Will.i.am song to blast out from Mars

later12

Madam_X wrote: »

Where does this relativity stuff end?

But sure why must it end?

Surely we can just respect alternative tastes. I don't understand why someone would subject themselves to Take a Break, but neither do I understand why anyone would subject themselves to studying the intricacies of metre in ancient Hebrew poetry. Who knows? I'm not really sure either is particularly valuable to human progress, but I'm sure fans of each (or both, why not) could come up with their own arguments to the contrary.

Grayson

later12 wrote: »

Who on Earth (quite literally) gets to decide that Mozart is superior to Will.I.Am?

Any "serious musicians" in classical music that I've ever spoken to seem to roll their eyes when Mozart gets a mention; in fact his works must partially be seen in his day as works of comedy.

Others, perhaps many amateur classical music fans, seem to assume a piece of music is more culturally or intellectually valid by virtue of having been composed by somebody who is (a) dead, (b) dead for the past 200 years (c) traditionally not enjoyed by some of the most energetic and creative people in modern life; shur what would they know about art, heh?

Give it a rest! There's enough arrogant hauteur in the duller human endeavours without bringing it into art or music as well.

And ITS_A_BADGER, I would love if they played the benny hill theme, it might at least show we have a sense of humour.

The fact that someone has to say that makes me worry for the human race.

I wonder if Will.i.am will still be known in 300 years.

Next you'll be telling me that the crazy frog tune or Jive Bunny was every bit as praiseworthy as Beethoven.


I'd have been happy with Bowie being played. Or a classical composition (maybe Holsts Mars from the planets) or even Benny Hill because that would have just been funny.

But playing Will.i.am is just a way for nasa to try and look cool so they can garner some interest from an incredibly apathetic public.

later12

Grayson wrote: »

But playing Will.i.am is just a way for nasa to try and look cool so they can garner some interest from an incredibly apathetic public.

Maybe they just think a popular piece of music enjoyed by lots of people going about their daily lives says more about us as a society than a piece that few human beings, overall, would relate to.

I don't think they're trying to impress anyone.

Priori

Grayson wrote:

But playing Will.i.am is just a way for nasa to try and look cool so they can garner some interest from an incredibly apathetic public.

later12 wrote: »

Maybe they just think a popular piece of music enjoyed by lots of people going about their daily lives says more about us as a society than a piece that few human beings, overall, would relate to.

I don't think they're trying to impress anyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not just boil down to money in this case? Will.I.am is investing in what he sees as unconventional (and therefore memorable) exposure.

Rigol

Shadow of the sun.


(who the fck chose it anyway, I want retribution for my species' embarassment)

later12

Priori wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not just boil down to money in this case? Will.I.am is investing in what he sees as unconventional (and therefore memorable) exposure.

I'm sure that, as well as any future reputational benefit he might enjoy, does come into it for will.i.am yes.

But NASA are probably not so much interested in furthering his career than they are in making a statement about who we are, or capturing the imagination of young people.

Madam_X

later12 wrote: »

But sure why must it end?

Surely we can just respect alternative tastes. I don't understand why someone would subject themselves to Take a Break, but neither do I understand why anyone would subject themselves to studying the intricacies of metre in ancient Hebrew poetry. Who knows? I'm not really sure either is particularly valuable to human progress, but I'm sure fans of each (or both, why not) could come up with their own arguments to the contrary.

My point is: a person saying David Bowie's Station To Station is (personal preference aside) objectively better (in terms of talent, creativity, originality, work) than The X Factor doesn't deserve to be told they're a snob or has a stick up their hole... which is ironically incredibly dismissive.
As you acknowledge yourself (and thereby not really respecting alternative taste) Take A Break is muck. But I'm cool with that - it won't stop me reading it for a bit of entertainment.

later12

Madam_X wrote: »

As you acknowledge yourself (and thereby not really respecting alternative taste) Take A Break is muck.

Well I can't say whether or not some people would find that disrespectful, but because I am only commenting on my own personal taste, I should hope that most reasonable people would find that a fair enough statement.

What you are saying, is that David Bowie's Station To Station is objectively better than The X Factor as some sort of universal truth, isn't that right?

That takes zero account of personal taste or interpretation ; none.

Not to mention the fact that much of what people consider to be 'the greats' have been covered on X Factor, by people whom I'd say have really amazing voices or did a song real justice.

qwert2

Speaking of astronauts and space worker type people......... why are they always smiling? Too happy for my liking. Now cosmonauts, they knew how to be grim

entropi

As an extra thought: is there an atmosphere on Mars? Sound wont carry through a vaccumm, so how will they pick it up, or recieve data from the song playing?

seven_eleven

Kenno90 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFks9A9TCF0

Gah! This song was playing for some Korean artists exhibition I saw in Tokyo. I remember it because theres something about the song that annoys me. Probably how bad it is. :pac:

Master of Nothing

Master of Nothing wrote: »

As an extra thought: is there an atmosphere on Mars? Sound wont carry through a vaccumm, so how will they pick it up, or recieve data from the song playing?

They?, as in the Aliens?

the groutch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNGFPPvuJBo

Tabnabs

Master of Nothing wrote: »

As an extra thought: is there an atmosphere on Mars? Sound wont carry through a vaccumm, so how will they pick it up, or recieve data from the song playing?

Radio signals presumably? They don't need an atmosphere to travel through.

Actually, we've been polluting space with our media for decades http://www.rimmell.com/bbc/news.htm

Madam_X

Grayson wrote: »

I wonder if Will.i.am will still be known in 300 years.

Next you'll be telling me that the crazy frog tune or Jive Bunny was every bit as praiseworthy as Beethoven.

Yeah this is taking the argument to its logical conclusion, which goes to show how flawed it is.
Now, disliking people because they like X Factor, Westlife et al is obviously the ultimate snobbery, but if someone says The Smiths are sh1t and Jedward are brilliant and better than them, well, that is their personal opinion, but I don't accept it should be respected.

mackg

This may also have something to do with the decision.

According to the space agency, Will.i.am's i.am.angel Foundation will also be announcing a new science, technology, engineering, arts and maths initiative tomorrow with Discovery Education, a US provider of digital resources for schools.

Helping kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get involved with science and engineering. Both NASA and Will look good by association with each other, win/win.

I will also point out that I utterly despise his music but this doesn't really bother me.

Napper Hawkins

He seems like a good dude, an awful, awful tragedy of a musician (ugh, to use that very loosely) but honestly, so the **** what?

There's no one up there anyway. ;-)

Priori

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

He seems like a good dude, an awful, awful tragedy of a musician (ugh, to use that very loosely) but honestly, so the **** what?

There's no one up there anyway. ;-)

There may be some in the CT forum who'll disagree with you there.

Icyseanfitz

"look these earthlings have a novel instrument for people who are talentless tis autotune" :pac:

kowloon

Gummy Panda wrote: »

They should have used:

[All Along The Watchtower]

It could be used to activate the final five in the alien fleet.

Meh, all of this has happened before, and will happen again.

opinion guy

snubbleste wrote: »

Will.i.am mentioned it two months ago

This was a freaking hysterical show by the way - watch the rest:

will.i.am and Miriam Margolyes should have there own show. Greg Davies barely got a look in and he is pretty funny in his own right

tommyboy2222

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnStm_WsCsk

titan18

I can't believe people tried to argue that **** like Will.i.am and Twilight are as good as Mozart or Joyce (fwiw, I dont like classical music, but it's still evidently better than Will.i.am, and you can still appreciate talent in a genre of music/films/books you dont normally like). I can understand people would argue personal preference, but the people who prefer Will.i.am or Twilight are idiots

ITS_A_BADGER

sooooooooooooo anyway, anyone know what song it is?

ascanbe

ITS_A_BADGER wrote: »

sooooooooooooo anyway, anyone know what song it is?

The Will.i.am Tell Overture.

opinion guy

It should be this to let the Martian's know we mean business:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz3Cc7wlfkI

BrendaN_f

titan18 wrote: »

I can't believe people tried to argue that **** like Will.i.am and Twilight are as good as Mozart or Joyce (fwiw, I dont like classical music, but it's still evidently better than Will.i.am, and you can still appreciate talent in a genre of music/films/books you dont normally like). I can understand people would argue personal preference, but the people who prefer Will.i.am or Twilight are idiots

why? what makes music A "evidently better" than music b?

Madam_X

Talent, creativity, originality, hard work.

What makes The Beatles "the same as" Jedward?

BrendaN_f

Madam_X wrote: »

Talent, creativity, originality, hard work.

What makes The Beatles "the same as" Jedward?

what makes them the same (in terms of "goodness") is the fact that there isn't (and can't be) a definition of what constitutes good music

Chuck Stone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2dTSSQNf1o

later12

Madam_X wrote: »

Talent, creativity, originality, hard work.

You're using your own biased, subjective framework here though; possibly with your own preferred art/ music/ culture in mind.

Another, perfectly valid definition of value in art is the extent to which it motivates an emotional response in the observer. To that end, lots of people would describe an XFactor cover by Matt Cardle, for example, as provoking a far greater emotional response in them than a Morrissey b-side.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it, I think it should be a pretty non-controversial point that individuals have different emotional reactions to different types of music; just because you like the Smiths, or whoever, doesn't make your taste universally better, or deserving of greater respect.

titan18

BrendaN_f wrote: »

why? what makes music A "evidently better" than music b?

Talent, creativity, originality, good lyrics (if there is any), the message the song conveys, the structure of the song, the technique needed for any instruments in the song (Steve Vai, Hendrix, Satriani as guitarists), vocal quality, longevity, is it well executed.

later12 wrote: »

You're using your own biased, subjective framework here though; possibly with your own preferred art/ music/ culture in mind.

Another, perfectly valid definition of value in art is the extent to which it motivates an emotional response in the observer. To that end, lots of people would describe an XFactor cover by Matt Cardle, for example, as provoking a far greater emotional response in them than a Morrissey b-side.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it, I think it should be a pretty non-controversial point that individuals have different emotional reactions to different types of music; just because you like the Smiths, or whoever, doesn't make your taste universally better, or deserving of greater respect.

Some music, books, films etc are of a far better quality than others. People may still like it, but they often have no reason for liking it, they just like it. Those people are idiots. For example, since a principle part of music is sound, it's quite obvious that some sounds are considered good and others are bad. If someone preferred a song that consisted of babies crying and fingernails on a blackboard, that's their opinion and preference, but they're still wrong.

Personal taste and a judgement of quality are not the same

Colmustard

later12 wrote: »

You're using your own biased, subjective framework here though; possibly with your own preferred art/ music/ culture in mind.

Another, perfectly valid definition of value in art is the extent to which it motivates an emotional response in the observer. To that end, lots of people would describe an XFactor cover by Matt Cardle, for example, as provoking a far greater emotional response in them than a Morrissey b-side.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it, I think it should be a pretty non-controversial point that individuals have different emotional reactions to different types of music; just because you like the Smiths, or whoever, doesn't make your taste universally better, or deserving of greater respect.

I assume they picked that rapper because he is hip and the American youth like him. That generation will be paying NASAs bills in the future so why not let them in on this project.

That's understandable. But this is a seminal moment, the first human voice and artistic performance played on another planet. Hopilly humanity have a future that there will be more perhaps even a live one someday.

I just think this artist will be quickly forgotten and soon. But Beethoven and other classical musicians has been performed from 200 to 400 years and are now more popular then ever. If humanity has another 200 to 400 years they will still be listened to and appreciated while this rapper will not be.

The thing about classical music is everybody likes it, they just don't realise they are listening to it, on ads films TV series, background music even some Rock and Roll, GaGa for example raids Beethoven for some of her "chunes".

I just think it was a bad DJing choice by NASA.

snausages

titan18 wrote: »

If someone preferred a song that consisted of babies crying and fingernails on a blackboard, that's their opinion and preference, but they're still wrong.

Well now, I like to think of myself as having an open mind as far as that's concerned. I don't see any reason why babbies bawling and blackboards couldn't make an awesome record. After all, we have guys like Merzbow :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXIKZtDQunQ

later12

titan18 wrote: »

Some music, books, films etc are of a far better quality than others. People may still like it, but they often have no reason for liking it, they just like it. Those people are idiots. For example, since a principle part of music is sound, it's quite obvious that some sounds are considered good and others are bad.

See the emboldened bit.

I love how you stop here, as though this requires no further substantiation, or as though it is some sort of fundamental axiom in itself.

No. There are many different ways of assessing art, but all ultimately require a subjective focus which makes an objective or universal or verifiable interpretation of "good art" impossible.

@Colmustard I don't even know where to begin with "The thing about classical music is everybody likes it"; genuinely wouldn't even know where to start on that one.

titan18

later12 wrote: »

See the emboldened bit.

I love how you stop here, as though this requires no further substantiation, or as though it is some sort of fundamental axiom in itself.

No. There are many different ways of assessing art, but all ultimately require a subjective focus which makes an objective or universal or verifiable interpretation of "good art" impossible.

@Colmustard I don't even know where to begin with "The thing about classical music is everybody likes it"; genuinely wouldn't even know where to start on that one.

Well, I explained music above it.

For films, films like Citizen Kane, Vertigo etc are considered excellent films. Films like Twilight, Epic Movie etc are not. If someone wants to say they like Twilight and those awful parody films over the masterpieces above or countless others, that's their opinion, but I'd question their intelligence. It doesn't have to be subjective, just because you like certain genres etc.

For example, I hate romantic comedies. 500 Days of Summer is an excellent film even if it's a genre I hate. The formulaic cookie cutter other sh1te e.g. Jennifer Aniston/Matthew McConaughey films is far inferior, yet people still like them. Likewise, the Transformers films, whilst having some quite nice special effects, feature horrible acting, lazy directing and a horrible script (full of stereotypes, childish humour, and horrible dialogue).

Biggins

What did they do, do make them suffer?
No wonder the Martians are in hiding!

Sky King

Priori wrote: »

Of all the great musical works the human race has produced down the ages, it's a contemporary Rapper/Hip-Hop artist that gets the nod.

Whatever about falling in this music category, I'm more concerned by the fact that it's ****e.

Madam_X

later12 wrote: »

You're using your own biased, subjective framework here though; possibly with your own preferred art/ music/ culture in mind.

Another, perfectly valid definition of value in art is the extent to which it motivates an emotional response in the observer. To that end, lots of people would describe an XFactor cover by Matt Cardle, for example, as provoking a far greater emotional response in them than a Morrissey b-side.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it, I think it should be a pretty non-controversial point that individuals have different emotional reactions to different types of music; just because you like the Smiths, or whoever, doesn't make your taste universally better, or deserving of greater respect.

It's not about what I like. I don't like REM or early Beatles. They are of a much higher quality than auto-tuned bland fare like Jedward though. Think of what constitutes REM's and early Beatles' output in terms of food ingredients, and think of a packet of processed meat and what goes into it, versus a meal cooked from scratch with fresh ingredients. Sure, some people would prefer the processed meat, find it tastier etc, entirely their prerogative. But is the processed meat of the same quality as the meal? No. And that's a fact, not an opinion.

live stream of Will.I.Am taking questions at a NASA event

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

later12

titan18 wrote: »

Well, I explained music above it.

For films, films like Citizen Kane, Vertigo etc are considered excellent films. Films like Twilight, Epic Movie etc are not. If someone wants to say they like Twilight and those awful parody films over the masterpieces above or countless others, that's their opinion, but I'd question their intelligence. It doesn't have to be subjective, just because you like certain genres etc.

For example, I hate romantic comedies. 500 Days of Summer is an excellent film even if it's a genre I hate. The formulaic cookie cutter other sh1te e.g. Jennifer Aniston/Matthew McConaughey films is far inferior, yet people still like them. Likewise, the Transformers films, whilst having some quite nice special effects, feature horrible acting, lazy directing and a horrible script (full of stereotypes, childish humour, and horrible dialogue).

I'm not being funny , but I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say.

You first supplied a list of arbitrary traits which you thought good art should display (interestingly enough, other people putting forward their definitions of "objectively good art" are putting forward some different characteristics, sort of underlining the inconsistency), and you're now referencing what is popularly believed to be art.

I don't see how we can ever answer the question of whether art can be objectively good if people cannot even come to a common and consistent system of describing "objectively good art" in the first place.

And of course, this whole debate is ludicrous anyway.

I have no interest in trying to convince you that Jedward are superior to Johnny Flynn, or that Matt Cardle is superior to Mozart; that wouldn't be my opinion. But I have to accept that this is just my own opinion. Others quite clearly do consider Matt Cardle and Jedward to be capable of creating or performing works that require skill and imagination; or are capable of performing pieces that inspire an emotional response - even if that does involve pulling your hair out and kicking the TV.

Most artists I've ever met would love to motivate a reaction like that.

later12

Madam_X wrote: »

It's not about what I like. I don't like REM or early Beatles. They are of a much higher quality than auto-tuned bland fare like Jedward though.

But they're not bringing the same thing to the table. That's like comparing Damien Hirst's calf in formaldehyde to a Turner.

Jedward are not trying to produce works of outstanding lyrical beauty, they are emitting an entire performance and exciting reactions that REM, as long as they stand in front of a similar crowd, will probably never equal. Not because REM are terrible performers, but because some people look for different characteristics in creative performance, and that's what a lot of music snobs - yes, music snobs, I said it - have trouble in understanding.

Duggy747

Will isn't a musician, he's a businessman. He has his finger in every pie (including the motor industry)

His.............music.........or whatever it is, is the type of stadium / niteclub stuff that can be tacked onto any advert / event.

Sort of like high-end stock music.

Madam_X

Deeming someone a music snob on the basis of them saying the likes of Jedward are sh1t is as dismissive as snobbery.

I appreciate Jedward are loved by kids and put on a great show for entertaining kids and I think that's great. But musically, they are atrocious - I know they don't claim to be good, but for someone to say they're musically no worse than e.g. U2 or Oasis (have to think of a band that nobody gets called a music snob for liking) is very obtuse.

titan18

later12 wrote: »

I'm not being funny , but I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say.

You first supplied a list of arbitrary traits which you thought good art should display (interestingly enough, other people putting forward their definitions of "objectively good art" are putting forward some different characteristics, sort of underlining the inconsistency), and you're now referencing what is popularly believed to be art.

I don't see how we can ever answer the question of whether art can be objectively good if people cannot even come to a common and consistent system of describing "objectively good art" in the first place.

And of course, this whole debate is ludicrous anyway.

I have no interest in trying to convince you that Jedward are superior to Johnny Flynn, or that Matt Cardle is superior to Mozart; that wouldn't be my opinion. But I have to accept that this is just my own opinion. Others quite clearly do consider Matt Cardle and Jedward to be capable of creating or performing works that require skill and imagination; or are capable of performing pieces that inspire an emotional response - even if that does involve pulling your hair out and kicking the TV.

Most artists I've ever met would love to motivate a reaction like that.

later12 wrote: »

But they're not bringing the same thing to the table. That's like comparing Damien Hirst's calf in formaldehyde to a Turner.

Jedward are not trying to produce works of outstanding lyrical beauty, they are emitting an entire performance and exciting reactions that REM, as long as they stand in front of a similar crowd, will probably never equal. Not because REM are terrible performers, but because some people look for different characteristics in creative performance, and that's what a lot of music snobs - yes, music snobs, I said it - have trouble in understanding.

If people want to call me a snob for saying certain musicians/films/authors etc are better than others, than so be it. However, I'll keep a similar principle and call anyone who thinks Twilight, Jedward, Transformers(Bay films), Will.i.am and other crap is art or equally as good as the likes of Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Citizen Kane, Vertigo etc as idiots and are a stain on humanity. I've no real problem with people liking them (even though I'd question their intelligence) but they are not equal.

Personal taste is fine, but quality can be objective. People might differ on criteria, but for example, on guitarists, it should be obvious that the likes of Hendrix, Vai, Satriani, Malmsteen are incredible guitarists and miles better than the guy from the Jonas Brothers or something.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Madam_X wrote: »

Talent, creativity, originality, hard work.

What makes The Beatles "the same as" Jedward?

Sure a child could've written some Beatles songs. :pac:

syklops

RVP 11 wrote: »

The only song that should be used is Ride Of The Valkyries.

I would have said The 1812 Overture, but we are in the right area at least.

later12

titan18 wrote: »

If people want to call me a snob for saying certain musicians/films/authors etc are better than others, than so be it. However, I'll keep a similar principle and call anyone who thinks Twilight, Jedward, Transformers(Bay films), Will.i.am and other crap is art or equally as good as the likes of Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Citizen Kane, Vertigo etc as idiots and are a stain on humanity.

Ah yes, Twilight fans; up there with Nicolae Ceaușescu, Ivan the Terrible, and Mother Teresa on a power trip.

Oh I wouldn't call you a snob at all. I think a lot of people who would share your opinion would enjoy a reputation like that; I would only remind you that for every piece of music you enjoy or think of as sublime, there is someone looking down on you for it. The Chopin enthusiast who thinks that Led Zeppelin is just a loud noise, for example; or Ingmar Bergman who says Citizen Kane was "boring".

I don't think you're a snob; you like the Inbetweeners, don't you?

mathstalk

If it's any consolation, the song has been altered to include orchestral instruments. Perhaps that's a better showcase of Humanity's fruits.
(Link)

titan18

later12 wrote: »

Ah yes, Twilight fans; up there with Nicolae Ceaușescu, Ivan the Terrible, and Mother Teresa on a power trip.

Oh I wouldn't call you a snob at all. I think a lot of people who would share your opinion would enjoy a reputation like that; I would only remind you that for every piece of music you enjoy or think of as sublime, there is someone looking down on you for it. The Chopin enthusiast who thinks that Led Zeppelin is just a loud noise, for example; or Ingmar Bergman who says Citizen Kane was "boring".

I don't think you're a snob; you like the Inbetweeners, don't you?

People can look down, I don't really care, but for example, the Chopin enthusiast who looks down on Led Zeppelin for being loud noise is more than likely doing it for genre reasons. I don't enjoy classical music that much, but I can recognise the quality of certain musicians. I also found Citizen Kane boring btw, but I still recognise it as immense piece of film making. I wouldn't watch the film for fun tbh.

I liked the first season/season and a half of the Inbetweeners, after that not so much, and I'm only watching the US version because there's nothing else on TV and there's hot girls on it. I wouldn't consider it in the same class as Arrested Development or Community though (just using recent shows, there's a lot more obviously)