<p>^ Ew. Sodas have boatloads of acid in them. Did you know that if you leave a steak in a bowl of Coke (or Pepsi), it'll dissolve after a while?</p>
<p>So basically, if you swam in a pool of Pepsi, you would dissolve hahaha</p>
<p>has anybody seen Patch Adams? A pool of noodles! haha that old lady is so adorable :)</p>
<p>I dont get why everyone hates britney or rhianna</p>
<p>Exactly! So his music is so sweet, you dissolve in it. That means that you need to immerse yourself in his melodies and words. Try it, you shall not regret it.</p>
<p>^ Because their songs are the lyrical equivalent of a children's book and their melodies are the audible equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. Pre-packaged, commercialized, overhyped drivel, fueled by the ignorance of the general public.</p>
<p>Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers are the two biggest examples of that ^</p>
<p>I actually think I may have one Kenny Chesney song in my Pangaea-sized library (nerdy reference? maybe)...............<em>checks</em> I DO! "When the Sun Goes Down"</p>
<p>I am so ashamed. <em>deletes</em></p>
<p>I checked the rest of it, and the only other country I have at all is two songs by Dierks Bentley (whose voice is considerably more euphonious than Kenny Chesney's) and "When You Say Nothing at All" by Alison Krauss (which is less country and more blues/classic)</p>
<p>P.S. I just discovered yesterday that the song in Anchorman ("Afternoon Delight") is actually a real song by a real band: Here's</a> the original... and</a> here's the much improved rendition hahaha how hilarious is that???!!!</p>
<p>Okay, that stone was not meant for Kenny and Brad P. That would not have been open minded enough.
The pop stars essentially go out with themselves and it is the smae scripted nonesense all the time.</p>
<p>^ Yeah but Kenny and Brad do the exact...same...thing, meaning they write stereotypical, uncreative songs simply for the sake of selling records and winning Grammys, not for making something beautiful for beauty's sake.</p>
<p>Okay, hookem is not making this discussion a good one.
I think you deserve a break. Country made the town you live in.
Country may not be the best, but those few who loved the tunes include the last nine presidents (minus Obama). Start pointing fingers; they are all Yale grads.
If you think your music is the best, shove your ear phones into your ears and blast your drums into the stone age. You do not even seem to care at all.</p>
<p>We are students making decent jokes, not dismissing others like you are.</p>
<p>^ haha I'm not dismissing them entirely, just saying that you should expand your musical knowledge a bit.</p>
<p>P.S. You haven't said it quite yet, but I just want to warn you:
never say "no type of music is 'better' than any other."</p>
<p>That's not true. That'd be like saying that the quality of wine depends on the palate of the beholder, which is false. Some people may think that $5 red wine from the local gas station "tastes better" than a 1982 Margaux, but that's just because they haven't developed sensitive enough palates. There's a reason that a bottle of '82 Margaux can costs upwards of $1000. (Check</a> that. This one's "on sale" for $2500+) It's objectively better, no matter what the general public may think.</p>
<p>Similarly, an art expert can tell the difference in quality between good abstract art and a child's splatter painting, even if they look similar to an uncultured eye (like mine, I'm an art n00b compared to some of my teachers haha)</p>
<p>enough. it ends here. you are not the person to say what is good or what is bad.
if it tastes better, then enjoy it. If it does not, allow the other guy to like what he tastes.</p>
<p>*<strong><em>P.S. You haven't said it quite yet, but I just want to warn you:
never say "no type of music is 'better' than any other." *</em></strong></p>
<p>THEN THEN THEN THEN THEN THEN THEN THEN, HE SAYS HE SAYS HE SAYS HE SAYS:</p>
<p><strong><em>^ Yeah but Kenny and Brad do the exact...same...thing, meaning they write stereotypical, uncreative songs simply for the sake of selling records and winning Grammys, not for making something beautiful for beauty's sake.</em></strong></p>
<p>We are not ten year olds here, I hope you know that. You either think music is good/bad or you accept what everyone listens to. You seem to think what you listen to is better than what I listen to. I think that type of talk will get you lost at Yale. </p>
<p>Enough! You are not worth a sit-down, much more my words. Put your flute and iPod in your bed and have a goodnight sleep.</p>
<p>You're perpetuating the myth and proving my point, by proxy.</p>
<p>Of course some music is good and some music is bad. To think otherwise is childish. Do you think Cannibal Corpse made music as well as Bach or Beethoven? I'm not even a classical buff, but I understand that their songwriting ability remains almost unparalleled.</p>
<p>Similarly, isn't The David or The Pietat objectively better than a clay bowl you made in 5th grade art class? Of course it is!</p>
<p>Expanding musical knowledge? Excuse me? I missed that.
I listen to music from Ethiopia, Kenya, Central African Republic, Congo, India, Bangladesh, Ghana, Nigeria, England (old and new), the United States, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Russia, and more Russia, Korea, Korea, and more Korea, and I can sing the Messiah for you right now.</p>
<p>MY musical knowledge? If I choose to immerse myself in country, it is because I want to connect with people whom I have never met before. I just met two of them here, no thanks to you. </p>
<p>MY musical knowledge is broad enough for a 16 year old, thank you very much.</p>
<p>Enough of this. We are speaking of music and not 5th grade art class.
We are comparing likes, and making them parrallel or proving otherwise
What makes me dance may not make you dance.
Are you telling me that music from the hinterlands in Mail is NOT of equal quality as compared to what Bach, Rhianna, 2face, or whoever you are calling made?</p>
<p>Grow up yet, would you? And I am 16? urgh</p>
<p>^ If you truly have listened to that wide of a range of music (especially the Messiah) and still find commercial country attractive, I pity you.</p>
<p>If you claim to be from the Lonestar state, want to go to Yale, want to meet a diverse group of people, and still think like that, I pity YOU. You need some exposure. What you may think is good enough for you has not helped you at all </p>
<p>Pretty sad world we live in; you build castles in the air and think they could collaps and leave the roof intact.</p>
<p>Oh, for your information: my interview was about music. I did not need to call names, recall 5th grade art or invke Bach's resting soul. We spoke about music and evolution. </p>
<p>Tonight as you sleep, think about the correlation. It could help you on an essay.</p>
<p>Goodnight, this discussion is ajourned!</p>
<p>^ bahahahahahaha isn't he great, ladies and gentlemen? Truly, truly fantastic. It's almost as if he actually believes what he's saying! Of course, we all know that no one would ever really cling to such an unintelligent view of the world, but he puts forth such a brilliant show! It's like he actually thinks I haven't considered the relationship between music and evolution, and the fact that the two are incredibly disparate for basic, definitional reasons! In fact, he even manages to communicate his "beliefs" with broken syntax and incomprehensible, nonexistent rhetoric! What a convincing performance.</p>
<p><em>sigh</em> If only......</p>
<p>HOLD UP.</p>
<p>What happened in here?</p>
<p>The beauty of music is that there are so many different styles, there's going to be something that everyone can enjoy. There is no more right or wrong in music taste than there is in what colour you choose to paint your bedroom walls. If I wanted to paint my room blue, but you don't like blue, would it be wrong? No, because it's my room and I'm the one who lives there. In terms of technical prowess, sure, the great composers are definitely up there as very skilled musicians. But Mozart wouldn't have been able to write a country and western song. The Beatles probably wouldn't have been able to write hip-hop. Jay Z probably couldn't write a heavy metal song. But that's what's so awesome about music. Is that music is an expression of emotion and a way of reflecting on the world around us and it's constantly changing and different things reach out to different people. At that very basic level, it's simply a matter of taste and personal opinion. And ultimately, genre means nothing. If you like it, listen to it.</p>
<p>Play nice! :)</p>
<p>^ Right, but there's a flaw in that logic. Certain genres of music inherently necessitate more technical prowess and talent that other genres. Country, for instance, requires far less musical ability than classical or lyric-based folk. I do, however, give lots of credit to <strong>real</strong> hip-hop. One of my favorite quotes by my extremely elitist, hypereducated debate coach is "Eminem was and is a complete genius." I, personally, wouldn't take it that far, but many rap songs require lots of poetic talent to write. Others don't.</p>
<p>Pop is the ultimate example of my argument here. The music Hannah Montana produces requires zero talent. Absolutely none. She doesn't write any of it (and the writing itself is god-awful); the singing is edited electronically (and the melodies themselves are atonal and overly simplistic), and then she lipsyncs it onstage (to a horde of screaming 12 year olds). I don't give a damn if "some people like it." They're not just "different;" they're wrong. Now, there can certainly be some mutual "agreement to disagree" at the upper echelons of music (like "who was better: Stevie Ray Vaughan or Frank Sinatra?" That's an impossible question). However, on the more basic levels, objective comparison is totally warranted.</p>