# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/121 "2009-06-29T07:43:01Z")
I call bullshit on any claim that certain genres of music bring about mathematical and scientific advancement in a way in some significant way which other genres cannot. That having been said, to return to my previous and main point, even if that claim _were_ true, so what? What makes music which brings about mathematical and scientific advancement objectively better than music which does not? It would of course be better at just that, advancing math and science, but why should I be compelled to judge music by its propensity to induce scientific innovation rather than its propensity to, say, induce more rousing football matches or longer-lasting love-making or lower levels of depression or greater levels of consumption of spinach? The variable you choose to look at may be objectively measurable, but that doesn’t mean the choice of that variable as your quality metric is therefore objectively the standard to use. It’s fucking silly. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/122 "2009-06-29T07:51:20Z")
(Apples are objectively better than nectarines, as the former have been credited for significantly more breakthroughs in classical mechanics than the latter.) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/123 "2009-06-29T08:05:12Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > (Apples are objectively better than nectarines, as the former have been credited for significantly more breakthroughs in classical mechanics than the latter.) Corrolation is not causation. You make a good point about variable choice though, probably the most insightful counter argument of the thread. But I am not talking about the value of pop music as much as I am talking about it’s ability to advance, ‘music’, itself. Pop music might evoke feelings of warm cuddliness regarding topics you already felt cuddly about, but that doesn’t mean it can evoke new feelings that you never realized you had, or have trouble manifesting. Lady Gaga - Poker Face makes me want to fuck her every time I watch it, and I know it’s intentional, but…so what? (Notice how I said watch, not listen?) Anyway I leave town in the morning so probably won’t be contributing much more, been a great thread all. I’ll continue to want to fuck Lady Gaga because of their completely intentional and easily rendered sexual innuendo. 😉 I admire her and her video director for being able to inspire, ‘deep’, emotions from the bottom of my um…root chakra. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/124 "2009-06-29T08:17:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Corrolation is not causation. Fair enough. But even if apples really did cause scientific breakthroughs in a way which nectarines didn’t, I would not consider that to make apples objectively better fruit. > [@](#): > > You make a good point about variable choice though, probably the most insightful counter argument of the thread. Aw, shucks… ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/125 "2009-06-29T10:39:35Z")
> [@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.[…] In which mswas takes a somewhat defensible position and proceeds to totally ruin it with a ridiculous and ignorant analogy. You were better off with the fast food comparisons. ---
**Author:** ![Abby\_Emma\_Sasha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@Abby\_Emma\_Sasha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abby_Emma_Sasha)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/126 "2009-06-29T11:17:48Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > This thread is devolving to about the most annoying ever, with the ridiculous comparisons to haute cuisine and classical music. But **dropzone’s** comment here is actually worthy of elaboration. He’s absolutely right - under the Motown banner, the Jackson 5 were simply interpreting songs written (sometimes) for them. In fact, most J5 albums as well as MJ albums on Motown have at least one or two covers - typically of a Motown artist. And as good a bad as they were, after Third Album in 1970, they didn’t have a sizable hit until “Dancing Machine” in '74 or '75. > > Like Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder before them, the Jacksons were chafing under the controlling Motown rein. I actually think Michael’s last Motown album, _Dear Michael_, finally got the right songs for a 17 year old young man to sing. It’s a great, underrated album. Nevertheless, they wanted to write and produce (and play on) their own records. Motown said no, so they left. > > At this point it could have well ended there. Their first two albums for CBS were produced by Gamble & Huff (Philly International) and mostly written by others save a song or two. But the third album, Destiny, was produced by the Jacksons and they wrote the majority of the songs. And it was an excellent album. > > Michael, of course, used this as a springboard to relaunch a successful solo career. What’s important though, is just as it’s been noted that he is an excellent _stylist_, the songs he is most famous for - Don’t Stop 'til You Get Enough, Billie Jean, Beat It, Bad, The Way You Make Me Feel, Black or White - were songs he wrote. Yes, Rod Temperton wrote some excellent songs, and a notable exception is Human Nature - written by David Paich from Toto - but I’m unsure if Elvis, Sinatra, or Joe Cocker, had/have that much of a personal stamp on their output. > > It was an incredible risk for a boy band, indeed one that had seen its best days nearly a decade earlier, to do it mostly by themselves. (Which explains why CBS only let them have the reins two albums in.) And if they didn’t have the chops, the albums wouldn’t have sold and become hits. I think the Jacksons, and Michael, aren’t recognized for their writing, producing, and studio savvy. The dancing and singing were the obvious indicators of their skill, but it went deeper than that. > > I think a recent example of this is Justin Timberlake. I believe all of the N’Sync stuff was written by pop producers, but after he went solo he took greater creative control of his work and has gained some respect for his output. > > I think it’s fine to hold the belief that classical\>pop or rock or funk music, but I don’t think that there’s anything empirical about that opinion. It’s your taste, and it seems ridiculous to try to prove that one’s “taste” is superior to another’s. I was going to come post some shit like this but **Hippy Hollow** beat me to it. And by the way, I like me some Britney Spears, and Lady Gaga is pretty happening too. And don’t holler at me for quoting the whole post, because it needed quoting. ---
**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 29, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/127 "2009-06-29T13:23:52Z")
Holler. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/128 "2009-06-29T14:01:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s about it synchronizing with our nervous system. Good music elevates us. (activates nervous properties that other other music does not) I have read convincing arguments regarding the corrolation of advancement in music with the same culture advancing mathematics and physics etc… Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky’s place in Russian history isn’t accidental. > > In America our popularization of everything is our boon as well as achilles heel. We are great producers, we are great innovators but most of our invention comes from immigrants. Why do we need to import Werner von Brahn or Albert Einstein to compete in physics, but Bill Gates born and bred along with Steve Jobs can bring computers as a mass market tool to the world and bring power and prestige to our entire nation as a result? Pop music follows the same pattern, it is not ground breaking but it elevates the masses by mass marketing the invention. Musical advancement corresponds with mathematical and scientific advancement, clearly there is some connection between our ability to understand music and our ability to understand the fabric of the universe, but pop music doesn’t delve into the depths, it brings to the forefront what a small group already knows, and gives it mass appeal. What a load of rubbish. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense here. Also, what **Indistinguishable** said. I doubt many of history’s great musicians would be flattered to hear that their work was important because of its alleged contributions to the advancement of physics in their culture. No one with any understanding of or appreciation for music as an art form would define good music as that which (supposedly) does the best job of helping them to improve their math skills. That’s like claiming Vermeer was a great painter because looking at his work will make you a better driver. Even if it were true, so what? It might be useful to know if you were struggling to pass your road test, but it’s got nothing to do with art. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/129 "2009-06-29T17:15:12Z")
OK, let’s break it down. First: let’s set aside the pop vs classical argument. We’re dealing with pop music here. I’m sure there is an aesthetical absolute standard, in which one can say that some art forms are inherently “better” than others: more difficult to create, more difficult to appreciate, but more rewarding and more uplifting to the human spirit. If there is such a standard (and I think there is) pop music is not at the top. But that’s not the point. Within the pop music milieu, where does MJ rank? Let’s break down his contributions as a vocalist, songwriter, dancer, choreographer, entertainer, and videographer (for lack of a better word). From most to least important, I’d say: 1. His videos revolutionized how we look (literally) at pop music. He \*made \*MTV. He can’t take full credit for them, of course – they were directed and choreographed (in part) by others. 2. His dance moves were truly groundbreaking, and mostly original (some parts were borrowed from James Brown and Fred Astaire) and changed pop performance. 3. Songwriter…meh. Lennon/McCartney and Smokey Robinson were better. 4. Vocalist…to each their own. He had an excellent voice, especially in his early years. In the later stuff, a little of that hiccuping noise goes a very long way for me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119/130 "2009-06-29T17:48:38Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > I’m sure there is an aesthetical absolute standard, in which one can say that some art forms are inherently “better” than others … I’m sure you’re wrong about that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-utter-nihilism-that-is-pop-music/501119.md?page=6)