What you said was still nonsense, no music is designed to be rubbish.
I think you and dmpoole are getting the wrong end of the stick here. Whilst I agree that no music is designed to be rubbish, there most certainly is music which is designed to be entirely disposable.
Calling it "rubbish" is, obviously, entirely subjective. But the point being made is that pop music such a business now that there are parties who actively create music with the intention of selling loads of records. With that in mind, it's difficult to create anything with any meaning or substance if the sole aim is just to shift units. And since everyone looks for meaning in everything always, there are many listeners out there who listen to music purely as a form of escape, for those who do not want to think about music or to be challenged, the exact kind of individual disposable music is made for. People who have no real taste and/or appreciation for music.
dmpoole: your music nazi example is rather flawed. The 3 minute pop song was an entirely different beast in the 70s. Artists who created music like that also made a concentrated effort to craft albums and songs beyond radio friendly unit shifters. Whilst there are many pop artists in the industry today with similar intentions, when we start to think of things like the Macarana, the Crazy Frog and other such things you really need to shelf ideas of artistic integrity.
The point being: pop artists used to strive for both radio friendly music AND artistic integrity. Most pop artists still do, but in today's world where making money is king, one cannot honestly argue that things like the crazy frog or Bob the Builder were created with both artistic integrity and legacy in mind.
GOOD pop music will stand the test of time. From this particular era, good pop music will remain good music in ten years time, and in a sense even if it doesn't have any kind of "artistic integrity" at the moment, if it still sounds good in a decade it'll gain that label by proxy. BAD pop music (cheeky girls, crazy frog, the cartoons, aqua, the vegnaboys etc - the list goes on and on) will only grow worse with age yet somehow, paradoxically, they shifted an absolute ton of records.
The issue here is a semantic one, and a fine line that is not observed: not all pop music these days is entirely disposable and forgettable, but there ARE those who create music with one sole aim in mind, and we would do well not to confuse them, conflate them, or even compare them to pop music which has and which will craft a legacy of its own
If, somehow, in ten years time Bob the Builder is seen as the peak of musical creativity in the 00s then that's fine by me, I'll disagree and move on. But we absolutely should not, and cannot, deny what a soulless industry the music industry can be. Pop music lives on numbers and money, sometimes there are things which are created solely for the purpose of achieving both these things at the sake of meaning but that's just the way it goes.
Someone might be able to attach meaning to a Rihanna song or an Adele song and in many ways they'll be justified in doing so because the artists performed and/or composed those songs with a specific idea or emotion in mind. No one past the age of five will attach any meaning to Bob the Builder. It, like a lot of pop music from the late 90s onward (or, arguably, the 80s) has been created with a deliberate in built life span. It's entirely calculated on the part of the writer and the label.
Taste in music is always going to be subjective, but even with this in mind there will always be those who will craft deliberately unchallenging, bland pop music in order to make money/sell records/guarantee limited success. We should not treat all music the same.
