If that post was considered 'great writing skills' then no wonder people think the article itself was decently written.

 

ohh yeah, but I wasn't talking about your post or the article when I used the words 'great writing skills'. I was talking about music critics in general.

I was expecting "Coldplay is for gay" in P1.

 

 

 

- Tapatalk 2 -

Like the author of this article pointed out:

 

That's such a weak argument, and if anyone buys into that as some sort of justification then I feel sorry for them, because if anyone assumes their popularity has anything to do with people disliking them to feel superior then they are clambering for reasons to defend them.

 

That explains why some people are getting a bit mad at your comment right now :lol:

From what I understand you think that they sound phony, but i am just too naive and think they're touching and emotional. Same way some people may find Fix you so cheesy it makes them hurl, but others claim it helped them a lot at a moment when they felt really bad.

Honestly, i absolutely don't care that it's as manufactured as any music i can imagine, because it still manages to touch me deeply. Also, isn't it incredible and shows some sort of talent that, despite his apparently terrible voice, Chris manages to make it sound passable ? I find that to be quite an impressive effort!

Also, from your comment, i wouldn't think they're deceiving, i'd think they're evil geniuses, because let's face it, even if their music sucks (to you or to others), they sold millions and their fans are very dedicated, so their strategy actually works.

 

Yes I understand, I did write in my post you quoted that is 'incredibly clever', so absolutely I agree it's genius that they've done this. Again I must also make it clear that I am not at all certain that Chris Martin is aware that he's brilliant at making accessible music and self-promotion, I don't think its an intent he runs his mind through but it happens naturally that his music sounds like it wants to be credible songwriting, but just sounds weak.

 

I didn't actually say his voice is terrible, but he can't sing properly, he has this croaking breaking noise when he goes into "falsetto", and sounds like Kermit the frog, it's just barely passable.

That's such a weak argument, and if anyone buys into that as some sort of justification then I feel sorry for them, because if anyone assumes their popularity has anything to do with people disliking them to feel superior then they are clambering for reasons to defend them.

dafuq :wtf:

 

Doesn't that sentence mean that what people think makes Coldplay awful could be the same thing that makes other people like them ?

Because i really don't think that "their popularity has anything to do with people disliking them".

I didn't say that's what you think, I was referring to the quote you posted from the article:

 

What bores you rigid or makes you smirk at the inferior tastes of the masses might well be the one thing that makes a person’s life worth living.

 

This would be one of the 5 common defences of Coldplay (And why they're wrong), this notion that everyone who dislikes them is doing so out of a pure bias of not wanting to like a band that is very popular and wins MTV awards.

This criticism for coldpay, to me is something that really only excists online. Ive been listening to them since x&y, but i I registered on this forum in 2011. So thats when I learned about this criticism and hate. If I still would be just listening to their music, I wouldnt even know. Djs on the radio love them, its all positive on there, and around me, people dont hate then. They are a respected band. The online world is a different story, thats how I see it, or well the way it is for me..

That's such a weak argument, and if anyone buys into that as some sort of justification then I feel sorry for them, because if anyone assumes their popularity has anything to do with people disliking them to feel superior then they are clambering for reasons to defend them.

 

 

 

Yes I understand, I did write in my post you quoted that is 'incredibly clever', so absolutely I agree it's genius that they've done this. Again I must also make it clear that I am not at all certain that Chris Martin is aware that he's brilliant at making accessible music and self-promotion, I don't think its an intent he runs his mind through but it happens naturally that his music sounds like it wants to be credible songwriting, but just sounds weak.

 

I didn't actually say his voice is terrible, but he can't sing properly, he has this croaking breaking noise when he goes into "falsetto", and sounds like Kermit the frog, it's just barely passable.

 

 

I don't think his music sounds like it wants to be credible, it is was it, simple basic pop music and for me at least its doesn't sound weak, it is weak. It does not delve into anything further or even try to get there.

A post that I read months ago, left me pondering deeply, and it made me come to the conclusion that there's no such thing as bad music or good music. If music is subjective then you can't factually say a song is bad or good. Music critics are just people with great writing skills (good writing skills make everything seem legit) who express their opinion. I say this because I'm very happy to find an article defending my favorite band in this particular and 'genuine' way. I hope there are more articles like this or at least better ones (because some people think this article was not decently written). Anyways, my point is that just as you are able to make a well written article attacking/bashing a band or artist, you can also write a well written article defending that same band or artist aswell. Some may agree with the article, some may disagree, and some may change their opinions, but it's the best evidence of the different tastes in music that we all have.

 

If you think Coldplay is awful or Chris Martin's voice is bad than be aware it's only your opinion, and your opinion may be irrelevant and different to others.

I didn't say that's what you think, I was referring to the quote you posted from the article:

 

 

 

This would be one of the 5 common defences of Coldplay (And why they're wrong), this notion that everyone who dislikes them is doing so out of a pure bias of not wanting to like a band that is very popular and wins MTV awards.

Ooh, I guess we didn't understand that particular quote the same way!

 

edit: Like, when i said "Same way some people may find Fix you so cheesy it makes them hurl, but others claim it helped them a lot at a moment when they felt really bad", i thought that that quote meant basically the same.

The author of this knows what they're talking about. Congrats to whoever it is for writing this article, even though there's a pretty good chance it will be spammed with people making the exact arguments expressed in the article.

 

About #1 too, everyone I know who is really into music (and by this I mean people who actually listen to albums and knows more than 3 artists) doesn't have a bad thing to say about Coldplay. Even if they don't like their sound they respect that they are a talented group. People just hate cause they wanna jump on the bandwagon or something, but usually those people don't really even listen to music.

Even though there are some iffy lines here and there, whoever wrote this article has some really good points.

 

Now if only this existed last year when I was bullied for liking Coldplay....

Even though there are some iffy lines here and there, whoever wrote this article has some really good points.

:nod: I don't think it's perfect either, but yeah, the author of this article has some good points.

That's such a weak argument, and if anyone buys into that as some sort of justification then I feel sorry for them, because if anyone assumes their popularity has anything to do with people disliking them to feel superior then they are clambering for reasons to defend them.

 

 

 

Yes I understand, I did write in my post you quoted that is 'incredibly clever', so absolutely I agree it's genius that they've done this. Again I must also make it clear that I am not at all certain that Chris Martin is aware that he's brilliant at making accessible music and self-promotion, I don't think its an intent he runs his mind through but it happens naturally that his music sounds like it wants to be credible songwriting, but just sounds weak.

 

I didn't actually say his voice is terrible, but he can't sing properly, he has this croaking breaking noise when he goes into "falsetto", and sounds like Kermit the frog, it's just barely passable.

 

Credible songwriting? Is there a type of songwriting that an artist must follow to sound credible? What's the standard?

The problem is, even if someone has the most credible reasons why you should or shouldn't like certain music, there's always a way around them. What's important to someone is not important to someone else, there's other people who influence them, there's context and associations.

 

If you love an artist, no matter what your reasons are, someone else may not, no matter what their reasons are. They're not 'wrong', and neither are you. If anyone could prove they were right or wrong, we would not keep having the same discussion for years and years.

So, if you don't like Coldplay because Chris Martin's left nostril is bigger than his right, you're not wrong (even if Chris Martin has perfectly symmetrical nostrils (which he probably doesn't)).

I agree that nobody should be infinitely judged on what art they appreciate (Although it is often a decent starting point) but there's a hypocrisy within this article of saying that people get on their high horses and feel Coldplay are definitely bad, and why these people are definitely wrong (Despite the writer actually sympathising with 2 out of 5 of the criticisms).

 

that's true, it does make the author sound like a prick. :P

 

 

 

 

as for the mention about people with serious interests in music not posing those kinds of arguments, i agree that it's probably the less serious people who are more likely to state those as reasons. but that doesn't necessarily make too much of a difference to the person who is hearing those reasons, especially if they're getting a lot of flak for liking something.

 

for example:

Now if only this existed last year when I was bullied for liking Coldplay....

 

now, i'm sure getting bullied for liking Coldplay is probably better than getting bullied for most other things, but it can still get to the person being bullied. i don't think the author intended for this to be a rebuttal against all professional critiques of Coldplay, more like a "please stop teasing me for liking them" statement. whether or not it's effective/sounds immature is of course another issue. :P

Though I’ve heard some of those arguments outside the net and this article has some good phrases it sounds artificially constructed to me somehow.

 

Does it need a voting to improve a Coldplayfan’s own self-confidence concerning his favourite band?

 

Does the writer really think words could mediate or cause what could not be caused by music?

 

So in my view arguing and commenting against those "5 common criticisms" seems to be a waste of effort.

Was this written by a 12 year old?

 

The reason they are so terrible is because they write meaningless, soulless drivel, giving the impression it's touching and emotional, yet in fact it's as manufactured as any music you can imagine. It's close to deceiving, and it's incredibly clever, Chris Martin can't even sing properly, yet somehow blends his voice into certain keys so that it sounds passable.

 

 

Apologies if I have missed something here Reilly - I'm a little confused, so perhaps you could help. What kind of person has the time to make 35,576 posts on the forum of a band that they disklike so?

Goddammit, why do people feel the need to discuss about music?! Either you like it, or you don't, then listen to something else. WHY THE FUCK do you have to try put up reasons to defend your music taste? Why talk about it at all? Who the hell cares? Why do people always get angry at each other if their opinion about a certain band differs? OPINIONS DONT FUCKING MATTER.

 

 

I hate music reviews. And I hate it even more when people start fighting over such mundane things.

 

/rant over

I don't really have the time or desire to give the reply this deserves, so I'll just do this.

 

A post that I read months ago, left me pondering deeply, and it made me come to the conclusion that there's no such thing as bad music or good music.

What do the words 'bad' and 'good' designate here?

 

If music is subjective then you can't factually say a song is bad or good.

Premise: If A, then B.

 

A - Why do you say music is subjective?

 

B - When we make musical claims, do we usually appeal to facts? I'm not convinced this is relevant to the discussion.

 

Music critics are just people with great writing skills (good writing skills make everything seem legit) who express their opinion.

Please distinguish good writing from persuasiveness and sophistry.

 

I say this because I'm very happy to find an article defending my favorite band in this particular and 'genuine' way.

The author of the article clearer does not concur with your appeal to relativism. Why? Because he or she wrote an defense article. One based on the pretense that, if some of the claims are true, Coldplay is a lesser band.

 

 

If you think Coldplay is awful or Chris Martin's voice is bad than be aware it's only your opinion, and your opinion may be irrelevant and different to others.

I don't think anyone denies that people have different opinions that others may choose to ignore, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

So, I just read the article and although he has some good points here and there he seems to be just an angry fan trying to convince everyone else to like Coldplay... it would make much more sense to make an article saying reasons to like them then one trying to make other people's opinions invalid.

Most of the people who make these arguments could care less about any of the points made by this guy. They have there mind set, and wouldn't read this and think "I have never been so wrong in all my life!" There are good points made in here, but nothing that I haven't already pointed out myself to people before with no success. And if you're trying to prove a point, you don't want to sound like you agree with the opposing point, or your argument is very weak. :\

I don't really have the time or desire to give the reply this deserves, so I'll just do this.

 

 

What do the words 'bad' and 'good' designate here?

 

Have you ever heard people say "ohhh this song is so good!!" or "God this song is awful!!" This is what I meant.

 

 

Premise: If A, then B.

 

A - Why do you say music is subjective?

 

B - When we make musical claims, do we usually appeal to facts? I'm not convinced this is relevant to the discussion.

 

Don't try to make this complicated. Music is art. Art is subjective because everyone feels it in a different way.

 

Please distinguish good writing from persuasiveness and sophistry.

 

No. What the music critics do is in fact a combination of good writing, persuasiveness, and sophistry. Understand that if you want to write a succesful persuasive article, you need good writing and sophistry. It's way more alluring to write something like this http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15953-mylo-xyloto/ than to just say "ohh I kinda liked mylo xyloto I think im gonna give it a 7/10"

 

The author of the article clearer does not concur with your appeal to relativism. Why? Because he or she wrote an defense article. One based on the pretense that, if some of the claims are true, Coldplay is a lesser band.

 

I don't care if he concurs or not. All I'm saying is that any person with good writing skills and persuasiveness, can genuinely write a good article bashing or revering any kind of music/any artist or band, critique music. That's all I wanted to say. Music critics get paid by giving their opinions.

 

I don't think anyone denies that people have different opinions that others may choose to ignore, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

 

Yeah I think I used the wrong term or maybe didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that occasionally there's going to be people that won't care about what you think.

.

 

 

 

 

What do the words 'bad' and 'good' designate here?

 

Have you ever heard people say "ohhh this song is so good!!" or "God this song is awful!!" This is what I meant.

Doesn't quite answer my question. No doubt both of us have made similar exclamations in the past, but what do we mean when we say them? What makes a song good or bad in our heads?

 

Premise: If A, then B.

 

A - Why do you say music is subjective?

 

B - When we make musical claims, do we usually appeal to facts? I'm not convinced this is relevant to the discussion.

 

Don't try to make this complicated. Music is art. Art is subjective because everyone feels it in a different way.

Sir, you've just stepped into the boggy mire of aesthetics which is anything but simple. The vast majority of critics will concede that no one experiences art in a vacuum, but nor is it completely random what we experience. Many artists create art with an intended response, and some artists are more successful at this than others. If my intention is to create a Mozart style concerto, but my end composition is just me sitting down on a piano, most would say I have failed.

 

 

Please distinguish good writing from persuasiveness and sophistry.

 

No. What the music critics do is in fact a combination of good writing, persuasiveness, and sophistry. Understand that if you want to write a succesful persuasive article, you need good writing and sophistry. It's way more alluring to write something like this http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15953-mylo-xyloto/ than to just say "ohh I kinda liked mylo xyloto I think im gonna give it a 7/10"

 

I'll sidestep this, because while I too have experienced some truly frustrating music articles, I think it's a very broad and crude generalization.

 

The author of the article clearer does not concur with your appeal to relativism. Why? Because he or she wrote an defense article. One based on the pretense that, if some of the claims are true, Coldplay is a lesser band.

 

I don't care if he concurs or not. All I'm saying is that any person with good writing skills and persuasiveness, can genuinely write a good article bashing or revering any kind of music/any artist or band, critique music. That's all I wanted to say. Music critics get paid by giving their opinions.

See, you're dehumanizing 'music critics', but I'll let that go. You're kind of dismissing people's opinions outright, that the 'goodness' of the article has nothing to do with the opinion being stated (correct me if I misunderstood, I'm still hung up on 'good' and 'bad'). But I don't believe that two articles that make exact opposite claims about a piece of music ("The lyrics on Mylo Xyloto are the worst CM has ever written" - "The lyrics on Mylo Xyloto are the best CM has ever written") can be equally persuasive to the same reader.

 

 

I don't think anyone denies that people have different opinions that others may choose to ignore, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

 

Yeah I think I used the wrong term or maybe didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that occasionally there's going to be people that won't care about what you think.

 

Of course, but that's no reason not to think or speak.

Sooo

 

It's safe to assume I missed out on an e-fight? :sad:

Sooo

 

It's safe to assume I missed out on an e-fight? :sad:

 

Not really. The catalysts were there, but the fuse fizzled out.