Music Elitists

[lacktheknack]

He's a good vocalist, but he's a mediocre songwriter and his producers butcher it all to hell.

You can't apply rock values to teen pop, my friend. That's simply not how it works. I don't rag on death metal for their badly arranged horn sections.

That is such a cop out.

Saying "You can't apply rock values to teen pop" is not a cop-out.

It's literally identical to me applying electronic standards to rock. And if I was to do that, I'd tell you it's all balls, and you'd be annoyed and maybe even indignant.

That's how teen-pop fans feel when you tell them it all sucks.

Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.

You're doing it again.

"Baby" by Justing Bieber is a perfectly serviceable song for what it is. I never said that songwriting or production quality are exclusive to rock (I'm not even a major rock fan). It's just that you literally expect different things in different genres. Not BETTER things, DIFFERENT things. "Baby" was as catchy as hell at the time (it's worn off now), so it fills the mainstay of teen pop. The lyrics aren't particularly cringeworthy, they're just angsty teenaged-diary style lyrics (Taylor Swift does this too, but she's ACCLAIMED for it). Par for the course. And it sounds great, considering what it consists of.

It's just that you expect something else when you hear it, so you think it doesn't sound pleasing. I tend to find "classic rock" to be a bit boring and slow, you know, because my mainstay for years was face-melting electronic artists. However, I can adjust my expectations and enjoy it anyways, which is more than I can say for some people in this thread.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Because I respect their skills as musicians, not just as artists.

To me, it's infinity harder to play a good guitar solo, live, with 3 or 4 other band members while staying on key, and all on the same 1,2,3 and 4's.

Opposed to standing on stage lip-syncing while your back ground dancer put more time in their work then you ever did.

Or earning your fortune by having the auto-tune squeeze your voice is such a way that even GLaDos sounds human.

I have respect for bands like Iron Maiden, still touring, still making great albums for more then 20 years, while current pop-stars are not artists, they're products.

This, all of this.

There's even a scientific study that says pop music is getting more and more simple. Don't ask me to find it, it was on the Escapist and it was something along the lines of: Your Grandma Was Right all Along. Pretty much anyone can sound okay with auto-tune if they have basic singing skills. The elitists that the OP are talking about just don't respect the pop artists as much.

 

[Spambot 3000]

The only thing that annoys me is when someone insists they only listen to 'real' music.
'As opposed to what?' I ask, 'Fucking, imaginary music?'
Seriously, if you think -insert genre you don't like here- isn't music, you are a fucking IDIOT.
There's this local radio station called Triple M, who play good music, not any teeny-bopper stuff, I quite like it, but their advertising hook is 'we only play real music'. This infuriates me to no end and I just KNOW it will encourage all the elitist, imbecile listeners to use the term. Be all snooty about your music tastes, I don't care about that, but if you mess with the English language I will fucking cut you.

 

[Nazulu]

He's a good vocalist, but he's a mediocre songwriter and his producers butcher it all to hell.

You can't apply rock values to teen pop, my friend. That's simply not how it works. I don't rag on death metal for their badly arranged horn sections.

That is such a cop out.

Saying "You can't apply rock values to teen pop" is not a cop-out.

It's literally identical to me applying electronic standards to rock. And if I was to do that, I'd tell you it's all balls, and you'd be annoyed and maybe even indignant.

That's how teen-pop fans feel when you tell them it all sucks.

Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.

You're doing it again.

"Baby" by Justing Bieber is a perfectly serviceable song for what it is. I never said that songwriting or production quality are exclusive to rock (I'm not even a major rock fan). It's just that you literally expect different things in different genres. Not BETTER things, DIFFERENT things. "Baby" was as catchy as hell at the time (it's worn off now), so it fills the mainstay of teen pop. The lyrics aren't particularly cringeworthy, they're just angsty teenaged-diary style lyrics (Taylor Swift does this too, but she's ACCLAIMED for it). Par for the course. And it sounds great, considering what it consists of.

It's just that you expect something else when you hear it, so you think it doesn't sound pleasing. I tend to find "classic rock" to be a bit boring and slow, you know, because my mainstay for years was face-melting electronic artists. However, I can adjust my expectations and enjoy it anyways, which is more than I can say for some people in this thread.

You're also doing it. You're assuming how his mind works. What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion. Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

I'm not trying to be mean, but your argument falls just as flat as his.

 

[lacktheknack]

Because I respect their skills as musicians, not just as artists.

To me, it's infinity harder to play a good guitar solo, live, with 3 or 4 other band members while staying on key, and all on the same 1,2,3 and 4's.

Opposed to standing on stage lip-syncing while your back ground dancer put more time in their work then you ever did.

Or earning your fortune by having the auto-tune squeeze your voice is such a way that even GLaDos sounds human.

I have respect for bands like Iron Maiden, still touring, still making great albums for more then 20 years, while current pop-stars are not artists, they're products.

This, all of this.

There's even a scientific study that says pop music is getting more and more simple. Don't ask me to find it, it was on the Escapist and it was something along the lines of: Your Grandma Was Right all Along. Pretty much anyone can sound okay with auto-tune if they have basic singing skills. The elitists that the OP are talking about just don't respect the pop artists as much.

OK, so pop is getting simpler.

So what?

Is "simpler" worse, somehow?

One of my favorite songs ever (if not actually my favorite) consists of five chords repeated over and over and over for seven minutes. It's physically impossible to get much simpler than that. How is the song so incredibly touching and moving to me if simple = bad?

Short answer: It's the opposite. Simple is much better at moving raw emotion. However, I'd wager that it takes more skill to condense music like that. Besides, even if you're guaranteed to sound good singing, that doesn't account for songwriting, instrumentation, stage presence, or charisma. All of those are also important, and pop stars have those nailed right the hell down (maybe not always the songwriting one, but still, I'd rather listen to them than a garage band with brilliant music drowned by irritating everything else).

 

[lacktheknack]

He's a good vocalist, but he's a mediocre songwriter and his producers butcher it all to hell.

You can't apply rock values to teen pop, my friend. That's simply not how it works. I don't rag on death metal for their badly arranged horn sections.

That is such a cop out.

Saying "You can't apply rock values to teen pop" is not a cop-out.

It's literally identical to me applying electronic standards to rock. And if I was to do that, I'd tell you it's all balls, and you'd be annoyed and maybe even indignant.

That's how teen-pop fans feel when you tell them it all sucks.

Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.

You're doing it again.

"Baby" by Justing Bieber is a perfectly serviceable song for what it is. I never said that songwriting or production quality are exclusive to rock (I'm not even a major rock fan). It's just that you literally expect different things in different genres. Not BETTER things, DIFFERENT things. "Baby" was as catchy as hell at the time (it's worn off now), so it fills the mainstay of teen pop. The lyrics aren't particularly cringeworthy, they're just angsty teenaged-diary style lyrics (Taylor Swift does this too, but she's ACCLAIMED for it). Par for the course. And it sounds great, considering what it consists of.

It's just that you expect something else when you hear it, so you think it doesn't sound pleasing. I tend to find "classic rock" to be a bit boring and slow, you know, because my mainstay for years was face-melting electronic artists. However, I can adjust my expectations and enjoy it anyways, which is more than I can say for some people in this thread.

You're also doing it. You're assuming how his mind works. What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion. Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

I'm not trying to be mean, but your argument falls just as flat as his.

...and drags yours down with it.

You're saying repetitiveness is bad (or, for that matter, that "Baby" is particularly repetitive). That's a problem right there, especially if you're going to accuse me of being insensitive to opinion. Also, I'm not assuming anything about how his brain works. I'm stating statements based off what he's gone and said. He says teen pop doesn't sound pleasing. I've noticed that various genres require me to adjust to the tropes before I can enjoy them. I gave a perfect example (nothing encompasses teen pop tropes better than "Baby"). I've stated what I think the issue is.

What do you want me to do? Fall into the "Teen Pop Sucks" hivemind?

 

[sXeth]

I'd say theres a certain level between musically open-minded, elitist, and a platform of sheer pretention where you only listen to avant-jazz post-metal thats more a mathematical construct to be observed then crafted for listening pleasure.

The open-minded individual probably drifts around genres a lot, but largely will just pick up on some personal bit of taste that makes them dislike whichever particulars. The elitists tend to burrow into some niche, and attack other niches. Often these are the vague and indefinable genres like 'indie' or 'classic rock', where you can barely (if at all) even come up with a musical definition that doesn't degenerate into a list of the elitists favorite bands.

The other reason classic rock tends to command this sort of attitude is that its filtered. The Rolling Stones have north of 200 songs. You can find plenty of classic rock purists (and alleged Stones fans) who'd have trouble naming more then 10-20 that have survived the ages in the radio format. Or anything off of Jethro Tull's 22 albums that weren't Aqualung.

Comparing the lyrics is even sillier, I recall recently dissecting one of those image memes comparing 'Kashmir' to 'Friday' and stating the superiority of 70s music, by flipping the angle around to compare 'Musical Chair" (Fair to Midland) to 'Disco Duck' (by whoever it was), released in the same corresponding years.

People forget that these isolated snapshots (usually the best work of the band in question) of the 60s/70s that classic rock radio formats focus on are isolated snapshots, and usually didn't even correspond to the pop music of the day (you can go rehash the Billboard 100 through time on wikipedia. Barry Manilow was the most popular artist, churning out hits like Katy Perry during the heyday of Led Zeppelin).

Biebers music doesn't interest me at all, but I wouldn't go so far as to deem it an offense to anything. You could compare him easily enough to Donny Osmond, or even Michael Jackson's earliest appearances. He's also a kid, so I wouldn't expect him to churn out anything of particular interest to mature adults. Carly Rae, beloved of the internet churns out the same garbage, except shes near 30, which makes Bieber look like a prodigy in comparison. Taylor Swift's still churning out her stale high school romance grit at age 23. While I don't really foresee Bieber making any sort of transition into his own identity a la MJ, or even a Justin Timberlake, I'm not particularly bothered that some teenage kid is making teenage kid music for teenage kids, that doesn't even seem to show up on radio often and has to be sought out if you even want to hear it.

 

[dcdude171]

I'm kind of the opposite where I look for music mostly based upon lyrics.

The Gaslight Anthem, Bruce Springsteen, Van Morrison, Tom Waits , and Bob Dylan are among my favorite artists. I find the writing the thing that makes it superior to Justin Bieber.

I find Lines like this
Stay the same, don't ever change
Cause I'd miss your ways
With your Bette Davis eyes
And your mama's party dress

While this city pumps it's aching heart
For one more drop of blood,
We work our fingers down to dust
And we wait for kingdom come
with the radio on.

Better than " Baby Baby Baby Alright"

Other music I listen to is purely based upon composition and vocal ability. For instance Frank Sinatra's voice, Or the The strokes/Jack Whites intertwining guitar parts.

 

[mojopin87]

Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.

Boy you sure can say a whole lot without saying a goddamn thing. Once again I must point out that values differ between genre. Your usage of the vague term "quality work" only makes my having to re-explain this painfully obvious fact more unnecessarily obtuse than it already was. Define "quality work" to me. Define it in a way that's inclusive of all genres. When you can do that in a satisfying way I'll concede the argument to you. "Songwriting and production quality" between, say, hardcore punk and symphonic prog are almost complete opposites. Is it so inconceivable, then, that the standards of quality between genres as alike as "rock" and "teen pop" are similarly different?

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole, though. All I got from glossing over that was "Bleh! I don't like it!" and I put as much stock in those statements as I do, well, just about everything you've said actually.

Actually, I am agreeing that values differ between genres. But that is no reason to say that certain elements are by definition exempt from criticism.

As for 'quality work', it is quite simple really. It boils down to execution.

Is the melody appealing/catchy?
Does it have a good hook?
Are the lyrics tolerable by the standards of the genre?
Does the production hinder or enhance the enjoyment of the song?

And so on. It's genre specific yes, but not as absolute as you are making it out to be.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm kind of the opposite where I look for music mostly based upon lyrics.

The Gaslight Anthem, Bruce Springsteen, Van Morrison, Tom Waits , and Bob Dylan are among my favorite artists. I find the writing the thing that makes it superior to Justin Bieber.

I find Lines like this
Stay the same, don't ever change
Cause I'd miss your ways
With your Bette Davis eyes
And your mama's party dress

While this city pumps it's aching heart
For one more drop of blood,
We work our fingers down to dust
And we wait for kingdom come
with the radio on.

Better than " Baby Baby Baby Alright"

Other music I listen to is purely based upon composition and vocal ability. For instance Frank Sinatra's voice, Or the The strokes/Jack Whites intertwining guitar parts.

Lyrics are a double-edged sword, man.

"I'm still alive but I'm barely breathing
just praying to a God that I don't believe in
'cause I've got time and she's got freedom
'cause when a heart breaks, no it don't break even"
-Breakeven, by The Script, 2009

"FLAPPING MY ARMS, I BEGIN TO CLUCK
LOOK AT ME, I'M THE DIIISCOOOO DUUUUUUUUUUUCK!
OHHHH MAMA, SHAKE YOUR TAIL FEATHERRRRRS! AHAHAHAHAHA!"
-Disco Duck, by Rick Dees, 1976

 

[Undomesticated Equine]

I guess I am music elitist because I cannot stay to listen to most of the modern music. It just sounds like complete shit to me but I try to refrain from pointing out to people that the music they like is not really music but turd in vocal form. There are probably good songs out there but i am not likely to ever hear them as they are drowned in a sea of poo. I should point out that i am not a metalhead as i dislike most of the metal as much as i dislike Bieber and i am more fan of rock and similar stuff but i also like oldies (Fallout 3 and NV style songs) also i can tolerate some rap songs provided they have good lyrics. So i am not completely narrow minded one kind of music to rule them all (or rather make them disappear). It is just something with today's popmusic that i cannot stand. I realize that a lot of the stuff that i listen to used to be popmusic 40-50 years ago so i guess i just live in the past like say James May.

 

[lacktheknack]

Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.

Boy you sure can say a whole lot without saying a goddamn thing. Once again I must point out that values differ between genre. Your usage of the vague term "quality work" only makes my having to re-explain this painfully obvious fact more unnecessarily obtuse than it already was. Define "quality work" to me. Define it in a way that's inclusive of all genres. When you can do that in a satisfying way I'll concede the argument to you. "Songwriting and production quality" between, say, hardcore punk and symphonic prog are almost complete opposites. Is it so inconceivable, then, that the standards of quality between genres as alike as "rock" and "teen pop" are similarly different?

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole, though. All I got from glossing over that was "Bleh! I don't like it!" and I put as much stock in those statements as I do, well, just about everything you've said actually.

Actually, I am agreeing that values differ between genres. But that is no reason to say that certain elements are by definition exempt from criticism.

As for 'quality work', it is quite simple really.

Is the melody appealing/catchy?
Does it have a good hook?
Are the lyrics tolerable by the standards of the genre?
Does the production hinder or enhance the enjoyment of the song?

And so on.

We never said any of the elements are exempt from criticism. We never implied this. We have NO IDEA where you got that.

And as for Baby,

Check,
check,
check,
enhance,

and so on.

What was the problem again?

 

[Mick Beard]

Em maybe I'm wrong but this comes off as a bit elitist. You keep mentioning that you like prog rock as though that adds to your argument and then say

AC/DC and Guns n' Roses are, by my definition, pop music. They write commercial, accessible music that follows the 4 chords, verse/chorus, three minutes structure.

It sounds like "If anyone should be elitist it's me, I mean I listen to prog rock." It doesn't sound like you're criticising elitism, it sounds like you're criticising elitists who don't have your superior music taste.

Dream Theater fan, what do you expect?

i think he is justs mad that his dad called his new Dream Theater cd a piece of crap

 

[sammysoso]

Music is basically the worst medium when it comes to fanboys.

I like the music I like and simple cannot comprehend how somebody likes something else. I have to slap myself before I make snarky comments.

 

[mojopin87]

Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.

Boy you sure can say a whole lot without saying a goddamn thing. Once again I must point out that values differ between genre. Your usage of the vague term "quality work" only makes my having to re-explain this painfully obvious fact more unnecessarily obtuse than it already was. Define "quality work" to me. Define it in a way that's inclusive of all genres. When you can do that in a satisfying way I'll concede the argument to you. "Songwriting and production quality" between, say, hardcore punk and symphonic prog are almost complete opposites. Is it so inconceivable, then, that the standards of quality between genres as alike as "rock" and "teen pop" are similarly different?

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole, though. All I got from glossing over that was "Bleh! I don't like it!" and I put as much stock in those statements as I do, well, just about everything you've said actually.

Actually, I am agreeing that values differ between genres. But that is no reason to say that certain elements are by definition exempt from criticism.

As for 'quality work', it is quite simple really.

Is the melody appealing/catchy?
Does it have a good hook?
Are the lyrics tolerable by the standards of the genre?
Does the production hinder or enhance the enjoyment of the song?

And so on.

We never said any of the elements are exempt from criticism. We never implied this. We have NO IDEA where you got that.

And as for Baby,

Check,
check,
check,
enhance,

and so on.

What was the problem again?

Ah I see the confusion. The original criticism was that the songwriting and production are bad. He was then attacked for applying a rock standard to a teen pop song. While that may be true, I don't believe the conclusion is that all criticism of music must be absolutely genre specific.

 

[Undomesticated Equine]

Even Justin Bieber song can be good you just have to replace the singer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xYHsyCyDvs

 

[lacktheknack]

Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.

Boy you sure can say a whole lot without saying a goddamn thing. Once again I must point out that values differ between genre. Your usage of the vague term "quality work" only makes my having to re-explain this painfully obvious fact more unnecessarily obtuse than it already was. Define "quality work" to me. Define it in a way that's inclusive of all genres. When you can do that in a satisfying way I'll concede the argument to you. "Songwriting and production quality" between, say, hardcore punk and symphonic prog are almost complete opposites. Is it so inconceivable, then, that the standards of quality between genres as alike as "rock" and "teen pop" are similarly different?

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole, though. All I got from glossing over that was "Bleh! I don't like it!" and I put as much stock in those statements as I do, well, just about everything you've said actually.

Actually, I am agreeing that values differ between genres. But that is no reason to say that certain elements are by definition exempt from criticism.

As for 'quality work', it is quite simple really.

Is the melody appealing/catchy?
Does it have a good hook?
Are the lyrics tolerable by the standards of the genre?
Does the production hinder or enhance the enjoyment of the song?

And so on.

We never said any of the elements are exempt from criticism. We never implied this. We have NO IDEA where you got that.

And as for Baby,

Check,
check,
check,
enhance,

and so on.

What was the problem again?

Ah I see the confusion. The original criticism was that the songwriting and production are bad. He was then attacked for applying a rock standard to a teen pop song. While that may be true, I don't believe the conclusion is that all criticism of music must be absolutely genre specific.

I, however, DO think that genre should be noted and should very heavily affect your criticism of a song.

If I was to review, say, "Sweet Child of Mine" while in the mindset of my face-melting-electronica days, I'd say the riff is sweet, but it's too damn slow and reserved and has a singer who is too affected by the guitar line... and the drums are too minimalist. You might notice that this is a very unfair and inaccurate review.

There's no bloody way to make a criteria that can fairly judge AC/DC, Dragonette, Skrillex and Merzbow at the same time, so we should stop acting like there is one.

 

[Latinidiot]

Because I respect their skills as musicians, not just as artists.
Snippity
I have respect for bands like Iron Maiden, still touring, still making great albums for more then 20 years, while current pop-stars are not artists, they're products.

I'm seeing Maiden this summer

Also, I bolded the bit that really struck me as true, but all popmusicians have gone through the product machine. I mean, the Beatles image was largely fabricated by their salesperson/manager/agent/whateveryoucallthem.

And we must remember that the good bands tend to stick around, while the bland pop that populates the airwaves gets forgotten as soon as the new bland thing gets promoted.

 

[Nazulu]

You're saying repetitiveness is bad (or, for that matter, that "Baby" is particularly repetitive). That's a problem right there, especially if you're going to accuse me of being insensitive to opinion. Also, I'm not assuming anything about how his brain works. I'm stating statements based off what he's gone and said. He says teen pop doesn't sound pleasing. I've noticed that various genres require me to adjust to the tropes before I can enjoy them. I gave a perfect example (nothing encompasses teen pop tropes better than "Baby"). I've stated what I think the issue is.

What do you want me to do? Fall into the "Teen Pop Sucks" hivemind?

Well repetitiveness isn't exactly great isn't it? I am against Baby, I find that song to be every thing what's wrong with music. The only thing I've accused you of is assuming what people think and pointless arguments.

And you are assuming how his mind work, you're saying he's just looking for something different different. I love how Crunk can admit that.

You're also doing it. You're assuming how his mind works. What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion. Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

I'm not trying to be mean, but your argument falls just as flat as his.

We can only assume how his mind works based on what he's said to us and, no matter how much you'd like, what's he's said doesn't leave a whole lot of room for ambiguity.

EDIT:

What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion.

Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion.

Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

Are saying Baby isn't repetitive and boring? Because I find it is, I am saying it as an opinion. Sorry if you got confused. You haven't proven any thing and assuming how peoples minds work doesn't work.

 

[lacktheknack]

You're saying repetitiveness is bad (or, for that matter, that "Baby" is particularly repetitive). That's a problem right there, especially if you're going to accuse me of being insensitive to opinion. Also, I'm not assuming anything about how his brain works. I'm stating statements based off what he's gone and said. He says teen pop doesn't sound pleasing. I've noticed that various genres require me to adjust to the tropes before I can enjoy them. I gave a perfect example (nothing encompasses teen pop tropes better than "Baby"). I've stated what I think the issue is.

What do you want me to do? Fall into the "Teen Pop Sucks" hivemind?

Well repetitiveness isn't exactly great isn't it? I am against Baby, I find that song to be every thing what's wrong with music. The only thing I've accused you of is assuming what people think and pointless arguments.

And you are assuming how his mind work, you're saying he's just looking for something different different. I love how Crunk can admit that.

You're also doing it. You're assuming how his mind works. What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion. Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

I'm not trying to be mean, but your argument falls just as flat as his.

We can only assume how his mind works based on what he's said to us and, no matter how much you'd like, what's he's said doesn't leave a whole lot of room for ambiguity.

EDIT:

What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion.

Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion.

Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

Are saying Baby isn't repetitive and boring? Because I find it is, I am saying it as an opinion. Sorry if you got confused. You haven't proven any thing and assuming how peoples minds work doesn't work.

Repetition is the way I prefer my music. So no, I think it's fantastic.

What were you saying about biased opinions, again?

Although if you're going to maintain that "Baby" is all that is wrong with music, then yeah, this is a very pointless argument.

I demand to know what you mean by "assuming how his mind works", though. You might notice that we actually came to agreement on the subject, the difference in opinion is now about to what extent different expectations should be used. Because we didn't assume a thing, we simply read what he wrote and reacted accordingly.

For that matter, I demand to know how "Baby" is more repetitive than, say, "Sweet Child of Mine".

EDIT: "We actually came to agreement" meaning me/Crunk and the other guy who you said we're assuming stuff about. Just to clarify.