Why Sup Forums is so triggered by her? what did she do wrong?

why Sup Forums is so triggered by her? what did she do wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Aqp3Ic8iwWE
youtube.com/watch?v=XCbAEkfXSDE
youtube.com/watch?v=8-r-V0uK4u0
youtube.com/watch?v=L_hFrJ-FM2o
youtube.com/watch?v=bZPLVDwEr7Y
youtube.com/watch?v=fi2N5KHgO80
youtube.com/watch?v=s7rM67NPhZ8
noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/who-says-girls-cant-find-music-jane-abernethy-tuneyards-grimes
stereogum.com/1710871/grimes-shares-13-lessons-on-being-a-boss/news/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Its not her its her fans who wont fuCK OFF

Also she makes shit music.

she is so ugly that the fat neckbeards lurking here can actually relate to her

because it's weird that people are so intensely obsessed with her a year after Art Angels dropped

shit argument. if she would be like a super-model, you would say her fans only like her because she's beautiful. no matter how she would look like, you would spin it to suit your stupid 'agenda'.

It's her only album that's not suicide-inducingly boring so it kinda makes sense.

She's not conventional attractive and she has opinions

Sup Forums is threatened by a strong Canadian cutie

>implying her older albums are boring

>basic as fuck beats with some meaning for 50 minutes
Sorry, they are.

>with some moaning*
Whoops

beautiful

Nah her music is just shit

Because of these dogits haha

>posting a shitty, old, photoshopped pic instead a good one
>thinking that a bad picture is defining for her appearance
>saving that picture on his stupid harddisk like a huge faggot

nigga it took me only 2 seconds to download and upload this picture

>can't get into grimes music

top pleb

i don't give a fuck how long it takes to download & upload the pic. the point is that you saved that pic with the purpose to shitpost Sup Forums with it. like a faggot.

It's more that people get annoyed when there are constantly multiple threads about a generic popstar where nothing music related is ever discussed. Thread that have random fanatics singing the praises of some twee girl for all sorts of imagined reasons and it's always asspulls and nonsense.

Like, she's a passable popstar with some very irritable twee behaviour and that's it. Stop posting nothing threads about her.

>generic popstar
who else is like her?

saw her yesterday at corona capital
she was acting like if she was one of those girls that are shy nervous and shit but then she was all pumped up and singing and dancing.

it was like:
>h-hey g-guys..
>the n-next two are m-my favourite, hope y-you like em... ;)

Holy shit you're like actually mad user haha

>who else is like her?
That's not the criteria I am referring to. She makes inoffensive pop music entirely derivative of older pop music. That makes her definitively a generic popstar.

You could just as easily say "who else is like Lady Gaga?" or "who else is like [anyone]?". No one is like anyone else, her approach to music is entirely gentrified and solely for profit.

Because of that:
>Around the time she released the homegrown clip for “Vanessa”—a poppy, angelic-sounding single from a 2011 split release with Montreal musician d’Eon that would become her first real breakout track—the idea of a “fake pop star” would emerge: Grimes as a fictional character played by Boucher, crooning songs that the real-life Boucher had written for her to sing. “I didn’t want to be a pop star—I wanted to be like Phil Spector,” she says, pointing to her natural shyness. “I wanted to be the person behind the scenes who no one ever had to look at—who just could be crazy and be a genius and have a performer fulfill their creative wishes. But that wasn’t possible, so I just had to do it myself.”

Claire is the shy real person, Grimes is her fierce alter ego.

Well, you idiot, if no one is like her it means she's not generic. See what generic means, pal.

I literally explained how she is, mate, and your best response is ignoring that explanation and calling me an idiot. Grow up mate, your wide-nosed waifu isn't the best thing in the world. It's not a big deal.

And by the way
>inoffensive pop music
What is inoffensive about a song like this youtube.com/watch?v=Aqp3Ic8iwWE ? Did you ever hear a song like this in the charts? Post names.

Absolutely nothing. It's just that she's an easy way for trolls like you to get a rise out of people - any truly negative reputation she has on this board is entirely your fault.

Your explanations sucks.

>She makes inoffensive pop music entirely derivative of older pop music. That makes her definitively a generic popstar.
It seems you didn't get the memo that everything in music is based on what came before. You can't be 100% original, that's a fact. She used some elements from the past music but she added her own creativity. Madonna did her thing, Aphex Twin did his thing, Kraftwerk did their thing, Mariah Carey did her thing, but nobody else did all those things combined. Until Grimes. She twisted all those influences into her own sound. There's nothing generic about her music because nothing else sounds like it as a whole. Prove me wrong.

Yes, I have. All the way through the early 90s. You know, the music that she's currently ripping off.

youtube.com/watch?v=XCbAEkfXSDE

youtube.com/watch?v=8-r-V0uK4u0

It's stylistically no different from the late, radio-grunge bands just with some tacked on 2010's tropes a la Kyary Pamyu Pamyu, Lady Gaga et al.

Also, one track does not a back catalogue make.

Stop backpedaling and responding like a 6 year old who just got told he can't have spaghetti hoops for dinner. Contest me properly or stop replying.

Me again.
And I'm saying this as a HUGE Grimes fan.

>It seems you didn't get the memo that everything in music is based on what came before
Bullshit. While it is implausible for a sound, or a bar to be original, that is unrelated to anything I had written and the way in which you phrased implies that every exact song already exists which is absolute bullshit.

I referred to Grimes as derivative, because she is. She derives from music from the late 80s and early 90s and everything she has made is just a vapid reconstruction of those glorified 'influences'. There's nothing new in her output, nothing worthwhile. She doesn't present anything other than 'here's some stuff from years ago that I mashed together and drained all of the life out of. It sounds nostalgiac and I dress fashionably so please buy it from me". That's the idea behind her work, it's very clearly legible.

Like her if you want, but don't act like she's anything remotely special. She's no more important to music than David Guetta is; both are sure to be influential in years to come, but neither are anything more than a stylised, derivative cash-grab.

I like Grimes, but she's not special. Grow up.

100% this

Babylon Zoo - Spaceman & Smashing Pumpkins - Bullet with Butterfly Wings are similar to Scream?? Did you even listen to Scream?
>Also, one track does not a back catalogue make.
True. I could post a truckload of tracks, but I have no will to do that. Instead, I'm going to post just one more - youtube.com/watch?v=L_hFrJ-FM2o

>There's nothing new in her output, nothing worthwhile.
So, there's nothing new, nothing worthwile because you say so? Seems "legit".

oh look it's this thread AGAIN.

i'll answer the same way i do every time. maybe this time you boneheads will actually understand (you probably won't)

nobody is triggered by her. we're triggered by her obnoxiously psychotic fanbase here

To quote the GREAT Michael Caine:
>"You always cheat as much as you can - always steal. But only steal from the best people. You steal whatever you've seen. If you've seen Vivian Leigh do something, or if you've seen Marlon Brando do something, or Robert De Niro or Meryl Streep... steal it. Because what you're seeing them do - they stole. You understand? But you can't see who they stole it from because they made it into themselves."
youtube.com/watch?v=bZPLVDwEr7Y

If Grimes were doing what she is doing now back in the 1990s, then you would be exactly right about her being generic. However - she isn't. She's doing things that other people have done in the past NOW in the context of today, which is what makes her art fresh.

PS: Just because I said this doesn't mean I'm not gonna call out stupidity when I see it.

case in point

This.

You're literally avoiding my explanations, you clearly have issues with both your hearing and your ability to understand ideas because, on top of missing the blatant ripping off of both music videos and actual music in the evidence presented, you have failed to understand what I have written and how it explains what Grimes output is about. I will not waste any more time engaging with someone who doesn't even understand the conversation they started.

I explained so, ignoring it isn't an argument.

>stupidity
>misunderstanding quotes
He's talking about how to do something. I explained how all she does is rip stuff off. If her whole schtick was that she rips people off that would be fine, but she presents herself as someone making her own stuff which she is clearly not doing.
Additionally, lifting a technique, like Seurat's pointilism, is one thing but remaking his shitting dot paintings and throwing in an upside-down toilet and a black square is another thing. She takes stuff and sticks it together and there's nothing behind it besides playing on simple pop structures and nostalgiac elements for profit.

That's fine, she can be a shitty capital-centric arsehole all she wants, but that's all she is. There's no great ideas behind her work, she's not worthwhile in the slightest. She makes vapid music that directly rips off other music within a radio pop context for the sake of profit with no conceptual merit.

I really don't like having to restate my arguments, especially when this is a written discussion and you can just read my post properly instead of being a retard and arguing stubbornly because you think liking something makes it 'good'.
Make a proper argument, mate, or fuck off.

i had no problem with grimes until i read this post. kys

Shame that you spent so much time writing that wall of crap. No matter what you're trying to say there (your writing style is very tangled and pseudo intellectual), the point remains: those 2 songs that you posted AREN'T SIMILAR TO SCREAM. Get it? They don't fucking sound the same. So: post a similar song or gtfo and take your convoluted explanations with you.

>There's no great ideas behind her work, she's not worthwhile in the slightest. She makes vapid music that directly rips off other music within a radio pop context for the sake of profit with no conceptual merit.
Just some subjective crap with zero value. You could say that about any piece of music, you fedora prick.

ik this is probably bait but jesus christ

Except Lady Gaga pretty much defined what is now considered pop music, this is an unfair comparison. Grimes is just iterating.

what is wrong with grimesfags?

FUCK OFF

>Grimes is just iterating.
Iterating what? Her music doesn't sound like Gaga. Even in her wildest dreams, Gaga wouldn't be able to make something like Oblivion. It's no wonder she needed Grimes' friend and collaborator (for the songs Go and Phone Sex) Bloodpop on her latest album.

>your writing style is very tangled and pseudo intellectual
So your best argument is
>I'm not very good at reading

>Just some subjective crap with zero value. You could say that about any piece of music, you fedora prick.
That's not subjective, subjectivity is looking at something with regards to yourself and I am not present in that point, mate. Don't use words you don't understand.
I could not say that about any piece of music, because it is specifically about Grimes and is an objective observation based on my listening to her for years - since she first broke out.
I'm not sure how properly criticising something I already told you I like makes me a 'fedora'. Stop sperging out because you want to deify your waifu.

No she didn't and I didn't compare them, I used her to criticise a bullshit statement in very clear and simple English. I can't even comprehend how you got confused by that.

I like a lot of things, guys. I like Hulk Hogan, I like biting my fingernails, I like Grimes. None of those things are 'good', though. Well, Hogan is under certain criteria.
I also like Sion Sono's films, I like Kobo Abe's novels, I like Julia Holter and I like Phillipe Parreno. All of them are (in most cases undeniably) 'good'. My liking something doesn't matter in either case, they are good or not good with respect to themselves and a given criteria. The same goes for any person's preference and any self-important idiot who thinks otherwise is a laughable excuse for an 'intelligent life-form".
I wrote a concise and comprehensive criticism of a synth-pop girl. I was argued at vehemently by several posters who ignored my argument and spammed unrelated nonsense at me because they worship said girl.
My primary point was that you guys talk about Grimes but can't discuss her music and worship her. You proved my point.

What a load of crap, s m h.
>I like Grimes. None of those things are 'good', though.
They're not good to you because taste is subjective. I doubt that you like her if you say she's not good. Maybe you're just a pleb that couldn't understand her music and you just "like" it on a shallow level.
>My primary point was that you guys talk about Grimes but can't discuss her music and worship her. You proved my point.
You didn't prove anything. You didn't even discuss her music, you just spat some vague statements without any support/source. All, decorated with a pretentious language.

I'm done with you, mr. "Seurat's pointilism" pseudo intellectual.

>They're not good to you because taste is subjective
'good' as an objective term. I very clearly explained why she is not 'good' and that your preference is unrelated to something's quality. I explained my liking something and its quality are unrelated. You just responded saying "I'm literally a retard, pls call grimes the best because I like her".

>You didn't even discuss her music
Yes I did, you didn't though. You just randomly jumped to her defense any shitposted.

>pretentious language
No, it is the English language. I haven't even used any complicated terms.

>I'm done with you, mr. "Seurat's pointilism" pseudo intellectual
Yeah, naming one of the most well known figures in painting for a basic analogy is 'pseudo-intellectual'. I forgot that knowing incredibly famous people makes you a pseudo-intellectual. OH WAIT! That's right, it doesn't. It just triggers idiots who like to argue on the internet about things they don't understand when someone who does understand something explains it to them so they use words they don't understand to try to discredit an argument they refuse to actually argue against because engaging in a discussion in a website for discussions is so entirely alien to them.

You know, learning new things will make you a better person, randomly disputing them because a girl you'll never meet was critiqued is fucking retarded. Especially when you don't even understand how to argue or what it is you're trying to argue.

her fans are just idiots that triggers me, they should check their privilege

Thish ish autism

Just admit you are absolutely incapable of intelligent discussion so you post that pic

>engaging in a discussion on a discussion website is a mental disorder
>posting juvenile insults because you lost an argument is totally bodacious
(you) are what's wrong with this website

Congrats on getting trolled, troll.

>If her whole schtick was that she rips people off that would be fine, but she presents herself as someone making her own stuff which she is clearly not doing.
She makes her own stuff directly based on other people's stuff - in EXACTLY the same fashion as the Michael Caine quote I included above, and for EXACTLY the same reasons. We know this for a fact because she has OPENLY STATED it outright (skip to 4:50 - youtube.com/watch?v=fi2N5KHgO80 ):
>It's the first time that I've had the budget or the skill-set to actually reference any of the music that I actually grew up on. Like, in one of these songs... it's the same guitar sound as A Perfect Circle. And so it conjures all these ideas. There's just that whole lineage of music. And then every sound and every color and every visual has a giant connection to human history that just goes back thousands of years. You can't just erase that stuff and pretend it doesn't exist. That visual and that sound means all these things, whether you want them to or not.

>My primary point was that you guys talk about Grimes but can't discuss her music and worship her.
...I'm just gonna assume that what you wrote here isn't even remotely what you meant.

just shut the fuck already goddamnit you faggots are so fucking annoyi

>If I wait a couple of hours before posting "whatever you wrote doesn't matter because I have ultra-hyper-autism and I am immune to sense, logic and competent discussion" so that I can get the last word
I don't know why that other guy humoured you for so long, but "you're wrong because I want to be right" isn't an argument and you were BTFO'd already.

>Whining about losing an argument you thought you had already won
Lol

it's the constant spamming of her and de-railing threads with shit about her. that's why.

>Grimes did an interview where she admitted that she just lifts things from specific songs for the sake of taking advantage of nostalgia like you said so you're wrong
What? Mate, come one. I dot he whole professional creative thing, I know about this stuff. She's not in any way even remotely conceptually valid; Grimes is to conceptual validity as you are to reasonable and competent discourse. That's a pretty sick burn in my line of work, straight up G' shit - though I'm sure it will be lost on you.

Anyway, you can't just appropriate quotes, take them out of their contexts and use them to prop up your lack of an argument, especially when your attempt at a last-gasp defense is googling maniacally for some bullshit interview where she advertises her lack of creativity as a selling point.

Like her all you want, I like her as well. She's not special, though. She's not remarkable. She's entirely ordinary, she brings nothing new to the table at all. She's kind of like Queen in that she has this image-based gimmick and uses trends and takes advantage of the fashion 'non-conformists' to be the star of their market before crossing into the mainstream market and sitting pretty on top of run-of-the-mill pop songs with weak instrumentation and no conceptual value.

>...I'm just gonna assume that what you wrote here isn't even remotely what you meant.
You're going to assume the thing I wrote multiple times and the argument you clearly proved isn't what I meant? You do realise that's what you are arguing against, right?

see
>come one. I dot he whole professional creative thing, I know about this stuff.
So do I - it's how I make a living in fact.

Good artists borrow, great artists steal. If you haven't figured that out yet, that just means you have a lot more learning to do - assuming you wish to achieve your full potential in whatever your chosen art form happens to be.

>So do I - it's how I make a living in fact.
No you don't. If you were a professional creative of any real calibre then you wouldn't be confused by simple statements, you wouldn't complain about the verbiage I've used and you wouldn't be arguing against the very basic principles regarding creative works that makes up by very simple argument that you've been randomly throwing nonsense at this entire thread.

>Good artists borrow, great artists steal. If you haven't figured that out yet, that just means you have a lot more learning to do
What? That's the name of a book by some random guy and it's not really anything worth ever mentioning.

>your chosen art form
>art form
>in 2016
here's how I know you're full of shit. Art form is a non-term, since art refers to the communication of an idea through a created work and specifically focuses on the idea. The work of art is in the communication of a message, not in craftwork. Furthermore, if there are 'art forms' then any medium that art has been made with is one. Therefore being shot, vomiting, walking, owning a balloon, combing your hair and planking are all 'art forms' as is everything else ever and by proxy the word 'art' doesn't mean anything.

If someone says 'art form' they admit to knowing nothing about 'art'.

Also, that's not an argument or remotely relevant to anything anyway. You've not countered any points or even improved your own, you're just making random, empty statements based in nothing. Please stop wasting my time.

>Like her all you want, I like her as well. She's not special, though. She's not remarkable. She's entirely ordinary, she brings nothing new to the table at all.
That's why people posts about her non stop since 2012 because she's ordinary. It makes "sense". Get your head out of the sand. All you said is a massive (You).

*people post

>randomly throwing nonsense at this entire thread.
user, as of my writing this thread has featured upwards of 26 separate posters...

>That's the name of a book by some random guy
Lol

>art form
>in 2016
Yes. Art form in [GASP] 2016. As in the physical medium by which the art you are purportedly involved in creating gets communicated.

>people talk about her because she's good
No, mate, and if you actually read my post you'd not randomly misconstrue it like that. She has marketed herself at a demographic. A demographic that has historically proven to be easy to exploit. The same demographic youtubers, crunchyroll and so forth live off of. The
>'ew, normies are the worst, I only watch god films like Batman and listen to good music like Grimes'
demographic.
The 14-30 year old, socially awkward market. The 'I have low self-esteem and desperately want to belong' market. The 'if someone in the public eye says something I take it as gospel" subsection of society.

Your argument may as well say
>people post about Naruto all the time so it must be the best anime
>people post about Kanye all the time, of course he's a genius
>people post about FIFA every day, obviously it's the best video game

What are you even trying to argue? That there are lots of idiots on this website? That's not news. Have you ever monitored an election? People tend to support the worst options. People like what you tell them to like and the media told you to like Grimes so you do.

>first two non-points
smhtbqhfam

>As in the physical medium by which the art you are purportedly involved in creating gets communicated
If you read what I had written you'd not have responded with this nonsense or any of that other nonsense.

You don't know what art is AND you can't read properly. Very impressive, to be so stupid in the age of information.

>You've not countered any points or even improved your own, you're just making random, empty statements based in nothing. Please stop wasting my time.
Funny how this is totally about you. Walls of empty statements and psuedo intellectual ramblings. You're wasting your time and our time. Not an intelligent thing to do.

>n-n-no, you are
Those schoolyard techniques are serving you well. Truly an infallible expert with a valid point and... Oh wait, no, you haven't contributed anything to the thread at all.

>Your argument may as well say
>people post about Naruto all the time so it must be the best anime
>people post about Kanye all the time, of course he's a genius
>people post about FIFA every day, obviously it's the best video game
I could say whatever I want about art (in this case music) and I wouldn't be wrong.. Because surprise, surprise, taste is subjective. You can't measure art in an objective way (except some basic descriptions), but in a subjective way (how it affects the people). Drill that into your stupid brain: ART IS SUBJECTIVE.

If people like X artist it means that artist is doing something right (yes, even artists like Bieber, Nickelback and 50 Cent). If the critics or elitists don't like that artist, that's another story. And FYI Grimes had a huge critical acclaim, so you can't even rely on that to support your stupid objectivist views.

>Oh wait, no, you haven't contributed anything to the thread at all.
Projecting yet again. Your contribution is like a baloon: on the first stingy argument it explodes in million of pieces. Your whole argumentation revolves around "Grimes is not good because I say so". That is what I call an invalid argument. If you want to be taken seriously prove it beyond any doubt that Grimes is bad. But please, no more pretentious language this time.

they do shit like that and take pictures of it

people who dislike things just can't help but state their opinions wherever they can. A lot of us actually like her but I am still surprised that there is enough to talk about to have daily threads.

>I could say whatever I want about art (in this case music) and I wouldn't be wrong.
>I could say whatever I want about physics (in this case chemistry) and I wouldn't be wrong
Those two statements are the same. That's painful ironic shitposting.

>taste is subjective
Who has mentioned taste at all? What are you talking about? What does taste have to do with anything? Subjectivity is looking at something with regards to yourself, it's not really the same thing as preference and it's got nothing to do with criticism since it's inherently biased.
I also like Grimes and can criticise her because I know the difference between an opinion and a fact.

>You can't measure art in an objective way
Yes you can and in fact critique and objective analysis is central to art and its practice, you have no idea what you're on about.

>ART IS SUBJECTIVE
No it's not. And this is about music, specifically music for profit. Grimes couldn't be further removed from 'art' if you wrote dilettante on her face.

>Grimes has been publicised and got rave reviews from the same media outlets that publicised her to begin with so he's good
What? Holy shit, what a sheep.

>"Grimes is not good because I say so"
Except that I explained rather comprehensively why she's not remarkable and have been met with no actual arguments against what I wrote, but instead random attacks on my character and random shitposts claiming I said things that I didn't. If you want to be taken seriously then read my posts properly and present an actual argument that isn't
>no I like Grimes so she is good!
and isn't made entirely out of preferences, buzzwords and misconstrued nonsense.

>no more pretentious language this time
Please show me an example of 'pretentious language', lad. I've been speaking English and very simple English at that.

>I only watch god films
user I'm pretty sure you're taking this obvious b8 thread waaaaaaay too seriously.

Grimes is a cool artist who is clearly very skilled at connecting with people on a personal visceral level. Attempting to argue otherwise is pretty idiotic desu, and doing so in wall-of-text fashion is totally counter-productive to making such a point.

see

Sorry that you're such a massive idiot that a couple of paragraphs intimidates you into saying "I was only pretending to be retarded", but at least you admit what was obvious all along.

I vomit words like this, its effortless. Grimes is a massively financially backed popstar who was publicised and pushed to the moon. When she first appeared all her singles were in TV ads. They went hard on her because they knew she'd be able to take advantage of the lonely virgin male market and the twee girl market and they are known to spend money.

That's all there is.

Thanks for double-checking my dubs.
I'll check yours too.

>>I could say whatever I want about art (in this case music) and I wouldn't be wrong.
>>I could say whatever I want about physics (in this case chemistry) and I wouldn't be wrong
You're confusing art with science. Big idiot! Art is about feelings, science is about precise, measurable things. Could you measure feelings objectively?

>Yes you can and in fact critique and objective analysis is central to art and its practice, you have no idea what you're on about.
Get the hell of here. You are completely wrong.

>No it's not. And this is about music, specifically music for profit. Grimes couldn't be further removed from 'art' if you wrote dilettante on her face.
Grimes is doing everything in her music by herself. EVERYTHING, from singing & songwriting to producing & artwork, plus directing and editing her music videos. If that isn't a real artist I don't know what it is.

>Grimes has been publicised and got rave reviews from the same media outlets that publicised her to begin with so he's good
>What? Holy shit, what a sheep.
Over 95% of critics praised her. FFS, how big a contarian you must be to shit all over those reviewers? You're right and everyone else is wrong? The evidence is in front of you.

>"Grimes is not good because I say so"
>Except that I explained rather comprehensively why she's not remarkable and have been met with no actual arguments against what I wrote, but instead random attacks on my character and random shitposts claiming I said things that I didn't. If you want to be taken seriously then read my posts properly and present an actual argument that isn't
You explained that very badly. You just stated your subjective opinions, not some objective analysis.

>no I like Grimes so she is good!
>and isn't made entirely out of preferences, buzzwords and misconstrued nonsense.
Music taste is about preferences. There's not objectively good music. You just can't prove that.

These polls are meaningless, there was recent ones about if you liked Grimes or not and the vast majority disliked her. If you asked on a different day you'd probably get a different result.

when you obnoxiously shove something in my face that i was already not a fan of eventually im bound to get annoyed

especially when i have it filtered and it still shows up

>Art is about feelings
No it is not. Explain to me how Duchamp's Fountain is 'about feelings'. What the fuck? What a weird asspull.

>>Yes you can and in fact critique and objective analysis is central to art and its practice, you have no idea what you're on about.
>Get the hell of here. You are completely wrong.
Kek, no I'm not. I practice art. My entire life is in art-making; I know all the galleries and gallerists in my country. I know how it works, you obviously don't.

>If that isn't a real artist I don't know what it is.
Yes, I know, you don't know what it is.

>You just stated your subjective opinions
What? I have offered no subjectivity, laddo. You should look words up before using them, friend.

>There's not objectively good music.
There is. It's all case by case and with a given criteria in every occasion (which is what objectivity means; looking at something with respect to itself).

Fucking hell, you just argued by disputing facts without any grounds for doing so.
Either that is bait or you're mentally ill.

the truth is that we all (secretely) love grimes

>Grimes is a massively financially backed popstar who was publicised and pushed to the moon. When she first appeared all her singles were in TV ads. They went hard on her because they knew she'd be able to take advantage of the lonely virgin male market and the twee girl market and they are known to spend money.
This is completely false and anyone that knows about her could prove you wrong. Do you even know how she started her music career? She paid a can of chickpeas to a friend to teach her how to use the sampler and soon she started making primitive music in GarageBand while living in a dump and taking drugs. Later she earned her first money from music (around $200 by playing a gig) and signed to a very small indie label, Arbutus. She played in cold places in front of a tiny crowd many times: youtube.com/watch?v=s7rM67NPhZ8

In 2011, someone from 4AD was impressed by one of her shows and was desperate to sign her: noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/who-says-girls-cant-find-music-jane-abernethy-tuneyards-grimes

Massively financially backed popstar? Since when the legendary 4AD have massive amounts of money? You know shit about her and you're talking out of your ass.

>I know all the galleries and gallerists in my country.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they don't appreciate knowing you. I certainly wouldn't, given how much you seem to be totally missing the point of the thing which you claim to spend your life working on.

Lmao pleb.

Your just mad cause Grimesy is to patrician for you XDDDD

>Kek, no I'm not. I practice art. My entire life is in art-making; I know all the galleries and gallerists in my country. I know how it works, you obviously don't.
>Kek
Only underage idiots use kek. Anyway, you must make some shitty art. Prove me wrong.

>why Sup Forums is so triggered by her?
To be quite honest with you, it's exactly what you'd expect from a bunch of semi-autistic misogynistic twerps when you confront them with a woman with infinitely more success and talent than their NEET asses.

>There is. It's all case by case and with a given criteria in every occasion (which is what objectivity means; looking at something with respect to itself).
>Fucking hell, you just argued by disputing facts without any grounds for doing so.
Then fucking prove it that her music is bad, OBJECTIVELY. "Grimes is bad because I say so" doesn't count because it's subjective.

>Either that is bait or you're mentally ill.
Whining like a bitch because you have no arguments. Nothing.

So, the huge envy must be the reason.

>she hasn't been financially abcked and marketed aggressively because before she was she wasn't
Err... What sort of argument is that?

>I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they don't appreciate knowing you
Great argument. Also, I've shown in a lot of them and am on good terms with all of them.

>how much you seem to be totally missing the point of the thing which you claim to spend your life working on
Tell me what you know about 'art', so, since you claim to know more than I do. Who won the Turner Prize this year? Just as an example. Surely you know that much.

Why should I bother?
I'm here enjoying how absolutely retarded these Grimes worshipers are. I'm hardly going to reveal my identity.

>Then fucking prove it that her music is bad, OBJECTIVELY.
I never said she is bad, I said she's run of the mill and already explained it. Read the thread like a good little sperglord, alright?

>"Grimes is bad because I say so" doesn't count because it's subjective.
It's actually not subjective, that's not what subjective means. Read the thread. Also, no one said that. Read the thread.

>Whining like a bitch because you have no arguments
>I'm arguing against an argument without an argument and unironically unaware of my hypocrisy
That's scary, please get a lobotomy.

>she hasn't been financially abcked and marketed aggressively because before she was she wasn't
>Err... What sort of argument is that?
You're dumb. She hasn't been financially backed and marketed aggressively BEFORE and AFTER. 4AD is an indie label, not a big label, they have a fairly small budget. I repeat, Grimes is an indie artist, in charge of her artistry, she sold maybe under 200K albums so far and she's barely played on the radio. She never had a Top 40 hit and she's almost unknown by mainstream. Her popularity is mainly because of word of mouth, not marketing.

Stop saying so much unproved crap, it makes me sick.

>"Grimes is bad because I say so" doesn't count because it's subjective.
>It's actually not subjective, that's not what subjective means. Read the thread. Also, no one said that. Read the thread.
Your stupid opinion is NOT subjective? LMFAO! Who the fuck are you, the holder of the supreme truth? Take your pills, delusional "art shitting" NEET.

>That's scary, please get a lobotomy.
(You) need that, dumbass.

>she sold maybe under 200K albums so far and she's barely played on the radio
Lad, she's had her stuff featured in commercials, she's been on the radio constantly since she released her first album. And this is in Europe, so she was pushed internationally right out of the gate.

>She's never had a top 40 hit and she's not on a huge label so she hasn't been marketed
What sort of bizarro world are you from where only the most rich people market things and only people in the charts are consumer-oriented?
I already know that you're retarded, but exactly how retarded are you?
I'm at least entertained by the existence of such a low level of human intelligence, but I can't help but feel sad thinking about how much of a struggle your life surely is. Luckily you're a shithead so you deserve it.

I didn't give an opinion. I gave an observation, stated my points and none of them were argued against. I was responded to as you are responding to me now. Also, you clearly haven't read the thread.
Discussions work like this: someone makes an argument, someone contests it. What is happening here is that I made an argument and Grimes' cult of lunatics go triggered and attacked me. I didn't even say anything negative about her. Fucking freaks.
Please learn to read.

>Lad, she's had her stuff featured in commercials,
What commercials?
>she's been on the radio constantly since she released her first album.
What radios? I never heard her on the radio.

So your entire argument is anecdotal? You're disputing the evidence I've given with anecdotes?
Seriously, fuck off. I literally discovered Grimes and a week later she was in an ad for two different phone networks and a couch shop. That was a month after her first album dropped.

>She's never had a top 40 hit and she's not on a huge label so she hasn't been marketed
>What sort of bizarro world are you from where only the most rich people market things and only people in the charts are consumer-oriented?
>I already know that you're retarded, but exactly how retarded are you?
>I'm at least entertained by the existence of such a low level of human intelligence, but I can't help but feel sad thinking about how much of a struggle your life surely is. Luckily you're a shithead so you deserve it.
You stupid fuck, you claimed without any evidence that she's a "massively financially backed popstar" (CTRL F that if you already forgot that). I proved that you're fucking wrong. You keep saying like a little shit "read the thread", but you still posting the same crap over and over again. Your arguments are based on nothing but thin air. You're not only a stubborn retard, but a moron too. Give up, fucker.

>Tell me what you know about 'art',
That it's supposed to be entertaining on some visceral level. Otherwise it has no point.

What are you on about now? You haven't given any evidence of anything other than your own debilitating autism affliction.

Grimes has been played on the radio here literally every day since here debut album came out. She's been in all sorts of ads for all sorts of things because her music is incredibly inoffensive.
She has been marketed, it's a fact. It's true.

>That was a month after her first album dropped.
...and which album would that be again?

It has no obligation to be 'entertaining'. No. Do you find Chris Burden being shot entertaining? If you knew anything about art you'd be well aware that entertainment isn't a requirement.

The first one. Geidi Primes.
One more shitpost response and I'm leaving the thread, it's only entertaining for so long and having actual idiot sperg at you for knowing things is pretty irritating after a while.

>She has been marketed, it's a fact. It's true.
She marketed herself. Read this and hopefully you will understand:
>Something I didn’t realize when I started making music was that any entrepreneurial endeavor involves hiring people, creating a company, and becoming a businessperson. So, while you may know me as a musician, in practice I am also a boss. I’m the CEO of two companies, Grimes Creative Corp and Fairy Tour Corp, and I just started Roco-Prime Productions with my brother. This is simultaneously very cool and very stressful. I’m definitely not the best or most experienced boss. I’m also a young, female boss, which can present a very particular set of practical and emotional challenges. Here, I’ve compiled a list of things that have been useful to me while I’ve been figuring out how to be in charge, in the hope that some of them might help any of you who are doing what I’m doing (aka learning as you go).

stereogum.com/1710871/grimes-shares-13-lessons-on-being-a-boss/news/

If you think she's a label's puppet you're wrong.