but... i agree with her. just not the banana thing. lol @ "it fits in your butt"... hilarious and gets you lots of points in debating class. But her answer "not in mine" was pretty fucking good too.

you can sit there in your evolved (fatass) body getting all smug about logic and evidence, but you don't know the answers to the big questions.

I love (hate) how he skips over the whole "abiogenesis" thing, then explains about some lightning but doesn't say where the lightning comes from, etc. etc...

Her point was, you can trace everything back to 0.00000000000001 seconds after the origin, but you have no idea what the origin is. Or the origin of the origin.

God is everything. That doesn't make sense to smug atheist assholes but hey, God doesn't really give a fuck about making sense to smug atheist assholes, that's not his gig.

But I REALLY like bananas!

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I just disagree. there IS such thing as "good" music, and there is such thing as "crap" music. but there's some different issues getting mixed up here, so let me explain...

The comparison to filet mignon and bananas is pathetic. Man did not create bananas. Nobody had the choice of creating a totally new plant and decided on the banana. The banana is not art. You could even say the banana is a higher form of food than filet mignon, because god/evolution made it over a period of billions of years. That has nothing to do with 2unlimited making a pop song.

anyway. i could write a book about this but... consider this question:

is it possible to study music?

if you answer yes, then please stop with your postpostpostmodern "it's just my opinion" bullshit. There is a theory of music. It works. Pop sells because it uses the theory very well. Bad songs don't use the theory well. The theory is scientific. If you study it you will write "better" songs. Some people have better intuition, but you can study it.

Some writers, for example Elton John, churn out the same stuff over and over, and i personally can't stand it. But it is good music. I would prefer if he innovated more, and i vomit at the thought of having to endure one of his concerts, but i have to accept that he is a master songwriter. Not just because of his popularity and durability, although that's a pretty good indicator.

You are getting confused by genres. There is good pop and bad pop, good techno and bad techno, good classical music and bad classical music (but we kinda lost all the bad classical over time, because it was bad, so now it looks like all classical music was perfect)

You might not like these modern repetitive drum sounds, but your african ancestors did.

You might prefer Kylie to Celine Dion, but they both make good quality music. People use the words "bad" and "good" to encompass all things, but i would argue that there are fundamentals at work, and then your preference is a thin layer on top.

Peronally, I call Celine Dion "bad" but i am expressing an opinion on the way she does not innovate, she goes for the easy win, and i think innovation is essential because it's how we got to the great music we have today. But hey, not everyone wants to contribute, some people just want to cash in.

Bjork is right that if music makes you happy, you should listen to it and enjoy it and not worry about snobs.

BUT

She, and the commenters above, are wrong to dismiss the idea that you could actually educate yourself and improve your taste

Taste isn't a lucky dip of equally valid choices, it is a scale from bad taste to good taste.

A person with good taste usually likes many genres, but chooses the particular songs and artists carefully. He/she usually plays an instrument or sings or has studied music or has had parents who constantly played good music in the house. Coincidence? Or education?

I am not just being technical here, music has many facets which take more than 15 seconds and an IQ of 56 to appreciate, and the music industry and media distort the supply of music, and governments don't seem interested in teaching music, so look at the crap we get.

In summary, i just can't stand it when people say it's all a matter of taste. It is not that simple.

it should be noted that bjork has never made a shitty song in her life ... so is she just saying that's it's an accident that she was born with the same tastes as millions of people? Or is there something fundamentally powerful in her music that makes people change their tastes... to move their tastes closer to hers, because they learnt something without even noticing. Does she just write whatever frequencies she feels like? Or does she use a piano with strings tightened to frequencies which are mysteriously "good" and accepted by billions of people?

Does anyone "prefer" the 6.34572/42 time signature?? No.

Would you accept that the reason you don't understand some music is because you are ignorant? You say you "don't like it" as if you've taken the time to study it and come to a knowledgeable conclusion. I guess you haven't.

You just say it's all about taste because you can't be bothered to learn anything.

I just disagree. there IS such thing as "good" music, and there is such thing as "crap" music. but there's some different issues getting mixed up here, so let me explain...

The comparison to filet mignon and bananas is pathetic. Man did not create bananas. Nobody had the choice of creating a totally new plant and decided on the banana. The banana is not art. You could even say the banana is a higher form of food than filet mignon, because god/evolution made it over a period of billions of years. That has nothing to do with 2unlimited making a pop song.

anyway. i could write a book about this but... consider this question:

is it possible to study music?

if you answer yes, then please stop with your postpostpostmodern "it's just my opinion" bullshit. There is a theory of music. It works. Pop sells because it uses the theory very well. Bad songs don't use the theory well. The theory is scientific. If you study it you will write "better" songs. Some people have better intuition, but you can study it.

Some writers, for example Elton John, churn out the same stuff over and over, and i personally can't stand it. But it is good music. I would prefer if he innovated more, and i vomit at the thought of having to endure one of his concerts, but i have to accept that he is a master songwriter. Not just because of his popularity and durability, although that's a pretty good indicator.

You are getting confused by genres. There is good pop and bad pop, good techno and bad techno, good classical music and bad classical music (but we kinda lost all the bad classical over time, because it was bad, so now it looks like all classical music was perfect)

You might not like these modern repetitive drum sounds, but your african ancestors did.

You might prefer Kylie to Celine Dion, but they both make good quality music. People use the words "bad" and "good" to encompass all things, but i would argue that there are fundamentals at work, and then your preference is a thin layer on top.

Peronally, I call Celine Dion "bad" but i am expressing an opinion on the way she does not innovate, she goes for the easy win, and i think innovation is essential because it's how we got to the great music we have today. But hey, not everyone wants to contribute, some people just want to cash in.

Bjork is right that if music makes you happy, you should listen to it and enjoy it and not worry about snobs.

BUT

She, and the commenters above, are wrong to dismiss the idea that you could actually educate yourself and improve your taste

Taste isn't a lucky dip of equally valid choices, it is a scale from bad taste to good taste.

A person with good taste usually likes many genres, but chooses the particular songs and artists carefully. He/she usually plays an instrument or sings or has studied music or has had parents who constantly played good music in the house. Coincidence? Or education?

I am not just being technical here, music has many facets which take more than 15 seconds and an IQ of 56 to appreciate, and the music industry and media distort the supply of music, and governments don't seem interested in teaching music, so look at the crap we get.

In summary, i just can't stand it when people say it's all a matter of taste. It is not that simple.

it should be noted that bjork has never made a shitty song in her life ... so is she just saying that's it's an accident that she was born with the same tastes as millions of people? Or is there something fundamentally powerful in her music that makes people change their tastes... to move their tastes closer to hers, because they learnt something without even noticing. Does she just write whatever frequencies she feels like? Or does she use a piano with strings tightened to frequencies which are mysteriously "good" and accepted by billions of people?

Does anyone "prefer" the 6.34572/42 time signature?? No.

Would you accept that the reason you don't understand some music is because you are ignorant? You say you "don't like it" as if you've taken the time to study it and come to a knowledgeable conclusion. I guess you haven't.

You just say it's all about taste because you can't be bothered to learn anything.