List Break - Defense

It seems that some people are having problems with my rather harsh opinions. When my facebook friends told me about my blog they stated that I was singleminded and overly opinionated. I certainly am opinionated, I think that can be a good quality for a critic. Let's look at Roger Ebert, probably the most well-known movie critic in the country. Like me, he looks at things through critical analysis, he doesn't just say movies suck or are great without telling us why. But it is his opinions that drive the analysis, it's what he believes makes a good movie. He is never swayed by what other people say, he has given negative reviews to some my favorite movies (Edward Scissorhands is one example).

Critics who aren't opinionated are far worse than those who are overly opinionated. Rolling Stone magazine has been around since the 70's and have reviewed many classic albums before they became classic. They have such weak opinions, that they actually go back and try to correct themselves. Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Black Sabbath, and Nirvana all received scathing reviews from Rolling Stone back in the day. But when everyone else started talking about how great they were, they went back and said that they fucked up. Wimpy little bastards.

As for my singleminded nature, I will admit I give rock music a bit more credit than I do other genres, but do you not think I have a reason? Here's one thing that a twelve year old I know came up with. The reason why rock music is so much better than pop music, is because it leaves a lasting impression. It's true. People today still talk about musicians who are fifty years old, like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, and Joni Mitchell just to name a few. How many pop acts from fifty years ago can you think of? Unless your fifty years old, or someone who must posses all knowledge of the 60's, I'm guessing you couldn't think of a lot. In fifty years, do you really think that Taylor Swift or T-Pain will be timeless classic artists?

My last argument is a systematic breakdown. All my friends hate when I call Taylor Swift, T-Pain, Akon, Rihanna, Chris Brown, Soulja Boy, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, Avril Lavigne, Carrie Underwood, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, The Jonas Brothers, and the person who is such a bad musician, typing her name is too disgusting for me to do (She made the song Poker Face). These are some of the worst musicians who have ever lived. And I can explain why. There are three levels of disliking music: lack of appeal, lack of talent, and lack of integrity. The first is lack of appeal. I've honestly tried as hard as I can, but I do not like Bruce Springsteen or Elton John, two highly regarded musicians. I can say however, that they are good musicians, they just lack anything appealing to me. This is my opinion and I know that they are not bad, but I can't get used to them.

The next level is lack of talent. Let's look at REO Speedwagon. I do not like REO Speedwagon at all, and unlike Bruce and Elton, I think that Kevin Cronin and his band are just bad. They write uncreative and annoying 80's pop/rock that is dull and derivative. However, REO Speedwagon do posses something that keeps them from being like Britney Spears: They have integrity. Before becoming superstars in the 80's, REO had released 10 albums over an entire decade with no success. They finally became huge with 1980's Hi Infidelity, but they in that lousy album, they created something that they wanted to do, and felt inside. They had a vision and made it, while be it poor. They are serious artists, however untalented.

There is one low that only the despicable can hit: lack of integrity. Miley Cyrus, who is a successful performer, lacks Bruce's and Elton's talent, and REO's integrity. She merely produces safe, forgettable, pop music that sells. Disney decided they wanted more money, so they got this teenage girl to start singing pop songs, so that she could make them richer, not because she had a vision of art. It is not art, it is merely white noise, that will fill a space so that people who do not appreciate music can buy it for 99 cents and play it when they need to break silence. It doesn't dare to be different, or inventive, it only exists so that it can sell to a specific audience. Look at Taylor Swift's lyrics: They are all designed to please the majority audience.

If anyone is still thinking that I can't prove this, let's take my music is art statement one step further. Picasso was a great painter. He was a passionate, and soulful man, who made odd, abstract paintings to express himself. Let's compare that to another painting: A two-dimensional drawing of a house by 5 year old. He made it because his teacher told him too, and his parents may post it up because it looks it cute. Let's say that Picasso is Kurt Cobain, and they 5 year old is Britney Spears. Kurt was a passionate man, who expressed his inner demons and doubt through his music. Britney Spears just made music in order to satisfy demands (from her customers and record company). She doesn't make art that comes from her own thoughts, then she would've written the songs herself. There can be good pop musicians: Michael Jackson and Duran Duran, because they tried to make something good and memorable, they made art. Britney just made safe music like a two-dimensional drawing of a house: It is pleasing to the eyes (ears), but has hardly any effort, nor is it anything she can call art.

Well, my friends, this is why I am so singleminded: There are so few pieces of true art in the world, and there are many who will try to usurp the place of artists so that they can make money. Anyone can spurt out sounds, but only true dedication and feeling can be good.