Latest on MJJC

justin timberlake joins autotune and tpain

Well you're just arguing standards versus no standards or low standards and I'm sorry to tell you but without standards, nothing can be classified as art or given an assesed value. Clearly, your standards are just far lower then my own.

And I've seen that movie with that harry ape Robbin Williams.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Well you're just arguing standards versus no standards or low standards and I'm sorry to tell you but without standards, nothing can be classified as art or given an assesed value. Clearly, your standards are just far lower then my own.

And I've seen that movie with that harry ape Robbin Williams.
Click to expand...

my standards aren't lower than yours. i love MJ too.
like i said, if tpain's art saves someone's life, then you have devalued life by your assertion that you have higher standards. you really don't know what someone's music has the capability of doing, just because you don't like it. 'giving an assessed value'. you are opening up a whole can of worms with that one.

arrogance doesn't make a career. whether or not i like someone's music, i know better than to make the kinds of assertions you are making. it's like you are saying you are a better person than someone else.
 
Keep using obscure analogies and running in circles by saying my assertion devalues life or some such nonsense, because that's what you're spewing, my point being clear that you have to have a certain level of standard or you can't deterimine the value of anything. You aren't arguing well because instead of sticking to the point, you're trying to make me feel guilty or morally wrong by saying that T-Pain or Justin Timberlake have a low level of talent based on my standards.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Keep using obscure analogies and running in circles by saying my assertion devalues life or some such nonsense, because that's what you're spewing, my point being clear that you have to have a certain level of standard or you can't deterimine the value of anything.
Click to expand...

who is you, in this sentence? i'm not obscure at all. i'm challenging something that you are saying. and i'm on point. they starved Van Gogh, and now they determine the value of his work, so THEY can make money off ot it. so, they were about the bottom line. this is about tending to say you are about art with somebody else. unless it applies to you, and your need to make a living.
 
You if people in general. You're straying from the main point, which is debate 101 that everything you say is in direct support of the original point, by throwing all sorts of irrelivent angles in to the argument rather then just approaching what the original point is and giving supporting facts.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
You if people in general. You're straying from the main point, which is debate 101 that everything you say is in direct support of the original point, by throwing all sorts of irrelivent angles in to the argument rather then just approaching what the original point is and giving supporting facts.
Click to expand...

i already did debate 101. i already said tpain's art may have saved somebody's life, and you can't know that it's not so. even if he is making much money from the decisions he is making.

you just have decided to believe what you believe, no matter what i say. and apparently you have not read my entire last post, and what i said they did to Van Gogh.

and, you have gotten personal. something that you would have a problem with, if i did it to you. (citing the comparisons of standards)
 
I haven't gotten personal. I said you have lower standards then me if you like T-Pain, which is just a general observation on your standard for what pleases you, and not an attack on your value as a person.

You won't listen to what I say, likewise, which is why I said I didn't want to get in to a useless argument.

T-Pain's music may have saved somebody's life, but that's entirely irrelivent as to whether or not he stacks up to a higher set of standerds which have been used since the dawn of man in determining talent.

Nobody replied to your call for T-Pain fans, and it's because generally most people here have a higher standard in art then someone like T-Pain can offer.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
I haven't gotten personal. I said you have lower standards then me if you like T-Pain, which is just a general observation on your standard for what pleases you, and not an attack on your value as a person.

You won't listen to what I say, likewise, which is why I said I didn't want to get in to a useless argument.

T-Pain's music may have saved somebody's life, but that's entirely irrelivent as to whether or not he stacks up to a higher set of standerds which have been used since the dawn of man in determining talent.

Nobody replied to your call for T-Pain fans, and it's because generally most people here have a higher standard in art then someone like T-Pain can offer.
Click to expand...

and i say standards have nothing to do with it. Michael has worked with artists that people claim to be of lower standard. mj made a career out of being humble. you miss out a lot on life, when you determine 'standards'.

i read everything you said..and that's why i brought up what they did to Van Gogh. like i said...they starved him. then he died. then they determined his art's work by their 'standards' so they could MAKE MONEY.

so, your argument about art is irrelevant. i have yet to see someone who is not about the bottom line, when it comes to themselves, as opposed to someone else.

you shot your argument in the face, when you used the word 'value'..as in money

and that's where their heads were at, concering Van Gogh.
 
vncwilliam said:
i disagree with ur assertion, unless u can apply it to every trade.
and,besides..everybody idealizes about that until they look in the mirror.

i think all artists would be offended by your generalization. without exception. all artists are artists, no matter what. whether other people think of them as such, is subjective. same with boxers. i just think people tend to look down upon athletes and entertainers in that respect, with that blanket of generalization, despite the exceptions they may note.

i pretty much know i'd win a bet that Van Gogh would have not been considered an artist, if he died rich.
Click to expand...


well i am sorry,but i neither can classify "GET DOWN AND LICK MY LOLLIPOP" and the likes under ART.
 
You talk in cirlces. Why don't you just SAY what you're trying to say instead of getting fancy?

Without standards, nothing can be determined a value, not a thing, and everything is then up to subjectivism. So based on your argument, a steaming pile of shit on the ground could be said to be as valuable as a composition by Mozart, and nobody could argue against it. It's an arguement made when you can't back up your point with facts.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
You talk in cirlces. Why don't you just SAY what you're trying to say instead of getting fancy?

Without standards, nothing can be determined a value, not a thing, and everything is then up to subjectivism. So based on your argument, a steaming pile of shit on the ground could be said to be as valuable as a composition by Mozart, and nobody could argue against it. It's an arguement made when you can't back up your point with facts.
Click to expand...

i made my point numerous times. have you seen some of Van Gogh's paintings? i say that people would have different ideas on what to think of it.
and, some have used the word 'abstract' to justify their thinking. 'abstarct' is another word for 'pile of shit'.

if Mozart was so valuable, why was he so mistreated? and why was he stolen from? i'm not talking in circles. i'm repeating myself. neither you or i am talking about backing up an argument with facts. you aren't coming up with facts, either. you are making my point. it's all about subjectivity, which is a word you just got finished using.
 
No, I don't refuse to listen, the way you construct your sentences is confusing.

I've seen Van Gogh. Why do you keep asking whether I've seen certain pieces of art or film?

Mozart was a genius and as most genius' are, was misunderstood. But he was also very popular and sought after in his time. He could be considered a pop star in his time.

Again, you're avoiding the point. Abstract painting is an actual form of painting, much like tap or jazz dancing is a form of dancing. How well you do it determines it's value, and how well you do it is determined by a set of standards. Van Gogh was one of those who set the standard of what abstract art should be, the standard by which other abstract artists are compared and then their work is given a value.

A steaming pile of shit, on the ground, that a dog made without thought or predetermination, but just as an act of nature, could by your standards, be determined to be as great and as valuable a piece of art as any Van Gogh painting, despite the time, effort, talent and craft involved in Van Gogh's creation as opposed to the dog. Again, without standards, there's no point in admiring anything at all because you have no scale by which to elicite admiration.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
No, I don't refuse to listen, the way you construct your sentences is confusing.

I've seen Van Gogh. Why do you keep asking whether I've seen certain pieces of art or film?

Mozart was a genius and as most genius' are, was misunderstood. But he was also very popular and sought after in his time. He could be considered a pop star in his time.

Again, you're avoiding the point. Abstract painting is an actual form of painting, much like tap or jazz dancing is a form of dancing. How well you do it determines it's value, and how well you do it is determined by a set of standards. Van Gogh was one of those who set the standard of what abstract art should be, the standard by which other abstract artists are compared and then their work is given a value.

A steaming pile of shit, on the ground, that a dog made without thought or predetermination, but just as an act of nature, could by your standards, be determined to be as great and as valuable a piece of art as any Van Gogh painting, despite the time, effort, talent and craft involved in Van Gogh's creation as opposed to the dog. Again, without standards, there's no point in admiring anything at all because you have no scale by which to elicite admiration.
Click to expand...

again, i am not avoiding the point. tpain is popular, too. not on this board, but clearly on the pop scene.

and as for taking lots of time to craft a work...Mozart was said to complete some works of his in five minutes. many great artsts say that they can receive inspiration for their work in less than one night.


you are admiring stuff based on someone else's opinion, and your opinion.

that's all this whole argument is all about. facts have nothing to do with it.

if you don't want to see my point, you won't see it. but the reality is, that many of the paintings of Van Gogh couldn't be made out to be anything. someone just determined it. and there are plenty of people who would compare some of those paintings to dog shit.

this whole argument is about opinion

and you don't seem to be wanting to see that, even though your words would claim otherwise. you haven't given facts. you've expressed opinions. yours and others who have determined monetary value.

and..what is this stuff about being 'misundersood'? that 'misunderstanding' killed Mozart, and left him bankrupt. i would say that his enemies did not see his stuff as art, because they didn't respect him.
 
They were scared of Mozart because of his talent. Effort was put in to Mozart's work, no matter how long it took. The comparison to dog shit was given as a way of saying that you have to have standards otherwise anything and everything can be determined as art. Yet you keep taking that and saying "well, some people would call Van Gogh's work shit", but that WASN'T the point, again, you're taking my words and twisting them to fit your argument. You have to give things a set of standards or it's valueless, bottom line. Calling something abstract doesn't mean you're calling it shit, it means that's the genre of painting it falls under. It's something created out of nothing, and based on how well it's done, that's how you determine whether it's art or not.

I am admiring thing's based on what has come before and what was before the highest level at which something was produced and then comparing whatever I'm looking at and sizing it up.

Take dance, for example. A good dancer is a dancer with good line, with speed and grace and accuracy. But without standards, I could point to someone with zero dance ability and say they're better then Gene Kelly, and there would be no argument against it. Because there would be no way then to determine what makes a good dancer.

You say standards don't matter. Well then nothing matters, and there's no such thing as art.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
They were scared of Mozart because of his talent. Effort was put in to Mozart's work, no matter how long it took. The comparison to dog shit was given as a way of saying that you have to have standards otherwise anything and everything can be determined as art. Yet you keep taking that and saying "well, some people would call Van Gogh's work shit", but that WASN'T the point, again, you're taking my words and twisting them to fit your argument. You have to give things a set of standards or it's valueless, bottom line. Calling something abstract doesn't mean you're calling it shit, it means that's the genre of painting it falls under. It's something created out of nothing, and based on how well it's done, that's how you determine whether it's art or not.

I am admiring thing's based on what has come before and what was before the highest level at which something was produced and then comparing whatever I'm looking at and sizing it up.

Take dance, for example. A good dancer is a dancer with good line, with speed and grace and accuracy. But without standards, I could point to someone with zero dance ability and say they're better then Gene Kelly, and there would be no argument against it. Because there would be no way then to determine what makes a good dancer.

You say standards don't matter. Well then nothing matters, and there's no such thing as art.
Click to expand...

and i'm shooting holes in your argument, because both you and i admire MIchael Jackson..and MIchael Jackson sees something in Tpain. that means he sees art, where you don't see it. it has nothing to do with standards. and you can't know whether Mozart's enemies were afraid of him. to me, making someone bankrupt is not about fear..it's about lack of respect.

you and i have a differing defintion of 'art', apparently, because to me, it's about seeing the art, no matter what the casing is. art brings life to people. so..that was my point about life saving art. standards have nothing to do with it. the reason why i'm so vehemently against what you are saying, is because people have ruined other peoples' lives with the kind of rhetoric you are using. they have even killed one another over it. that's what 'dead poet's society' was about.

it's one thing to not like someone's art, but it's another to use language that is devaluing. it's the kind of language that causes verbal wars on forums..and..yes..ruins lives.

whatever you think about tpain, there is art in what he does. i was reminded of teddy riley in one of his songs. it's easy to say that people are 'afraid' of tpain, too, if we're going to talk about fear. maybe teddy riley was afraid, because MJ considered tpain. and now, tpain is signed to MJ's publishing deal.


so...being able to notice art where you can't, doesn't make my standards lower than yours.

i notice GEne KElly, too. but i also notice tpain. and i bypass the words..i'm looking at the music.

we could go back and forth on this forever, but the reality is, that i'm not afraid i'll appreciate Michael less, by appreciating TPain.
 
Last edited:
You're assuming Michael considers T-Pain an artist. He's never said any such thing.

The same thing you're saying about people lacking respect for Mozart as being their reason for attacking him could also be applied to why people attack Michael. But that's something you argue against time and time again on this forum.

It should be obvious why genius' are treated as they are, Van Gogh being another one. People fear what they don't understand. No one's afraid of T-Pain except for maybe being scared that he represents how turly pathetic the music industry has become. No one is intimidated by his "talent".

I'm not against new things or the implication of higher standards. I'm against the lowering of standards because it causes a lack of appretiation for things which truly deserve it.

Standards have everything to do with determining a things value. Value is based on standard, the two words coincide with one another.

Again, I say a pile of shit on the ground which was created with zero effort and without any determination or intention can be compared to a piece of work created with effort and with intent and be said to be the same thing and of the same value if there are no standards. You don't understand that, clearly, and continuing to argue with you over it is pointless because, just as you keep accusing me of not hearing you, you similarly are not hearing me.

T-Pain is not an artist if he is producing that stuff with the sole purpose of making money rather then with the purpose of creating something truthful or from the heart.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
You're assuming Michael considers T-Pain an artist. He's never said any such thing.

The same thing you're saying about people lacking respect for Mozart as being their reason for attacking him could also be applied to why people attack Michael. But that's something you argue against time and time again on this forum.

It should be obvious why genius' are treated as they are, Van Gogh being another one. People fear what they don't understand. No one's afraid of T-Pain except for maybe being scared that he represents how turly pathetic the music industry has become. No one is intimidated by his "talent".

I'm not against new things or the implication of higher standards. I'm against the lowering of standards because it causes a lack of appretiation for things which truly deserve it.

Standards have everything to do with determining a things value. Value is based on standard, the two words coincide with one another.

Again, I say a pile of shit on the ground which was created with zero effort and without any determination or intention can be compared to a piece of work created with effort and with intent and be said to be the same thing and of the same value if there are no standards. You don't understand that, clearly, and continuing to argue with you over it is pointless because, just as you keep accusing me of not hearing you, you similarly are not hearing me.

T-Pain is not an artist if he is producing that stuff with the sole purpose of making money rather then with the purpose of creating something truthful or from the heart.
Click to expand...
you are simply not making any sense, because all you ever spoke of, was standards, and value. those are just two more words that can easily be replaced by the word opinion


so..let's look at it.

clearly there are enough people who consider tpain's music to be of high standard, because they spent money on it.

as far as value...there is only one value we are talking about here. monetary. tpain is making more money than a lot of people with galleries with Van Gogh's art in it.

so....depending on the person, we are just discussing those two things. and one person sees value where you don't. and one person sees standards where you don't. that's all. that's it. you are not better than the person who considers tpain to have high standards. and that person is not better than you.

and you are assuming that Michael didn't see tpain's music as art. you are making as much of an assumption as i am. what i did see, is that Michael INVESTED in him. that speaks volumes.

no matter how 'eloquent' your words get...you are simply talking about opinions, and money.

and you are assuming that tpain has no heart, where his music is concerned. again, that's just your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Since T-Pain is connected to the hip-hop community, I'm just gonna say this:

"Hip-hop started out in the heart
Now everybody tryin' to chart..." -- Lauryn Hill

Now y'all two carry on with your quarrel. I'm out this b***h. :eek:fftopic:
 
I didn't assume anything. I said IF T-Pain is doing it soley for the money, then he can't be considered an artist. And I never said Michael doesn't consider T-Pain an artist, I said how would you know since he's never made a comment on it either way? After you said, of course, that he does.

Of course, standard is based on opinion, but the high and low of that standard is based on facts. If you have a low standard for singers, you'll think T-Pain is good, even though he lacks good quality, lacks control, range, unique or emotive phraising, all things which can be measured in a factural and scientific manner, which then determines your standards. If you expect a singer to have a good range, good control, good quality, etc... then your standards are high. You obviously have lower standards then me. Bottom line.

I base my standards on what has been the general norm. for standards in any given art form, which have themselves been deterimined based on the best and worst we've seen of any given person who's trade was in any given art form from the past, present and future.

Your level of standard is opinion. What you base that standard on is fact. Fact is, T-Pain has a decidely average voice and his music is decidely cookie-cutter, based on factual aspects.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
I didn't assume anything. I said IF T-Pain is doing it soley for the money, then he can't be considered an artist. And I never said Michael doesn't consider T-Pain an artist, I said how would you know since he's never made a comment on it either way? After you said, of course, that he does.

Of course, standard is based on opinion, but the high and low of that standard is based on facts. If you have a low standard for singers, you'll think T-Pain is good, even though he lacks good quality, lacks control, range, unique or emotive phraising, all things which can be measured in a factural and scientific manner, which then determines your standards. If you expect a singer to have a good range, good control, good quality, etc... then your standards are high. You obviously have lower standards then me. Bottom line.

I base my standards on what has been the general norm. for standards in any given art form, which have themselves been deterimined based on the best and worst we've seen of any given person who's trade was in any given art form from the past, present and future.
Click to expand...


no..i have more appreciation of art than you.

standards have nothing to do with it. i decided to make that comment, because, once again you got personal. i want you to see what it feels like for you to attack my standards.

science has nothing to do with art. elton john's voice had no vibrato in the beginning. yet he is considered legend by many. so we're not going into this science crap.

and thanks for supporting my pro tpain argument, by admitting you don't know what's in his heart.

and i didn't declare what MJ said. i said that MJ invested in tpain.
 
You're just getting nasty now. Elton John has a very good voice, very good range, very good quality. He is also an incredible pianist and an incredible composer. He's a legend because he's talented, and yes, that's based on fact.

Fact has a lot to do with determining talent. Michael is a great singer, factually, because he displayes incredible range, incredible quality, very good timing and rhtyhm, etc...

I said you have lower standards, that's not personal. You said I have a different perception of art, now you say you have a greater appreciation for art then me because I have a higher set of standards. Yet I didn't say "you got personal". That's not personal. You're wrong though. I have a very high appreciation for art. So high, in fact, that I apply high standards before saying any old crap is art.

And I never said I know what's in T-Pain's heart. I just said IF, IF, IF (I know it's hard to understand that word) if he does it for the money only, as you implied earlier in this thread, then he isn't an artist.

He's not an artist by my judgement though because the music he produces is beyond weak and his voice is beyond weak.
 
and MIchael Jackson sees something in Tpain. that means he sees art,
Click to expand...

You basically said Michael Jackson sees art in what T-Pain does. Sony has a stake in the music he produces, just as they have a stake in millions of other songs. It's highly unlikely that Michael had any hand in deciding to acquire that catalog of sign T-Pain and even if he did, it would purely be for dollar value, not artistic, just like any investment in music catalogs.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
You're just getting nasty now. Elton John has a very good voice, very good range, very good quality. He is also an incredible pianist and an incredible composer. He's a legend because he's talented, and yes, that's based on fact.

Fact has a lot to do with determining talent. Michael is a great singer, factually, because he displayes incredible range, incredible quality, very good timing and rhtyhm, etc...

I said you have lower standards, that's not personal. You said I have a different perception of art, now you say you have a greater appreciation for art then me because I have a higher set of standards. Yet I didn't say "you got personal". That's not personal. You're wrong though. I have a very high appreciation for art. So high, in fact, that I apply high standards before saying any old crap is art.

And I never said I know what's in T-Pain's heart. I just said IF, IF, IF (I know it's hard to understand that word) if he does it for the money only, as you implied earlier in this thread, then he isn't an artist.

He's not an artist by my judgement though because the music he produces is beyond weak and his voice is beyond weak.
Click to expand...
you know what...you have your intepretations..you nave already gotten nasty with me. i responded, cus it hurt..and u did it twice. you were saying the same thing i was saying. art vs. standards of art. and now you felt what you were shooting at me all along.


now on the subject...

have you heard Elton John's early seventies songs? he had no vibrato, hardly, any. yet his voice was great, in a UNIQUE way. only after his operation, did his voice change and develop vibrato. in the beginning he hardly had any. there was nothing scientific about it. nothing. it was all art. art that many appreciated. i have his early music. i know what his early voice sounded like. it was not the 'traditional' voice. it was not.

now..you say you use the word 'if' with tpain. but you said that he is a person with 'talent'. you made a definite determination about him despite your use of the word 'if'.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
You basically said Michael Jackson sees art in what T-Pain does. Sony has a stack in the music he produces, just as they have a stack in millions of other songs. It's highly unlikely that Michael had any hand in deciding to acquire that catalog of sign T-Pain and even if he did, it would purely be for dollar value, not artistic.
Click to expand...

you are making an assumption, even though you said you were using the word 'if', concerning tpain.
 
Last edited:
can_t_we_all_just_get_along.jpg
 
Yes, I've heard plenty of Elton John. Again, your asking me pointless questions. He has a good voice. Vibrato is one aspect in determining a good voice, but it is not the only. He had great range and great quality and control. His voice lacks the range it once did now, but he can still sing based on other said aspects. He had a beautiful pop tenor, and that's factual. And again, he has many talents which his fame is based on, not just his voice.

I said you have lower standards because you keep arguing with me that standads don't matter. That's not a personal attack on you and if you took it as such, then you took it as such. It was an observation, not an attack.

I don't think you're coming at me, I'm saying that you said I have a lower appreciation of art then you, basically the same thing as me saying you have lower standards, yet I didn't get all upset and say you were getting "personal".

And of course you would focus in on that one part of my post about the investment, predictably. It's not really an assumption. One invests in something if they feel it will make them money, not because they regard it as art.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Yes, I've heard plenty of Elton John. Again, your asking me pointless questions. He has a good voice. Vibrato is one aspect in determining a good voice, but it is not the only. He had great range and great quality and control. His voice lacks the range it once did now, but he can still sing based on other said aspects. He had a beautiful pop tenor, and that's factual. And again, he has many talents which his fame is based on, not just his voice.

I said you have lower standards because you keep arguing with me that standads don't matter. That's not a personal attack on you and if you took it as such, then you took it as such. It was an observation, not an attack.

I don't think you're coming at me, I'm saying that you said I have a lower appreciation of art then you, basically the same thing as me saying you have lower standards, yet I didn't get all upset and say you were getting "personal".

And of course you would focus in on that one part of my post about the investment, predictably. It's not really an assumption. One invests in something if they feel it will make them money, not because they regard it as art.
Click to expand...

so..now you are changing your requirements about the singing voice.

you mentioned vibrato as if it was a necessity. now you are altering.

like i said..science has nothing to do with it. i know Elton is legend. but i know science is irrelevant here. now we both got personal,and we both got upset....whether you admit it or not, but i'm getting off of that, now, no matter how much you continue it.

and..i don't see how you don't expect me to focus on any part of your post. i'm SUPPOSed to read your post carefully, right?

and, again, you are assuming about the reason why people make investments.

let's get back to Elton. i loved his stuff. stilll love his early stuff. he didn't always have the control, totally..he had ART sense. one has nothing to do with the other. listen to 'tiny dancer'. he trails off...yet it fits

that is art..not science.

so..tpain uses autotune better than anyone i have ever heard use it. to me, that's art.


let's get back to elton. what does range have to do with it? some singers have little range, but know how to use it. again..art...not science. is elton's voice less, now, that his range has diminished? no. his voice now, is like night, compared to what his voice was, before his operation, when it was like day. science has nothing to do with the fact, that, in either case, his voice is beautiful.

F*** science, on this subject.
 
You know what man, I ain't even gonna read what you said because this shit just keeps going in circles and nobody is getting any younger. I said I DIDN'T want to get in to a fight because I knew this would happen. I got dragged in to it anyway. I obviously pissed you off, without intending to, simply because I think T-Pain is a detriment to the music industry and I have a hunch about 99% of this board agrees with me on that. The last fight we had was over this clown too, if I remember correctly, and his fat ass ain't worth it.

So keep liking T-Pain, nobody cares if you do. I already said everything I have to say and I ain't got anything else to say. You don't think standards matter. They do if you want to give anything a value. That's my only point. You don't care about being able to determine anything's value. I don't care if you care.

So who cares?

See ya. Keep listeining to "Chopped N' Skrewed", the name alone defines what T-Pain sounds like to me.

And let me just say that Elton John's voice is shot compared to what it once was, because his range is gone and his quality has suffered. But he still has good timing and control, so he's still a good singer. Not great like he once was.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top