So wait. Pop music, in order to get anything above a 1.5, has to become riddled with the more complex aspects of music so that it is considered better? But then where does enjoyability come in? Wouldn't it possibly be an entire genre change if it incorporated enough of the elements you are looking for? Pop isn't supposed to be an overly complex genre to be honest with you. Just something to sit down and sing along to and enjoy. That's why I don't really agree with you.
Also, regardless of what I give this I can still give MC and the Jojo bros and especially Nickelback whatever I want for a low rating. MC and the Jonas brothers sound almost alike, the difference being the vocalists gender and their voice that comes coupled with that of course. Nickelback just sits there and strums power chords and every song sounds the same. You're just grouping up bands within a genre and saying that because some ruin the genre for you, the good bands are held back by the bad ones and aren't allowed to be considered "good".
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5
musicaddiction: haha they wish they were hard rock. they're very poppy rock nowadays.
illmitch: yes MUSIC is subjective. Different opinions, different tastes, all that.
Musical QUALITY, on the other hand? It's primarily objective. If you can't agree with that, then you really know nothing about music.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5
So wait. Pop music, in order to get anything above a 1.5, has to become riddled with the more complex aspects of music so that it is considered better? But then where does enjoyability come in? Wouldn't it possibly be an entire genre change if it incorporated enough of the elements you are looking for? Pop isn't supposed to be an overly complex genre to be honest with you. Just something to sit down and sing along to and enjoy. That's why I don't really agree with you.
You're saying complexity can't be enjoyable? Cuz that's just not true. Or are you saying POP music can't be complex? Cuz that's not true either. Or could you be saying that pop music can't be complex AND enjoyable at the same time? Cuz that's definitely not true. Again, go back a few decades, and you'll find plenty of pop that is catchy BUT also has more musical substance.
I'm not saying i want a bunch of technicality and complexity: just enough to differentiate one pop act from the myriad of other modern pop acts all trying to do the exact same thing.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
i just saw Scorpian Stan post on the front page and went
oh dear
|
| |
#1: I don't rate artists low just because they're "popular pop that people like." I rate them according to the quality of their music
I don't see why you can't just say "I rate artists low because I don't like to listen to them" instead of inflating the argument into something so much more bloated and unnecessary.
Why is all of that true? Because musical quality is objective, not subjective. And like i said: if you disagree with that, then you're in total logical contradiction.
I love how kids pull the logic card out and don't realise how flawed and full of holes their arguments are, as if they are suddenly in an untouchable position.
Musical taste is about as universally subjective as things get. Sure, we can rate things on quality by proficient use of theory, production values etc. but what does this matter to the individual who decides these concepts are not for them? Where does this predefined scale of "good" to "bad" come from? How can you possibly claim there is any objective quality to what should make music good for everyone when there are so many people in the world with differing views and opinions of this very matter? Are they all crazy except you? If you say yes, your logic needs a brush-up.
I think it all comes down to this.
[img]http://i47.tinypic.com/2ywu136.png[/img]
|
| |
Actually, you read that first paragraph all wrong. Possibly my bad but whatever. I meant that pop music isn't meant to be the most overly complex over the top shit. It's designed to be fun.
So you're telling me that you think Lady Gaga, Nickelback, Miley Cyrus, and the Jonas Brothers all sound exactly alike? Get your ears checked. Lady Gaga is miles ahead of the rest of them.
|
| |
#1: I don't rate artists low just because they're "popular pop that people like." I rate them
according to the quality of their music (which i have said over and over again). And this album is
low-quality music. Sure this may be a 4 to 5-rated album for dance pop, but that doesn't mean
dance pop is any good. Most of it is horrible.
#2: I never said you couldn't give a pop album a 4-5 rating. The problem is that the vast majority
of modern "popular pop" simply is not deserving of a 4-5 rating. As i said previously: go back a
few decades, and you'll start finding plenty of quality pop.
Why is all of that true? Because musical quality is objective, not subjective. And like i said: if you
disagree with that, then you're in total logical contradiction. You can't tell me "pop music is
subjective" and then go drop negative comments all over Miley Cyrus, the Jo Bros, and Nickelback
about how bad their music is.
This is like 3254 contradictions cultivated within one deplorably confused, flawed argument of a
paragraph. Make up your mind.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
using xkcd in an argument: priceless
|
| |
[img]http://i50.tinypic.com/2yx0l7n.jpg[/img]
An old classic, but also suitable nonetheless.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
that cartoon is so sad but accurate
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
lol meatplow wins as always
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
Meatplow for 2012!
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
Sure this may be a 4 to 5-rated album for dance pop, but that doesn't mean dance pop is any good. Most of it is horrible.
This is just hilarious. Have you listened to most "dance pop"? I doubt it. Shut up already.
|
| |
Pff... Stan's a dance pop fanatic. He just gives the good/mainstream stuff low ratings so that he can appear to be more manly and therefore increase the radius of his epeen.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
i no rite, pop is 4 fagz.
the radius of his epeen.
I'm certain you just impiled he had a chode.
|
| |
agreed
|
| |
My download of it has i like it rough last. Still a pretty good closer. I should get an updated version.
|
| |
i like it rough is a bonus track
|
| |
Oh, didn't know that. I still like i like it rough more anyway :/.
|
| |
musically challenging enough and highly artistically challenging in all other avenues of her musical expression.
Who exactly is she challenging by imitating the actions of almost every eccentric pop-star since the 60's?
|
| |
|
|
![http://i47.tinypic.com/2ywu136.png[/img]](http://i47.tinypic.com/2ywu136.png[/img]){kind=link}
![http://i50.tinypic.com/2yx0l7n.jpg[/img]](http://i50.tinypic.com/2yx0l7n.jpg[/img]){kind=link}