I’d like to know what you guys think about this. This discussion started the ‘best emcee of all time’ debate between us, the discussion of what’s REALLY art, and whether popularity validates art.

My two cents: there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with pop music. There are times when, as a listener, you want to be challenged, or want to hear great musicians performing at the peak of their abilities. But there also are times when you just want hear something with a catchy hook, good beat, and pleasant melody. The key — for me — is to define the musical experience myself, and not be persuaded that some critic’s viewpoint is more valid than my own with respect to what I like. The mass media is trying to sell us products made by their corporate masters, period. If one of my friends tells me to check out an artist it’s because they like what they hear, and think I will, too.

I feel kind of lame asking what the meaning of talent is, but it’s a fair question. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Jay-Z puts on a good show, but can’t write a lyric or play a lick. Is he talented? If he blows my mind with his performance, sure he is. If all he does is stand woodenly center stage and lip synch, certainly not. That goes for anyone. I’m not ahuge Garth Brooks fan, but word is that he can put on a hell of a show, even if you don’t like country music. That’s talent, every bit as much as Miles Davis has talent.

You’re right on a lot of levels.

Talent is really defined by what a person is looking for from that particular artist. And a guy like Garth Brooks can put on a show, but if he can’t get people to come to the show (because his album sucks), his talent is going to waste.

I don’t know about Jay-Z’s ability to put on a show, but he is a lyrical dynamo. And at what point does that innate talent become mundane because they’re not necessarily pushing the limits of their talents?

Andre 3000 is considered to be one of the best talents we have in hip hop, primarily because he can put on a good stage show, has a broad swath of appeal, and tries a whole range of new and interesting concepts when it comes to each of his releases.

Lil Wayne has even ventured into learning the guitar and trying a rock album. Jay-Z, arguably the biggest name in hip hop, releases something that doesn’t push any envelopes–is it art? Is it business, is it just pop music? does it matter because someone somewhere will like it?

And at what point does a fan, consumer, etc, decide “well, that’s really not worth getting?”

These are all really intangible things to be discussed (talent, art, culture, hip hop), but there must be a common thread or barometer that we gauge art and talent by, right? Or no?

At the end of the day, there really isn’t anything wrong with pop music itself. Often times, the music is well constructed by talented musicians. The problem with pop music stems from the almost artificial and factory made feel that goes along with it. Pop music is designed to be popular and make money. So at some point, the artistry, creativity, and originality that goes into creating an album is killed and the focus becomes following the magic blueprint (or blueprint 2 or blueprint 3) to sell records. As Erykah Badu said, “the record label try to make ya compromise your art.”

i think that people that hate pop music the most are the people that are looking for music to speak to them as an individual as opposed to speaking to the masses.
As a music lover, there is a special feeling i get when there’s an artist, a group, or even a song that i know about and really enjoy that others don’t know exist.
Pop music rarely makes you feel good inside. You rarely get the feeling that you are witnessing greatness. But you do get the feeling that a lot of songs sound alike or have similar content to what someone else already did.