Why are pop stars so fucking cringy and pretentious about their shitty, manufactured music?

Why are pop stars so fucking cringy and pretentious about their shitty, manufactured music?

Taste isn't objective. let the market die on her ass user.

I'd imagine many started out wanting to make real art and are now in denial about what they've really turned out to be making.

>pop music isn't real art

did i stutter you stupid nigger?

but her gazongas are perfection.

Were. She's 30 now and starting to lose it. Which is all she had. That's why she cut her hair.

yikes

>Woke-pop
How are these people even real?

Music made for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible and as many 14 year old girls liking you isn't. It cruel be an art of marketing teams and PR firms for sure.

woke-pop is my new favorite genre

>saying 'woke' either ironically or unironically
I fucking hate everybody

>She's 30
She's actually turning 33 this year.

It's always funny when irrelevant pop singers in their 30's know that their career is dying and they some cringy bullshit publicity stunt in hopes that it will save their already dead career.

Woke-pop, woke-rap, woke-metal, woke-rock, woke-country, woke-blues, woke-jazz, woke-punk, woke-folk, woke-hop...

can we just skip to post-woke stuff please

>Why are pop stars so fucking cringy and pretentious about their shitty, manufactured music?
grimes. also that tweet is sickening

post-woke-rock?

>woke-metal
i want

people who use terms like real art and use art as an adjective synonymous with good in general are just the worst

any creative effort is art
something being art doesn't mean it can't also be shit

that's called dream pop

woke-dream-post-pop

They're trying to make a distinction between stuff only designed sell records and stuff where the artists actually cared about quality. The "everything is art" stuff is just some Jewish subjectivist bullshit.

why does something being made to sell mean it's devoid of care
also it is very hard to take you seriously when you not only fail to posit a definition of art but cry about Jewish people as if they're the only ones that see art is subjective

Everything that is created to be art is art. Corporate pop stuff on the other hand is just another product to sell.

What said. The goal of certain music is literally just to sell the music. And that's fine, but it's not art. You can desire to make music that sells well and market it, but you need to have some artistic integrity and desire.

post-woke-post-punk

manufactured pop is not art you disgusting philistine. its a product. that's like saying coca-cola is art

Do we know at this point who wrote the songs?

I just don't think it's fair to assume that pop stars are lacking in the integrity and desire part

considering how hard it is to become a successful musician and how many other avenues to wealth there are that are less risky, I just don't see someone committing to it without some sense of passion unless they were born lucky and can just buy the opportunity.

the bottle aesthetic is art, yes. If I were really into chemistry I could probably find artistic value in its composition.

>woke-pop
I refuse to believe people like this aren't self-aware.

>the bottle aesthetic is art, yes. If I were really into chemistry I could probably find artistic value in its composition.
s m h

>Music made for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible and as many 14 year old girls liking you isn't. It cruel be an art of marketing teams and PR firms for sure.

It IS art. It's just "bad" art, and even that is subjective. The only thing you can objectively say about it is that it's shallow and unoriginal.

coca cola is art. art is for sale, even some of the most universally agreed upon forms of art. you have to pay to eat at the best restaurants, and picassos and Gauguins are auctioned for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. pretty much all music is sold, too. There's not some clear line between "art" and "product" that makes it possible to delineate them, idk where you got that idea.

It's not like the boy band formula hasn't been tried before.

They are passionate about the money it makes and the attention they get. If Katy cared about Bon Apetite I'd be shocked. Also the coke can isn't art. It's only purpose is to be recognizable branding. It's not an expression of the artist or anything. That's what I meant by subjectivist bullshit (probably shouldn't have said Jewish because I can't explain that part well atm)

It's not that hard to manufacture bands. Let me remind you of Mili Vanilli. They didn't even sing on their own records, despite winning a Grammy.

this definition is impossible to actually apply, though. Like there's some really good music that's been wildly successful as well. Were the beatles just doing it for the money? how about the stones? what if money is a partial, but not total factor in someone's work? what if someone, for instance, paints a painting that is picked up later by a big company for advertising. Does its ensuing use as a tool for profit make it no longer art, even if it was originally made as art?

I definitely am not totally in the subjectivist camp (i think there are definitely good and bad movies, and paintings, and albums, at least to certain broad extents) but you have to at least see that your definition here is totally untenable.

Could be*

Not him, but I don't think you're far off in the car of the Beatles.

Coca cola is not art, it's bottle and logo may have some artistic merit, but coca cola itself is just a soft drink.
> picassos and gauguins
They didn't create their paintings to be sold for tens of millions now did they?

In the case*

my point is that even if the beatles were just doing it for the money, they made some of the most acclaimed and influential music of all time. That doesn't count because they were doing it for profit?

Ultimately that user's argument boils down to "art is only art if I personally perceive it to be authentically made", which is bogus for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that human beings are very easily misled about authenticity (see: political campaigns and advertising in general).

It's pretty specific. Does the artist care about what they are making as a piece of art or not? For example, Katy Perry did not care about Bon Apetite. She's trying to use popular music trends and Migos to stay relevant. I would not be surprised if she cared about some of her other songs like Unconditionally. But songs like Bon Apetite are meant exclusively for commercial reasons. Even when the Beatles were selling 3 minute ditties, they had quality control for what music they made past "will it sell?".

Kraftwerk were extremely influential as well, but I don't think you'd consider synth pop the pinnacle of music expression. On the other hand, their German contemporaries created some of the most forward thinking, otherworldly and original music ever.

And as far political movements go, every Krautrock band made their music to create a new sound for their country and to combat nazis that were still in power. They wouldn't surrender and make catchy and cute schlagers. If that's not as genuine as you can possibly get as a band and as a musical movement, I'm not sure what is.

But all of the criteria you list here are determined exclusively by some baseless assessment you've made of the artists' intent. You have no way of knowing if the artists care or not, you just decide whether or not they do based on how you personally feel about them/their art. Based on how fickle people's perceptions of authenticity are, it is not reasonable to base the definitional quality of "art" on yours or any single individual's perception of how much an artist they have never met "cares" about their music.

And if you're planning on crowdsourcing opinions of authenticity to verify art, you're probably going to be really disappointed with what ends up in that category. The vast majority of people are more likely to see stuff like Starbuckscore as more authentic than stuff like indie rock or less accessible music, which gets hit with the "pretentious" label a lot, literally the antithesis of authenticity.

With mainstream artists like Katy, nothing is ever authentic or sincere. She claims to be ''woke'' and make ''purposeful pop'', then when her ''woke'' song underperforms she goes and makes songs about ''being spread like a buffet'' and when it underpefroms even worse goes back to being ''woke''. I'm sure she wishes she never supported Hillary in the first place so she wouldn't feel the need to make ''woke'' music, now she is in too deep to turn back to her old safe, bubble-gum image or else her fans will see through her fake ''wokeness''.

I'm not sure I get your point. I might not agree that all of that art is equal, or equally good, but I definitely don't think there's any justifiable way to say that synth pop isn't art.

But when does a food or beverage go from being "art" to "just a soft drink"? do you just not think the culinary arts are arts at all?

I do think that culinary arts are art. But was coca cola created to be some sort of self expression or a way to convey new ideas or feelings?

It's impossible to say. And how would you handle if something started as just a personal expression but was later mass produced? McDonald's used to be just a local restaurant, was its food art then, but no longer art now? If so, at what point did it stop being art?

Seeing art as the exclusive purview of the impassioned auteur really limits what art is, both academically, and functionally.

This is the most sensible way of thinking about the topic we're discussin, although I don't think going that much in depth in the case of synth pop and similar genres is worthwhile.

Discussing*

>I don't think going that much in depth in the case of synth pop is worthwhile
Why is synth pop considered to be bad?

I'm not sure who I'm replying to, but that question, although indirectly, was answered here:
>It IS art. It's just "bad" art, and even that is subjective. The only thing you can objectively say about it is that it's shallow and unoriginal.

>if something started as just a personal expression but was later mass produced
I think that the original self expression is work of art, but the mass produced products that followed are products that use the original work of art as a mean to sell you the product by showing you glimpses of that original idea or expression behind the art (more commonly known as marketing).

God, I sound like a pretentious moron now. I don't even know wtf I'm writing anymore.

There are good synth-pop bands that I wouldn't call unoriginal/shallow, though? Every genre has shallow/unoriginal examples.

Is it bad that I like Chained to the Rhythm? It's well produced if nothing else.

Sure, but it's ultimately done for mass consumption, therefore profit and building a bigger ego.

>creative effort
DONT MESS WITH THE FORMULA

You dont make an industry out of an art form. Thats just backwards.

>you will never have 5 writers, 3 producers, 2 sound engineers and an army of staff so you can sing lines like "Errybody in the club looking at us, we gonna burn this city down" through Autotune

lmao this song flopped so hard

So when they are selling us pop music, they aren't selling us the music, they are selling us an image of an pop artist who is "woke", "purposeful" and who "has a story". An image of creative mind behind the "art". And when this image has a deep story behind her/him, the music also becomes meaningful. So you could say that in the mainstream pop music, the artist becomes the art and the actual music is irrelevant.

>it's the everything is art because muh urinal episode again

...

You mean why are the fans like that.

And what most people who make that "argument" don't research is:
>The context for the purchase and naming of Fountain was a worthy exhibition by the Society of Independent Artists, formed on the model of the Parisian Salon des Indépendants. It was to show works by anyone, subject to a fee of $1 for membership and $5 annual dues. Duchamp himself, as a celebrated foreign artist, was on the board, as were various prominent American painters and art world figures. From early on, however, Duchamp seemed tempted to subvert the whole enterprise.

isnt that p much nsbm tho

subjectivism was a fucking mistake

woke-wave

post-wock

Get a life you dumb white males. srsly.

>girl shows me some random Lorde song
>"ugh her first album was just so good, blahblah such genre overlapping"
>listen to it
>not really anything special, her voice is nice but gets old
>she then proceeds to tell me how disappointed she is in the new album
>listen to it
>it sounds the exact fucking same

I mean what the fuck

>just invented woke-pop
I this sarcasm? I can't tell anymore.

Nu-woke-metal

Well, all music is manufactured. The only person who should be recognised for something is the person who birthed the overall idea and then only if it is good.
Commercial music could become something good if they realised what painters did in the 1200s.

you're deaf and a pleb, she's right

Mr Dillettante,
You don't know anything about art. If you did know anything about art you would make the Joseph Beuys argument, but even then no one would buy it because he was a fucking idiot.

Art is a practice. Music is an entertainment medium in the commercial form most people understand it by.

woke-core

>listents to lorde
>calls others plebs
wew lad

Better than misusing the word art to mean "thing I like" and then parading around as a superior being.

woker polka

The wokest of all genres.

woke-gazongas

>"woke pop"

FUCK OFF

because it reaches more people than your shitty self-produced music
WAY more people
this alone makes katy perry's music objectively more important than most, so to accuse her of being pretentious (overstating your own importance) for acknowledging this is questionable
>cringy
this site is 18+

>"FUGGG DONUUUULD FRUMPFFFF"
wow so woke

More like poop music

>practically everyone agrees he's shit so they must be wrong
wow so woke

Yeah well, it ain't very original either.

I'm just saying that randomly putting a bar with "fuck donald trump" in to your pop songs doesn't make you a political activist

I mean something like Rage Against the Machine does it more or less the right way. Their "FUCK YOU" has at least some explanation and meaning in their songs (tho I don't support their political views in most ways)

this user arguing in favor of complete subjectivism is wrong about pop music being art. he himself said that something has to have artistic intent to be art.

manufactured products like coca-cola and radio pop are NOT created with artistic intent. they're created assembly line style with the sole purpose of making money

Their fan bases don't know any better. Part of the reason they're listening to this music is because it's being marketed and designed for them...

i want her to get pregnant and grow some big milky mommy titties

It is like Wilde wrote:
"We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless."

woke-milk!

Perhaps there is more going on than you initially realize?

My definition is pretty loose with what is considered art. Almost all music is art. However, like I said, if the artist did not care about what they made as art, and only cared about it as a consumer product, it's not art. That excludes very few pieces of music.

Megadeth