So its Halloween tonight. My gym put on a haunted house and it really warmed my heart to see so many kids in MJ and Thriller gear. Every Halloween becomes "Thriller Night". Now that is cultural influence.

Both albums are devoid of any intrinsic lasting value. Their appeal comes from things other than the actual music.

steakfinger said:

steakfinger said:

Both albums are devoid of any intrinsic lasting value. Their appeal comes from things other than the actual music.

Thriller is not

steakfinger said:

Both albums are devoid of any intrinsic lasting value. Their appeal comes from things other than the actual music.

Thriller is not

steakfinger said:

Both albums are devoid of any intrinsic lasting value. Their appeal comes from things other than the actual music.

Thriller is not

steakfinger said:

Both albums are devoid of any intrinsic lasting value. Their appeal comes from things other than the actual music.

If that were true, Thriller wouldn't continue selling well as a catalog album. The songs on Thriller are the best part of it, the videos and Motown performances were just icing on the cake.

Well there have been a lot of huge pop albums between them, I'd say Rhythm Nation 1814, Spice, Come on Over, Teenage Dream, etc paved the way for Taylor Slow. She is riding coattails not setting trends.

MichaelJackson5 said:

steakfinger said:

Both albums are devoid of any intrinsic lasting value. Their appeal comes from things other than the actual music.

If that were true, Thriller wouldn't continue selling well as a catalog album. The songs on Thriller are the best part of it, the videos and Motown performances were just icing on the cake.

God, look who is sayin that, well this is the first time i thoroughly agree

steakfinger said:

Both albums are devoid of any intrinsic lasting value. Their appeal comes from things other than the actual music.

Interesting.

Care to elaborate?

MotownSubdivision said:

steakfinger said:

Both albums are devoid of any intrinsic lasting value. Their appeal comes from things other than the actual music.

Well you're half-right. 1989 is definitely devoid of any intrinsic lasting value. [Edited 11/1/15 12:10pm]

Yet, you couldn't articulate why if I asked you to.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said:

Yet, you couldn't articulate why if I asked you to.

I can articulate just fine. Not my fault you can't deal with other people asserting their opinions. [Edited 11/2/15 6:35am]

Here's the thing, Motown:

I like some stuff on 1989. This means that there is some type of intrinsic value associated with
that album even while you deride it. Even if I didn't like some stuff on 1989, if Taylor Swift
offered it as a piece of art to be enjoyed, this means it has some type of associated intrinsic
value. However, if nobody on earth enjoyed it, because it was presented with the intention to
be considered as an object of art by Swift means that 1989 has some type of instrinsic value.
All art, whether or not you enjoy it or appreciate it, has some type of associated intrinsic value!

You can say "I don't like Taylor Swift" or "I don't like 1989 as an album" but you go too far when
you assert it has no intrinsic value.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Fair enough. I don't like 1989.

Cool!

However, your reasons for disliking the album sound more like they are sourced from some
sort of personal animus towards the artist and its presentation as opposed to the art itself.

If pressed hard enough, would you be able to pinpoint why anything on 1989 is inferior to
anything on Unorthodox Jukebox? Because to fault a record, in part, for titling itself "1989"
with the headlining artist being born on the cusp of 1990 is slightly ridiculous, you gotta admit.

duccichucka said:

Anyway, off topic, why Unorthodox was not nominated for Album of The Year like his first album, i think this second album is better than his first.

MotownSubdivision said:

No, I definitely dislike the music as well. The title is just a strong nitpick I have that loosely relates to the music being offered. As far as comparing 1989 to Unorthodox Jukebox, the former is a basic 2010's pop album. UJ's main strength is its mostly-retro production which targets many genres and styles of music. I'm not saying 1989 had to implement that formula to be good but it definitely pales in comparison to what is offered on UJ. Taylor's writing is weak on all songs except "Blank Space" which itself is a song is no different if it were any other cute pop female singing thanks to the paint by numbers production. Bruno is a decent at best songwriter but with that weakness, he at least has exceptional production and while not unique isn't derivative like Taylor's album. Also what puts UJ above 1989 is notable improvement. What I mean by that is that UJ is a better album than Doo-Wops & Hooligans, not perfect but notably better. Taylor has put out better work than 1989 in the past so while I was never really into her music to begin with, her latest effort is a notable step down because it's so standard; cliche, run of the mill, spartan. I have to disagree with the many people who consider this to be a good album but I can accept that they think it's good; I highly disagree with people who try to make it more than what it is by claiming it to be a groundbreaking release and then go so far as to actually put it up against legitimate groundbreaking LP's of the past that actually did more for music than sell copies. I can't take away Taylor's commercial success but the critical acclaim 1989 has received/ is receiving is nonsensical. [Edited 11/3/15 21:25pm]

Okay.

I can dig this critique of Taylor Swift, even if I find it disagreeable. I guess the point I'm trying
to make is that the above is much more interesting and tenable than "There's no intrinsic art-
istic merit in Taylor Swift" or "She fucking sucks."

The critical acclaim she is receiving is not nonsensical; it is a reaction against hip-hop and
thug life cultural norms, for the most part. She's a squeaky clean white chick who can play
an instrument; sings catchy songs about boys; isn't covered in tattoos; and doesn't date
niggas.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said:

Okay.

I can dig this critique of Taylor Swift, even if I find it disagreeable. I guess the point I'm trying
to make is that the above is much more interesting and tenable than "There's no intrinsic art-
istic merit in Taylor Swift" or "She fucking sucks."

The critical acclaim she is receiving is not nonsensical; it is a reaction against hip-hop and
thug life cultural norms, for the most part. She's a squeaky clean white chick who can play
an instrument; sings catchy songs about boys; isn't covered in tattoos; and doesn't date
niggas.

If that's the reason the album gets lauded then it is indeed nonsensical... on multiple levels. Mediocrity can now receive bundles of praise for being mediocre. That's great.

It's not nonsensical; I don't know why you're struggling with how to frame this! Mediocrity gets
praised when pop culture has established new standards that those who figure largely in society
find inferior. In other words, if most new art is considered utter shit, then of course the new art
that is kinda mediocre is going to be praised as a rejection of the former.

We have different standards today. There is an argument that if Taylor Swift was releasing the
same type of music in the 80s, she would not be as successful.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

You're preaching to the choir here. But using your example of comparing the "squeaky clean white" Taylor Swift to the "niggas" (I'm assuming you're referring to [black] rappers) and why the former gets praised over the latter is nonsensical because it's a racist generalization considering that so long as a squeaky clean white girl makes music no matter how pedestrian, bland, unimaginative, and dime-a-dozen it is, it will get praised and promoted over an innovative hip hop/ rap album because itself made by a black person. There's by far more manufactured studio rappers out there making music and taking the spotlight over real MCs and their music dwarves that of said MCs but it's still a generalization and shows that even in 2015, the genre of hip hop still isn't treated with respect. The industry has always been this way from the days open racism to now where it's a lot more covert but that doesn't make it any less nonsensical. However, overall you do admit that standards have been lowered for today's music and that 1989, Taylor and the success and acclaim of which are representative of that? Good, you agree with me.

But Kendrick Lamar and J. Cole (the only two innovative emcees I know of) are not "niggas."
And 1989, as far as I know, has not received the amount of praise their respective albums
have. Plus, I think you are creating a strawman argument here: is 1989 actually considered
innovative? You've yet to provide a musical analysis of that album which would render it as
being "pedestrian, bland, unimaginative" by the way.

Also, you're changing the rules of the game: we are not discussing the merits of Taylor Swift's
mediocrity as an artist versus the best work from innovative Black American rappers. Rather,
we are framing Taylor Swift's popularity in terms of it being a reaction against the popularity
and the glorification of thug life standards which is increasingly epidemic in pop culture. White
media outlets are not juxtaposing 1989 with To Pimp A Butterfly, bro. They are comparing "Blank
Space" to "Hot Nigga" and "Anaconda."

Finally, you're putting words in my mouth: I never said that today's standards have been
"lowered for today's music." I simply said that when compared to previous eras of music, they
are "different."

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Kanye. Drake. Childish Gambino. Cole and Kendrick aren't the only ones. I fail to see where there's a strawman in bringing up how fans and certain reviewers have said the album is innovative. Look around, it's not hard to see. I gave you my analysis on the album already and have stated it many times over prior. I stated my opinion and went as in-depth as I needed to assert my stance; I don't need to bust out a degree in music theory and type up a college thesis on the album just because you think that's the only way a negative opinion on matters. You're the one who made the comparison; I didn't change anything other than adding exposition to what you said. If that's not what you meant then you shouldn't have made such an open-ended statement about squeaky clean Taylor and niggas. OK, it sure seemed like that's what you were trying to say.

Who are the reviewers proclaiming that 1989 is innovative? And, I don't care what fans think
as fans are fucking morons as I'm sure you are aware. Anyways, Allmusic gives this album three
out of five stars; and if you read the NY Times review of the album, you never find the word
"innovative" mentioned in regards to this album. I'm just wondering where you are getting this
idea that 1989 is some type of groundbreaking album from? (Here's a hint: it's not.)

You did not give me a musical analysis. And until you do, why should I think your opinion on the
matter of 1989 being musically "pedestrian" has any merit? You simply do not like Taylor Swift's
music for whatever reason. But don't make it seem like you don't like her music because you
analyzed it compositionally and found it to be lacking in substance; you and I both know that
ain't the case. I mean, you do recognize that something could be well written, but that doesn't
mean that you are going to like it! Hindemith is a talented composer who writes very well: yet,
I still don't like that mutherfucker's music. I'm just trying to get you to recognize that there is
something else at play in your disdain for Swift's music that may have nothing to do with the
quality of the compositions in and of themselves.

And you are being ridiculous: I never said that standards have changed for the better or for the
worse. I simply said they changed. And my points about Taylor Swift's popularity as being a
reaction against thug-life culture is not an "open-ended statement;" I'm hardly being broad in
this assertion. Also, I write very well and I'm a pretty good thinker, so, I don't need your brand
of exposition. So, when I write:

"We have different standards today. There is an argument that if Taylor Swift was releasing the
same type of music in the 80s, she would not be as successful."

Don't put words in my mouth about today's standards being lower than what they used to be,
and I certainly wasn't speaking to Taylor Swift's squeaky clean image as comparable to the image
portrayed by thug life emcees and pop-stars.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Quit trying to tell me what I feel and why I feel the way I do. I have myself for that. I've stated time and time again that the production/ compositions are weak and one-dimensional and are no different from most pop music today and whether you agree or disagree I don't care, it's my opinion and it's acceptable as such. And yes, you don't have to state the obvious; I'm not saying that all well-written music is enjoyable or automatically good. Bob Dylan is one of the greatest songwriters of all time but I don't care much for his music; you're putting words in MY mouth now. Never did I say that a profound lyrics automatically make a song good. Weak songwriting can easily be covered up with strengths in other areas (as I've stated already) and ultimately result in enjoyable music despite itself; that's not the case with 1989. Also, on that last part you're the one being ridiculous. I never said more than "OK, it sure seemed like that's what you were trying to say" yet you feel the need to go on some long winded rant on how standards are "different". I get it. Standards are different, case closed. [Edited 11/8/15 20:01pm]

I'm not tellling you what you feel; you've told me! But when you say the compositions are "weak"
and "one dimensional", what examples from the songwriting on 1989 are you referring to? Also,
when you say that the music from said album are "no different from most pop music today," you
are making a strawman argument as you've yet to provide an example of a critic telling us that
the album is so different from most pop music today.

I'm putting words in your mouth - how? You said:

"Bob Dylan is one of the greatest songwriters of all time but I don't care much for his music;
you're putting words in MY mouth now. Never did I say that a profound lyrics automatically
make a song good."

What are you talking about, Motown? I never said that you said that a well written song
doesn't mean that one must enjoy it; I asked you if you knew that! Don't get lost in some
attempt to go tit for tat with me where you lose the thread of our argument: me asking you
if you knew that just because something is well written doesn't mean that one has to like
the piece is not an implication that you said something contradicting this. I was introducing
a new idea into the argument, and not putting words in your mouth.

Finally, you said:

"However, overall you do admit that standards have been lowered for today's music and that
1989, Taylor and the success and acclaim of which are representative of that? Good, you agree
with me."

Wrong. I never made that claim. What you wrote here is more than just "OK, it sure seemed
like that's what you were trying to say." The case will be closed when you stop putting words
in my mouth and making unfounded assumptions about what I've said clearly.

Where is the "weak" songwriting on 1989? You said: "It's a generic, unimpressive collection of
songs." And I want to know what proof from the compositions gives you the ability to this? I
truly think that even before you heard Taylor Swift's music, you were going to hate it. You did
not sit down and pour over the chord progressions, the vocal melodies, the lyrics, the production
values, the mixing, and the arrangements to say: "1989 is a generic, unimpressive collection of
songs that are weakly composed and therefore, it has no lasting intrinsic value." You don't have
to do these things to like/dislike art from jump street, but you kinda do in a message board
where you've claimed that an album is weak, generic, and has no lasting instrinsic value.

I wanted to add that if something that is well written doesn't mean that I must like that particular
piece of music, then its converse is apt: just because something is not well written doesn't mean
that I can't enjoy it.

This is because "well written" is not a fixed term.