Quote:
I wasn't wrong, I just explained myself badly. Of course "opinion" and "objectivity" don't go together, but an opinion can be more or less objective, and I think we should try to be as objective as possible. So what I meant was in my opinion, as objectively as possible, I dislike it. What I'm trying to do is take all of my preferences out of the way, examine it purely as music and form a conclusion. And that objective-as-I-get opinion is that he sucks. We could talk about what my criteria is, but that would take a long time. Dynamic range of course would be one (5 on his latest album), lyrics are another and there are some criteria other more experienced people use. But rest assured what I meant was trying to make an objective opinion, which although ironic isn't impossible.
Since we're on the topic of being picky, I didn't understand the quoted part. So Maroon's 5 songs are catchy, thus they're good? Like that's what determines a band's quality?
And since when does music quality also depend on the demography? I mean, like you said, I can understand a music that isn't meant for me might not be as obvious about its quality, but I can still form an opinion. For example, I don't like Pop (shock!), but I can tell Madonna's music is better than Miley Cyrus. I wouldn't really relate demography to quality, that's all.
Listen LK, since this is just an internet discussion, let's not get our tempers too high.
That said, don't take offense to the following as I am merely stating what you seem to be reflecting. And of course, I'll try to keep it short so it doesn't become a wall..(but it probably will anyways) But, mind you, the issue's core does interconnect somewhat to the Beats discussion in itself. (be that as it may.)
A. You really need to give up or lay off on the counter argument of 'just because this appeals to that, or this sells, it doesn't not make it good'. Just as you claim so, others and myself can claim in contrast that it does not make it horrible either. It's a double edged sword.
B. Please understand that sales, grossing, popularity and success are mere side-effects and heavily correlate with a product or an artist's/star's actual potential and real value. Though it certainly has proven in the past not to always be the case, it also has proven in the past that this certainly IS the case. So, for that point, we can't just simply generalize, rather we need take each artist, genre and product individually and judge it accordingly.
C. Objectively disliking something revolves around the idea that one has actually taken the time to listen and understand the core concept of the material or product he/she is reflecting his or her opinion over. Now, no one here claims how much time or personal investment you've put into listening or research of the Pop Genre (namely this particular trend of pop revolving mass appeal to pre-teen and teen; males or females, and the whole MTV and Much Music generation pop culture.) Please understand that when you say that you objectively dislike something, that statement is inherently different than objectively stating that something is actually NOT ANY GOOD. Those are two different things here at play. Please try to understand this. This is realistically no different than reviewing and criticizing movies. And trust me that I've done countless of movie critiques (of course not professionally, but you can find a few on IMDB). And one of the biggest arguments and heated discussions arise out of the fact that many people simply can't distinguish between personal opinion and bias vs realistic consensus and pragmatics. Believe it or not, while the nature of viewing art in itself is subjective in nature, achieving consensus to judge its perceived value is actually measured empirically; and thus easily can earn a certain piece a title of benchmark and become an industry standard. You really really need to grasp this concept before further discussion on the matter of pop, and for that matter, personal bias vs objectiveness.
D. This is not just addressed to you, but anyone else who seems to segment and separate the pop genre into units; hence, music and vocals vs theatrics and performance. Understand this, when it comes to pop, whether it is perceived shallow, cheesy, tacky or anything else of the sort, it goes hand in hand with the rest of the attributes of music. This is what pop is. It's not a few different units, it's a whole. So, that said, if people are discussing different genres like classical or opera music for example, which clearly deal directly with purely music and the artists vocal abilities, then obviously aspects of Pop music have no place in such a discussion. Though I don't see the point of even mentioning this as it is a fairly obvious discussion etiquette.
E. Before going further with relevance, people need to understand the definitions of Pop. Trust me that it could actually mean 2 different things (which goes to what another poster here commented on earlier). One Genre of pop redirects from as early as the 50's, in which nowadays reflects pretty much anything that is popular on the top-40 or mainstream music charts; which of course, differs slightly from country to country and region to region (not heavily). This particular 'Pop' is inclusive to different genres of music, and could easily account rap, hip-hop, R&B, rock, metal, dance, electronica (and even trance, Yes, anyone Remember Robert Mile's 'Children' from mid 90's? Guess what type of genre that track was?), country.. to name a few. This is why we often time hear obvious tracks that are not 'pure' pop (later on this) on the Pop or 'today's best music' charts radio channels and countdowns. When We Stand Together by Nickel Back sounds familiar? Is that actually pure pop track? No, it's alternative rock or 'Canadian Rock' genre (if anything). How about simple Plan's Jet-Lag. It's not really Pure Pop either, more like new teen alternative rock or Punk and such. It can clearly cross genres from Pop to rock very easily. Same goes to some other artists; as mentioned rappers like Eminem, he's not POP, he's a Rap artist, music writer and producer; yet his music achieved massive mainstream recognition which earned it many spots on the Pop countdown charts. Same with Beyonce', Rihanna, Usher and the likes. Neither are actually Pop artists, rather Hip-Hop, R&B and even Soul artists to a level, yet some of their tracks could easily be considered as pop and cross back and forth. Though I say again, this is one definition of pop. Think about it this way, the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, one of his biggest hits in the 80's Beat-It, does it sound like Pop tune or a rock track? Though, Michael Jackson being Michael Jackson, amazing artist that he was, is and will ever be, bridged many of those and influenced the versatility of pop. Though you see where I'm going with this.
Now, the other definition of pop redirects to eclectic music with lively upbeat tempo that can borrow elements from numerous genres, yet be defined as its own sound. It is generally shorter on tracks, with more emphasis on versed chorus; often time with repeat chorus and a more simplistic structure to induce a fun, pleasurable sound that will appeal of wide demographic of listeners.
That been said, Some artists like Madonna, LMAO, Maroon-5 and Lady Gaga for example, and many more simply fall into that genre and nothing else.
That said, I don't understand the statement of 'serious music discussion' in regards. Anything can be discussed seriously as a music, as long as it is taken within the right context. When discussing pop, the whole picture needs to be taken into count, not just elements.
Final Point, yes, Madonna's music is regarded as far greater than Cyrus's. But this does not hinder Miely's music and talent; she is her own entity and a great Country-pop artist.
