Do I get correctly that all the controversy around her on this

you've thought too hard about it

delete it now, could do without any more grimes cancer

she has fake arguments with her friends on here so people buy her album

protip: one person in puppy love with too much time on their hands

>>72886670
it's not puppy love stop treating me like shit could you please?

>>72886678
>4 posters, 4 replies

>>72886644
Yes, case on point.

>>72886690
in*

>>72886678
Get off /mu/ James.

>>72886644
The deal is that Grimes is as average as it gets and people used to do the old ironic shitposts saying she was the best to troll people, playing off of inflated pitchfork scores and so on. Autistic kids saw these posts and thought that were serious and factually and adopted Grimes as a deity.

In reality, they should worship Tentenko instead.

>>72886703
im afraid im not an sjw cuckold obsessed with self-indulged delusions of how men that aren't myself are being oppressive just by existing

>>72886644

the deal is that she's amazing at 3 things:
1> music - it sounds unique and gorgeous
2> personality - she's relatable and nice
3> look - she's pretty and has a ton of pictures (a good thing for an image board)

most artists aren't good at all these tree things. those that like her, really like her and those that hate her, really hate her. do you know newton's third law?
>For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

so, the more her haters try to disparage her, the more they will encounter a resistance (an equal and opposite reaction). that explains the insanity in her threads. all in all, she's an amazing artist and her haters are terribly jealous and mad. don't forget the huge misogyny and sexism in these places.

File: X4K9KSz[1].jpg (45KB, 500x544px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x544px

>>72887921
>she's pretty

>>72886644
>this board is actually THAT useless and retarded
it is, but you don't need grimes threads to confirm that. instead grimes could be anyone else, say halsey.

>>72887940
she's perfect

>>72887921
oh

>>72887940
>posts the same overused meme picture when she has thousands of good pictures
stop memeing, pleb

>>72887979
>even the tinfoil hat wearer is back
>>>/pol/

>>72887980
it's a closeup of her face without makeup that isn't photoshopped to shit

File: grimestache.png (159KB, 336x205px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 336x205px

>>72887990

Ariel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grits

what am i missing?

When will grimesposting finally stop? I'm sick of all this concetrated autism.

>>72888113
>not seeing the green frog retard shitposting here
i have bad news for you: it will never stop, at least 10 years from now. deal with it.

>>72886644
>all the controversy around her on this board is just to bait people who have different point of view on her
Welcome to 4chan, anon.

>>72888307
All this 'controversy' is manufactured and shills write 95% of the Grimes posts.

Is what it is.

>>72886788
>as average as it gets
As average as what gets? Who else out there doing the sort of thing she's doing is significantly like her?

>>72888319
By your logic shills complain about themselves in these threads, the posts about shills are at least 10% of the grimes threads in the current year, which means that you're a shill

>>72888368
Fuck off pig

>>72888375
>t r i g g e r e d
lol he IS a shill

I wasn't visiting /mu/ for some time, explain me that new shills meme

>>72888340
>Quality is defined by nothing being exactly the same as something else
You're a retard.

>>72888506
Quality in music is a subjective thing, plebster. You should know that by now.

>>72888319
>shills
Proof or gtfo.

>>72888394
There is bunch of retards coming from /pol/ that post that green frog meme and shitpost here. These imbeciles insist that discussing musicians on a music board is shilling. They were banned but somehow they circumvent the ban (VPNs?).

>>72888662
No it's not. Subjective doesn't refer to the music, it refers to the listener. Don't use words you don't understand. Your arbitrary preference is irrelevant to a discussion of anything other than your preferences.

>>72888763
>Subjective doesn't refer to the music, it refers to the listener.
Huh? And who listens/judge the music, smartass? R2D2? HAL 9000? Hint: it's the listener. The listener's taste is subjective.

>>72888394
people getting lost in 4chan

>>72888796
Are you an actual retard?
The concept of objective/subjective is about viewing things. Objective means with respect to the object being viewed while subjective refers to how the subject/viewer casually relates the object to unrelated events relating to them.

Subjective discussion is smalltalk. You can't assess quality subjectively because subjectivity is assessing yourself, not the work.
350 year old philosophy isn't so complicated. Don't try and sound smart and mouth off when you have no clue about the terminology you're using. A critic can't confuse their own preferences with quality and quality involves the intentions of the work and how/if it achieves them.
You're not cut out for discussion, you don't even understand the context of a discussion.

cal chuchesta likes grimes


>dont hurt her feelings internet reviewer, wink wink

>>72888886
>being this idiot
are you an objectivist? fuck you.

>>72889009
>knowing what a word means makes you an idiot
Mate, you might want to go outside and get some air. At least make an actual point next time instead of a weird 'nu-uh' remark that showcases how you don't understand the discussion. You're wrong, completely wrong.

The logic you're attaching yourself to is that preference is all that matters to the individual - which is sound logic. However, you're blending preference with terms belonging to objective analysis. If you refuse the idea of objectivity it is only insofar as that objectivity is a cultural construct based on definitive language and intentions and a lack of belief in the integrity of critics. If you write something like "quality is subjective" you are literally writing gibberish because subjectivity in this context is a rejection of ideas such as quality. However, that mindset means you shouldn't be getting involved in discussions based in objective contexts anyway because they don't relate to your world view.

It's not complicated.

>>72888886
>A critic can't confuse their own preferences with quality and quality involves the intentions of the work and how/if it achieves them.
>he believes this
HA HA HA HA HA! you're just a dumb objectivist. you know what? no matter how hard the critics try to pretend to be objective, ALL of them are subjective as fuck. and they can do nothing about it. it's the human nature.

they like or dislike a piece of music because they filter it through their brain who isn't a precise machine to give reliable answers every single time, but a moody organic machine under the influence of emotions, past experiences, instincts, moods, sugar level in blood, dopamine, these sort of things.

also not everyone thinks in the same way; otherwise everyone would like and dislike exactly the same albums (assuming their judgement is objective).

hence, all their opinions about a piece of music are subjective. not even real judges are objective 100%. deal with it.

>>72889086
>ALL of them are subjective as fuck.
it's a paid job, so

>>72889086
I have no idea how you think you're making sense here.

Have you ever made anything? Ever worked creatively? Criticism is central to creative practice. You make something, put it out and discuss it with your peers. When you succeed they tell you what you meant by the work and when you fail they tell you something that you had not intended or just outright say it's shit.
That's the function of objectivity.

Subjectivity is "I like this" or "this reminds me of when I __________". You can't criticise or analyse works subjectively because by definition that means that you are not even considering the work itself. That's what the word means. You can enjoy things subjectively and that's pretty much as far as the goes.

You're not even arguing anything, you're just being an idiot. If you can't get your head around objectivity or don't believe in it then stay out of objective discussions. When someone uses an objective term don't jump into the conversation because it's not a conversation that you belong in.
Stop being an insufferable child.

>>72889193
No point explaining it, you're talking to 'meme kids' who adopted 'subjective' as a self-validating buzzword so they can demand that things they like are 'the best'.
You're right though.

objectively people do not like this album

>>72889182
>it's a paid job, so
some of them try to appear objective but it boils down to personal preference anyway. someone's gold may be someone else's trash and viceversa. the acclaimed albums are simply albums that managed to appeal to more demanding listeners who aren't easily satisfied. it's just consensus, not some objective quality like some folks pretend.

>>72889219
Objectively doesn't mean 'as a matter of fact'. You could just google 'object philosophy' and learn what the words you're using mean instead of being an idiot, my man.

>>72889238
there's nothing subjective about them big bucks and eating well

>>72889193
>That's the function of objectivity.
objectivity is 2+2=4. irrefutable facts. subjectivity is "i think this album is aoty or this albums sucks". your definition of objectivity is wobbly at best.

>You're not even arguing anything, you're just being an idiot. If you can't get your head around objectivity or don't believe in it then stay out of objective discussions. When someone uses an objective term don't jump into the conversation because it's not a conversation that you belong in.
>Stop being an insufferable child.
ad hominem attacks are a sure way to piss on your own arguments. are you mad because i destroyed your convoluted "critics are objective" meme idea? believe what you want to believe, but if you would open your mind you will understand that i'm right and you are wrong. cheers.

>>72889252
wow, rude

File: img.png (48KB, 714x700px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 714x700px

>>72889193
btw, read this "comic": http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

seriously, do it. you will understand why it's so hard to accept new ideas that try to modify your established core ideas.

>>72889252
no? you're saying a subjective opinion can't be objective and it is inherently wrong, but people disliking the album is simply a fact, the majority opinion is the most objective and closest to the truth

i wonder how subjective it is to have a hole in your head

>>72889280
Oh my god, how are you not able to understand such a simple idea.

>objectivity is 2+2=4. irrefutable facts. subjectivity is "i think this album is aoty or this albums sucks". your definition of objectivity is wobbly at best
Objectivity is 'water is wet'. Subjectivity is 'I like water' or 'water reminds me of when I swam the English channel'.
It's not 'my definition', it's THE definition. I don't make up my own bizarro definitions and it's massively ironic for you to claim that I do, seeing as you're literally wrong and you could have easily looked it up and figured that out by now using the same internet connection you're using to shitpost.

I'm actually offended by how stupid you are, lad.


>>72889286
Just trying to help you learn, my man. Don't confuse a helping hand with rudeness.

>>72889345
Opinions aren't objective. Objective is with respect to the object. The object doesn't have an opinion since it is being viewed and is not actively viewing itself.

>>72889361
is this one those autism tests like the ones ive seen on reddit? they cheat you know, especially with me

>>72889371
>Objectivity is 'water is wet'. Subjectivity is 'I like water' or 'water reminds me of when I swam the English channel'.
how is that any different in concept than
>objectivity is 2+2=4. irrefutable facts. subjectivity is "i think this album is aoty or this albums sucks".
?

this is a strawman. the real issue is that you pretend that critics could be objective. that's the fucking issue. they're subjective.

>I'm actually offended by how stupid you are, lad.
mutual feeling, buddy. i'm more and more convinced that you're trolling. you can't be this stupid.

>>72886644
Use the word "grimes" in your title next time please so it can be filtered, her threads are never about her music anyways :/ That's my only problem discussing her on this site

>>72889456
big boys are talking though huh

>>72889456
>her threads are never about her music
is this literally your first minute on /mu/?
>>72882193

>>72889425
>how is that any different
'I think[...] is [the best] or [bad]' is mixing objective terminology with a subjective stance.
saying you're not liking something or taht it's your favourite is subjective. Saying how it makes you feel good, reminds you of something, anything it doesn't to you is subjective. Objective is 'there are guitars in this track' not 'I like this track'.

>the real issue is that you pretend that critics could be objective. that's the fucking issue. they're subjective.
Are you mental, lad? Critics have the responsibility of being objective regarding a supplied context. If they fail to do so then they are doing their job improperly. That's why people make fun of Fantano and don't take him seriously. There have been proper critics throughout history and there are bad ones (like Clement Greenberg, the bastard).

If you knew what you were talking about you'd be able to actually make a point, but all you're doing is saying 'nuh-huh!'. You don't know anything about any of this, you started an argument because you were shocked by information contrary to your own random assumptions about a word you never looked up and now you're standing firm in your completely baseless viewpoint. Just stop posting and go read a book.

>>72889456
why don't you just join the conversation? you may be valuable

>>72889535
I saw that thread yesterday and it was just grimes fans yelling BLEB until the people who wanted to discuss music left

You must be new if you think music discussion happens about her even 5% of the time

>>72889590
>You must be new if you think music discussion happens about her even 5% of the time
what bait is this

>>72889336
Thanks, that's a fun read. Not a new concept to me, though. My work is based on that sort of reaction from people - I work in irony and illicit two reactions; one from the educated audience members and one from the uneducated ones. I plan them both out and it's fun seeing them work out. It also means that during the discussion the uneducated guys learn from people explaining the joke so I get a little satisfaction out of it.

>>72889562
>Critics have the responsibility of being objective regarding a supplied context.
they're subjetive because of this >>72889086

now shut your stupid mouth, i'm wasting my time with a dumbass like you. this is my last reply to you.

>>72889714
>I disprove your explanation by linking a shitpost full of random statements!
So you're underage or braindead. I already knew that. Seriously. don't reply to people if you don't understand how to have a discussion.

>>72889590
there's some music discussion in her threads from time to time. btw, artist discussion is allowed too. if it takes a big chunk of her threads, that's it, you can't have everything in life.

>>72888506
>Quality
You mean similarity, because that's what averages relate to.

>Similarity is defined by nothing being exactly the same as something else
Exactly.

>>72888886
>Objective means with respect to the object being viewed while subjective refers to how the subject/viewer casually relates
Anon, you're talking about internal vs. external. Objective vs. subjective is about perception, not location.

>>72889815
Depends on the context that 'quality' falls under. If you're doing it under 'things that sound like this'll then sure, but only is that's explicitly stated.

>>72889902
Look up the terminology. Object philosophy is old as fuck. There are works that play off of subjectively as part of the properties of the object but that's case by case.

>>72889064
>>72889193
>>72889217
>>72889371
>>72889562
>>72889741
see
>>72889815
>>72889902
>>72889993
>Depends on the context that 'quality' falls under.
Yes.

>If you're doing it under 'things that sound like this'll then sure, but only is that's explicitly stated.
Hence my question (found here >>72888340 ) of you to explicitly state what context your value judgment (found here >>72886788 ) was being made.

>>72890171
Pretty sure you were having an argument with yourself at someone else. Maybe articulate yourself properly next time to avoid confusing and annoying people while you refuse to actually make any sort of argument at all.

all me

>>72890430
Dear, my only posts in this conversation were:
>>72888340
>>72889815
>>72889902
>>72890171

The nonsensical back-and-forth you were doing was with someone else.

>>72890430
Dude, you're really confused. Stop posting so much crap ITT. Get a life.

>>72890430
jerk

>>72886644
Pretty much. Some people are looking for ways to troll others. Probably because their lives aren't going great so it's a way to get a rise out of people to feel better about themselves.

Others genuinely don't like her or her music and that's fine. It's a contrast that I find pretty normal for most acts. I am a fan of hers but it doesn't bother me. I'm actually quite entertained by the whole thing. I get my popcorn when it starts and I sit here and watch the whole thing unfold. Gives me something to do lol.

>>72886670
Count me in, but i'm not in love with her as i've been trying to suggest to the other fellow who believes he is. I don't think you can be in love with someone you don't know. But then again, i'm not going to suggest I know anything.

>>72886788
Wouldn't go as far as to call her a Deity lol. She's a normal person who shits like everyone else. But she's got a quite interesting sound going. That's my view of it.

>>72888113
It's not autism simply because you don't like her music. You sound like you're 14 or something. So much angst. I listen to Slayer, James Brown and other music as well, doesn't mean i'm exclusively into grimes (me anyway... not sure about the other fans around here).