Originally Posted By Caroline (13 NOV 2007 2:40am)
Even pop music fills a market niche.  If it didn't it wouldn't sell.  Obviously there is a need for it.  I'm not a fan of Brittany but she isn't the only talentless pop artist on the market.   However, the product that the client base buys obviously entertains them and serves their purposes.   I will confess to having some LPs in my cupboard that haven't seen the light of day since the 1970s and probably never will again.  But back then, such music was entertainment for me.

You know, some people swear that only 'good' Art is worth hanging, only 'good' Literature (as opposed to books) is worth reading, etc etc.   Intellectual snobbery is a dangerous chair to sit on.  It predisposes us to seeing value only where we expect it to be and it encourages us to be dismissive of others who have broader tastes (and better eyesight).  

Originally Posted By Terry Penrod (13 NOV 2007 2:55am)
.

We have a perfectly good set of appropriate terms to distinguish between different levels and forms of art including; fine, classical, contemporary, commercial, pop, etc. One doesn't need a masters degree to understand how and why these tems apply.

What IMO raises any work to an elite status is either sheer originality and/or masterful execution. Right behind those immediately evident traits is scope and duration of influence, and endorsement by the majority of recognized, qualified experts. In dead last place would be general popularity / mass market appeal. However, extending directly from scope / duration of influence comes a broader application of any given original style for commerical purposes.

What often begins as a bold, experiment in avante garde creative expression can spawn a new school or genre from which many current and future artists and sub-genres arise. But the majority of them in any given generation will never achieve real / lasting greatness and therefore they settle for less ambitious goals such as financial success and/or immediate popular fame in commerical fields.

Eventually, virtually all truly great artworks impact the commerical marketplace. You can readily hear the influence of major classical composers in many contemporary genres of music. You can trace the roots of modern pop / op art straight back to a small group of innovators that included Picasso and his pals in Barcelona. It's simply average artists and lots of commerical producers using the best ideas from generations past to sell whatever they happen to be selling at the time.

Cheers,  Terry

Originally Posted By Luigi Mamao (13 NOV 2007 12:46am)

I´m an american-folk, bluegrass and country&western fan. I am living in Venezuela, but I was born in Argentina. I can´t understand you dude. You were born with the gift of living somewhere where it´s not impossible to get this music and also you can hear it anytime in the radio... and you say you hate it. Oh god! ... If you think carefully, all genres´songs sound the same... (just mentioning rap, dance, reggae, classic rock and roll...) ... try listening carefully to the lyrics. Some are unbelievably great. And, yes, some are crap - LIKE IN EVERY GENRE. Maybe the reason is it´s not encouraged financially. It´s not commercial music. But you can´t blame COUNTRY MUSIC for a bad song or a bad artist.
Britney Spears, Beyonce, Shakira .. they sound different, they are pop, they sell a lot.... but damn they suck dude! So what do you expect from country music itself? to be made only by artist the size of Dylan, Lennon, Jagger... ?
Open your mind. Open your ears. You´ll see.

Originally Posted By Luigi Mamao (13 NOV 2007 2:12pm)

Still, it´s easier to say that Britney sucks.

Originally Posted By Terry Penrod (13 NOV 2007 5:14pm)
.

Originally Posted By Luigi Mamao (13 NOV 2007 2:12pm)

Still, it´s easier to say that Britney sucks.

It may be easier but it doesn't begin to address the full range of musical forms, styles or genres.

That aside, I agree she sucks. But then again, I think 90% of all pop music and all pop music artists suck.

Cheers,  Terry