I didn't bump it, I replied to a post that was recent, and informed the person about the other thread (as well as invited).
The fact that you avoid seeing the difference is further proof that you continue to block...
...nevermind. What's the point in saying something we both know you know.
Please stop hounding me...and I'll see you on the other thread l8tr today.
Will you be replying to everything everyone has said? Or will you be selecting specific quotes and yet again ignoring evidence?
Just a question, seeing as you love to accuse us of blocking things out and not getting it just because you're wrong.
Also, I'll hound you until you start conducting your debates in a way that doesn't involve cowardice. The way to shut me up is to reply to everything posted to you, or at the very least, stop skipping chunks.
-AC
Re: Why do people think music's subjective?
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Good music is objective.By that I mean, you can definietly seperate bad from good....crap from "non-crap". And although it's harder to determine what "non-crap" is better, I still say it's not subjective.
If good music was subjective, then Brittney Spears would be considered good...after all lots of people think she's good. Brittney Spears is NOT good...it's crap...and if you say "it's good if people like it" then...oh boy.
So what if I take a band like Stone Temple Pilots and weigh them up against Nirvana, (although I personally have my own opinion as to which one is better...and I think it's no contest) it'd be kinda hard to make a case for which one is best because I don't think either are crap.
Now how about Nickelback compared to Stone Temple Pilots? Both not crap (although with one of these I'd say we're getting pretty close).
I'll be as bold as to say that if you said STP over Nirvana for the first one...you're wrong...and if you said Nickleback over STP for the second one...you're dead wrong. But I wouldn't say that the least of those in each comparison is crap...(although...with Nickleback...I dunno).
The thing is, some people just don't have the capacity to determine what's better (and even worse...what's "crap"😉...and that's hard for a lot of people to accept.
If you think I'm wrong, then I'd love for you to explain in this thread how STP is better than Nirvana and worse than Nickleback...
Nirvana didn't make particularly good music... your just conditioned to believe that. They had crappy production value and weren't particularly tuneful. If they were never around and came out today they would 100% get no attention. Britney spears songwriter is the most successful songwriter the world has ever seen. I don't like the music but cannot deny how well written and produced it is. Production value is often all someone needs... for me... I need both good production and good composition. In 1 sense it is objective... because no one is gonna enjoy a crappy recording unless they are pre conditioned to do so. In another sense it's subjective because given a huge catalog of incredibly well made music.. many people think pop music is shite.
Originally posted by Scribble
So much ignorance packed into one small post. Well done!
Ahem seconded. But it should also understood why chaxmerry made the comment. In terms of a business perspective, chax is absolutely correct. Britney is light years ahead of Kurt in terms of financial wealth. However, Nirvana's head man Kurt Cobain wasn't in it for fame or riches, and yet still had more money than he ever asked for. Kurt hated having to play to any crowd outside of the underground scene. My point should be evident as he drove a Pinto.
Nirvana outscores Britney in terms of artistic expression, and any comparison of them would be partially if not mostly superficial. Nirvana is a group that you would compare to the Beatles, while Britney is a part of the Lady Madonna army. It's basically as Billy Corgan said; There are two types of music listeners, the Robot People who produce computerized melodies, and the Technical ones that follow more traditional means of making melodies.
Nirvana would do just as well today, don't get your panties in a bunch chax.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You know Nirvana is better than Fall Out Boy the same way you know a rose is prettier than a peice of s#@%. There's no explanation needed. Sure, you'll get some people saying the s#@% is nicer (and if it was packaged and presented the same way some crap music is, then you can understand why)...but at the end of the day...it's still s#@%...and there's a lot of us who can even smell it from a mile away if you know what I mean.I think it is possible to explain how to seperate the two...I just don't know how to do it. If there was a God of music...then he'd know how. But they can be seperated.
Nobody "knows that." Do I like Nirvana more than Fallout Boy? Yes. But there are people who would think that is just as ridiculous as the other way around.
Let's be real here, the arguement can be made that Nirvana sucks too. Music all sounds the same, the lyrics doen't even make much sense, Kurt wasn't even an insanely good vocalist. I just happen to like them anyways. Same with STP. Name me an STP song that doesn't sound the same?
Everybody is guilty of calling some form of music crap, but at the end of the day, it is purely subjective. On person's Britney is another's Mozart.