Maybe it's just me, but...

Guybrush · 06-11-2010, 06:42 AM

I think people don't know or forget perhaps that the music industry was commercialized back some 50 years ago, just as it is now if not worse. Stars were hand picked, coached, written songs for and produced just like they are now. As far as I know, it wasn't really until the 60s and the 70s that people could form bands and have the freedom to make "non-commercial" music and still have the possibility of getting a record deal (ex. krautrock or Canterbury bands).

Urban Hat€monger ? · 06-11-2010, 06:46 AM

Yeah but the main difference was back then there were hundreds of record labels putting out all sorts of stuff. Even if it was safe & commercial you still had many different takes on that.

Now there are 4 record companies. That's the real reason as to why things are so stale in mainstream music.

Guybrush · 06-11-2010, 06:54 AM

I'm not sure if I think there was that much diversity even back then. There are always exceptions, but from a completely general point of view, the different british invasion bands from the 60s f.ex are not that amazingly diverse. Neither are the rock and rollers from the late 40s and 50s.

I don't have a problem appreciating such artists, but I find it hypocritical when people use arguments to explain why they don't like modern pop music when they could just as well criticize the bands they love using the same arguments.

edit :

I think there are legitimate reasons why people may not like pop music. I just don't think they're always obvious to the people who say they don't.

**Janszoon** · 06-11-2010, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

What didn't you like about it? The song had a good beat, Keys' vocal contributions were stellar, and the lyrics were great (and served as a perfect opposition to Nas' N.Y. State of Mind).

Hmm... Let’s see. Boring rapping that alternates with mind-numbingly dull singing on the choruses. Tedious mukaz-style music. Uninteresting mid-tempo beat. Crappy lyrics. Hell, it even has boring subject matter, being probably the billionth song written about New York City.

Dom · 06-11-2010, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Hmm... Let’s see. Boring rapping that alternates with mind-numbingly dull singing on the choruses. Tedious mukaz-style music. Uninteresting mid-tempo beat. Crappy lyrics. Hell, it even has boring subject matter, being probably the billionth song written about New York City.

Could not agree more.

I don't dislike pop because it's pop. I dislike most pop because it's safe, boring, unoriginal and untalented. I also dislike most pop fans because they tend to say every other genre is crap purely because they are afraid that they may actually like it and therefore be different, or because they can't be arsed to actually find it.

midnight rain · 06-11-2010, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Hmm... Let’s see. Boring rapping that alternates with mind-numbingly dull singing on the choruses. Tedious mukaz-style music. Uninteresting mid-tempo beat. Crappy lyrics. Hell, it even has boring subject matter, being probably the billionth song written about New York City.

Wow, obviously we're on very different wavelengths. Interesting you use the word tedious to describe the music, considering it's a rap song. I'd be interested as to what kind of rap you do like.

And seriously, ragging on the lyrics for being about NYC? How many songs are about love? Sex? Drugs? Seeing as how music has been around as long as it has, unique subject matter for a song is hard to come by. It's how you phrase it that's key. And I think the song does a great job. Couldn't disagree more here.

**Janszoon** · 06-11-2010, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

Wow, obviously we're on very different wavelengths. Interesting you use the word tedious to describe the music, considering it's a rap song. I'd be interested as to what kind of rap you do like.

Why do you find it interesting that I'd find the music tedious "considering it's a rap song"? Do have a really low opinion of rap or something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

And seriously, ragging on the lyrics for being about NYC? How many songs are about love? Sex? Drugs? Seeing as how music has been around as long as it has, unique subject matter for a song is hard to come by. It's how you phrase it that's key. And I think the song does a great job. Couldn't disagree more here.

Well, you asked what I didn't like about it and I told you. I wouldn't exactly describe that as ragging on it. And it's not like I automatically dislike songs that are about overdone subject matter, it's just in this particular case it becomes one more boring aspect of a very boring song.

Goblin Tears · 06-11-2010, 04:48 PM

I'm of Tea Supremecist's opinion...it's mainly personal taste, although a lot of other factors come into it. Corportate manufacturing has always been at play. For lyrical content, the pop labels specifically cater towards the most universal tastes (hedonism, sex, happy-go-luck clubbing, chicks, and riches) in a lot of cases, filled with the catchiest hooks by the trendiest producers they can find.

But I do not stand by the statement that all mainstream music sucks. Even manufactured music can have its merits if the producer did a good job, if the singer poured his/her heart into, etc. And yes, the occasional mainstream artist can actually have some degree of substance to their work; Prince, Madonna, even Eminem, whom the OP mentioned here, all have had some gems in their extensive musical catalogues...their commercial success doesn't make their music any better or worse than what it is. Similarly, you can find really bad, alternative and less mainstream music. Trust me, there's a LOT of that.

Ultimately, yes, it all comes down to personal tastes, and mainstream music appeases the majority of people's tastes, hence it being mainstream.

LoathsomePete · 06-11-2010, 04:54 PM

There was a book I read earlier in the year called Ripped: How the Wired Generation Revolutionized the Music Industry and the author went into great detail about this subject. No not barring any errors on the authors part it pretty much goes like this. Major record label execs give large portions of money to a third party people called 'Indie Promoters' who then channel the money to the radio station to place whatever sh*tty song on the radio. Essentially they are buying their popularity and seeing as how over 50% of most radio stations are by Clear Channel, it allows to them to control what a large portion of the people listen to. Basically, Justin Bieber is as popular as he is because people invested a large sum of money to buy his place in the spotlight. It's not because everyone loves his music or that millions of people have gone out to buy My World 2.0, but because it was purchased for him. Why do you think the major labels went all psycho when people started downloading popular artists' music? How are they going to make a return on their investment if everyone goes out and downloads the song they spent thousands or millions of dollars on promoting?

Burning Down · 06-11-2010, 05:04 PM

I like to listen to mainstream artists, but I dig deep into their catalogues to find the stuff that's not played on the radio. Album cuts (or whatever you'd like to call them) are generally better in my opinion - they're usually more genuine because the artist or band is not making the song to fit the cookie-cutter standards of a radio hit. For example, from REM's album Out of Time, I much prefer the album cut "Texarkana" over the poppy cheesy-ness that is "Shiny Happy People." Even the band stopped playing this one live during the Monster tour in 1994 and haven't played it live since then.

versus

Over the past couple of years I've gotten more into classical and jazz, both of which are FAR from mainstream. Of course there's the more popular classical music from Beethoven, Mozart, et al, and the more popular jazz musicians like Coltrane or Davis.

I still like mainstream music, but I think people should learn to enjoy the deeper cuts and less popular stuff as well.

06-11-2010, 06:42 AM	#21 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I think people don't know or forget perhaps that the music industry was commercialized back some 50 years ago, just as it is now if not worse. Stars were hand picked, coached, written songs for and produced just like they are now. As far as I know, it wasn't really until the 60s and the 70s that people could form bands and have the freedom to make "non-commercial" music and still have the possibility of getting a record deal (ex. krautrock or Canterbury bands). __________________ Something Completely Different

06-11-2010, 06:46 AM	#22 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Yeah but the main difference was back then there were hundreds of record labels putting out all sorts of stuff. Even if it was safe & commercial you still had many different takes on that. Now there are 4 record companies. That's the real reason as to why things are so stale in mainstream music. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

06-11-2010, 06:54 AM	#23 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I'm not sure if I think there was that much diversity even back then. There are always exceptions, but from a completely general point of view, the different british invasion bands from the 60s f.ex are not that amazingly diverse. Neither are the rock and rollers from the late 40s and 50s. I don't have a problem appreciating such artists, but I find it hypocritical when people use arguments to explain why they don't like modern pop music when they could just as well criticize the bands they love using the same arguments. edit : I think there are legitimate reasons why people may not like pop music. I just don't think they're always obvious to the people who say they don't. __________________ Something Completely Different

06-11-2010, 04:54 PM	#29 (permalink)
LoathsomePete Cardboard Box Realtor Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Hobb's End Posts: 7,648	There was a book I read earlier in the year called Ripped: How the Wired Generation Revolutionized the Music Industry and the author went into great detail about this subject. No not barring any errors on the authors part it pretty much goes like this. Major record label execs give large portions of money to a third party people called 'Indie Promoters' who then channel the money to the radio station to place whatever shtty song on the radio. Essentially they are buying their popularity and seeing as how over 50% of most radio stations are by Clear Channel, it allows to them to control what a large portion of the people listen to. Basically, Justin Bieber is as popular as he is because people invested a large sum of money to buy his place in the spotlight. It's not because everyone loves his music or that millions of people have gone out to buy My World 2.0*, but because it was purchased for him. Why do you think the major labels went all psycho when people started downloading popular artists' music? How are they going to make a return on their investment if everyone goes out and downloads the song they spent thousands or millions of dollars on promoting? __________________ Last.FM 101 Albums That May Not Change Your Life, But I Really Like And You Might Too

06-11-2010, 04:48 PM	#28 (permalink)
Goblin Tears Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Ireland Posts: 337	I'm of Tea Supremecist's opinion...it's mainly personal taste, although a lot of other factors come into it. Corportate manufacturing has always been at play. For lyrical content, the pop labels specifically cater towards the most universal tastes (hedonism, sex, happy-go-luck clubbing, chicks, and riches) in a lot of cases, filled with the catchiest hooks by the trendiest producers they can find. But I do not stand by the statement that all mainstream music sucks. Even manufactured music can have its merits if the producer did a good job, if the singer poured his/her heart into, etc. And yes, the occasional mainstream artist can actually have some degree of substance to their work; Prince, Madonna, even Eminem, whom the OP mentioned here, all have had some gems in their extensive musical catalogues...their commercial success doesn't make their music any better or worse than what it is. Similarly, you can find really bad, alternative and less mainstream music. Trust me, there's a LOT of that. Ultimately, yes, it all comes down to personal tastes, and mainstream music appeases the majority of people's tastes, hence it being mainstream.

06-11-2010, 05:04 PM	#30 (permalink)
Burning Down The Music Guru. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Beyond the Wall Posts: 4,858	I like to listen to mainstream artists, but I dig deep into their catalogues to find the stuff that's not played on the radio. Album cuts (or whatever you'd like to call them) are generally better in my opinion - they're usually more genuine because the artist or band is not making the song to fit the cookie-cutter standards of a radio hit. For example, from REM's album Out of Time, I much prefer the album cut "Texarkana" over the poppy cheesy-ness that is "Shiny Happy People." Even the band stopped playing this one live during the Monster tour in 1994 and haven't played it live since then. versus Over the past couple of years I've gotten more into classical and jazz, both of which are FAR from mainstream. Of course there's the more popular classical music from Beethoven, Mozart, et al, and the more popular jazz musicians like Coltrane or Davis. I still like mainstream music, but I think people should learn to enjoy the deeper cuts and less popular stuff as well.