O-Town is Better than U2

[bloop]

OK, I don't really believe that and I'd almost say there has to be an objective criteria for art that one can use for showing with little doubt that the above is false.  Any ideas, or is it fruitless?

[Josh]

I haven't really heard much O-Town, believe it or not, but a few thoughts:

Bono is a technically superior songwriter. Ask any poet or English teacher.

All members of U2 are technically superior players, in terms of innovation and musicianship.

U2 are more versatile; list the different genres that each band has played over the years. U2's list will be longer.

U2 has longevity.

 

[bloop]

OK, just replace "O-Town" with, I don't know, "Linkin Park" and take it from there.

So so far we have:
songwriting - which some artists don't do at all (in O-Town's case, I think this is accurate)

musicianship

innovation (can be in musicianship, but also studio techniques, lyrical sensibility, or combining styles in a unique way)

versatility

longevity

Only one of these seems measureable, unfortunately.  I wish we had a case-closed way of showing that U2 is, in fact, better.  Subjectivity be darned.

[RokrantheGreat]

Linkin Park's better.  

[bloop]

pfft.  Please.

[DvChWi]

Linkin Park's better.

If I didn't have my dad waiting to use this PC, I would pick that statement apart using the objective criteria given above, but I don't have time.  Anyone else want to fill in the void and end an argument? =D  

[RokrantheGreat]

[bloop]

Sorry, man.  I would elaborate but "Linkin Park is better than U2" isn't worth a much better response than "pfft.  Please."  The best that can be said of Linkin Park is that they have so much potential.  Too bad they waste it on radio-ready rapcore with stock beats and lazy rhymes.

[polka_dot]

Now this hot girl, she's not your average girl
She's a morpharotic dream from a magazine
And she's so fine designed to blow your mind
She's a dominatrix supermodel beauty queen

^that, my friends, is why U2 is better.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming...

[Josh]

Nice, polka. Couldn't have said it better myself.  =)  

[smartash]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.................


 

[DvChWi]

Now this hot girl, she's not your average girl
She's a morpharotic dream from a magazine
And she's so fine designed to blow your mind
She's a dominatrix supermodel beauty queen

^that, my friends, is why U2 is better.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming...

I'm confused.   Whats this from?

Though, Rokran, you can't say that Lp is better than U2, from what you know.  Lets see, you saw the superbowl halftime show and have heard ISHFWILF(U2 has long song titles, geeze).  I have heard much more, and I have heard all of LP albums at least 3 times each, more in the case of Hybrid Theory and Meteora.  I have more to base my opinion on than you do.  But why do I think they are better?  Here is why:

U2 has better lyrics, with more depth and bredth.  LP lyrics sound mostly the same.  U2 sings about a wide range of stuff, and does I better job, I might add.

U2 has more diverse music, better in my book.  LP has one sound that they never, ever stray from.  Even "Breaking the Habit" is still to similiar to all their other stuff.

U2 has been around longer, shown their abiltiy to innovate, while LP has managed to show us they don't have anything new to offer us, and are just into "lets sell records by playing the style people will buy most!".  Though, I must admit, they do have some catchy songs.  But, you must admit, they are specially designed to be appealing to the most people possible.  No real creativity.
 

[RokrantheGreat]

Let me re-phrase my position: TO ME, LP is better. Whether one band is better or worse than another is all opinion. My opinion is LP is better, and I will defend that position until I die. Yes, LP's lyrics sound alike, and they have one set style. So? I like that style! And so do millions of other listeners. If you don't, that's your problem. j/k. You're entitled to your opinion. But SO AM I!

[DvChWi]

Whether one band is better or worse than another is all opinion.

But the whole point of this thread is that there are objective standards that we can judge things by.  You need to hear all my stuff from someone fresh, so I'll let Josh and Bloop take it from here....

And millions also liked Britney, so forget that argument....

[beautifulmess]

Now this hot girl, she's not your average girl
She's a morpharotic dream from a magazine
And she's so fine designed to blow your mind
She's a dominatrix supermodel beauty queen
 

It is so sad that I immediately knew that song...

[Guest]

But what is it?

[polka_dot]

It's the chorus to the song "Liquid Dreams" by O-Town.  It was played a lot on the radio stations around here a couple years ago.  It'll get in your head and never come out...and the subject matter is rather disturbing...you can guess what it's about by looking at the title of the song...  

[RokrantheGreat]

But the whole point of this thread is that there are objective standards that we can judge things by.  You need to hear all my stuff from someone fresh, so I'll let Josh and Bloop take it from here....

And millions also liked Britney, so forget that argument....

I don't think those kind of standards are useful with music. No matter how good the band is skill-wise, no matter how diversified or well-produced an album is, if you don't like it, then SO WHAT? Which bands are better or worse is all personal opinion. And perhaps millions had the opinion that Britney rocked, So? That was their opinion. My opinion differs, but that doesn't mean they were wrong.  

[bloop]

So, you're more existential in your thinking about music, which probably has some validity.  On the other hand, I'm talking about something of an objective means by which to judge music.  Time signatures, diversity, longevity, virtuosity, etc. can come into play here.  What makes a great band great?

Where's Josh typin' about that slanted table?  That was a good example.

[Josh]

Ok, I'll repeat the table analogy:

Suppose a carpenter builds a table, and all four legs are of differing lengths. The table, therefore, is so slanted that it won't even hold anything on its surface. Simply put, this is an immensely crappy and poorly-made table. Rokran, if you still want to buy this table and enjoy it for whatever reason, then that's totally fine. But that doesn't make it a good table.

[DvChWi]

I don't think those kind of standards are useful with music. No matter how good the band is skill-wise, no matter how diversified or well-produced an album is, if you don't like it, then SO WHAT?

So your taste is off.  I don't think you can go the whole "to each is own thing" with music, at least not until a certain point.  Britney and her ilk(and her elk, possibly ) are put out by record companies to meet a certain need they see in the market.  They are shaped and targeted at a specific audience, at a specific time.  Their talent is obviuosly lacking, but they look good, and Pro Tools is getting pretty good nowdays, so, who cares!  So, what if you like Britney?  The answer is: "OK, but there is much better stuff you could be listening to!  Go out and find it!"  Someone with actual talent, instead of looks(not the good looking musicians are always bad, mind you.).  Like Josh said, you can buy the slanted table, but the straight one is much better.  Heres a bad example: Think of that pirate guy in Pirates of the Carribean who's eye kept falling out.  Then think of Elizebeth in the same film.  Whos better looking?  I think we could objectively say that Elizebeth is, despite the fact the subjectivity does play a role in deciding these types of things.  After a point, where certain quality standards have been reached, subjectivity starts to come in.  For example, is Jennifer Lopez better looking than Cameron Diaz?  No way to really say.  But they are both better looking than the pirate guy with the eye falling out.   So, its OK to listen to music tha doesn't reach high standards, just try to branch out a bit and always be exploring.  
 

[RokrantheGreat]

[DvChWi]

[RokrantheGreat]

The OtR cd called is Journeys, I think. That's all they had. And the REM ones are Life's Rich Pageant and Murmur.  

[Josh]

I don't think there is any OtR album called Journeys...

Life's Rich Pageant, on the other hand, is an excellent record! It's one of my favorites.

[DvChWi]

The OtR cd called is Journeys, I think. That's all they had. And the REM ones are Life's Rich Pageant and Murmur.

Hah!  Journeys is a compilation CD with only one OtR song on it.  Life's Rich Pageant is at my house(haven't got around to listening to it, for some reason.), and I have a hold on Murmur ahead of you! You're in trouble, man! Though, you should enjoy OK Computer if you can just get past the "unborn chicken voices" line.

[RokrantheGreat]

Darn. I was afraid of that. A lot of the results that I got on other bands were compilations. But I reserved Journeys at the library on their computers, and it didn't say it was a compilation. Darn [_[  

[bloop]

If you can get past "unborn chicken voices" then you can get past any "weird" Radiohead lyric.  Word on advising him to check out "OKC" before "Kid A".  I like "Kid A" more, but ultimately, the record is a more challenging listen (and, like Josh is with REM, that puts me in a somewhat unorthodox class of Radiohead fan).

[Josh]

Well, bloop, I must be right there with you; I think I prefer Kid A to OKC, as well, though it's an insanely close call.

Boy, I'm just racking up the rock 'n' roll heresies...

[RokrantheGreat]

Psot again, Josh, quick!!! You're up to 666 posts!

[DvChWi]

I have been giving this more thought, and I came up with these ideas.  Does quality music transcend taste?  For example, if I hear any good piece of music, will I like it?  I think the answer is no, I might not like it.  I can recognize and acknowledge the quality of the piece, but I may not like it.  It doesn't change the fact that its good music, though. What do you think?  

[Josh]

For example, if I hear any good piece of music, will I like it? I think the answer is no, I might not like it. I can recognize and acknowledge the quality of the piece, but I may not like it. It doesn't change the fact that its good music, though. What do you think?

I think you're right. I've heard albums before where I've said, "Man, this is a great album... I just don't care for it." And that's fine.

[linds]

i think we're missing the whole point of music, and of art, if we want to shrink it all into a fit-all objective checklist.  
something we have to understand is that music is meant to be subjective.  music touches us deeply because it registers with something from our own personal experience.  

now, at the same time, i don't think that we should throw objective evaluation out the window.  excellent art is built with excellent craftsmanship.  it's important to step back from your personal emotion sometimes and critically evaluate the quality of the music.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that we should look at music both subjectively and objectively--we need to strike the right balance.  just don't ask me how.

[RokrantheGreat]

I think linds is right.

[bloop]

When listening to evaluate - listen as objectively as possible.

When listening for enjoyment, enjoy yourself, but don't throw the critic in you out the window.

Just what I think.

[Josh]

I concur.