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

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-30-2014, 07:36 AM   #41 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylstew View Post
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.
Well said!!!!!

Thanks for opinion!
Soulflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 07:38 AM   #42 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psy-Fi View Post
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
Thanks!! Wow this seems really interesting.
Soulflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 07:39 AM   #43 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: livin wild
Posts: 2,179
Default

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.
Ninetales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 07:53 AM   #44 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
Default

^ Interesting

I think there is a difference between someone who listens to pop music versus someone who is a general music listerner. When I think of a general music listener I think of my lil brother lol

He is really not a fan of music but whatever catches his ear on the radio or just in general he will listen to it. It could be the catchiest song ever but it would never compel him to go out and buy the C.D. or see the artist in concert, complete opposite of me.


You can be a pop music listener and still be in touch with other styles of music.


I don't think there is anything wrong with listening to pop music that doesn't have depth because people like what they like.

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.

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.
Soulflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 08:06 AM   #45 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninetales View Post
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.
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.
Dylstew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 08:13 AM   #46 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: livin wild
Posts: 2,179
Default

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?

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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

Quote:
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.
Not everyone loves music, so what?
Ninetales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 08:51 AM   #47 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by realtalk92 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 09:13 AM   #48 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
HellCell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 272
Default

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.
HellCell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 09:35 AM   #49 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninetales View Post
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?
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.
Dylstew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 09:37 AM   #50 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylstew View Post
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.
I have to agree. I think it is important for people to be open minded when it comes to music and to listen to the music they like instead of limiting themselves to music that is being given to them.
Soulflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.