Originally Posted by Dylstew (Post 1473692)

What's important is that the people that like that type of artist, their niche, know about the good artist. If not, it'll be underappreciated because they don't know about it. It doesn't matter if it's fully mainstream, why would you care so much about that?
When that happens it's usually just mindless sheep/drones that like whatever they're told to like by marketing, or people that just never take the effort to look for better music, making them only listen to what's on the radio. Why would it matter what they think about the artist?

it matters if it's well known to the people that genuinely care about that type of music, at least to me. There''s a lot of Punk bands I like that are nowhere near popular compared to pop punk or mainstream music, but they're very well known by almost any punk fan so I don't really care too much about it.

Originally Posted by Psy-Fi (Post 1473691)

Back in 1989, Frank Zappa released an autobiography called "The Real Frank Zappa Book." Being a big fan of Zappa and The Mothers of Invention, I bought a copy of the book and read it through. In the book, Frank mentions a speech he gave, in 1984, to the convention of the American Society of University Composers (ASUC). It was one of many interesting parts in the book, that stuck in my mind, and it is just as relevant today and just as humorous now as it was then. I found the entire speech reproduced at a website and thought I'd post some excerpts here, since they fit the topic of this thread. I've also included the link to the entire speech, in case anyone is interested in reading it in it's entirety.

Here are some excerpts from the speech...


"Back in the old days, when all the REALLY GOOD MUSIC was being written, composers were TRULY INSPIRED, had a DEEP MEANING in their works and SUFFERED INTENSE EMOTIONAL DISCOMFORT as these GREAT WORKS were 'BORN'."

Yes, people still believe in this kind of stuff. In truth, the situation was pretty much the same as now, (with a few slight variations).

THEN: The composer had to write for the specific tastes (no matter how bad) of, THE KING, THE POLITICAL DICTATOR, or THE CHURCH. Failure to do so resulted in unemployment, torture or death. The public was not consulted. They simply were not equipped to make assessments of relative merit from gavotte to gavotte. If the KING couldn't gavotte to it, then it had no right to exist.

ALL OF THE SWILL PRODUCED UNDER THESE CONSTRAINTS IS WHAT WE NOW ADMIRE AS 'REAL CLASSICAL MUSIC'. Forget what it sounds like . . . forget whether or not you happen to enjoy it . . . that's how it got made . . . and when music is taught in schools, it is the 'taste norms' of those KINGS, DICTATORS, and CLERICS which are perpetuated in the harmony and counterpoint classes.

After those are doled out, and the student gets to the 'advanced stuff', he is introduced to the splendors of 12-tone rigmarole, serialized dynamics, and computer programming of 'automated indeterminate composition'.

Those 'tools' enable the budding genius to do what everybody else does in 'modern life': hide behind preposterous regulations (preferably as a member of a 'committee'), in order to absolve himself of blame or responsibility for 'individual action' --- in this case, the heinous act of 'musical creation'. By conforming to these idiocies, the young composer receives praise, certification of splendidness, and GRANT MONEY. Everything his teachers would murder for.

Anyone not choosing to follow this approved method of enlightenment is regarded as a fool or a pervert.

Today, the composer has to write for the specific tastes (no matter how bad) of 'THE KING' (now disguised as a Movie or TV producer, The Head of the Opera Company, The Lady With The Frightening Hair on the Special Committee, or her niece, DEBBIE).

Some of you don't know about DEBBIE since you don't have to deal with radio stations or record companies in the way that people from the 'other world' do, but you ought to find out about her, just in case you decide to 'switch over' later.

DEBBIE is thirteen years old. Her parents like to think of themselves as 'average, God-fearing American White People'. Her dad belongs to a corrupt Union of some sort and is, as we might suspect, a lazy incompetent, over-paid, ignorant sonofabitch. Her mom is a sexually maladjusted mercenary shrew who lives only to spend her husband's paycheck on ridiculous clothes designed to make her look 'younger'.

DEBBIE is incredibly stupid. She has been raised to respect the values and attitudes which her parents hold sacred. Sometimes she dreams about being kissed by a lifeguard.

When the people in THE SECRET OFFICE WHERE THEY RUN EVERYTHING FROM found out about DEBBIE, they were thrilled. She was perfect. She was hopeless. She was THEIR KIND OF GIRL. She was immediately chosen for the critical role of 'ARCH-TYPICAL IMAGINARY POP MUSIC CONSUMERAND ULTIMATE ARBITER OF MUSICAL TASTE FOR THE ENTIRE NATION'. From that moment on, everything musical in this country would have to be modified to conform to what they computed to be HER NEEDS & DESIRES.

DEBBIE'S 'taste' determined the size, shape and color of all musical information in the United States during the latter part of the twentieth century. Eventually she grew up to be just like her mother and married a guy just like her father. She has somehow managed to reproduce herself. The people in THE SECRET OFFICE have their eye on her daughter at this very moment.

As a SERIOUS AMERICAN COMPOSER, should DEBBIE really concern you? Because DEBBIE prefers only short songs with lyrics about boy-girl situations sung by persons of indeterminate sex, wearing S & M clothing, and because there is LARGE MONEY INVOLVED, the major record companies, which, a few years ago, occasionally risked investment in recording of new works, have all but shut down their 'classical divisions' and seldom record 'new music'. The small labels that do release it have wretched distribution. Some have wretched accounting procedures. They might release your recording, but you won't get paid.

The problem with living composers is: THEY HAVE TO EAT. Mostly what they eat is brown and lumpy. There is no question that this diet has had an effect on their work.

Just as composers in the earlier age had to accommodate the whims of KINGS, DICTATORS, and CHURCHES, composers today must write for the amusement and edification of their sinister descendants: The Guy who Figures Out What Kind of Tax Break you get from ARTS DONATIONS, The OIL, TOBACCO, or CHEMICAL COMPANY That Needs To 'Lose' a Few Million Bucks By The End of The Fiscal Year, The Five guys Who Program All the Radio Stations in The U.S., The Fanatic Fundamentalists Who Demand Bland Lyric Content and Total avoidance of Biological Reality, and The M.B.A.s Who Advise Everyone On How TO Make More Money By Praising Ignorance and Docility While Suppressing Anything Intelligent or Inventive."


And here is the link to the entire speech...

Bingo! There Goes Your Tenure! - The Full Speech

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473697)

i guess why im so rattled by all these threads, is that people who like mainstream music are relegated to "general listeners" or whatever. I love Carly Rae Jepsen. Ill defend her music to the grave. It has a time and a place in my life. As do other pop stars like Bieber, Katy Perry, Kesha, etc.

One of my good friends loves modern pop music almost exclusively. He'll buy Rihanna's new album or jam out to the one direction on the regular. Its always funny when people try to "reason" with him as to why he listens to it, as if he's wrong or something. His response is usually just a shrug with "i just like listening to it". what a crazy concept eh.

Originally Posted by realtalk92

However, what I do find issue with is the media telling me a generic song is prolific when it is not or calling a pop star a "songwriter" or "artist" when they are not.

Originally Posted by realtalk92

I love pop music as well. I love all types of music actually. It is just sad to see the destruction pop music has turned into over the past 15-20 years. Music goes into waves and trends do shift but there is a undeniable difference in this generation of pop stars and music compared to previous decades. Whether you listen to pop or not, if you call yourself a music listener I think it is something interesting to talk about.

Originally Posted by Dylstew

There's nothing wrong with liking mainstream music, I don't see the problem in that. I do see a problem with mindless, spoonfed sheep.

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473698)

I love pop music as well. I love all types of music actually. It is just sad to see the destruction pop music has turned into over the past 15-20 years. Music goes into waves and trends do shift but there is a undeniable difference in this generation of pop stars and music compared to previous decades. Whether you listen to pop or not, if you call yourself a music listener I think it is something interesting to talk about.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473700)

I understand your main point about casual music listeners, but I dont understand why it would matter what they listen to then. Youve been talking about Janelle Monae being a superstar, but if that only means bringing her into an audience that is self-admitted to being indifferent to music, why bother?



er well prolific literally describes a popular song, so maybe you got the words wrong there? But if you mean "great" then tomato, tomahto. People will always disagree what is "great". Not sure why using the word "artist" would upset you either. It's a reasonable describer too.



Well sure theres a difference. But imo it's not a bad one. Ill take pop from the 2010s over pop from the 1960s anyday. It might be an interesting topic, but usually when it's discussed it just turns into a shit throwing contest to glorify older music ad nauseam



Not everyone loves music, so what?

Originally Posted by Dylstew (Post 1473699)

There's nothing wrong with liking mainstream music, I don't see the problem in that. I do see a problem with mindless, spoonfed sheep.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473700)

I understand your main point about casual music listeners, but I dont understand why it would matter what they listen to then.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473700)

My issue is mostly with the industry itself which indirectly affects the casual music listener.


Youve been talking about Janelle Monae being a superstar, but if that only means bringing her into an audience that is self-admitted to being indifferent to music, why bother?

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473700)

er well prolific literally describes a popular song, so maybe you got the words wrong there? But if you mean "great" then tomato, tomahto. People will always disagree what is "great". Not sure why using the word "artist" would upset you either. It's a reasonable describer too.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473700)

Well sure theres a difference. But imo it's not a bad one. Ill take pop from the 2010s over pop from the 1960s anyday.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473700)

It might be an interesting topic, but usually when it's discussed it just turns into a shit throwing contest to glorify older music ad nauseam

Originally Posted by HellCell (Post 1473709)

It doesn't bother me as I got the internet and I can search for music of my own preference. By state of the music industry, do you mean it all encompassing? I'm still discovering great new music today, so I'm fine.

Pop music isn't something I typically like, so it can self mutilate as much as it wants and won't effect me.

Originally Posted by Dylstew (Post 1473716)

Sure, not everyone does(nothing wrong with that), but there's just people out there with a..non existing taste. A taste that is not their own. It's not like it bothers me, I just ignore it, it doesn't effect me, but I just don't get it. Hipsters, the opposite(the modern definition of the word I mean) are just as bad. Just like what you like.
Don't like something just because it's popular and don't dislike something just because it's popular. That's my opinion on it.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1473705)

Well, if I had a problem with the repercussions of the modern mainstream music industry it wouldn't be so much how it ruins popular music, as it would the economic straights it puts underground artists into. I've gone on about it a few times before, but one of my favorite bands, Exodus, broke up back in the early nineties after metal "died". Being as the band had spent the last decade not learning any job skills or building up any kind of resume I imagine they all had to go pump gas or flip burgers. A decade of shaping music, or at least one corner of music, and giving thousands of people something that they truly cared about and these guys had to go back home and eat **** because despite their relative success they'd never made enough money to last them past the next tour.

From what I can gather several of the band members became meth heads, I guess cause when you're in your thirties and you've got no money and no future what the **** else are you gonna do? Not to mention after that long of not living in the "real world", going back to just being normal citizens who couldn't get away with long hair and living the music lifestyle had to have been a culture shock that they may not have had the mentality or maybe even the maturity to deal with. A few years after breaking up they actually brought the band back together and have been going strong since, I'm sure partially just to keep themselves alive as much as for the music.

Which sounds great and all, but eventually they're gonna get too old to do it anymore, or the band is going to break up for whatever reason, and they'll be back to square one with the same job skills and the same resume with probably even less prospects now that they're in their forties or fifties or whatever, and with even less time to figure out how they're going to live past retirement age. So, the only real option is to record another album, go on tour, record another album, go on tour, on and on until the wheels fall off and... **** knows what happens then.

Without the kind of money that only top level artists make that allows them to live comfortably, or even just live at all, even after their popularity has waned, the vast majority of these people are ****ing screwed unless they have the foresight to call it quits after an album or three so they still have time to build a life after music. Or I guess you can be really lucky and be someone like Devin Townsend and start producing other people's albums so you can have another job in the music industry to fall back on.

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473727)

Can you explain this further? I am a little confused. I am not sure where you are trying to go with this but I like it!!

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473727)

Well I don't think its fair to boost a singer up that is really just a performer or entertainer as an artist when they are not. Like pop stars like Katy or Rihanna are not technically "artists"

Originally Posted by realtalk92

Really???? Why?

Originally Posted by realtalk92

Thats because older music tends to be of better quality in terms of production, instrumentation, lyrics, etc. Now of course, there are some pretty bad songs from the 60's but overall it is a much better decade musically than todays.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473749)

Well if most of the audience for mainstream music is casual listeners, than if Janelle Monae was a superstar in the mainstream media she would only become more famous to casual listeners. ie not people you would be having in depth conversations about music with in the first place. So whether she's incredibly famous or not; it shouldnt really matter. Your original post asks why isnt she more famous; why would you want her to be more famous though?

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473749)

If it's easier, think of Rihanna as more than one person. The writers, and her. Together they make the artist, just as any band that has one person predominantly writing their songs.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473749)

Ive never been a fan of 60s pop in general, and I quite like a lot of what is played on the radio these days.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473749)

No, it certainly is not.

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473803)

Rihanna is not involved in the creation of her music and has a team that gives her music and a direction for her music.

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473803)

Why are you not a fan of the 60's? What is it about the music that you do not like?

Originally Posted by realtalk92

Can you explain why?

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473812)

Yes, she is.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473749)

Baroque-pop is very hit-and-miss with me. The Beatles, Beach Boys, The Byrds, etc Ive grown fairly indifferent too, and so the more similar bands that were popular I just dont ever feel the need to listen to (Monkees, Animals, etc). There are 60s artists I like, but in terms of popular music, I am more fond of newer stuff. (that kind of style is basically what i think of when i think of 60s pop; i know there is more)

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473749)

Because since the 60s, music has exploded in to a much greater variety of sounds and genres. Even genres that were spearheaded or started gaining speed in the 60s (metal, krautrock, prog, drone, ambient, electronic, etc) has been better represented far past that decade. Hell id even say Belle & Sebastian is a better baroque-pop band than anyone in the 60s. The 60s didnt have shoegaze, post punk, post rock, noise (rock or otherwise), synthpop, numerous sub genres of metal and electronic, and on and on. So even though the 60s obviously had an influence on music now, it's been better realized by the succeeding decades.

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473836)

How has she been involved in her music? Has she written any songs? Has she done any of her vocal arrangements? Has she decided on a theme of her album?

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473836)

There are a ton of great artists from that era.

Check out any of these The Drifters, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Dells, The Delphonics, Four Tops, James Brown, Temptations, Supremes, Tina and Ike Turner, Ray Charles, Jackson 5, Dina Washington, Doris Day, etc

If you prefer the music that is out now that is cool but there are other great artists from that era as well and outside of the rock genre.

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473836)

I agree but the decade is still way better than today's. For one thing, the bands and artists actually used live instruments. I wouldn't classify any of those subgenres besides metal and maybe electronic as mainstream. Most sub genres are not commercial.

Originally Posted by James (Post 1473863)

I'd take 'Stay' over most of the top 40 stuff from the sixties too.

Absolutely gorgeous song.
And there's more to art than the aspect of creation. It's performance. Singers can have voices that evoke emotions in people. Actors can interpret other people's writing and make it more human. I think both can be referred to as 'artists' because they take what others have created and embody it in a different way.

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473887)

True

I think she has some catchy songs for sure but I personally would not say her music is better than the 60's simply because most of my favorite singers are 60s and 70's artists but if that is what you like, I can dig it ;)

There is more to art besides creating but an artist is a creator. I think Rihanna is more involved in her "look" but "looks" and fashion doesn't have anything to do with music specifically. They at times can coincide with eachother but she is not a pop star that is involved in the creation of her music which is what defines an "artist"

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473887)

but she is not a pop star that is involved in the creation of her music which is what defines an "artist"

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR. (Post 1473892)

Not to mention she sounds the same on every song. She doesn't seem to have much range. Rihanna likes to stay in her comfort zone. I like a few songs myself but she can't touch an artist like Chaka Kahn or Aretha.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473856)

Yes





Sure, i was being general. There's tons of great artists from this era too.




I dont know what "live instruments" mean but ok. And i was talking about music overall being better now.

Originally Posted by James (Post 1473899)

To be fair, Rihanna is hardly the best the mainstream has to offer.

Originally Posted by realtalk92

Are you sure you meant to post that link?

Rihanna is no where to be found in any of the credits.

This actually supports my argument that she is not an artist LOL

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473916)

CRJ gets that title in my books



Her real name is Robyn Fenty.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473916)

CRJ gets that title in my books

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473920)

She is only cited one time and that is for a co credit that features three other writers.

These pop stars today steal songwriting credits all the time. You don't have to actually write a song to get a credit. You can switch one word or switch a vocal arrangement to get a credit.

Most of Rihanna's songs are already completed before she gets them. So how is it fair to call her a songwriter when the finished songs are already completed when she receives them?

Switching one word does not make someone a "songwriter"

She is not a songwriter and she definitly is not an artist.

Originally Posted by James (Post 1473922)

If a painter looks at a sunset, then creates a piece of art based on that sunset therefore interpreting the sunset in a different way - how is that different from a singer looking at some words on a page and using their voice to create their version of those words? Both are art to me.

Originally Posted by duga (Post 1473924)

That's a good point...I never thought about it that way. Of course, you could still argue that some people can "paint by numbers" so to speak. For example, taking a course and one of the projects is "how to paint a sunset". Are you still an artist at that point?

Originally Posted by James (Post 1473922)

If a painter looks at a sunset, then creates a piece of art based on that sunset therefore interpreting the sunset in a different way - how is that different from a singer looking at some words on a page and using their voice to create their version of those words? Both are art to me.

Originally Posted by James (Post 1473863)

I'd take 'Stay' over most of the top 40 stuff from the sixties too.

Absolutely gorgeous song.
And there's more to art than the aspect of creation. It's performance. Singers can have voices that evoke emotions in people. Actors can interpret other people's writing and make it more human. I think both can be referred to as 'artists' because they take what others have created and embody it in a different way.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473923)

No, she is cited on all except for Diamonds, Jump and Stay.

Originally Posted by duga (Post 1473924)

That's a good point...I never thought about it that way. Of course, you could still argue that some people can "paint by numbers" so to speak. For example, taking a course and one of the projects is "how to paint a sunset". Are you still an artist at that point?

Originally Posted by James (Post 1473929)

I think one thing that bogs down this sort of conversation is the fact people think calling something 'art' is a sort of praise. Art can be art but still suck. People are too quick to pigeonhole the stuff they dislike.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473923)

No, she is cited on all except for Diamonds, Jump and Stay.

.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1473923)

But yes im sure songs with multiple writers dont count oh wow look at that all of Janelle Monae's songs have more than just her as a writer, let it be known she is not an "artist". But im guessing this conspiracy theory doesnt go as far as her for an arbitrary reason that im sure youll dish out

Originally Posted by realtalk92 (Post 1473926)

There is no difference. However, you say this like Rihanna is one of the greatest singers of her generation with impeccable range and depth. lol

She is not a Whitney Houston or a Luther Vandross.

Whitney could stand in front of a sold out stadium and do so many magical things with her voice. She didn't need a spetacle. She didn't need to prance around stage half naked.

She could stand on stage alone and entertain with her voice because she created an unmatched piece of vocal art when she sanged.

None of the above singers have nothing on her or Luther sorry.

Originally Posted by James (Post 1473932)

To reiterate, in the turn of the nineteenth century there was this popular Polish actress who used to sell out theatres, leave her audience in hysterical tears every night - just from reciting the alphabet. Her material wasn't important, this woman just had such a gorgeous way of expressing herself that she could draw out that much feeling from her audience. That's art to me.