Is this bad?

[sambouchah]

As much as I can't stand it, I love Carly Rae Jepson. Is that bad? I like her music and all my friends think it's stupid. Not even being dumb or anything, I legit enjoy the crap.

[JoshL]

Absolutely not. Quality and taste can (and I think should) be two different things. You can like music that is bad, and you can not like music you think is good.

I believe there's no reason to feel guilty about guilty pleasures if you can make that distinction. If you like it, you like it!

[oblivion6]

Not bad at all. I like music most people I know hate. For instance, just about everyone I know is in love with rap and all that crap, while personally I can't stand it and prefer soft rock and pop(like Carly Ray Jepson).

[Radar]

What the fine people above said.

I sometimes listen to things like Meco (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFBzRqdWN2w) (although this is not really that bad, only a blatant cash grab on popular movie themes), Bruce (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I_lJUKxZ8w) Willis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2zk56DDjGc) and stock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rBCgv7hNtc&feature=related) disco (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBoKuKz2Ce4) of 70's and 80's (including italo disco).

Go with the flow, even if it leads you to Erasure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWqJTKdznaM), Bangles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpnaLJ-jn1k) or Celine Dion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oJn4DSmsx0).

If it's entertaining or compliments your current mood, then it's the right thing at a given time.

And as much as I admire J Rabbit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhs55HEl-Gc), it's not something I openly share.

[Mx.Silver]

First, a disclaimer: as far as I'm concerned Jepson is just a bit of bland nonsense I can't bring myself to care about. I find her work twee and overexposed but overall I don't find it noteworthy enough to bother holding any real feelings towards.

Having got that out of the way, the answer to you question is: No, it's not.
Basically, if you like something then you like something, and that's all there is to it. If it's not doing any particular harm then you haven't really got anything to worry about. Accept it and just treat the difference you have with your friends as you do all the other taste differences you inevitably have. No matter what it may seem like, the only person you really have to justify your taste to is yourself - and all that should really boil down to is whether you legitimately like it or not.

[Ravens_cry]

You like what you like.
I have a friend who enjoys rap. Almost univerally, I can't stand the stuff, lyrically or musically.
Never let anyone make you feel bad becasue you enjoy something they don't.

[Kitten Champion]

There is an issue, if you can't stand the idea that you like X, Y, or Z. Not that I'm an authority on the matter or anything, but I know some people who possess a negative self-image in part because their interest and inclinations don't match those expected of them by their friends or family. Carly Rae Jepson being besides the point, what matters is whether you can accept this part of you or not.


...I actually don't know who that is, anyways.

[mistformsquirrl]

Enjoy what you enjoy, haters gonna hate. That's the lesson I've had to learn about a lot of the things I like. < . .> Never let someone make you feel bad because you enjoy something they don't, and likewise, don't be a jerk to people who like what you don't.

Really that's pretty much life in a nutshell >.> (with some obvious caveats, but still)

[GenericGuy]

My first thought was something C.S. Lewis said

“When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

I'm guessing (sorry if I'm wrong) your a teen-early twenties, and so when others think/say negative things about what you like it still makes you feel ashamed for liking it. Part of growing up is also realizing how little you care if others think what you like is cool or not.:smallcool:

[willpell]

Absolutely not. Quality and taste can (and I think should) be two different things. You can like music that is bad, and you can not like music you think is good.

This. So much this.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

rap and all that crap

:smallannoyed:

Anyway. Nah, you shouldn't feel bad at all. I quite like Carly Rae Jepsen too. The strange thing about pop is the more accessible it is the more people will hate it. I don't quite understand it either, but hey, what are you gonna do? I love the synth strings in "Call Me Maybe", gives it just a hint of a nu-disco flavour.

[willpell]

Anyway. Nah, you shouldn't feel bad at all. I quite like Carly Rae Jepsen too. The strange thing about pop is the more accessible it is the more people will hate it. I don't quite understand it.

Speaking as one of those haters, it's often specifically because of how "accessible" it is. When EVERYONE seems to fall under its spell, you can only suspect it's some sort of mind-control earworm, or at least a rallying cry for the proverbial unwashed masses, and that you as an individual of discerning taste who prizes his uniqueness should not only stay far, far away from it, but warn everyone you like and respect that it is dangerous and diseased and must be avoided at all costs.

[huttj509]

:smallannoyed:

Anyway. Nah, you shouldn't feel bad at all. I quite like Carly Rae Jepsen too. The strange thing about pop is the more accessible it is the more people will hate it. I don't quite understand it either, but hey, what are you gonna do? I love the synth strings in "Call Me Maybe", gives it just a hint of a nu-disco flavour.

I love the syncopation in Diamonds, by Rhianna.

Then again, I will "boogie out" to Disco...and pretty much anything where the lyrics don't put me off.

The only genre I globally dislike is "whatever I've been listening to for the last 10 minutes." I like to mix it up a lot.

[oblivion6]

I love the syncopation in Diamonds, by Rhianna.

Now why go and mention Diamonds? Thats going to be stuck in my head forever thanks to you!

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Speaking as one of those haters, it's often specifically because of how "accessible" it is. When EVERYONE seems to fall under its spell, you can only suspect it's some sort of mind-control earworm, or at least a rallying cry for the proverbial unwashed masses, and that you as an individual of discerning taste who prizes his uniqueness should not only stay far, far away from it, but warn everyone you like and respect that it is dangerous and diseased and must be avoided at all costs.

Well that sounds very petty, immature, juvenile and, subsequently, a little hypocritical.

[VanBuren]

Well that sounds very petty, immature, juvenile and, subsequently, a little hypocritical.

HIIIIIPPPPPPSTEERRRRRRSSSSS


Seriously though. One of my roommates unironically listens to Nickelback. How do we put an objective measure on enjoyment? We can look at composition, at technical skill to try and decide what music is "better", but even that fails sometimes when music we see as great is great precisely because it completely disregards our notions of acceptable structure*.

You enjoy what you enjoy and you don't enjoy what you don't enjoy. Maybe it's good to push at what you don't enjoy and expand your boundaries, but you shouldn't not enjoy what you enjoy. In the end, you can only be sure of one thing: If someone tells you that you are objectively wrong in enjoying Carly Rae Jepsen, then that person is objectively wrong.

Nickelback still sucks though**.


*What's that John Cage piece? 4′33″?

**What? I'm not perfect.

[oblivion6]

Why does the entire internet say Nickleback sucks? Granted they only have 2 really good songs(Photograph and When we Stand Together), but they aren't as bad as everyone says they are. Not a day goes by that I don't argue with someone about them these days:smalltongue:

[DJ Yung Crunk]

HIIIIIPPPPPPSTEERRRRRRSSSSS


Seriously though. One of my roommates unironically listens to Nickelback. How do we put an objective measure on enjoyment? We can look at composition, at technical skill to try and decide what music is "better", but even that fails sometimes when music we see as great is great precisely because it completely disregards our notions of acceptable structure*.

You enjoy what you enjoy and you don't enjoy what you don't enjoy. Maybe it's good to push at what you don't enjoy and expand your boundaries, but you shouldn't not enjoy what you enjoy. In the end, you can only be sure of one thing: If someone tells you that you are objectively wrong in enjoying Carly Rae Jepsen, then that person is objectively wrong.

Nickelback still sucks though**.


*What's that John Cage piece? 4′33″?

**What? I'm not perfect.

If someone was to attempt to objectively find the value in music they most certainly would not use a universal criteria for all music. That'd be just absurd. Traits that make a progressive rock piece good would make a punk rock piece bad, for instance. Different genres have different goals and, as a result, should be judged differently. So the only real way to judge Carly Rae Jepsen from a perspective that resembles objectivity is to ignore your preconceived notions of teen-pop and instead judge her merit within that genre, personal inclination for the genre be damned.

And by that token she's damn fine, I think. Not that the genre's modest ambitions allow for too many extremes on either side (despite what the Justin Bieber Persecution Society would have you believe) but she brings what's needed to make teen-pop work. She has the hooks, she has the relateable persona/charisma, the production is on point for the most part (again, gotta love those strings.) If you don't like teen pop (which is perfectly fine, by definition it's target audience is more focused than other strains of pop) then obviously she won't appeal to you.

But it's all moot, really. As you said, there probably isn't an objective criteria for music and, even if there was, that kind of analysis would probably be wasted on Carly Rae Jepsen. Her music doesn't require that kind of thought or validation.

[VanBuren]

If someone was to attempt to objectively find the value in music they most certainly would not use a universal criteria for all music. That'd be just absurd. Traits that make a progressive rock piece good would make a punk rock piece bad, for instance. Different genres have different goals and, as a result, should be judged differently. So the only real way to judge Carly Rae Jepsen from a perspective that resembles objectivity is to ignore your preconceived notions of teen-pop and instead judge her merit within that genre, personal inclination for the genre be damned.

And by that token she's damn fine, I think. Not that the genre's modest ambitions allow for too many extremes on either side (despite what the Justin Bieber Persecution Society would have you believe) but she brings what's needed to make teen-pop work. She has the hooks, she has the relateable persona/charisma, the production is on point for the most part (again, gotta love those strings.) If you don't like teen pop (which is perfectly fine, by definition it's target audience is more focused than other strains of pop) then obviously she won't appeal to you.

But it's all moot, really. As you said, there probably isn't an objective criteria for music and, even if there was, that kind of analysis would probably be wasted on Carly Rae Jepsen. Her music doesn't require that kind of thought or validation.

Yeah, I'll give you that. For some reason I didn't even consider genre when I wrote that post. Doesn't make John Cage any less fascinating for me, but you make excellent points.

[Radar]

If someone was to attempt to objectively find the value in music they most certainly would not use a universal criteria for all music. That'd be just absurd. Traits that make a progressive rock piece good would make a punk rock piece bad, for instance. Different genres have different goals and, as a result, should be judged differently.
It still wouldn't be enough, since there is no objective way of defining a genre or ascribing a song to a genre. Therefore it would still be subjective.

Let's face it, if you try to objectify and quantify art, you inevitably end up with something subjective and not very useful anyway.

Best summed up here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4).

[DJ Yung Crunk]

It still wouldn't be enough, since there is no objective way of defining a genre or ascribing a song to a genre. Therefore it would still be subjective.

Let's face it, if you try to objectify and quantify art, you inevitably end up with something subjective and not very useful anyway.

Best summed up here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4).

Oh, you're preaching to the choir. I really want to emphasize the "attempt" part in the beginning on my paragraph.

[bbgenderless100]

As much as I can't stand it, I love Carly Rae Jepson. Is that bad?
Is it bad to adore a musician? what is bad about it? it is really bad? this is very subjective.

I like her music and all my friends think it's stupid.
It's called freedom of speech.

Not even being dumb or anything,
You have the right to be whatever.


I legit enjoy the crap.
So? :smallamused: and check out my thread.

[Scowling Dragon]

Nope it isn't bad. THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsUXAEzaC3Q), is bad.

[Makensha]

Traits that make a progressive rock piece good would make a punk rock piece bad, for instance.
Or it would just make Prog Punk. Which sounds really awesome and I am wondering why I never looked it up before.

Aren't we all so ready to embrace people and tell them that whatever they want to do is fine? That haters gonna hate, and that what you like is your personal choice? That we are not defined by our contemporaries, or that we are defined by our differences from our contemporaries?

But why are you listening to Carly Rae Jepson? Are there bands out there that are better than her? And I don't mean objectively better, but I mean bands that you would personally like more than her if you knew they existed? But you don't know, because you don't know they exist. You will never find them if you don't look.

Is it bad? I guess that depends. How important is music to you? Does it bug you that huge corporations promote a couple bands who become ridiculously popular and rich, while most bands who are in all ways, but production value, superior make less than minimum wage?

Does it bother you that somebody produced her music; that she co-wrote all but two songs on her Kiss records, and those two she didn't write at all? Does it bother you that she never sings anything worth contemplating?

If none of that bothers you, then no, it is not bad that you enjoy Carly Rae Jepson's "Call Me Maybe." Enjoy it as much as you can. It is designed to be enjoyable.

But if it does bother you, find the nearest, cheapest pop concert with bands you've never heard of and see if you enjoy them. If you don't, ask yourself was it worth the experience? Did you see potential in those bands? Would you be willing to try again, even if to no avail?

If not, it is fine. Keep listening to Jepsen. Just as Jepsen is not for everyone, the underground is not for everyone.

But you asked if it is bad that you like "Call Me Maybe." Maybe I flunked psychology, but that signals to me that you are looking for something more. If you are looking for something more, start searching.

If you are looking for validation, then yes, "Call Me Maybe" is a well designed song that you should enjoy unashamed.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Or it would just make Prog Punk. Which sounds really awesome and I am wondering why I never looked it up before.

Examples? Keeping in mind I don't consider The Mars Volta or Coheed & Cambria as "Prog Punk". They have elements of post-hardcore, at best, and it's a real stretch to call that "Prog Punk". If you have other examples, though.

[VanBuren]

Examples? Keeping in mind I don't consider The Mars Volta or Coheed & Cambria as "Prog Punk". They have elements of post-hardcore, at best, and it's a real stretch to call that "Prog Punk". If you have other examples, though.

Franz Ferdinand and Interpol come to mind.

EDIT: From the definitions I'm familiar with, prog punk is another name for post-punk, which is also different from post-hardcore.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Franz Ferdinand and Interpol come to mind.

See I consider that new wave. I can't say I've heard enough Franz Ferdinand to know for sure but Interpol is, for sure, new wave.

[VanBuren]

See I consider that new wave. I can't say I've heard enough Franz Ferdinand to know for sure but Interpol is, for sure, new wave.

New Wave more or less ended in the 80s though. Besides, it's not as though post-punk revival wasn't clearly influenced by New Wave.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

New Wave more or less ended in the 80s though.

It's 2013. There are no dead genres anymore. In any case, they ain't "prog punk" I can tell y'that.

[VanBuren]

It's 2013. There are no dead genres anymore. In any case, they ain't "prog punk" I can tell y'that.

And I can tell you the exact opposite, thanks to how vaguely those genres are defined, and how they're all part of the same family. So much so, that the post punk revival is also known as New Wave revival (http://www.webcitation.org/5wXTJhkeb), garage rock revival (http://www.amazon.com/Rock-Roll-History-Stylistic-Development/dp/0131930982/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360645667&sr=8-1&keywords=0131930982), or new rock revolution (http://books.google.com/books?id=yqmlNOuYQdEC&pg=PA95&dq=Spitz+%22The+New+Rock+Revolution%22&hl=en&ei=O4_FTd2ULdK4twfizZSlBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC0Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=Spitz%20%22The%20New%20Rock%20Revolution%22&f=false).

These hairs are so incredibly fine. We may as well just throw them all under the Alternative Rock umbrella.

EDIT: Incidentally, the term post-punk was originally coined to differentiate bands like The Cure and Joy Division from New Wave.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

And I can tell you the exact opposite, thanks to how vaguely those genres are defined, and how they're all part of the same family. So much so, that the post punk revival is also known as New Wave revival (http://www.webcitation.org/5wXTJhkeb), garage rock revival (http://www.amazon.com/Rock-Roll-History-Stylistic-Development/dp/0131930982/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360645667&sr=8-1&keywords=0131930982), or new rock revolution (http://books.google.com/books?id=yqmlNOuYQdEC&pg=PA95&dq=Spitz+%22The+New+Rock+Revolution%22&hl=en&ei=O4_FTd2ULdK4twfizZSlBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC0Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=Spitz%20%22The%20New%20Rock%20Revolution%22&f=false).

These hairs are so incredibly fine. We may as well just throw them all under the Alternative Rock umbrella.

EDIT: Incidentally, the term post-punk was originally coined to differentiate bands like The Cure and Joy Division from New Wave.

Hey, how about we move this to the music discussion thread, hm? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14695472&postcount=1012)

[Bradle]

Absolutely not because music & lyrics two different things many people like only the lyrics & many persons like the music & they ignore the lyrics just enjoyed the music so according to my think her lyrics & music cox he produce the really fast music.