Lady Gaga?

[scottishranger]

Isnt she a hermaphrodite?

ewwww

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now I feel like Andres. I can't keep up anymore with all this modern music. Who's the Police?

[Lemur]

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.

[Azathoth]

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.

You just ruined music for me. Thanks. :/

[Lemur]

You just ruined music for me. Thanks. :/

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.

[Subotan]

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

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.

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).

[Vuk]

Gosh I despise that woman. :P

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

Your argument is so preposterous that it can merely be reversed to give exactly the opposite outcome, just as logically.

You didn't reverse it, you repeated it. So of course it's logical...you know the phrase "it works both ways"?

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

[Lemur]

Jazz not so much, which is why it sucks and no one listens to it.

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.

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There's plenty of catchy jazz

Nah, that's kind of annoying really

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.

I haven't really done any of that. We just express things differently

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.

[eddy_purpus]

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

[naut]

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.

I think I'll stick with my post-rock / psychedelia / dream pop / shoegaze collection... I have my reasons.
*proceeds to collect mushrooms down a rabbit hole*

Hehe. Mushrooms... I mean shoegaze is good. Yeh.

[Beirut]

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.

Yeah, perhaps that's about it.

But for those 15 minutes I'm going to enjoy that video.

[Reverend Joe]

Nah, that's kind of annoying really

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.

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

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.

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."

[Azathoth]

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.

That's actually perfectly true.

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.

[Reverend Joe]

That's actually perfectly true.

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Azathoth]

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.

Mathematically quantify it for the starbeasts of Pluto then. Do they think any of our music is "good"?

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

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.

Okay, let me try this again, because I think we're agreeing on certain points without realizing it. I accept the system of saying, "I like this or that music" and leaving it at that as a perfectly valid system for choosing what music you like. Nobody (or nobody here, anyway) is trying to tell you to change your taste in music because of what is considered good or bad. What musical commentary gives us is an objective means of looking at music. It doesn't necessitate that you like or dislike the music that you are looking at, but it CAN give you grounds to argue against it. As an example, I hate Prince, because I hate pop music, period. However, if I understood some basic musical theory enough that someone like Lemur could explain how his music is very intelligently put together and required someone who was genuinely gifted at understanding the musical sciences, I could appreciate how other people like it. That doesn't mean I have to personally change my mind about Prince, or start disliking most bands because they follow a certain formula fairly closely and without much imagination, because ultimately it's all about entertainment. Plenty of people can understand a lot about an art or science and still be entertained by whatever they want to enjoy, the difference being that something like musical theory allows them to recognition an objective argument for why someone likes something instead of just bantering back and forth saying, "I like it!" "Well, I don't!" "WELL, I DO!" That's just silly.

Mathematically quantify it for the starbeasts of Pluto then. Do they think any of our music is "good"?

Well, they might find it offensive, but if we can show them a mathematical reason why we find it good instead of screaming "BUT WE LIKE IT!" they might be more inclined to listen and not just hate us.

[Raz]

Wow, the thread derailed a bit didn't it? All this talk about the math in music. Ugh.
I wonder if noise from the likes of Merzbow and The Boredoms abide by these rules to music, as posted by Lemur, hmm...

In any case, just for laughs:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[The Stranger]

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.

I'm going to tell mom you look at other women... unless ofcourse, you give me candy!

[The Stranger]

i should stop reading threads Sasaki has posted in...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

i should stop reading threads Sasaki has posted in...

I post in all the interesting ones

[The Stranger]

you make interesting posts... its just against my morals to agree with you.

[Beirut]

I'm going to tell mom you look at other women... unless ofcourse, you give me candy!

Mom already knows. She see's it every day.

Besides, what makes you think "mom" is really mom, and mom wasn't another woman I was looking at?

If you look too deeply, my son, you might find you don't even exist at all.

[The Stranger]

you're just saying that!

[Subotan]

In any case, just for laughs:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I could play that. Especially the "dirigible" bit. I just don't want to.