Quote:
Originally Posted by Oomph!
Let's put it this way, sales require popularity but popularity does not require selling ( as in physically selling a product).
|
Please explain to me then how the Arctic Monkeys became one of the most successful bands in Britain without having had their album even finished (nothing to buy for them.)
Quote:
|
Generalizations are generallytrue (just 'in general'). Especially this one.
|
No they're not, especially hasty generalizations that you don't have any evidence behind. Unless of course you can provide me with a list of every pop musician and then give evidence proving they were in it for the money.
Quote:
|
Not contradicting, they are all essentially saying the same thig, pop music is music designed to sell not to express passion or art.
|
Once again, read the definition. You're contradicting yourself.
Quote:
|
Pop music is music charted by the number or sales, plays, etc., that the work receives.[1] Most commercial music of any genre is composed with deliberate intent to appeal to the majority of its contemporaries.[2][3][4], but, unless extremely popular in its own genre, it must to appeal to a wider audience to appear on the Pop charts.
|
See that word? Most, not all.
Quote:
They profited from the album, they knew most people would feel obligated to pay money (to assure that they were 'true fans' or what not), it wasn't really free in the way we are speaking of.
Had they released the album to be given out or downloaded without the option of paying money, just plain, flat out free, no profit accepted, THAT would have been 'free' in our context.
|
They released an album you could get free and it was one of the most popular albums of 2007. I fail to see how that doesn't disprove the whole you can't be popular without sales argument seeing as its fairly obvious they didn't give much of a damn about sales if they gave you a free option.
Quote:
|
I'm talking about the genre of pop music IN GENERAL anyway, it's only appropriate that I speak in generalizations, I'm not talking about any specific act.
|
Yet you've been saying things like "all pop musicians this" and "all pop" that, odd. Stop backpedaling just admit you were wrong.
Quote:
|
It (pop music) is based on profit/sales/money (there are several ways to describe it), profit/sales/money is in turn based on things like plays and popularity etc. Pop music doesn't exist to get plays and popularity, it exists to make money which in itself is determined by plays and popularity, ect.
|
I like how you completely dodge being discussed in the music world despite the fact I've brought it up several times. Being played on the radio doesn't earn you money if it does than bands long since broken up would still be sent cash by the radio and it doesn't exactly work like that. Nice try though, stop trying to bull
shit me.
Quote:
|
It's many things, including popularity. They are all 'factors' that effect 'sales' or 'profit', which is the root concept beind pop music.
|
You don't earn money because your album was reviewed positively in a magazine, you don't earn money because your song was played on the radio, you don't earn money because an influential music review site talked about you. There's tons of instances of popularity that don't earn a band money.
Quote:
It doesn't ruin my argument, I openly admit that I'm speaking of the genre "IN GENERAL", remember this:
"pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement"
I'm not talking about any specific act or category or anything like that.
|
Speaking in general and just speaking of artists like Britney Spears and Nsync are two different things.
Quote:
|
That sounds like a request for sources to me.
|
No I'm not going to run around google to please you. I'm going to actually argue because I actually have formed MY OWN opinion on this and I have MY OWN reasons/logic/facts to back it up. It's also pretty rich you dodged explaining who your two sources were.