'Art' and 'Pop' - Why?

Are you saying that Britney Spears music, for example, is in any way shape or form RELEVANT? No: it's soulless, pointless, empty. It is irrelevant!

Oh shut up. Tell me any single music you like, and I can repeat that exact same statement back at you.

Don't attack music because you don't happen to like it, you have no way to justify what you're saying in any way and I can easily turn the same exact argument against you.

Are you saying that Britney Spears music, for example, is in any way shape or form RELEVANT? No: it's soulless, pointless, empty. It is irrelevant!

It's irrelevant... to what? :laugh:

It's irrelevant... to what? :laugh:

It's irrelevant to everything music is about: emotion, thought, feeling, etc. It's like trying to eat air. How can one even argue this? Not all "music" is created equal: such a statement is surely ridiculous. :blush:

Different music is different and there's nothing wrong with that.

QFT. Nothing wrong with lables, as long as one is careful not to attach a value rigorously to the label. Musical value is a completely seperate thing from genre.

Having said that, some pop is, to use a phrase I heard here once, musical baby food. The esthetic experience is based on expectation and surprise. Lots of pop music is quite simple, and is directed towards people who don't listen to music very intensely (radio at work etc.). To the experienced listener, however, these simple pop songs cease to challenge their expectations, and these listeners usually "move on" to more complex music. There is no difference in ethical value between simple and more complex music, i.e. listening to complex music doesn't make you "better." But I would consider more complex music to be musically more advanced (mind you, complex isn't synonymous with "complicated"). But statements like "this music is soulless, empty, etc." is completely subjective.

Now in a classical tradition, it's logical that only the musically more advanced music endures the test of time. But I guess this isn't what we're discussing. But it does somewhat explain the prejudice towards pop music by classical musicians.

Now the difference between pop and "art" music (a term I really dislike) would probably be this: you don't get places in the "art" music scene with simple music (again, in the sense that it doesn't challenge expectations). In the pop scene, you do, because much of pop music is designed exactly to appeal to people with little musical development. In this sense, the distinction is justified.

BUT, there is much music in the pop scene which is musically more challenging than much music in the "art" scene (ugh). And in any case, I think all music is art, just some art is more advanced than other art.

Oh shut up. Tell me any single music you like, and I can repeat that exact same statement back at you.

Don't attack music because you don't happen to like it, you have no way to justify what you're saying in any way and I can easily turn the same exact argument against you.

Please don't defend mediocrity! Defending music like Britney's and Federline's stuff isn't as nice as you think: it's only devaluing music where effort was actually put into it. I'm not even sure if Britney writes her own songs, she may not. But regardless, making a statement like "Avril Laveign's 'Girlfriend' is equal to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, they're just different" is simply untrue.

Please don't defend mediocrity! Defending music like Britney's and Federline's stuff isn't as nice as you think: it's only devaluing music where effort was actually put into it. I'm not even sure if Britney writes her own songs, she may not. But regardless, making a statement like "Avril Laveign's 'Girlfriend' is equal to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, they're just different" is simply untrue.

That's an argument of taste, not value. If I asked, "Which is better, Avril Leveign or Beethoven?" to someone who likes Avril Laveign's 'Girlfriend', I'd likely get a response like, "Are you joking? Avril Leveign, of course!" There's really nothing 'untrue' about these two songs being different. The only 'truth' you seem to be missing is how taste influences judgment.

Ugh. This thread just reeks of postmodernsim.

Actually, it only happened once SSC jumped into the ring.

That's an argument of taste, not value. If I asked, "Which is better, Avril Leveign or Beethoven?" to someone who likes Avril Laveign's 'Girlfriend', I'd likely get a response like, "Are you joking? Avril Leveign, of course!" There's really nothing 'untrue' about these two songs being different. The only 'truth' you seem to be missing is how taste influences judgment.

If this is the case, then chord progression doesn't matter, musical coherence doesn't matter, etc...This kind of thinking of equal music is dangerous, in what it implies. Why does this forum even exist if "all music is equal"? All opinions of all musicians become completely worthless, and the very purpose of this site is undermined: to IMPROVE music. If this is an impossible task (as all music is equal), why even create this site in the first place?

And btw, it's not that I hate Pop, and don't think it's "relevant". I totally think Pink is a fantastic music artist, for example. A POP artist. Because her music is BETTER than the usual pop junk that is NOT good pop.

Please don't defend mediocrity! Defending music like Britney's and Federline's stuff isn't as nice as you think: it's only devaluing music where effort was actually put into it. I'm not even sure if Britney writes her own songs, she may not. But regardless, making a statement like "Avril Laveign's 'Girlfriend' is equal to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, they're just different" is simply untrue.

I'm not defending it. Your personal opinion of it is not as important as you may think, considering that I myself rather listen to a bunch of britney spears songs than hear that goddamn Beethoven sonata one more time(!)

If anything, it's not so easy to write catchy pop music and it's a different thing altogether. Comparing it to beethoven is like comparing trucks to airplanes.

If this is the case, then chord progression doesn't matter, musical coherence doesn't matter, etc...This kind of thinking of equal music is dangerous, in what it implies. Why does this forum even exist if "all music is equal"? All opinions of all musicians become completely worthless, and the very purpose of this site is undermined: to IMPROVE music. If this is an impossible task (as all music is equal), why even create this site in the first place?

And btw, it's not that I hate Pop, and don't think it's "relevant". I totally think Pink is a fantastic music artist, for example. A POP artist. Because her music is BETTER than the usual pop junk that is NOT good pop.

OH and this is nonsense. It's always the same damn argument: all music being objectively equal means nothing as to what YOU may like to do or listen to. I write music anyway even if I think what I'm writing is objectively the same as Cage's 4'33'' or britney spears' latest, it doesn't stop me because I understand what taste is and I enjoy music all the same.

Now in a classical tradition, it's logical that only the musically more advanced music endures the test of time.

I'm not even touching that one with a 10 ft pole, since it's a complete fallacy to think such a thing as a "test of time" exists. I already explained it to great lengths in other threads, bla bla bla.

Ugh. This thread just reeks of postmodernsim.

What exactly does postmodernism 'smell' like? :P

Ugh. This thread just reeks of postmodernsim.

Actually, it only happened once SSC jumped into the ring.

Yup the only good music is music that lots of respected people have said is good.

Oh wait, jazz.

Defending music like Britney's and Federline's stuff isn't as nice as you think: it's only devaluing music where effort was actually put into it. I'm not even sure if Britney writes her own songs, she may not...

Tee hee...

No effort as put into crafting the catchy mega-singles that propelled these Pop stars to the top?

Britney might not write her music...but SOMEONE did (Max Martin in particular was the creative mastermind behind MANY artists) ...

"OH and this is nonsense. It's always the same damn argument: all music being objectively equal means nothing as to what YOU may like to do or listen to. I write music anyway even if I think what I'm writing is objectively the same as Cage's 4'33'' or britney spears' latest, it doesn't stop me because I understand what taste is and I enjoy music all the same." Good for you that you write music, and I can respect that :) : but you seem to be missing the main vital point I've been trying to get across to you. IMPROVEMENT. This word means, "to make something BETTER" basically. If a composition can be IMPROVED, that means that it's end result is BETTER than how it started (or are you, or anyone else for that matter, actually going to argue that a piece cannot be improved?) Surely you understand what this means...? The fact of the matter is, I've made a point that's impossible to deny, and I really can't waste any more of my time arguing a flawed semantic! I mean no offense, but you are dead wrong that all pieces aren't any better or worse than others. Different styles in and of themselves are equal, but the actual music itself in those styles often wildly vary in quality. I'm NOT going to change my mind unless there's some real logic used to defend a different view point.

The fact of the matter is, I've made a point that's impossible to deny, and I really can't waste any more of my time arguing a flawed semantic! I mean no offense, but you are dead wrong that all pieces aren't any better or worse than others. Different styles in and of themselves are equal, but the actual music itself in those styles often wildly vary in quality. I'm NOT going to change my mind unless there's some real logic used to defend a different view point.

Uhh... what logic are you using to establish this objective approach to quality in music of different styles? And how does this make a distinction between 'art' and 'pop' any more or less sensible? Please stay on topic if possible. Thanks! :P

Uhh... what logic are you using to establish this objective approach to quality in music of different styles? And how does this make a distinction between 'art' and 'pop' any more or less sensible? Please stay on topic if possible. Thanks! :P

I'm sorry, I got off topic because I was replying to someone about musical relevance or something, and it went off on a tangent. Sorry :(

The fact of the matter is, I've made a point that's impossible to deny, and I really can't waste any more of my time arguing a flawed semantic! I mean no offense, but you are dead wrong that all pieces aren't any better or worse than others. Different styles in and of themselves are equal, but the actual music itself in those styles often wildly vary in quality. I'm NOT going to change my mind unless there's some real logic used to defend a different view point.

Well excuse me! You've made a point that's impossible to deny! We'll all just give up then. You win.

Uh, who are you to say that someone who prefers Avril Lavigne is wrong? Who are you to say anyone is wrong? Even within one specific genre, you have a million different perspectives on who's better or who has better music (written for them possibly). Trying to argue that your aesthetic is the objectively correct aesthetic is always a mission failed.

Again, the postmodernism keeps a-stinkin'.

There ARE absolutes. There, I said it.

Well excuse me! You've made a point that's impossible to deny! We'll all just give up then. You win.

Uh, who are you to say that someone who prefers Avril Lavigne is wrong? Who are you to say anyone is wrong? Even within one specific genre, you have a million different perspectives on who's better or who has better music (written for them possibly). Trying to argue that your aesthetic is the objectively correct aesthetic is always a mission failed.

Did I say liking Avril was wrong? No: I like Avril's music too. It's pretty good. But Jesus, there's better music out there. There's always something better, in some way, shape, or form: it's silly to deny it, like trying to deny 2 + 2 = 4. You just can't do it. Because, believe it or not, there are "absolutes" in music. I never said I was always right musically, that would be quite folly, but I'm quite sure I know what I'm talking about here.

Did I say liking Avril was wrong? No: I like Avril's music too. It's pretty good. But Jesus, there's better music out there. There's always something better, in some way, shape, or form: it's silly to deny it, like trying to deny 2 + 2 = 4. You just can't do it. Because, believe it or not, there are "absolutes" in music. I never said I was always right musically, that would be quite folly, but I'm quite sure I know what I'm talking about here.

Please, don't tell me what to think. Don't try and present your opinion as fact.

I can respect your opinion, and will let you continue thinking it - but I don't take kindly to being told what I should feel to be "better"... my critera for "value" may differ significantly from yours, for example. Don't presume to know what I want to feel.

;)

What I would LOVE to see though, would be an example of a "musical absolute".

Please, don't tell me what to think. Don't try and present your opinion as fact.

I can respect your opinion, and will let you continue thinking it - but I don't take kindly to being told what I should feel to be "better"... my critera for "value" may differ significantly from yours, for example. Don't presume to know what I want to feel.

;)

What I would LOVE to see though, would be an example of a "musical absolute".

Well, exactly: you don't have to agree with my opinion (and my opinion is that I'm right, because I don't have any reason to think otherwise, so far). Lol, doesn't that kind of go without saying? :)

However, you want a musical absolute? I'll give you a musical absolute of pure good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhpofSGObBk

This is UNDENIABLY a great song, so it is an absolute, case closed. Her raw power for her concern for her friend and bitterness that he was turned out on the street is unmistakable, and one would have to be a musical fool to say this song is anything but pure excellence.

I'm sure I will be flamed on my opinion on art vs pop. I think the only distinction really that can be made between the two (and having tried composing both, I think I have a little bit of insight) is that there is a lot more thought that goes into composing the 'art' music as opposed to composing the 'pop'. Thats not to say that pop is in any ways less relevant to the musical landscape - it wouldnt. But from a compositional standpoint, when I sit down to compose pop I have to really simplify things to a very basic level - which isnt easy to do, depending on how used you are to focusing on the many facets needed to compose classical. Does that make sense?

Well, exactly: you don't have to agree with my opinion (and my opinion is that I'm right, because I don't have any reason to think otherwise, so far). Lol, doesn't that kind of go without saying?

Wow, aren't we trollin'.

So here's your reason:

Whatever you think is great, may not be great for someone else. Yep, it's that simple. That's as far as "quality," and "improvement" go. Don't agree? Prove that your opinion on what "quality" and "Improvement" is is universal.

However, you want a musical absolute? I'll give you a musical absolute of pure good.

YouTube - Cyndi Lauper - Boy Blue

This is UNDENIABLY a great song, so it is an absolute, case closed. Her raw power for her concern for her friend and bitterness that he was turned out on the street is unmistakable, and one would have to be a musical fool to say this song is anything but pure excellence.

Is this a joke? I honestly think I've been Rick roll'd... AGAIN! Why does this always keep happening to me?! :headwall:

Wow, aren't we trollin'.

So here's your reason:

Whatever you think is great, may not be great for someone else. Yep, it's that simple. That's as far as "quality," and "improvement" go. Don't agree? Prove that your opinion on what "quality" and "Improvement" is is universal.

I'm not trying to be a troll, I just want to understand your viewpoint, and I truly don't get it yet. :(

Ok, I'll give you proof, as far as I can see. Go to your keyboard, and tap the C key 8 times. Quite a melody, hmm? Actually, not really! However, change some of those eight keys, or add more harmonies to it with other instruments, and it IMPROVES. Or are you going to say that tapping the C Key 8 times is of the same depth and beauty as one of Mozart's symphonies? Please, I beg of you, don't even argue that. And if music can improve, doesn't that logically mean that some pieces haven't "improved" as much as others have? That's been my point all along, and it hasn't been addressed yet.

Quality in musicianship is most certainly whenever you have an emotion or thought inside, that you can convey properly using music. A master of music will convey it right, and a person who understands music will understand what is being said. Sometimes, the listener can only grasp a part of what is being "said" and sometimes, the listener can hear almost all of it (which is why I tend to like simpler music more than more complex, but I love both). I have a true talent to be able to understand what a person is saying musically, when properly conveyed. If you want confirmation of this, ask pequad on this site: I've been able to "read" his music with much accuracy (of course I'm somewhat wrong a few times though) . For example: say someone wants to explain musically his/her sadness and grief at losing a loved one. One of the best types of music (though not necessarily the only one) to make for this is a sad waltz: a waltz is something we think of doing with another person, not by ourselves, and a longing sound in it indicates that the longing is caused by missing someone who died or went away, and not sadness caused by something else. Or, to cite another one of pequad's pieces I understood, think of a Lullaby's soothing melody to lull a baby to sleep. You can add a slight dissonance to indicate that the "baby" is starting to wake up again, and then let the dissonance fade out to mean it's going back to sleep. These are just a few examples. And, believe it or not, I am quite open-minded (I'm still willing to admit I'm wrong, provided you make me think of something I hadn't thought of before: also, I have a wide variety of musical tastes, and I see a lot of merit and relevance in most musical pieces). So please, let's have a mature conversation about this, and not be over-sensitive. We're all adults here, right? :)

Is this a joke? I honestly think I've been Rick roll'd... AGAIN! Why does this always keep happening to me?! :headwall:

Well, I wanted to use a Pop song so it'd be on topic! xD And come on, it IS a great song, most definitely!