Is Kenny Loggins the Root of All Evil in Music?

  • Thread starter NBAJam100
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, kenny loggins sucks, chris cornell is the root of all evil, and old blue eyes is in a different category of holly-ness.
  • #1
NBAJam100
146
0
kenny loggins sucks, i just had to get that off my chest. Its been eating at me for quite some time now.

Stick with me on this: Prove that Kenny Loggins is the root of all evil by showing kenny loggins is closed under sucking and having terrible music-

u= kenny loggins v= the danger zone, { u and v in RL (real life) }

u+v= 0 talent ---> where (u+v) in RL , taking (u+v)= footloose

To Prove that he is closed under sucking:

[tex]\lim_{MichaelMcdonald\rightarrow 0}\frac{michaelmcdonald}{(u+v)}[/tex] = 0 talent = proven.

Closed under having terrible music:

you'll notice that if you integrate kenny loggins between the bounds of Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits and Hell, you'll see that the work done by Kenny Loggins is equivalent to that of a sub par musicians career.

[tex]\int_{Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits}^{Hell}\frac{Kenny Loggins}{Chris Cornell}dLoggins=\left[ \ x+y\right]_{Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits}^{Hell} = Terrible music[/tex]

You'll notice that chris cornell was put it the equation to balance the force of loggins sucking, because cornell is that great.

there you have it folks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You are fired.
 
  • #3
Is Chris Cornell a constant?
 
  • #4
Math Is Hard said:
Is Chris Cornell a constant?

No actually, he drops out of the equation due to Theorem 987A by something called Chris Cornell cancellation of a singular suck variable due to humanly god like status.
Chris can't really be a constant because he is changing with respect to decade.

if you let (Matchbox 20) = (1/Chris Cornell) and make the substitution you'll see what I'm talking about. After doing that you'll see that (Kenny Loggins*Matchbox 20) is a suck identity and equals [x+y] after integration.

Follow?
 
  • #5
OK, maybe it's the egg nog...but I'm having trouble understanding (um, not really...actually, I'm sure it's the egg nog). You're using Chris Cornell as a dummy variable? Why not David Gray?
 
  • #6
lisab said:
OK, maybe it's the egg nog...but I'm having trouble understanding (um, not really...actually, I'm sure it's the egg nog). You're using Chris Cornell as a dummy variable? Why not David Gray?

How about Old Blue Eyes?

I think Kenny Loggins rocked NBA's brain right out of his ear and now he is gibbering crazy nonsense. I've seen it before. Sad really.
 
  • #7
lisab said:
OK, maybe it's the egg nog...but I'm having trouble understanding (um, not really...actually, I'm sure it's the egg nog). You're using Chris Cornell as a dummy variable? Why not David Gray?

You bring up a good point lisa, the only problem with using David Gray would be that that would prove something totally different. Chris Cornell> David Gray, so if you plug David Gray into the equation while taking the suck identities into account you would quickly see that it goes to hell because Kenny Loggins dominates the equation.

The force of Chris Cornell and all of his glory is the only thing left on Earth keeping Kenny Loggins in line. There is a major equation behind that statement as well, its called Chris Cornell's law of gravitation...
 
  • #8
Kenny's pretty good, actually. Bonus points for scoring Jim Messina as a producer/co-conspirator. I'm currently listening to some "red-neck jazz" courtesy of Danny Gattton. Killer!
 
  • #9
BTW, "I'm All Right" is one of the hottest songs that "Caddyshack" could muster.
 
  • #10
TheStatutoryApe said:
How about Old Blue Eyes?

I think Kenny Loggins rocked NBA's brain right out of his ear and now he is gibbering crazy nonsense. I've seen it before. Sad really.
Once again, using old blue eyes would yield a different result. He is in a different category of holly-ness. Surprisingly, if you use him you would see that the result is Tony Danza. Us experts over at S.I.T (Suck Integration Technologies) haven't quite figured that one out yet, but we do in fact know that the statement is true.

You bring up another interesting theory, that Loggins has practically demolished my brain with his amazing songs (such as danger zone). I for one have actually entered the danger zone.

My visit to the danger zone was actually the basis for all of our studies over at S.I.T. I in fact am not gibbering crazy nonsense, I am stating things that we found to be true through years of research.
 
  • #11
turbo-1 said:
Kenny's pretty good, actually. Bonus points for scoring Jim Messina as a producer/co-conspirator. I'm currently listening to some "red-neck jazz" courtesy of Danny Gattton. Killer!


I respect your opinion turbo so I must make this disclaimer: These laws are based on independent research conducted at S.I.T. These statements haven't yet been approved by the F.D.A (Yes, they cover music as well).

On the bright side, we have a ferret research facility that has proven time and time again that ferrets are one of the best pets due to the electroferretmagnetic effect
 
  • #12
Enjoy!


Loggins and Messina put out a LOT of wonderful stuff during their time together, including perhaps the best live album to be recorded all-analog. Can't dump on Kenny...sorry
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
There is a problem with this equation. The statement where u+v = 0 appears in the denominator of the michael mcdonald equation and strictly speaking this means that

Michael McDonald/(u+v)= 0

is actually undefined as written. Furthermore the function 1/(u+v) approaches positive infinity as u+v approaches zero. This would imply that Kenny Loggins + danger zone is an infinitely large quantity as the sum approaches zero, or that Kenny Loggins has nearly infinite talent. Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Renge Ishyo said:
There is a problem with this equation. The statement where u+v = 0 appears in the denominator of the michael mcdonald equation and strictly speaking this means that

Michael McDonald/(u+v)= 0

is actually undefined as written. Furthermore the function 1/(u+v) approaches positive infinity as u+v approaches zero. This would imply that Kenny Loggins + danger zone is an infinitely large quantity or that Kenny Loggins has nearly infinite talent. Q.E.D.

Go back and re-read my equations. (u+v) is not = 0, it is = (0 talent), which is NOT 0. So taking Michael Mcdonald/(u+v) as Michael Mcdonald goes to 0 is equal to (0/0 talent) which is in fact 0. 0 and 0 talent differ because 0 talent = o + t, where t is the talent scale, and 1 is the lowest, so technically, 0 talent = 1 so its technically michael mcdonald/ 1 as M.M goes to 0 = 0 talent...

[EDIT] You should also note that i said (u+v)=footloose, so footloose=1==(u+v) (none of which are 0). So in no way does this go to infinity...

And at no point did i have (u+v) going to zero, michael mcdonald went to zero.
 
Last edited:
  • #15

My favourite rendition of my favourite Loggins song.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
NBAJam100 said:
kenny loggins sucks, i just had to get that off my chest. Its been eating at me for quite some time now.

Stick with me on this: Prove that Kenny Loggins is the root of all evil by showing kenny loggins is closed under sucking and having terrible music-

u= kenny loggins v= the danger zone, { u and v in RL (real life) }

u+v= 0 talent ---> where (u+v) in RL , taking (u+v)= footloose

To Prove that he is closed under sucking:

[tex]\lim_{MichaelMcdonald\rightarrow 0}\frac{michaelmcdonald}{(u+v)}[/tex] = 0 talent = proven.

Closed under having terrible music:

you'll notice that if you integrate kenny loggins between the bounds of Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits and Hell, you'll see that the work done by Kenny Loggins is equivalent to that of a sub par musicians career.

[tex]\int_{Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits}^{Hell}\frac{Kenny Loggins}{Chris Cornell}dLoggins=\left[ \ x+y\right]_{Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits}^{Hell} = Terrible music[/tex]

You'll notice that chris cornell was put it the equation to balance the force of loggins sucking, because cornell is that great.

there you have it folks

Someone didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
 
  • #17
Ivan Seeking said:
Someone didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
Or something they didn't want for Christmas.
 
  • #18
Actually, my guess is that dad was playing a Kenny Loggins CD.
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
Actually, my guess is that dad was playing a Kenny Loggins CD.

Or sisters/mom/cousins were watching Top Gun considering the Danger Zone reference.
I hate that movie for no other reason than the outrageous number of times I have been made to watch it.
 
  • #20
When I was in high school, I jumped the fence and snuck into a Loggins & Messina concert at Blossom Music Center. This was the only concert I ever successfully snuck into, so I'm somewhat favorably biased towards Kenny Loggins.

None the less, I dutifully listened to a view of the songs on YouTube and I have to agree with the OP. Kenny Loggins sucks.

What in the world was I thinking?! At least I never paid to see him.

Heck, the fact that I snuck into his concert might be irrefutable proof that Kenny Loggins sucks. The first LP I ever owned was Bobby Goldsboro.
 
  • #21
BobG said:
None the less, I dutifully listened to a view of the songs on YouTube and I have to agree with the OP. Kenny Loggins sucks.

I'm glad someone is seeing things my way! hahaha

In response to:
me not getting what i wanted for christmas- Not true
Dad playing a loggins CD- No

Someone was watching Top Gun... Ding Ding Ding! we have a winner!


I do love the movie, but that song is terrible in a hilarious sort of way to me. It did however inspire me to start declaring things as "zones" which is kind of funny. It makes everything sound so much more hardcore and B.A...
 
  • #22
No fair, most 80's songs sound weird and corny when we hear them today! Top Gun was a really good movie in its time (at least compared to most everything else released then).
 
  • #23
Too bad Tom Cruise had to go all nutty, eh?
 
  • #24
Renge Ishyo said:
No fair, most 80's songs sound weird and corny when we hear them today! Top Gun was a really good movie in its time (at least compared to most everything else released then).

Yeah, that is true. I am actually a fan of most 80's bands

I actually consider music from the 80's to be more futuristic than our current music. Musicians in the 80's loved the future and producing futuristic beats. That might be why we find it so funny and corny, because it is beyond our realm of understanding. Maybe in 50-60 years we will fully understand the sound of 80's music.

And yeah, top gun was a real good movie in its time
 
  • #25
tchitt said:
Too bad Tom Cruise had to go all nutty, eh?

Yeah hahahah, I guess all we can do is hope that he gets back to old form soon and they can make Top Gun 2
 
  • #26
NBAJam100 said:
kenny loggins sucks, i just had to get that off my chest. Its been eating at me for quite some time now.

Stick with me on this: Prove that Kenny Loggins is the root of all evil by showing kenny loggins is closed under sucking and having terrible music-

u= kenny loggins v= the danger zone, { u and v in RL (real life) }

u+v= 0 talent ---> where (u+v) in RL , taking (u+v)= footloose

To Prove that he is closed under sucking:

[tex]\lim_{MichaelMcdonald\rightarrow 0}\frac{michaelmcdonald}{(u+v)}[/tex] = 0 talent = proven.

Closed under having terrible music:

you'll notice that if you integrate kenny loggins between the bounds of Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits and Hell, you'll see that the work done by Kenny Loggins is equivalent to that of a sub par musicians career.

[tex]\int_{Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits}^{Hell}\frac{Kenny Loggins}{Chris Cornell}dLoggins=\left[ \ x+y\right]_{Kenny Loggins Greatest Hits}^{Hell} = Terrible music[/tex]

You'll notice that chris cornell was put it the equation to balance the force of loggins sucking, because cornell is that great.

there you have it folks

Don't let your heart grow cold
Just reach out and call his name, his name
 
  • #27
However much I like Cornell I must bring up that his level off greatness drops cause Timbaland got him into rap...
 
  • #28
BobG said:
The first LP I ever owned was Bobby Goldsboro.
Now how in the world were you going to annoy your parents with a Bobby Goldsboro LP? My first LP was In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. Parents can similarly do things truly annoy their children. Apparently watching Top Gun is one of them.
 
  • #29
binzing said:
However much I like Cornell I must bring up that his level off greatness drops cause Timbaland got him into rap...

I kind of agree and I kind of don't agree. I think his solo stuff is def going in a new direction which i personally don't think is that bad. I am not the biggest rap fan, but i have to say Timbaland made some solid beats for his new stuff.
 
  • #30
D H said:
Now how in the world were you going to annoy your parents with a Bobby Goldsboro LP? My first LP was In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. Parents can similarly do things truly annoy their children. Apparently watching Top Gun is one of them.

hahahahhaha, i guess that would have to count as one thing parents do that annoys their children. I come home for winter break and i want peace and rest. The last thing i want to have to go through is the danger zone, that's the epitome of intensity. Its like expecting a quite night at home but instead you get punched in the face by a blast of 80's power.

To Proton Soup-

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH, great video
 
  • #31
I've actually not heard any of the rap/Timbaland influenced stuff so I'm really not fair in judging...
 

1. Is there any scientific evidence to support the claim that Kenny Loggins is the root of all evil in music?

No, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. Music is subjective and what one person may consider "evil" may be enjoyable to someone else.

2. What led to the belief that Kenny Loggins is the root of all evil in music?

This belief likely stems from personal opinions and biases rather than any factual evidence. It is important to remember that music preferences are subjective and what one person may dislike, another may enjoy.

3. Are there any other factors that contribute to the quality of music besides the artist?

Yes, there are many other factors that contribute to the quality of music, such as production, lyrics, instrumentation, and personal taste. It is unfair to solely blame an artist for the perceived "evil" in music.

4. Can one artist really be responsible for all the negative aspects of an entire genre or industry?

No, it is not fair to place the blame on one artist for the negative aspects of an entire genre or industry. Music is constantly evolving and influenced by many different factors, and it is not fair to attribute all of the negative aspects to one individual.

5. How can we objectively determine the root of all evil in music?

It is impossible to objectively determine the root of all evil in music as it is subjective and varies from person to person. It is important to respect different opinions and recognize that there is no one definitive answer to this question.

Similar threads

  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top