[kolev]

Popular music is the music listened to by most people by definition. Most people are not very smart (not to say they are stupid). Therefore, pop(ular) music will never be intelligent as it needs to attune to a lot of people that are not that smart. I got tired of the gimmicky pop years ago and switched completely to classical and folk music.

[Practicality]

Indeed. It should never be surprising that the mainstream is mediocre. It has to be. That's what mediocre means. Mediocre people often prefer to refer to themselves as "average," but it's the same thing.

[tormeh]

Many people say "mediocre" when they really mean "shit", though, which is why many prefer using "average".

[Dewie3]

"Average" just means that, while "mediocre" means average + negative connotation.

You're the one who is using a word with more baggage than the straightforward, "by definition" meaning (probably to do with some statistical distribution). Average is not always bad, unless you think that being non-average is inherently good. And having average music taste is about as harmless/inconsequential as average-ness goes - you like the music you like. That's it. Anything beyond that is more about social signalling and stratification than it is about the enjoyment of the music itself.

[Practicality]

Contrast average with "Exceptional. Special. Distinguished. Excellent. etc."

The nature of these words show a clear bias that being non-average IS inherently good, at least when you are talking about quality. Music is clearly a qualitative arena, and therefore, average means, "not exceptional," "not special," "not distinguished" and "not excellent"

Ergo, my point is, the parent to this discussion is correct, "average" music can never be exceptional as the difference between average and exceptional is what defines those very words.

I am simply trying to use the word mediocre to make more obvious what average means when it comes to quality.

To be fair, there is a non-average that is below normal as well, with related words: Poor, sub-standard, deficient, defective, inferior, etc. So, being worse than average is even worse than being average. Again, in terms of quality.

Of course, average in another arena, such as average height, for example, is neither bad nor good. But height is not a measure of quality.

[Practicality]

In reference to why people call exceptional things weird, odd and strange, please refer to Albert Einstein's quote: "Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."

[Dewie3]

My point wasn't that "weird" are synonyms for "excellent". They are the other side of the coin of things that are not average -- the less desirable things.

Something being average denotes that it is commonplace. Not everything that is commonplace is subpar to something that is not average. Sometimes those things are just weird, odd, subpar or undesirable. And sometimes, they are indeed exceptional. And no, something being "odd" or "weird" isn't always or solely average people just "not getting it". Sometimes it's just subpar, weird and odd. I know, I know, it's a profound-sounding quote by Einstein so that means it must be relevant in every situation..

In the case of music, people with peculiar tastes will sometimes think of the mainstream music as being lame and uncultured. In reality, those mainstream listeners might get the exact same enjoyment out of listening to their mainstream music, as those with more peculiar tastes get out of listening to their music. But at least those with special taste get some kicks out of feeling superior, so they've got that going for them. You can call that the smug-hipster-bonus.

Tip: if you wait a minute or so you can reply to the actual comment. There is a short delay between a comment being posted and being able to reply to it, for some reason.

[Practicality]

Thanks for the tip. It seems we agree that there is a subpar under average as well as an above-average.

Whether or not this applies to mainstream music seems to be where we differ.

I believe the Einstein quote is still relevant to this discussion, even if it is possible to misuse the quote. Similar to wine, art and other things of quality, when you first start to learn something the basic, simpler things seem better. Most people start by drinking fruity wines, enjoy simplistic art and like pop music. Also, while you are still enjoying simple things it's hard to understand why someone would want something more refined.

However, once you have experienced the basic level you will eventually want to move beyond it and enjoy things of higher quality. Higher quality wine, music or art requires that you move beyond average.

I believe a more refined musical palette will always move you beyond pop music. Again, similar to fruity, sweet simplistic wine, that doesn't mean you didn't enjoy the basic experience, it's just that you now want something better.

Whether or not the things one would eventually move onto are truly better seems subjective to me, hence why I think "better music" is a qualitative thing.

[Dewie3]

> Contrast average with "Exceptional. Special. Distinguished. Excellent. etc."

Contrast average with "Odd. Weird. Freak. etc."

> Music is clearly a qualitative arena,

Strongly disagree.

[Practicality]

I am sincerely curious as to how music could be not qualitative (IE, quantitative). Is better music just more notes? Or more words? What numeric value of music would be better? Making more money, perhaps?

Or are you saying that a music's popularity, in terms of how many people listen to it, is how you determine it's value?

That is definitely an interesting way of looking at it. I can't say it's not a valid way of measuring it.

[Dewie3]

I thought you meant that there is some way to measure quality of music.

[kolev]

You can't downvote the truth, pop fans!