The Utter Nihilism that is Pop Music

Cafe Society
121

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.

122

(Apples are objectively better than nectarines, as the former have been credited for significantly more breakthroughs in classical mechanics than the latter.)

123

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. :wink: I admire her and her video director for being able to inspire, ‘deep’, emotions from the bottom of my um…root chakra.

124

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.

Aw, shucks…

125

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.

126

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.

127

Holler.

128

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.

129

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.

130

I’m sure you’re wrong about that.