Its finally over.

Snake wrote:After 100 years people will still remember such great compositor, Mozart.
In 5/10 years, or 20, will they remember bieber?
Edit: If you dont see why Mozart is better then bieber then you just the public that Bieber targets.

Ofcourse they will, the whole internet is plastered with Bieber memes. Demotivational posters, Bieber must die threads, youtube parodies...

Yes a music is an achievement, have you ever wrote a poem to a girl?
Writing a song is the same thing, though I dont mean only in "girl" option.
And if you think Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Da Vinci, Leonardo, and other examples of people who demonstrated art and achievements in Human's progression in Cultural and Humanism parts, and you compare one of them with a teen dude, that doesn't make sense. That only makes u look uncultured and silly.

"Ad hominem - fallacy" That doesnt make sense at all when I use latin grammar as a joke.

Snake wrote:Yes a music is an achievement, have you ever wrote a poem to a girl?
Writing a song is the same thing, though I dont mean only in "girl" option.
And if you think Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Da Vinci, Leonardo, and other examples of people who demonstrated art and achievements in Human's progression in Cultural and Humanism parts, and you compare one of them with a teen dude, that doesn't make sense. That only makes u look uncultured and silly.

All art is about a conduit of meaning on some level. Regardless of popularity, and Alexander is right in that popularity is a poor judge of quality, art that conveys a real truth in a way to the viewer that "strikes a chord", as one might say, is successful art.

The sorrow that one feels when listening to the Moonlight sonata is evidence of it's success at conveying Beethoven's own sorrow at his unrequited love which he penned audibly into that piece of music. The absolute nothing which anyone feels when listening to the music of this 16 year old boy is evidence of it's failure as art.

Obviously the success or failure of art is subjective, but when considered in this way I expect anyone honest to find that Bieber's work fails for them.

"Ad hominem - fallacy" That doesnt make sense at all when I use latin grammar as a joke.

Phallus ad hominem makes a better joke. Still not a good joke, but it's better.

Snake wrote:Yes a music is an achievement, have you ever wrote a poem to a girl?
Writing a song is the same thing, though I dont mean only in "girl" option.
And if you think Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Da Vinci, Leonardo, and other examples of people who demonstrated art and achievements in Human's progression in Cultural and Humanism parts, and you compare one of them with a teen dude, that doesn't make sense. That only makes u look uncultured and silly.

You still haven't given a satisfactory reason why they're better though? You just keep assuring me that they are, when I can see absolutely no reason to think that. And again I notice another argumentum ad hominem at the end there. (many apologies for shortening it to ad hominem in my previous post, I was still referring to this but neglected to write 'argumentum' for reasons of convenience.)

TKTom wrote:All art is about a conduit of meaning on some level. Regardless of popularity, and Alexander is right in that popularity is a poor judge of quality, art that conveys a real truth in a way to the viewer that "strikes a chord", as one might say, is successful art.

I honestly find that art of any kind doesn't convey any kind of meaning, truth or emotion; sure music can build atmosphere or a painting can look nice, but I don't really know how I'm supposed to appreciate them in any sense other than the aesthetic.

TKTom wrote:
The sorrow that one feels when listening to the Moonlight sonata is evidence of it's success at conveying Beethoven's own sorrow at his unrequited love which he penned audibly into that piece of music. The absolute nothing which anyone feels when listening to the music of this 16 year old boy is evidence of it's failure as art.

Obviously the success or failure of art is subjective, but when considered in this way I expect anyone honest to find that Bieber's work fails for them.

If this is the criteria for good art, then the people at Justin Bieber's gigs always look extremely happy to me, and I'd imagine that when people who like his music feel happy when they listen to it, or feel sad if he sings melancholic songs (does he, I have no idea?).

Now we're arguing about taste, which obviously never ends well.

What TKTom meant was that the feelings within, for example, Beethoven's music are much deeper and complex than the "feelings" that you mean. These people aren't happy because the music of Bieber translates that feeling very well into music. They're happy because they're partying. They could be listening to anything. They're happy maybe because they like the singer, because they just want something to be happy about. They might even be madly in love with the music without it being able to translate the feeling "love" into music. That's just the way many teenagers are, they're looking for an idol and will take the next best thing and look up to it.

I'm not saying that in order for me to enjoy music, it must be at a quality level of such legendary pieces as the moonlight sonata. As I said, I'm perfectly fine with some more shallow music. But these modern pop songs are simply stupid (mainly in regards to the complexity of the music and the meaning of the lyrics) and fail to make me feel anything other than annoyed. I don't care how many people might feel happy listening to it (although I'll keep arguing that they aren't really happy because the music is truly good, but rather because they just want ANYTHING with a rythm to get drunk and "dance" - if you can call that dancing at all - or whatever), I don't feel anything.

You could even argue that modern pop music translates the feeling of happiness well into notes. But the kind of happiness it makes people feel is the "I'm drunk and stupid but I don't care lololol" happiness. It's not a feeling I desire.

That was the original question by the way. That I (jokingly) asked for an explanation of why these people feel happy about the music that I feel annoyed by.

Spec wrote:
What TKTom meant was that the feelings within, for example, Beethoven's music are much deeper and complex than the "feelings" that you mean. These people aren't happy because the music of Bieber translates that feeling very well into music. They're happy because they're partying. They could be listening to anything. They're happy maybe because they like the singer, because they just want something to be happy about. They might even be madly in love with the music without it being able to translate the feeling "love" into music. That's just the way many teenagers are, they're looking for an idol and will take the next best thing and look up to it.

Totally correct.

Alex, you can't think of a single bloody example of something you like due to an emotional connection? If that is the case you can't hide behind an ad Hominem defense because your lack of experience in the matter is relevant to the discussion. It seems to me that you have made no attempt at all to rank (or even, if what you say is the case, experience) art and are thus saying that the qualitative judgements which the rest of us have made are an utterly futile measure.

Sir_Alexander wrote:

You still haven't given a satisfactory reason why they're better though? You just keep assuring me that they are, when I can see absolutely no reason to think that. And again I notice another argumentum ad hominem at the end there. (many apologies for shortening it to ad hominem in my previous post, I was still referring to this but neglected to write 'argumentum' for reasons of convenience.)

Yes I pretty fail to that, can you Alex help me by explaining why Bieber is better then those examples?

Sir_Alexander wrote:

TKTom wrote:All art is about a conduit of meaning on some level. Regardless of popularity, and Alexander is right in that popularity is a poor judge of quality, art that conveys a real truth in a way to the viewer that "strikes a chord", as one might say, is successful art.

I honestly find that art of any kind doesn't convey any kind of meaning, truth or emotion; sure music can build atmosphere or a painting can look nice, but I don't really know how I'm supposed to appreciate them in any sense other than the aesthetic.

Uhhh when I listen or read or see something, its supposed to feel something, lets say an famous Singer from Portugal, she sings about Saudade which its difficult to translate into English, a nostalgic feeling about something you don't have or lost, that song reminds me how I miss my country, when I read a book I feel feel the same as the "player" of the main character, and when I see some good painting it makes me wonder how the heck he painted that.
There no such thing as emotionless in anything that someone makes, including Bieber songs, there are feelings there, that what define us Human? or Uman.

Edit: @Spec, Tom: I totally agree with you

Snake wrote:
Yes I pretty fail to that, can you Alex help me by explaining why Bieber is better then those examples?

I've never said that he was better. My point throughout this has been that all art or music is essentially of the same standard.

Mind to respond to TKTom and me? Or do you not wish to continue this conversation? On one hand, I feel like we're ganging up on you, pressing you into a defensive role. On the other hand, you might as well just be trolling us :p

Well, as has been said many times, you can't judge these things objectively.

Making my first statement:

Sir_Alexander wrote:Huh, I actually can't distinguish Justin Bieber's music in terms of quality from any other music, but p'raps that's just me.

pretty much still the case.

TKTom wrote:saying that the qualitative judgements which the rest of us have made are an utterly futile measure.

No. What I'm saying is that there is no objective truth or meaning, or ideal form of music, which can be reached. Your personal quest for such however is not futile, it contains plenty of meaning and truth for you. All I'm asking is that we all be a little less judgemental of others' searches for truth and meaning.

There's no disagreement in that, Alex. We all agree that these are subjective things, or so I thought. And that there's no being "right" or "wrong" in a matter of taste. We tried to explain to you, though, why we like certain kinds of music better, and we were surprised that you thought they were all exactly the same.

To try another approach: When I look at the way you write, you seem to dislike blunt, simple messages and use relatively complex sentence structures and rhetorical methods compared to the internet-average. This is not objectively a 'better' way of writing, because the message would also come across if you only used simple, short sentences, but we're on the same page when I compare that to the way music can be composed, are we not?

Do you like it better when you read messages written in good English and with some thought put into the way they are "composed", or do you not care at all and like very simplified structures just as well (except for humorous reasons or reasons of situational convenience due to a lack of time, such as when using in-game chat)?

Ok, Alex is right an objective reason to why something is better than something else is impossible to give. Our reaction to art is innate not reasoned, which is why it can be so hard to articulate (as Snake has shown) why something is good. The reason you like something is completely subjective, art means different things to different people if you have a profound reaction to something you attribute meaning to it - meaning that is impossible to see objectively. If many people all have a profound reaction to something it's judged as good. Note profound, not positive the people at Justin's gigs may well be happy, but I doubt they have a profound reaction to his music. Oh and on a side-note, someone mentioned age I think - Keats was very young, and is still considered an amazing poet - I don't think age has much relevance.

Agh! Joke thread turned serious! Run for the hills!

I'd say that that's a false analogy, at least in-so-far as you've described 'high art' as being superior to 'low art' due to its ability to convey an emotion, meaning, truth etc. I don't write in the way I do because I'm attempting to convey some additional emotion or meaning than the surface value of my words.

As I've already said, I find certain paintings to look pretty, or certain music to build a certain atmosphere, these are both shallow, aesthetic judgements, which is why I wouldn't actually say that that painting or that music is 'better' than another piece.

The same is true of the way I write, I personally believe that aesthetically it looks and reads nicer, however I wouldn't say that people who write 'in interwebz sms speek, lolz' are actually worse at writing than me, I just personally believe that it looks less good.

###EDIT###

Benfree wrote:Note profound, not positive the people at Justin's gigs may well be happy, but I doubt they have a profound reaction to his music.

I really wouldn't know, what they describe appears to me to sound like a profound experience (at least as I've heard such a thing described elsewhere, I have no actual personal understanding of what the phrase means). Who am I to judge that what they believe to be a profound experience is not?

The thing is that at least I didn't try to argue that there was any objective means to measure art. I was just comparing my taste with that of, for example, the average Justin Bieber fan, and wondered why his music, which does in my perception not carry as many emotions (or generally aesthetics appealing to me, to stick with your wording) is considered to be good by so many. I was not saying that there was any objective answer to this, and I only explained what I like about music. What shocked me about your responses is merely that you said that you didn't prefer any kind of music, which I do not understand. I was under the impression that almost everyone could name some sort of favorite song or music genre.

I can't speak for TKTom obviously, perhaps he went further than I did.

Yeah but if the meaning wasn't intended, it's more like accidental art - in the same way as looking at a sunset can be pleasant. Which doesn't devalue the reaction, just the artist.

Sorry, what are you referring to exactly, Ben? Which meaning was not intended?

Sorry, should of been clearer - I was referring to Alex saying that many of Justin's fans may have a profound reaction to his music. If they take meaning from his art that isn't intended, it devalues the artist.

Sir_Alexander wrote:

Spec wrote:From ANY other music? Or any other current pop music? If the former, I'll have to have you shot, I'm afraid :p

From any music.

When I say I can't distinguish it in terms of quality, I don't mean I can't distinguish its qualities (i.e. tempo, instruments involved or the like), but I can't distinguish how worth-while Justin Bieber's music is from any other piece of music.

I was just reading back through this thread and I found the above remark by Alex. It represents the crux of the issue here.

The "qualities" that Alex cites are absolutes (and mostly quantities.) When trying to analyse art one should look for something deeper than these*, of course: any characteristics of art which are not absolute must be subjective. Thus these deeper characteristics are subjective.

Any (thinking) individual would ascribe the qualities of "good" or "bad" to art based on:

1. Ranked preference for absolutes.
2. Innate subjective (emotional) response.

It IS objective that music has become more similar in recent years. Under statistical analysis, tempo, volume, stanza construction and voice pattern is all more similar among "different" songs now than it was twenty years ago. It is a logical and well known statistical property that statistics born of a similar data set are very prone to being skewed by the set. Thus it is reasonable to say that the opinions of people who have experienced a wider variety of music are, objectively, better. It is no coincidence that the older generation do not like Bieber's music.

As for emotional response, the responses of different people are often the same, so there's clearly something objective there. The intention of the artist is certainly unchanging, and I don't think anyone can genuinely say that Bieber intends to convey a deep emotional response with his music. He really just sings the same upbeat claptrap in his high-pitched kiddy voice.

* I operate on the definition of art as "Art should convey a human truth or incite a profound emotional response in the viewer, and should have no purpose other than to be art."