SecretMoblin
Member
run sai
run as fast as you can
run as fast as you can
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How does PopGAF deal witht the fact that...
- Thread starter JJDinomite
- Start date
- Status
WhereAreMahDragonz
Banned
Even through the slime covered threads of Off-Topic, we find a way.
it doesnt
beyonce is the baddest bitch on this here earth but i still like rihanna and xtina and grimes and kimbra and kendrick lamar and meshuggah too
This is a part of the problem with those who have that perception of popgaf. A poster who sees one post that makes his point and uses it to crucify the rest of popgaf. GAF hates being treated as a hivemind, yet treats popgaf as one at every turn. The HYPOCRISY, I CANNOT, and I'm done.
Wooo Boy, I sure hope you never visit gaming side. :ace:
Not a pop gaffer or anything, but that's pretty much all you see on that side
Actually sales and better products do go hand in hand sometimes.
With more sales artists get more time in the studio, they meet different producers, they can have big-budget music videos, etc.
Sales (or lack thereof) can have an effect on the quality of music.
You guys really need to learn when PopGAF is and isn't being serious.
The sales/awards/impact talk is really just a part of the competitive nature of PopGAF. Think of pop stars (and the producers, writers, choreographers, labels, etc. they work with) as players on a team with specific roles, and PopGAF is treating it like a season of fantasy football. We pick our teams, and we battle each other over their stats and accomplishments, and our ability to twist said stats and accomplishments to seem bigger than they really are. It's actually pretty damn fun.
But, at the end of the day, we like what we like, regardless of how it sells. Mariah Carey's newest album is considered by a lot of PopGAF to be one of the best pop releases so far this year, and it's selling like shit. "Warrior" pretty much ended Ke$ha's career with the sheer magnitude of its failure, and it's probably one of the most well received pop albums by PopGAF...well, ever. And lets not even get on all of the Indie Pop acts we stan, for whom 40k sales first week would be a breakthrough.
Oh I know what you mean, she's a great dancer, one of the best in the business actually. And she sang some great songs (I own most of her albums), even if most of them just consists of another artist singing the hook (Christina Milian or Ashanti). But I've never really considered her as an "artist". More like an entertainer. A good one at that.
woah, I've never heard that before haha, thanks for the link!
Did someone say Emerson Lake & Palmer?
Z..
Member
Yeah, I apologized for the misjudgement of the community already. My bad.
First of all, you need to realize, as with everything in human culture, the values we are about to discuss are socially constructed. Meaning "good" or "bad" are values that only make sense within a human context, there is no science behind, it's completely behavioural. Objectively, these are subjective values... but only in the same way that genders are subjective (your sex is objective, your gender is socially constructed). However, within this well defined realm, there is most definitely space for categorization, and as such there are parameters. As with everything else, you become more aware of their existence the more you expose yourself to different types of content. Which is why it's so hard for some people to understand it as they've never pushed their comfort zones or attempted to understand something they disliked unless it happened organically.
That being said, parameters do exist. And they are mostly unbiased (which is why any review worth a damn can never be based on personal preferences). One other important thing that must be understood is that it isn't a science. Meaning that just because an album is technically basic or completely devoid of melody, that fact in and of itself is absolutely meaningless. Greatness is not a formula, but a combining of different attributes coming together to make something better than the sum of it's parts. The ingredients to what make a good album are abundant in quantity and most of them are usually absent in any given masterpiece. It's not like a checklist where if some element is lesser or missing it results in immediately penalty, is what I mean.
But you are being deliberately ignorant here, as you already know what I'm going to say. Technique, composition, originality and delivery would be the cornerstones (as well as how well they relate to/play off of each other), but each of those splinters off into multiple variants and elements. Rhythm, melody, pitch, harmony, dynamics or any other musical element are all important as well but play a secondary role. But if you really wanted me to list elements you might as well just google what the aspects of music are.
Most importantly, music combines to make something greater than the sum of it's parts at the end. That is what is usually called "soul", an this is where the task becomes herculean in difficulty. Again, you already know everything I'm going to say and your stance seems to be one of rejecting something you don't understand but are already aware exists.
Just answer me this, do you really see no objective difference in quality at all between Dark Side Of The Moon or Lil Wayne's I Am Not a Human Being? Do you actually believe that the only thing that separates these two works is human pride?
You didn't deny it. There was no argument there. You stated your opinion and it's perfectly valid, but there was no discussion.
Of course some people are better judges than others. How informed and exposed you are will always make your opinion more relevant. How else do you think music critics are selected?
I'm not embarassed at all. I like what I like and it doesn't make me better or worse than anyone else. That's the whole point.
You're the ones who seem to be embarassed since you are in denial about your own preferences.
What do you mean? I was incredibly specific in that post. Oo Check it again.
Oh! Fair enough, I suppose. But that doesn't exactly mean you think it's good. It just means you don't care. If you don't analyze it means you don't have a true impartial judgement of it's quality, as you perceive it. You like it and don't question it. Which I have no qualms with.
Well, when you start analyzing stuff, it becomes almost essential to catalog it, hence the marks. Which does ruin it, for some people. Kind of like poetry. Some enjoy it even more after analyzing it, while others believe it robs it of some of it's ethereal beauty. Oh well, to each his own!
Anyway, we've gone severely off topic, here.
=D
Masters of their craft, but a bit too cacophonic for my taste. Regardless, their first 4 albums are abolute gems.
Even though I like harsh noise, lol...
Crumpet Trumpet
Banned
Z your post was really good but I didn't like it at all
Z.., that's a great post, especially the bit about music and objective standards. Of course, the problem with attempting to bring that sort of objectivity into discussions about music on GAF is that very few of us (including myself) have any ability to talk about music theory coherently. I think I can recognize the difference when I hear it, but I can't tell you in terms of chords and notes and keys and minors or majors or tempo or time signature or ... whatever else exactly why I prefer one thing and don't like another. It's fascinating to hear someone competent talk about why, say, The Beatles really do deserve the accolades as songwriters but those specifics are not something I could have pointed out myself.
And I suspect that's the same reason why most other people resort to the idea that it is all subjective.
And I suspect that's the same reason why most other people resort to the idea that it is all subjective.
Without addressing all of this line by line, I'm not being deliberately ignorant. I'm drawing attention to how your construction of what makes music good is just as arbitrary as anyone else's. Why is Emerson, Lake, and Palmer "undeniably" good? Your assertion was baseless so my retort was too. You mention how aspects such as melody and dynamics play into things, but then that leads us to asking what an objectively good melody is or what is objectively good technique. The answer inevitably boils down to some variation of people's opinion.
You seem to be aware of this too, spending several paragraphs explaining why objectively judging music is impossible but then asserting that there is a way to do just that anyway. It doesn't really make any sense. So to answer your question, the difference between Dark Side Of The Moon and I Am Not a Human Being is societies' collective opinion of them. You can talk about various aspects of their writing, performance, and recording, but when it comes down to how good the albums are, that's the difference.
Like I first said, since 99% of the value is in the production so if they can afford to pay more creative types more frequently (or fail more frequently) they increase their chances of finding something that is good. In that respect what you say is true but their individual talent doesn't change. I can buy the next batch of kraft singles or wonder bread (by far the best sellers in their types) until the sun goes supernova but they are still going to be awful.
I'm curious as to how you're coming up with this figure here. Seems pretty exact - would be interested in the data you're pulling from.
Black-Wind
Member
... Whhhy should I care if someone wrote their own song or not?
All that matters is what hits my ears.
All that matters is what hits my ears.
Nealand Liquor
Member
I remember when I was young and I thought shit like this mattered.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
Lana and Lorde write their own songs so I don't care.
for example no one could make Pour It Up sound as good as Rihanna makes it sound
for example no one could make Pour It Up sound as good as Rihanna makes it sound
Z..
Member
Welcome to human culture. It's all arbitrary. None of it has any intrinsic value. As a social construct, the only way it can even be discussed is inherently subjective. Much like morality. Good and evil are fictitious concepts as well. I can objectively say slavery isn't a bad thing and not be wrong because morality is a social cosntruct.
But because these concepts are socially constructed, they can only be judged or evaluated from a subjective point of view. But we've laid down paradigms for what constitues good or evil. Much like we've done the same for artistic evaluation. Discrediting the proccess on the basis of it being irrefutably subjective is questioning the entirety if human culture. Excess has created a need for categorization and rating processes. Which have since become a fundamental and integral part of the way culture functions.
Your stance is the equivalent of covering your ears so you won't have to be aware of so ething that is real. And while the strong nihilist streak in me agrees with you, I've long since learned to just make the best of the lousy existence we've cornered ourselves into.
Which often involves accepting society's flaws. We like to compare things. It's in our nature. Every homo sapiens wanted the shiniest rock. Our appetites have evolved, but our impulses and drives remain unchanged.
Fundamentally, I agree with you, but realistically, you are looking at it the wrong way.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Blood Diamonds
Banned
Sparkedglory
Member
Because we don't care.
this album is amazing everyone listen to it
Yes let em know.
this album is amazing everyone listen to it
Saturday Night is one of the best singles of 2013. I can even hear some similarities in Charli XCX's new single (for the The Fault In Our Stars ost)
Music is so personal and subjective that I don't think you can really criticize someone else's taste.
But with regards to pop music and its manufacturedness (real word?), I don't think it matters. As long as the end result is great and moves you in some way, I don't care how many writers or producers there are.
But with regards to pop music and its manufacturedness (real word?), I don't think it matters. As long as the end result is great and moves you in some way, I don't care how many writers or producers there are.
Scooter155
Member
Funny that these two are right next to each other ^
If it doesn't matter to some people, that's fine. It matters to me, and I think the oddity the OP is pointing out is valid beyond personal opinion.
When a new song comes out, for instance a new Katy Perry song, people tend to talk about what a great song it is and therefore, what a great musician Katy Perry is. It's strange to give the singer acclaim for a song they had next to nothing to do with creating. The producers and writers are responsible for everything about the song (in a lot of cases), even how the singer performs it and which singer it's given to.
He also makes the point that arguing whether Pop Idol X or Pop Idol Y is better (he specifically mentions Perry and Gaga) is silly, because they're completely interchangeable, one's songs could just as easily have been sold to/performed by the other.
My personal opinion is that pop music is cheaper when the artists don't write their own material. It's why the Beatles are still held up as one of the greatest and most influential pop/rock groups of all time while the Monkees are an entertaining but ultimately unimportant side note in music history. Some people forge new ground, and other people chase what's successful in an attempt to cash in on trends. The more popular acts nowadays seem to skew far more heavily towards cashing in on trends rather than forging new ground.
- Status