Your Favorite Music

[athnostic]

(12-09-2010 10:04 PM)Green Wrote:  

(12-09-2010 01:15 PM)athnostic Wrote:  Pop is pitiful. Takes no talent to write and even less to perform.

I don't like the way people use the word "pop" when applying it to music. Pop isn't a genre, it is an abbreviation of "popular", any music can be pop music, it only needs to hit the Top 40. For example, Eminem's new song is a "pop" song insofar as it is popular, the genre of the song is rap.

The Beatles, at least in their early years, were a "pop band" but they played rock 'n roll music.

Michael Jackson is the "King of Pop" but his musical genres were R&B, Soul, and Funk/Rock.

I'd say the Beatles were rather Talented, same with MJ. True, today's pop music is trite garbage, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't exactly a good idea. Pop music has a rich, diverse past, just because it is awful now doesn't mean all pop music is terrible.

Lady Gaga, arguably the worst of the group as far as I'm concerned, is a terrible ELECTRONIC/DANCE (genre) artist, but that doesn't mean all Electro music is bad...

Anyway, I feel I've made my point... I hate it when people refer to pop as a genre, there is little to nothing tying together most "pop music" as a genre, I mean we've gone from The Beatles to Lady Gaga, try to tie them together thematically and musically including all the pop bands between them, than you might convince me that pop is a genre.

Once upon a time this was probably true, but today's "pop" songs are almost identical in format and character. The underlying music theory is fairly easy to categorize. I believe that "pop" has evolved into a genre all its own. Feel free to disagree.

Lady Gaga writes stupid, trashy music but she's actually much more talented than a lot of performers out there. She can actually play an instrument and sing in tune without being electronically tweaked.

[Green]

(14-09-2010 08:03 PM)athnostic Wrote:  Once upon a time this was probably true, but today's "pop" songs are almost identical in format and character. The underlying music theory is fairly easy to categorize. I believe that "pop" has evolved into a genre all its own. Feel free to disagree.

I don't know, I'd argue that just because one genre seems to dominate the charts doesn't make pop it's own genre. To say Pop Rock makes more sense because that would entail Popular Rock, like The Beatles early work. Gaga, then, would be Electo/Dance Pop. That way you still have the proper genre supplemented with the term pop.

Also considering that the charts will change, I find it difficult to find a tie between, genre-wise, The Beatles and Gaga and anything inbetween which includes artist that include funk, grunge, glam, and punk...

I just can't see it.

[No J.]

Athnostic and I are both professional musicians and music teachers, so in this field you have come up against a couple of heavies with a lot of musical training, experience and knowledge.

I don't know what your field is, but I am sure that in that field, you know more than I do.

[nikjerry]

Well, I have just read this all of stuff and I just want to say that I like the classic music that much, but sometimes it depends on my mood. When I got angry with someone I would like to hear rock music.

[Soldieringon]

(15-09-2010 03:38 AM)nikjerry Wrote:  Well, I have just read this all of stuff and I just want to say that I like the classic music that much, but sometimes it depends on my mood. When I got angry with someone I would like to hear rock music.

Funny, i'm the opposite. I listen to Disturbed and Drowning Pool when I am relaxing and happy, and Norah Jones when I am frustrated and angry.

[Green]

(15-09-2010 12:00 AM)No J. Wrote:  Athnostic and I are both professional musicians and music teachers, so in this field you have come up against a couple of heavies with a lot of musical training, experience and knowledge.

I don't know what your field is, but I am sure that in that field, you know more than I do.

This is the weakest argument I've ever come across but if you seem to believe it then I can see there is nowhere left to go in this debate. It doesn't matter what your area of expertise is or how long you've been in it, if there is one thing I've learned from university it's that the "experts" aren't speaking gospel, it's just one of many takes on a subject. You may not agree with what I'm saying about pop music, and that's fine, but the card you just pulled is both juvenile in nature and worthless as an argument. There is nobody on the face of the planet who can lay down some universal truth about music, and you're fairly arrogant if you believe you can. Which is why I referred to our conversation up to now as a debate rather than an argument.

Also, for future reference, I would have considered that debate more about semantics than music, which would totally render your argument useless, if it weren't already such on its own.

[No J.]

(17-09-2010 10:15 AM)Green Wrote:  

(15-09-2010 12:00 AM)No J. Wrote:  Athnostic and I are both professional musicians and music teachers, so in this field you have come up against a couple of heavies with a lot of musical training, experience and knowledge.

I don't know what your field is, but I am sure that in that field, you know more than I do.

This is the weakest argument I've ever come across but if you seem to believe it then I can see there is nowhere left to go in this debate. It doesn't matter what your area of expertise is or how long you've been in it, if there is one thing I've learned from university it's that the "experts" aren't speaking gospel, it's just one of many takes on a subject. You may not agree with what I'm saying about pop music, and that's fine, but the card you just pulled is both juvenile in nature and worthless as an argument. There is nobody on the face of the planet who can lay down some universal truth about music, and you're fairly arrogant if you believe you can. Which is why I referred to our conversation up to now as a debate rather than an argument.

Also, for future reference, I would have considered that debate more about semantics than music, which would totally render your argument useless, if it weren't already such on its own.

Does that mean you have been in the music business and seen with your own eyes how it operates?

[Green]

(18-09-2010 12:36 AM)No J. Wrote:  Does that mean you have been in the music business and seen with your own eyes how it operates?

Does that have anything to do with terminology and semantics?

Doesn't matter how long you've been in "the biz" you're not the authority when it comes to music, no matter how much you might feel that way.

[No J.]

(18-09-2010 04:30 PM)Green Wrote:  

(18-09-2010 12:36 AM)No J. Wrote:  Does that mean you have been in the music business and seen with your own eyes how it operates?

Does that have anything to do with terminology and semantics?

Doesn't matter how long you've been in "the biz" you're not the authority when it comes to music, no matter how much you might feel that way.

When I discuss something with someone in a field that they are in and I am not, I realize that that person has experience and training that I don't have. I never try to debate with that person. I ask questions, listen to their answers and learn from them. I never assume that my opinions are equal to their theirs on the subject.

Since you approach music in a totally different fashion to above paragraph, it is extremely likely that you approach other subjects that same way. If this is the case, then you are stating your opinions as being equal to the opinions and knowledge of people who have training and experience that you don't have. And you call me arrogant.

[Green]

(18-09-2010 04:48 PM)No J. Wrote:  When I discuss something with someone in a field that they are in and I am not, I realize that that person has experience and training that I don't have. I never try to debate with that person. I ask questions, listen to their answers and learn from them. I never assume that my opinions are equal to their theirs on the subject.

Why? What's the merit in that? Everyone has their own ideas about any given subject and their amount of experience with that subject is irrelevant. If a ten year old boy comes up with some shattering theory in music, are you allowed to shut him down because you have more experience? Or is his idea valid because it is a solid theory/argument. I've out argued profs of literature who have been teaching for decades with my interpretations and ideas on a few occasions, that's not to say I'm somehow superior or smarter but I brought forth a position they hadn't thought of. Doesn't matter that they've had "more experience" than me.

(18-09-2010 04:48 PM)No J. Wrote:  Since you approach music in a totally different fashion to above paragraph, it is extremely likely that you approach other subjects that same way. If this is the case, then you are stating your opinions as being equal to the opinions and knowledge of people who have training and experience that you don't have. And you call me arrogant.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it arrogance, considering nobody is 100% right about anything, really. You are so convicted to the classical model of teaching ("sit down, shut up, and listen to the 'authority' on the subject tell you what is right and wrong") that you're being closed minded to an idea simply because you disagree and "have more experience" in the field. That is the arrogance I am calling you on. Experience is meaningless unless it can be backed up and quite frankly I still don't see how your music experience has anything to do with semantics, which is my field of play.

Certainly, the words we were debating pertain to music, but the root of the issue is, they are words, and that is my forte.