[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by ✌➬

Also, I consider all music pop.

how can it be "pop" if it is unpopular?

[✌➬]

Because all music can always become mainstream.

[Rob Instigator]

I think it goes more like, --- all music can eventually be watered down for the mainstream

hence POP SUCKS

[batreleaser]

Originally Posted by ✌➬

Because all music can always become mainstream.

i dont know where you came up with that assesment. that would require mass amounts of people to start liking music that is not immediate accesible and satisfying. the masses of people dont care about art or engaging themselves in it, they just want a catchy tune to listen on the radio on the way to work. i cant see my little sistor adding to live and shave in la to her itunes anytime soon, because she just lieks singalong dancabke tunes. nothing bad about it, but some music can just never me mainstream.

[✌➬]

All music is popular once it starts getting more and more known.

[✌➬]

Originally Posted by batreleaser

i dont know where you came up with that assesment. that would require mass amounts of people to start liking music that is not immediate accesible and satisfying. the masses of people dont care about art or engaging themselves in it, they just want a catchy tune to listen on the radio on the way to work. i cant see my little sistor adding to live and shave in la to her itunes anytime soon, because she just lieks singalong dancabke tunes. nothing bad about it, but some music can just never me mainstream.

Maybe because I have always been able to listen to pop and really like it, and things that are considered "uncool" by the masses. I guess it's just my biases when I say all music can be pop.

[Rob Instigator]

ornette coleman is well known but not ever popular. hell, hard bop was not popular, not like the white boy swing of the benny goodmans and such.

not everything gets popular, not everything gets known, not even close. more crazy shit falls by the wayside or is lost or forgotten or ignored than ever gets to be known or in mass consciousness.

[batreleaser]

Originally Posted by ✌➬

Maybe because I have always been able to listen to pop and really like it, and things that are considered "uncool" by the masses. I guess it's just my biases when I say all music can be pop.

i like pop music too, i like all music. but to say that all music can beceome popular, or that all music even has the potential to gain popularity, is absurd.

[jonathan]

Originally Posted by batreleaser

i like pop music too, i like all music. but to say that all music can beceome popular, or that all music even has the potential to gain popularity, is absurd.

I definitely disagree. All music has the potential to become popular. While it's unlikely that TLASILA will ever become popular, to say that it doesn't have the potential to do so is just incorrect. The only thing that makes a group popular is the amount of people that like them. While it's unlikely that said group will ever become popular in the manstream, it's certainly possible if the collective concience shifts it's notion of good music to the likes of TLASILA.


People 800 hundred years ago would have thought Picasso to be a shit artist. Art evolves just like everything else.

[Rob Instigator]

i think picasso would have been seen as a genius in any age.

that is what is called transcendent talent, da vinci, newton, einstein, picasso, beethoven, bach, in ANY age they would be seen as titans!

[demonrail666]

Pop music is as much a style as it is a referece to something which is popular. Anything might be able to become popular, but that doesn't necessarily make it 'pop'. St Etienne sell far less records than Garth Brooks, but will always be more 'pop' than him, even if they are less 'popular'.

[pbradley]

Predicting the future of general public taste is for insipid fashion columnists. If Picasso lived today, the mainstream art culture would call him shit. A lot of strange things happen with retrospect. Let's not project these strange things onto the future.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Pop music is as much a style as it is a referece to something which is popular. Anything might be able to become popular, but that doesn't necessarily make it 'pop'. St Etienne sell far less records than Garth Brooks, but will always be more 'pop' than him, even if they are less 'popular'.

Tell me the story about "alternative rock" again, grandpa.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

i think picasso would have been seen as a genius in any age.

that is what is called transcendent talent, da vinci, newton, einstein, picasso, beethoven, bach, in ANY age they would be seen as titans!

That's not true, some of the people whose name you have mentioned weren't deemed geniuses in their age and there's no guarantee that they would have been deemed as such in this one.

[demonrail666]

Indeed, ideas of quality and 'genius' change through the ages. This is especially so in art and literature, but is even evident in the relatively short time-span of 'pop music'. I remember in the 80s and much of the 90s when you couldn't give Black Sabbath albums away. Now they're celebrated as the champions of all things Metal. That's a hell of a shift within the last ten years.

[pbradley]

The Structures of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

[blunderbuss]

You've kind of painted yourself into a corner by use of the word "noise", seeing as that term tends, these days, to refer to a particular genre whose whole raison d' etre is abrasiveness and thus, to the masses, unlistenability. I like non-mainstream music, but if you (as someone who knows about non-mainstream music) asked me why I like Noise (note the capital "N" to denote the genre rather than the subjective opinion), I'd say "I don't". Someone who doesn't know about non-mainstream music would be more likely to ask "why do you like this noise (or, more likely, this racket)?", and I would explain to them (or try to, anyway) that there are beautiful melodies in this music, just as much as in the more mainstream stuff that they listen to, and that I just happen to like the context in which those melodies are set in this particular music.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

That's not true, some of the people whose name you have mentioned weren't deemed geniuses in their age and there's no guarantee that they would have been deemed as such in this one.

who? Each of them was considered a trascendent genius!
and if they lived at any other time they would have been just as amazing. I don;t mean pick up da vinci from italy and de[posit him in the 1800's, bu8t if davinci was born later, and lived through those time slike he lived through his, he would have been just as praised. I have no doubt about it.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Indeed, ideas of quality and 'genius' change through the ages. This is especially so in art and literature, but is even evident in the relatively short time-span of 'pop music'. I remember in the 80s and much of the 90s when you couldn't give Black Sabbath albums away. Now they're celebrated as the champions of all things Metal. That's a hell of a shift within the last ten years.

metal heads have always worshipped at the sabbath teat, NON stop, with no pause, since their inception. it is the mainstream losers, the people who need everything watered down for them, that did not pay attention, and due to sabbath's inherent worth, have to pay attention now.

[Rob Instigator]

genius is genius. it transcends time. Pythagoras would be a genius today if he ahd all the knowledge we have and could put it to use. Same goes for any other transcendent mind.