Why does the mainstream industry only want a select few to be popular?

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigantic Debaser

(etc.)

I'm a bit curious as to why it seems to matter to you so much that Janelle is not promoted/advertised as heavily as the most popular mainstream acts on the charts (I've noticed this is a recurring sentiment expressed by you in quite a few other threads as well), because in the end, isn't your personal enjoyment of her music what matters the most? As many here have mentioned, the fact remains that her music just isn't as marketable as the music that's topping the charts.

I really don't care whether she becomes popular or not. I like to use her as an example because she is one of my favorites at the moment and she is a current artist that goes against the ideals of what is popular right now. I admire what she represents which is why I cite her but I really do not care whether she becomes more or less popular because I am always going to be a fan regardless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigantic Debaser

You're using Adele as an example of "not pop-friendly" music that became very popular, but as mentioned by Urban, that's mostly because it appeals heavily to another (also large) demographic than your typical pop hits.
When you go on to say that Janelle Monae would surely top the charts if her music was marketed as much as the music that do, in fact, top the charts, using the assertion that her music is more interesting as proof, you have to remember that the majority of consumers doesn't want "interesting", they want something that's catchy and easy to digest.

My was point was that if Janelle can chart at no. 5 without the industry backing than she surely can top the chart if the industry chose to market her. Her success despite her lack of marketing proves as well as shows that she is "interesting" and marketable.

If Prince, David Bowie, Boy George, Rolling Stones etc were popular in the 80's how come someone like Janelle Monae can't be popular now?

I think the general public accepts what the industry markets. I believe if the industry started to market more variety, the public would accept it like they do all these other boring acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigantic Debaser

Clearly you don't enjoy most of the artists that's being marketed the most heavily so why would you even want people to associate Monae with these? (Since you seem to care so much about others perception, that is)
Is she perhaps suffering severe economical hardships because of her current level of popularity?

I don't care about other's perception. I am just making a obvious observation when it comes to popular music and popular trends. Janelle Monae is an artist that deserves to be a superstar and I believe if she had the backing she would be.

She is not going through hardships. This is a music forum and I am just giving my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigantic Debaser

I think it's entirely possible that the mainstream music industry was not any more daring or un-conventional in who they chose to promote in the 80s and 90s (since you used those decades as examples) than now, just that those artists resonated more with your musical preferences.

My point was that in previous decades popular music was never this bland and it actually had more variety in terms of acts, music and genre. There was objectively more creativity and more experimentation compared to what is going on now.

Would you say Prince and David Bowie were not interesting in the 80's?

I just asked since you are implying popular music has always been just catchy and not risk taking which I completely disagree with.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-21-2014, 01:08 PM

I'm pretty sure people have already answered those questions over and over again over the course of the last 10 pages.

It's like nothing sinks in.

The Batlord · 09-21-2014, 01:14 PM

@ Soulflower - So what exactly is this agenda you keep vaguely alluding to? If the record companies aren't just doing what they're doing for the sake of money, then what are they doing it for?

Pet_Sounds · 09-21-2014, 01:34 PM

If she can hit #5 without their backing, why would they back her? She seems to be doing pretty well without their support.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

@ Soulflower - So what exactly is this agenda you keep vaguely alluding to? If the record companies aren't just doing what they're doing for the sake of money, then what are they doing it for?

I think they are purposely only choosing to market specific pop stars. They want to over-saturate the market with these specific pop stars only because their package is what the industry only wants to promote. The industry wants to promote hyper-sexual female pop stars. Yes, it is about money but this is also an agenda. They want to fool the public into believing these are the best of the best of what is out now and that is not true.

If you overexpose one particularly thing over and over and over and over again of course people will begin to believe "Oh this must be great" if that is the only they they are choosing to market.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-21-2014, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

Yes, it is about money but this is also an agenda. They want to fool the public into believing these are the best of the best of what is out now and that is not true.

If you overexpose one particularly thing over and over and over and over again of course people will begin to believe "Oh this must be great" if that is the only they they are choosing to market.

Because it has the most commercial appeal.
What is it you don't get about that?

The Batlord · 09-21-2014, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

I think they are purposely only choosing to market specific pop stars. They want to over-saturate the market with these specific pop stars only because their package is what the industry only wants to promote. The industry wants to promote hyper-sexual female pop stars. Yes, it is about money but this is also an agenda. They want to fool the public into believing these are the best of the best of what is out now and that is not true.

If you overexpose one particularly thing over and over and over and over again of course people will begin to believe "Oh this must be great" if that is the only they they are choosing to market.

So... exactly what we've all been saying this entire time: there is no agenda other than making money in the safest way they feel possible. It's not a conspiracy. Just boring corporate economics.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

Because it has the most commercial appeal.
What is it you don't get about that?

I get that sex has an appeal and has a market.

However, the industry is marketing this hyper and "overly" sexual female and that does not settle right with me. It almost makes women appear animalistic and submissive.

I don't like this whole "I will do anything to please a man" image that the industry projects to young girls and even young boys.

I know sex has an appeal but it has become really over the top now.

I think that is something they choose to market not necessarily because people want to see hypersexual pop stars with hypersexual lyrics.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-21-2014, 02:09 PM

Take That 20 years ago when boy bands were what were selling in huge numbers.

What's your point?

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 02:20 PM

Why is it so far fetched the industry would not have an agenda?

I don't even know who the group is in the above photo. Boy bands were not hyper sexual 20 years ago and if they were that most certainly not the only thing they were selling.

Everything that we see and everything that is marketed to us sends subliminal messages or overt messages. Any where from a president speech all the way down to a hair commercial advertisement.

The message that I get from the industry is they want us to accept these mediocre hyper sexual pop stars that make bland music.

We are force to accept these as the best of the best when it comes to pop music because the industry only chooses to market those specific pop stars.

09-21-2014, 01:08 PM	#232 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I'm pretty sure people have already answered those questions over and over again over the course of the last 10 pages. It's like nothing sinks in. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

09-21-2014, 01:34 PM	#234 (permalink)
Pet_Sounds Remember the underscore Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: The other side Posts: 2,489	If she can hit #5 without their backing, why would they back her? She seems to be doing pretty well without their support. __________________ Everybody's dying just to get the disease

09-21-2014, 02:09 PM	#239 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Take That 20 years ago when boy bands were what were selling in huge numbers. What's your point? __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

09-21-2014, 02:20 PM	#240 (permalink)
~~Soulflower~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,304	Why is it so far fetched the industry would not have an agenda? I don't even know who the group is in the above photo. Boy bands were not hyper sexual 20 years ago and if they were that most certainly not the only thing they were selling. Everything that we see and everything that is marketed to us sends subliminal messages or overt messages. Any where from a president speech all the way down to a hair commercial advertisement. The message that I get from the industry is they want us to accept these mediocre hyper sexual pop stars that make bland music. We are force to accept these as the best of the best when it comes to pop music because the industry only chooses to market those specific pop stars.