Quote:
Originally Posted by realtalk92
What exactly is boring music? I agree that there is such a thing but just want to know your definition of it and can you give an example.
|
I already defined it for you. People who find
most(Not all) chart music safe & boring.
Quote:
Your right.
However
I think this case is mostly for the music industry TODAY.
The music industry over the last 10 years is alot different then how it was during the6 0s, 70s, 80s and when Michael Jackson was dominating. During Michaels prime he was competing with the likes of Al Green, Stevie Wonder, Lionel Ritchie, Gap Band, Prince, etc I personally dont think these artists are the lowest of the demoniator when they are some of the greatest artists of their time. Alot of there hits (radio hits) are also classics that are not generic.
|
Nope, I can remember the chart being crap in the 90s, the 80s. I can look back at charts from the 70s & 60s and you'll see it filled up with tons of novelty & corporate crap.It's so easy to look back with rose tinted glasses & think everything in the past was better but the fact is you have only listed 6 artists from over a 40 year period.
Why do you think people look out the charts & look for other things in the first place? without that you'd have no metal, no punk, no hip hop, no dance music, no electronica, no nothing.
You should be thanking people who want something new to listen to, not criticising them.
Quote:
|
Are you honestly implying songs like Billie Jean, Lets Stay Together, Sign O Times, If Really Love Me are generic songs? Just because they were popular during their time doesnt mean they are generic.
|
No, you are.
You're the one that said people just hate mainstream music. I didn't.
Did you not read where I said most people with any real appreciation of music will give artists credit?
Quote:
Fast forward 30 something years later... 2013 pop industry is a sham and most of the Top 20 artists dont have a spec of the talent most of the above artists have. There also is not alot of competition as far as talent and variety. The quality of music is very different as well but that is because the music industry today is not about music and is a business out to make money. It has always been about making money but its very structured differently today.
I just dont think its fair to say the past eras of the industry is the same as how it is now because they are completely different.
|
Your opinion only
Manufactured pop acts have been around since the dawn of the charts. And every single major record company started for the sole intention of finding the next big seller and making money, whether that hit was actually musically worth anything substantial was just a bonus.
Quote:
There isnt a problem.
I just dont think its fair to argue that ALL pop music has always been garbage just because the current pop scene is garbage.
|
Nobody is saying this other than you. The reason I replied to you in the first place was to refute this claim you made.
Quote:
I agree.
So would you agree that Michael Jackson was talented? (Whether you are a fan or not)
|
I think he had it initially but he became so far away removed from any kind of reality to the point where he was just making crowd pleasing music that made money because that's what the record company expected of him.
When you sell truck loads of albums record companies expect the same thing from the next one. They don't want you taking risks.
And that's how we get back to boring music, music made to make money with no risks involved.
Do you see now?
Quote:
I have not mentioned any awards Michael Jackson has won or discussed any of his achievements. A poster questioned his involvement in his music making process which I disagreed with. I just argued that he was involved in making his music with writing his music and even produced some of his songs. There are even demos on youtube where he created alot of the songs on Thriller, OTW, Bad at his house with instruments prior to Quincy even receving the songs.
He did not release 7 singles on each of his albums and singles does not represent an artists entire catalogue especially if someone is arguing an artist was not experimental by relying on JUST their "singles" to generalize their entire catalogue.
|
You're missing the point here totally.
I was asking how you could claim someone hasn't heard him properly when he's releasing
around 7 singles an album.
Like I said, in the UK he released 9 singles off an album that had 11 songs.
I don't understand how you can say that someone hasn't heard something when 9 songs off an 11 song album are regularly getting airplay & TV time.
Are the other 2 songs off the album really that amazing to change someone's opinion when they've heard the other 9 songs?
I just don't get how you can claim Jackson is one of the biggest pop artists ever in one breath & then claim that people have not heard him in another. It makes no sense, I hear the guy on the radio practically every day without wanting to hear him.
I don't see how anybody can look at Michael Jackson and say to someone 'You've just not listened to him properly yet'.