that's become a daunting task for all but the most ardent music-listeners.

Most people have a sort of in-built cutoff valve that, past a certain point, stops them from listening to new tunes. It's like reaching a saturation point. They learn to be happy with what they already know to be 'good', and refuse what's put on offer as the 'new stuff'.

So, I suppose it's only a matter of time before music programmers introduce 'classic rap' for those rap afficianados who are reaching their saturation point.

The King is Dead. Long Live the King!

Fine. But that situation is rare. More likely, for any given type of music or song, it'll be 1 or 10 people out of 100. And that 1 or 10 people's opinion, you are completely dismissing as irrelevant simply because there are 90 or 99 other people who think otherwise. In logic, thats called argumentum ad populus (or something... ;) ) and it's a fallacy.

It has many names and branches. Majority rule, stereotype, status quo. Far from being a fallacy or illogical, it is one of the most practical and logical approaches ever conceived.

There's a crowd of people. For some reason a majority of them decide to take one of the crowd, string his neck to a rope and drag him around before beating him to death. Can we safely assume that since most people in that situation deem this a good idea morally speaking, it is?

Yes. Morals are based on the beholder. They are not solid facts. If the vast majority believes something that is not based on facts is right, then (understanding relativity) it is. Those who disagree would be deemed the exception to the rule.

Soooo Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, which caused a riot in Paris when it was first performed and decided by the majority to be a terrible piece of music - they were right? Oh ho hum, later on the majority decided to change it's opinion. Must be, the music is terrible one minute, and good the next?

No. Reality is objective. Music is good if it's good, not if a bunch of ignorant fucktards decide they enjoy it. The only thing widespread appeal denotes for sure is that it appeals to the lowest common demoninator.

You are attempting to give music a factual quality, while in the same breath calling it opinion: "Reality is objective" and then "Music is good if it's good". How can anything be absolutely good if reality is objective? :rolleyes:

Well... no. See, unlike house building, which is essential to the development of civilization (it's practically the defining aspect, or one of them), music is art. Art doesn't necessitate function. Your 2 foot tall house IS bad, because a house has a function that it cannot do if it's only 2 feet tall.

But a piece of music doesnt have to fall into EITHER of the two categories! Those are generalized, longterm goals of the musician, not a specific function for a piece of music. Sometimes, we create things just because the idea pops into the head. Thats all! No goal to make people, not even oneself, happy, just random brain farts.

You are creating the music for your personal benefit. It is floating around in your head, and you want to see it take form. You don't have to call it 'enjoyment' if you prefer not to. The sentence can be easily enough altered without changing the principle: all works exist either for yourself, or for others.

(And even if we assumed your two purposes for music composition are true, thats TWO functions. How do we categorize the quality now? If both are true, than the piece of music which 5,999,999,990 people hated and 10 people liked, is both good and both bad depending on which function we assume the composer had in mind.)

That was already explained. The quality is based on the eye of the beholder, but the artist should only be concerned with their own reason for creating the music. If it was for others, its quality is based on their opinions. If it was created for the self, only the creator's opinion matters.

In other words, popularity means nothing, is transient, and dependent on cultural norms, fads, economics, political trends, and doesnt really indicate quality, unless you really do think Britney Spears makes better quality music than Bela Bartok did, in which case you're an idiot.

Well, aren't we pleasant now. :rolleyes: If you disagree with me, you must be stupid. How charming. I think we have proven you have run out of any form of ammunition. Be a dear and run along.

I will try to improve my writing then.

Do any of you guys ever listen to like,punjabi or arabic rap?alot of it is actually quite good.

and i already refuted you, somewhere around ZERO people hate rap because of a common rap element, they hate rap because of what certain groups sing about, and thus ASSUME all rap is like that, which is an ignorant blanket statement, you find me some one who hates rap because of something that all rap has in common, oh wait you cant, unless people hate rhyming to music, because that is the ONLY thing all rap has in common. but then again you cut out alot of music in OTHER genres

You still don't get it. Unsurprising. Let me quote just one more time:

you cant rate a whole damn genre of something from observing just one thing in the group.

Read it very carefully. You said it, so you should be familiar with it. You did not specify rap. You said you cannot judge, and I quote: a whole damn genre of something.

Something is a general term, and not exclusive to rap. You simply claimed that you cannot judge a genre (which need only be based on something) from one element.

Stop. Read your own post. Think about it. Stop again. Repeat as needed.

Rap is a pretty broad genre in itself. Yeah, you get the P.I.M.P., bling bling, I'm better than everyone else type of stuff, but there are also rappers that spit truth. Living in Brooklyn, I've seen what some of them rhyme about. And it isn't very pretty, but the point is to get it out in the open. A passion, I suppose. In my opinion, you get better selection in underground rather than mainstream, but its a mixed bag. I've heard stuff that makes My Neck, My Back sound clean (I don't know if any of you have heard that song, you probably don't want to), but then you can hear Kanye West's Jesus Walks or All Falls Down. Jay-Z's 99 Problems isn't the cleanest, but it addresses some real problems, depending on how you interpret it. You can't really judge a whole genre of something logically, be it rap or anything else for that matter.

It has many names and branches. Majority rule, stereotype, status quo. Far from being a fallacy or illogical, it is one of the most practical and logical approaches ever conceived.
its called a logical fallcy: argumentum ad populum: because the majority says so it must be true! EVERY single person that had half an ounce of intelligence THROUGGH OUT HISTORY realised that is a LIE. read the federalist papers or stuff by john lock and roussea and anyone intelligent. just because the majority says so doesnt make it true or right, it just means the majority says so

Puis sa devien encore plus compliquer.......merde.

You still don't get it. Unsurprising. Let me quote just one more time:



Read it very carefully. You said it, so you should be familiar with it. You did not specify rap. You said you cannot judge, and I quote: a whole damn genre of something.

Something is a general term, and not exclusive to rap. You simply claimed that you cannot judge a genre (which need only be based on something) from one element.

Stop. Read your own post. Think about it. Stop again. Repeat as needed.
ooh more fallacy

that was a generality, my argument is bringing a generality down to apply to a specific, you are trying to stay in the generality to disprove me in the specific by applying it to something else. nice try, bring it down here to reality

its called a logical fallcy: argumentum ad populum: because the majority says so it must be true! EVERY single person that had half an ounce of intelligence THROUGGH OUT HISTORY realised that is a LIE. read the federalist papers or stuff by john lock and roussea and anyone intelligent. just because the majority says so doesnt make it true or right, it just means the majority says so

Apparently ever person with half an ounce of intelligence had only that much, and it's quite a shame. You missed the point where understanding relativity was used. Morals are not factual. However, we can give morals a factual-like quality based on the majority opinion.

After all, that is the basis for our laws. Though perhaps you would prefer to argue the absolute truth route? That's your business.

ooh more fallacy

that was a generality, my argument is bringing a generality down to apply to a specific, you are trying to stay in the generality to disprove me in the specific by applying it to something else. nice try, bring it down here to reality

Give up man, you lost. You made a general statement. Your general statement was wrong. You claimed a genre could not be negated on the basis of one element. I showed repeatedly it could. Then you turn to personal experience of one tiny segment of genres as a whole, and try to use it to say one element cannot define any genre.

Apparently ever person with half an ounce of intelligence had only that much, and it's quite a shame. You missed the point where understanding relativity was used. Morals are not factual. However, we can give morals a factual-like quality based on the majority opinion.

After all, that is the basis for our laws. Though perhaps you would prefer to argue the absolute truth route? That's your business.
no one is talking about morals but you, morals are subjective good job, i am talkngi abouit everything

and thats pretty shitty that you jsut said that is the basis for our laws, read the federalist papers, the constitution was NEVER designed to give the majority the power of right over the minority

why can't we all just get along?sniffle.......what does fallacy mean?I'm just following the argumet here.

Give up man, you lost. You made a general statement. Your general statement was wrong. You claimed a genre could not be negated on the basis of one element. I showed repeatedly it could. Then you turn to personal experience of one tiny segment of genres as a whole, and try to use it to say one element cannot define any genre.
ok fine, technically you could, but it is NEVER the common thread of the genre that is hated, it is the individual input of the genre that makes people hate that and then ASSUME the rest of the genre is like it.

you could dislike robots and sya you hate science fiction, well not all science fiction has robots, alot do, not all

science fictions is science fiction because it is a authors view of the future and what could or could've happened, how many people dislike that?

a common thread that links genres is like the spine that links a book, the pages are different but the spine is the same, but who hates the spine? its just there

It has many names and branches. Majority rule, stereotype, status quo. Far from being a fallacy or illogical, it is one of the most practical and logical approaches ever conceived.


Uh wait, so you think I just made that fallacy up, that there is no such logical fallacy? Do you know what logical fallacies are? You're appealing to popularity as an argument, and that's a logical fallacy. I hate to break it to you.


Yes. Morals are based on the beholder. They are not solid facts. If the vast majority believes something that is not based on facts is right, then (understanding relativity) it is. Those who disagree would be deemed the exception to the rule.

So, anything that is not based on solid facts - if the majority believes/accepts/prefers it, then it is better? What about when the majority changes their opinion, does the quality of the thing in question just continue to change?


You are attempting to give music a factual quality, while in the same breath calling it opinion: "Reality is objective" and then "Music is good if it's good". How can anything be absolutely good if reality is objective? :rolleyes:

Uh... because it can. Duh. If reality were SUBJECTIVE, then nothing could be absolutely good. But I didn't make that argument, so I don't see what point you're making.


You are creating the music for your personal benefit. It is floating around in your head, and you want to see it take form. You don't have to call it 'enjoyment' if you prefer not to. The sentence can be easily enough altered without changing the principle: all works exist either for yourself, or for others.

The idea that something can exist for itself or for no clearly defined role is apparently beyond your quaint dichotomy.


That was already explained. The quality is based on the eye of the beholder, but the artist should only be concerned with their own reason for creating the music.

Yeah... if the artist gives a shit about having a purpose behind making the music.

Can you make music without having a specific intent (for others, for yourself) in mind? Yes. Therefore your statements about the artists mentality don't really apply, since in order for something to be good or bad in your paradigm, it would have to either succeed or fail at some goal. If there is no goal... you what, impose your own to make it fit and then judge accordingly?





Well, aren't we pleasant now. :rolleyes: If you disagree with me, you must be stupid.

Yeah... IF you disagree with my statement that someone who thinks Britney Spears > Bartok is an idiot, you too are then also an idiot. I'm glad we finally agree.


How charming. I think we have proven you have run out of any form of ammunition. Be a dear and run along.

I got plenty of ammunition on my side, DEARIE SWEET POOKUMS, for populist idiots like you who think that because humans are social animals and there are rules in sociology, all the world fits in to that pack mentality crap.

Do you like anything - any product, any music, anything - that is not popular, that only a minority feel the same away about? If so, do you regularly refer to what you like as being admittedly bad? How about ever? Or does your opinion on the righteous majority change when you're in the minority?

no one is talking about morals but you, morals are subjective good job, i am talkngi abouit everything

and thats pretty shitty that you jsut said that is the basis for our laws, read the federalist papers, the constitution was NEVER designed to give the majority the power of right over the minority

You still don't get it. ;) And for the record, aside from Santa Barbara who brought up morals as well, you brought up morals.

ust because the majority says so doesnt make it true or right, it just means the majority says so

Isn't the very idea of right and wrong a moral one? Again, unless you plan to argue absolute truth.

Your point about the constitution ironically makes my point for me. Not that I claimed the majority ever had the right to opress the minority to begin with, merely that the majority decided what was right and wrong based on their morals - including the idea that the majority cannot oppress the minority. ;)

I will try to improve my writing then.

Do any of you guys ever listen to like,punjabi or arabic rap?alot of it is actually quite good.

I like banghra and rai...

Good Rap is like an oxymoron. The music takes little or no talent to make, it relies on a computer, and there is no talent in rhyming.

At least rock music has instruments, a tune, and talent is required.

Wow, you managed to ignore any positive comment anybody made in this entire topic, well done.

I don not think I have ever heard any of that.

Is it good?what are some artist?

your right,Dhomme.This is truly a great advancement in social interaction.

Uh wait, so you think I just made that fallacy up, that there is no such logical fallacy? Do you know what logical fallacies are? You're appealing to popularity as an argument, and that's a logical fallacy. I hate to break it to you.

No, I think you don't grasp what you are talking about and are mislabelling my points because you don't understand them. ;)

So, anything that is not based on solid facts - if the majority believes/accepts/prefers it, then it is better? What about when the majority changes their opinion, does the quality of the thing in question just continue to change?

Who ever mentioned better? :rolleyes: I am merely stating morals can be given a factual-like state based on majority opinion. And yes, the quality changes as the opinions of the beholder change.

Uh... because it can. Duh. If reality were SUBJECTIVE, then nothing could be absolutely good. But I didn't make that argument, so I don't see what point you're making.

Le sigh.

No. Reality is objective. Music is good if it's good, not if a bunch of ignorant fucktards decide they enjoy it.

Music is good if it's good. That can generally be interpreted as saying there is an absolute good, and music is good if it aligns with the absolute good. In fact, I can't see any other way that sentence is anything but gibberish.

The idea that something can exist for itself or for no clearly defined role is apparently beyond your quaint dichotomy.

Humans do not create without reason. They may not know the reason, but there is always one. They either create for others, or themselves. They may not even be aware which. But they are doing so.

Yeah... if the artist gives a shit about having a purpose behind making the music.

Can you make music without having a specific intent (for others, for yourself) in mind? Yes. Therefore your statements about the artists mentality don't really apply, since in order for something to be good or bad in your paradigm, it would have to either succeed or fail at some goal. If there is no goal... you what, impose your own to make it fit and then judge accordingly?

There is a goal. They just aren't always aware they have one.

Yeah... IF you disagree with my statement that someone who thinks Britney Spears > Bartok is an idiot, you too are then also an idiot. I'm glad we finally agree.

I got plenty of ammunition on my side, DEARIE SWEET POOKUMS, for populist idiots like you who think that because humans are social animals and there are rules in sociology, all the world fits in to that pack mentality crap.

Dear, choose whatever opinion you wish, but watch the flames. I will report you to a moderator if you can't keep a level head. I ignored the first idiot comment, I ignored the second, but the third "populist idiot" is pushing my kindness just a bit far.

Do you like anything - any product, any music, anything - that is not popular, that only a minority feel the same away about? If so, do you regularly refer to what you like as being admittedly bad? How about ever? Or does your opinion on the righteous majority change when you're in the minority?

I hold minority beliefs, yes. I treat them as right only in context to my own beliefs. I do not give them any absolute value. In matters which cannot be based on facts, I respect the majority decision as a pseudo-fact. I won't always agree with them, I may even believe my different opinion is right, but I respect that I am the exception and give my opinions no absoluteness.

Ack.....maudit Americain.......

I will now settle this dispute once and for all.My taste is better than all of yours and my opnions are right.Now we can all be happy.

MC Chris. Funnnnnnnnny guy.

50 Cent. I like him. Because he actually know what it feels like to be shot 9 times.

And of course, myself. I'm an awesome rapper...in the shower.

50 Cent is a poser.So he been shot up?I have been stabbed,I have been deep with gangs,I am not famous.

".......Street cred,overrated....."
Fine arts Militia,their song Leave with your own mind.

I don not think I have ever heard any of that.

Is it good?what are some artist?


Rai is arab music produced in France, it makes use of arab and french musical instruments, with most of the singing done in arabic. Cheb Khaled and Amr Diab are the two I know of. Good stuff.

Banghra is...I dunno, I guess you'd say it's Indian Hindi rap music, which was (is still?) popular in some parts of England (okay, I'm a colonial. You can't expect me to keep up with what's hot and what's not all the way across the pond). My wife knows a lot more about it than I do, but there was this one guy...with a dumb name and a few catchy tunes...called himself 'Apache Indian'. I'm sure there must be other, better, banghra musicians than that, but like I said, I'm just a colonial...!

Hmm. Guess you've given up on defending the logical fallacy.


Music is good if it's good.

That can generally be interpreted as saying there is an absolute good, and music is good if it aligns with the absolute good. In fact, I can't see any other way that sentence is anything but gibberish.

Yeah. And in case you forgot, you were the one arguing that either reality is subjective and therefore there is no good or bad in music (or that it only matters relative to the maker's goals) or that the absolute good was decided by a majority. I was arguing against either and both. Your statement about me arguing for an absolute good means nothing, since I know what I'm arguing for already.



Humans do not create without reason. They may not know the reason, but there is always one. They either create for others, or themselves. They may not even be aware which. But they are doing so.

So if they don't know the reason, will their music be good or bad if its hated by a majority? Neither? Both? For that matter, what if 50 people hate a piece of music and 50 love it? Of course we can all agree that if one of the first 50 died, the musical piece would instantly become GOOD. But until that happens its a deadlock as far as your beloved majority is concerned. Is it good or bad then, or neither, or both? Hmm?

For all that, you're wrong. You're just trying to cram the whole world into an either/or proposition based on functionality. Do you even make music? What is your basis for knowing that everyone creates music for a reason and that that reason must be one of the types you've described?

I am a musician. I make music. Therefore I am qualified to ponder the reasons I do what I do. And guess what, there are more than two.


Dear, choose whatever opinion you wish, but watch the flames. I will report you to a moderator if you can't keep a level head. I ignored the first idiot comment, I ignored the second, but the third "populist idiot" is pushing my kindness just a bit far.

First, you didn't ignore it. You responded by condescendingly calling me "dear" and telling me to "run along," which may not be flaming but it certainly smells of a personal attack to me, and it does piss me off - as it was intended to do.

Second, that first statement, which I've repeated, is completely conditional. I suggested that anyone who thinks Britney Spears makes better music than Bela Bartok is an idiot.

Let me break it down mathematically, so you can perhaps see more clearly:

IF opinion = Spears>Bartok, THEN bearer of opinion = stupid.

I don't know if you think that or not - your taking offense at this conditional statement suggest you either do think more highly of Britney, or that you're just misunderstanding everything and taking it personally just for kicks. Which one, I wonder?

Either way, I'm not doing anything you aren't, except making sense in my arguments.

Rap was good when it was controversial, for it was controversial for good reasons. There are exceptions, for instance Eminem was controversial, but not for any good reasons. There are also exceptions to that, too, a song can not be controversial, not even try to be controversial, but it's rare.

Music is good if it's good. That can generally be interpreted as saying there is an absolute good, and music is good if it aligns with the absolute good. What if I, or anyone else would argue that there is an absolute good?

I disappear to the corner store for 10 minutes... o.o;

Hmm. Guess you've given up on defending the logical fallacy.

I never defended it to begin with. And by the same token, I don't claim it doesn't exist, anymore than I claim genocide doesn't exist. But referring to being charged $1 for an apple as genocide would be a mislabeling. Likewise, it's not that logical fallacy can't exist, but that my statements are being mislabeled.

Yeah. And in case you forgot, you were the one arguing that either reality is subjective and therefore there is no good or bad in music (or that it only matters relative to the maker's goals) or that the absolute good was decided by a majority. I was arguing against either and both. Your statement about me arguing for an absolute good means nothing, since I know what I'm arguing for already.

So your entire point was to argue in axioms? I should think when in a debate, it isn't about if you know what you are arguing for (this should be a given), but making your arguments clear enough that your opponent does. I obviously misjudged what you were arguing.


So if they don't know the reason, will their music be good or bad if its hated by a majority? Neither? Both? For that matter, what if 50 people hate a piece of music and 50 love it? Of course we can all agree that if one of the first 50 died, the musical piece would instantly become GOOD. But until that happens its a deadlock as far as your beloved majority is concerned. Is it good or bad then, or neither, or both? Hmm?

If the majority hates the music, then a person (other than the creator) can safely label it as bad. This is not an imposition on others views, as they are free to disagree and like the music if they wish. However from what might be best called a 'statistical' standpoint (though I still prefer pseudo-factual), it would be bad.

The creator, without knowing his intent in creating the music, cannot determine at that time whether it is good or bad accurately. He doesn't know if it was made for others, and hence doesn't know if he has succeeded of failed in his aim.

As for 50/50, I would assume it would once again be considered neither. We would simply have to state that, at that current time, no conclusion could be drawn.

For all that, you're wrong. You're just trying to cram the whole world into an either/or proposition based on functionality. Do you even make music? What is your basis for knowing that everyone creates music for a reason and that that reason must be one of the types you've described?

I never said people created music for a reason. I stated humans, in anything they create, have intent. And yes, I took piano lessons as a child and from time to time I've been known to compose short pieces. I consider it more of an occasional hobby than a serious interest however.

I am a musician. I make music. Therefore I am qualified to ponder the reasons I do what I do. And guess what, there are more than two.

You have the right to your opinion. I won't agree with you simply because you hold it, but hey, that's freedom of opinion for you.

First, you didn't ignore it. You responded by condescendingly calling me "dear" and telling me to "run along," which may not be flaming but it certainly smells of a personal attack to me, and it does piss me off - as it was intended to do.

First, that isn't a personal attack (which would require intent on my behalf). You can claim to be offended by it, but that doesn't change my intent in saying it. Nor was it intended to piss you off.

I type as I think and speak. I was indulging you in what I largely felt was a waste of my time. That probably carried over in to the post, however once again it is not an attack nor an attempt to piss anyone off. It is a sign of my own weariness with this discussion, if one can even call it that anymore.

Second, that first statement, which I've repeated, is completely conditional. I suggested that anyone who thinks Britney Spears makes better music than Bela Bartok is an idiot.

Let me break it down mathematically, so you can perhaps see more clearly:

IF opinion = Spears>Bartok, THEN bearer of opinion = stupid.

I don't know if you think that or not - your taking offense at this conditional statement suggest you either do think more highly of Britney, or that you're just misunderstanding everything and taking it personally just for kicks. Which one, I wonder?

People don't always say what they mean, nor mean what they say. Sarcasm is a perfect example. I am fully aware of what you chose to say. I am also aware of what I deem to be an undercurrent, a message beneath what is being said.

Perhaps I've simply mistaken your intent. I doubt it, to be honest, but since I can't prove your intent I'll leave that be. By the way:

I got plenty of ammunition on my side, DEARIE SWEET POOKUMS, for populist idiots like you

...that doesn't strike me as conditional. In fact, that strikes me as nothing more than a straight out personal attack. No interpretation needed. But bygones be bygones, and all that jazz.

What if I, or anyone else would argue that there is an absolute good?

It would change the dynamic of all your arguments, and I would need to reconsider your points given the new (to me) stance. How the final outcome would look would depend on what your arguments were to begin with. It may have a large effect on my interpretation of your claims, a small effect, or none whatsoever.

Just curious...

Just curious...Lol...no. Although I did make one or two posts claiming to be, but it seemed obvious to me and to others who read them that I wasn't.

Ah, that's okay, I'm not a municipality, either...though no-one's made that mistake with me. Yet.

It would change the dynamic of all your arguments, and I would need to reconsider your points given the new (to me) stance. How the final outcome would look would depend on what your arguments were to begin with. It may have a large effect on my interpretation of your claims, a small effect, or none whatsoever.
Oh, okay. I just asked the question because I thought that you might be saying that there was no absolute good, in which case I would argue that there was. As far as the rest of the argument goes, while I tend to agree with Santa Barbara (which is odd considering I disagree with just about everything else s/he says) I will let the two of you argue without my interference.

Oh, okay. I just asked the question because I thought that you might be saying that there was no absolute good, in which case I would argue that there was. As far as the rest of the argument goes, while I tend to agree with Santa Barbara (which is odd considering I disagree with just about everything else s/he says) I will let the two of you argue without my interference.

Ironically, I'm not so certain there is absolute truth. ;) But until I'm certain, I take a somewhat agnostic view on the matter. Which is to say there probably is absolute truth, just not how we conventionally think of it. Something like that.

This is my final post on this thread.

Likewise, it's not that logical fallacy can't exist, but that my statements are being mislabeled.

You defended the "safe labeling" of music as good or bad based on the statistical majority. That to me is still appealing to popularity for justification of your arguments in favor of the majority=right type of thinking.

So your entire point was to argue in axioms? I should think when in a debate, it isn't about if you know what you are arguing for (this should be a given), but making your arguments clear enough that your opponent does. I obviously misjudged what you were arguing.

Obviously.


If the majority hates the music, then a person (other than the creator) can safely label it as bad.

This is where you're hedging your bets. Earlier you were much stronger about this, implying basically that you (or anyone, or everyone) can and do and should label music as bad if its liked by only a minority. Now it's just 'safe' to do so. Well, safe does not mean correct.


This is not an imposition on others views, as they are free to disagree and like the music if they wish. However from what might be best called a 'statistical' standpoint (though I still prefer pseudo-factual), it would be bad.

IF you assume that the 'statistical' standpoint has any bearing on the quality of the music. Me, I don't. I think other things, for example distribution and production and commercialization and culture play far, far bigger roles in determining what people like to listen to. And I also think that 99 people's opinions are no more right than 1 person's opinion. At all. When it comes to quality. Period!



The creator, without knowing his intent in creating the music, cannot determine at that time whether it is good or bad accurately. He doesn't know if it was made for others, and hence doesn't know if he has succeeded of failed in his aim.

As for 50/50, I would assume it would once again be considered neither. We would simply have to state that, at that current time, no conclusion could be drawn.


Well, all I have to say is that's pretty silly. And it also seems to require not only the creator knowing his intent in creating the music (which is not necessary to make the music in the first place), but that the know the exact number of people who've listened to it and where they stand on it's quality level, at all times, to determine whether its good or bad!

Its much better to listen to one's own opinion regarding quality of music. If you like a music type and you think its good quality, well, stand up and argue for that. Who cares if there's a mathematical majority? I don't, and neither do a lot of the people who DO make music.



I never said people created music for a reason.

It follows, from earlier statements about...

I stated humans, in anything they create, have intent.

Yes. Intent to make music. But it doesn't follow that intent means there's a reason, let alone a functional goal that handily categorize, like "for others" or "for oneself," behind each piece of music.



First, that isn't a personal attack (which would require intent on my behalf). You can claim to be offended by it, but that doesn't change my intent in saying it. Nor was it intended to piss you off.

Do you generally tell people to run along and use the condescending 'dear' when you're meaning to not piss them off? To me, dismissing someone and giving them a name - even 'dear' when used in that condescending context - is a personal attack. Especially when it's used, as yours was, in response to what is perceived as a personal atack - trading insults type of thing.

Now on that first attack...


...that doesn't strike me as conditional. In fact, that strikes me as nothing more than a straight out personal attack. No interpretation needed. But bygones be bygones, and all that jazz.

I was only comparing you to other populist idiots, not necessarily including you with the latter. Your arguments were populist, which is similar to the populist idiot viewpoint I was referring to, and so I took a moment to rant and digress.

Interpretation is always needed.

But I won't lie and say I hoped you weren't offended, since I really never care if people choose to take offense at what I say.

STOP!

Collaberate and listen!