Originally Posted by Ninetales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it certainly is not.

Originally Posted by realtalk92

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

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

Yes, she is.

Originally Posted by Ninetales

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

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

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

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

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.