why do bands tend to get worse as time goes on?

[bickelz]

Directing ones post at specific individuals only makes ones point subjective and risk fallacy, which in return will get nobody nowhere.

You can make generalized opinions that are still wrong.

Don't be stupid.

Oh don't worry, I won't be. I'm not the one that can't back my shit up. You pulled the same shit on the intp vs intj thread. You made some generalized and stupid claim that was utter hyperbole, which you could back up, and then insisted it was right. You said you were open to new opinions, as a sensor. I'd use this conversation as evidence that you are not.

And by the way, you used a double negative up there that is different than your intentions. You said fallacies get everybody everywhere.

 

[MikeA]

<Gibberish>

You really should take Korg's advice if you want to remain his fanboi, little one.

Participate in the discussion or fuck off. Thanks in advance.

 

[Barnabas]

Yeah, I suggested that the size of influence someone has is a measure of how good they are. And even though saying which music is garbage is subjective, opinions en masse about how good a band is does matter. For example, Nickleback sucks. I honestly don't care if this is someone's favorite band, they just suck. I listened to them a bit in middle school. Just no. There are other bands like that too.

But how do you measure influence and how do you know that Nickle back sucks other then saying "I listened to them and they suck even though other people like them."

 

[bickelz]

You really should take Korg's advice if you want to remain his fanboi, little one.

I'm actually participating in the discussion by proving you wrong on 2 threads but now you have realized that I'm right, you're throwing up a defense mechanism by saying "Fuck off, I don't care" when you actually do care.

Way to try and turn the tides on me by using something I backed up against me btw. It's actually an advanced arguing technique that I never thought you'd understand how to use but bravo. But since I saw through your bs, you don't get to call me little one.

 

[bickelz]

But how do you measure influence and how do you know that Nickle back sucks other then saying "I listened to them and they suck even though other people like them."

Because everyone thinks they suck. Well, everyone that has experience in music that would have an opinion that matters (i.e. pro blues musicians or pro rock musicians).

 

[MikeA]

you're throwing up a defense mechanism by saying "Fuck off, I don't care" when you actually do care.
...you don't get to call me little one.

No, Korg said "Fuck off," and you said "I don't care."

If you want to troll, do it right, little one.

 

[bickelz]

No, Korg said "Fuck off," and you said "I don't care."

If you want to troll, do it right, little one.

No, Korg told someone else to fuck off. I've been arguing for the op asshole. I'm not trolling, just pissing you off.

And btw, are you six? Seriously? Trying to push my personal buttons by attacking me personally instead of my arguments? Isn't that a fallacy?

 

[Barnabas]

Because everyone thinks they suck. Well, everyone that has experience in music that would have an opinion that matters (i.e. pro blues musicians or pro rock musicians).

first off that's a generalization you can't prove, secondly your making an appeal to Authority which is also a logical fallacy, Finally you have yet define pro rock and blues musicians and why they are better to interpret why they have better knowledge then say a music major who teaches clarinet or piano at a grade school level.

Nor have you given a reason why anyone else is capable of interpreting how good or bad their music is.

 

[bickelz]

first off that's a generalization you can't prove, secondly your making an appeal to Authority which is also a logical fallacy, Finally you have yet define pro rock and blues musicians and why they are better to interpret why they have better knowledge then say a music major who teaches clarinet or piano at a grade school level.

Nor have you given a reason why anyone else is capable of interpreting how good or bad their music is.

Music major = pro trained musician.

Nickleback does not meet any of the criteria for the objective measures I have laid out.

Influential? Nope.

Relevant? Nope.

Creativity? It's been done before and better. They're nothing new.

Hits? Nope

Had stones thrown at them while on stage? Yup.

True, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy but a logical fallacy in the premises of an argument does not mean that the conclusion of the argument is wrong.

From experience, knowing very good musicians and being friends with almost everyone in the music department in my high school, I feel like my generalizations aren't a stretch of the imagination by any means. A simple facebook survey could prove my point.

 

[Barnabas]

Music major = pro trained musician.

Nickleback does not meet any of the criteria for the objective measures I have laid out.

Influential? Nope.

Relevant? Nope.

Creativity? It's been done before and better. They're nothing new.

Hits? Nope

Had stones thrown at them while on stage? Yup.

True, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy but a logical fallacy in the premises of an argument does not mean that the conclusion of the argument is wrong.

From experience, knowing very good musicians and being friends with almost everyone in the music department in my high school, I feel like my generalizations aren't a stretch of the imagination by any means. A simple facebook survey could prove my point.

you can't measure a band's influence objectively

creativity doesn't make a band good, just because it's new and different doesn't make it better.

Hits are regulated to sales and popularity, which guess what Nickleback sells records and has a fan base that enjoy there music. If they didn't they wouldn't be in the music industry and they'd be out of a pay check.


Also your generalizations are a stretch of the imagination, I can say literally the same thing you did only modify it with college instead of high school and be more right by your standard.


Edit: Just to prove my point, our music professor, whom has doctorate in musical studies & has played the piano professionally enjoy's Nickleback.

 

[bickelz]

you can't measure a band's influence objectively

creativity doesn't make a band good, just because it's new and different doesn't make it better.

Hits are regulated to sales and popularity, which guess what Nickleback sells records and has a fan base that enjoy there music. If they didn't they wouldn't be in the music industry and they'd be out of a pay check.


Also your generalizations are a stretch of the imagination, I can say literally the same thing you did only modify it with college instead of high school and be more right by your standard.

So you can't make an objective measure objective and creative art doesn't matter. Just because people buy their records, doesn't make them good. Again, this goes back to what I said earlier, measuring a band by their sales is like measuring a movie by it's sales. Transformers 2 made a shit ton of money but even Michael Bay said it was crap.

Just because there's a market for it does not mean it's good. There are bands that I know locally that are legitimately very good but since they have no record deal, evidently they suck.

You're talking about the free market of music while I'm talking about the art of it.

And what do you mean by the "my standard" line and something about high school and college? I'm interested to hear because it made no sense.

 

[MikeA]

No, Korg told someone else to fuck off.

It doesn't matter who he said it to, what matters is that he wants people to stay on topic or fuck off. I haven't told you to "Fuck off," which you said I did.

you're throwing up a defense mechanism by saying "Fuck off, I don't care" when you actually do care.

but since I'm a big boy wearing big boy pants, I don't care.

This is an oxymoron, thus renders what you wrote after it not worth reading.

How is it an oxymoron?

This is like watching a four year old ride a bicycle for the first time. Slowly learning by failing.

I've been arguing for the op asshole.

This is why I said that if you want to remain his fanboi you should take his advice. Instead you're derailing this topic by making this about yourself, and something about another topic, and me being a type Six using Jedi mind tricks on you as arguing techniques against you.

turn the tides on me by using something I backed up against me

What else would you have me use if not your posts? Let me know if you want me to get back to being indirect, until then I'm going to focus on You the way You want me to.

I'm not trolling, just pissing you off.

Yes, and you're very efficient at it, you're making me very very angry.

And btw, are you six? Seriously? Trying to push my personal buttons by attacking me personally instead of my arguments? Isn't that a fallacy?

Generalizing type Six are we?

You can make generalized opinions that are still wrong.

Oh, snap.

Now, you think you're winning when you're just plain wrong.

Every time you reply me back you're doing all the work for me. We've passed the point of me winning. Now all that remains is to see how far down you want to dig.

 

[Arsal]

So you can't make an objective measure objective and creative art doesn't matter. Just because people buy their records, doesn't make them good.

There is no objective measure. Art is entirely subjective.

Entertainment is objective and is measured in sales. Nickelback sells, therefore, it is good entertainment.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Art quality is objective, if you disagree that's just your opinion.

Bands get worse with time because they run out of ideas, and lose the energy and creativity of youth.

If they actually learned how to write music, like the Classical composers did, then maybe they could express themselves in increasingly complex ways and so stay good, and even better, as they age. But they don't, so they suck.

 

[Barnabas]

So you can't make an objective measure objective and creative art doesn't matter. Just because people buy their records, doesn't make them good. Again, this goes back to what I said earlier, measuring a band by their sales is like measuring a movie by it's sales. Transformers 2 made a shit ton of money but even Michael Bay said it was crap.

Just because there's a market for it does not mean it's good. There are bands that I know locally that are legitimately very good but since they have no record deal, evidently they suck.

You're talking about the free market of music while I'm talking about the art of it.

And what do you mean by the "my standard" line and something about high school and college? I'm interested to hear because it made no sense.

you said that your were confident in your assumption because you know people in the music wing of your high school right?

By your standard of "knowing people in the music department" and "that pro musicians know best" I trump your high school friends by having someone who is literally paid to teach and play music at the highest levels of authority to say that your wrong.


but really what I'm getting at is

There is no objective measure. Art is entirely subjective.

Entertainment is objective and is measured in sales. Nickelback sells, therefore, it is good entertainment.

This is basically all art so long as it's for art's sake.

 

[Arsal]

Art quality is objective, if you disagree that's just your opinion.

Heh, doesn't that make it subjective anyway? If art quality is objective for you and not for me, then it's not objective at all.

 

[Saru Inc]

@Op i always knew korg was a hipster. always knew..



all bands sell out. this theory has more factual evidence than like. idk. a science book.


THIS POST HAS BEEN FACT CHECKED BY THE KATS OF RIPPED GIRLS. OR K.O.R.G. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISPUTE THIS CLAIM PLEASE MAIL THIS POST OF YOUR OPINION ALONG WITH A CERTIFICATE OF BULLSHIT TO P.O. BOX http://www.formspring.me/infjsuncensored THANK YOU WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS.





srsly though, idk, I really love a lot of bands newer music. I really do. While I think they may be a "bit" more original/authentic etc up front, I think they definitely grow musically and gain more talent as the years go, I think bands might get a bit too comfortable with the lifestyle and afraid to break out of the mold once they made it though.

 

[bickelz]

There is no objective measure. Art is entirely subjective.

Entertainment is objective and is measured in sales. Nickelback sells, therefore, it is good entertainment.

I introduced an objective measure: size of influence.

Art quality is objective, if you disagree that's just your opinion.

Bands get worse with time because they run out of ideas, and lose the energy and creativity of youth.

If they actually learned how to write music, like the Classical composers did, then maybe they could express themselves in increasingly complex ways and so stay good, and even better, as they age. But they don't, so they suck.

I agree with this but there's an extent where an argument just gets silly. Obviously, Niel Pert Plays drums better than I do no matter how much I claim it's for art's sake.

you said that your were confident in your assumption because you know people in the music wing of your high school right?

Yes.

By your standard of "knowing people in the music department" and "that pro musicians know best" I trump your high school friends by having someone who is literally paid to teach and play music at the highest levels of authority to say that your wrong.

No, remember how I mentioned a poll. It's not about one person's opinion, it's the collective. I'm saying my opinion, sure, but am also confident that it could be backed up with a poll of many other people's opinions. Opinion en masse is more important than an individual's.

This is basically all art so long as it's for art's sake.

I actually whole heartedly agree with this but if it's not for art's sake and there just to make money... can you still make the argument that I can't judge it because it's my subjective opinion. After all, it then becomes a product and the consumer's opinion matters.

I'm saying that it isn't art. It doesn't push limits and most importantly, it's not really trying to be artistic. Like how people criticize the Kooks.

 

[Barnabas]

No, remember how I mentioned a poll. It's not about one person's opinion, it's the collective. I'm saying my opinion, sure, but am also confident that it could be backed up with a poll of many other people's opinions. Opinion en masse is more important than an individual's.

but you don't have a poll remember

I actually whole heartedly agree with this but if it's not for art's sake and there just to make money... can you still make the argument that I can't judge it because it's my subjective opinion. After all, it then becomes a product and the consumer's opinion matters.

if it's about making money then Nickleback makes money

I'm saying that it isn't art. It doesn't push limits and most importantly, it's not really trying to be artistic. Like how people criticize the Kooks.

Once again you can't define it and you can't measure it. That's why you can't use influence, that's like saying Rebecca Black is a better artist then say Frank Sinatra because she exerts more influence.

Edit: also appealing to the masses is a logical fallacy so your poll is shot.

 

[Bird]

The older everything gets, the weaker it becomes.