Printable View
Okay, so this morning I was making breakfast for kid #2 while kid #1 was watching music videos and a Lady Gaga video called Bad Romance came on. Now, I've heard of this trollip but never seen anything of her, I figured just one more flavour of the month, and she probably is, but I have to say, it was a catchy song, a great video, and a pretty good body on a sometimes very good looking girl. And she can sing, too.
Anyway, that's it. I watched a Lady Gaga video and I liked it.
Guilty.
She has several good songs. Poker face, just dance, bad romance, love game, paparazzi. That video is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen though.
She is so odd....and strangely attractive.
I do like poker face though, I can dance to that all night long.
She sings songs one can only really appreciate whilst smashed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
:yes:
I love Lady Gaga! The Bad Romance video is fun, I had the song stuck in my head for days after watching it though. I read in an article that in it, her "character" is supposed to have been kidnapped by the Russian Mafia. :inquisitive: I think her backup dancers were imitating Thriller. If you find her fashion choices amusing, she has her own category over at Go Fug Yourself (a funny website about bad celebrity fashion).
I once tried to watch an interview of her from Britain. She came out wearing nothing but giant post-it notes, and things went downhill from there. She actually mentioned early on that she prefers that her friends call her Gaga, and she thinks it's weird of people call her "Lady."
Now, I'll grant that supposedly she is a musical prodigy, and those people tend to be pretty damn weird. But this woman isn't just weird. After having been forced to watch her videos by my roommate who was obsessed with her since before she was famous, I have come to the conclusion that Lady Gaga is bat**** insane. As in Howard Hughes insane. I was also willing to give her songs a chance (it's way outside of my normal taste in music) because of the whole musical prodigy thing, but honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. She's not that great. The average ELO song has more "dancibility" in it than Lady Gaga. (Especially Showdown; that song is awesome.) And don't get me wrong, by the way -- I don't want to act like a musical snob. Hell, I listen to plenty of bad music; two of my favorite AC/DC albums are "Flick of the Switch" and "Fly on the Wall." I just really don't get the whole scene that Lady Gaga comes from.
Oh, and "Paparazzi" sucks. I heard that song before I knew it was Lady Gaga and I already wanted to punch whoever was singing it in the throat. ~:angry:
Poker face is supposedly about her fantasizing about sleeping with a woman while with her boyfriend. Hence "bluffin with my muffin".
I can make that happen! Gaga don't hide whom you trully are! I accept you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
No no. With a woman instead of her boyfriend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I'll watch. I'm cool with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
wouldnt it be kinda the same anyways?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Well yea except one of thats not a hairy 250 lb man with small genitals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Personally, I like both the song and video of Paparazzi (I liked the message of the video). Bad romance song has a catchy melody (haven't watched the video yet). These are in fact my favourite songs from her. I can't say I like the others for a reason I can hardly explain.
No thank you! :angry:Quote:
Lady Gaga?
Can't stand anything about her, least of all her music.
Here's a version of pokerface with Cartman and Walken accompanying.
CR
Umm no.
I think I'll stay over here with my Beatles and my Kinks and my psychedelic music, thank you very much.
Wouldn't buy it, but very easy on the ears
Lady GahGah!! :wall:
I love Lady Gaga! Easily the most exciting new music artist of the moment!
Pokerface rocks. :2thumbsup:
Even her rubbish songs, her worst outfits, at least always have character. It's all so much cooler than the Britney Spears of this world.
Unlike Britney, Gaga can sing. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Well I'm not giving up my Floyd collection to buy Gaga concert tickets, I just thought ther video was good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr
I remember all the nonsense about her having a Penis. :laugh4:
or does she?
...sorry, I kind of spaced out there for a minute.
FINGERBANG-BANG-BANGQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Poker face is a really good song... for some reason it just catches my ear.
At first I hated Poker Face, but after hearing it on the radio a few dozen times I now enjoy it. I think there might be subliminal messages in her songs.
Just dance is ok, but pokerface was better (and as sasaki said, potrays her thinking of a woman whilst with a man, as she said on johnathan ross :P ), paparazzi was different to the first two which shown a new side to her, love game goes back to the electronic beat of just dance/pokerface
Bad romance is great though, oddly the first video shes made (other than a random cheesy italian one on youtube) without her snogging another woman....she also chants RAH RAH AHAHAHAH ROMA ROMA MA, GAGA OH LALA Simply madness :smash:
There was the speculation that lord gaga might make a better name, but how could she wear anything that tight
...unless....
....she tucked it in....
...?
Nevermind :laugh4:
Also, whilst her songs are catchy, she really isn't that good live, you may believe so, but I have heard some of her live performance and they are not good.
The last scene of "Bad Romance" is great, I admit. Also her wardrobe is kinda catchy. But for the rest she's really nothing special.
I think I'll stick with my post-rock / psychedelia / dream pop / shoegaze collection... I have my reasons. :hippy:
*proceeds to collect mushrooms down a rabbit hole*
Her songs are catchy but are completely aweful song writing.
'Sprinter X just won Olympic gold but his running technique is rubbish'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Lady Gaga is Andy Warhol revisited. She is NY art scene, quite consciously exploring many of the themes of Warhol, such as obsession with fame and popular culture.
The only things I know about Lady Gaga are Poker face and some rumour that she is actually a he.
Guess I'm getting old... :shame:
You need to get with the times! :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
First, they recently invented 'MTV'. It is a television channel that broadcasts 'music videos'. It is in colour too. Televisions are big brown boxes that allow you to 'see far away', ask some youth to install it for you. They will plug it into your wall, to a socket that does 'ouch' when you poke it: electricity. This is, well let's say that there are a lot of horses, and they run around all day long to make a 'dynamo' spin. This spinning 'dynamo' (sorry have to use difficult words here) is then connected with a cable to your house so you can harness this power without an actual horse present!!
@Louis :laugh4:
Though I admit she's much more of a character than Britney, Shakira and other has been pop stars, I don't like her songs much.
Some of them are okay to dance on when smashed, but that's about it.
But her general look and her outfits make her hot.
I don't understand half of what you're saying, but I do know your name sounds French so whatever it is you want me to do, it's probably going to cost me a lot of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Time to grab my pitchfork and chase you away :whip:
~;p
Don't mind her music but don't see how people come to the conclusion she's smoking hot. I mean I'm not going to lie, she's not exactly unattractive, but all her videos seem to suggest she has a rampaging latex fetish and to put it bluntly it freaks me out.
MTV shows music videos? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Meh, arguably she has a nice body but the face resembles a bulldog chewing a wasp.
Still not sure about the man thing either but her tunes are undeniably catchy
I am no great fan of electronic pop music, but I must admit the lady has some catchy tunes....
I am pretty much addicted to Bad Romance at the moment after listening to it for a couple of times you´re hooked!
Based entirely on the "musical prodigy" thing I have now watched several videos. I don't get it. Prince is a musical prodigy. Seriously, even when I hate his songs, you can sense that he knows more about chord, harmony, phrasing and rhythm than any human being ought to know. Even his junk music is sophisticated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
Beck is something of a prodigy as well, although not on the same level as Prince. (But Beck is much closer to my tastes, so I cut him more slack.)
So where is this Gaga's evidence? These songs are not sophisticated. There's nothing interesting happening with the beat. There's no surprises in the harmony. There is nothing to indicate she has a greater depth to her musicality than the average Eurotrash band. Can somebody link to a song that shows she knows what she's doing? I mean, I can see how these songs are catchy, and I can see why she's the latest thing, but "prodigy"? First let's demonstrate that she can do something beyond the pentatonic scale.
Again: The songs I have heard so far do not involve key changes, unusual chord structures, or any beat that is not 4/4. The melodies are not unusual. I haven't even heard a superimposed chord yet. The instrumentation is not original. The production of the songs is standard Europop.
Yes, she's weird, an yes, the songs are catchy, but from what I can tell that is it.
-edit-
Here's how musical prodigies get funky and catchy. Note the chords P-man is superimposing over the classic one-key structure of a funk song, especially towards the conclusion. Beck's spin on the funk song is self-evident.
Musicology
Clap Hands
And let's not forget the absolute hard-core classic catchy, funky, sophisticated song of all time. Go ahead, try to tell me what key it's in. It's a little more complicated than you might think.
I Feel Good
:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
:sick: Ugh... like we needed more of that. And I thought you were supposed to be cultured... since when are you a fan of pop-culture obsession and Andy Warhol?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Now that's a song. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It's the image more than the music. "Quirkiness" is what everyone is doing at the minute (Paradoxical, I know), and Lady Gaga is about as quirky as you can get before you become weird. As long as there's an UMM-tiss, and a cool aura around it, people will dance to anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Here's another complicated one, as it's written quite unusually. Try and work out which beat is swung.
Music is a world within itself
With a language we all understand
With an equal opportunity
For all to sing, dance and clap their hands
But just because a record has a groove
Don't make it in the groove
But you can tell right away at letter A
When the people start to move
"Catchiness" is the only legitimate way to measure how good a song is. Everything else is social norms/prejudice.
*rabidstare*Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
You don't want to compare Shakira with the Spears thing, will you?
QFT. Taste in Music is socially acquired, and theory of music is complete bull made up to make one's own taste look cultured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
On their best days, all of them are beyond crackers-in-bed reproach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
Let us, therefore, rejoice upon their best days. :sunny:
Um, no. Just no. There are actual rules to music, deeply related to mathematics. I assure you that every song you like operates under those rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
In my earlier post I was not discussing "taste." I was talking about musical sophistication, which is an easy-to-identify subject. I even enumerated some of the elements I was looking for, and not finding.
Here's a quick question -- do you know what a 4/4 rhythm is? A 3/4 rhythm? How strange the change from major to minor? (Hat tip to Cole Porter.)
If you're strictly talking about taste, then your statement stands. But to say that "theory of music is complete bull made up" displays a complete lack of learning on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Hurr hurr hurrQuote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
You can decompose light into its fundamentals, and talk about wavelengths, intensity, and purity. But the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. A sunset is "pretty" in the way that a song is "catchy". Analysis is irrelevant to the experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Snobby people often describe pop music as trash and complain about it being stuck in their head, that's because they associate that kind of music with certain things and think of themselves as being better than that. They are like priests denying a woman's beauty because they are intent on their own celibacy. It's a barren, uptight existence.
Fortunately, most people know better :yes:
I've never had a good time staring into my light bulb. Or the sun, for that matter. I suppose the circumstances dictate the quality, eh?
You would compare staring at blinding light to listing to a deafening sound? No argument to be had there...Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
Arrgh, OK. I have had music in school, yes, and I have heard of these things like rythm and major and minor, but no I have no idea what it's really about. I could not tell apart neither of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
OK, I will revise my statement then:
Music theory: an instrument of some people to make their own taste in music appear cultured and sophisticated, and to degrade others' tastes as trashy or worthless.
Anti-intellectualism at its finest! I would point out that music theory is several layers of abstraction away from wavelength and intensity. So your statement is comparable to, "Architecture is a crock, it's all just masses and gravity anyway." Or, "There's no such thing as filmmaking technique, it's just photons being reflected off a surface."Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I would also argue that there are common musical elements that make up "catchy" songs, and the majority of musicians would agree. As I said, all of the music you like conforms to music theory in one way or another. To argue that the theory is irrelevant is like saying math is irrelevant to the computer games you like.
A more concrete example: I was interviewing a drummer named Stewart Copeland some years ago, and he said something along the lines of, "Nobody's going to listen to my work and say, 'The syncopation of the hi-hat really drives the beat.' But they're going to know a great beat when they hear it. It's up to me to know the theory and sweat the details."
Ah yes, the "some people say" assertion. I would appreciate it if you would respond to what is actually said in thread, rather than these theoretical "some people." If you think I'm being snobby by saying that music theory is real and has relevance to what kinds of music we like, grow a pair and say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
You missed this part:
And went on kind of a rant :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Why do we listen to music?
-edit-
Well, it seems like we're on different pages here, so I'll attempt to answer my own question.
I don't know the specifics, but we find music pleasurable in some way. Some music sounds "nice" to us. Some part of those technical details you are talking about is pleasing. I think as far as pure sensation goes, the "catchy" songs are the songs that the sensation part of the brain "likes best". That would be my theory as to why they are remembered so easily. That's the guesswork part. So to say "it's catchy, but nothing more than that" seems to a peculiar way to look at it.
We aren't ruled by sensation of course, our perception is important as well. I will turn of songs that are catchy but have excessively emo lyrics for example. But I think some people are too willing to tune out songs based on social or cultural factors. I don't think "inane" or "meaningless" are good reasons, for example.
So your entire contention in your "some snobby people" rant rested on the notion that understanding the theory underpinning something is "irrelevant" to the experience? And this justifies your anti-intellectual tub-thumping? Yes, darn those people who spend the time and effort to understand how something actually works. They bug me so darn much!
As for why we listen to music, the answers are as various as there are listeners and musicians. Generally, art is for evoking emotion and thought. Once you get more specific than that, you run into a thicket of problems. You could say it's for enjoyment, but that doesn't really cut it. Does the suicidal kid listening to old Merle Haggard songs "enjoy" them in any recognizable meaning of the word? Not really. But the sadness of the music validates and reinforces his suicidal tendencies. So "enjoy" isn't quite it.
Ah, it looks like you replied while I was editing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
With most artwork there's a part that pleases the senses, and a part that people like for other reasons. The feeling I get is that often the sensation deludes people into thinking that the "meaning" from it is deeper than it actually is (like the kid in your example, I don't know who merle haggard is). In this view art merely provokes questions, rather than supplies answers, which explains why it so subjective and why one persons art is anothers cliche.
Although I'm not entirely sold on that :juggle2:
Haha! That silly drummer boy sounds like a complete dork! As if with a nerdy attitude like that he's ever going to sell any records. :laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Stewart Copeland is the Drummer for the band 'Police'. :inquisitive:
that was the joke :brood:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
Sometimes this mans genuis is lost on yall
I like Ruining Jokes.
Isnt she a hermaphrodite?
ewwww
Now I feel like Andres. I can't keep up anymore with all this modern music. Who's the Police?
Well, The Police happened a long time ago, so I just named him, figuring people like Strike haven't heard of anything before Britney. Just trying to, you know, relate to these darn kids.
You just ruined music for me. Thanks. :/Quote:
Anti-intellectualism at its finest! I would point out that music theory is several layers of abstraction away from wavelength and intensity. So your statement is comparable to, "Architecture is a crock, it's all just masses and gravity anyway." Or, "There's no such thing as filmmaking technique, it's just photons being reflected off a surface."
I would also argue that there are common musical elements that make up "catchy" songs, and the majority of musicians would agree. As I said, all of the music you like conforms to music theory in one way or another. To argue that the theory is irrelevant is like saying math is irrelevant to the computer games you like.
A more concrete example: I was interviewing a drummer named Stewart Copeland some years ago, and he said something along the lines of, "Nobody's going to listen to my work and say, 'The syncopation of the hi-hat really drives the beat.' But they're going to know a great beat when they hear it. It's up to me to know the theory and sweat the details."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Snobby people often describe pop music as trash and complain about it being stuck in their head, that's because they associate that kind of music with certain things and think of themselves as being better than that.
Ah yes, the "some people say" assertion. I would appreciate it if you would respond to what is actually said in thread, rather than these theoretical "some people." If you think I'm being snobby by saying that music theory is real and has relevance to what kinds of music we like, grow a pair and say so.
Nonsense, if you really want music ruined for yourself, you need to read (and attempt to understand) the complete works of Walter Piston: Harmony, Counterpoint and Orchestration. Them books will make your brain bleed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
Simple people often describe jazz or classical music as too complex and complain about getting confused by all the various kinds of tunes, melodies, counter-melodies, bass lines, off-beats, canons, scales, key changes, changes in dynamic, tempos, accent, staccatos, time signatures, that's because they associate that kind of music with certain things and think of themselves as being worse than that. They are like priests denying a woman's beauty because they are intent on their own celibacy. It's a barren, downtrodden existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Your argument is so preposterous that it can merely be reversed to give exactly the opposite outcome, just as logically. The popularity of music has no impact whatsoever on my enjoyment of it. I enjoy bands no-one has heard of (Battles, The La's, Egotrippi) and others which loads of people enjoy (Muse, Metallica, Pink Floyd) and others in between (ZZ Top, Frank Zappa, Beck).
Gosh I despise that woman. :P
You didn't reverse it, you repeated it. So of course it's logical...you know the phrase "it works both ways"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
It's like I argued that republicans are biased against democrats and you counter with "that's so preposterous, I can use that argument to show that democrats are biased against republicans".
There is lots of catchy classical music btw. Jazz not so much, which is why it sucks and no one listens to it :smash: :laugh4:
There's plenty of catchy jazz, if you know where to look. Trust me, any art form that started out as whorehouse music knows how to shake booty. Just because some folks wandered off into atonal, arhythmic weirdness doesn't mean you get to dismiss the entire genre with impunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Another ordinance which helped Jazz flourish in New Orleans was the establishment, in 1897, of Storyville, the Crescent City's legendary red-light district. From Basin Street to Robertson Street and from Perdido to Gravier, 2000 registered prostitutes plied their wares in dozens of sporting houses. The area was teeming with jazz bands who usually played not in the bordellos but in the dance halls and dives which dotted the district, places with names like Funky Butt Hall, Come Clean Dance Hall and Mahogany Hall. The sporting houses usually employed a solo piano player, respectfully referred to by the girls as the "Professor". Jelly Roll Morton was once a Professor, much to the consternation of his family who promptly disowned him.
Sheesh, in the last 24 hours you've declared that you hate dogs, dismiss people who study how music works as "snobs", and now the entire world of jazz. Somebody needs to slip you some sunshine happy-happy rays of unicorn magic sparkle dust.
Nah, that's kind of annoying really :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I haven't really done any of that. We just express things differently :juggle2:Quote:
Sheesh, in the last 24 hours you've declared that you hate dogs, dismiss people who study how music works as "snobs", and now the entire world of jazz. Somebody needs to slip you some sunshine happy-happy rays of unicorn magic sparkle dust.
Really I'm just disputing the idea of "high" and "low" culture. It came up in a previous music thread as well, LW and I had a nice chat I remember.
I like this song remixed by Stuart Price...
Its the only song i like by Lady GaGa
and I do think she is hot too :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2TsX1xXoJA
Seems like a massive gimmick to me. She's just your average pop artist attempting to be "unique". Give her her 15 minutes in the spot light, next year or so it'll be the next gimmick that everyone will love and obsess over.
Hehe. Mushrooms... I mean shoegaze is good. Yeh. :shifty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Raz
Yeah, perhaps that's about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
But for those 15 minutes I'm going to enjoy that video.
Well, you may call it annoying, but I absolutely guarantee you that you already knew that tune. In fact, by your standards it's one of the best songs ever made, because it's so ubiquitously associated with the Jazz era, and either is or was so popular, that everyone knows the tune, even while far fewer people actually know its name or who performed it. It's the same with a song like Born to be Wild: everyone knows the song, and has heard it in movies, and chances are you have seen it in "Easy Rider" and figure, "oh, yeah, it was in that crazy hippie/biker movie"; but ask anyone listening to it if they like Steppenwolf and they give you a dumb stare (which, by the way, really irritates me because Steppenwolf is a righteous goddamn band.) Much like "Sing Sing Sing With a Swing" (the jazz song, and no, I had no idea what it was called) it has been repeated in American culture ad nauseam until people are slightly annoyed at hearing it, because it's just "that song," the song that everyone seems to want to use in a certain context, because it either is or was incredibly popular to the point that it spreads faster than the artist's name and becomes disassociated with the original artist. It's such a good song that it transcends the scene that originally made it popular and keeps being catchy and sticking in your head into you want to blow it out with a bullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
And maybe there's an objective reason why songs like that are so well known, and it's not just a gigantic plot to drive you insane. :shrug:
I like steppenwolf...what I was saying is that the only actual taste is personal taste. Measuring the "worth" of a song is comparatively pointless and trivial. You can't have good taste in music, and cultural sophistication is something people make up to feel better about themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
I'm not attacking people who like jazz music, quite the opposite. I've heard sing sing live a few times and it was pretty good, live music is usually better though.
Well, if you argue that then you lose any ability to relate what might be good and bad music. Any time you try to say this or that is good or bad, someone else can just say, "well, that's just your opinion and it doesn't matter because it's all subjective." Therefore, there is no such thing as musical commentary or criticism, a person's musical success is meaningless because it's all relative and you can do whatever the hell you want and call it music.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I know, you don't mean to argue this, but it's the logical conclusion of your argument, and it doesn't work for the same reason that moral relativism doesn't work. Even if it's all subjective, it's still based on a generally-agreed social norm, and with music this norm is often quite pervasive, even going against what most people call the best. This norm is also based on mathematics, as Lemur pointed out, so it can be independently verified, and is not totally abstract.
Now, this doesn't mean that you have to pay a damn bit of attention to what people say is "good music." As I said earlier, I love a lot of really bad music. Hell, I spent several hours today idly drinking beer and listening to Foghat, Foreigner and Bad Company. (Most of it was Foghat; those guys are freakin' sweet.) The thing is, I don't try to justify my taste as being good; if I like crappy music, I don't care, because I like listening to it. If people lord their supposed superiority over you because they only listen to good music, then most likely they are either lying to themselves or they are total nerds with no lives who don't know how to enjoy the simple pleasures of lowbrow life. In other words, dude, you gotta recognize the mountain and the view from the top, but embrace your love of life at the bottom.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna eat fried chicken legs with a baked potato and corn on the cob with a Budweiser while I watch "The Blues Brothers." ~:cheers:
That's actually perfectly true.Quote:
Therefore, there is no such thing as musical commentary or criticism, a person's musical success is meaningless because it's all relative and you can do whatever the hell you want and call it music.
Musical commentary and criticism is opinion, like a book or movie review. You read them and decide if the product fits your tastes.
Societal norms change.
You can't quantify a book or a movie with math. And anyhow, anyone who studies either art form will tell you that there are ways of quantifying both, it's just more complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
I do mean to argue it. If you look at what was considered high culture and low culture over history, individual songs and other art shift back and forth willy nilly. Similar to how clothing fashions change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
Musical commentary is fine, you can talk about why you like something. I don't think it's that important, kind of like talking about football stats. But some people enjoy that. Criticism is a complete waste though. Just listen to the song to find out if you like it. There's certainly science behind what makes some songs popular, but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. If you want to know what songs people like, you can look at what they like, you don't have to analyze the components.
Moral relativism runs into issues because morals aren't personal. I can like one song and you can like another and it's fine, not the same for morality.
You could just as easily enjoy "jukebox hero" without calling it "bad" music. It's easier to let other people's tastes influence what you choose to check out if you do that. Usually I call whatever I like good and whatever I don't like bad, cause it's easy.Quote:
Now, this doesn't mean that you have to pay a damn bit of attention to what people say is "good music." As I said earlier, I love a lot of really bad music. Hell, I spent several hours today idly drinking beer and listening to Foghat, Foreigner and Bad Company. (Most of it was Foghat; those guys are freakin' sweet.) The thing is, I don't try to justify my taste as being good; if I like crappy music, I don't care, because I like listening to it. If people lord their supposed superiority over you because they only listen to good music, then most likely they are either lying to themselves or they are total nerds with no lives who don't know how to enjoy the simple pleasures of lowbrow life. In other words, dude, you gotta recognize the mountain and the view from the top, but embrace your love of life at the bottom.
Mathematically quantify it for the starbeasts of Pluto then. Do they think any of our music is "good"?Quote:
You can't quantify a book or a movie with math. And anyhow, anyone who studies either art form will tell you that there are ways of quantifying both, it's just more complex.
I can accept that music can be mathematically structured to release chemicals in the human brain that create pleasure, but "good" and "bad" are worthless objectively.