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

GD · 09-21-2014, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

That does not necessarily mean she is "widely known"

Someone who is widely known is someone who is an international star or very popular which she is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

I am confused as to why you think that is very popular.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

You said she was "widely known" and she is not widely known. A

Also, it is important to note, she made no.5 based on the artists that released an album the week she released hers. So if a bunch of indie artists released their albums the same week as hers, naturally she would sell more than them.

(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. 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.
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 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.

~~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.

GD · 09-21-2014, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

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.

I'll believe you when you say it, but realize it can be easy for people to get confused when you seem like you take so much offense to who the industry chooses to promote.

Quote:

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.

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.

I don't know what I can add to this that hasn't already been brought up. I think it's probably as simple as, in the case of Monae, that from a purely economical standpoint, her label has concluded (not necessarily correctly) that there is more money to be made on prioritizing other artists. They don't take into account how popular an artist "deserves" to be (whatever that may mean).

Oh, and the part about "economical hardships" was a rhetorical question to get my previous point across.

Quote:

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.

Bowie: Infinitely better in the 70s (As Urban mentioned, he did "dumb down" his music in the 80s for more commercial appeal.)
Prince: Don't know his material all too well, but as far as I can tell his No. 1 singles could be considered some of his "safest". I really don't know much about promotional history for these though.