Harry Styles: "One Direction are bigger than the Beatles"
193 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870177]you're not wrong but I don't really see your point. if you choose to make minimalist music then it doesn't matter, but what I said is that being more articulate in any form of expression gives you the capability to be better at that form of expression. if you don't use it then it changes nothing but that doesn't negate its value.[/QUOTE]
I admire your novels
[img]http://anyoneforapint.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/empty_book.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;43870210]that's a big word. Do you think Genesis were better at expressing themselves than Wavves?[/QUOTE]
I don't have sufficient knowledge of either of those to answer or understand the question.
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=AK'z;43870215]I admire your novels
[img]http://anyoneforapint.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/empty_book.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I admire your waffles
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870212]if I said that I thought complexity is the only quality beethoven had then I guess that post would suffice but I didn't say that at all and I don't think that either. at the very least one could say that beethoven's music has variety compared to the strumming of a single chord which benefits its longevity, that's one example not related to complexity.[/QUOTE]
okay so let me get this straight, complexity + variety = objectively good music??
[QUOTE=Hakita;43870260]okay so let me get this straight, complexity + variety = objectively good music??[/QUOTE]
1/10 bargain bin troll
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870269]1/10 bargain bin troll[/QUOTE]
would you like to correct my statement then
im really interested in what makes music objectively good
You still haven't answered the second part of my first post I edited in that you seem to have missed.
What makes music OBJECTIVITY BETTER.
[QUOTE=Hakita;43870278]would you like to correct my statement then
im really interested in what makes music objectively good[/QUOTE]
I might if you weren't responding to me with the soul reason of being a dick
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870269]1/10 bargain bin troll[/QUOTE]
I don't think this is how you use a bicycle.
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870300]I might if you weren't responding to me with the soul reason of being a dick[/QUOTE]
Sole*
Yeah, bigger assholes
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870300]I might if you weren't responding to me with the soul reason of being a dick[/QUOTE]
you seem to really be misunderstanding me here fine sir
im genuinely interested, this isn't sarcasm or an attempt at "trolling"
i happen to be an avid fan of many styles of music and would like to learn about why you believe some music is objectively superior to others
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870300][B]soul[/B] reason of being a dick[/QUOTE]
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1x5nKkIk-rs/StJGBEyAVxI/AAAAAAAADe4/9b7KOHWQxsA/s400/Marvin%2BGaye%2Bmarvin08.jpg[/img]
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hakita;43870333]you seem to really be misunderstanding me here fine sir
im genuinely interested, this isn't sarcasm or an attempt at "trolling"
i happen to be an avid fan of many styles of music and would like to learn about why you believe some music is objectively superior to others[/QUOTE]
I think we're being put on the roundabout again, I'm feeling queezy tbh.
[QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;43870293]You still haven't answered the second part of my first post I edited in that you seem to have missed.
What makes music OBJECTIVITY BETTER.[/QUOTE]
a lot of factors, some of them being the ones I originally listed. being that they're only factors I'm just going to assert one more time that just because they CAN make music good that doesn't mean their absence makes music bad.
the things I listed are all things that can make music appeal to the listener. a listener might enjoy more complex music because it's a spectacle to their ears, they might enjoy something that speaks to them and their life which is where the social relevance comes into play, they might enjoy something that's new and innovative because it's something they've never experienced before.
if you compare 2 pieces of music and one has every attribute thought to be appealing to listeners, and the other has none, then one piece can be objectively seen as having more value than the other.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870394]a lot of factors, some of them being the ones I originally listed. being that they're only factors I'm just going to assert one more time that just because they CAN make music good that doesn't mean their absence makes music bad.
the things I listed are all things that can make music appeal to the listener. a listener might enjoy more complex music because it's a spectacle to their ears, they might enjoy something that speaks to them and their life which is where the social relevance comes into play, they might enjoy something that's new and innovative because it's something they've never experienced before.
if you compare 2 pieces of music and one has every attribute thought to be appealing to listeners, and the other has none, then one piece can be objectively seen as having more value than the other.[/QUOTE]
so music that has more appeal is objectively better?
does this make pop music objectively the greatest genre of all time??
[QUOTE=Hakita;43870437]so music that has more appeal is objectively better?
does this make pop music objectively the greatest genre of all time??[/QUOTE]
I didn't say commercial appeal. appeal meaning attributes that make the listener enjoy the music. commercial appeal is largely based on marketing.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870482]I didn't say commercial appeal. appeal meaning attributes that make the listener enjoy the music. commercial appeal is largely based on marketing.[/QUOTE]
so things that make people like music make music objectively superior?
but people like different things in music, meaning that this objectivity is actually based on subjectivity, so doesn't that negate the "objective" value of it?
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870394]the things I listed are all things that can make music appeal to the listener. a listener might enjoy more complex music because it's a spectacle to their ears, they might enjoy something that speaks to them and their life which is where the social relevance comes into play, they might enjoy something that's new and innovative because it's something they've never experienced before.
[/QUOTE]
Music doesn't have to be complex to be a spectacle.
[QUOTE=Hakita;43870500]so things that make people like music make music objectively superior?
but people like different things in music, meaning that this objectivity is actually based on subjectivity, so doesn't that negate the "objective" value of it?[/QUOTE]
people like different things which is the purpose of my use of the word ''factor''. there's plenty of music I personally enjoy that I don't think has much value and will likely fade into obscurity, and likewise there's plenty of music that I dislike but still hold in high regard in terms of the quality of the music. I can't stand the sound of Rush's music but that doesn't stop me from seeing how talented they are and how significant their work is.
Except the Beatles was a big influence on most of old rock and metal bands like Black Sabbath.
Try topping that you little shit.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870528]people like different things which is the purpose of my use of the word ''factor''. there's plenty of music I personally enjoy that I don't think has much value and will likely fade into obscurity, and likewise there's plenty of music that I dislike but still hold in high regard in terms of the quality of the music. I can't stand the sound of Rush's music but that doesn't stop me from seeing how talented they are and how significant their work is.[/QUOTE]
but i can say with absolute certainty that all music has points that appeal to someone, so what makes a song have less value than another?
if a song isn't grand, then it appeals to those who like songs that aren't grand, if a song isn't fast, then it appeals to those who like songs that aren't fast, so doesn't this mean that all music has equal value after all?
The Beatles liked experimenting with songs, they helped in paving the way for metal by trying to make a song sound as loud and dirty as possible
[video=youtube;5fvJEpdq8a8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fvJEpdq8a8[/video]
One Direction brings pretty much nothing new to the table, it's like the boy band version of "girl singer + electronic sound noises + lyrics about how the singer loves someone and wants to party" or "guy with a very bad michael jackson impression cries about how his relationship is failing"
[QUOTE=Hakita;43870565]but i can say with absolute certainty that all music has points that appeal to someone, so what makes a song have less value than another?
if a song isn't grand, then it appeals to those who like songs that aren't grand, if a song isn't fast, then it appeals to those who like songs that aren't fast, so doesn't this mean that all music has equal value after all?[/QUOTE]
not really because there are attributes that are regarded as good by the majority. which was basically my point when I said there is music I like that I don't consider to be all that significant/valuable because I know that it's part of a niche that doesn't interest many.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870528] plenty of music that I dislike but still hold in high regard.[/QUOTE]
what is the function of thinking this way please tell me...
How do you personally benefit in thinking "I absolutely hate what I'm hearing, but I think these guys are superb".
[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;43865919]50 years from now nobody is going to remember One Direction existed, so I have to disagree with you guy.[/QUOTE]
For the record, he does thing the beatles are better.
[quote]He also made it clear the band do not believe their music is in "the same league" as the Fab Four.[/quote]
Also I wouldn't be so sure about no one remembering them in fifty years. The beatles were in many way in a similar situation.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43866067]ironic considering the beatles were pretty much a mass produced band too
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
but yeah overall i don't think one direction have enough mass appeal to ever get as big as the beatles (i can't think of any bands that really do) but i guess only time will tell[/QUOTE]
Imho that has more to do with just how accessible music is these days. Imagine many bands 40 years back. The amount of music discovery was very low, the radio ruled and the moment anyone got big enough that word of mouth brought them to the radio they utterly exploded.
Nowadays even if you get big enough that people discover you by word of mouth, there's 20 other bands or singers who people come over at the same time because discovery trough the internet, trough youtube, spotify and others just means that there's so many more people veing for position.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870610]not really because there are attributes that are regarded as good by the majority. which was basically my point when I said there is music I like that I don't consider to be all that significant/valuable because I know that it's part of a niche that doesn't interest many.[/QUOTE]
attributes that the majority regards as good are more valuable than attributes that only few people like?
doesn't that circle back to subjectivity again?
[QUOTE=AK'z;43870626]what is the function of thinking this way please tell me...
How do you personally benefit in thinking "I absolutely hate what I'm hearing, but I think these guys are superb".[/QUOTE]
what? why do I need to benefit from it?
rush was an example I gave. their music irritates me because of Geddy Lee's voice and the sound they go for with their instruments, but every one of them is an unbelievably talented musician, Neil Peart being one of the best drummers of all time, period. their music is completely unique and overall well written, I just don't personally like the sound of it.
[editline]11th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hakita;43870637]attributes that the majority regards as good are more valuable than attributes that only few people like?
doesn't that circle back to subjectivity again?[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. if the majority of people who appreciate music like your music then I think that is at least somewhat representative of the quality of the music. note that this is very different from commercial success because lots of people who don't have any genuine interest in music will still buy music anyway and those are generally the people who make really generic assembly line artists so successful.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870669]I don't think so. if the majority of people who appreciate music like your music then I think that is at least somewhat representative of the quality of the music. note that this is very different from commercial success because lots of people who don't have any genuine interest in music will still buy music anyway and those are generally the people who make really generic assembly line artists so successful.[/QUOTE]
i understand your point on commercial success versus musical success and agree with it
however, i dont agree at all with your basis on majority choosing what is objectively superior
i really dont see any objectivity in that, it just sounds like "a lot of people think this, therefore they must be right", which is a terrible mentality to have
One direction? Try One Dimension. all they do is copy everyone else.
[QUOTE=Hakita;43870752]i understand your point on commercial success versus musical success and agree with it
however, i dont agree at all with your basis on majority choosing what is objectively superior
i really dont see any objectivity in that, it just sounds like "a lot of people think this, therefore they must be right", which is a terrible mentality to have[/QUOTE]
it's not about the majority choosing. the point is that the experience of music is subjective but attributes that generally make that experience better are what define its quality.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870876]it's not about the majority choosing. the point is that the experience of music is subjective but attributes that generally make that experience better are what define its quality.[/QUOTE]
so what define music's objective quality are attributes that make music enjoyable, but attributes the majority like are more valuable than other attributes, but its not about the majority choosing and music can be good without having these attributes or bad while having them
am i misunderstanding you? because this seems like the least objective and reliable objective scale i've heard of
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43870876]the point is that the experience of music is subjective but attributes that generally make that experience better are what define its quality.[/QUOTE]
you are the master of waffle.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.