Yellowcard

You don't seem to understand that not everyone wants to be blasted with incredible guitar solos all day long. Most people listen to music because it makes them happy, it's fun to dance to, it helps create happy memories, they like to sing along with it, etc. They don't just say, "This music is not good because it only contains 3 chords. Only amateurs write songs with 3 chords". Most people don't want to think about music, it's just background noise, not their entire life. Pop-music is accessible, it's easy to listen to. You don't have to think about it. It's catchy and sticks in your head. It's fun to sing along with.

It's also not easy to write a catchy tune, especially with only three chords.

Look at it in comparison to something else. Using your logic,



Would be less worthy of praise and success than this:



Based solely on the fact that the picasso is more simple and required less brush strokes. That just doesn't make sense.

Dude, I totally never said that. Never did I say that i wanted to be blasted by solos all day. Let's look back for a second.

Of course, technical talent and theory are not as important as the number 1 rule behind music. Duke Ellington once said, "If it sounds good, it sounds good. If it sounds bad, it sounds bad.

It doesn't matter if your technicality or theory sucks. If it sounds good, it sounds good. I'll give you a perfect example of this - James Brown. James Brown didn't know the names of the notes, much less theory. He had no idea how to convey his ideas; he ended up having to go to, for exmaple, his trumpet player and he would say, "I want you to play this. Ba da da ba da ba doobeedoo ba." He had no idea. At the same time, musicians would listen to his music and say that it's all theoretically wrong, wrong, wrong. But he didn't care. He knew it sounded good and he knew people grooved to it. Not only that, but man his music had attitude. THATS the kind of music you dance to, dammit.

And this is what I've been saying. NEVER did I say that technical skill automatically equals good. that is not always the case.

"This music is not good because it only contains 3 chords. Only amateurs write songs with 3 chords"

I don't CARE if it has 3 chords or not. James Brown played songs with 1 chord over and over again and kicked people's asses with it. You have to understand that someone who sucks at the guitar or who is new to the guitar can play 3 chords, and a true pro can play those same exact 3 chords in a completely different way. And that is when just 3 chords are way more than acceptable.

Pop-music is accessible, it's easy to listen to. You don't have to think about it. It's catchy and sticks in your head.

So basically, ignorance - the lack of need to really pay attention to the music you are supporting - is the reason to listen to that kind of music? Or is it just coincidental that both conditions are true at the same time?


And on your painting analogy - Picasso's work is the kind of work that shows talent regardless of less brush strokes. It's when I see artwork like this:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/malevich/sup/malevich.aeroplane-flying.jpg
that I flip my lid. I hate it when people try to artistically see - literally - blank canvases with a red dot on it, with the explanation: "It's not what IS there, it's what ISN'T there." And that's a real piece of art.

I'm just sick of the falling standards. No one wants to think anymore. What does that say about society?

Just because something is below your standards doesn't necessarily mean it is of less quality than what you personally like. It's really not possible to say a piece of music is "bad". It's all a matter of opinion. You have yours, I have mine. My only problem is that you seem convinced that only the music you like is good, and what everyone else likes is crap for whatever reason you care to come up with. You'd probably get along really well with www.yewknee.com he's a (self-proclaimed) elitist music snob too.

I'm an elitist music snob. All music written after 1989 sucks. Not a matter of opinion, and not up for debate, I'm right.

.

I think it’s fair to say music is bad when it’s written for the wrong reasons. Or now a days in many cases when music is written for people to entertain instead of it being an artistic expression. I think it’s hard to put certain types of music on the same level as other music when someone’s songs, lyrics, and choreography is written for them.

That’s kind of how I look at it anyways. There’s music I dislike (like the 80’s lol!!!) but I still respect it. Then there’s music created by real musicians for “entertainers” which makes for bad music.

Or now a days in many cases when music is written for people to entertain instead of it being an artistic expression.

I wouldn't say movies that are made to entertain are bad, would you? Magazines? How often are movies/magazines made just for artistic expression?

Whatever happened to music being a subjective taste?

Nos.

[QUOTE=supahsekzy]I'm just sick of the falling standards. No one wants to think anymore. What does that say about society?[/QUOTE]

Pop music has always been pop music. Go listen to pop from the 50's, the 80's it's all sugar coated for the masses. Sometimes an intelligent pop artist will slip in some kind of subtle meaning behind their lyrics, but that is rare.

As far as music falling below standard I will have to disagree. Even some of the sugary pop, like Britney Spears, I will listen* to because the production is good.
If you take the music away and hear her sing solo, she can't sing. But take Christina Aguilera, her songs are in the same league as Britney, but she has more talent than half of the pop artists alive today.

Music for thinkers hardly ever goes pop. But there is a lot of underground music that is not geared solely for the masses. There are artsists that don't cater to pop, but have a lot of weight in the music industry, like De La Soul, or the Roots, or Talib Kweli, or Common.

You got to look at the whole production. If you are going to see a Janet Jackson concert you don't go to hear her beatiful voice (*ack*). You go to be entertained. There is brilliant choreographer arranging her dance items. There are great dancers backing her up. It's all art. Most the art displayed on this site is pop art, imo. It's in the same league and genre as pop music.

Anyways I trailed off...



* disclaimer... I don't see myself buying any of her cd's anytime soon. :p

[QUOTE=deker] Most people listen to music because it makes them happy, it's fun to dance to,[/QUOTE]

Pays HUGE amount of money to see Dek happy dance!

And maybe people would like Britney more if you actually ever saw her sing. I find it amazing I have yet to ever actually hear her own voice live (except maybe the MTV deally, not sure)...

I'm still more enthralled with your happy dance!

I'm an elitist music snob. All music written after 1989 sucks. Not a matter of opinion, and not up for debate, I'm right

A little exaggerated, but to the point ;)

Even some of the sugary pop, like Britney Spears, I will listen* to because the production is good.
If you take the music away and hear her sing solo, she can't sing. But take Christina Aguilera, her songs are in the same league as Britney, but she has more talent than half of the pop artists alive today.

Music for thinkers hardly ever goes pop. But there is a lot of underground music that is not geared solely for the masses. There are artsists that don't cater to pop, but have a lot of weight in the music industry, like De La Soul, or the Roots, or Talib Kweli, or Common.

You got to look at the whole production. If you are going to see a Janet Jackson concert you don't go to hear her beatiful voice (*ack*). You go to be entertained. There is brilliant choreographer arranging her dance items. There are great dancers backing her up. It's all art. Most the art displayed on this site is pop art, imo. It's in the same league and genre as pop music.

I completely agree, 100%. You nailed it.
I'm not saying that music today sucks simply because it's out today. Like you said, there are a number of artists out there that have seriously made it big but still keep a lot of integrity to their music... no argument there. But that doesnt quell the majority of music for which the same can not be said.

Oh, and another thing - I will agree that a lot of britney spears's new things - like the bg song for toxic - are pretty nice. But like you said, it's not britney spears making that music. It's the engineers and the musicians making it, but of course their credit is overshadowed by britney spears, who supposedly is supposed to be the whole talent behind it.

The point is that it's not Britney doing the brilliant work. The fact that britney spears gets all the money and fame and credit is what irks me.

[QUOTE=Nostalgia]I wouldn't say movies that are made to entertain are bad, would you? Magazines? How often are movies/magazines made just for artistic expression?

Whatever happened to music being a subjective taste?

Nos.[/QUOTE]

Sure, there’s lots of movies and magazines that are god awful. If a director hates the script and makes the movie anyways or if a magazine claims its telling the truth but isn’t then yeah I think you can say in some instances things made for the wrong reason can be “less” good.

"It is" subjective lol. That's my opinion and I'm not stating it as fact. So try and prove me wrong all your want.