# The Utter Nihilism that is Pop Music **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 27, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119 "2009-06-27T00:02:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Alice\_The\_Goon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Alice\_The\_Goon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alice_The_Goon)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/41 "2009-06-27T20:10:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Pop music is a devolution of music, not its evolution. If we are using biological metaphors, classical music is a higher life form than Pop Music. > > It’s not about inferior/superior, it’s about knowing the difference between a cheeseburger and foie gras. I don’t agree. If someone gets as much of an emotional reaction while listening to “pop” music as someone else of different tastes does when listening to a symphony, how is the first type of music inferior to the second? To me, good music is good music. If that makes me some kind of troglodyte musically, then all I can say is… drrrrrr. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/42 "2009-06-27T20:15:54Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Pop music is a devolution of music, not its evolution. If we are using biological metaphors, classical music is a higher life form than Pop Music. What is meant by a “higher life form”? In biology, even, I mean. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/43 "2009-06-27T20:25:32Z")
> [@Aghris](#): > > I know of a few people who fog up at the first notes of Ben. It’s a song about a rat. Not a cute and fuzzy Disney rat, but a nasty, murderous sewer rat. They fog up over that? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/44 "2009-06-27T20:29:49Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > What is meant by a “higher life form”? In biology, even, I mean. Well say, human over amoeba, but I see what you’re doing here. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/45 "2009-06-27T20:39:59Z")
> [@Enter\_the\_Flagon](#): > > This is like saying that Ernest P. Whorrell is one of the most brilliant theoreticians to ever live, on a scale with Einstein, Newton, and Pee Wee Herman. 😃 Nobody who knows anything about Prince would argue that he’s not a towering musical talent, even if you don’t like his music (I don’t for the most part, but I listen to dozens of artists who would sound totally different or not exist at all without him). _Rolling Stone_, a publication constantly criticized for writing off any musician born after 1950, called him one of the 100 greatest artists of all time. He taught himself to play a dozen different classes of instrument, and played every note on several of his studio albums- as many as 27 different instruments. He’s one of the five or six most important artists in the history of electronic music and the use of electronic sound in music in general. ---
**Author:** ![Aghris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecccb3/32.png) [@Aghris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aghris)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/46 "2009-06-27T21:03:10Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > It’s a song about a rat. Not a cute and fuzzy Disney rat, but a nasty, murderous sewer rat. They fog up over that? And (according to Wikipedia) Beethoven wrote pieces for one of his many mistresses, a guiny pig and 25 folksy tunes from Scotland. What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![busterbloodvessel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@busterbloodvessel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterbloodvessel)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/47 "2009-06-27T21:13:02Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Popularity is irrelevant in judging the musical composition which should be judged by its own merits. And do you really think that Michael Jackson’s vocals weren’t level balanced? > . So you’re saying artistic criticism is solely a matter of opinion. That’s fine, but then how can we even discuss the merits of Michael Jackson’s music? You disregard other people’s opinions, claiming that popularity is irrelevant. There’s not much to talk about if you think your opinion is the only respectable one. As for “level balancing,” what are you talking about? EQ? Volume? I was referring to Auto-Tune, which is a pitch-correcting program. And it certainly wasn’t around in 1982 for “Thriller” or in 1969 for The Jackson 5.. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/48 "2009-06-27T21:15:07Z")
There are classical afficianados who exalt Schoenberg and disdain Mozart as melodic pap. I don’t agree and I’m sure you probably don’t either. Of course the works of Mozart and Beethoven (and Bach, Stravinsky, and Gershwin) are more complex than MJ. You don’t write pop music today that’s complex if you intend it to get air play. However, simplicity is much harder than it seems; it is extraordinarily difficult to craft a short, simple yet nuanced song. _Billie Jean_ is an excellent example of a short but extremely well-crafted work, deceptively simple but very interesting to analyze. The Wikipedia article does a good job of just that. What about Richard Rodgers? Is _Where or When_ to be sniffed at just because it’s basically a standard sixteen bar song? Or is Cole Porter’s _Night and Day_ dismissable because it too is a pop song that contains umpteen repeated notes and has a melody that simply winds its way up and down a scale? Certainly not all pop stars are musicians to be admired. But some are, no matter what the ivory tower denizens may believe. And I think MJ is undoubtedly one of them. (Sigh. I mean ‘was’. It’s still hard to fathom…) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/49 "2009-06-27T21:38:59Z")
> [@busterbloodvessel](#): > > As for “level balancing,” what are you talking about? EQ? Volume? I was referring to Auto-Tune, which is a pitch-correcting program. And it certainly wasn’t around in 1982 for “Thriller” or in 1969 for The Jackson 5.. Vocoders have been around since before the Jackson 5- Sly and the Family Stone pioneered their use on _Sex Machine_ and Alan Parsons has used them on every record since 1973. I can’t find any references suggesting that MJ ever used one, but Googling for anything + Michael Jackson right now is a pretty fruitless endeavor, since every music related page on the internet has a link to something about him at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/50 "2009-06-27T21:46:35Z")
> [@busterbloodvessel](#): > > So you’re saying artistic criticism is solely a matter of opinion. That’s fine, but then how can we even discuss the merits of Michael Jackson’s music? You disregard other people’s opinions, claiming that popularity is irrelevant. There’s not much to talk about if you think your opinion is the only respectable one. > > As for “level balancing,” what are you talking about? EQ? Volume? I was referring to Auto-Tune, which is a pitch-correcting program. And it certainly wasn’t around in 1982 for “Thriller” or in 1969 for The Jackson 5.. I know what you are talking about, but I don’t really understand what saving the engineer a few days work when producing an album has to do with Michael Jackson’s talent as compared to singers today. So the Engineer (not Michael Jackson) doesn’t get paid for another week or two of work to balance the levels in his voice. EQ/Volume/Filters. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/51 "2009-06-27T21:49:44Z")
> [@Aghris](#): > > And (according to Wikipedia) Beethoven wrote pieces for one of his many mistresses, a guiny pig and 25 folksy tunes from Scotland. What’s your point? That it’s weird to get misty eyed about a sewer rat. duh ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/52 "2009-06-27T21:51:14Z")
> [@busterbloodvessel](#): > > So you’re saying artistic criticism is solely a matter of opinion. That’s fine, but then how can we even discuss the merits of Michael Jackson’s music? You disregard other people’s opinions, claiming that popularity is irrelevant. There’s not much to talk about if you think your opinion is the only respectable one. Nope, everyone else is saying it’s purely a matter of opinion. Popularity is the opinion of many people. So if you think popularity is a judge of music, then you are saying that it’s only a matter of opinion, and I am saying the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/53 "2009-06-27T21:53:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That it’s weird to get misty eyed about a sewer rat. duh But do most people get misty eyed over the subject of a song, or is it more the way the song sounds/is sung/etc.? Like, if they changed the lyrics to your favorite song to make them about a sewer rat, would the song suddenly get less touching? ---
**Author:** ![busterbloodvessel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@busterbloodvessel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterbloodvessel)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/54 "2009-06-27T22:08:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I know what you are talking about, but I don’t really understand what saving the engineer a few days work when producing an album has to do with Michael Jackson’s talent as compared to singers today. So the Engineer (not Michael Jackson) doesn’t get paid for another week or two of work to balance the levels in his voice. EQ/Volume/Filters. 😕😕😕 I really don’t think you know what I’m talking about. I’m saying Michael Jackson could hit the right notes naturally, without the assistance of a computer, while singers like Britney Spears probably can’t. I’m not talking about EQ or volume. Only pitch. Flats and sharps. And as for the vocoder, yes, that’s been around a while, but it’s a fairly obvious effect. Makes the voice sound like a robot, it’s not usually used to fix an out of tune voice. ---
**Author:** ![Aghris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecccb3/32.png) [@Aghris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aghris)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/55 "2009-06-27T22:25:16Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That it’s weird to get misty eyed about a sewer rat. duh To say Ben was just about a rat and not also about un-understood friendship is like saying that the Zauberflote is just about a magic flute. It’s nonsense and you know it. Also, if the lyrics alone is the only merit of a song, then you are dismissing more than half of the classical music as well. Again, a piece of music is not about the riffs, the lyrics or complexity. It is about the emotional response of the listener. Fear is an emotional response, and I remember being terrified of the Thriller video when I was 10 or so. It was well crafted, composed and performed. If you can concede that the orignal Dracula film was groundbreaking in its time for the movie genre, then you must concede that Thriller was groundbreaking in music history. You may not like the direction it has taken, but it was groundbreaking nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/56 "2009-06-27T22:54:34Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But do most people get misty eyed over the subject of a song, or is it more the way the song sounds/is sung/etc.? Like, if they changed the lyrics to your favorite song to make them about a sewer rat, would the song suddenly get less touching? Yes a bit. I also think it’s ok to get misty about a sewer rat, but that doesn’t make it not odd. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/57 "2009-06-27T22:56:21Z")
> [@busterbloodvessel](#): > > 😕😕😕 > > I really don’t think you know what I’m talking about. I’m saying Michael Jackson could hit the right notes naturally, without the assistance of a computer, while singers like Britney Spears probably can’t. I’m not talking about EQ or volume. Only pitch. Flats and sharps. Many singers still can hit the notes. Probably Mariah Carey and Christina Aguilera could. And I bet as soon as auto-tune came out Michael Jackson was using it. > [@](#): > > And as for the vocoder, yes, that’s been around a while, but it’s a fairly obvious effect. Makes the voice sound like a robot, it’s not usually used to fix an out of tune voice. I’m not talking about that, and you don’t need to use a vocoder ONLY to make your voice sound like a robot. I used to work in a recording studio and am a big afficianado of electronic music, so I definitely know precisely what you are talking about. Michael Jackson was not an opera singer. A good singer, yes. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/58 "2009-06-27T22:59:35Z")
> [@Aghris](#): > > To say Ben was just about a rat and not also about un-understood friendship is like saying that the Zauberflote is just about a magic flute. It’s nonsense and you know it. No I don’t know it because I don’t know that song. I was just pointing out the obvious meaning in another post that someone missed the point of. > [@](#): > > Also, if the lyrics alone is the only merit of a song, then you are dismissing more than half of the classical music as well. This is a straw man that there is no real response to. I never said anything resembling this. > [@](#): > > Again, a piece of music is not about the riffs, the lyrics or complexity. It is about the emotional response of the listener. Fear is an emotional response, and I remember being terrified of the Thriller video when I was 10 or so. It was well crafted, composed and performed. If you can concede that the orignal Dracula film was groundbreaking in its time for the movie genre, then you must concede that Thriller was groundbreaking in music history. Well then I guess John Williams is the height of music then because he can create music that can make a poorly written scene seem so much more heroic and epic than it really is. > [@](#): > > You may not like the direction it has taken, but it was groundbreaking nonetheless. Yes, he was a ground breaking pop star. You do realize that music can be scientific right? You can write music that will elicit certain responses from the listener just by picking the right notes. If you are a trained musician you know how to do this. Many people make a great living doing this writing jingles for commercials. ---
**Author:** ![Aghris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecccb3/32.png) [@Aghris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aghris)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/59 "2009-06-27T23:23:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No I don’t know it because I don’t know that song. I was just pointing out the obvious meaning in another post that someone missed the point of. I find it odd that you trash MJ for his artistic ability while you don’t know his oeuvre. > [@](#): > > This is a straw man that there is no real response to. I never said anything resembling this. You implied it by saying Ben was an unworthy song because of it being about a rat. But fine, I’ll let it drop. > [@](#): > > Well then I guess John Williams is the height of music then because he can create music that can make a poorly written scene seem so much more heroic and epic than it really is. It certainly is a major achievement, yes. While I might be familiar with his work without realising it, I don’t really know the man. But if he can do what you claim he does, then yes, he may be the height of music _in his area of work_ > [@](#): > > You do realize that music can be scientific right? You can write music that will elicit certain responses from the listener just by picking the right notes. If you are a trained musician you know how to do this. Many people make a great living doing this writing jingles for commercials. You do realize that the big classical names knew this too, right? Math and music have been matched in ancient greek times already, so that is nothing new. But all this aside, I see no difference in Beethoven writing a certain piece of music for a particular dance, and MJ writing music for performance for millions of people, besides the scale of it. The goal was the same: have people like it so that they can dance to it. Neither artist wrote for themselves, they wrote for the audience so they could put food on the table (and occassionally buy a theme park). ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/60 "2009-06-27T23:39:13Z")
> [@Aghris](#): > > I find it odd that you trash MJ for his artistic ability while you don’t know his oeuvre. I find it strange that you think not knowing one song is ignorance of a man’s ouevre, and that I am bashing Michael Jackson. I’m not bashing Michael Jackson, I am bashing pop music. He was incredibly talented for a pop musician, he just didn’t break any musical ground. > [@](#): > > You implied it by saying Ben was an unworthy song because of it being about a rat. But fine, I’ll let it drop. I didn’t actually. > [@](#): > > It certainly is a major achievement, yes. While I might be familiar with his work without realising it, I don’t really know the man. But if he can do what you claim he does, then yes, he may be the height of music _in his area of work_ You’ve never seen Star Wars? > [@](#): > > You do realize that the big classical names knew this too, right? Math and music have been matched in ancient greek times already, so that is nothing new. Yes, I do, and they went much farther with it than the modern day pop musicians you are referring to. > [@](#): > > But all this aside, I see no difference in Beethoven writing a certain piece of music for a particular dance, and MJ writing music for performance for millions of people, besides the scale of it. The goal was the same: have people like it so that they can dance to it. Neither artist wrote for themselves, they wrote for the audience so they could put food on the table (and occassionally buy a theme park). Neither artist wrote for themselves? And you claim _I_ have no respect for them as artists? You just called both Beethoven and Michael Jackson mere technicians, not artists. I think that this statement is probably untrue in both cases however. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119.md?page=4)