> This message board is a public forum, am I right? So feel > free as you have done to respond to my rantings, but allow > me license to air them if I so choose.
Of course. Far be it from me to tell you what to do. I only said that I don't understand.
> But Madonna's music is about as entertaining
> and as valid as entertainment as the WWF.
And they're both as valid as David Baerwald. You admit that "scads of people love both"--which would seem to me a pretty good indication that both are valid as entertainment. If there's some other criteria that they have to meet, I'm not sure what that would be.
You also posit the age-old argument that the "general public" is no longer able to discern what is good music. Argue the relative merits of popular music all you want, but you'll never find a time in history when the status quo wasn't ruling the roost. Better just to get down from our high horses and admit that *we* are the general public, just like the folks who listen to Madonna and watch the WWF. Just because we happen to have different taste in music, we are not somehow better human beings. People have always griped about whatever happens to be popular. People have always held their own iconoclastic tastes above everyone else's. And most importantly, people have always abandoned/turned on their favorite artists if and when they happen to be accepted by those self-same masses.
What I'm using too many words to say is, you can't take your opinion and assign empirical value to it when you're talking about something as wildly subjective as music. Just because you happen to find something devoid of artistic merit doesn't make it so. There are people out there, believe it or not, that are affected in a very real way by music that you or I might find completely worthless. Lighten up a little. It's enough to say you don't like Madonna. Unless God has appointed you the arbiter of good taste for the rest of the planet (and I want to see a note to prove it), that's really the only thing that matters.
Re: More Mindless Banter
A
anonymous
(view)
> This message board is a public forum, am I right? So feel > free as you have done to respond to my rantings, but allow > me license to air them if I so choose.
Of course. Far be it from me to tell you what to do. I only said that I don't understand.
> But Madonna's music is about as entertaining
> and as valid as entertainment as the WWF.
And they're both as valid as David Baerwald. You admit that "scads of people love both"--which would seem to me a pretty good indication that both are valid as entertainment. If there's some other criteria that they have to meet, I'm not sure what that would be.
You also posit the age-old argument that the "general public" is no longer able to discern what is good music. Argue the relative merits of popular music all you want, but you'll never find a time in history when the status quo wasn't ruling the roost. Better just to get down from our high horses and admit that *we* are the general public, just like the folks who listen to Madonna and watch the WWF. Just because we happen to have different taste in music, we are not somehow better human beings. People have always griped about whatever happens to be popular. People have always held their own iconoclastic tastes above everyone else's. And most importantly, people have always abandoned/turned on their favorite artists if and when they happen to be accepted by those self-same masses.
What I'm using too many words to say is, you can't take your opinion and assign empirical value to it when you're talking about something as wildly subjective as music. Just because you happen to find something devoid of artistic merit doesn't make it so. There are people out there, believe it or not, that are affected in a very real way by music that you or I might find completely worthless. Lighten up a little. It's enough to say you don't like Madonna. Unless God has appointed you the arbiter of good taste for the rest of the planet (and I want to see a note to prove it), that's really the only thing that matters.
Of course. Far be it from me to tell you what to do. I only said that I don't understand.
> But Madonna's music is about as entertaining
> and as valid as entertainment as the WWF.
And they're both as valid as David Baerwald. You admit that "scads of people love both"--which would seem to me a pretty good indication that both are valid as entertainment. If there's some other criteria that they have to meet, I'm not sure what that would be.
You also posit the age-old argument that the "general public" is no longer able to discern what is good music. Argue the relative merits of popular music all you want, but you'll never find a time in history when the status quo wasn't ruling the roost. Better just to get down from our high horses and admit that *we* are the general public, just like the folks who listen to Madonna and watch the WWF. Just because we happen to have different taste in music, we are not somehow better human beings. People have always griped about whatever happens to be popular. People have always held their own iconoclastic tastes above everyone else's. And most importantly, people have always abandoned/turned on their favorite artists if and when they happen to be accepted by those self-same masses.
What I'm using too many words to say is, you can't take your opinion and assign empirical value to it when you're talking about something as wildly subjective as music. Just because you happen to find something devoid of artistic merit doesn't make it so. There are people out there, believe it or not, that are affected in a very real way by music that you or I might find completely worthless. Lighten up a little. It's enough to say you don't like Madonna. Unless God has appointed you the arbiter of good taste for the rest of the planet (and I want to see a note to prove it), that's really the only thing that matters.
