The Logic Off Topic list

> --- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, teddybut <kumpkin@e...> wrote:
>> Music never sucked. It doesn't have the ability to suck. Only the people
>> that compromise it's purpose and integrity suck.
>> 
>> teddybut
> 
> oh be semantically picky whydontcha ;)

ok I will! hahaha
> 
> purpose and integrity means so many different things to different people.

yes, for them personally, of course.

but not for music as an intangible entity, which is how you phrased the
question. Music's purpose is to communicate, right? We are not being
specific in what it is supposed to communicate because that's subjective.
Music's own integrity is above asthetics of individuals. Some people like
candy, some people like garlic, and most people like a little of both...
hence the term demographic. Music knows and shows when it has been used to
make a buck or no care was put into it's message, it shows it to us plain as
day. Then it's up to our own P and I whether that music communicates to us
personally or not. And then we are dumped into a demographic by the major
labels so they can continue to sell us the same thing over and over. weehaw.
> 
> "my purpose is to make as much money as possible, i'm clear about what i'm
> doing, i 
> use music to enable my purpose, i feel a sense of integrity about what i'm
> doing and 
> my purpose"

that would be that person's own purpose and integrity, not music's.
> 
> someone with an outlook like that can fairly claim no compromise and solid
> integrity 
> - even if the music truly sucks.

they can't claim that stuff about the music, they can only claim it within
their own personal P and I. They obviously don't even care about the music
at that point.

further-ly
My feeling is that there are artists that communicate their message so well
that not even the most slick $$ oriented producer could ruin their music.
Those are the gems of pop music.

tbut