I don't get it

too didn't; read long

its pretty good :)

Is grimes a slut?

>>73907793

It's a great album if you're under seventeen and a homosexual.

>>73907793
It just doesn't suit your taste? This might shock you, but not all music that other people find good is gonna personally appeal to you. You aren't the universe's arbiter on good taste. Who are your favorite artists?

>>73907927
Stop openly announcing you're saging threads. It's specifically against /mu rules and will get you banned.

It's good music to waste your life to

>troll/baiting thread on the way
Report and hide, that's all i can do for myself

>>73907793
It's shit don't bother. The people on /mu/ that like Grimes are a very vocal minority

>>73907793
>It sounds like someone trying to pander to popular music standards.
So you do get it

>>73907916
No it doesn't suit my taste, I'm asking why people think it's good because I don't understand the appeal of listening to music that we hear a hundred thousand times on the radio. I never said I had a better taste. Sorry you think that to the point where you had to give me a pretentious lesson on muh "accepting other people's taste". Fuck me. I'm not even going to tell you what I like.

>>73907793
>The guitar and piano samples are such horseshit and are way too simple.
Too simple in comparison to what?Whose music are you comparing it to?

>>73907793
>just an unacceptable track
Unacceptable to whom and for what reason? I personally love that track BECAUSE of how off-the-wall it is in the context of top-40 pop.

>Bjork made 100x more interesting music
What does Bjork have to do with Grimes' music? Shes a different artist. Whose music do you actually want to talk about here?

>>73907986
how's this troll or baiting? if this does get deleted it proves the mod is grimes fag

>>73907793
I don't know what you were expecting from an artist like Grimes.

>>73908098
>listening to music that we hear a hundred thousand times on the radio
What kind of contemporary pop radio station plays a song like Scream?

>>73908163
Just because there's a couple of non traditional pop tracks, doesn't mean the majority of the album isn't generic bubblegum pop music.

>>73907793
>It sounds like someone trying to pander to popular music standards
You answered your own question right there.

>>73907793
>What do you guys think?
I think you're trying too hard to dislike it desu.

>>73908128
>I don't know what you were expecting from an artist like Grimes.
This. If you don't like contemporary pop music in the first place, and don't like the facets of this album (e.g. Scream) that break with that style, why on Earth would you be expecting to like this album in the first place?

>>73908128
Probably sanctity and relief from a very fucked up life, she's a very helpful artist isn't she

>>73908110
It's simple in general, they're just three notes or chords. As I said, literally anybody can do that.

Unacceptable with the mixture of that Muse shit guitar and the Chinese lyrics. It's sounds like fedora music. Great, it's "experimental" along with the first track. That totally means this album isn't horseshit bubblegum pop. You're right.

People compare Bjork to Grimes all the time, I like how "Grimesfags" here shit on Bjork when she makes better music.

>>73908371
see
>>73908363

Go away grimes

>>73908356
>>73908363
Why do you guys or people in general like listening to generic pop music that has been done before over and over again? Originally I had no expectations and didn't truly listen to what people had to say about this album because I hadn't heard it yet.

It's very mediocre. Basically the meme went too far and a bunch of kids un-ironically love Grimes and this album because it's the cool thing to do on /mu/.

>>73908394
My point exactly

>>73908453
I don't think you wanted to quote me:
>>73908356

>>73908465
Did you buy the album yet? It's in the 4chan catalog and people are suddenly having large dialogues about it. Where do these people even come from

>>73908476
But it blatantly pandering to popular music standards is not a good thing, it's insulting. Answer my question. What is the appeal of music that has been done over and over again?

>>73908258
see
>>73908363

I like flesh without blood

>>73908577
But I'm not a fan of pop music at all and pop cliches don't appeal to me in the slightest. How did you not deduce that from my post?
>What is the appeal of music that has been done over and over again?
Here's a very interesting study regarding and answering your exact question:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027241

>>73908592
Why do you keep doing that?

>>73908392
>literally anybody can do that.
So what are you complaining about? Why can't Grimes?

>It's sounds like fedora music.
So it sounds too purposefully complex to you? What about her music being too simple?

>People compare Bjork to Grimes all the time
It's a meme. Why are you believing memes and then expecting to understand the truth of anything?

Good title.

>>73908453
>Why do you guys or people in general like listening to generic pop music that has been done before over and over again?
Why do you like listening to music that just uses the same twelve tones over and over again? Doesn't that get boring to you after a while?

>>73908522
Well hey, im not just doing this for myself or anything

>>73908671
I don't get it

>>73908631
If there's one track I would have to chose as a favourite, it's probably Realiti. That's probably the most likeable track for me, it doesn't have any terrible guitar or piano sample. It's not bad. I wish the album was more in this direction

>>73908465
>it's the cool thing to do on /mu/.
Then explain this >>73908000

>>73908577
>What is the appeal of music that has been done over and over again?
see
>>73908704

>>73908649
To bring the 2nd post to the 1st poster's attention. If you use the Thread Watcher, referencing someone's post like that alerts them that there's a reply waiting for them.

>>73908727
I see 20+ grimes threads a day AT LEAST. Look at the catalog, and at any time you'll see a handful of Grimes threads.
Jesus Christ, she's OK at best, but come on /mu/

>>73908665
>what are you complaining about?
That the music is completely uninteresting. Grimes can do that, but I have the right to say that the song she writes require zero talent. Maybe she has talent. not in those songs. Read what I actually say.

No it's not complex, the muse guitar and asian vocals are the epitome of fedora because that's what fedora people like.

I realise it's a meme too, I'm addressing it before any of you fags do. I actually wonder if people compare Grimes to Bjork though (not on here, just in general)

>>73908704
Because the music does something interesting with those twelve tones, not in structures that we've heard before

File: old_man_yells_at_cloud.jpg (50KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x450px

>>73908804
What can I say, this is a weird place.

>>>73908868
>That the music is completely uninteresting.
uninteresting to you =/= uninteresting to anyone else

>I have the right to say that the song she writes require zero talent.
And you have the right to be told you're wrong, since there is no way you could know this unless you've written some of her songs - in which case, hi Grimes!

>Maybe she has talent.
Talent for what? What were you expecting from this album that you didn't get? and Why?

>fedora people
What is the non-meme definition of a "fedora person"? Because afaik there isn't one.

>I actually wonder if people compare Grimes to Bjork though (not on here, just in general)
I'm not "from" here. "They" don't, unless "they" haven't actually actively listened to both of these artists' music - something plenty of people still HAVEN'T done, despite what /mu might tell you.

>>73907793
just your opinion. don't you like this masterpiece? move on, buddy. you're too pleb to get into experimental pop.

>>73908804
Its grimes herself

>>73908894
>not in structures that we've heard before
Where else have you heard the musical structures in a song like Laughing and Not Being Normal or Scream used in their entirety?

>>73909076
Quit calling people plebs. It's insulting and retarded.

Hey all your shitposting finally caught my attention and i want to listen to her work, do i just start by geidi primes and work my way up?

>>73909079
and co

File: Grimes_Music_Chart.png (794KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 3000x3000px

>>73909142
What kinds of music do you normally listen to? Her music can really throw you off af first (what happened to me) if you start with it in a place that is musically incompatible with your existing musical tastes (see pic related for my attempt at a solution to this problem.)

>>73909033
>"uninteresting to you =/= uninteresting to anyone else"
I know that, I realise that there are people that like this and I don't. I gave my opinion, same applies to you. I want to know why people like this.

You're right, I can't have an opinion about her music because "I haven't written her songs". I recognise that using three generic piano or guitar chords or notes doesn't take talent. Wowee I'm sorry. Sorry for having an opinion that you don't agree with.

Maybe she has talent in making music that isn't this. I wasn't expecting anything, but I want interesting music. I've already explained why it isn't interesting.

What's your point about the Bjork thing?

>>73909107
Dude, I've already explained that just because there is two non traditional pop tracks, doesn't mean it isn't a traditional pop album. Even if they are not traditional, it doesn't sound good.

>>73909204
ive heard a few videos and i figure its some sort of 80s pop + ethereal voices and a california homosexual vibe, thats prolly why most of /mu/ hates her

i like groove and reverb, i liked her layered ethereal voices so i figured ok lets give her a chance

>>73909220
if you wrote a software that randomly generated sounds and suddenly some mins of noise in it suddenly catches a great run and for 1 min it really takes you someplace else, would you admit you liked it? or would the fact there was no talent involved put you off?

>>73909345
So you're saying, "If I liked something, would you admit you like it?". Well yes, if it were real that software has talent in making notes that are good. If it didn't make good notes, then it wouldn't be talented. Grimes wasn't talented in any of the songs she incorporated the guitar/piano notes, because they weren't good. I don't know why this has to be explained

>>73909465
>if it were real that software has talent in making notes that
nono, the software has 0 talent, it just spews stuff at random,

yet in the middle of all that crap something good that sounds great comes out of it, then it loses itself to crap again, but for like 1min that random note playing took you to heaven

would you record that min of good stuff and listen to it again and again, would the fact that there was no talent involved only luck put you off? or the fact that only that min was good and the rest 4 hours were crap?

>>73909249
>Dude, I've already explained that just because there is two non traditional pop tracks
How many pop tracks do you know that use screams disguised as percussion hits? (see the song Butterfly.) Or the sound of dentist drills tuned to behave like a musical instrument (see the song Venus Fly.)

>>73909220
>I want to know why people like this.
For me (the only person I can speak for) it's stuff like the above. Art Angels has plenty of interesting things to offer listeners. You just have to ACTIVELY listen for them.

>>73909283
I'd recommend starting with her side of the double EP Darkbloom. Imo it's the best mix of her earlier more ethereal style and superior production found in her more recent works.

>>73909551
Read what I actually say, you have talent because you produce something good, you don't have talent because you produce something not good. It's as simple as that. If any source can produce something good, then it has talent. Grimes has no talent because she didn't produce any good music on the album. How is that hard to process?

>>73909601
Different anon.
HAVING talent isn't the same thing as USING it. Fwiw.

>>73909601
i dont think so man, i think talent is a huge myth
but anyways, if talent means you can produce something good, then does the machine has or has not talent, if it only produces 1 good min in 4 hs?

It's definitely inconsistent. World Princess and Realiti are super good though. I actually think the vocals redeem some of the more mediocre instrumentals.

I agree with ur point about the guitar, though I can deal with it on Flesh without blood because the hook/chorus is so goddamn catchy.

>>73909572
I don't know, just because there is minuscule aspects in the song doesn't make it good or overshadow the overarching terrible aspects that last the entire song like the generic beat or the guitar sample. In the case of Venus Fly, the song is terrible because of the obnoxious beat.

>>73909572
Yeah, in your opinion. I did actively listen three times. I was doing nothing else than listening to the music and reading the lyrics. You proved one of my points in the original post.

>>73909076
>he likes Björk, an experimental pop artist
>he dislikes a bad experimental pop album
>therefore he doesn't like experimental pop
Way to shoot yourself in the foot, retard

>>73909646
How so? By the way why do you guys capitalise words like THIS. It doesn't improve the point, you realise that right?

>>73909716
It had talent in that one minute, because it produced something good. It's really that easy I promise you.

>>73909844
>talent noun (NATURAL ABILITY) B1 [ C or U ] (someone who has) a natural ability to be good at something, especially without being taught: Her talent for music showed at an early age. His artistic talents were wasted in his boring job.

it doesn't have talent, it just lucked out into something good through endless trying

>>73907793
>Bjork made 100x more interesting music than this bubblegum fucking horseshit of a listen, and she has a better voice.
You wot? Bjork did Oh It's So Quiet which is a ridiculous song (a cover, but still). She also did the cheesy There's More Life Than This, You've Been Flirting Again and I Miss You.

>>73907793
>There's nothing unique, nothing interesting, and there's no substance.
Nothing unique? What else sounds like this album? Post actual names.

>>73909938
What's ridiculous about "Oh It's So Quiet" (lol), other than the fact that you can't get into it? It's a very good vocal jazz song that displays Bjorks vocals well, and is a good break from an album that often has electronic instruments as backing tracks. Also define cheesy please.

>>73909974
*don't like it, not "can't get into it"

>>73908392
>when she makes better music.
That's a subjective thing. If I believe that Grimes > Bjork you can't prove me wrong.

>>73910076
>that's a subjective thing
So? He never claimed objectivity

>>73908465
They love that album because that album is very well made, catchy as fuck and innovative. You're that fox next to the "sour grapes:".

>>73909871
First of all, I don't know or care if she has natural ability or talent outside of this album. That's irrelevant. All I said that she didn't showcase any talent in the music of this album because she didn't. I don't think people who make shitty music have "talent". It's okay if you think this album is good therefore she was talented there, completely fine. I don't believe that in the slightest.

I don't think talent is permanent, say you have a great hockey player, and eventually he turns 80 and can't play any hockey whatsoever. At that point I wouldn't call him talented at hockey, he was talented at hockey, not anymore. That machine was talented at making notes sound good for a minute. Grimes wasn't talented at making music this album

File: Untitled-1.jpg (411KB, 1476x936px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1476x936px

>>73907793
>"Ur just closed minded an you don't like it1!" Fuck you
Yeah whatever, fuck you too.
2 mixed
0 negative

>>73908577
>What is the appeal of music that has been done over and over again?
If you pretend that her music has been done before over and over again where are the similar albums to Art Angels? Where?

>>73910123
>Yeah whatever, fuck you too.
>2 mixed
>0 negative
As if that proves anything. It's a synth pop album for crying out loud, get over yourselves people.

>>73909957
Literally any pop artist, I can find glaring similarities between Katy Perry and the music on this album.
>>73910076
I never claimed that there is objective truth in what I said. That's why the title of this post is called, "I don't get it.".

>>73907793

The CD version is shit.

Listen to it on YouTube

>>73910113
i dont think she has talent, i think she works really hard and releases the good stuff she lucks upon through all that trying

i also think there are a lot of talented musicians who release shit

>>73910123
>only two reviews
Kek. A large sample size (Say, an RYM score) would be way better for measuring the opinions of music listeners.

>>73909817
B T F O
T
F
O

>>73910153
I never claimed that there are "similar albums" but a ton of songs that follow generic pop music standards.

>>73908804
You spend too much time here if you see so many Grimes threads. Get a life.

>>73910153
Not him, but what is synth pop and electro pop? You're acting as if she's making free improvisational music and creating her music out of the ether, with no external influences. Get over yourself.
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Synthpop/
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Electropop/
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Alternative+Dance/

>>73910172
If there is an album that is good that she makes, then she's talented on that album. David Bowie is a perfect example of someone who has gone on the exact opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of making talented music.

>>73910209
>I can claim that you have no life (even though you're right) therefore I'm right
Come up with a better argument or simply leave

Grimes is a super star


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=80VIY66fCZ8

>>73910220
talent is a natural skill at something, you dont come and go from it unless, like you said, you are an 80 yo talented deportist, of course if your body breaks down you can't keep performing

what talent usually refers to, is whomever CONSISTENTLY retains an abysmal edge over other professionals of his area, while working just as hard as them, its natural facility

>>73907850
I wish she was desu

>>73910279
So you're saying there's objectivity in what people determine as, "skill"? Especially in music? There's no subjectivity in that, is that what you're saying?

File: p1299849_e_v8_ac.jpg (155KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 960x1440px

This is the only Grimes I know. Why are some of these people saying they've seen several threads about her? I haven't seen one thread about this artist. Hell, I've never even heard of her.

>>73910355
yeah 100%
but sounding good has shit to do with skill

a washing machine and some birds can sound better

>>73910473
So you don't think "skill" or "talent" are abstractions and are subjective in people's thinking? Is that what you believe, really?

Is grimes narcissistic?

>>73910527
Not him, but I'm sorry to inform you that talent is a human trait, not an abstraction and it's a scientifically provable fact.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592910/

>>73910216
Stop. Even if her genre is synthpop it sounds only like her. Her brand of synthpop is too out there and unique to be even replicated. Her music is like Liz Fraser of Cocteau Twins singing over Kraftwerk instrumentals produced by Aphex Twin. This exact mix doesn't exist in reality except her music. As a matter of fact, could you even name a similar album to Art Angels?

>>73910584
It's just a word

>>73910527
lol of course it isnt subjective

>>73910584
this guy just btfo you

>>73910601
>Stop
Oh, you can't handle having to admit you're wrong on any position? And the fact that there aren't exact musical copies of her, doesn't grant her a bit more of artistic credibility.
>Her brand of synthpop is too out there and unique
>"Her synthpop"
>Too out there
There's no winning with you people. Not only that, rational arguments don't work on you people. No need for any further replies, because this clearly isn't going anywhere.

>>73910622
>It's just a word
Great rebuttal.

Her criticism is coming from another musician. Jealous

>>73910584
Just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean you are talented at it. Let's go back to the definition of "talent"

>talent
natural aptitude or skill.
>skill
the ability to do something well

What's good or not is completely subjective. There's no such thing as objectively good or doing something well, good, talent, skill are not measurable commodities because they are abstractions. You may think Art Angels is good, I think Art Angels is bad. Who's right? No one's correct. Opinions are abstractions and talent and skill derives from opinion. This is simple things, come on man.

>>73910686
Please, name a similar album to Art Angels if you preted she's not unique. What other album has songs like Scream, Life in the Vivid Dream, Kill V. Maim, Realiti, Easily to name a few? All these kind of songs on the same album. The challenge is on.

>>73910752
*pretend
Fuck this keyboard

>>73910703
Great thread

>>73910746
>Let's go back to the definition of "talent"
And let's ignore studies and medical journals. Great strategy. Why did you even bother replying? Not to mention that I've never mentioned subjectivity and objectivity.

>>73910530
Most likely

>>73910746
No, talent as skill are both objective, and are not the same

"liking it" is the subjective part

You can see talent in sports much easier, somebody like Messi, nobody in the world will tell you he doesn't play abysmally better than other professional (all skilled) players

but some will tell you they don't like his playing in world cups cause he is too autistic to team-play, but they do like him in more relaxed settings like in barcelona when he doesn't have to lead a team and can sperg out all through the field as much as he wants

>>73910805
How did that medical source prove me wrong about what I said?

>>73910752
>The challenge is on.
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Synthpop/
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Electropop/
https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Alternative+Dance/
I've already said:
>You're acting as if she's making free improvisational music and creating her music out of the ether, with no external influences. Get over yourself.
Remove this narrative if you want to be taken seriously and if you're capable of doing so.
>And the fact that there aren't exact musical copies of her, doesn't grant her a bit more of artistic credibility.
On a slightly unrelated note - No, it is absolutely not. It's a subgenre of pop music. There is no challenge, get it through your head. It's made for profit and vanity. We all know this, but not all of us want to admit it.

>>73910916
>How did that medical source prove me wrong about what I said?
This is the equivalent of a person putting hands over his hears and shouting "La la la la la, I'm not listening!".

>>73910709
that's retarded logic. if someone disliked grimes this much just because she's more well-known than them, then they would dislike literally every musician that isn't a soundcloud nobody.

>>73910898
But how can you not associate opinion and talent being directly related? How can you determine talent without basing that on what you think is good?

When people say Messi is good at soccer, that's obviously the most popular opinion about him. You completely contradicted yourself there, just because two or more people agree on something doesn't mean it's "objectively true"

>>73910988
Over his ears*

Are people there who question her talent? That's ridiculous. Any artist able to make such provocative, evocative and innovative music without even studying music theory is clearly talented.
>talent: (someone who has) a natural ability to be good at something, especially without being taught.
q.e.d.

>>73911015
>Any artist able to make such provocative, evocative and innovative music without even studying music theory is clearly talented.
>Synpop, Electropop
>provocative, evocative and innovative music
Rational arguments don't work on you people. Not to mention that when those are tried, this happens:
>>73910988

>>73911015
In what ways is Grimes innovative? I'm genuinely curious

>>73910988
Dude, I never accused you of being wrong. I said how did the source prove me wrong? I read it, and it says that musical ability can be genetically inherited. Fine, but musical ability to do what? Make music that people may or may not think is good?

>>73911060
>I read it
In the same breath as:
>Fine, but musical ability to do what? Make music that people may or may not think is good?
Just stop embarrassing yourself if you're capable of doing so.

>>73911015
>to be good at something
There's zero such thing as objective good.

>>73911089
Please argue about what I say. If my viewpoint doesn't line up with the argument, please say how.

>>73911004
You are completely autistic, when an entire field of expertise, millions of people working hard to be better and better, skilled as fuck, get eclipsed by a fucking kid to whom genius moves come naturally, thats something else than skill, that is talent

In sport is easy to realize its objective because you have on player (team) physically dominate the others and assert their rightful supremacy

In arts is more complicated because usually the austically talented just end up being theatre performers who most people (except other artists who know about the craft and what the normal limits are and recognize the talented's supremacy) don't give a shit about

>>73911054
You're tiring. An artist could innovate in any genre. Apparently you're a hipster who shits on certain genres just because they're melodic and accessible. You're talking about synthpop: do you have any idea that the most influental and innovative band ever - Kraftwerk - were synthpop? Do you have any idea that one of the most covered and copied bands ever - Depeche Mode - was synthpop? Do you have any idea that one of the most innovative bands of the '80s - New Order - were synthpop? Don't talk to me about rational arguments when you're a simpleton with fixed ideas.
>Rational arguments don't work on you people.
Then stop talking to us, hipster. You're not going to change our minds using the same tired "arguments".

>>73911077
The red-orange slice: the patricians. The rest are the green of envy plebs.

>>73911110
>Make music that people may or may not think is good?
Opinions on personal enjoyment of music are subjective. The end.

>>73911186
>the most influental and innovative band ever - Kraftwerk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUY9IU1Y1WY

>>73911201
>envy
see
>>73911001

You are completely autistic(comma) comma

>>73911095
The "good" is measured by the satisfaction of the consumers. The consumers - the listeners - were mostly satisfied by her product - her music. That's consensus: her music is generally very appreciated, hence it's considered good. If it's subjective it doesn't mean it's not real.

>>73911123
Sure, that's you and my definition of talent because he's good at playing soccer and that's the obvious and easily the most popular opinion we're agreeing that Messi's talented. As you stated, there's always going to be people who define what it means to be have "actual skill" and that's by their own merit. We disagree and call them stupid for having that opinion, whatever. Although it may be different comparing soccer to music because there's actual objectives in playing the game that make you win, there's an endgame. How would that be comparable to music?

>>73911252
More people think it's bad/uninteresting than good. otherwise she would be more popular than she is.

>>73911210
Exactly, and that's exactly my viewpoint.

>>73911186
>Rational arguments don't work on you people.
And calling me a hipster as much as possible is surely the rational thing to do, right?
>do you have any idea that the most influental and innovative band ever
Quite a rational statement you got there, I'm sure you can easily prove it to be objectively true. And I'm aware that they were synth pop artists in their later career. For that matter, I've listened to their last krautrock-era album Ralf & Florian and I respect them for that period in their music.
>Do you have any idea that one of the most innovative bands of the '80s
Yet another very rational statement which is easily proven to be objectively true, right?

>>73911252
So you're saying that if more people have the opinion that something is good or not? That means the people that think it's good are correct, and the people who think it's bad are wrong?

>>73911294
However, I would advise the following:
>You're acting as if she's making free improvisational music and creating her music out of the ether, with no external influences. Get over yourself.
Remove this narrative if you want to be taken seriously and if you're capable of doing so.
But clearly that's not happening any time soon, as evidenced by this masterpiece:
>>73911186

>>73911231
I knew you will say The Beatles. Rock music was already popular when this band "exploded". They were influential but most of their music was just ordinary pop-rock. Literally music for plebs except some oddities like R9 and Tomorrow Never Knows. Meanwhile, Kraftwerk sounded very futuristic and alien. That was music from the future made today - at that time. Right now rock music is a shallow copy of itself while electronic music is thriving. Kraftwerk influenced countless of electronic genres, starting with synthpop and techno. They also influenced hip hop; remember Afrika Bambaataa with Planet Rock who sampled Kraftwerk?

>>73911370
I'm >>73911310, but I'm not >>73911231.

>>73911285
>More people think it's bad/uninteresting than good.
You just took that out of your ass. Read even the infamous Youtube comments of her songs that aren't on her official channel (she disabled comments). Little negative opinions and mostly positive opinions.

>>73911310
>which is easily proven to be objectively true
Dude, we're discussing opinions here. Would you mind stopping flaunting objectivity all over the place?

>>73911405
I think that goes back to the narcissism i pointed out

>>73911370
>"Sampling has been around since the Beatles they did it all. There is no difference between using tapes and digital machinery."
-Karl Bartos of Kraftwerk

>>73911252
Not him, but:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity

>>73911365
My viewpoint is that what people determine as "good" or "bad" is completely subjective, and "talent" is directly determined by what people determine as good . Sure people may have an opinion that an artist is talented or that they are good at what they do, but that doesn't mean they are objectively correct. But that also doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong either, and I want to make that incessantly clear.

somewhat agree OP.
On the first listen it was really disappointing, especially when comparing it to her prior work. The only track I liked first listen was Kill V. Maim and a lot of the tracks are either forgettable or just embarrassingly bad. Butterfly and Artangles in particular were borderline unbearable, I don't even know what to make of SCREAM. After a few listens PARTS of California grew on me, Realiti is okay and Venus Fly is silly but still fun to listen to on occasion. Ultimately disappointed with the album and hope she's able to do a LOT of refinement if she continues to go in this direction. And I definitely get what you mean about the samples being shit and sounding way to simple. I think the issue with them is that they sounded like some sort of default sounds that would be built into a super basic audio program. The music sounds weirdly amateurish in a really bad way. Especially disappointing knowing how capable she actually is. I feel like she was trying to do something really different (for her) with this album and it just failed miserably.

>>73911438
What objectivity? And as if it's even possible to be musically objective. You're making ridiculous statements and proposing them to be indisputable facts.

>>73911405
>You just took that out of your ass.
Not really, think about it.

If art is judged solely by the satisfaction of the listeners, then she is not successful. More popular artists like Eagles, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc are better, by your logic.

It's my guilty pleasure

>>73911477
>and "talent" is directly determined by what people determine as good
Do we have to go back? Seriously? Let's do so either way:
>>73910584
And we agreed on:
>>73911210
Why did you repeat yourself?

>>73911405
Just because more people think it's good than bad, doesn't mean they are more correct or wrong than the people that think it's bad. That's the appeal to popularity fallacy. More people think Twentyone pilots is good than bad, are people wrong for saying it's bad? Of course not, are people wrong for saying it's good? Of course not. That's why we have opinions.

>>73911370
Yeah i was just making a joke, is like the "the simpsons did it first"

There's no modern music that the Beatles didn't try the basis for first, i guess they just experimented on all the technology and possibilities (mostly thinking in ethnic instrumentation) of the post war world, and things haven't changed enough yet for new toys and fronteers

>>73911574
>There's no modern music that the Beatles didn't try the basis for first
>No genres outside of popular music exist: The post

>thread quickly devolves into an argument about what talent is

I don't know what I expected.

>>73911611
That's done, almost an hour ago.
>>73910584

>>73911536
Please go back and educate me on where I went wrong, because I think talent is determined by natural skill and skill is the ability to do something good or well. Talent is the natural ability to do something good. Good is an abstraction. Therefore talent is an abstraction.

>>73911502
>If art is judged solely by the satisfaction of the listeners, then she is not successful.
Your logic is wrong. I didn't mean popularity - that depends mostly on marketing - but the ratio between satisfied and unsatified listeners of her music. Just the people who already listened to her music, not the whole listener base. The thing is that most listeners of her music responded positively to it. That means her music generated positive feelings -> it achieved its purpose -> it's good.

>>73907793
it's bubble gum, but it's psychedelic bubble gum

>>73911649
>Therefore talent is an abstraction.
Why? How many times?
>Talent is a human trait, not an abstraction and it's a scientifically provable fact.
>the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
>an impractical idea; something visionary and unrealistic.
>http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abstraction
And here is the actual instance and concrete reality of talent as a human trait:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592910/

>>73911711
Fine, whatever. How is Grimes talented on this album?

>>73911601
You could elaborate a bit doe

>>73911699
>satisfied and unsatified listeners of her music
that depends mostly on marketing
>Just the people who already listened to her music, not the whole listener base
OK but most people have heard her by now. Yet she still has that small base. If she was just judged on satisfaction, every single person who heard her once would like her. Clearly her fanbase isn't growing exponentially as it should if you are judging her solely by satisfaction, so either she is an unsuccessful artist or your logic is wrong.

Which is it?

>>73911785
Just because you enjoy the work of a particular artist, that doesn't mean that artist is the sole contributor to a given genre of music. That also doesn't mean it's, in the case of popular music done for the right reason.

>>73911793
>that depends mostly on marketing
It doesn't. People judge for themselves if they like something or not. e.g. You decided you dislike her music.
>OK but most people have heard her by now.
They didn't. You overestimated her popularity. She's a mere indie artist who barely sold 200k+ copies of Art Angels. Compare that with the multi-million sales of Adele or Taylor Swift - 2 artists most people heard of them. She's more popular in the indie circles.
>If she was just judged on satisfaction, every single person who heard her once would like her.
Do you seriously expect 100% percent satisfaction? That's impossible. As I said, most people who heard her music liked it. The group of people who heard her music is not as numerous as you think.
>Clearly her fanbase isn't growing exponentially as it should if you are judging her solely by satisfaction, so either she is an unsuccessful artist or your logic is wrong.
How do you know it's not growing exponentially? She clearly sold more albums now than before and her shows were more crowded on her latest tour than few years ago.
Judging by indie standards, she's a huge success. Judging by pop standards she's almost a failure - no big sales and no hit singles in charts. It matters the perspective you're judging the facts.

>>73911982
>People judge for themselves if they like something or not
...Based on the image of the artist. See: any picture of Grimes with a crafted aesthetic
>As I said, most people who heard her music liked it.
Not really. compare youtube hits with how many copies sold. You'll see a large margin of people not being interested. I, for one.
>How do you know it's not growing exponentially?
Do you know what an exponent is?

>>73911856
I don't enjoy the beatles, i just find that there's usually at least one song in which they experimented in whatever technology/possibility became cemented as a modern genre later on

>>73911231
I tend to agree with you. They made techno before computers took off.

>>73912040
>...Based on the image of the artist. See: any picture of Grimes with a crafted aesthetic
Her image is controversial to say the least. Did you forget that almost the entire /mu/ think that she's ugly? So, it must be her music. An artist with ugly looks and shit music would have no chance here, let's be real. Also you're implying that people decide they like her or not based on her image alone and not on her music; that's a completely retarded idea.
>Not really. compare youtube hits with how many copies sold. You'll see a large margin of people not being interested. I, for one.
If you're not interested, you're not in the target. You're not counted in the people who listened to her music group. Also Youtube views have nothing to do with sales. Not in this age where most people get their music for free. All these hipsters who listen to cool music don't even pay for their music. The plebs who listen to mainstream pop, those are the ones who actually spend real money on music, not the hipsters aka freeloaders with hard disks bursting with pirated music. Unfortunately many of her fans are hipsters who don't even support her financially and enjoy her art for free.
>Do you know what an exponent is?
Yes. And your point is?

>>73912274
i kind of like what she does, but lets be honest, the pixie girl thing is a big part of his fame

You don't have to get it. It's not for you. It's only for the people with taste.

>>73912357
It's what people love about her

File: bjork-1993-jean-baptiste-mondino-debut-08b.jpg (445KB, 2000x2073px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 2000x2073px

>>73912357
>the pixie girl thing is a big part of his fame
Let's be honest, Bjork did the same pixie girl thing before. And she's way more respected by /mu/ than the superior (IMO) Grimes. I wonder why.
>inb4 her music is better
Music taste is subjective.

>>73912385
no, she specifically stated that people are supposed to be initially turned off by her music

>>73912417
why do you give a fuck about what mu likes

>>73912417
You think bjork is an actress?

>>73912447
Irony

>>73912274
>So, it must be her music.
Not really, because all I see in Grimes threads are pictures of her, and people saying how beautiful she is

Nice try though
>Also you're implying that people decide they like her or not based on her image alone and not on her music
See: KPOP
>If you're not interested, you're not in the target.
How do you know? Prove it. What's my target? What is the typical Grimes target?
>You're not counted in the people who listened to her music group.
Oh so people who listened to her music dont count as people who listen to her music? or are you only counting people who were satisfied with the product?

Nice confirmation bias

>Yes. And your point is?
The you know how to calculate an exponent.

>>73912471
irony and cynism are very near each other, be carful

Actually, why do /mu/ users hate Grimes and love Bjork? Why do /mu/ users resonate more to Bjork's music than to Grimes' music? Because Bjork got a bigger critical acclaim, so she's a safe choice?

>>73912487
Ok

>>73912447
I'm just wondering about that. Tbch /mu/ has zero influence on my music taste. I mean it.

>>73912499
/mu/ are fags who can't into lowfi punk

>>73912476
>Not really, because all I see in Grimes threads are pictures of her, and people saying how beautiful she is
Did you really read her threads? There are barely pictures with her. In any case, the quota is more than decent: 1 picture for every 4-5 posts; many of these pictures being memes. If you don't believe me, check the archives and do the counting.

>>73912499
It's very clear what bjork is trying to communicate in her work. grimes not so much

>>73912439
no she didn't

>>73912476
Actually this is a Grimes thread. How many pictures with her do you see here? Do the math.

>>73912583
the Germs are pretty good

>>73912596
>It's very clear what bjork is trying to communicate in her work
Serious question: what she's trying to communicate in her work? IMO Bjork's music is way more obfuscated than the more personal music of Grimes. Bjork is too arty to communicate her intentions in a clear manner.

>>73912604
>Actually this is a Grimes thread.
Wrong, this is a copypasta thread b8. it's not a Grimes general.
>>73912584
>There are barely pictures with her
Prove it. Go to the archive and see.
>If you don't believe me, check the archives and do the counting
It's your argument, prove it.

>>73912668
>Wrong, this is a copypasta thread b8. it's not a Grimes general.
Not a general but still a Grimes thread. We're discussing about Grimes here in case you didn't notice. So, it counts. Where are the numerous pictures, bro? Do you see what I mean?
>Prove it. Go to the archive and see.
Alright. e.g. The latest general: https://rbt.asia/mu/thread/73865236/
330 posts, 80 pictures (many of them being spam and memes). That means 330 / 80 = 4.125. Just like I said: one picture every 4 posts. That's far from a waifu thread standard.

>>73912977
>Not a general but still a Grimes thread
So, not what I was referencing,. Nice goalpost shifting
>330 posts, 80 pictures
OK, now add up how many posts are just talking about her appearance and don't discuss the music.

>>73912640
How about you not try to undermine Bjork and keep those arrogant opinions to yourself

BTW I counted the legit pictures with her on the latest general thread: there are 50. So, 330 / 50 = 6.6. That's the real ratio. That's very decent for an image board. That myth with her generals being waifu threads is just a myth.

>>73913020
>OK, now add up how many posts are just talking about her appearance and don't discuss the music.
FYI discussing about her appearance is artist discussion. That is allowed according to the official /mu/ rules:
>Discuss music, artists, and instruments here. All images should relate to the topic at hand.
Rules are rules. It's obvious that people discuss more about an artist's life than about their music. They're listening to her music while discussing her. Music is a thing better experienced irl than discussed.

She's amazing and i want to hug her

>>73913190
>discussing about her appearance is artist discussion.
If this is true then you are backing up my claim here >>73912040
Thanks anon!

:(

bump for it's a bad album

>>73912668
>Wrong
if the main topic of discussion relates to Grimes or her music, it's a Grimes thread
>copypasta thread b8
Just how stupid are you? First of all, show me the original post and second of all, it's not bait just because you don't like it

>>73912274
>So, it must be her music
You do realize that almost all of the people who like her music also think she's attractive, right?

>>73914224
>it's not bait just because you don't like it
What makes you think I don't like it?

>>73915105
Well what other reason do you have to think it's b8? Sorry, I've seen a bunch of grimesfags do the same thing

>>73915143
>Well what other reason do you have to think it's b8?
Because it's a ridiculous wall of text that doesn't give any substantial information/critique except for a few key words that could be replaced to apply to any artist.
>>73915143
>Sorry, I've seen a bunch of grimesfags do the same thing
I've been arguing against Grimes for the last hour. Pay attention.

File: OKComputercover.jpg (56KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x600px

>>73915143
I don't understand the appeal of this album. It sounds like someone trying to pander to popular music standards. The guitar and piano samples are such horseshit and are way too simple. The reverb production doesn't sound good. So many moments on this album are just liquid shit, like the fucking breakdown on Let Down, or all of Electrioneering (good christ that's just an unacceptable track in every sense of the word). Honestly, the vocals do not redeem any of the music or the songs. "But Can sounds similar and makes experimental music!". Can made 100x more interesting music than this bubblegum fucking horseshit of a listen, and they have a better voice. There's nothing unique, nothing interesting, and there's no substance. The lyrics are completely generic, as they take no talent to make as any 12 year old boy can write them. I'm truly amazed. I'm truly convinced that any fandom over this album on here is purely ironic. Because there is absolutely no talent or any good performance on this album. "Ur just closed minded an you don't like it1!" Fuck you, I listened to this album three times and gave it each time a fair shot with the lyrics. I'm insulted.

>>73913239
I don't. Your conclusion is wrong. You wasted your "thanks".

>>73914224
>You do realize that almost all of the people who like her music also think she's attractive, right?
Care to explain why do you think this?
Her music is just sounds. What those sounds have to do with her looks?

>>73915186
>Because it's a ridiculous wall of text
It's a wall of text, but there's nothing ridiculous about it. All of those reasons are similar reasons as to why I dislike the album.
>Could be replaced to apply to any artist
Not really
>I've been arguing against Grimes for the last hour
I know, which is why I apologized. Just because I mentioned Grimesfags doesn't mean I implied that you are one

>>73915243
these criticisms do not apply

>>73907793
I like it

there's two ways to listen to music.
there's music to listen to sound
and there's music to listen to musicality (which includes sound)
music that involves sound is what plebs tend to listen to
it only sounds good, it has appealing sounds and doesn't rely
on strong songwriting methods. its for fun and taking easy.
take radiohead for example, they are good but if you strip away
their sounds it becomes shit, radiohead's sound has a lot of aesthetic.
now take bach, strip away his sound and play it with a bunch of midi
keyboards, still beautiful huh? its cause the beauty in his music
is carried by the density and richness in his composition
its about the relationship between the intervals, the syncopation, counterpoint
and tons of other musical aspects
now take one more time by daft punk
pretty nice very vibing and cool, almost haunting how the sample loops,
now take away the drone that is created by the loop and the loop itself
just play the melody.
still sounds alright but it becomes much weaker and easy to get bored of.
sound is very important and is a big factor of all kinds of music
but just relying on sound is a recipe to aging music. Good music is made
out of good music, not some avant garde secret.
there's no music better than music made by people who are good at music.
no edgy teenager in the suburbs will make a good record, no bearded weeaboo
in a robe playing guitar with a hammer is good.

>>73916822
on /mu/, I mean