My friend Pat and I could argue for hours upon hours over musictron. So, I want to argue with you!

First argument. List the three Franz Ferdinand albums from best to worst. We'll see how things go from here.

1. Franz Ferdinand.

2. You Could Have It So Much Better.







3. Tonight.

And yes those spaces are necessary. Album's a piece of ****. Though Patrick would say the same thing, with 2 and 3 reversed! What do YOU think?

1. You Could Have It So Much Better
2. Franz Ferdinand
?. Tonight

I am making an uninformed argument! I have only heard one song off of the debut, four off of the second, and one off of the new one! And I only actually like one off of the second, but I like it a lot more than the one off the first.

Lalala dee da.

I can't participate in this cause I don't like this band.

*hides*

Well that's fine! Whatever! I just wanted to start it off, then this thread could go ANYWHERE. Just debating about music in general.

* **** the canon.
* "Authenticity" is bull****.
* Authorship is a straw-man argument.
* Albums are not, by nature, grander statements of art or purpose than singles.
* The fact that music should be taken seriously doesn't not mean that music should be serious.
*Sad, heavy and intense aren't necessarily good or important
* Happy, light and uplifting aren't necessarily bad or disposable.
* This does not mean that all is equal and relative and that no music is "good" or "bad".

Discuss/Debate/Respond.

I'd say there are definitely qualities in music that determine 'good' or 'bad'. That said, it's certainly plausible to like bad music. For example, Bret Lockerbie makes some pretty terrible music, but he has as many as three fans!

The only point on the list I posted that I really disagree with on some level is the first one. I think it is important to respect certain artists that would make up the 'canon' of popular music (as that is what that list applies to, but not popular in the sense that it is mainstream; popular meaning 'of the people,' so basically music made starting in the twentieth century), even if one doesn't appreciate them, because of their influence on the popular music scene.

As in, while one does not need to like say, The Beatles or Radiohead or U2, they should be respected for the influence and impact on other artists that came after them, and for their other contributions to the world of music on various levels.

I've never once listened to an entire Beatles album.

My actual view: That's not a big deal, considering how large and expansive their catalog is. Though it is probably worth doing since they basically invented the concept of an album being something other than a collection of potential singles, and rather something that is greater than the sum of its parts.

My 'for the sake of the argument' view: WHAT?!

Yeah! Not even some kinda peppers. I don't really know why! I just haven't ever liked them enough to be like 'I guess I'll get this al-bum!'