Justin Bieber vs. the World, Hitler and Puberty

[Beast]

Are you asking why people have a different opinion to you?

 

Nope, just asking why people think he has a great voice when there's MUCH better singers out there and much better songs as well. Justin Bieber songs aren't catchy or memorable in the slightest to me (but each to their own). I'm not saying I hate the guy himself, he may be a nice guy, I just don't like his voice and I don't see what's so special about him so since you're a fan of his, I wanted to know why you like him so much.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Animal

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Kind of a massive question, so any answer I could give is no doubt going to be somewhat flawed. But I'll Hit You With My Best Shot:

 

I'd say a quality of good music is that it forces you to care about the artist in question. In a positive way. Good music often challenges. Often it just is.

 

 

I believe there is such thing as an X-Factor; a determinant which objectively makes music good. Technical talent goes a long way in making music good, but it can only take you so far -- there's something that separates Laura Marling from Sandi Thom. They both play the guitar as well as each other, but there's something that makes Laura Marling appear in the "I feel belittled by her greatness" category in my head, where Sandi falls into the "meh" category. Laura is objectively better.

 

But then, this X-Factor is hardly a discrete thing. It's not about a binary of good or bad, or X-Factor or no X-Factor. There's a scale of X-Factor-havingness. So maybe the above paragraph is misleading?

 

You couldn't really measure all music in comparison to what makes Laura great. Her wise-beyond-her-years lyrics certainly factor in; compare to Bjork's childlike and simplistic lyrics. I'd probably place Bjork above Marling when push comes to shove.

 

Maybe its a society-driven thing? Society tells us that things which are inspired and things which are creative and society tells us things which are innovative are good. Society tells us things which challenge are good. [Or at least cultured society does -- shit society tells us to like Ne-Yo, because only ArtFags listen to other stuff.]

 

In the same way that society tells us what gender is. That a man can't like pink. That a man can't cry at a movie. That a woman must be good at sewing. At the heart of it all, everything is built upon the biology of the XY and the XX chromosomes. Its so ground into us that our sexual characteristics must govern action and thought that few question it - perhaps gender is fluid, and the standard gender roles we stick to are contrived?

 

But then, men are stronger -- better at fending off lions. Better at reading maps. Women are better at looking after children. So maybe that last sentiment is false, and gender roles are wholly natural?

 

And at the heart of it all, the qualities generally acknowledged re: good music are ultimately built upon the fact our brain likes certain combinations of certain soundwaves. Some sound waves sound better. Some combinations sound better. Some artists are better at using them.

 

But then, to take this line of thought too far to heart disregards the human emotion present in music. The human involvement. All the satisfaction and juissance which comes from this inexplicable X-Factor.

 

Writing it off as subjectivity disregards the power music has to influence and effect. To say the fact I genuinely cried when I first heard Kate Bush's This Woman's Work with real ears is a product of subjectivity discredits her extraordinary accomplishment in engaging with her audience. I'd sooner judge a person by their reaction to that song than I would that song by the reaction it has on people. If you dared to even entertain the idea that U Smile is a better song than This Woman's Work, I'd think worse of you from that day onwards.

 

It's hard to come up with defined reasons why I think music being totally subjective is a fallacy. Maybe I think it's objective, within a communally-agreed-upon set of rules, which are really, underneath it all, subjective. 90% of the world believes gender is binary, and there is nothing between man and woman, but 10% have divorced themselves from that concept. We've agreed subjectively that x,y,z makes music good, and once that is set in stone, things become objective.

 

I care about these things. You don't have to care -- just be aware that I'll think you're nothin'/nuttin' for having shit taste that reeks of unawaredness. If you engage yourself in music properly, you'll grow out of it, I promise.

 

 

tldr: I'm a Rambling Man. With lots of pretension. Because really the truth is Too Far Deep, and I'm pretending I can delve and dive so far. JUST LISTEN TO THIS, AND BATHE:

 

Oh, AND, gays, gender/trans, boring outrage (which I wish was bored outrage) etc etc. The usual.

Have I ever told you how much I respect you?

[Jonnas]

First of all, Moogleviper is correct on the definition of the Godwin's Law. There is a popular corollary, though:

 

"If Hitler is brought up in a conversation where he has no relevance, it is generally agreed the person mentioning him loses all reason for the remainder of that debate. The same rule applies to Nazis/Nazism."

 

Since Paj Meen Ah wanted to mention someone generally agreed upon as evil, Hitler was relevant (Otherwise...)

 

 

 

Second, chairdriver wrote an excellent post that pretty much defined why musical opinion is fundamentally subjective, and the reasons as to why we would think otherwise. He even mentioned society and music critics as guidelines for our opinions, that is, what we tend to perceive as "objectively good", even if the term itself is a fallacy by definition.

 

It's not often that a single person manages to appease both sides of a debate, but that only adds to its brilliance.

 

Maybe I think [music] is objective, within a communally-agreed-upon set of rules, which are really, underneath it all, subjective.

 

I love this quote. It manages to succinctly sum up chairdriver's point in a single phrase.

[Diageo]

Nope, just asking why people think he has a great voice when there's MUCH better singers out there and much better songs as well. Justin Bieber songs aren't catchy or memorable in the slightest to me (but each to their own). I'm not saying I hate the guy himself, he may be a nice guy, I just don't like his voice and I don't see what's so special about him so since you're a fan of his, I wanted to know why you like him so much.

I feel like a broken record because I've said this all already.

 

People who like him think he's a good singer and has a good voice. They may even like him so much they think he is the best singer. He may be shit to you but he is not to so many others. So yes, you are asking why people's opinions are different to yours.

 

People seem to have enjoyed your post so much they won't like my views. But I will express them anyway.

 

Kind of a massive question, so any answer I could give is no doubt going to be somewhat flawed. But I'll Hit You With My Best Shot:

 

I'd say a quality of good music is that it forces you to care about the artist in question. In a positive way. Good music often challenges. Often it just is.

You think the thousands of girls that love Justin Bieber don't care about him in a positive way. Challenges what?

It just is? I can't accept that as a reason.

 

I believe there is such thing as an X-Factor; a determinant which objectively makes music good. Technical talent goes a long way in making music good, but it can only take you so far -- there's something that separates Laura Marling from Sandi Thom. They both play the guitar as well as each other, but there's something that makes Laura Marling appear in the "I feel belittled by her greatness" category in my head, where Sandi falls into the "meh" category. Laura is objectively better.

I don't know either of those people. But I am willing to bet you anything that there are people who would think that Laura is worse. What makes your opinion better than theirs. Why is she objectively better since you said it, but if they disagree, they are being subjective.

But then, this X-Factor is hardly a discrete thing. It's not about a binary of good or bad, or X-Factor or no X-Factor. There's a scale of X-Factor-havingness. So maybe the above paragraph is misleading?

You can't have a scale with binary. It's either 1 or 0.

 

Maybe its a society-driven thing? Society tells us that things which are inspired and things which are creative and society tells us things which are innovative are good. Society tells us things which challenge are good. [Or at least cultured society does -- shit society tells us to like Ne-Yo, because only ArtFags listen to other stuff.]

So Ne-yo can't be creative, was not inspired by anything.

Give me the list of things that are creative, give me a list of the music that is innovative. So I can know once and for all what music is good, because clearly I am ignorant in my ways.

 

 

 

And at the heart of it all, the qualities generally acknowledged re: good music are ultimately built upon the fact our brain likes certain combinations of certain soundwaves. Some sound waves sound better. Some combinations sound better. Some artists are better at using them.

 

Some sound waves sound better to certain people more than others. Some combinations are liked by some and not others. Some artists are better at satisfying one group. Still seems subjective to me.

 

But then, to take this line of thought too far to heart disregards the human emotion present in music. The human involvement. All the satisfaction and juissance which comes from this inexplicable X-Factor.

I don't see how it disregards the human emotion present in music. People can like music for the emotion they feel from it. What if people feel happy to the dance beats in the club, because they are upbeat songs. Is their emotion not real because the song wasn't made with that emotion particularly in mind. Does every song need emotion to be good. Can you gauge emotion to say that your song is better than mine. What makes your opinion better than any other? You may think emotion is obvious in one song, and someone else may see nothing in it. But you may see no emotion in another song, just because it's a pop song. Human involvement is needed in all music. And if people like a song, it's because positive emotions are brought forward when they hear that song. Therefore it is a good song.

 

Writing it off as subjectivity disregards the power music has to influence and effect. To say the fact I genuinely cried when I first heard Kate Bush's This Woman's Work with real tears is a product of subjectivity discredits her extraordinary accomplishment in engaging with her audience. I'd sooner judge a person by their reaction to that song than I would that song by the reaction it has on people. If you dared to even entertain the idea that U Smile is a better song than This Woman's Work, I'd think worse of you from that day onwards.

Why does subjectivity take away from her accomplishment? Because some people can't see the emotion you see?

I'm not a "big" Bieber fan, I don't even know the song "U Smile" or "This Woman's Work". I don't think people can be judged by the reaction to something so personal and subjective as music. To think less of anyone because of their taste in music is like judging someone for their taste in food. I think it's ridiculous to judge people on taste.

 

 

 

It's hard to come up with defined reasons why I think music being totally subjective is a fallacy. Maybe I think it's objective, within a communally-agreed-upon set of rules, which are really, underneath it all, subjective. 90% of the world believes gender is binary, and there is nothing between man and woman, but 10% have divorced themselves from that concept. We've agreed subjectively that x,y,z makes music good, and once that is set in stone, things become objective.

 

Musical quality can't be set in stone. Because enough people think that x,y,z makes music good doesn't make it objective. Objectiveness is not based on personal feelings. "OBJECTIVE - Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion." If Music is all you say it is. It evokes emotions, it challenges, it innovates. Then it can't be objective, in any way. Just because people agree that about a certain thing because of their personal feelings towards that song, it can never be objective. And if it's not objective, then no music is ever better than any other, objectively.

 

 

I care about these things. You don't have to care -- just be aware that I'll think you're nothin'/nuttin' for having shit taste that reeks of unawaredness. If you engage yourself in music properly, you'll grow out of it, I promise.

This is the worst part. I'm nothing for having shit taste? I have lost all sense and usefulness in society or anywhere because I don't agree with your taste in music, with what you agree is good music.

How do I engage with music properly. By dividing categories into it. By judging people on their taste and understanding of the subject of music. By interpreting any music that I consider bad, is objectively bad, because I said so, and most of society agrees.

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree with any of this. I think it is wrong.

 

tldr: I'm a Rambling Man. With lots of pretension. Because really the truth is Too Far Deep, and I'm pretending I can delve and dive so far. JUST LISTEN TO THIS, AND BATHE:

I actually like this song. I almost wish I didn't just so I could go against you, but I like the song.

 

 

Oh, AND, gays, gender/trans, boring outrage (which I wish was bored outrage) etc etc. The usual.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Diageo
Automerged Doublepost

[chairdriver]

Your opinions are flawed/shit and I can't be bothered arguing with you.

 

And I'm rude and oppressive. Deal with it.

Edited October 4, 2010 by chairdriver

[Diageo]

There's nothing I can say to that.

Do you want to win this debate/argument? You can have it. I can't argue with that either.

 

I'd easily talk to anyone else about this, but since everyone seemed to agree with chairdriver so much. I guess it's likely you will have the same opinion in the end.

[Paj!]

Do you want to win this debate/argument? You can have it.

 

 

Lol @ this thread.

 

N.b I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Chair.

[Beast]

Nope, just asking why people think he has a great voice when there's MUCH better singers out there and much better songs as well. Justin Bieber songs aren't catchy or memorable in the slightest to me (but each to their own). I'm not saying I hate the guy himself, he may be a nice guy, I just don't like his voice and I don't see what's so special about him so since you're a fan of his, I wanted to know why you like him so much.

 

I feel like a broken record because I've said this all already.

 

People who like him think he's a good singer and has a good voice. They may even like him so much they think he is the best singer. He may be shit to you but he is not to so many others. So yes, you are asking why people's opinions are different to yours.

 

I'm asking what do you like about him. The reason I am is because I spoke to most of my friends who are fans two nights ago and most of them said the same thing as a reason why they like his music: "Because he's good-looking/fit" and only one actually said "I like his music" which makes me question something. How can one like one's music just because someone is good-looking?

 

As you've said in posts, you like him because of his voice so that's fair enough and we'll leave it at that.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Animal

[Dyson]

Hey has anyone heard that Bieber kid? I hear he's really rockin'.

 

Oh sorry my mistake, I thought this was the Justin Bieber thread as opposed to the effort to stir up enough hatred to cause World War 3 based on the thread alone.

[Diageo]

If you look at my big post, I mention the name Bieber twice.

[Ashley]

Yes, back to the teen...person.

 

He's hosting the new series of Punk'd: http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/10/05/justin-bieber-to-host-new-version-of-mtvs-punkd/

[mcj metroid]

If you seriously believe the quality of all music is completely subjective, I really can't begin to reason with you.

 

But it is.....

Music = art and art= subjective

You can't say this painter is better than that painter just like you can't with a musical artist.

 

edit: actually forget it after reading this thread, I'm only going to end up insulting people, so I'll stop while i'm ahead haha

Edited October 5, 2010 by mcj metroid

[Diageo]

Sure, someone finally agrees with me but is too scared to continue the debate for fear of insult.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Nah, I'm with you. "Good" and "bad" are, to me, entirely subjective terms. I believe the reason we're somewhat able to agree on what's "good" and "bad" is simply that a lot of elements in music affect people in the same way. But then there's also all the things we don't agree on. I don't like death metal, for instance, while some people love it.

 

Anyway, I think the debate just needs to cool off a bit. It was getting too heated, I found.

[Frank]

Both "sides", if that's an OK term, have both very valid points and flaws, in my opinion. I don't think this can be resolved as music is such a general thing to argue about. It's near impossible to simplify it.

 

I have to agree though that of course music is subjective. For some people, songs have different meanings to them.

For example, let's just say there's a mother and daughter and the mother's favorite song is...let's say 'Radio Gaga' by Queen.

 

Now, let's imagine that the Mother dies.

 

For the vast majority of listeners 'Radio Gaga' possibly means nothing apart from a good, catchy song to listen to yet for the daughter it symbolizes her mother, in a sense. Every time that she hears/listens to that song she'll probably automatically think of her Mother making that piece of music very personal and...subjective.

 

I know, I know. It's a weird example and I hope I worded it correctly but I think that makes sense

[mcj metroid]

Anyway, I think the debate just needs to cool off a bit. It was getting too heated, I found.

 

It's kinda why a general music thread fails. Too many people who take their music too seriously I find.

 

I don't get the Bieber hate. It's no worse than some of the shit i've been hearing for the last 10 years, It's only because he's young and extremely successful people tend to pick on him and it's quite pathetic actually.

[Diageo]

Let the argument cool off a bit and the thread will die.

[mcj metroid]

Let the argument cool off a bit and the thread will die.

 

ok

 

paj and chair are the same person.. discuss

[Jonnas]

For the record, I'm on the "music is subjective" crowd. The reason I agreed with chair's post was because he ultimately agreed on this.

 

As for Bieber... I'm guessing that internet trolls hate him because teenage girls swoon over him, while said trolls (being mostly male) don't get it. It happened with Twilight too*

 

Then again, I don't live in the US. Maybe they are being constantly bombarded with Bieber music wherever they go, and they dislike their songs (kinda how the radio stations would always play the same two World Cup theme songs during this summer).

 

 

*(Side Note: Of course, I really don't understand why one would spend so much time devising internet pranks out of hate, so maybe they're just losers who'll prey on anything popular.)

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

For the record, I'm on the "music is subjective" crowd. The reason I agreed with chair's post was because he ultimately agreed on this.

Yeah, he did, didn't he? I was a little surprised it evolved into a debate between him and Diageo since I actually thought they agreed on the matter.

[Diageo]

Did people read both our posts or just skim over it?

 

Also this.

It's hard to come up with defined reasons why I think music being totally subjective is a fallacy.

[chairdriver]

My friend said the best thing in conversation today: "Great music is music that listens to itself and says "this is not good enough"".

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Did people read both our posts or just skim over it?

 

Also this.

I read them. In the next paragraph he says that maybe music is only objective in the sense that most people can agree on a set of subjective rules by which we judge music. But yeah, you don't completely agree on it.

[MoogleViper]

Does anybody else get sick of Bieber comments on songs on youtube that have nothing to do with bieber? Take a band like metallica. There's loads of comments such as "This is way better than that bieber fag" WHo the fuck cares? Are you really that sad that you comment about him on songs that you like?

[Beast]

Does anybody else get sick of Bieber comments on songs on youtube that have nothing to do with bieber? Take a band like metallica. There's loads of comments such as "This is way better than that bieber fag" WHo the fuck cares? Are you really that sad that you comment about him on songs that you like?

 

I'm sick of seeing comments that have nothing to do with the video at all. It's like every Harry Potter video, there's always one who says "Twilight is better" or something. Same with what Moogle said above, you can watch anything to do with music and there's always a comment somewhere saying "This is better than listening to Bieber", I fail to see how you could even compare some music to him in the first place.

 

I don't get the Bieber hate. It's no worse than some of the shit i've been hearing for the last 10 years, It's only because he's young and extremely successful people tend to pick on him and it's quite pathetic actually.

 

I don't get why people hate the guy himself either considering they don't even know the kid. I don't think he really has a good voice but it don't mean that I hate him because of that. I think that's quite stupid.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Animal
Automerged Doublepost