Soulflower

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.

Urban Hat€monger ?

Depends if you think making money is an agenda or not,

One of the most successful boy bands of the 90s.
And yes they were frequently seen in videos with no shirts on, sexually suggestive poses and all the rest of it. Hell they even got them playing in gay clubs in little leather outfits to try to appeal to that audience early in their career. And it wasn't just them, there were plenty of others doing it.

Because that's what selling, how many more times does this need pointing out.

You're not forced to accept it at all, I could hardly tell you a single song any of these people you're referring to because I spend my time concentrating on the stuff I like, and they're not ONLY promoting those acts, they're giving them the priority of the marketing because they make the most money.

Not only that they're also more malleable than 'proper musicians' because the record companies also supply the producers and the songwriters to these acts too.

There's no agenda, it's just profits.

__________________

The Batlord

But they've always wanted us to accept whatever pop stars they tried to shove down our throats. However different their practices might be over the years they still have the same MO that they've always had: make the dummies buy our ****. Just because they may have had better or more diverse artists doesn't mean they cared that they were better or more diverse. They only cared that Michael Jackson and the Rolling Stones made them money. It's not an "agenda", it's just cynical business practices. Sure they use subliminal messaging to get you to buy stuff, but calling it an "agenda" makes it unnecessarily sinister. Business is business, and expecting it to work otherwise is irrational.

__________________

Soulflower

That is not true. I am not even sure why you brought them in this conversation. During their era's there was way more variety playing on the radio, playing on MTV as well as selling out stadiums and winning awards.

MJ took 4-5 year breaks between his projects and people LOVED him. They were not forcing people to like him.

The industry NOW is completely different.

The Batlord

My point was that the record companies didn't care how much artistic merit either of those artists had any more than they care about Beyonce or Nicki Minaj. Their basic mentality is the same as it's always been.

__________________

Soulflower

Your argument was that the industry ONLY marketed MJ and The Rolling Stones which is not accurate.

Tina Turner, Madonna, Whitney Houston, Luther Vandross, Bruce Springton, Bon Jovi, Prince, David Bowie, Elton John, LL Cool J, Public Enemy, Earth Wind and Fire etc were selling out stadiums, charted the charts and won awards during their eras so your argument that they were the only artists being marketed is pretty ridiculous when there was an variety of acts to choose from.

unlike today where

Beyonce, Rihanna, Katy, Gaga, Taylor Swift, Nikki, Jay Z and Kanye are the only pop stars being marketed.

Janszoon

I think you're taking his comment far too literally. He was giving examples, not the complete list of everyone the labels supported.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

The Batlord

Yeah, this.

__________________

Soulflower

So far Urban is the only one that has given great points as far as the obvious lack of variety in today's mainstream market and I appreciate your feedback and everyone else.

****

To argue otherwise is just being naive especially since the only pop stars that is being marketed is only 6-7 compared to previous decades where there were like 20 artists simultaneously being marketed at the same time.

To some that might not seem like an "agenda" but this is obviously a big difference compared to the past and this lack of variety has been going on for almost a decade now.

It would be one thing if these 6 pop stars were different.... but they all market the same thing which leads me to believe in my opinion there is an agenda behind it. In the past decades, there wasn't 6 pop stars marketing the same brand or image. So in my opinion, I think the industry wants to only specifically market this particular image.

I feel sorry for this generation because this is a bigger issue and I think there is an underlining message behind it. Music has a bigger influence more than what people give it credit for and the industry is not stupid and it is sad that...well...the general public is.

Urban Hat€monger ?

Daft Punk, Justin Timberlake, Michael Buble, Drake, Imagine Dragons, Macklemore & Ryan Lewis, Mumford & Sons, Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran, Lorde.

All acts that have sold over million last year all that have been well promoted, there's your variety of acts in the mainstream.

__________________