ITT: Musicians that have redeemed themselves

>>71158857
Oh did she write and produce and perform this track completely by herself?

5 million in one day

suck it, haters

>>71158857
You start.

>>71158899
How much do you think her label paid for those plays?

>>71158899
4,862,113 views*

it's still shit for such a major singer, she's irrelevant now.

File: 2.jpg (76KB, 391x696px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 391x696px

>>71158887
lol no

>>71158887
she's the best. But I always liked her.

>>71158929
It really isn't

Lana the plant del rey

>>71158960
>having producer credits

I'd cut my dick if she knows what is Ableton

File: cf59b88506d560fccfb0aae0a0135104.1000x1000x1.jpg (139KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x1000px

>>71158857
don't deny it

>>71158960
Thats a god damn army

>>71158960
>>71159071
because they listed the different people played each individual instrument, It still sounds better than some shit put together by a single person in FL studio

>>71158857
She was never lost, you just grew up and finally realized it

>>71158887
From the End, Young Like Me, Sirens, No Kung Fu

>>71158911
>>71159021
Idiots

>>71159119
>From the End, Young Like Me, Sirens, No Kung Fu
What are these?
>Idiots
Not an argument.

>>71158960
kek

>>71158960
Its so cute how they call her a composer and producer

>>71158960
she doesn't fit in that. it's practically an Emile Haynie song.

lol you guys are fucking pathetic. your qualms with lana del rey are more qualms with the way that most pop music is made today. she's not uniquely bad or evil. she's actually one of the better popular/pop artists around right now. funnel your hatred toward actual hacks, not someone who has the right amount of talent to work the system the way it's set up to be worked.

>>71159368
>your qualms with lana del rey are more qualms with the way that most pop music is made today.
Not relevant. People shouldn't get free passes in art

>>71159368
>pop overall is bad so you can't criticize Lana
sit down, son

>>71159390
lol I agree, but do you really care that much about manufactured "art" that you feel the need to critique literally every artist involved in it? clearly not, otherwise /mu/ would solely be people trashing literally every pop artist. instead, it's mad threads about lana del rey when she's actually better than the vast majority of the people in her particular lane. not saying she's an immaculate artist, in fact i don't ever intentionally listen to her, i'm saying the kind of complaints i'm seeing in here are fucking ridiculous. did you even read my comment beyond what you quoted?

>>71159368
The music isn't interesting in anyway

>>71159472
that's fine, i don't listen to her really. i don't care if someone doesn't like lana del rey, i just don't get why the focus is always on her instead of countless other pop artists (many of whom have one hit song and then fall off the face of the earth, unlike lana del rey clearly since you fucks can't stop talking about how bad she is).

calling her music bland and saying that she depends heavily on others isn't really that provocative a criticism, when that's the case for most other artists in her lane. and she's doing a better job at staying relevant and selling than most of them. it's more business than art, unfortunately, but that's my point - you're wasting your time trying to finely critique the artistic qualities of something that was created solely to make lots of money.

Pro tip: All art is manufactured.

>>71159467
>but do you really care that much about manufactured "art" that you feel the need to critique literally every artist involved in it?
Art is art. Do you really care that much that you feel the need to distinguish between manufactured or non-manufactured art?
>clearly not, otherwise /mu/
/mu/ isn't one person and it's certainly not me.
>better than the vast majority of the people in her particular lane
How so?
>did you even read my comment beyond what you quoted?
Were they relevant? Or does it all boil down to "art is art"

>>71159557
>, i just don't get why the focus is always on her instead of countless other pop artists
Like who specifically?

>>71159596
no shit, but pop is largely about formulas. a lot of the music discussed on this board isn't about a formula to make money, it's just an artist's vision. "manufactured," yes, but in a very different way than major label pop starts.

>>71159644
>it's just an artist's vision
According to this pic >>71158960 It's not really much of her vision, is it?
>but in a very different way than major label pop starts.
Not really.

>>71159611
>Art is art. Do you really care that much that you feel the need to distinguish between manufactured or non-manufactured art?
you're missing my point. it's like if roger ebert were to sit around bitching about the artistic qualities of a movie made solely to entertain very small children. yeah, it's art, and it's part of the medium he's interested in, but he's wasting his fucking time. that movie serves a specific purpose, and the way he would generally designate quality in a film is thrown out the window with that particular genre. same with major label pop stars, they all depend heavily on a massive amount of other people, and it's almost never the vision of that particular artist come to fruition. it's whatever is popular and will sell. it's not meant to have some grander degree of artistic integrity. that's why you're wasting your time.

>/mu/ isn't one person and it's certainly not me.
no shit

>How so?
by the measure of pop stardom, she's lasted longer and been more successful than a lot of pop artists to come out in the last five years. otherwise there wouldn't be a lana thread all the damn time. also, while i don't particularly love her music or anything, it's at least more pleasant to listen to than most of the things i hear on the radio from other similar artists.

>Were they relevant? Or does it all boil down to "art is art"
really, what i wanted to get across was the very last part, where i said to focus on actual hacks instead of someone who is playing the pop game, and playing it well.

>>71159632
name pretty much any other pop artist to come out in the past 5 years or so. yes, there are exceptions, like i definitely prefer carly rae and ariana grande to lana, but in terms of popstars (like people who actually have nationally/internationally popular hits) many of them disappear pretty quickly.

>>71159675
>According to this pic >>71158960 It's not really much of her vision, is it?
read my comment again. i'm talking about most of the music discussed on this board, specifically as opposed to major pop artists. that's exactly what i was saying, that it isn't much of her vision. and that that's the case for most actually popular pop music. so the criticism falls on deaf ears, because they're following the formula and making the money.

>Not really.
you literally just pointed out how lana's music is extremely separated from her individual artistic vision. you think it's the exact same as art without a middle-man or assistance, so to speak? like, artists who write and compose their own music, like a great deal of the artists we discuss on this board?

>>71159790
>it's like if roger ebert were to sit around bitching about the artistic qualities of a movie made solely to entertain very small children.
What's wrong with this? Art is art. it doesn't get a free pass because of it's target demographic.
>same with major label pop stars, they all depend heavily on a massive amount of other people, and it's almost never the vision of that particular artist come to fruition
Is it though? Songs like "Good Vibrations" or "Strawberry Fields Forever"?
>by the measure of pop stardom
Oh a non-musical measure? Not relevant.
>where i said to focus on actual hacks
It seems we are right now.
>name pretty much any other pop artist to come out in the past 5 years or so
Did you miss the word "specifically"? Try again.
>>71159853
>i'm talking about most of the music discussed on this board
Oh like Classical and jazz and noise and so forth?

>>71159644
Take a look:
>Score = (w1 x f1) + (w2 x f2) + (w3 x f3) + (w4 x f4),
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2011/8116.html
https://www.wired.com/2011/12/hit-potential-equation/

>>71159897
>What's wrong with this? Art is art. it doesn't get a free pass because of it's target demographic.
when you're not the target demographic, yes it does. adults are not the target demographic for the movies of small children. people who care about music beyond background or dancing music are not the target demographic for mass produced popstars.

>Is it though? Songs like "Good Vibrations" or "Strawberry Fields Forever"?
don't be obtuse, you know i was talking about modern pop music. for instance, Carly Rae Jepsen, an /mu/ darling (who I agree has better music than lana generally) also relies very heavily on others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_(Carly_Rae_Jepsen_album)
look at the writers in the track listing, then scroll down to personnel. don't try to tell me that she has any more "artistic integrity" than lana del rey just because her music is better. it's manufactured pop.

>Oh a non-musical measure? Not relevant.
THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT

>It seems we are right now.
no one has said how she's a hack beyond doing what basically EVERY OTHER POPSTAR DOES. she has producers and writers out the wazoo, if you want to call literally all of modern pop music hacks, that's fine, but it's pointless to focus on just one of them, in that case. it's a systemic problem, not an individual one.

>Did you miss the word "specifically"? Try again.
just for you, i pointed out above how an /mu/ darling is just as guilty. yet she doesn't get shit on for it, she's celebrated.

>Oh like Classical and jazz and noise and so forth?
what's your point?

>>71160037
thank you for this, very interesting stuff.

>>71160067
>yes it does. adults are not the target demographic for the movies of small children
Incorrect. The Lego Movie, for example. Or Spongebob, etc
>you know i was talking about modern pop music.
Nice goalpost shifting
>Carly Rae Jepsen, an /mu/ darling
Show me where /mu/ (who isn't one person anyways) praises her
>THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT
Except you were praising Lana for non-musical aspects (longevity, marketability). That is not music. Please discard that logic here
>if you want to call literally all of modern pop music hacks, that's fine
It's a case by case basis.
>just for you, i pointed out above how an /mu/ darling is just as guilty. yet she doesn't get shit on for it, she's celebrated.
Show me where she's celebrated?
>what's your point?
Is there a reason you are overlooking discussion about more serious music on /mu/? Or just cherrypicking?

doesn't matter what the thread is about, if there's a lana del rey, grimes or annie clark pic as the op's pic, the thread will turn into a waifu shitshow.

>>71160148
>Incorrect. The Lego Movie, for example. Or Spongebob, etc
those are examples of children's movies with elements specifically geared to be of higher quality with adults. i'm talking about like actual little kid dribble, which is made solely to distract little kids, using known formulas for doing so.

>Nice goalpost shifting
you were being obtuse. and the whole "goalpost shifting" argument just tells me that you can't actually argue with my point.

>Show me where /mu/ (who isn't one person anyways) praises her
you must be new here, kiddo. and stop mentioning that /mu/ isn't one person. i fucking know. but it's an echo chamber, and there are a lot of similar ideals floating around.

>Except you were praising Lana for non-musical aspects (longevity, marketability). That is not music. Please discard that logic here
i wasn't "praising" her, i'm saying that's a measure of success in modern pop music, which is why that music gets made in the first place. i can't believe how many fucking times i have to explain the same damn thing to you in different ways.

>It's a case by case basis.
yes, some stuff that makes it on the radio doesn't have 1,000 writers and producers behind it. a lot of it does though, because that's the way that major labels ensure the success of their popstars.

>Show me where she's celebrated?
you're being intentionally frustrating if you think /mu/ didn't rave about Emotion when it came about, and for a long time after. I still see carly rae threads on the regular.

since we both know that she's celebrated here, care to explain why her art has so much more integrity than lana's? (protip: "it's better" isn't a reason).

>Is there a reason you are overlooking discussion about more serious music on /mu/? Or just cherrypicking?
I specifically pointed out that music like that is extremely different from major label pop efforts. YOU EVEN JUST CALLED IT "MORE SERIOUS MUSIC" which would mean a difference in artistic integrity.

>>71158857
She's the best.

The Jew shills on /mu/ slander her everyday.

>>71160338
what's the stupid /pol/ racism for? get the fuck out of here you fucking retarded cunt

Lana writes all of her lyrics and melodies herself and the producers write the chords, this is how she has described it before, she has sole credit on almost every AKA Lizzy Grant track

>>71159897
>Strawberry Fields Forever
>After recording the second version of the song, Lennon wanted to do something different with it, as Martin remembered: "He'd wanted it as a gentle dreaming song, but he said it had come out too raucous. He asked me if I could write him a new line-up with the strings. So I wrote a new score[41] (with four trumpets and three cellos) and we recorded that, but he didn't like it."[32] Meanwhile, on 8 and 9 December, another basic track was recorded, using a Mellotron, electric guitar, piano, backwards-recorded cymbals, and the swarmandel (or swordmandel), an Indian version of the zither.[42][43] After reviewing the tapes of Martin's version and the original, Lennon told Martin that he liked both versions,[44] although Martin had to tell Lennon that the orchestral score was at a faster tempo and in a higher key (B major) than the first version (A major).[29] Lennon said, "You can fix it, George", giving Martin and Emerick the difficult task of joining the two takes together.[45][46] With only a pair of editing scissors, two tape machines and a vari-speed control, Emerick compensated for the differences in key and speed by increasing the speed of the first version and decreasing the speed of the second.[16] He then spliced the versions together,[44] starting the orchestral score in the middle of the second chorus.[45] (Since the first version did not include a chorus after the first verse, he also spliced in the first seven words of the chorus from elsewhere in the first version.) The pitch-shifting in joining the versions gave Lennon's lead vocal a slightly other-worldly "swimming" quality.[47]

Yeah and Lennon """wrote and produced and performed""" Strawberry Fields all by himself

>>71160408
Sometimes Jewish shills really are just Jewish shills anon.

And let's not pretend the Jews don't run the music industry.

>>71160320
>i'm talking about like actual little kid dribble, which is made solely to distract little kids, using known formulas for doing so.
How do you know if it's Kiddie Dribble or Higher Quality Children's Art?
>and the whole "goalpost shifting" argument just tells me that you can't actually argue with my point.
I already did,. You had to shift your goaplosts to not be wrong. care to comment on that?
>you must be new here, kiddo. and stop mentioning that /mu/ isn't one person. i fucking know. but it's an echo chamber, and there are a lot of similar ideals floating around.
Ooops you didn't seem to answer my question! Try again?
>i'm saying that's a measure of success in modern pop music
Oh look another discussion about non-music elements. You're on a roll!
>you're being intentionally frustrating if you think /mu/ didn't rave about Emotion when it came about
Prove it.
>care to explain why her art has so much more integrity than lana's?
Quote me where I said it was
>I specifically pointed out that music like that is extremely different
You also said you "were talking about most of the music on this board". That would be artists such as Radiohead or Death Grips, etc. Are they pop artists to you?
>>71160412
>Yeah and Lennon """wrote and produced and performed""" Strawberry Fields all by himself
Are you referencing other members of The Beatles, the band he was in whom the song was credited to?

>>71160464
you clearly either can't fucking read/comprehend what you read, or you are just intentionally dodging points. i'm done responding to you lol.

>>71160497
Not an argument.

Have a nice day poptimist

>>71160512
>better end the conversation because I'm out of arguments

>>71160338
Anon, but you're clearly attempting to praise her...

>>71160430
Lol look at the LanaShill go

Be honest - how much is her label paying you?

>>71160576
>out of arguments
See >>71160464
Didjya read em?

>>71160636
those weren't arguments as much as they were a refusal to admit when you're wrong.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-21 at 12.37.47 PM.png (154KB, 1143x616px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1143x616px

>>71160464
What argument is this? The songwriting isn't credited to George Martin, despite the fact that he wrote the orchestration. Lana just doesn't try to scam her producers out of a proper credit.

>>71159119
>She was never lost, you just grew up and finally realized it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iu4gqxWeYE
Is this what you would call reedeming?

>>71160715
>The songwriting isn't credited to George Martin
That's because he didn't write any of the songs
>Lana just doesn't try to scam her producers out of a proper credit.
Well, they actually wrote the majority of the songs
>>71160702
You mean this post here >>71160320

>>71160622
kek, the reverse shill. Nice work Schlomo.

What do the Jews hate her so much? What did she do to them?

>>71160715
Arrangements don't count as part of the song, silly.

Songwriting credit = melody and lyrics. That's all. Whether or not there's a string section has to do with producing/orchestration, NOT songwriting

>>71159368
Talent you say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iu4gqxWeYE

>>71160765
i feel like you would argue with someone about what their name was, even after they showed you their driver's license and birth certificate.

>>71160835
False equivalency because anon hasn't given any valid arguments.

>>71160828
i didn't say she was a spectacular artist or singer, i said that she had the right amount of talent to play the game of major label pop releases

>>71160763
>>71160828
It's already been posted, looks like you faggots have only one evidence against her vocal ability

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHp6dNRQxPc

Scaruffi have Ultraviolence a 7/10. She didn't need to redeem anything, my fellow sir /mu/tant.

>>71160853
you literally called the music discussed on this board "more serious" music, and still refused to admit that there was a difference between that and the kind of pop music lana del rey engages in.

File: aa.png (4KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 205x246px

>fighting this hard to slander art you don't like

either shill or mentally ill.

Her music is mediocre kitsch and she's quite unattractive, I'm not sure why anybody still cares enough to be posting about her. Nobody gets this worked up over Lady Gaga or some other has been popstar. Good top-40 popstars are so few and far between its kind of silly to be talking about this kind of stuff.

your only argument is that she had co writers and didn't produce the songs herself yet you can't give a reason as to why her music is objectively bad

>>71160859
She's passable at best. Passable with modern studio practices that is.

>>71160918
t. some Jew

>>71160871
>It's already been posted, looks like you faggots have only one evidence against her vocal ability
Oh, wow, people need to present evidence to prove that someone who's a professional musician can actually sing. What does that tell you? And no, it wasn't stage fright and it wasn't just a bad night either.

>>71160946
i agree. she's not much different from most other modern popstars. yeah, lady gaga is a much better singer. yeah, carly rae jepsen makes "better" music. but she's not doing anything especially bad, especially by comparison to the vast majority of other pop, none of which ever gets brought up and shit on here.

>>71158899
is that supposed to be alot?

>>71160883
>you literally called the music discussed on this board "more serious" music
Incorrect. You said the majority of this board isn't, and I notified you of some of the serious music here, thus disproving your claim. Did you just not understand what was being said?
>>71160923
>objectively
Try again.

>>71160983
the guy you responded to posted a 10-minute video of evidence to the contrary.

>>71160973
What, you think I'm gonna turn around and start posting about Beyonce or some other middle-of-the-road shit? You're like those people that complains about the state of modern music and turns around and listens to Immortal Technique. I don't understand where you're seeing any difference between what you hate and what you're listening to.

>>71158857
LMAOOOOOOOOOO THIS FUCKING COVER AYYYYYYYYYYY LMAOOOOOOOOOOO

>>71161013
show me where i said "the majority of this board isn't serious music." i fucking dare you.

>>71161038
>You're like those people that complains about the state of modern music and turns around and listens to Immortal Technique
this sentence makes no sense.

> I don't understand where you're seeing any difference between what you hate and what you're listening to.

Because it's good? And most of the shit I like sells in the 4 figures I'm sure.

>>71161048
>>71159853

>>71161081
They're both low-brow pseudo "deep" pop artists that retards praise as the saviors of all music while they're actually on exactly the same level

>>71161013
>>71161048
i'll actually go ahead and show you, yet again, how you're wrong either due to a lack of reading comprehension or intentionally being a fuckhead:

your post here (>>71159897) references my post here (>>71159853) which says "artists who write and compose their own music, like a great deal of the artists we discuss on this board?"

learn to fucking read you fucking rube

>>71158857
I really have the hots for Lana, it's not like she is an 10/10 supermodel but she looks like that 7/10 cutie in your class that wasn't a whore and was actually a kindhearted person.

>>71160813
Lennon-McCartney was a convenient fiction for the lawyers. If they were released today, he would have a writing credit. Times have changed.

>>71160828
pleb filter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNFS0qTYYfY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPme6ecqhlk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjDdqAWsLEk

>>71161032
Great. And how do we know that she isn't using auto tune or pitch correction? You do realize that pedals like BOSS exist? And she sounds passable in that video, which would indicate that she's in fact relying on auto tune and pitch correction. Is Britney Spears a great singer too? Let me remind you of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUdKrtsrCBI

File: jjdex.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>71161110
Oh I get it, the Jews are mad at Immortal Technique because he tells the truth about 9-11 etc.

What did Lana do to your whacko tribe?

>>71161152
BOSS VE-20*

>>71161124
>"artists who write and compose their own music, like a great deal of the artists we discuss on this board?"
Show me where I was specifically replying to that statement.

Also I don't seem to be bale to see where you are replying to my other points? Why is that?

>>71161143
>A mainstream pop star
>Pleb filter
Do you actually hear yourself?

why can't you faggots discuss Lana without it turning into an autistic spergfest

>>71161207
>mainstream
>pop star

David Bowie has had more chart hits than she has

>>71161180
YOU FUCKING INVALID, READ THAT POST. NOWHERE IN THAT POST DO I SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM I SAID. THE ENTIRE POST IS SAYING WHAT YOU (presumably unintentionally) ADMITTED LATER, WHICH IS THAT THE MUSIC DISCUSSED ON THIS BOARD IS "MORE SERIOUS" THAN SOMETHING LIKE LANA DEL REY. YOU FUCKING QUOTED THAT POST HERE (>>71161108) WHEN YOU TRIED TO POINT OUT WHERE I SAID "THE MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD ISN'T SERIOUS MUSIC."

QUOTE THE SPECIFIC PART WHERE I SAY THAT. DO IT. NOW.

She's not even bad just boring, and that song is boring as fuck.

>>71161286
>THE ENTIRE POST IS SAYING WHAT YOU (presumably unintentionally) ADMITTED LATER, WHICH IS THAT THE MUSIC DISCUSSED ON THIS BOARD IS "MORE SERIOUS" THAN SOMETHING LIKE LANA DEL REY
Then why are you contradicting yourself?

Still waiting on you to reply to my other points. Is this cherrypicking working for you?

>>71161283
i thought her only hit was a shitty edm remix of one of her songs

>>71161270
This thread is trapped in 2012 endlessly repeating arguments from 2012 with people who obviously have not cared about LDR or heard anything from her since 2012 but still feel the compulsion to post their opinions anyways

>>71161319
her first album has some great upbeat songs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET1MhXiUDVg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFjqZpZZ5jI

>>71161338
it's a bunch of paid shills attacking LDR.

They're going to do it no matter what.

>>71161322
are you fucking high? i can't even suss out what you're trying to argue anymore.

for the third time, i'll ask you to quote where i said that "the majority of this board isn't serious music" like you claimed I did here (>>71161013). you linked to the post where I said THE EXACT OPPOSITE before.

>>71161338
>your opinions are only relevant if I approve of them!
Are all LDR fans like you?

File: 1484340178059.jpg (30KB, 288x330px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 288x330px

>>71161364
Wrong

>>71161392
I'll do it once you show a citation for your claim that /mu/ praises Carly Rae Jepson

File: cmages.jpg (4KB, 124x95px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 124x95px

>>71161388The Jew hatred of LDR is fucking hilarious.It makes me liker her more!

>>71161270
Because /mu/ is a hipster boar.,And everyone knows that music hipsters are the worst kind.

>>71161447
>Lana Del Rey was born Elizabeth Woolridge Grant in New York City on June 21, 1985[1][6] to Robert England Grant, Jr., a Grey Group copywriter turned entrepreneur, and Patricia Ann "Pat" (Hill), a former Grey account executive turned high school teacher.[7][8][9][10]
Looks like she might be a part of the Jewish

>>71161322
>Still waiting on you to reply to my other points
you mean like here (>>71160464)? fucking fine, dude.

>How do you know if it's Kiddie Dribble or Higher Quality Children's Art?
why would you give a shit?

>I already did,. You had to shift your goaplosts to not be wrong. care to comment on that?
first of all, it wasn't goalpost shifting, because my meaning was clear. second, others have already pointed out how you were wrong about that, even discussing specifically the beatles songs you mentioned. third, even if i did "goalpost shift" is it so far that you can't even argue? it sounds like you don't have a real argument.

>Ooops you didn't seem to answer my question! Try again?
/mu/ not being one person isn't a fucking argument. also, if you pay attention at all, you would know that /mu/ likes Carly, and posted about Emotion like fucking mad.

>Oh look another discussion about non-music elements. You're on a roll!
AGAIN, THAT WAS MY FUCKING POINT ABOUT POP MUSIC SUCCESS. IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM MUCH OF THE MUSIC WE DISCUSS HERE IN HOW MUCH OF AN ARTISTS VISION IS AFFECTED BY A TEAM OF OTHERS.

>Prove it.
it's an anonymous imageboard whose posts aren't entirely archived. ask literally any other person here who's been here since the release of Emotion, they would agree with me, a lot of people on here raved about it.

>Quote me where I said it was
you asked me to pick a specific artist, and then when i did, you pull this shit. stop dodging the arguments, admit when you're wrong.

>You also said you "were talking about most of the music on this board". That would be artists such as Radiohead or Death Grips, etc. Are they pop artists to you?
already covered the first part. As for Radiohead, yeah they're pop, in a very different way than Lana, as I discussed above. DG not really pop, especially not in the same way as Lana.

are you fucking happy now? i argued against your goddamn nonsense question dodging.

>>71161283
David Bowie didn't make only pop music. What is The Man Who Sold The World, Low, Heroes, Heathen, 1.Outside, Blackstar?

>>71161430
it wouldn't fucking matter if I somehow divined a citation for that (something which is obviously true if you browsed /mu/ at all around the time of its release or for quite a while after), because you would just fucking ignore it and say "/mu/ isn't one person" again.

>>71161519
where did you get that from?

Grant? Hill?


You're reaching.

>>71161551
>why would you give a shit?
Not an argument. Try again
>because my meaning was clear
Show us where you clearly said it in your initial statement
>/mu/ not being one person isn't a fucking argument
You specifically asked me, personally, about why I praise her. Seems to me you think I'm /mu/
>you would know that /mu/ likes Carly, and posted about Emotion like fucking mad.
[citation needed]
>AGAIN, THAT WAS MY FUCKING POINT ABOUT POP MUSIC SUCCESS. IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM MUCH OF THE MUSIC WE DISCUSS HERE IN HOW MUCH OF AN ARTISTS VISION IS AFFECTED BY A TEAM OF OTHERS.
Ooops you are discussing non-music characteristics again. Please discard this.
>it's an anonymous imageboard whose posts aren't entirely archived
Not relevant. Search the archive if you have to
>ask literally any other person here who's been here since the release of Emotion, they would agree with me, a lot of people on here raved about it.
Read: please prove my argument for me
>you asked me to pick a specific artist and then when i did, you pull this shit
You picked an artist without backing up your assertions. Don't get mad at me that I call you out when you make up random "facts" and try to pass them off as truths
>As for Radiohead, yeah they're pop
Incorrect, they are an alt rock and/or art-rock band
>>71161588
>I don't have any evidence
Thanks for playing
>(something which is obviously true if you browsed /mu/ at all around the time of its release or for quite a while after
I've been here since 2011. When did the album come out? I'm not familiar with it.

>>71161590
>You're reaching.
And claiming any critique of her is a Jewish Conspiracy isn't reaching?

>>71160878
>>71161556
>David Bowie turned marketing into the essence of his art. All great phenomena of popular music, from Elvis Presley to the Beatles, had been, first and foremost, marketing phenomena (just like Coca Cola and Barbie before them); however, Bowie turned that into an art of its own. With Bowie the science of marketing becomes art; art and marketing become one. There were intellectuals who had proclaimed this theory in rebellious terms.

>Bowie was a protagonist of his times, although a poor musician: to say that Bowie is a musician is like saying that Nero was a harp player (a fact that is technically true, but misleading). Bowie embodies the quintessence of artificial art, raises futulity to paradigm, focuses on the phenomenon rather than the content, makes irrelevant the relevant, and, thus, is the epitome of everything that went wrong with rock music.

>>71161754
And you expect to be taken seriously. Look here, I don't like pop either, but let's be reasonable here - those are albums worth listening to, despite the fact that he made pop albums in his career. If we go by that standard, Yes and ELP aren't worth listening to, right?

>>71161681
>Not an argument. Try again
yes it fucking is. as an adult, why would you take the time to sift through the insane number of children's movies to find ones that have some greater degree of quality based on metrics that don't even matter to you?
>Show us where you clearly said it in your initial statement
here: >>71159790 where i say "by the measure of pop stardom, she's lasted longer and been more successful THAN A LOT OF POP ARTISTS TO COME OUT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS."
>You specifically asked me, personally, about why I praise her. Seems to me you think I'm /mu/
NO, I ASKED WHY YOU SHIT ON HER SPECIFICALLY FOR DOING THE THINGS EVERY POP ARTIST DOES, INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH EVERY OTHER POP ARTIST.
>Ooops you are discussing non-music characteristics again. Please discard this.
you literally can't fucking read, dude. jesus fucking christ. the amount of people involved in the process absolutely has to do with the music, and the dilution of the artist's vision. plus, you fucking said yourself that the music discussed on this board is "more serious" than stuff like lana, why? literally the only way you could argue that is because it's radio pop, stuff that has a large team of producers and writers behind one song specifically to make a hit and make money.
>Not relevant. Search the archive if you have to
if you've been here since 2011, you would know.
>Read: please prove my argument for me
it's not an argument, it's a fucking fact.
>You picked an artist without backing up your assertions. Don't get mad at me that I call you out when you make up random "facts" and try to pass them off as truths
I linked the goddamn wiki showing the point i was making, that there's a large team of people behind even the modern radio pop that /mu/ praises, and therefore it doesn't make sense that lana is the subject of hatred for it.
>Incorrect, they are an alt rock and/or art-rock band
lol okay bud.

>>71161706
Again, please clarify what you mean.

If one of parents were named Rosenblatt, or Horowitz etc., you would have a lucid point.

You, on the other hand, appear to be throwing shit at a wall.

>>71161874
>those are albums worth listening to, despite the fact that [s]he made pop albums in his career
Agreed, Anon :)

>>71161884
>. as an adult, why would you take the time to sift through the insane number of children's movies to find ones that have some greater degree of quality based on metrics that don't even matter to you?
How would you know they exist without listening to it first?
>where i say "by the measure of pop stardom, she's lasted longer and been more successful THAN A LOT OF POP ARTISTS TO COME OUT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS."
No your initial statements are here. >>71159368 and >>71159467. Show me where it is stated there please
>you literally can't fucking read, dude. jesus fucking christ. the amount of people involved in the process absolutely has to do with the music, and the dilution of the artist's vision.
Non sequitur
>if you've been here since 2011, you would know.
I know that people criticized it for being contrived pop. I made the exact same criticism of her as I did LDR in this thread. Nice try though
>that there's a large team of people behind even the modern radio pop that /mu/ praises
/mu/ is not one person. You misspoke again.
>lol okay bud.
Not an argument.

>>71162902
>How would you know they exist without listening to it first?
you clearly didn't understand the metaphor, i'm done.

>No your initial statements are here. >>71159368 and >>71159467 (You). Show me where it is stated there please
okay. very first post, second sentence. "your qualms with lana del rey are more qualms with the way that MOST POP MUSIC IS MADE TODAY." i go on to say "she's actually one of the better popular/pop artists AROUND RIGHT NOW."

>Non sequitur
how the fuck is it a non-sequitur? the argument is that the amount of people involved in creating one song can cause the "art" to be fundamentally different from other "art" because in one case it's carefully manufactured to be a radio hit and make money, and in the other case, it's the artist's vision unfettered by a large team of writers and producers. it's not a non-sequitur just because you don't have a retort.

>I know that people criticized it for being contrived pop. I made the exact same criticism of her as I did LDR in this thread. Nice try though
you just said that you never heard of the album before, and you were asking me to prove that /mu/ posted about it. you're a fucking liar, and yes, some criticized her, reasonably. however, a lot of people thought it was a modern pop masterpiece. which, again, you would know if you were paying attention. i don't know what to believe of you anymore. point was, you asked me to list a specific artist, i did, and then you said it wasn't proof of the point i was making (about modern pop artists relying heavily upon teams as opposed to much of the music discussed on this board).

>/mu/ is not one person. You misspoke again.
dodge more arguments, why don't you?

>Not an argument.
yeah, because there's no fucking arguing with you. you can think of radiohead as pop or art rock, it doesnt really matter. the point was that the music they make is fundamentally different than something specifically engineered for radio success.

holyshit this autistic kid baka

>>71163115
>you clearly didn't understand the metaphor
You clearly don't understand music criticism.
>"your qualms with lana del rey are more qualms with the way that MOST POP MUSIC IS MADE TODAY.
Today, as in the last 50 years.
>you just said that you never heard of the album before
No I said I wasn't familiar with the album. Obviously I know who the artist is, but I couldn't tell you the name of every LDR or Beyonce album either.
>however, a lot of people thought it was a modern pop masterpiece
Prove it. Show a link to the archive. If you can't, it's not true.
>dodge more arguments, why don't you?
What do you mean? Are you admitting you misspoke?
>you can think of radiohead as pop or art rock, it doesnt really matter.
Well you called a rock artist pop. So right there is an error.

File: 1478071067489.jpg (43KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x450px

>>71158857
lmao is that the actual cover?
I hate this cunt so much

>>71163468
alright, last response for real. i'm pretty sick of this.

>Today, as in the last 50 years.
intentionally obtuse. I was clear in every single post, and when I point it out, you tell me what I meant? fuck off.

>No I said I wasn't familiar with the album. Obviously I know who the artist is, but I couldn't tell you the name of every LDR or Beyonce album either.
yet you "made the exact same criticism of her as you did LDR in this thread"? (>>71162902). fuck off.

>Prove it. Show a link to the archive. If you can't, it's not true.
if I did, you'd just say "/mu/ isn't one person" and totally ignore my argument. plus, above you said that you saw people criticizing her album. so did you see the threads or not? fuck off.

>What do you mean? Are you admitting you misspoke?
i didn't misspeak. when ANYONE refers to /mu/ liking or disliking or talking about something, they don't mean one person or every person. they are referring to the general trends observed on the board. again, you're being intentionally obtuse. fuck off.

>Well you called a rock artist pop. So right there is an error.
let me quote the last part of my last post, this time "louder" so that maybe you'll fucking read it. "IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER. THE POINT WAS THAT THE MUSIC THEY MAKE IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY ENGINEERED FOR RADIO SUCCESS." which is something YOU alluded to when you referred to the music discussed on this board as "more serious."

learn to fucking read.

learn to follow a fucking argument.

and fuck. off.

>>71163637
>intentionally obtuse
Oh this again? Not an argument
>made the exact same criticism of her as you did LDR in this thread"
Do you perosnally know the names of albums you have no interest in?
>if I did, you'd just say "/mu/ isn't one person" and totally ignore my argument. plus, above you said that you saw people criticizing her album. so did you see the threads or not? fuck off.
Sorry I'm not seeing any proof. If you want to just admit you are speaking out of your ass, it's OK, I forgive you. No big deal really, to lie on the internet, right?
>i didn't misspeak
Of course you did. You implied a number of people believe the same thing, which is not true. Care to revise your statement?
>I made it mistake?
>OH WELL IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER
Oh but it matters when I make a mistake? Sure...

>>71163791
>being this retarded

>>71163967
Not an argument

>>71163988
it's a fact, based on your posts

File: immages.jpg (4KB, 99x95px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 99x95px

>>71163967
>>71163988
the delicious autism itt


Lana is great


That is all

>>71164012
How so?
>>71164035
See >>71158887

>>71164035
anon v. Shlomo Shillstein

the great LDR debate.

>>71164045
Instead of actually arguing, you say that the other person didn't make an argument, that they said something they didn't, or you focus on irrelevant parts of what they wrote. Then you act condescending about it. You should be sterilized.

>>71159037
jesus fuck this is awful

File: kek.png (112KB, 392x370px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 392x370px

>>71158960

>>71159021
Financial production retard

>>71164101
>Instead of actually arguing
Already did earlier in the thread. Did you read it?
>you say that the other person didn't make an argument
Well he did, but it's just random things he made up with no factual basis

I don't think you know what an argument is

>>71164184
I read the whole thread. I'm very confident that you're either actually retarded or a weirdly dedicated troll.

>>71164282
Nah

>>71164429
not an argument

>>71164451
it's a fact, based on your posts

File: nxgx562-png.jpg (111KB, 1831x1022px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1831x1022px

>ywn suck lanas foot pussy

>>71160715
>muh george posters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcj1jsxDEQU