electricberet said:

The flower has an erection.

I'm guessing the biology wasn't your strong point at school.

electricberet said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Like I said, art is subjective. No shame in liking or hating it. That's the way it goes.

There may be no shame in liking bad art but that doesn't mean there's no difference between good art and bad art. We all understand that when it comes to music: the vast majority of people here (if they were being honest) would admit that SOTT is a better work of art than Rave. But somehow visual art is all equally good or bad depending on your point of view? I respectfully dissent.

Criticism plays a big part for anyone in the arts. The role it plays depends on who the target audience is intended. It is especially vital if the art is for a mass consumer item. So in that instance, the Lovesexy cover might have been a failure

The lovesexy cover is by Jean-Baptiste Mondino, a renowned fashion photographer and video director. I do not think anyone believes the Lovesexy cover or I Wish U Heaven video are the pinnacles of his career, but his work is always highly regarded. I like it. People in the art community would more than likely agree with me. People out on the street maybe not so much. No biggie. He knows that, I know that.

Criticism is important, but for different reasons to different people, and when it comes to art, there is no right or wrong, just differences in opinion. When I design and market my products, I know what items the general consumer will gravitate to, and I know what my high end consumers gravitate to. And they are rarely the same. Neither is wrong or right, just different tastes. The Lovesexy cover obviously did not appeal to the mass consumer, but one quick look at it tells you it really wasn't designed or intended with them in mind. If that was the case, instead of hiring Jean-Baptiste Mondino, they would have hired Thomas Kinkade.

[Edited 9/30/11 14:32pm]

V10LETBLUES said:

electricberet said:

There may be no shame in liking bad art but that doesn't mean there's no difference between good art and bad art. We all understand that when it comes to music: the vast majority of people here (if they were being honest) would admit that SOTT is a better work of art than Rave. But somehow visual art is all equally good or bad depending on your point of view? I respectfully dissent.

Criticism plays a big part for anyone in the arts. The role it plays depends on who the target audience is intended. It is especially vital if the art is for a mass consumer item. So in that instance, the Lovesexy cover might have been a failure

The lovesexy cover is by Jean-Baptiste Mondino, a renowned fashion photographer and video director. I do not think anyone believes the Lovesexy cover or I Wish U Heaven video are the pinnacles of his career, but his work is always highly regarded. I like it. People in the art community would more than likely agree with me. People out on the street maybe not so much. No biggie. He knows that, I know that.

Criticism is important, but for different reasons to different people, and when it comes to art, there is no right or wrong, just differences in opinion. When I design and market my products, I know what items the general consumer will gravitate to, and I know what my high end consumers gravitate to. And they are rarely the same. Neither is wrong or right, just different tastes. The Lovesexy cover obviously did not appeal to the mass consumer, but one quick look at it tells you it really wasn't designed or intended with them in mind. If that was the case, instead of hiring Jean-Baptiste Mondino, they would have hired Thomas Kinkade.

[Edited 9/30/11 14:32pm]

If you're saying that there's no "right or wrong" in art in the same way that there's a right or wrong answer in mathematics, I will concede that. There is a wide room for disagreement about which works of art are better than others. Hence the perennial debates on here about which is Prince's best album, song, etc. But I believe that some works of art are objectively better than others, because humans have a shared aesthetic sensibility. Can you really look at the Sistine Chapel on the one hand, and the Lovesexy cover on the other, and say that neither is objectively better as a work of art?

electricberet said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Yep!

Art is subjective, but the cover has definatly been featured on books devoted to best album covers of all time.

I hope those books weren't compiled by serious art critics.

Definitely that book was more serious critically than the subject link of this thread, which is a blog on yahoo music!

It's seems so obvious to me that the Lovesexy cover is a great image, not only conceptually like a contemporary painting that riffs off of historical religious art, but also in color, composition, and technical quality. Unlike say Graffiti Bridge or Diamonds and Pearls or the symbol album which are amateurish covers along those same criteria (and all from Warner Bros). On the other hand the previous album covers going back to Dirty Mind were great too. But I think SOTT, Black Album, Purple Rain, 1999 and Lovesexy all great album covers from an artistic point of view. It all downhill after Lovesexy, except for maybe The Rainbow Children.

But to each his own. My taste works well for me and governs my career!

electricberet said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Criticism plays a big part for anyone in the arts. The role it plays depends on who the target audience is intended. It is especially vital if the art is for a mass consumer item. So in that instance, the Lovesexy cover might have been a failure

The lovesexy cover is by Jean-Baptiste Mondino, a renowned fashion photographer and video director. I do not think anyone believes the Lovesexy cover or I Wish U Heaven video are the pinnacles of his career, but his work is always highly regarded. I like it. People in the art community would more than likely agree with me. People out on the street maybe not so much. No biggie. He knows that, I know that.

Criticism is important, but for different reasons to different people, and when it comes to art, there is no right or wrong, just differences in opinion. When I design and market my products, I know what items the general consumer will gravitate to, and I know what my high end consumers gravitate to. And they are rarely the same. Neither is wrong or right, just different tastes. The Lovesexy cover obviously did not appeal to the mass consumer, but one quick look at it tells you it really wasn't designed or intended with them in mind. If that was the case, instead of hiring Jean-Baptiste Mondino, they would have hired Thomas Kinkade.

[Edited 9/30/11 14:32pm]

If you're saying that there's no "right or wrong" in art in the same way that there's a right or wrong answer in mathematics, I will concede that. There is a wide room for disagreement about which works of art are better than others. Hence the perennial debates on here about which is Prince's best album, song, etc. But I believe that some works of art are objectively better than others, because humans have a shared aesthetic sensibility. Can you really look at the Sistine Chapel on the one hand, and the Lovesexy cover on the other, and say that neither is objectively better as a work of art?

Nope. But I can tell you what i appreciate about each. And I cannot compare Andy Warhol to Picasso, or Say that Michelangelo was better than Leonardo Da Vinci

But you are right that we see these folks as "better" than most other artists. And to say that they are, is considered "true"

I also agree with you that there is good are and bad art. But my interpretation of each, as well as everyone elses will differ. Same with my taste in food, men and clothes.

[Edited 9/30/11 16:10pm]

ufoclub said:

electricberet said:

I hope those books weren't compiled by serious art critics.

Definitely that book was more serious critically than the subject link of this thread, which is a blog on yahoo music!

It's seems so obvious to me that the Lovesexy cover is a great image, not only conceptually like a contemporary painting that riffs off of historical religious art, but also in color, composition, and technical quality. Unlike say Graffiti Bridge or Diamonds and Pearls or the symbol album which are amateurish covers along those same criteria (and all from Warner Bros). On the other hand the previous album covers going back to Dirty Mind were great too. But I think SOTT, Black Album, Purple Rain, 1999 and Lovesexy all great album covers from an artistic point of view. It all downhill after Lovesexy, except for maybe The Rainbow Children.

But to each his own. My taste works well for me and governs my career!

I will give you that the other covers you mention are pretty bad (although I like the European cover for Diamonds & Pearls better than the Lovesexy cover). But the choice of cover for Lovesexy, along with other bad decisions (such as choosing the wrong singles from the album) threw Prince's career off the track and gave us a couple of mediocre follow-up albums and one of the worst movies of all time. I sure hope his grand artistic statement was worth it.

electricberet said:

ufoclub said:

Definitely that book was more serious critically than the subject link of this thread, which is a blog on yahoo music!

It's seems so obvious to me that the Lovesexy cover is a great image, not only conceptually like a contemporary painting that riffs off of historical religious art, but also in color, composition, and technical quality. Unlike say Graffiti Bridge or Diamonds and Pearls or the symbol album which are amateurish covers along those same criteria (and all from Warner Bros). On the other hand the previous album covers going back to Dirty Mind were great too. But I think SOTT, Black Album, Purple Rain, 1999 and Lovesexy all great album covers from an artistic point of view. It all downhill after Lovesexy, except for maybe The Rainbow Children.

But to each his own. My taste works well for me and governs my career!

I will give you that the other covers you mention are pretty bad (although I like the European cover for Diamonds & Pearls better than the Lovesexy cover). But the choice of cover for Lovesexy, along with other bad decisions (such as choosing the wrong singles from the album) threw Prince's career off the track and gave us a couple of mediocre follow-up albums and one of the worst movies of all time. I sure hope his grand artistic statement was worth it.

The bluish cover of diamonds and Pearls was much better!

ufoclub said:

electricberet said:

I will give you that the other covers you mention are pretty bad (although I like the European cover for Diamonds & Pearls better than the Lovesexy cover). But the choice of cover for Lovesexy, along with other bad decisions (such as choosing the wrong singles from the album) threw Prince's career off the track and gave us a couple of mediocre follow-up albums and one of the worst movies of all time. I sure hope his grand artistic statement was worth it.

The bluish cover of diamonds and Pearls was much better!

I've said before that, if Lovesexy had been given a cover similar to the European version of Diamonds and Pearls, and the title track had been released as the second single instead of "Glam Slam," the album would have been a hit and the tour would have made more money. In that alternate universe, Prince would have had more freedom to keep pushing the envelope with his music. Instead, he needed to come up with some quick cash, so we got the Batman album, followed by a half-baked movie billed as a sequel to Purple Rain with a soundtrack filled with old reworked songs from the vault.

electricberet said:

ufoclub said:

The bluish cover of diamonds and Pearls was much better!

I've said before that, if Lovesexy had been given a cover similar to the European version of Diamonds and Pearls, and the title track had been released as the second single instead of "Glam Slam," the album would have been a hit and the tour would have made more money. In that alternate universe, Prince would have had more freedom to keep pushing the envelope with his music. Instead, he needed to come up with some quick cash, so we got the Batman album, followed by a half-baked movie billed as a sequel to Purple Rain with a soundtrack filled with old reworked songs from the vault.

Oh, I didn't mean it's better than the Lovesexy cover.

The Diamonds and Pearls bluish cover is just a decent model type magazine photo. But it has no depth to it for me.

Personally I don't hear a single strong single on Lovesexy. I don't think the title track would have hit at all in the states. I'm judging based on what peeps were listening to in their dorms that Spring, and how negative they were to SOTT as an album already. Not to mention the reaction I saw when tracks from Lovesexy were played. No one seemed to think it was too cool. Maybe "Dance On" and "Alphabet St" were the ones that seemed halfway cool. People did seem to be really warm to "Bob George" though.

ufoclub said:

electricberet said:

I've said before that, if Lovesexy had been given a cover similar to the European version of Diamonds and Pearls, and the title track had been released as the second single instead of "Glam Slam," the album would have been a hit and the tour would have made more money. In that alternate universe, Prince would have had more freedom to keep pushing the envelope with his music. Instead, he needed to come up with some quick cash, so we got the Batman album, followed by a half-baked movie billed as a sequel to Purple Rain with a soundtrack filled with old reworked songs from the vault.

Oh, I didn't mean it's better than the Lovesexy cover.

The Diamonds and Pearls bluish cover is just a decent model type magazine photo. But it has no depth to it for me.

Personally I don't hear a single strong single on Lovesexy. I don't think the title track would have hit at all in the states. I'm judging based on what peeps were listening to in their dorms that Spring, and how negative they were to SOTT as an album already. Not to mention the reaction I saw when tracks from Lovesexy were played. No one seemed to think it was too cool. Maybe "Dance On" and "Alphabet St" were the ones that seemed halfway cool. People did seem to be really warm to "Bob George" though.

Well, I was an American teenager when Lovesexy came out and I absolutely loved the title track. I remember hunting down a promo version of the album that was tracked just so that I could skip to that song. It certainly couldn't have performed much worse than the songs that were released: from what I can tell, neither of the follow-up singles to "Alphabet Street" charted in the U.S., and I never saw the videos for "Glam Slam" or "I Wish U Heaven" on MTV.

I agree,the title track definitely should have been the second single.It's a strong,powerful,hard-hitting tune.In those days,Prince had an annoying habit of killing an album's momentum by releasing the wrong second single.

electricberet said:

The1592 said:

I don't find the cover the slightest bit attractive, and I'm not even sure if that's what he was going for, but I like that he wasn't afraid to make such a controversial artistic statement.

I don't know if that's what he was aiming for either. Perhaps he wanted to convey innocence rather than sexuality. But most of his other covers are dripping with sexuality. I'd just like to know if anyone looks at the Lovesexy cover and gets turned on.

Hell no. Bold? Okay. Artistic? Sort of...but nada on the turn on question, imo.

electricberet said:

I laughed at this cover for so many years And ironically, he was the hottest in this period during the tour and Batman. I'm more open now obviously, but it's still so funny to me.

[Edited 9/30/11 20:51pm]

I like the Lovesexy cover, almost all of them except the Rave thing. The Prince cover was sexy to me, so was Controversy, Dirty Mind, For You, so many.

It's a bit kitschy cover in in terms of execution, but again it shows the fake purity among many americans.

If he would have held a semi-automatic gun in his hands on the cover, people would have raved about it.

the list should DEFINITELY have included Lady Gaga "Born This Way" - that cover art was a shocker

for someone who made around $90 million or whatever it was last year it looks like she only spent about 5 minutes and $10 on the cover artwork!

i realise LOVESEXY has a very strong cover image which will polarise many but i admire it alot.. certainly takes enormous guts to pose nude..

i think most true works of art tend to polarise opinions and even disgust and offend people

DAVID BOWIE's cover art for Diamond Dogs and The Man who Sold the World were similarly controversial in the early 70s

the LOVESEXY cover is art..

I this coverartwork a lot...

those who made the list must be AMERICANS.

(I don't blame every/ all americans.. but some are really nuts when it comes to nudity/ sex in media.)

[Edited 10/1/11 4:01am]

thedance said:

the LOVESEXY cover is art..

I this coverartwork a lot...

those who made the list must be AMERICANS.

(I don't blame every/ all americans.. but some are really nuts when it comes to nudity/ sex in media.)

[Edited 10/1/11 4:01am]

Yes, it's not all Americans. But I'm curious, was this cover not at all controversial in other countries? That's how you all are making it sound.

The1592 said:

thedance said:

the LOVESEXY cover is art..

I this coverartwork a lot...

those who made the list must be AMERICANS.

(I don't blame every/ all americans.. but some are really nuts when it comes to nudity/ sex in media.)

[Edited 10/1/11 4:01am]

Yes, it's not all Americans. But I'm curious, was this cover not at all controversial in other countries? That's how you all are making it sound.

^ much less controversial. more like "interesting" or "duhhh". Not like radio staitons would boycot the album and record stores would only sell it under the counter.

tricky99 said:

What makes Lovesexy Iconic as a cover is the very fact that people project upon the cover what it is in their own minds. The cover itself is fairly neutral. Its simply a nude man (with the private parts covered up) surrounded by flowers.

How you see it says somthing about your mindset. Those who find it vulger or embarassing becuase of modest nudity have issues with the natural body. Those who have a problem because its a nude "MAN" have issues with homophobia and masculinity.

I'm fairly sure that prince viewed it as presenting honesty, revelation, and openness. As we all know LoveSexy as a work is about love, God, and sexuality in its positive sense.

[Edited 9/30/11 9:28am]

I think it is very provoking but it is artistic in its nature. He has made plently of worst covers that could have been added on that list. 'Emancipation'? Hello...lol

ufoclub said:

The album cover is Prince's contemporary version of the type of religious art in old ass religious frescos, where the nudity could be said to indicate purity or simplicity under the eyes of a god (since clothing is actually a symptom of sin, according to the story of Adam and Eve), not sexuality.

If Prince wanted to convey what U just outlined, that is pretty deep and Powerful! It is what makes me add 'Lovesexy' as one of the most innovative, spiritual, and simply put...GENIUS albums he ever did. It is by far one of my favorite albums, and era's. Everything about it is fantastic! That is the way eye see it!

electricberet said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Yep!

Art is subjective, but the cover has definatly been featured on books devoted to best album covers of all time.

I hope those books weren't compiled by serious art critics.

Regardless of your feelings towards this 'cover', you should accept the fact that, Art is merely subjective. Whether it was compiled by hundreds of serious art critics or those who were not as serious...ART will stand as subjective. AND I think in some declaration, it was complied by serious art critics.

thedance said:

the LOVESEXY cover is art..

I this coverartwork a lot...

those who made the list must be AMERICANS.

(I don't blame every/ all americans.. but some are really nuts when it comes to nudity/ sex in media.)

[Edited 10/1/11 4:01am]

As for blaming the cover's bad reception on Americans, don't forget that the lovely nude figure on the cover is himself an American, and you wouldn't have that album at all if Americans hadn't been buying Dirty Mind and going to see his bikini brief concerts in the early 80s.

Yes, the cover was controversial here. But if ithe cover had actually been good, the controversy would only have increased sales. There were lots of independent record stores in 1988 who were happy to carry it. They just gave us a hard time for buying it. Which is understandable because the cover is ridiculous.

Still waiting for someone to say the cover turns them on.

[Edited 10/1/11 6:11am]

EyeJester7 said:

electricberet said:

I hope those books weren't compiled by serious art critics.

Regardless of your feelings towards this 'cover', you should accept the fact that, Art is merely subjective. Whether it was compiled by hundreds of serious art critics or those who were not as serious...ART will stand as subjective. AND I think in some declaration, it was complied by serious art critics.

I don't accept that. "When Doves Cry" is a better song than "Everybody Loves Me." Objectively better. The same goes for visual art.

Let me add something else on the objectivity/subjectivity issue. If I did a poll of sportswriters to ask which are the ten best baseball players in MLB right now, I would probably get a variety of different answers, because you can evaluate baseball players on various criteria. Some might think that the number of hits is more important for batters, others might focus on fielding, etc. But the fact is that some people are objectively better than others at playing baseball. I guarantee you that if the Texas Rangers pulled Michael Young out of the rotation and replaced him with me, they would lose a lot more games. The same is true for any sport.

Art is the same. There's room for disagreement on which works of art are better than others because there are a lot of factors involved and people differ on how much weight they give to different factors. But some works of art are inferior in every respect. Thus it is not completely subjective.

electricberet said:

Let me add something else on the objectivity/subjectivity issue. If I did a poll of sportswriters to ask which are the ten best baseball players in MLB right now, I would probably get a variety of different answers, because you can evaluate baseball players on various criteria. Some might think that the number of hits is more important for batters, others might focus on fielding, etc. But the fact is that some people are objectively better than others at playing baseball. I guarantee you that if the Texas Rangers pulled Michael Young out of the rotation and replaced him with me, they would lose a lot more games. The same is true for any sport.

Art is the same. There's room for disagreement on which works of art are better than others because there are a lot of factors involved and people differ on how much weight they give to different factors. But some works of art are inferior in every respect. Thus it is not completely subjective.

But sports is not subjective. It is mostly about "statistics".

A baseball player recently opted out of a major league game recently after he scored a hit so his statistics would not chance falling. The team lost, but the player assured his record. There are timers and instant replay and all sorts of stuff to calibrate who exactly won and who is better. In sports it's about stats. If you run a race, they TIME you! So they know who won and how fast you ran.

Art does not work in such a manner, bad choice of comparisons.

But there is a consensus of "opinion" in art. Not necessarily about whether something is, or is not art, but who are considered the best.

[Edited 10/1/11 7:21am]

V10LETBLUES said:

electricberet said:

Let me add something else on the objectivity/subjectivity issue. If I did a poll of sportswriters to ask which are the ten best baseball players in MLB right now, I would probably get a variety of different answers, because you can evaluate baseball players on various criteria. Some might think that the number of hits is more important for batters, others might focus on fielding, etc. But the fact is that some people are objectively better than others at playing baseball. I guarantee you that if the Texas Rangers pulled Michael Young out of the rotation and replaced him with me, they would lose a lot more games. The same is true for any sport.

Art is the same. There's room for disagreement on which works of art are better than others because there are a lot of factors involved and people differ on how much weight they give to different factors. But some works of art are inferior in every respect. Thus it is not completely subjective.

But sports is not subjective. It is mostly about "statistics".

A baseball player recently opted out of a major league game recently after he scored a hit so his statistics would not chance falling. The team lost, but the player assured his record. There are timers and instant replay and all sorts of stuff to calibrate who exactly won and who is better. In sports it's about stats. If you run a race, they time you! So they know who won and how fast you ran.

Art does not work in such a manner, bad choice of comparisons.

But there is a consensus of "opinion" in art. Not necessarily about whether something is, or is not art, but who are considered the best.

[Edited 10/1/11 7:18am]

I see your point. Sports is more objective than art because there are fixed rules. And algebra is more objective than sports because the results are more precise. But there is an objective component to art as well. I think you know this, based on your last paragraph. If I recorded a Karaoke version of "When Doves Cry" and uploaded it to YouTube, I am confident that everyone, including my mother, would find it to be inferior to the original. That's because intuitively we (not just music critics, but everyone who can hear) know that some musical performances are better than others.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who likes art really thinks the Lovesexy cover is a better work of art than the Sistine Chapel. In theory, someone might have that opinion, just as my two-month-old son seems to think that I might have a nipple on my arm. But that opinion would be objectively wrong.

electricberet said:

V10LETBLUES said:

But sports is not subjective. It is mostly about "statistics".

A baseball player recently opted out of a major league game recently after he scored a hit so his statistics would not chance falling. The team lost, but the player assured his record. There are timers and instant replay and all sorts of stuff to calibrate who exactly won and who is better. In sports it's about stats. If you run a race, they time you! So they know who won and how fast you ran.

Art does not work in such a manner, bad choice of comparisons.

But there is a consensus of "opinion" in art. Not necessarily about whether something is, or is not art, but who are considered the best.

[Edited 10/1/11 7:18am]

I see your point. Sports is more objective than art because there are fixed rules. And algebra is more objective than sports because the results are more precise. But there is an objective component to art as well. I think you know this, based on your last paragraph. If I recorded a Karaoke version of "When Doves Cry" and uploaded it to YouTube, I am confident that everyone, including my mother, would find it to be inferior to the original. That's because intuitively we (not just music critics, but everyone who can hear) know that some musical performances are better than others.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who likes art really thinks the Lovesexy cover is a better work of art than the Sistine Chapel. In theory, someone might have that opinion, just as my two-month-old son seems to think that I might have a nipple on my arm. But that opinion would be objectively wrong.

Your child may one day love a song by Barney the purple dinosaur, more than anything by Prince the purple dinosaur too. Would your child be wrong?. And then grow up to like a new hit single by a new teen sensation and like it more than anything by Prince, would he/she still be wrong? As your child grew, he/she would love all sorts of music and never care for anything by Prince, would your child be forever wrong?

[Edited 10/1/11 7:40am]

V10LETBLUES said:

electricberet said:

I see your point. Sports is more objective than art because there are fixed rules. And algebra is more objective than sports because the results are more precise. But there is an objective component to art as well. I think you know this, based on your last paragraph. If I recorded a Karaoke version of "When Doves Cry" and uploaded it to YouTube, I am confident that everyone, including my mother, would find it to be inferior to the original. That's because intuitively we (not just music critics, but everyone who can hear) know that some musical performances are better than others.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who likes art really thinks the Lovesexy cover is a better work of art than the Sistine Chapel. In theory, someone might have that opinion, just as my two-month-old son seems to think that I might have a nipple on my arm. But that opinion would be objectively wrong.

Your child may one day love a song by Barney the purple dinosaur, more than anything by Prince the purple dinosaur too. Would your child be wrong?. And then grow up to like a new hit single by a new teen sensation and like it more than anything by Prince, would he/she still be wrong? As your child grew, he/she would love all sorts of music and never care for anything by Prince, would your child be forever wrong?

[Edited 10/1/11 7:40am]

Children are still learning how to appreciate art as well as a lot of other things. Their brains are not fully developed. It's perfectly fine for my son to love Barney the purple dinosaur, and he might feel nostalgic about Barney's songs even when he's older. But one day he will learn that "When Doves Cry" is a better song. He may also think that the future teen sensation's music is even better, and that will be fine because there may be some respects in which it is better, and we're entering the point when subjectivity kicks in. He may not even like Prince very much compared to other artists. But he will know that "When Doves Cry" is a great work of art. I don't particularly like listening to Schoenberg's music, but I recognize its artistic merit.

I like the "Silent E song" from the old Electric Company children's TV show:

It's catchy and I loved it when I was younger. At the age of 3 I probably would have preferred it to Prince's songs. Now I know that Prince's best songs are better. I even know that Schoenberg is better. And I think anyone with ears would agree that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a greater work of art, if you want to go to the extreme:

Different strokes for different folks? I don't think so. And I expect Tom Lehrer (who wrote the "Silent E" ditty) would agree with me.

If you're not into classical music, how about this one:

Or this:

Both objectively better than the "Silent E" song. The "Silent E" song is great for teaching spelling to children. But there are more profound lessons to be learned from Beethoven, Stevie Wonder, and Bob Dylan. And the music? I like listening to all four but one of these is not like the others, as I learned on Sesame Street. One is a simple ditty and the others are great works of art.

This reminds me of the moral relativism/moral realism debate in philosophy. Suppose I bought my son a nice toy for his birthday. After he's been playing with it for a while, I burn it in the fireplace in front of him. Is that morally wrong? Of course. Doesn't matter if there is a law against it, and you may not be able to come up with a precise definition for why it's wrong. But it's wrong.

Sometimes I'm in the mood for a Big Mac but I know it's not the greatest meal humans are capable of preparing.

[Edited 10/1/11 8:23am]