2010-08-04, 09:49 PM
ItachiPower, popular hit radio stations, by definition, are popular hit radio stations for a reason... and it's not because they play unpopular music. The radio stations generate revenue by selling songs that a majority of individuals want to listen to on the radio. Granted, certain individuals dislike the songs that are placed on the station, yet this obviously does not constitute the mass opinion as radio stations still continue to do what works. This doesn't mean that people can be disgruntled with popular hit radio stations. However, it's just silly to hate a popular hit radio station for being a popular hit radio station.
Silly Fiel, National Public Radio is for adults!
I've noticed that their music selection consists strongly of slow jazz with a dash of blues.
I don't understand. You believe that there are characteristics behind "bad" music that can be recognized on some absolute level by all humans. Yet you also push the fact that music is subjective to every individual. Absolute + subjective interpretation by definition are not supposed to mix together at all. When you introduce a subjective element to an absolute, then you usually just get a subjective result. Absolutes are absolute for a reason.
Eminem in many of his songs, like "Sing for the Moment", frequently address his audience as being spoiled middle-class suburban kids. I personally have a mixed taste ranging from classical to electric pop to hip-hop. I think that the internet has been crucial in helping me develop a diverse taste in music that I would not normally access without online services. If I could propose another theory on how socioeconomic factors affect music, I would argue that the economy plays a role in determining the preference to certain music pieces.
As observed, Lady Gaga is able to take the electric thrills from her arrangement and play them as semi-classical arrangement. Why doesn't she? The New York Times in their article, "Girl Pop's Lady Gaga Makeover," the author notes that artist Sarah McLachlan attempted to set on tour with a series of introspective and thought-felt songs for her 2010 tour. The concert flopped and the article quickly compared her results with the Lady Gaga extravaganzas. In short, the author didn't note this, but it has been stated that Lady Gaga's loud electronica beat was the bourbon to nurse the wounds of a bad economy and hard times. The last thing people wanted to listen to was music that tried to encapsulate feelings, emotions, and inner introspection. When times are tough, no one has the heart to... well, listen to their heart. After all, if you're going to waste time listening to something when you're already being worked and pushed 24/7, it might as well be something loud, flashy, and entertaining. Hence Lady Gaga.
Fiel Wrote:Wait, people listen to music on the radio? NPR. News and high-brow arts. What more could anyone want?
Silly Fiel, National Public Radio is for adults!
I've noticed that their music selection consists strongly of slow jazz with a dash of blues.
CtrlAltDel Wrote:@Chompy. Yes I agree with you, music is all relative to whoever is listening to it. Although there are some characteristics you can use to define a *bad* song, generally for the most part, what music one enjoys is subject to the listener.
I don't understand. You believe that there are characteristics behind "bad" music that can be recognized on some absolute level by all humans. Yet you also push the fact that music is subjective to every individual. Absolute + subjective interpretation by definition are not supposed to mix together at all. When you introduce a subjective element to an absolute, then you usually just get a subjective result. Absolutes are absolute for a reason.
CtrlAltDel Wrote:I think a point can be made though, is that upbringing and culture/race (not trying to be racist. It's true) play a huge part in what type of music you enjoy best, and also I believe there is a correlation between what medium of art you find interesting and what type of music you enjoy. IE People who like graffiti as a medium of art are generally (not in all cases) going to enjoy rap/hip-hop music more than others.
Eminem in many of his songs, like "Sing for the Moment", frequently address his audience as being spoiled middle-class suburban kids. I personally have a mixed taste ranging from classical to electric pop to hip-hop. I think that the internet has been crucial in helping me develop a diverse taste in music that I would not normally access without online services. If I could propose another theory on how socioeconomic factors affect music, I would argue that the economy plays a role in determining the preference to certain music pieces.
As observed, Lady Gaga is able to take the electric thrills from her arrangement and play them as semi-classical arrangement. Why doesn't she? The New York Times in their article, "Girl Pop's Lady Gaga Makeover," the author notes that artist Sarah McLachlan attempted to set on tour with a series of introspective and thought-felt songs for her 2010 tour. The concert flopped and the article quickly compared her results with the Lady Gaga extravaganzas. In short, the author didn't note this, but it has been stated that Lady Gaga's loud electronica beat was the bourbon to nurse the wounds of a bad economy and hard times. The last thing people wanted to listen to was music that tried to encapsulate feelings, emotions, and inner introspection. When times are tough, no one has the heart to... well, listen to their heart. After all, if you're going to waste time listening to something when you're already being worked and pushed 24/7, it might as well be something loud, flashy, and entertaining. Hence Lady Gaga.