[subego]

Zappa liked them, and that's enough for them to be cool.

[Spheric Harlot]

I'm not saying the Monkees weren't cool, I'm saying shif's fantasy ideas about the music business are exactly what the industry needs her to think in order to work.

[subego]

Gotcha.

I thought maybe you were ****ing with Peter.

No one ****s with Peter.

[Spheric Harlot]

Let alone Zappa.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I'm not saying the Monkees weren't cool, I'm saying shif's fantasy ideas about the music business are exactly what the industry needs her to think in order to work.

Not really sure how you figure that.

I haven't bought music in nearly a decade. Literally.

And Frank Zappa sucks dick.

[subego]

Is sucking dick supposed to be bad?

[shifuimam]

That all depends.

If it's diseased, most definitely.

I'd put Frank Zappa in that category. I can't stand him.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is sucking dick supposed to be bad?

It has to be better than dweeziling their moon unit, right?

[shifuimam]

Oh, I see what you did there! I get it!

[Laminar]

Frank Zappa - Muffin Man - YouTube

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

And Frank Zappa sucks dick.

I think you need to stop confusing not liking something with that something being bad.

They are two very different and almost completely unrelated things.

I can only rarely bear listening to Zappa, but there is no doubt whatsoever that he was one of the most important composers/artists of the 20th century.

Similar with Neil Young or Bob Dylan: some of the most influential songwriters in modern history, but damn, the second they open their mouths, I don't care; I'm turning it off. (With a very few exceptions for Dylan.)

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Not really sure how you figure that.

I haven't bought music in nearly a decade. Literally.

I've explained at length and in depth how I figure that, in this very thread. Feeding publicity isn't just about you personally buying a record.

Feel free to read what I wrote above if that confuses you.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Let alone Zappa.

Weird Al's homage to Zappa (with Dweezil on lead guitar)
weird al poodle hat Genius in France - YouTube
Miley get her turn
Party In The CIA (Parody of "Party In The U.S.A." by Mile... - YouTube

as does The Doors (with Ray Manzarek on keyboard)

"Weird Al" Yankovic - Craigslist - YouTube

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I think you need to stop confusing not liking something with that something being bad.

They are two very different and almost completely unrelated things.

I can only rarely bear listening to Zappa, but there is no doubt whatsoever that he was one of the most important composers/artists of the 20th century.

Similar with Neil Young or Bob Dylan: some of the most influential songwriters in modern history, but damn, the second they open their mouths, I don't care; I'm turning it off. (With a very few exceptions for Dylan.)

I'll add Springsteen. Great writer, but he needs to STFU (IMO).

To your point though, he's obviously important, even though it's like fingernails on a chalk board to me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That all depends.

If it's diseased, most definitely.

I'd put Frank Zappa in that category. I can't stand him.

This is still confusing.

Is his diseased, or is the one he's sucking diseased?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is still confusing.

Is his diseased, or is the one he's sucking diseased?

Wait, I'm still trying to figure out why sucking d*cks is bad. While I've not toked a tube steak personally, I've always found that being on the receiving end is a good thing.

[subego]

You're a lucky man then.

I can't say I've always found it that way.

Let's face it. Some people suck dick at sucking dick.

[Shaddim]

I didn't say great, but I think "good" is fitting.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I think you need to stop confusing not liking something with that something being bad.

They are two very different and almost completely unrelated things.

I can only rarely bear listening to Zappa, but there is no doubt whatsoever that he was one of the most important composers/artists of the 20th century.

Similar with Neil Young or Bob Dylan: some of the most influential songwriters in modern history, but damn, the second they open their mouths, I don't care; I'm turning it off. (With a very few exceptions for Dylan.)

Exactly. I've heard the same sort of arguments against the Beatles. You don't have to personally like them to realize that they were good and stuff.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I didn't say great, but I think "good" is fitting.

As I said, you're a lucky man.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I didn't say great, but I think "good" is fitting.

For a hobo?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Exactly. I've heard the same sort of arguments against the Beatles. You don't have to personally like them to realize that they were good and stuff.

Hang on.

Are people here seriously trying to argue that Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus are "good and stuff"?

For one thing, what's "good" with regards to music is completely subjective. If you don't like the Beatles, you don't have to think they were "good and stuff".

I'm a Queen fan. I LOVE Queen. I am straight up disappointed that Freddie Mercury died long before I had a chance to even know about Queen. However, if someone here posts in response "I hate Queen, that damn falsetto grates on my ears, and his teeth really bother me", I'm not going to try to argue "you don't have to like him to recognize he has talent", because it's way too subjective. The very concept of talent is subjective - what passes for modern "art" makes that pretty clear.

For another, I gotta say, if you seriously are trying to legitimize the shit that comes out of Bieber's mouth, your argument is completely invalidated by the fact that your brain is apparently chocolate pudding.

Also, to add: Being important in history doesn't make you good. See: every single dictator in written history.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I've explained at length and in depth how I figure that, in this very thread. Feeding publicity isn't just about you personally buying a record.

Feel free to read what I wrote above if that confuses you.

By your logic, people aren't allowed to talk about anything ever in popular culture, because that makes it their personal fault that pop culture exists in the first place.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. It's obnoxious.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Are people here seriously trying to argue that Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus are "good and stuff"?

Of course not

For one thing, what's "good" with regards to music is completely subjective. If you don't like the Beatles, you don't have to think they were "good and stuff".

It wouldn't matter what I would think, they were objectively good and stuff for a myriad of academic and sociological/cultural reasons, period.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It wouldn't matter what I would think, they were objectively good and stuff for a myriad of academic and sociological/cultural reasons, period.

What's your definition of "good", then? Maybe that's the difference here.

To me, "good" is not an objective term and as such, can't be applied objectively as a descriptor for anything.

[subego]

@shif,

Good opinions are backed up with objective arguments.

Not liking something is not an objective argument for something being shit. You need to back it up.

You rate falsettos amongst other falsettos. Why does Mercury's falsetto grate while others don't?

If all falsettos bother you, you need to put forth an argument why I should feel that way too. If you can't, you have no business calling Queen shit.

If that's your opinion anyway, I'm here to tell you there are some opinions which are objectively for shit. Like that one.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

By your logic, people aren't allowed to talk about anything ever in popular culture, because that makes it their personal fault that pop culture exists in the first place.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. It's obnoxious.

That's your defense?

Is is terribly difficult to grasp that the primary purpose of POP culture is POPULAR interest?

That's the definition.

The point is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with talking about popular culture, because that's the whole point of popular culture.

But COMPLAINING about a publicity stunt without realizing that that was exactly why it was performed in the first place implies a disconnect from the reality of the industry. I thought it might be of relevant interest to point out how this sort of thing works by betting on your complicity.

[shifuimam]

But when talking about art - music, writing, painting, sculpting, singing, dancing, etc. - what's good is absolutely subjective.

I can't stand heavy metal. I don't give a shit about how technically impressive Dimebag Darrell is. It doesn't make Pantera objectively good. Why do I need to qualify why I don't like Pantera? I just don't like the sound of it. I don't really need to justify my opinion further than that, because it's just one person's opinion on music. Do you need a list of reasons why I don't like Pantera in order for my opinion to be valid, even though YOUR opinion on Pantera is just as subjective?

If someone doesn't like falsettos, I'm not going to demand that they tell me why, because at that point the only reason for demanding such a justification is in order to poke holes in it in the hopes that I can tear apart that justification and triumphantly yell, "See! I told you! Queen is awesome after all!"

The fact that I don't like Pantera doesn't mean that I mean that they are objectively shit. The only truly objective statements I can make about Pantera would be in regards to who the band members are, what albums were published and when, when their next concert date is, what guitar Dimebag Darrell uses, etc. I'm not going to make an objective statement about the quality or value of Pantera's music, positive or negative, because such a statement is inherently subjective.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That's your defense?

Is is terribly difficult to grasp that the primary purpose of POP culture is POPULAR interest?

That's the definition.

Yes, but it's quite a stretch to say "shif, it's your fault as an individual human being on the planet that $culturalicon exists in pop culture.

I talk about pop culture because it's everywhere and thus a topic of conversation that most people have probably heard of.

Laughing about how lame Miley Cyrus is is a much more likely common ground than talking to someone about how awesome Quarashi is. Anyone who's paid attention to mainstream media in the last three weeks knows who Miley Cyrus is. I don't know anyone personally who knows who Quarashi is, because here in the United States they were a one-hit-wonder who were dropped by Columbia Records after a single album, even though in Iceland they were hugely popular and released five albums.

I can't figure out why you're so intent on blaming me for Miley Cyrus. I had nothing to do with it. If I personally, right now, cease noticing Miley Cyrus's existence, she is not going to stop being made fun of by the media for being such a train wreck. Although I'd like to think I control the inner workings of the universe that directly, I'm pretty sure I don't.

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

But when talking about art - music, writing, painting, sculpting, singing, dancing, etc. - what's good is absolutely subjective.

That sounds like you think valid criticism and analysis is impossible.

[Spheric Harlot]

There are objective measures by which quality CAN be assessed. Those can be disputed, but aren't matters of taste.

Frankly, the only person I've met who claimed the Beatles were shit who wasn't arguing from total ignorance is a jazz musician who was a seminal part of the scene in the 40s and 50s and is an absolute authority on jazz songwriting, harmony, and composition.

When that guy argues, he's a little apologetic about it, but he makes a pretty good argument.
To him, the history of popular music ends in 1962. :/

[subego]

I'd also like to thow in there are many things in life we cannot achieve, yet it is still worthwhile expending continual effort to achieve them.

Like objective analysis of the subjective.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by subego 

That sounds like you think valid criticism and analysis is impossible.

No, I don't.

I do, however, think that people take their opinions of what constitutes art way, way too seriously.

Providing an analysis of your views on politics and religion makes sense, because those are pretty important components of one's life and it's a good idea to clearly understand how those views are formed. Not only that, but society's evolution with regards to politics and religion can have a serious impact on the future of that society.

Providing an analysis of why I'm perfectly happy listening to Happy Hardcore or the soundtrack from Katamari Damacy on repeat for six hours straight accomplishes absolutely nothing. Why would anyone care what's playing on the little white discs jammed in my ears? It has zero impact on anyone else.

I'm also not going to provide an analysis of a band I don't like since, you know, I don't listen to bands I don't like, even it's for science.

If it comes to trying to provide a technical analysis of the band in question, then that goes back to taking it too seriously. I listen to music because I like how it sounds, not so that I can examine the nuances of the notes on the page to determine the purpose of their existence.

[subego]

Some people, namely creators and critics, have a need to take it seriously.

[shifuimam]

Good for them.

I'm not a critic or a musician. Therefore I don't feel even remotely compelled to explain why I like the bands I like. I got over that whole "my music is better than yours" complex when I was in high school.

Demanding that everyone else provide a detailed analysis defending their musical preferences just because you have to for your job is ridiculous.

[Spheric Harlot]

Nobody is requiring you to explain why you like the bands you like.

The exact opposite is the case:

You are claiming that things that you DISlike are shit.

And we are trying to get across that you are in no position to judge that, because quality is not simply based upon your personal taste.

Some of us ARE in the position to judge these things (it's part of our jobs). I'm not asking you to justify anything.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Nobody is requiring you to explain why you like the bands you like.

The exact opposite is the case:

You are claiming that things that you DISlike are shit.

And we are trying to get across that you are in no position to judge that, because quality is not simply based upon your personal taste.

Some of us ARE in the position to judge these things (it's part of our jobs). I'm not asking you to justify anything.

Not exactly. "Frank Zappa sucks" is an opinion.

You could go so far as to say "Miley Cyrus doesn't suck" is an opinion. However, if you try to defend Miley Cyrus and claim that she has talent and is objectively good then, unlike a differing opinion on Frank Zappa, I'm very likely to judge you or wonder if you're experiencing some kind of latent hearing problem.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What's your definition of "good", then? Maybe that's the difference here.

To me, "good" is not an objective term and as such, can't be applied objectively as a descriptor for anything.

You're right that "good" is vague, I just don't know what other word to use right now. My definition of "good" is some of the following:

- Music that has inspired a number of arrangements and adaptations across a wide musical spectrum (this is usually a sign of strong melodic content)

- Music that was inspired a number of other musicians

- Music that has withstood the tests of time and has left a mark in our culture

- Music that is academically satisfying to analyze harmonically, rhythmically, and lyrically/melodically

- Music that has a significant historical purpose to a musicologist, perhaps because of some significant innovation, even if it wasn't a big commercial success at the time

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

But when talking about art - music, writing, painting, sculpting, singing, dancing, etc. - what's good is absolutely subjective.

That's not true. Count the number of academic music courses in this country that study the Beatles, and compare those to Justin Bieber courses. Is the difference significant?

Of course, academic acceptance isn't the only litmus test here, there are a number of ways I can prove that the Beatles are objectively "better" than Justin Bieber in terms of pretty objective criteria.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There are objective measures by which quality CAN be assessed. Those can be disputed, but aren't matters of taste.

Frankly, the only person I've met who claimed the Beatles were porn who wasn't arguing from total ignorance is a jazz musician who was a seminal part of the scene in the 40s and 50s and is an absolute authority on jazz songwriting, harmony, and composition.

When that guy argues, he's a little apologetic about it, but he makes a pretty good argument.
To him, the history of popular music ends in 1962. :/

That's interesting, because many jazz musicians believe that jazz essentially died in 1959 in terms of its "cool" and "purity", if you will.

What is this guy's argument?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Providing an analysis of why I'm perfectly happy listening to Happy Hardcore or the soundtrack from Katamari Damacy on repeat for six hours straight accomplishes absolutely nothing. Why would anyone care what's playing on the little white discs jammed in my ears? It has zero impact on anyone else.

I would say that it accomplishes a whole lot, actually.

It could provide insight into human psychology using you as a test case, marketing and imagery, even some of your beliefs and self identification depending on the music. You could analyze the elements of the music and what it is about them that work for you, too.

I think what you are saying is that none of this would have any *direct* impact on anything, and that's probably true, but music is one of the most important and oldest aspects to just about any culture.

If it comes to trying to provide a technical analysis of the band in question, then that goes back to taking it too seriously. I listen to music because I like how it sounds, not so that I can examine the nuances of the notes on the page to determine the purpose of their existence.

I think what we're saying is that there is the subjective "good for you" which there is no debating or arguing, what you like you like, but there is an objective way of measuring cultural innovation, it's influence, place in music history, etc. etc.

Usually most people are not even aware of this significance. For example, African Americans pretty much invented American music starting with jazz which was itself a fusion of elements from Europe, Africa, and New Orleans. The rhythmic pattern that is the basis of swing in jazz is thought to have been heavily influenced by African drum patterns, and this evolved into rock and roll rhythms, later hip hop rhythms, etc. If you were a huge hip hop nut, you may not realize that Louis Armstrong had something to do with that, but he did, and this is significant when you look at this not only musically, but the history of race in this country, the conditions in which this music was born, passed on between generations, etc.

There is a lot of information which can be gleamed from all sorts of things in music.

[subego]

@shif

"Frank Zappa sucks" is not the same statement as "I think Frank Zappa sucks".

If you mean the latter and say the former, why the surprise people think you mean the former?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's not true. Count the number of academic music courses in this country that study the Beatles, and compare those to Justin Bieber courses. Is the difference significant?

Of course, academic acceptance isn't the only litmus test here, there are a number of ways I can prove that the Beatles are objectively "better" than Justin Bieber in terms of pretty objective criteria.

I don't use academia for a litmus test for anything anymore, especially with regards to liberal arts. That branch of higher education is pretty self-serving IMO.

I'm pretty sure you were a music major, so please don't take that personally.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would say that it accomplishes a whole lot, actually.

It could provide insight into human psychology using you as a test case, marketing and imagery, even some of your beliefs and self identification depending on the music. You could analyze the elements of the music and what it is about them that work for you, too.

I think what you are saying is that none of this would have any *direct* impact on anything, and that's probably true, but music is one of the most important and oldest aspects to just about any culture.

True, but I don't think anyone here is asking me about it for some kind of psychological analysis. I get the feeling that it's more about the "my music is better than yours" complex pervasive among hipsters.

Originally Posted by subego 

@shif

"Frank Zappa sucks" is not the same statement as "I think Frank Zappa sucks".

If you mean the latter and say the former, why the surprise people think you mean the former?

Given societal norms, why would anyone legitimately read "Frank Zappa sucks" and take it to the extreme that "she must be saying that Frank Zappa objectively sucks and anyone who says differently is wrong"?

People take their opinions on entertainment way too seriously. That includes professional critics of music, sports, and other forms of entertainment. I find it kind of fascinating that people are paid full time to essentially tell other people what their own subjective opinions should be.

[subego]

This place isn't a societal norm. You have two professional musicians in the thread.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't use academia for a litmus test for anything anymore, especially with regards to liberal arts. That branch of higher education is pretty self-serving IMO.

I'm pretty sure you were a music major, so please don't take that personally.

I don't, it's cool

You don't have to take an academic stance to prove my point though. Let's put it this way, would you disagree that come the year 2020, there will be more people that know who Paul McCartney and John Lennon are/were than there will be Justin Bieber?

Why is that? I mean for the time being, Justin Bieber is probably selling more records on a month to month basis.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by subego 

This place isn't a societal norm. You have two professional musicians in the thread.

That doesn't change the fact that you should be able to determine, as an adult without any serious psychological or mental disorders, whether or not something should be taken as an opinion or a black-and-white objective extreme.

Saying "$x sucks!" with regards to music, sports, art, TV shows, movies, and all other forms of entertainment is implicitly an opinion. Anyone who's spent more than five minutes outside the cocoon of their mother's basement should be capable of recognizing it as such.

Trying to spin it any other way is simply being deliberately ornery and argumentative.

Let me put it another way:

If you go outside and it feels too hot to be comfortable for you, you might come inside and say to your friend, "Man, it's hot out!" Let's say for the sake of argument that your friend happens to be from Ecuador and is used to triple-digit temperatures throughout much of the year. He goes outside and says "nah, it's not that hot out". Neither one is false, and neither one should be taken as an objective absolute or as a personal attack against the other. Your friend should have enough common sense to comprehend that you aren't trying to tell him it's hot and if he disagrees he's wrong. He doesn't need you to preface your comment with "I think, just my personal opinion, that it's hot out" to understand the difference between subjective opinion and objective absolute truth.

On the other hand, if you state a simple fact - e.g. "It's 115 degrees out today!", there's not much to argue with there, and such a statement is taken as fact as much as it can be, accounting for subtle differences in thermometer accuracy and the like.

I'm pretty sure you can see the difference.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't, it's cool

You don't have to take an academic stance to prove my point though. Let's put it this way, would you disagree that come the year 2020, there will be more people that know who Paul McCartney and John Lennon are/were than there will be Justin Bieber?

Why is that? I mean for the time being, Justin Bieber is probably selling more records on a month to month basis.

I THINK what you mean is that in 15 years or so, people will still remember the Beatles whereas Justin Bieber will be a has-been that most of society has forgotten about.

As far as why this is - I think it's because of the historical significance of the Beatles, which has nothing to do with the quality of their music or the subjective label of "good". As I've understood it, the Beatles were instrumental in changing the direction of modern music in a way that has withstood the pickiness of your average teenager. People remember the Beatles the way that people remember anything of historical significance. You might know absolutely nothing about John Hancock, but everyone knows that he's got the biggest, most flamboyant signature at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence.

In this way, I wonder if the Beatles will withstand the test of time more than even the Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, and others of that era.

All that being said - historical significance is not an indicator that something is "good" or "bad". You can say "the Beatles are of historical significance in the history of music and its evolution through time" without implying "the Beatles were an awesome band".

[starman]

Bieber is this generation's Vanilla Ice.

[shifuimam]

Oh god, has he sullied the almighty holy name of Queen with his shit, too?!

D:

[subego]

@shif

What you see as argumentative is me hoping you had an opinion worth giving a **** about.

If that's just your taste, no one cares.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I THINK what you mean is that in 15 years or so, people will still remember the Beatles whereas Justin Bieber will be a has-been that most of society has forgotten about.

As far as why this is - I think it's because of the historical significance of the Beatles, which has nothing to do with the quality of their music or the subjective label of "good". As I've understood it, the Beatles were instrumental in changing the direction of modern music in a way that has withstood the pickiness of your average teenager. People remember the Beatles the way that people remember anything of historical significance. You might know absolutely nothing about John Hancock, but everyone knows that he's got the biggest, most flamboyant signature at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence.

In this way, I wonder if the Beatles will withstand the test of time more than even the Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, and others of that era.

All that being said - historical significance is not an indicator that something is "good" or "bad". You can say "the Beatles are of historical significance in the history of music and its evolution through time" without implying "the Beatles were an awesome band".

Historical significance, definitely musical significance, but probably also cultural significance too. The Beatles were an American icon of an entire generation, Bieber is just a very temporary one (although he's actually Canadian

Most musicians that reach this level of prominence in our culture and are known decades after their prime have some substance to what it is that they did. That substance may not resonate with you personally, but it is undeniable. I can't explain why I know who Picasso is or what made him so great either, but he is in the same sort of category.