Lady Gaga.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

No. You're just being annoying.

My thesis is that if one actually enjoys top down produced music as a means of being a product first and a piece of art second, that person would typically have really shit tastes in music.

I'm not saying that any excuse to legitimize a love for a brand is irrelevant, I'm saying they're just stupid excuses.

If you really like Gaga, that's fine. But I'd have to say that's some shit music you like right there.

It's not like I'm asking people to change their opinions because they love pop music, I'm saying that I'm not going to be inclined to respect their tastes in music. I don't really have to.

And my thesis is that you're wrong. First of all, what makes Gaga manufactured? Second, what makes "product" art worse than "art" art? How can you tell what is meant to be product and what is meant to be art? Your method of arguing your own thesis consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALALALA" really loudly.

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

And my thesis is that you're wrong. First of all, what makes Gaga manufactured?

Story goes, it was a record company that she had a friend in that set her up with some "underground" showsin the East Village to generate a buzz. She was built from the top down. Her record label and publicists MADE her. So far, the only thing I know of that's legitimately artistic about her is that she writes/wrote her own lyrics.

Second, what makes "product" art worse than "art" art?

It's kind of obvious isn't it? When the motivation is to churn out a piece of art that will maximize profits instead of making art for art's sake, you basically get something that panders to tried and true tropes instead of being genuine. Gaga and Britney Spears are pretty much interchangeable.

How can you tell what is meant to be product and what is meant to be art?

Gaga was produced solely for a profit, not for art. It's really not that hard, man.

Your method of arguing your own thesis consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALALALA" really loudly.

Man... some people's moms need to learn how to fucking swallow, I swear.

Look, man. The point here is this: Desp and I tend to be a kind of musical listener that loses interest in an artistic act once we find out it was made more for profit than for art. To listeners like us, knowing that it's more of a product for maximum profits gives credence to the feeling that the art in question isn't genuine or an honest depiction of the artist in question.

This chick rips off Bowie, Madonna, Manson, and whatever the fuck else. Is there anything about her that's actually HER beyond her lyrics?

[Stormtrooper of Death]

Looks like the gloves have come off.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Story goes, it was a record company that she had a friend in that set her up with some "underground" showsin the East Village to generate a buzz. She was built from the top down. Her record label and publicists MADE her. So far, the only thing I know of that's legitimately artistic about her is that she writes/wrote her own lyrics.

THIS JUST IN! GETTING BIG REQUIRES ONE TO KNOW THE RIGHT PEOPLE!

That's how the machine functions, and the business has been pulling tricks like that with artists since music became a business. Even so-called "bottom up" artists worked out like that. One band that springs to mind is the Beatles.

Also, don't you think it's a bit funny how David Bowie became one of the biggest stars in Britain by suddenly switching from a shy folky with one hit novelty song to a glam rocker, just as glam rock began to rise as a commercial force in Britain? Than he rekindled his flame again in the 80's on the strength of dance pop? Than in the 90's it was pop-industrial, just as the likes of Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson were getting popular?

It's kind of obvious isn't it? When the motivation is to churn out a piece of art that will maximize profits instead of making art for art's sake, you basically get something that panders to tried and true tropes instead of being genuine. Gaga and Britney Spears are pretty much interchangeable.

And yet, while this is often the case, it often isn't as well. Malcolm McLaren, the Anti-Pop Svengali, created the Sex Pistols strictly because they would sell, and all the Pistols, except, perhaps, for Johnny, wanted only to become famous and make a lot of money, yet they became one of the most influential and enduring artists in the world. The Ramones also wanted to be pop stars, and ripped off a lot of 60's bubblegum, yet they became just as (if not more) important to popular music. Almost every early Led Zeppelin song (and a good deal of their later ones) ripped off an old blues artist. In fact, almost all of rock, underground and mainstream, relies on tried and true tropes because so much of it is lifted from a lot of stuff that has come before.

Even in the case of completely manufactured artists like the Monkees or Justin Bieber, there is talent that goes into making them stars. Whoever writes their material has an ear for melody, hooks, and production that can match and even rival other "serious" musicians.

It's not just about pandering and relying on tropes, otherwise there would be a whole lot more famous people out there.

Man... some people's moms need to learn how to fucking swallow, I swear.

When you run out of points, the next logical step is to resort to ad hominem. I see you've studied Bill O' Reilly's debate tactics well.

Look, man. The point here is this: Desp and I tend to be a kind of musical listener that loses interest in an artistic act once we find out it was made more for profit than for art. To listeners like us, knowing that it's more of a product for maximum profits gives credence to the feeling that the art in question isn't genuine or an honest depiction of the artist in question.

This is the most valid point that you consistently make. "Dishonesty ruins music for me". That's a personal taste thing, and it's something I can't object to, however, your personal feelings about it doesn't devalue pop music or those who listen to it, so stop pretending it does.

This chick rips off Bowie, Madonna, Manson, and whatever the fuck else. Is there anything about her that's actually HER beyond her lyrics?

As I've stated before, "ripping off" is something a lot of musicians from all walks of life do very well.

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

THIS JUST IN! GETTING BIG REQUIRES ONE TO KNOW THE RIGHT PEOPLE!

That's how the machine functions, and the business has been pulling tricks like that with artists since music became a business. Even so-called "bottom up" artists worked out like that. One band that springs to mind is the Beatles.

I'm not debating that. Jesus, I understand how the "machine" works. I'm not opposed to artists who infiltrate the machine, I'm opposed to "artists" that come from the machine. Plus, mother fuck the Beatles. They're fucking annoying.

Also, don't you think it's a bit funny how David Bowie became one of the biggest stars in Britain by suddenly switching from a shy folky with one hit novelty song to a glam rocker, just as glam rock began to rise as a commercial force in Britain? Than he rekindled his flame again in the 80's on the strength of dance pop? Than in the 90's it was pop-industrial, just as the likes of Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson were getting popular?

Again, I'm not 100% opposed to artists who succeed by simply being good enough to permeate within the collective pop minds. That happens.

And yet, while this is often the case, it often isn't as well. Malcolm McLaren, the Anti-Pop Svengali, created the Sex Pistols strictly because they would sell, and all the Pistols, except, perhaps, for Johnny, wanted only to become famous and make a lot of money, yet they became one of the most influential and enduring artists in the world. The Ramones also wanted to be pop stars, and ripped off a lot of 60's bubblegum, yet they became just as (if not more) important to popular music. Almost every early Led Zeppelin song (and a good deal of their later ones) ripped off an old blues artist. In fact, almost all of rock, underground and mainstream, relies on tried and true tropes because so much of it is lifted from a lot of stuff that has come before.

Dude... I don't even listen to the Ramones and avoid the Sex Pistols like the plague. What's your point? Actually, 100% of these bands you mentioned I don't even listen to. I understand what they did and what their motivation was. Hence, I don't fucking listen to them.

Even in the case of completely manufactured artists like the Monkees or Justin Bieber, there is talent that goes into making them stars. Whoever writes their material has an ear for melody, hooks, and production that can match and even rival other "serious" musicians.

I don't fucking CARE about those pieces of shit. If anything those ghost writers SHOULD get critical acclaim. It's really sad that they don't get the credit they deserve because once it's all said and done, their work is made by "Virgin Records".

It's not just about pandering and relying on tropes, otherwise there would be a whole lot more famous people out there.

o_0 Dude, pop music is successful by a SLICK marketing campaign almost 100% of the fucking time. I wasn't debating that. I don't see how you think that's relevant here.

When you run out of points, the next logical step is to resort to ad hominem. I see you've studied Bill O' Reilly's debate tactics well.

Ad hominem? Your whole argument is a fucking ad hominem.

This is the most valid point that you consistently make. "Dishonesty ruins music for me". That's a personal taste thing, and it's something I can't object to, however, your personal feelings about it doesn't devalue pop music or those who listen to it, so stop pretending it does.

No, this is the whole fucking thing I'm arguing. What you're asking me to do is respect the tastes of others who don't give it any thought as to weather the artists they support are honest artists or just people making streamlined music for a big buck. I don't HAVE to respect that opinion and I don't think it's a very good basis for enjoying music.

As I've stated before, "ripping off" is something a lot of musicians from all walks of life do very well.

Jesus. There's a difference from being inspired to being outright fucking blatant such as Gaga.

[Despanan]

*Cracks Manly Knuckles, These are the beefiest knuckles ever, they have BEARDS and the sound they make kinda makes you want to throw up*

Sorry, came late to the party, was busy getting things ready for the Fringe.
So, Kontan coverd allot of bases allready, just want to point some things out first, before we get to the MEAT of this argument.

I enjoy foreplay, and I'm sure you do too, so prepare to have your intellectual nuts ticked for a while before I straight up make you my woman and force you to enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Doobie

When you run out of points, the next logical step is to resort to ad hominem. I see you've studied Bill O' Reilly's debate tactics well.

Hate to break it to you but insult /= ad hominem. Ad Hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance. If I say "You're wrong because of X and therefore you are a dumb shitfucker" I have not engaged in an ad hominem argument. If I say "You're wrong BECAUSE you're a dumb shitfucker" and leave it at that, THEN it's an ad hominem, because even if you ARE a dumb Shitfucker, that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Ad Hominem's don't even have to be insulting, for instance this is an Ad hominem:

Originally Posted by Doobie

I contend that you shouldn't be bothered by the idea of your music being a product first if you enjoy it. The idea that "real" artists are somehow better than "fake" artists (pretty much any musician the guy doesn't like) is a lie perpetrated by people who want to return to some "glory days" that never happened.

Unless your problem is that by buying her music your feeding into the massive dinosaur that is the record business, I hate to break it to you, but unless you're listening to nothing but buskers playing on the streets, you're feeding into that machine one way or another. One of the problems of living in a capitalist society and whatnot.

This entire argument hinges on slandering the character of those who disagree with you. Instead of addressing the very valid argument of:

1) There are objective ways to view, judge and appreciate a particular piece of art.

2) One of the major factors that is considered when judging a piece is the intention/motivation behind it's creation. (Honest expression of the human condition created for it's own sake vs. A a product designed to make money)

3) Because of X, Y, and Z I find that said artist is more interested in making money than expressing themselves honestly. Honest art is more appealing to my aesthetic senses therefor said artists work is unappealing to me.

You say: The only reason you're saying that is you want to return to some fictional "glory days" and if you consume any kind of commercial art you're a hyppocrite and therefore you are wrong.


See how this has nothing to do with the initial argument? That's why it's ad hominem. It doesn't matter if I'm a hypocrite because that's completely unrelated to the argument. If a doctor who smokes tells you smoking is bad for your health is his argument invalid? (you also have a bit of a straw man thrown in there for good measure btw)

You dumb shitfucker <---Not ad hominem.

Let's continue:

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

What I'm getting at is that it's ok to like whatever music you do like, and there is no right or wrong answer. Implying that someone is somehow less virtuous or whatever because they can arbitrarily declare the music "manufactured" is stupid.

This attitude is very common among we liberals, it is also one of the MAJOR things wrong with our ideology. You have taken the post modern-approach: ie: All art is subjective, and therefore there is no right or wrong answer, and therefore art cannot be criticized.

It is an attractive ideology, but in the end it is broken. There are objective facts and objective ways of judging a piece's artistic merit. Your argument hinges on attacking the ability to make critical distinctions between works of art to such an extent that it completely removes the ability to judge anything at all. However, this is obviously absurd. The Mona Lisa has far more artistic value than a 5-year old's macaroni painting. Shakespeare has far more artistic value than a Naruto fanfic. These are both objective statement, therefore your argument is invalid.

Originally Posted by Doobie

You don't have to listen to pop music, that's completely fine, but admit that what it really comes down to is that you don't like the music.

This is also an ad hominem. Even IF the listener in question is completely unobjective about his reasoning, it would not invalidate the argument.

Do better next time.

Originally Posted by Doobie

Even so-called "bottom up" artists worked out like that. One band that springs to mind is the Beatles.

The Beatles were not bottom-up. They weren't as prefab as the monkeys, certainly, but their early work was commercial tripe. ("Love me do" is a terrible song) It wasn't until later in their career that they began producing songs with any amount of artistic merit.

Originally Posted by Doobie

THIS JUST IN! GETTING BIG REQUIRES ONE TO KNOW THE RIGHT PEOPLE!

That's how the machine functions, and the business has been pulling tricks like that with artists since music became a business. Even so-called "bottom up" artists worked out like that.

Man, you really love these fallacies of irrelevance, don't you? The commercial success of one's work has little to do with the artistic merit of that work. It also has nothing to do with our argument (That lady Gaga's music has low artistic value due to the intention behind it's creation). Tell me, if you're selling hamburgers, the way you get big is to become a fast-food chain, correct? Consolidation and standardization is a basic rule of how to succeed at capitalism. Therefore, since that's how you get big, is every chef serving a hamburger required to become McDonalds? Is there no difference between a McDonald's hamburger and one painstakingly prepared by a chef in a fine-dining restaurant, other than one's personal preferences?

Of course not.

Originally Posted by Dumbass

Almost every early Led Zeppelin song (and a good deal of their later ones) ripped off an old blues artist. In fact, almost all of rock, underground and mainstream, relies on tried and true tropes because so much of it is lifted from a lot of stuff that has come before.

While tropes saturate the artistic process (Because it's impossible to produce art without invoking tropes) this does not destroy the ability to judge which tropes are used well, and which tropes are used poorly and/or cheaply. There's a difference between Stephen King cheaply evoking Magical Negros and Lucas's use of Archetypes in "Star Wars: A new Hope". While all art is derivative to a certain extent, there's a difference between Neil Gaiman's brilliant use of The Jungle Book's structure in The Graveyard Book, and Christopher Paolini's straight hijacking of the plot of Star Wars.

Overall Doobie, you are attempting to undermine our arguments by attacking our character, and everyone's ability to make judgments about art. You are appealing to cynicism and intellectually bankrupt post-modern thought, while spitting out thought terminating cliche's to quell your own cognative dissonance.

Stop it.

*sprays Doobie with a squirt bottle*

[Still Jack]

Desp I want you to manhandle me right now.

[MissCheyenne]

Meh, I don't like Gaga at all. She sells an image first and art second and while she may have some talent, it fucks me off royally that there are plenty of equally, in fact more, talented artists out there who never get a moments recognition because they simply don't have the looks or whatever to sell to an increasingly shallow market. That said, I don't give a flying fuck if other people like her or any other easily marketable, over produced pop star. I don't everyone is going to like everything I listen to so I don't think that someone else should expect me to coo and shit rainbows over their music collection.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I enjoy foreplay, and I'm sure you do too, so prepare to have your intellectual nuts ticked for a while before I straight up make you my woman and force you to enjoy it.

I see.

Hate to break it to you but insult /= ad hominem. Ad Hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance. If I say "You're wrong because of X and therefore you are a dumb shitfucker" I have not engaged in an ad hominem argument. If I say "You're wrong BECAUSE you're a dumb shitfucker" and leave it at that, THEN it's an ad hominem, because even if you ARE a dumb Shitfucker, that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

I stand corrected.

This entire argument hinges on slandering the character of those who disagree with you. Instead of addressing the very valid argument of:

1) There are objective ways to view, judge and appreciate a particular piece of art.

2) One of the major factors that is considered when judging a piece is the intention/motivation behind it's creation. (Honest expression of the human condition created for it's own sake vs. A a product designed to make money)

3) Because of X, Y, and Z I find that said artist is more interested in making money than expressing themselves honestly. Honest art is more appealing to my aesthetic senses therefor said artists work is unappealing to me.

You say: The only reason you're saying that is you want to return to some fictional "glory days" and if you consume any kind of commercial art you're a hyppocrite and therefore you are wrong.

Ok, I was projecting on to you the image of the typical person who makes your kind of argument. That wasn't fair, that was ad hominem, and that was wrong. I didn't know what kind of person I was working with, so I judged you before we had begun. That was all my fault and I shouldn't have done that.

This attitude is very common among we liberals, it is also one of the MAJOR things wrong with our ideology. You have taken the post modern-approach: ie: All art is subjective, and therefore there is no right or wrong answer, and therefore art cannot be criticized.

It is an attractive ideology, but in the end it is broken. There are objective facts and objective ways of judging a piece's artistic merit. Your argument hinges on attacking the ability to make critical distinctions between works of art to such an extent that it completely removes the ability to judge anything at all. However, this is obviously absurd. The Mona Lisa has far more artistic value than a 5-year old's macaroni painting. Shakespeare has far more artistic value than a Naruto fanfic. These are both objective statement, therefore your argument is invalid.

Never said a work can not be criticized or judged. Obviously, not all art is created equal. Charles Mingus or Brian Wilson are both better songwriters than Nick Jonas, and you would be hard pressed to argue otherwise.

What I am arguing is that intent and how someone got to be at the top of the dollar-bill totem pole doesn't much matter. I would argue that the Monkees are a better group than gads and gads of teenage garage bands playing bad Iron Maiden rip-offs, yet the Monkees were completely manufactured product, while all those teenagers are all self-described "serious musicians". Lady Gaga is certainly better than this bad singer-songwriter bitch I once saw who had this song about love being a toaster. Or something. Exaggerated examples (there are other artists that carry more artistic weight than teenagers or some hipster that I would argue are worse than the Monkees or Lady Gaga), but you get the idea.

You can appreciate different works with different values. A lot of classical artists got some inspiration from folk music and bar songs and other works that have proven to be less enduring.

If the Mona Lisa was painted by someone just wanting money, does that make the Mona Lisa less culturally valuable?

The Beatles were not bottom-up. They weren't as prefab as the monkeys, certainly, but their early work was commercial tripe. ("Love me do" is a terrible song) It wasn't until later in their career that they began producing songs with any amount of artistic merit.

But than, what exactly is bottom up? That was going to be the next item on my agenda. The Beatles spent years working the Liverpool bar circuit until they were discovered and fabricated into the Mop-Tops they became. Looking at things like this, it seems like this is all more complicated than "top-down" vs. "bottom-up".

Man, you really love these fallacies of irrelevance, don't you? The commercial success of one's work has little to do with the artistic merit of that work. It also has nothing to do with our argument (That lady Gaga's music has low artistic value due to the intention behind it's creation). Tell me, if you're selling hamburgers, the way you get big is to become a fast-food chain, correct? Consolidation and standardization is a basic rule of how to succeed at capitalism. Therefore, since that's how you get big, is every chef serving a hamburger required to become McDonalds? Is there no difference between a McDonald's hamburger and one painstakingly prepared by a chef in a fine-dining restaurant, other than one's personal preferences?

Of course not.

Yet this issue is more complicated than a fine chef making an awesome burger vs. McDonald's making a same-old, same-old.

As I've stated before, making a hit is hard. It takes a keen ear for a melody, a hook, and production. Is it as hard as making Pet Sounds, a masterpiece like Beethoven's Great Fugue, or whatever? No. But it does take a degree of talent that I believe can be appreciated and enjoyed and to not have someone else look down their nose at you for being able to appreciate.

Overall Doobie, you are attempting to undermine our arguments by attacking our character, and everyone's ability to make judgments about art. You are appealing to cynicism and intellectually bankrupt post-modern thought, while spitting out thought terminating cliche's to quell your own cognative dissonance.

Not exactly.

Stop it.

*sprays Doobie with a squirt bottle*

You're adorable.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

You can appreciate different works with different values.

But you can't pretend to be on a pedestal for liking music of shitty value. That's all this conversation was.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by Alan

But you can't pretend to be on a pedestal for liking music of shitty value. That's all this conversation was.

Never claimed to be on a pedestal, and I still contend Lady Gaga's music isn't of "shitty value", and that looking down your nose on someone's musical taste because they like Gaga or whatever is stupid.

[Mr.Doobie]

Ok, I would look down my nose on the taste of someone who listens exclusively to Lady Gaga, We The Kings, present day Black Eyed Peas (though even their early stuff wasn't that great), etc.

[Saya]

And it should be noted that before Gaga was Gaga she was a pretty good singer, unknown, she isn't a random chick pulled off the street and made into a pop star for no reason. I don't follow her much and I only like one or two songs, but I thought of the Gaga persona as an act and the whole thing a commentary on whats wrong with pop. She seems like a parody or satire to me.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

This has got to be one of the silliest arguments on here for a long time, it's good to be back.

[Alan]

You only care about nameplacing japanese hardcore bands from 1983 and spam threads with a fucking image of a signature six times as big as whatever you ahve to say.
You're in no position to judge content in threads.

Damn. Where's the aloe? I think my eyebrows are gone.

[Sinjob]

Forget/Fuck this discussion.

Let's just all listen to Bob Dylan.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by Sinjob

Forget/Fuck this discussion.

Let's just all listen to Bob Dylan.

Can I listen to Acid Mothers Temple instead?

[Stormtrooper of Death]

Originally Posted by Alan

You only care about nameplacing japanese hardcore bands from 1983 and spam threads with a fucking image of a signature six times as big as whatever you ahve to say.
You're in no position to judge content in threads.

I haven't mentioned any Japanes hardcore punk bands from 1983 for a long dude, chill out.

[Alan]

I love how any time anyone says something to you, just think they MUST be mad.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

Well, from past experience dealing with you, it's always hard to say, and I don't want to start any epic thread war on here either, so chill out and enjoy life.

[IEnjoystabbingmypeers]

This is making me laugh. You guys are supposed to be smart, right?
No, you're like other humans.
Thus, I said "Hmmm..."

[Sinjob]

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

Can I listen to Acid Mothers Temple instead?

No. Just listen to Bob Dylan on acid.

We gotta kick this one old school.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by IEnjoystabbingmypeers

This is making me laugh. You guys are supposed to be smart, right?
No, you're like other humans.
Thus, I said "Hmmm..."

Oh go shove your smugness up your ass.

Fucking 12 years olds. Glad I never was one.

No. Just listen to Bob Dylan on acid.

We gotta kick this one old school.

Why am I taking orders from you?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by IEnjoystabbingmypeers

This is making me laugh. You guys are supposed to be smart, right?
No, you're like other humans.
Thus, I said "Hmmm..."

If you're implying you are more intelligent than "other humans," you might want to justify that.

Then again, you might not want to. I never do.