NationStates Jolt Archive

My musical tastes have steadily deepened and expanded over the years for various reasons, and as such, I've started to notice a lot of people have very shallow tastes in music, and I'm not attempting to be judgmental or elitist. I listen to the best of every genre and try never to criticize an artist before I give them an honest chance. Seriously, I like anything from Massive Attack to Claude Debussy to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan to Opeth, but there's just some things that are just apalling.

For example, I beleive most of us can agree people such Fergie, 50 Cent Linkin Park, etc. are not the most musically sophisticated musicians, yet they're commercially successful. How? Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful? I mean, I know they have corporate backing which helps get them known, but without a demand from consumers, there would be no reason to back them. Plus, they had to have gotten an initial non-corporate fan-base somewhere along the line.

By the way, notice I said "Why is bad music popular?", not "Why is popular music bad?". Frankly, there's a lot of good, mainstream musicians that I like. Just in case someone accuses me of acting like an Indie snob.

So, NSG-ers, what are your theories about this inconsistency? Are people around the world simply dumbing down their musical tastes? Is there actually something good about these musicians (if one can call them that)? Am I ranting on something trivial? Do I just know a lot of people with mainstream musical tastes? What are you thoughts?

Musical tastes vary person to person. My brother likes mainly mainstream hip hop and RNB while I have a taste for rock music and particularly bands that have a good sound but not necessarily signed to a label or even have a big following.

I will also admit that some songs, such as those by Linkin Park, seem good to me. Not the pinnacle of music in any way but still good songs. I even say that the likes of Eminem and Jay Z are good solid musicians who have a great talent.

Musical tastes vary person to person. My brother likes mainly mainstream hip hop and RNB while I have a taste for rock music and particularly bands that have a good sound but not necessarily signed to a label or even have a big following.

I will also admit that some songs, such as those by Linkin Park, seem good to me. Not the pinnacle of music in any way but still good songs. I even say that the likes of Eminem and Jay Z are good solid musicians who have a great talent.

Eminem and Jay-Z are a bit of an exception to me, compared to other rappers. I agree that they aren't exactly Mozarts or anything, but they do have a fair sense of musicality.

EDIT: And actually, Linkin Park was my first band that I got into, when they first got famous. Yeah, I know, I was just another stupid teen back then. Anyways, I only hate their new stuff, because it's just bull-shit. Nothing like the creativity they used to have.

I only know two of the people you are talking about, and one of them is a disgraced, fat ex-royal.

Anyway, to your point, I'm pretty sure it's the fault of car radios.

Leave Fergie, 50 Cent, Linkin Park, etc, alone. *cue sobbing*

For what it's worth, I think it's because they have an insubstantial-yet-perhaps-horribly-appealing image that people want to buy into.

Because the average radio1 listener has neither the time, inclination, or, I suspect, sophistication to take an interest in music that isn't anodyne, inoffensive of vacuous and bland. Why else could Razorlight and The ordinary Boys have any fans?

Because the average radio1 listener has neither the time, inclination, or, I suspect, sophistication to take an interest in music that isn't anodyne, inoffensive of vacuous and bland. Why else could Razorlight and The ordinary Boys have any fans?

Radio 1 has some good music....rarely...okay Zane Lowe plays some good music. I've just turned to the internet for the majority of my musical needs and XFM...

Generally because it isn't actually "bad."

Edit: Alternatively, we could draw a distinction between "good", in the sense of "of high artistic merit", and "enjoyable"... but, then, I'm not convinced popular musicians are all artistically worthless either.

My musical tastes have steadily deepened and expanded over the years for various reasons, and as such, I've started to notice a lot of people have very shallow tastes in music, and I'm not attempting to be judgmental or elitist.

You're being judgemental and elitist. Popular music is popular because most people like it. It's a simple tautology. If you prefer certain types of fringe music, that's your business, but if you have convinced yourself that it's somehow of higher esthetic merit than other music, remember that you have done so on totally subjective grounds.

Remember, there is only one metric defining the quality of any given art: "Do we like it?" And the best way to measure "Do we like it?" is "Are we willing to pay for it?"

Recommended reading on the subject: This is Your Brain on Music.

Because the average radio1 listener has neither the time, inclination, or, I suspect, sophistication to take an interest in music that isn't anodyne, inoffensive of vacuous and bland. Why else could Razorlight and The ordinary Boys have any fans?

Well, 50 Cent is pretty offensive, lyrically... as is Fergie, if you look at some of the lyrical suggestiveness. As are a lot of mainstream bands... But I get what you mean. Most people are happy with what they is immediately placed in front of them if they don't know there's an alternative, right?

But we don't live in an age of radio domination anymore, I think. The internet, God/Buddha/Joe Peschi bless it, and file-sharing have helped along with that.

Not convinced there is such a thing as bad music, there is plenty of music I don't like but I don't think it is bad music.

Radio 1 has some good music....rarely...okay Zane Lowe plays some good music. I've just turned to the internet for the majority of my musical needs and XFM...

True, and some of the late, late night stuff is tolerable, but really, for me the last straw was when they started playing Boys Like Girls. Homogenous bubblegum pseudo-emo.

snip

I predict that history will venerate Fergie, Linkin Park, etc, for their undying efforts to entertain the common man.

Remember, there is only one metric defining the quality of any given art: "Do we like it?"

I'm not so sure. I've enjoyed plenty of books that hardly qualify as being of literary merit.

I predict that history will venerate Fergie, Linkin Park, etc, for their undying efforts to entertain the common man.

Big Brother entertains the common man, as do happy slapping videos and tabloid newspapers. All are moulded to their ignorant sensibilities; not a reason to "venerate", more term pragmatic.

Big Brother entertains the common man, as do happy slapping videos and tabloid newspapers. All are moulded to their ignorant sensibilities; not a reason to "venerate", more term pragmatic.

Right. And no-one will remember them because they didn't matter. :)

You're being judgemental and elitist. Popular music is popular because most people like it. It's a simple tautology. If you prefer certain types of fringe music, that's your business, but if you have convinced yourself that it's somehow of higher esthetic merit than other music, remember that you have done so on totally subjective grounds.

Remember, there is only one metric defining the quality of any given art: "Do we like it?" And the best way to measure "Do we like it?" is "Are we willing to pay for it?"

Recommended reading on the subject: This is Your Brain on Music.

I suppose you'll always find someone on NSG who will say something like that to whatever you'll say.:D

Perhaps I am being judgmental, but that's my honest opinion of these people, but I don't judge people who listen to them. There's a number of both qualitative and quantitative reasons I could list on why those musicians are not good. Like what you will, I will like what I want as well. If I think it's bad, it's up to me, and that's entirely my right. I never forced you to agree with me, but don't attack me for having an opinion. If you think I'm wrong, please feel free to show me how what I've listed in good music other than "people buy it", because people will buy the most useless shit if it's marketed correctly.

Right. And no-one will remember them because they didn't matter. :)

A cultural historian, maybe, but since they're on a level with social historians in my esteem, they don't matter.

A cultural historian, maybe, but since they're on a level with social historians in my esteem, they don't matter.

Well, maybe. But as I sarcastically suggested before, no-one will venerate these people. Because they were just the people who sold well.

If you think I'm wrong, please feel free to show me how what I've listed in good music other than "people buy it", because people will buy the most useless shit if it's marketed correctly.

I think that measuring the quality of something by how well it is marketed is a good system.
Take wars: WWI was a good war, because it was well promoted. Vietnam was equally futile, but flopped. It was a bad war.

My musical tastes have steadily deepened and expanded over the years for various reasons, and as such, I've started to notice a lot of people have very shallow tastes in music, and I'm not attempting to be judgmental or elitist. I listen to the best of every genre and try never to criticize an artist before I give them an honest chance. Seriously, I like anything from Massive Attack to Claude Debussy to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan to Opeth, but there's just some things that are just apalling.

For example, I beleive most of us can agree people such Fergie, 50 Cent Linkin Park, etc. are not the most musically sophisticated musicians, yet they're commercially successful. How? Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful? I mean, I know they have corporate backing which helps get them known, but without a demand from consumers, there would be no reason to back them. Plus, they had to have gotten an initial non-corporate fan-base somewhere along the line.

So, NSG-ers, what are your theories about this inconsistency? Are people around the world simply dumbing down their musical tastes? Is there actually something good about these musicians (if one can call them that)? Am I ranting on something trivial? Do I just know a lot of people with mainstream musical tastes? What are you thoughts?

Because commercial success runs in line with the preferences of the majority, and the majority are imbeciles.

Schoppenhauer said about books that if they are popular they are most likely worthless. Same applies to most forms of art.

I'm in no way music expert, but what makes music good? Does it have to be enjoyable? Does it have to be complicated and hard to perform? Does it need something really original and creative?

In general, people who are not much into music, use it in order to relax, share their emotions with others, meet like-minded people, or just have some noise in the background to mute out the rest of the world. Jethro Tull is considered by some really high quality music, yet it's sometimes hard to listen to it. In order to enjoy it, you have to concentrate on listening, which is then more tiring than relaxing, and when coming home from work that is the last thing most people would want to do. Instead they settle for something with an easy melody or a steady rhythm that lets their mind wander.

So to answer your question, bad music is popular because it's not meant to be art but a commodity for every day use. Just like one wouldn't wear a designer evening dress to a grocery store, one would not listen to Mozart while watching a football game. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it's not that common which is what makes something popular.

I'm not so sure. I've enjoyed plenty of books that hardly qualify as being of literary merit.

Which backs their point, no?

They said the only measure is "Do I like it?". You said you enjoyed it. Therefore, that is your literary taste.

I'm in no way music expert, but what makes music good? Does it have to be enjoyable? Does it have to be complicated and hard to perform? Does it need something really original and creative?

In general, people who are not much into music, use it in order to relax, share their emotions with others, meet like-minded people, or just have some noise in the background to mute out the rest of the world. Jethro Tull is considered by some really high quality music, yet it's sometimes hard to listen to it. In order to enjoy it, you have to concentrate on listening, which is then more tiring than relaxing, and when coming home from work that is the last thing most people would want to do. Instead they settle for something with an easy melody or a steady rhythm that lets their mind wander.

So to answer your question, bad music is popular because it's not meant to be art but a commodity for every day use. Just like one wouldn't wear a designer evening dress to a grocery store, one would not listen to Mozart while watching a football game. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it's not that common which is what makes something popular.

I agree, I'm not constantly listening to Mozart and Beethoven either. At a party, I'll put on some dance able music. If I'm with friends, I'll put on something light and enjoyable. I'm not talking about highly artistic music constantly or anything.

I think the main thing is being original and creative, because I like to listen to someone like Jack Johnson, though he is not exactly the most complex or revolutionary musician in the world. I hope you've heard of him, he was big back a few years ago.:p

They said the only measure is "Do I like it?". You said you enjoyed it. Therefore, that is your literary taste.

If it were, then I would be incapable of making the distinction. If enjoyment is the only standard of literary merit, then it would make no sense for me to say that a given book is enjoyable but lacks literary merit.

But in fact there are certain things in books that I find enjoyable that have nothing to do with literary merit. I enjoy "low humor," if it's done right, but I don't pretend it makes good literature--it's just fun.

Schoppenhauer said about books that if they are popular they are most likely worthless.

Probably because he knew The World as Will and Representation would never be a bestseller.

Take wars: WWI was a good war, because it was well promoted. Vietnam was equally futile, but flopped. It was a bad war.

Meh, apples and oranges...apples and walruses, actually. But, I get your point. If something is promoted, it will succeed.

So you're saying the masses can basically be brainwashed into liking something? I mean, back in the day, people like, for example, Jimi Hendrix or the Beatles, etc. were quite popular with people but enjoyed little or no corporate backing for a good part of their careers. And they were a lot more talented than a lot of people today.

However, this kind of gives me the conclusion that the corporations don't really care who they promote. Why not promote better musicians, if people will accept them anyways?
.

Probably because he knew The World as Will and Representation would never be a bestseller.

Quite possibly ;)

Still... if you take a good look at best seller lists, and take out the classics (once they become classics people tend to feel obliged to read them, and that sort of distorts the thing), you are likely to find a steaming pile of shite on top of another.

So you're saying the masses can basically be brainwashed into liking something?

Nah, nobody's brainwashed. People just want crap music, so they get handed musical crap. But that's no reason to claim the crap is… gilded?
Crap is a really weak word.

If it were, then I would be incapable of making the distinction. If enjoyment is the only standard of literary merit, then it would make no sense for me to say that a given book is enjoyable but lacks literary merit.

But in fact there are certain things in books that I find enjoyable that have nothing to do with literary merit. I enjoy "low humor," if it's done right, but I don't pretend it makes good literature--it's just fun.

That's true; I love the novels of Janet Evanovich, but when all is said and done, a couple generations from now I doubt that anybody will be reading Janet Evanovich. Art and literature that is intrinsically great will last longer than the context in which it is created. That is why you can still find music from every era for the past thousand years or more; there was always a lot more music at the time than what we know now, but the great music is the music that withstood the changes of time.

Nah, nobody's brainwashed. People just want crap music, so they get handed musical crap. But that's no reason to claim the crap is… gilded?
Crap is a really weak word.

Never claimed it was, just asked why people liked it. So, why do people like crap?

If it were, then I would be incapable of making the distinction. If enjoyment is the only standard of literary merit, then it would make no sense for me to say that a given book is enjoyable but lacks literary merit.

But in fact there are certain things in books that I find enjoyable that have nothing to do with literary merit. I enjoy "low humor," if it's done right, but I don't pretend it makes good literature--it's just fun.

Gotcha. Generally, I think the people who generally determine the cannon are snobs (be it musical, literary, or some other form). Granted, I was also an English major...*shrug*

That's true; I love the novels of Janet Evanovich, but when all is said and done, a couple generations from now I doubt that anybody will be reading Janet Evanovich. Art and literature that is intrinsically great will last longer than the context in which it is created. That is why you can still find music from every era for the past thousand years or more; there was always a lot more music at the time than what we know now, but the great music is the music that withstood the changes of time.

Yay, good first post!:p

I used to read a lot of fantasy books, but I got tired when I found them to be repititive and cliched. Now, I read the classics and philosophy. My brother is worse, though. He only reads History, Philosophy, Psychology, etc. books. ONLY. Never gets bored of it though.

Never claimed it was, just asked why people liked it. So, why do people like crap?

My above post was really directed more to Mott.

Well, as for Fergie, 50 Cent, and Linkin Park, I think the reason is that they all have a fairly shallow image that others can borrow. By listening to their music, people can become "attractive", or "tough", or "rebellious", without actually possessing any of these attributes or having to think about it too hard.

My above post was really directed more to Mott.

Well, as for Fergie, 50 Cent, and Linkin Park, I think the reason is that they all have a fairly shallow image that others can borrow. By listening to their music, people can become "attractive", or "tough", or "rebellious", without actually possessing any of these attributes or having to think about it too hard.

I don't know. I don't think most people who actually listen to them start acting like them. Albeit, there are those 50 cent listeners who suddenly think they're "gangstas" after they memorize one song.:p

I don't know. I don't think most people who actually listen to them start acting like them. Albeit, there are those 50 cent listeners who suddenly think they're "gangstas" after they memorize one song.:p

Precisely! Suddenly, you can be "gangsta" without actually having to knife anyone. These artists are doing a public service, really. ;)

Yay, good first post!:p

I used to read a lot of fantasy books, but I got tired when I found them to be repititive and cliched. Now, I read the classics and philosophy. My brother is worse, though. He only reads History, Philosophy, Psychology, etc. books. ONLY. Never gets bored of it though.

That's what I do. No fiction for me thank you.:D

That's what I do. No fiction for me thank you.:D

Aww, come on, it's good for you. Enriches the soul and whatnot. :p

Precisely! Suddenly, you can be "gangsta" without actually having to knife anyone. These artists are doing a public service, really. ;)

:D

Seriously though, I wish people were a little more discriminating at times with their tastes. Ah, well, one can't have it all.:p

How do you define '(good) musicality'?

'Original' or 'creative' don't really mean much when you're talking about a group that are writing songs in a well-defined genre, essentially they are taking the same chord sequences, instruments and lyric settings, and trying to create a good synthesis of these and other influences from elsewhere.

'Popular' artists aren't necessary better or worse than others that don't get the same popularity, they become big because of social interactions over which they have no control. Clearly a fanbase must be created, but given the right start (and marketing) and it'll grow exponentially through social exposure regardless of its comparative 'quality'.

An example in literature: the Harry Potter books. Few would say they are the pinnacle of writing, but almost everyone has read at least one, if not all. Why? because they are influenced by those around them reading it and talking about it, and they don't want to be left out.

Never claimed it was, just asked why people liked it. So, why do people like crap?

Quite obviously they don't consider it crap.

Musical appreciation is highly subjective. You don't share the tastes of the mainstream...good for you. There isn't much beyond that to really analyse.

Yay, good first post!:p

I used to read a lot of fantasy books, but I got tired when I found them to be repititive and cliched. Now, I read the classics and philosophy. My brother is worse, though. He only reads History, Philosophy, Psychology, etc. books. ONLY. Never gets bored of it though.

Let me guess. You're a University student in your early 20s. Oh, and in a BA program.

My musical tastes have steadily deepened and expanded over the years for various reasons, and as such, I've started to notice a lot of people have very shallow tastes in music, and I'm not attempting to be judgmental or elitist. I listen to the best of every genre and try never to criticize an artist before I give them an honest chance. Seriously, I like anything from Massive Attack to Claude Debussy to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan to Opeth, but there's just some things that are just apalling.

For example, I believe most of us can agree people such Fergie, 50 Cent Linkin Park, etc. are not the most musically sophisticated musicians, yet they're commercially successful. How? Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful? I mean, I know they have corporate backing which helps get them known, but without a demand from consumers, there would be no reason to back them. Plus, they had to have gotten an initial non-corporate fan-base somewhere along the line.

So, NSG-ers, what are your theories about this inconsistency? Are people around the world simply dumbing down their musical tastes? Is there actually something good about these musicians (if one can call them that)? Am I ranting on something trivial? Do I just know a lot of people with mainstream musical tastes? What are you thoughts?

This is a question that speaks to several points: aesthetic sensibility, popularity, degrees of active vs. passive listening, and so on. Since the whole mess is mostly subjective, I'll add my opinion.

The popularity of music has a lot to do with accessibility. Big band jazz was once the US's popular music because of the influence of radio. There were variations, of course, but nothing close to the variations of music that exist now that there's more than just a few stations on a very small network.

Before that, there were wax cylinders and piano rolls for player pianos -- before that, it was sheet music. And that's where I'll tag the beginning of popular music being necessarily less complicated than symphonic or so-called "legitimate" art music. If you wanted to sell a lot of sheet music back in the 19th/early 20th centuries, you needed the arrangements to be simple enough for those with the typical piano skill of the middle class to play it. That meant it was probably also a bit repetitive and certainly catchy. This also takes into account that home pianos were the entertainment centers of the era before the victrola/radio.

Sure, there were high-end musical talents that gathered to play chamber music (look up the term Schubertiad (http://www.anitarowland.com/journal/1998/040898.html) for an example. But those were the musical elite who existed before the 19th century mostly to please aristocrats (think Mozart). As the middle class grew, they purchased pianos and were taught to be fair-to-middling players in order to entertain their guests and themselves. The high-end players began to be venerated for their virtuosity and became, in essence, the "rock stars" of their day.

Meanwhile, you've got a middle class with some disposable income and a desire to spend it. They bought lessons for themselves and their children and sheet music became a mass-production item to feed the burgeoning need for entertainment. Once more, it had to be accessible to those who were decent players, but far from virtuosos (the middle class started to be able to afford to go see the virtuosos in concert).

Parallel to all of this is the development of music in the underclasses -- slaves, indentured servants, sharecroppers...latter-day peasants. This segment of society has always found its entertainment in music and dance, and it has always been simple. In Bach's day, no gathering of servants would have played one of his Pavanes for dancing. They'd have played a reel or a jig or something far less sophisticated (but no less important to those who loved the music and went to experience it). That kind of music survived and thrives today in many forms. It is simpler, usually danceable, and highly expressive of basic emotional states. Similarly, the music of African slaves brought to the new world fused their rhythms with the simple harmonies of church hymns (also made simple for mass consumption) -- and the blues and jazz were born from that fusion.

I don't want to lengthen this any more than necessary (too late!), but I hope it helps to answer your question. You'll notice that I didn't make any judgments on whether music without sophistication is good or bad. I can find examples of music in any genre that I would label as good or bad, but that's my opinion. I think life is too short to judge people by what they listen to, and that sophistication doesn't always equal goodness. Good, as it applies to artistic expression, is always and forever subjective. We can look at things like poor craftsmanship (out of tune playing or singing, trite lyrics, poor production quality), but there will always be someone who thinks those things are good (ask any fan of The Ramones -- who I like, by the way).

Do you like it? Then that's all that matters. The problems start to arise when we expect others to share our sense of what we like and how we react to those who don't.

You're being judgemental and elitist. Popular music is popular because most people like it. It's a simple tautology. If you prefer certain types of fringe music, that's your business, but if you have convinced yourself that it's somehow of higher esthetic merit than other music, remember that you have done so on totally subjective grounds.

Far from it. Anyone is free to judge music based on its difficulty or complexity. It's irresponsible to judge it SOLELY on that aspect, but it's possible. Your use of the term "fringe" is more elitist than anything the OP posted. I can analyze just about any piece of music and find the structure appealing or dull. But I'm trained to do so. As such, I prefer music that excels in the use of or presents a thoughtful exhibition of any musical aspect (lyrics, rhythm, harmony, melody, counterpoint, texture, timbre, emotional appeal, etc.). Even if only one musical attribute is presented well, I can like the music. Complexity need never enter the picture.

The OP (I believe) has made a statement that the music he perceives as "bad" has an absence of thoughtful creativity in any musical aspect. And having been subjected to Fergie in the fitness center enough times, I can certainly look at what she's done and agree. Sex sells as a lowest common denominator, but even that can be done with more musical quality than she exhibits. THAT SAID, if all you want to do is dance (no Don Henley pun intended), then Fergie is your girl.

Music for mass consumption today is sold, not composed. It appears in films, on TV, and is more commercial now than at any point in its history. If it is to sell well, then it must appeal to the widest range of consumers. Apparently nowadays, that means the amalgamation of rap/R&B/wobbly-voiced quasi-soul singers that dominates the popular culture. Then again, popular culture itself is smithereened to the point where genre names have become meaningless drivel. I'm amazed that anyone can even have a hit anymore.

Remember, there is only one metric defining the quality of any given art: "Do we like it?" And the best way to measure "Do we like it?" is "Are we willing to pay for it?"

I've already written too much in this post, so I'll just reply to this with "sez you". Only one metric? Sorry, but no.

Recommended reading on the subject: This is Your Brain on Music.

I haven't yet read that book, but I intend to. You might check out Dr. Oliver Sacks' (he of the film Awakenings) book on the subject, Musicophilia, for your own further reading...if you like.

How do you define '(good) musicality'?

'Original' or 'creative' don't really mean much when you're talking about a group that are writing songs in a well-defined genre, essentially they are taking the same chord sequences, instruments and lyric settings, and trying to create a good synthesis of these and other influences from elsewhere.

'Popular' artists aren't necessary better or worse than others that don't get the same popularity, they become big because of social interactions over which they have no control. Clearly a fanbase must be created, but given the right start (and marketing) and it'll grow exponentially through social exposure regardless of its comparative 'quality'.

An example in literature: the Harry Potter books. Few would say they are the pinnacle of writing, but almost everyone has read at least one, if not all. Why? because they are influenced by those around them reading it and talking about it, and they don't want to be left out.

Allow me an example; Nahum Tate's "King Lear". The ending, which won Lear its role as a tragedy, and upon which the plot is contingent, was altered in Tate's 1681 alteration to be happy. It was far more popular than Shakespeare's original, and better attended, but as an item of literature or performance, has an ending inconsistent either with the narrative, devices or tone of the play before it.

My above post was really directed more to Mott.

Well, as for Fergie, 50 Cent, and Linkin Park, I think the reason is that they all have a fairly shallow image that others can borrow. By listening to their music, people can become "attractive", or "tough", or "rebellious", without actually possessing any of these attributes or having to think about it too hard.

Bingo. Association is a very big motivator for many young listeners...many older ones, too.

Aww, come on, it's good for you. Enriches the soul and whatnot. :p

I have no soul :(

Allow me an example; Nahum Tate's "King Lear". The ending, which won Lear its role as a tragedy, and upon which the plot is contingent, was altered in Tate's 1681 alteration to be happy. It was far more popular than Shakespeare's original, and better attended, but as an item of literature or performance, has an ending inconsistent either with the narrative, devices or tone of the play before it.

Ditto that for the German version of "A Doll House" vs. the original ending. Yet the door slam is the important ending. (Ironically, the original ending doesn't quite follow the melodramatic forms that precede it, but that is also what Ibsen usually did...used a familiar form, then ripped it to shreds in the closing scenes, usually at a keynote line [in this case, "I'm taking off my costume"])

yay tangental thoughts...

Clearly a fanbase must be created, but given the right start (and marketing) and it'll grow exponentially through social exposure regardless of its comparative 'quality'.

Excellent point. Since, like anything cultural, the music people listen to is influenced heavily by the music the people around them listen to, what is "popular" need not adhere to any standard of quality, even a simple one of enjoyment.

An example in literature: the Harry Potter books. Few would say they are the pinnacle of writing,

Most of the people who read the Harry Potter books do find them enjoyable, though, and I, at least, tend to think they also have real merit as literature. Their popularity has to do with a lot more than the simple fact that they are mainstream.

My musical tastes have steadily deepened and expanded over the years for various reasons, and as such, I've started to notice a lot of people have very shallow tastes in music, and I'm not attempting to be judgmental or elitist. I listen to the best of every genre and try never to criticize an artist before I give them an honest chance. Seriously, I like anything from Massive Attack to Claude Debussy to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan to Opeth, but there's just some things that are just apalling.

For example, I beleive most of us can agree people such Fergie, 50 Cent Linkin Park, etc. are not the most musically sophisticated musicians, yet they're commercially successful. How? Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful? I mean, I know they have corporate backing which helps get them known, but without a demand from consumers, there would be no reason to back them. Plus, they had to have gotten an initial non-corporate fan-base somewhere along the line.

So, NSG-ers, what are your theories about this inconsistency? Are people around the world simply dumbing down their musical tastes? Is there actually something good about these musicians (if one can call them that)? Am I ranting on something trivial? Do I just know a lot of people with mainstream musical tastes? What are you thoughts?

heh it makes me laugh when you say things like 'I'm not being elieist but....' And then go on to ask, why do people insist on listening to music that I say is bad?

Subjectivity man, what is bad music, and why would you considr it bad?

Myself I'm a bit of a rocker, I love the blues, just the sound of a blues guitar gets me going, and similarly the sound of the trumpet or horn in some SKA or decent soul/northen soul just's 'pumps my nag', but I can't stand jazz, that is I can't stand most free form jazz, or lounge music. I would not call it bad music though, I just don't like it, and I don't get it.

So perhaps that is the answer, you just don't get it.

I'm not so sure. I've enjoyed plenty of books that hardly qualify as being of literary merit.

Literary merit? Ohhh you mean book snobs! Bwahahaha. Naaaa I agree with the previous post. In any form or art, if you would pay for it, is a good measure of it's merits.

Schoppenhauer said about books that if they are popular they are most likely worthless. Same applies to most forms of art.

i have to say, i am WAY into existential literature and theory, and consider myself an avid existentialist, but Schoppenhauer was full of it. if you wish to discuss all of the ways that he was, feel free to start a new topic and i will find it and enjoy discussing it.

I'm in no way music expert, but what makes music good? Does it have to be enjoyable? Does it have to be complicated and hard to perform? Does it need something really original and creative?

I am a music fanatic. many of my friends have various views on music. i feel that there is a difference between "musicality" and technique. they are both important parts of music. however, it must be made clear which one we are talking about. Musicality is how enjoyable they are to listen to. Technique is how complex, difficult, or technically good a song is. you can have one, but not the other. For example, Joey Jordison, of slipknot, is an incredible drummer. he is one of the technical greats of our time. however, his drum solos are crap. they sound like numbers in your ear. they are all technique.

i would say that for this discussion we should be talking about musicality. that is what makes them popular in the first place. technique is irrelevant.

clearly the musicality of this music is good to many people. that is why it is popular.

however, i do hate most of this music. it isn't even really music. I think it is bad, but i aknowledge that many people do not.

because people will buy the most useless shit if it's marketed correctly.

Then you have answered your own question.

Thats it folx thread over please return to your beds, move along sir, nothing to see here.

My above post was really directed more to Mott.

Well, as for Fergie, 50 Cent, and Linkin Park, I think the reason is that they all have a fairly shallow image that others can borrow. By listening to their music, people can become "attractive", or "tough", or "rebellious", without actually possessing any of these attributes or having to think about it too hard.

Or pehaps it is just that they produce, 'catchy' 'hookey' music.

Literary merit? Ohhh you mean book snobs!

Not at all. I make no claim that literary merit is the only good thing we can find in books--quite the contrary. I make no judgment of people who don't care about it. And I certainly wouldn't claim that popular books are all devoid of literary merit--I've already mentioned Harry Potter as a counterexample.

Naaaa I agree with the previous post. In any form or art, if you would pay for it, is a good measure of it's merits.

No, it's a good measure of its monetary value to us, but it doesn't tell us the character of the value we are willing to pay for... and it doesn't consider the fact that we might make a judgment of "merit" completely independently of whether or not we enjoy something.

There are certain kinds of art I don't like, and would never pay for--most paintings, for instance. But just because they don't appeal to me doesn't mean they aren't merit-worthy by some artistic standard.

It's two things: image and production methods/technology.

Image has been the bane of many talented artists especially since MTV. Combine the image factor with the other factor of production methods and technology, and you have something that is faddish enough for kids to go buy the music, but has no substance and fades away. By production methods and technology, I'm talking about how few artists today write their own lyrics, much less write or even play their own music. They have songwriters hired by the record companies who write the music and the company assigns it to someone who they think can make it a sellable track and album. Then there's the issue of digital technology. You don't have to have talent anymore because your music can be digitally constructed or modified, and so can your voice. A good enough sound engineer and producer can make you sound as good as you pay them.

Not at all. I make no claim that literary merit is the only good thing we can find in books--quite the contrary. I make no judgment of people who don't care about it. And I certainly wouldn't claim that popular books are all devoid of literary merit--I've already mentioned Harry Potter as a counterexample.



No, it's a good measure of its monetary value to us, but it doesn't tell us the character of the value we are willing to pay for... and it doesn't consider the fact that we might make a judgment of "merit" completely independently of whether or not we enjoy something.

There are certain kinds of art I don't like, and would never pay for--most paintings, for instance. But just because they don't appeal to me doesn't mean they aren't merit-worthy by some artistic standard.

Yet art is truely subjective. If you don't like, it and wouldn't pay for it, in fact find no merit in it, then of course that is not the same as meritless. It just means you wouldn't buy it.

Value, merit, these are all subjective things. I maintain tha the question 'would you pay for it' is a good measure of a piece of arts merit.

My musical tastes have steadily deepened and expanded over the years for various reasons, and as such, I've started to notice a lot of people have very shallow tastes in music, and I'm not attempting to be judgmental or elitist. I listen to the best of every genre and try never to criticize an artist before I give them an honest chance. Seriously, I like anything from Massive Attack to Claude Debussy to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan to Opeth, but there's just some things that are just apalling.

For example, I beleive most of us can agree people such Fergie, 50 Cent Linkin Park, etc. are not the most musically sophisticated musicians, yet they're commercially successful. How? Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful? I mean, I know they have corporate backing which helps get them known, but without a demand from consumers, there would be no reason to back them. Plus, they had to have gotten an initial non-corporate fan-base somewhere along the line.

So, NSG-ers, what are your theories about this inconsistency? Are people around the world simply dumbing down their musical tastes? Is there actually something good about these musicians (if one can call them that)? Am I ranting on something trivial? Do I just know a lot of people with mainstream musical tastes? What are you thoughts?

Most people in the word are unintelligent.

Yet art is truely subjective.

Did I say it wasn't subjective?

There is probably subjectivity in any judgment of artistic merit, yes, but it is not the subjective standard of whether or not something is enjoyable. (In any case, I'd suggest that subjective standards of merit are more likely to be held in common within a culture, and perhaps within the wider species, than subjective standards of enjoyment.)

If you don't like, it and wouldn't pay for it, in fact find no merit in it,

But this is your conflation, between "don't like" and "find no merit", not mine--and I see no reason that it is anything but dogmatic.

"Merit-worthy" simply doesn't mean the same thing as "likable." I might find merit in something that cleverly uses artistic technique to get viewers, listeners, or readers to think or feel profoundly (even if it has no effect on me, or even if the process isn't particularly enjoyable), and I might really enjoy something that's just cheap humor, or sappy emotional manipulation.

Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful?Where'd you get that silly idea from?

Why is poorer quality music so popular? Because it sounds good, duh. Maybe not to you, but then again, that's why they call it taste.

Because the it's all about appealing to the masses, because that's where the money lies. And the masses don't necessarily care about quality. See also: Our current (P)resident.

Excellent point. Since, like anything cultural, the music people listen to is influenced heavily by the music the people around them listen to, what is "popular" need not adhere to any standard of quality, even a simple one of enjoyment.

though, of course, mass popularity is going to at least be limited by some range of things that 'sound good' to the broad spectrum of people - at base, on a biological/neurological level. even with a dedicated effort to create it, it would be kinda surprising to find a popular form of music that makes prominent use of fingernails on chalkboards, for example.

Did I say it wasn't subjective?

There is probably subjectivity in any judgment of artistic merit, yes, but it is not the subjective standard of whether or not something is enjoyable. (In any case, I'd suggest that subjective standards of merit are more likely to be held in common within a culture, and perhaps within the wider species, than subjective standards of enjoyment.)



But this is your conflation, between "don't like" and "find no merit", not mine--and I see no reason that it is anything but dogmatic.

"Merit-worthy" simply doesn't mean the same thing as "likable." I might find merit in something that cleverly uses artistic technique to get viewers, listeners, or readers to think or feel profoundly (even if it has no effect on me, or even if the process isn't particularly enjoyable), and I might really enjoy something that's just cheap humor, or sappy emotional manipulation.

Okay yes I see that.

though, of course, mass popularity is going to at least be limited by some range of things that 'sound good' to the broad spectrum of people - at base, on a biological/neurological level. even with a dedicated effort to create it, it would be kinda surprising to find a popular form of music that makes prominent use of fingernails on chalkboards, for example.

It's probably been done, but wouldn't sell well. Music is purely a human thing, and evolved as a social tool, not as a means of personal enjoyment. Nowadays these priorities have changed slightly (listening at home etc.), but we're still heavily influenced by what others do (what the producer puts on the radio programme, or what the dj plays at a club).

In fact, it's almost impossible to escape what others want you to hear.

Remember, there is only one metric defining the quality of any given art: "Do we like it?"There is plenty of art that I don't like which I nevertheless can recognize the quality of. Liking it and noticing it was done well are two different things.

And the best way to measure "Do we like it?" is "Are we willing to pay for it?"Personally, I like a lot of things better when I don't need to pay for it.

"Do we like it?" And the best way to measure "Do we like it?" is "Are we willing to pay for it?"

that is dumb. we often pay for things we like less and even forgo things we like more entirely

Because most people don't find mainstream music a bad thing.

By the way, notice I said "Why is bad music popular?", not "Why is popular music bad?". Frankly, there's a lot of good, mainstream musicians that I like. Just in case someone accuses me of acting like an Indie snob.

Ho- Hum, no-one bothers to read this and understand that I'm not attacking mainstream music, just bad mainstream music.

Is Wierd Al (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_Al)a example?

To me, it's just all about personal taste. If you look at my iPod, you will find Backstreet Boys songs, a couple of songs by Enrique Iglesias, a song by Hanson, a song by the Moffatts, and a few other pop songs. Stuff that many people may consider to be bad music.

On the other hand, you will also find Queen (my favorite band), the Beatles, Bob Dylan, a couple of Rolling Stones songs and Who songs, and Pink Floyd. As well as other bands that have been around a long time, such as Bon-Jovi and Aerosmith.

There are various other artists on there too.

I like songs that strike an emotional cord in me, whether that emotion is joy, or sorrow, or anything else. Believe it or not, some cheesy pop songs do that just as well as the Beatles do.

Specialization=many folks listen to music but how attentive they are, what's wanted from the sounds, etc. vary. The mood most wanted from music is vibe's for sexy-time. Something rhythmically simplistic to dance to for courting, so tough 'I'm a thug' music to feel manly, cheerful so you feel good, and songs that make a girl feel sexy. Refining musical taste requires personal investment. Those w/the most refined taste in regards to anything will be the smallest group b/c no 1 thing will be most people's favorite thing.

Promotion=Music makers find they've steadier (maybe greater) appeal when crafting music for the lowest common denominator then when letting artists make what they enjoy. The less there is to memorize in a song the easier and sooner it is memorized. So music-hypers are limboing: how low can they go in the number of phrases used before the artists refuses to perform? How long can the phrases repeat for until listeners hate the song? It's easier to feel comfortable w/a human voice than instruments and the emotions they bring. A human voice allows the listener to emulate the song so they may participate instead of listening. So music manufactures have background instruments rarely parted from a voice.

compare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTPrDCCJbwk

w/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaFW2od3D24

Lassitude=many folks accept whatever they're given instead of seeking something better. We're shallow, lazy, or resigned to saying yes to what's pushed to keep from doing otherwise. Contrarily, folks w/specific musical taste tend to feel rebellious (metalheads, punks) or enlightened (directors, performers).

Solution? If people are less oppressed by bankers so that they don't adjust their behavior, looking to masters in the state to make decisions, they'll think more: analytically wording their thoughts. Such a change would allow healthier relationships between producers and consumers, decreasing problems of Promotion and Lassitude. Specialization will always be as is.

My theory is that popular music is popular because it requires zero effort. Fifteen bucks will get you what everyone else listens to, and it'll see you through about six months then make its way discreetly to the bargain bin when you start to feel ashamed of it. By then, you'll have been told what new act to enjoy for a while. A lot of people like music, but a lot of those people like any music that they're exposed to.

Is the music on these playlist good or bad? Mainstream or fringe?
http://www.playlist.com/user/24484329/view

My musical tastes have steadily deepened and expanded over the years for various reasons, and as such, I've started to notice a lot of people have very shallow tastes in music ... I listen to the best of every genre and try never to criticize an artist before I give them an honest chance. Seriously, I like anything from Massive Attack to Claude Debussy to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan to Opeth, but there's just some things that are just apalling.

Opeth? Really? Really? (As I listen to "Shake It" - Metro Station. Now it's "Wow, I Can Get Sexual Too" - Say Anything. Don't judge me.) Personal preference, I guess.

On to an answer!

Okay, one. If you think payola is dead, you've been deceived and that's how the Majors want it. It's just called Independent Radio Promotion now. It's still pay for play. So when charts are based on radio play? Sometimes some of those plays aren't so legitimate. It's more genius because it's starting to be quiet a pain for the labels to keep up with. And then they charge all these "promotion" costs to the artist. (Ask me about artist royalties some time! :D )

Which leads to MARKETING. Oh my God how we market artists. (Now on to "Sound of Your Voice" - Barenaked Ladies.) However, I'm not so well-versed in this so I'll stay away from it.

Oh, and we don't like to take risks in this business of music. So we like to back acts that have a history. If you're established, you can put out mediocre singles and it'll still sell- and the label will keep you! (I'm looking at you, Mariah Carey. Those last two singles aren't so awesome.) New artist contracts are pretty much miserable, and it's a lot of "Well, if you don't do awesome... you're gone." There's not a lot of room for error. There are reasons you don't hear things like bluegrass on mainstream radio- it's not mainstream enough to sell. So niche artists won't be popular.

("Rain" - Patty Griffin)

But one of the most important things is just because something is musically "art" doesn't mean it's aesthetically pleasing. (Atonality, anyone? "Poeme Electronique"! Though I do love that piece.) Just because something is aesthetically pleasing doesn't make it art. Have you listened to the American Top 40 the past few weeks? I've managed to catch it. A lot of it is dance music. (By "dance music" I mean things you'd typically hear at a party, high school dance, etc.) And a lot of it talks about things that teenagers can connect with and understand. "Bleeding Love" by Leona Lewis? Love it. It's not going to be around for forever, but it's a great song because it's easy to relate to. Same with Jordin Sparks' "No Air". I can't explain why "Lollipop" is popular while I'm driving along in my car, but money says it'll be played at my friend's birthday party tomorrow night and everyone will be up dancing. ("Romeo & Juliet" - Edwin McCain's cover. Yes, you all need to know every song I listen to while I type this up.)

Oh, and when you talk about production costs- eh. Studios are going under left and right because John Doe can afford to get a cheap ProTools rig, or even record with Garage Band, and put out something that isn't too bad. Really, we're at the edge where the only thing Major Labels can afford to put out are things they know will sell because music just isn't selling in numbers that it used to. The music industry is on the edge of change again. As always, it's just not eager to jump off that cliff quite yet. So they'd rather put out crap they know will sell than take a risk on an up-and-coming band with a new, fresh sound that could possibly flop.

I'm patiently waiting for the day when rock stars are ugly again. I mean, we already have Ben Folds and Ben Gibbard. When rock stars can be ugly, that's when we just care about the quality of the music.

Bluegrass. Best music ever. Ricky Skaggs, Doc Watson, Uncle Earl (an all-female group) and many more.

Because most people don't listen to their music very closely. They're really just interested in some catchy, accessible background noise that doesn't require too much attention. Most people really don't care about music all that much.

Most people are also stupid, and many musicians, such as myself, think these two facts are related, but I'm sure that the people in question would disagree.

Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful?
No, it's the very nature of marketable products that those with the best marketing strategy are the most successful, which has nothing to do with the quality of the actual product. Just the quality of the marketing.

No, it's the very nature of marketable products that those with the best marketing strategy are the most successful, which has nothing to do with the quality of the actual product. Just the quality of the marketing.
Funnily enough, marketing strategy is all about providing value to the consumer, through product design and attributes, distribution, information, pricing, packaging etc etc.

A bad product can't really have a good marketing strategy if you're honest enough to use the proper definition of marketing, which goes beyond simply advertising.

Anyways, I don't know why music I am not interested in gets a lot of attention. I don't care. I listen to my Dresden Dolls, and even if Amanda's voice may not qualify for the opera, what it does is convey emotion to me. And that's what I want, regardless of genre, artist or commercialisation.

But one of the most important things is just because something is musically "art" doesn't mean it's aesthetically pleasing. (Atonality, anyone?

I feel this is rather an over-generalisation. Atonality =\= grating noise. Some tonal pieces are far more noise-like than atonal ones, but then it is just an effect to be used, in both systems, not inherent in either.

Just because something is aesthetically pleasing doesn't make it art.

By your examples, you seem to be saying things that are created as a product rather than a piece of art apply to this statement, but I can't think of other places where this would apply. Essentially, 'art' can be anything, regardless of anyone's enjoyment of it.

Literary merit? Ohhh you mean book snobs! Bwahahaha. Naaaa I agree with the previous post. In any form or art, if you would pay for it, is a good measure of it's merits.
I don't know Dansk. That means I wouldn't pay for any book written in it. That means they're all worthless and devoid of merit.

If I was illiterate, I wouldn't buy any book whatsoever, and so they'd have no merit.

Good taste is an intrinsically scarce resource. Its a sign of distinction. The more popular something is the less distinction is bestows on it's consumer.

Good taste is an intrinsically scarce resource. Its a sign of distinction. The more popular something is the less distinction is bestows on it's consumer.There's no such thing as good taste.

There's no such thing as good taste.

By good taste I mean the social distinction one gains from consuming something.

Oh, come on, the answer's simple.

People are thick.

By good taste I mean the social distinction one gains from consuming something.That's "popular" or "my" taste, not "good" taste.

That's "popular" or "my" taste, not "good" taste.

Its definately not "popular" taste. Also, I never meant it was good bye an objective standard. By good taste I meant something along the lines of fashionable. People who wear fashionable clothes gain status relative to those who don't, but once something becomes popular enough it loses the distinction it bestows, so what is considered fashionable is always changing.

Funnily enough, marketing strategy is all about providing value to the consumer, through product design and attributes, distribution, information, pricing, packaging etc etc.

A bad product can't really have a good marketing strategy if you're honest enough to use the proper definition of marketing, which goes beyond simply advertising.


Aha, but a consumer can be still be convinced that a bad product, that is, a technically bad product, can provide value to him by appealing to things such as style, status etc.
To go back to the music: if some rapper can't hit any note right (bad technical quality) but the consumer (your average teen) can be convinced that this rapper is the coolest guy in the universe, then his "music" provides value to the consumer (the coolness factor) and is thus a must have. As a result, a lot of people listen to bad music.

And yes, there is bad music out there, regardless of genre, mainstream-ness or whatever: singers or players of musical instruments who are out of tune or rhythm, compositions that are unintentionally disharmonic and cringe-worthy. Apparently the image appeal is so deafening that people don't hear the music anymore and ask themselves "what in Gilgamesh' name am I listening to?"

For example, I beleive most of us can agree people such Fergie, 50 Cent Linkin Park, etc. are not the most musically sophisticated musicians, yet they're commercially successful. How? Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful? I mean, I know they have corporate backing which helps get them known, but without a demand from consumers, there would be no reason to back them. Plus, they had to have gotten an initial non-corporate fan-base somewhere along the line.

Because 14 year old girls don't know good music when they hear it, and will buy what they hear on channels such as Channel V and MTV this cause the songs and albums to move up the chart and hence are played even more on these channels and so more are brought and leads to so called music becoming popular.

Of course this has been happening for decades, which is why when you look at charts from years and years ago you see such songs as Disco Duck on them. I don't mind Fergie I know the songs are crap and I don't have them on my iPod or any other stored music but if I hear it on TV I don't feel the need to turn it off unlike others such as Rihanna or 50 Cent.

To me, it's just all about personal taste. If you look at my iPod, you will find Backstreet Boys songs, a couple of songs by Enrique Iglesias, a song by Hanson, a song by the Moffatts, and a few other pop songs. Stuff that many people may consider to be bad music.

On the other hand, you will also find Queen (my favorite band), the Beatles, Bob Dylan, a couple of Rolling Stones songs and Who songs, and Pink Floyd. As well as other bands that have been around a long time, such as Bon-Jovi and Aerosmith.

There are various other artists on there too.

I like songs that strike an emotional cord in me, whether that emotion is joy, or sorrow, or anything else. Believe it or not, some cheesy pop songs do that just as well as the Beatles do.

Hanson now there is a blast from the past is it Mmm bop?

That may be another reason why some songs remain popular over the years, and while some music may be crap people may enjoy it, a bit like how I love movies such as Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure and Wayne's World, both shitty movies but I enjoy watching them.

I like songs that strike an emotional cord in me, whether that emotion is joy, or sorrow, or anything else. Believe it or not, some cheesy pop songs do that just as well as the Beatles do.

Yeah, same here.

My music taste is dreadfully unsophisticated. Its sole redeeming feature is very strong political prejudice.

My musical tastes have steadily deepened and expanded over the years for various reasons, and as such, I've started to notice a lot of people have very shallow tastes in music, and I'm not attempting to be judgmental or elitist. I listen to the best of every genre and try never to criticize an artist before I give them an honest chance. Seriously, I like anything from Massive Attack to Claude Debussy to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan to Opeth, but there's just some things that are just apalling.

For example, I beleive most of us can agree people such Fergie, 50 Cent Linkin Park, etc. are not the most musically sophisticated musicians, yet they're commercially successful. How? Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful? I mean, I know they have corporate backing which helps get them known, but without a demand from consumers, there would be no reason to back them. Plus, they had to have gotten an initial non-corporate fan-base somewhere along the line.

By the way, notice I said "Why is bad music popular?", not "Why is popular music bad?". Frankly, there's a lot of good, mainstream musicians that I like. Just in case someone accuses me of acting like an Indie snob.

So, NSG-ers, what are your theories about this inconsistency? Are people around the world simply dumbing down their musical tastes? Is there actually something good about these musicians (if one can call them that)? Am I ranting on something trivial? Do I just know a lot of people with mainstream musical tastes? What are you thoughts?

As the middle aged perverts say...
"High School Girls. I keep getting older and they stay the same age."

Music is heavily marketed to teenagers. Teenagers, lacking much experience, tend to have very simplistic tastes. Girls in particular like to listen to music sung by boys chosen for their ability to dance. As they get older the music they listen to does not evolve to keep pace. It simply fades away. That's why boy bands only last a year or two, then get replaced.

Adults simply don't spend money on music the way teenagers do, and so music that appeals to adults doesn't make the charts.

As the middle aged perverts say...
"High School Girls. I keep getting older and they stay the same age."
"Yes they do, yes they do."

I resent that, I'm not middle aged. Or a pervert.

But your gist is exactly why popular music is popular despite a lot of it being rubbish, as for the boy bands that is why you see 30 year old+ women going to their concerts nowadays.

Funnily enough, marketing strategy is all about providing value to the consumer, through product design and attributes, distribution, information, pricing, packaging etc etc.

A bad product can't really have a good marketing strategy if you're honest enough to use the proper definition of marketing, which goes beyond simply advertising.

Anyways, I don't know why music I am not interested in gets a lot of attention. I don't care. I listen to my Dresden Dolls, and even if Amanda's voice may not qualify for the opera, what it does is convey emotion to me. And that's what I want, regardless of genre, artist or commercialisation.
I had the distinct pleasure of getting a media degree that discussed and studied the way that media, including advertising, manipulated and created desire, essentially cased in the 'this is how they get ya...'

Then to take the more technical aspect of my skills to film MBA students at Stanford discussing marketing, how to manipulate and create desire, saying essentially, "this is how we get 'em." "Value added" was just as gingerly applied to enhanced taste as it was to 'so, we put it in a square bottle...' The information was the same, whether or not it was a conspiracy depended on what end of the paycheck you were on.

As for why certain music prevails, this comic (http://www.viruscomix.com/page398.html) provides a theory...

As for why certain music prevails, this comic (http://www.viruscomix.com/page398.html) provides a theory...

It's indirectly related, but this is one of my favorite things about Nickelback (http://www.thewebshite.net/nickelback.htm) I've ever seen online.

So, NSG-ers, what are your theories about this inconsistency? Are people around the world simply dumbing down their musical tastes? Is there actually something good about these musicians (if one can call them that)? Am I ranting on something trivial? Do I just know a lot of people with mainstream musical tastes? What are you thoughts?

It would be the same reason so-called "Reality Television" is so popular. It's a combination of schadenfreude and dreams that like the bad musicians and "Reality TV Stars," they too can bypass the need for hard work and integrity to achieve instant fame and fortune.

This is a question that speaks to several points: aesthetic sensibility, popularity, degrees of active vs. passive listening, and so on. Since the whole mess is mostly subjective, I'll add my opinion.
[-snip-]
*applauds yet another of Intangelon's well thought through and intelligently written posts on music*


It's indirectly related, but this is one of my favorite things about Nickelback (http://www.thewebshite.net/nickelback.htm) I've ever seen online.
Heh, I lol'ed. :D

And, as to why bad music is popular, read this. (http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm) To sum up: dynamic range has been chucked out of the window since the advent of CDs (and certainly mp3s) to make music sound as loud as possible and therefore either grab and hold the attention of the listener, or allow the music to be absorbed through constant background playing (on car radios, in supermarkets, etc), because you won't notice it as much if the dB level is roughly the same throughout.

Personally I think that modern music has reached an all-time low. Present-day music has lost all meaning and beauty, you don't need talent to make it. All you need to get famous is good marketing.
Compare techno and rap to rock music a couple of decades ago, or to jazz and classical music. :(

And, as to why bad music is popular, read this. (http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm)
Yeah, loudness is killing good popular music, plus I can't stand modern rock production. It's just all a big pile of mushy sound.

Compare techno and rap to rock music a couple of decades ago, or to jazz and classical music.
How on Earth would you do that?

And what sort of techno or rap? I could quite easily compare some high-quality, intelligently written, uncompromising, beautifully produced techno or rap with some terrible, unoriginal, poorly written, trashy classical or jazz; there's plenty of it about.

Dismissing entire genre's of music as poor quality, not simply saying "I don't like this sort of stuff", displays a rather immature appreciation of music IMHO.

How on Earth would you do that?

And what sort of techno or rap? I could quite easily compare some high-quality, intelligently written, uncompromising, beautifully produced techno or rap with some terrible, unoriginal, poorly written, trashy classical or jazz; there's plenty of it about.

Dismissing entire genre's of music as poor quality, not simply saying "I don't like this sort of stuff", displays a rather immature appreciation of music IMHO.
It's like pointing at Velvet Elvis or A Friend in Need (Dogs playing poker) and saying that painting sucks.

It's like pointing at Velvet Elvis or A Friend in Need (Dogs playing poker) and saying that painting sucks.
Quite.

I get rather peeved when (a surprising amount of) people say that rap or techno is poor quality, rather than simply saying they don't personally like the music. It's always these two genres, and most of the time they've just listened to something like 50 cent or DJ Scooter, and think they've an understanding of the entire varied genres.

Music died with John Lennon.

Music died with John Lennon.
You seem to have aurally missed the past 30 years.

You seem to have aurally missed the past 30 years.

Music died with minstrels

*applauds yet another of Intangelon's well thought through and intelligently written posts on music*

Agreed, I always enjoy his posts :)

And, as to why bad music is popular, read this. (http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm) To sum up: dynamic range has been chucked out of the window since the advent of CDs (and certainly mp3s) to make music sound as loud as possible and therefore either grab and hold the attention of the listener, or allow the music to be absorbed through constant background playing (on car radios, in supermarkets, etc), because you won't notice it as much if the dB level is roughly the same throughout.

Thanks for that article, has been very interesting so far (about half way through). I certainly dislike the way popular music is so dynamically invariable, but, then again, it's annoying when listening to a classical piece when it goes very quiet and you can't hear it due to background noise, like when in a car or even just computer fans. Hearing things live is, of course, always the best way.

I had been pondering something like this earlier. And i have to come the conclusion that most music isn't really good or bad.

Take Mozart for example, he is not a great musician. I'm sorry. His work is generic and repetitive. Complelty unoriginal and largely with the exception of a few pieces uninteresting. Most classical music is equally poor. There are a few brilliant works but not many.

Rap is another example. It is largely crap. There are some good work. But it is a failing.

Subjectively speaking of course. All music is horribly dreadful and all music is exceptionally brilliant depending on the taste of the listener.

I just find it humorous that all these people who bitch and moan about mainstream crap listen to pretty much the same non-mainstream crap. I listen to everything and enjoy a wide variety of music that spans most every genre with the exception of heavy metal where they simply scream in my ear for five minutes... Drowning Pool is a horrible piece of garbage to me. I enjoy some Linkin Park and Nickleback and Nicklecreek and Eminem and Bethoven and Nat King Cole and Louis Armstrong and Red Hot Cilli Peppers and John Denver and Johnny Cash and tons of other.

I had been pondering something like this earlier. And i have to come the conclusion that most music isn't really good or bad.

Take Mozart for example, he is not a great musician. I'm sorry. His work is generic and repetitive. Complelty unoriginal and largely with the exception of a few pieces uninteresting. Most classical music is equally poor. There are a few brilliant works but not many.

Rap is another example. It is largely crap. There are some good work. But it is a failing.

Subjectively speaking of course. All music is horribly dreadful and all music is exceptionally brilliant depending on the taste of the listener.

I just find it humorous that all these people who bitch and moan about mainstream crap listen to pretty much the same non-mainstream crap. I listen to everything and enjoy a wide variety of music that spans most every genre with the exception of heavy metal where they simply scream in my ear for five minutes... Drowning Pool is a horrible piece of garbage to me. I enjoy some Linkin Park and Nickleback and Nicklecreek and Eminem and Bethoven and Nat King Cole and Louis Armstrong and Red Hot Cilli Peppers and John Denver and Johnny Cash and tons of other.
Seconded, they also forget that the majority of people who listen to the mainstream would call their fringe music bad, but of course the majority are just idiots to them.

On a side note, you must all agree that the sound track to GTA: Vice City is a work of art.

Because bad music makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X.

I certainly dislike the way popular music is so dynamically invariable, but, then again, it's annoying when listening to a classical piece when it goes very quiet and you can't hear it due to background noise, like when in a car or even just computer fans.
Or when you have to turn up an older tune on the radio really loud to hear it properly, then afterwords the presenter is screaming at you.

Hearing things live is, of course, always the best way.
I can't disagree.

For example, I beleive most of us can agree people such Fergie, 50 Cent Linkin Park, etc. are not the most musically sophisticated musicians, yet they're commercially successful. How? Isn't it by the very nature of marketable products that those of the best quality are the most successful?

Nope, the nature of marketable products is that those which sell the most are the most successful. Whether people buy these things has little to do with musical sophistication and more to do with demographics, culture, marketing campaigns, style, appearance.

Almost by definition, your 'sophisticated' music is never going to appeal as broadly as popular music.


Are people around the world simply dumbing down their musical tastes?

Most people don't have to dumb them *down* since they were never anywhere else.

Is there actually something good about these musicians (if one can call them that)?

Probably.

Am I ranting on something trivial?

No more so than ranting about anything else.

Do I just know a lot of people with mainstream musical tastes?

I dunno, do you?

What are you thoughts?

I think the ignorant masses couldn't really recognize good music, let alone appreciate it.

Take Mozart for example, he is not a great musician. I'm sorry. His work is generic and repetitive. Complelty unoriginal and largely with the exception of a few pieces uninteresting. Most classical music is equally poor. There are a few brilliant works but not many.

You just show ignorance by making these statements. "His work is generic and repetitive"? All of it? Generic compared to what? To see Mozart's innovations, you have to have an understanding of the genres he was writing in; you have not shown such a knowledge with generalisations like the above.

And I find the use of the word 'repetitive' in a derogatory comment about Mozart rather contradictory, considering you then go on to say Beethoven is a better musician, despite his much greater use of repetition (the other popular artists you mentioned even more so).

If you don't like someone's music, then just say that; don't try to hide it behind some criticising adjectives that show no real knowledge of the music and its relation to others'.

Or when you have to turn up an older tune on the radio really loud to hear it properly, then afterwords the presenter is screaming at you.

This is true. But I expect that often they are trying to cater for older people with inferior hearing to myself. My parents always have the television on rather louder than necessary, even than what is comfortable, for my ears.

This is true. But I expect that often they are trying to cater for older people with inferior hearing to myself.
More that these tunes were made before the 'Loudness War (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Loudness_war)'.

More that these tunes were made before the 'Loudness War (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Loudness_war)'.

Yes, but when listening to a broadcast of a live classical concert the presenter sounds very loud to me; though this could be in contrast to the dynamic range of the music, it is more likely it is to allow older people to hear better as they are the main target listening group.

Yes, but when listening to a broadcast of a live classical concert the presenter sounds very loud to me; though this could be in contrast to the dynamic range of the music, it is more likely it is to allow older people to hear better as they are the main target listening group.
I believe the producers of modern classical music, especially live sound engineers, won't have as much pressure to make their music louder. There are a number of popular classical recordings/re-recordings that have suffered, I believe.

i'd stand up for the innovative sound of Linkin Park (at least their first couple of albums... i don't know about new stuff), and a lot of it is complex stuff. they're no Wagner, but still...

but as to the question at hand... i guess, much as is the same with votes in politics, the middle ground sells well/the best. mediocre stuff will reach the widest audience, and make money. my tired (and worthless) two cents :)

i'd stand up for the innovative sound of Linkin Park
Innovative?

There was plenty of rap-rock before Linkin Park.

Innovative?

There was plenty of rap-rock before Linkin Park.

Walk This Way...

Walk This Way...
Exactly. :p

Make the singer more whiny, add a DJ who does fucking nothing, and you've got Linkin Park. Plus all the other god-awful bands that followed in their wake.

Funny how you define what is good music. Have ever thought that most people find what you call bad music good? Maybe the problem is not us, the majority, but with you.

Actually I don't think there's such thing as bad music. We're all different and each one of us have our own way to define things.

Actually I don't think there's such thing as bad music. We're all different and each one of us have our own way to define things.
You've obviously never heard a bunch of kiddies play the recorder...

The music industry doesn't depend on genres. It doesn't depend on meters, keys, verses, lyrics, instrumentation, diversity, tone, or any of that other craziness. Those are all important components of that lead up to one deciding factor.

If you were a musician on a planet where the people there, for some reason, could only hear music pleasantly if it was in the key of C, you wouldn't continually write songs in the key of Bb. Over time, you would learn to write all your songs in C to cater to the interests of your audience.

By the same token, the music industry is all about giving the world what it wants to hear. Because of the massively diverse tastes of the world population, that grants for a lot of colors in the repertoire, but the audience still gets what it wants to hear.

It could be Mozart, it could be Fergie. It all depends on what the audience wants to hear, and a lot of people are satisfied with simplicity (catchy beats) or buzz words (explicit lyrics).

*shrug*

The music industry doesn't depend on genres. It doesn't depend on meters, keys, verses, lyrics, instrumentation, diversity, tone, or any of that other craziness. Those are all important components of that lead up to one deciding factor.

If you were a musician on a planet where the people there, for some reason, could only hear music pleasantly if it was in the key of C, you wouldn't continually write songs in the key of Bb. Over time, you would learn to write all your songs in C to cater to the interests of your audience.

By the same token, the music industry is all about giving the world what it wants to hear. Because of the massively diverse tastes of the world population, that grants for a lot of colors in the repertoire, but the audience still gets what it wants to hear.

It could be Mozart, it could be Fergie. It all depends on what the audience wants to hear, and a lot of people are satisfied with simplicity (catchy beats) or buzz words (explicit lyrics).

*shrug*

Great post.

More that these tunes were made before the 'Loudness War (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Loudness_war)'.

The overcompression it takes to do that sometimes makes the baby Jesus cry. :/

However compression can save lives if your drummer doesn't know how to reign it the hell in. But that was just on two of the drum tracks.

However compression can save lives if your drummer doesn't know how to reign it the hell in. But that was just on two of the drum tracks.

'Musician' and 'drummer/percussionist' have always made me feel uneasy when placed in the same sentence.

The music industry doesn't depend on genres. It doesn't depend on meters, keys, verses, lyrics, instrumentation, diversity, tone, or any of that other craziness. Those are all important components of that lead up to one deciding factor.

If you were a musician on a planet where the people there, for some reason, could only hear music pleasantly if it was in the key of C, you wouldn't continually write songs in the key of Bb. Over time, you would learn to write all your songs in C to cater to the interests of your audience.

By the same token, the music industry is all about giving the world what it wants to hear. Because of the massively diverse tastes of the world population, that grants for a lot of colors in the repertoire, but the audience still gets what it wants to hear.

It could be Mozart, it could be Fergie. It all depends on what the audience wants to hear, and a lot of people are satisfied with simplicity (catchy beats) or buzz words (explicit lyrics).

*shrug*
Well, yes and no. Some music is inherent, there is a reason that just about every indigenous music form has some version of the pentatonic scale in it somewhere. (It's the overtone structure of the human voice), and the first sound you hear is a beat.

Beyond that you actually learn to listen to music. Not actively, not for the most part, but passively-mostly through repetition. When a song is promoted it's not for you to hear it once, but to hear it a lot. Many times a song is only 'catchy' because you've heard it enough times.

Shostakovitch was chased out a bathroom window for using unfamiliar harmonies, things that just don't sound all that odd to us now because we've 'learned' how to listen to them.

'Pop' music works largely on building and building upon those familiar sounds and rhythms. It's also why things like Pandora are so good at predicting music you'd like (it's something I did for my friends for years).

Forgot where I was going with this...

Whilst I generally dont listen to the mainstream how can you say that bad music is popular.

Its you (including me) that like bad music because it isnt popular. If it was good music it would have more listeners and thus be popular.

In the end every human is unique. No matter how hard the masses try and be normal everyone will be somehow slightly different in everything including musical taste. Some may just try and hide it.

You just show ignorance by making these statements. "His work is generic and repetitive"? All of it? Generic compared to what? To see Mozart's innovations, you have to have an understanding of the genres he was writing in; you have not shown such a knowledge with generalisations like the above.

What exactly qualifies his work as innovative? Or better yet, what qualifies that innovation as brilliant? Nothing. His work is just like every other piece of music that came out during that time. To say that it's somehow innovative because he did it in a slightly different variation of the crap that was produced at that time doesn't make it brilliant. A highly innovative piece of crap is still a piece of crap. Take Picasso, or any great artist for that matter, what exactly quanitifies his work as brilliant? His work may be unique, interesting, pecuilar, or even innovative if you wish to call it that, though I don't agree. But it's not brilliant.


And I find the use of the word 'repetitive' in a derogatory comment about Mozart rather contradictory, considering you then go on to say Beethoven is a better musician, despite his much greater use of repetition (the other popular artists you mentioned even more so).


I don't recall saying repetitive was a bad thing. I even said Mozart has some good work. They're no less repetitive and generic then anything else he wrote and performed, they're simply generic and repetitive in a way that interests me. Here's a little news flash for you. All music is generic and repetitive. It's the nature of the beast. Mozart is not a brilliant musician because he didn't escape the beast. In my eyes, he's not a great musician either. But to be fair, I care less about the musician and more about the music. Mozart has some great music, but not enough that he is a great musician. You can disagree, that's the beauty of a subjective experience like listening to music. Different beats and rythms produce different responses in different people.


If you don't like someone's music, then just say that; don't try to hide it behind some criticising adjectives that show no real knowledge of the music and its relation to others'.

Who said I don't like Mozart's music? I like a little bit of everything. But I'm also not egotistical enough to believe that simply because I call someone a brilliant musician doesn't make it so. Regardless of whether others agree or not. You really can't quantify brilliance in music or painting or sculpture. Or any art really that is experienced subjectively. People often try to, but they fail. The fact that you fail to see that Mozart is no better or worse then any other musician before, during, or even after his time only proves to show that you're exactly like every other person who listens to the "bad" music and makes it popular.

*applauds yet another of Intangelon's well thought through and intelligently written posts on music*

Thank you.

I figure it's the only thing I'm qualified to go on about with even a slight measure of authority. The need by some to qualify/quantify/rate music has always puzzled me since I began to seriously study it (and aesthetics as a branch of philosophy). I don't begrudge people's need for Top Ten lists or whatever, but I will always ask what the point of them (and any other attempt to assert band/genre ordination) could possibly be.

More that these tunes were made before the 'Loudness War (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Loudness_war)'.

Sigh. Another reason I hate CDs.

Take Mozart for example, he is not a great musician. I'm sorry. His work is generic and repetitive. Complelty unoriginal and largely with the exception of a few pieces uninteresting. Most classical music is equally poor. There are a few brilliant works but not many.

Can you name any?

"Generic and repetetive?" A) You're off your nut, and B) you're listening (if at all to an entire piece) horribly out of context. I hope, for the sake of all music, that when you say "most classical music is equally poor" that you mean "classical" with a capital C. The Classical Era (roughly 1750-1810) was marked by a unification from the nationalism experienced in the Baroque period. This was because the emphasis in the Classical Era was mostly on form. The four-movement symphony was invented in that era, as were the rondo, sonata-allegro and lots of other forms. When form is your focus, there's no room for nationalism and (just like the 1980s) many pieces are of a similar length.

Mozart was more of a culminator than an innovator. He took the formal building blocks left to him from Bach and the Baroque Era and streamlined them. Or, if you prefer an analogy, Mozart was to music then what the Japanese auto industry was to the US-invented car in, say, the 1980s. Mozart made the quantifiable beauty of Baroque (look up the Doctrine of the Affections if you doubt that premise) sleeker, more elegant, more efficient, an added his creativity in terms of melodic playfulness that had never been seen before -- and that's where his innovation is seen. Baroque melodies were serving in fairly pedestrian roles -- Mozart freed them to a degree and allowed them to be dissonant in places. Something that had been theretofore unthinkable.

He did not invent the harmonies that became prevalent in his music (mastery of the tonal/scalar systems and perfection of secondary key areas, modulations, and the beginning of chord alterations with the augmented sixth chords), but he DID invent using them with a sense of drama. Placing them in dramatic contexts (especially in his operas and his Requiem) and infusing his works with as much emotion as post-Baroque sensibilities (and the whims of his employers) would allow.

What exactly qualifies his work as innovative? Or better yet, what qualifies that innovation as brilliant? Nothing. His work is just like every other piece of music that came out during that time.

Wrong on so many levels. Listen to Mozart and then listen to any other Classical Era composer -- Haydn, for example. Haydn's 104 symphonies showed an eventual range of development, especially the last few ("London" symphonies). But they sound 2D (especially melodically) compared to the 3D of Mozart's 41 symphonies, during which he grew at least as much as Haydn if not more, and took far more musical risks over 1/3 of the number of pieces. You are marginally correct in that he did not innovate until near the end of his life, but he pushed the boundaries as much as anyone could have in his situation. When you depend for your livelihood on wealthy or religious contractors, you really can't piss them off by straying very far from what is popular and what has been commissioned.

To say that it's somehow innovative because he did it in a slightly different variation of the crap that was produced at that time doesn't make it brilliant. A highly innovative piece of crap is still a piece of crap. Take Picasso, or any great artist for that matter, what exactly quanitifies his work as brilliant? His work may be unique, interesting, pecuilar, or even innovative if you wish to call it that, though I don't agree. But it's not brilliant.

That's your opinion. Mine is that you're being fractious and going out of your way to put down a famous name just to look "edgy". That's your right. Mine is to say that what microscopic angstrom-length analysis you may have done on Mozart is beyond inadequate to make such grand pronouncements.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to say that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. If you don't like Mozart, then just say that. Your attempt to somehow legitimize your dislike with some kind of reasoning is pathetic.

I don't recall saying repetitive was a bad thing. I even said Mozart has some good work.

Yet you haven't named even one example.

They're no less repetitive and generic then anything else he wrote and performed, they're simply generic and repetitive in a way that interests me.

Really? How?

Here's a little news flash for you. All music is generic and repetitive. It's the nature of the beast.

Swing and a miss. If all music is repetitive, then why is the word "through-composed" a musical term that means the piece has no repetitions in it? Also, I refer you back to my point about the Classical Era -- it was repetitive be nature, as was the Baroque. Why? Mostly because the wealthy were using music as entertainment, and if you're dancing, the need for active listening is practically nil (it's the same for dance music in the last 50 years -- there's no need to think about it, just dance to it). The symphony as a concert event where people went to hear an orchestra play by itself with no dancing, no opera -- just the music itself, was brand-spanking new in the Classical Era. So we go from music meant to accompany (a mass, a coronation, a drama, a party) to concert music.

Well guess what? That first era of concert music is probably not going to vary all that much from its antecessor, is it? Proof of that point is that the Baroque Era lasted roughly 75-100 years. The Classical Era lasted but 50-60. Then came the Romantic Era, which introduced more instruments and far more programmatic elements for concert audiences. In short, the Classical Era was a transition from dance music to art music. Repetition was bound to be a part of that mix (also, you wanted your audience to walk out humming your tune -- all the more reason to have that theme happen more than once).

Mozart is not a brilliant musician because he didn't escape the beast.

Nobody did in that era until Beethoven -- nobody COULD. See above. Your criteria do not hold water.

In my eyes, he's not a great musician either.

Did you ever hear him play? Of course not -- anyone who did is dead and no means of preserving sound existed then -- so how can you possibly make that assertion? I can debunk your assertion because I can look at written history. By all written accounts, Mozart was an incredible musician. His creativity had to be constrained by his times. Many music historians have speculated that this constraint is what led him to drink and helped kill him prematurely. Hell, even the fictional account of his life (Amadeus) hinted at that -- the scene in which he's playing cross handed and upside-down is taken from witness accounts included in legitimate histories of the man.

But to be fair, I care less about the musician and more about the music.

Fair enough.

Mozart has some great music, but not enough that he is a great musician.

But this is where you catch fire and explode. You've yet to name a single composition of Mozart's in ANY context, let alone which ones you may actually like. That leads me to believe that your assertions are worthless.

You can disagree, that's the beauty of a subjective experience like listening to music. Different beats and rythms [am I supposed to accept any serious musical evaluations from someone who can't spell this word?] produce different responses in different people.

Right. Except that you've only used repetition as a defense. One aspect, and that aspect that was simply unavoidable in Mozart's era. Find me another piece from a contemporary composer of his that was not repetitive. Go on, I'll wait -- and I'll disagree vehemently while I do.

Like I said, I have no issue with anyone just not liking anything. Subjectivity is all arts' cross to bear. But to attempt to justify such harsh opinions with tissues and fabrications is truly sad.

Who said I don't like Mozart's music? I like a little bit of everything. But I'm also not egotistical enough to believe that simply because I call someone a brilliant musician doesn't make it so.

Yet egotistical enough to believe that calling someone NOT brilliant makes it so? Come on.

Regardless of whether others agree or not. You really can't quantify brilliance in music or painting or sculpture. Or any art really that is experienced subjectively. People often try to, but they fail. The fact that you fail to see that Mozart is no better or worse then any other musician before, during, or even after his time only proves to show that you're exactly like every other person who listens to the "bad" music and makes it popular.

Wow. So incredibly off the mark. No context, no understanding of either musical or critical principles, nothing. You really can quantify brilliance, mate. Brilliance survives the test of time, period. Orchestras would not be playing Mozart if there wasn't something inherently worth keeping him alive for (the number of Classical Era composers who are in orchestral rotation is very small -- Mozart is viewed as the pinnacle of the era for a reason). Just because you cannot see that which makes something brilliant does not make it dull. You're free to dislike it, but until you DO know how to quantify musical craftsmanship, you're powerless to truly say why in any way that matters.

I don't want to get into a dissertation here, but anyone who's studied music seriously can tell you why Mozart's music matters and is brilliant. Once you take into account when and under what circumstances it was composed, the prevailing musical standards of the time, the constraints within which Mozart was forced to compose, and what he did despite those constraints, you see little else in the majority of his work EXCEPT brilliance.

One more time: I DO NOT CARE if you don't LIKE Mozart. I don't like all of his stuff. However, to come off like you know what you're talking about in a lame attempt to justify your personal taste is bad form, bad philosophy, and bad debate.

<excellently written, intelligently argued snip>
And now repeat the above criticism, with suitable adjustments, for this silly string of words:

Rap is another example. It is largely crap. There are some good work. But it is a failing.
If you don't like rap, if it's not your cup of tea, then that's fine by me; art is subjective, you said it yourself. But calling an entire musical genre "a failing" is woefully ignorant.

Snip great answer

Thanks for that; I was going to post a reply to him, but you've beat me to it and done it far more eruditely and persuasively than I could have.

And now repeat the above criticism, with suitable adjustments, for this silly string of words:


If you don't like rap, if it's not your cup of tea, then that's fine by me; art is subjective, you said it yourself. But calling an entire musical genre "a failing" is woefully ignorant.

I have defended rap on a number of occasions on NSG. I felt I had the energy to go after only one egregious statement, and I read his Mozart screed first.

That said, rap has been around for quite some time, as it was expressed in the chants and rhythms of native Africans long before whitey got there. One more time: "I don't like it" =/= "It all sucks".

I have defended rap on a number of occasions on NSG. I felt I had the energy to go after only one egregious statement, and I read his Mozart screed first.
Sorry, I wasn't meaning you actually had to write up a rebuttal! :p

One more time: "I don't like it" =/= "It all sucks".
Certainly.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning you actually had to write up a rebuttal! :p

I normally would, but I think I shot my wad on Mozart (an interesting idea in and of itself). I'm glad to defend any art from the howls of the misinformed and the ignorant.

ART, NOT APATHY!

^My coat-of-arms.

I normally would, but I think I shot my wad on Mozart (an interesting idea in and of itself).
Sounds like an art film in the making.

I'm glad to defend any art from the howls of the misinformed and the ignorant.

ART, NOT APATHY!
I share your cause.

Sounds like an art film in the making.

Die Zauberflöte, bukkake version.

I share your cause.

Nice to know someone does.

Die Zauberflöte, bukkake version.
That's one of the cut scenes from Amadeus.

Well, I think its obvious...

Good Marketing, and a total willingness on the part of the 'Artist' to Whore themselves out to anything and anyone...

Ask politicians, it never fails, lol...