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

The Batlord · 09-21-2014, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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~~ · 09-21-2014, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 09-21-2014, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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~~ · 09-21-2014, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 09-21-2014, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

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

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

The Batlord · 09-21-2014, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

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

Yeah, this.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 03:46 PM

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 ? · 09-21-2014, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

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.

Yes, because there are only 4 record companies

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-21-2014, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

09-21-2014, 03:46 PM	#7 (permalink)
~~Soulflower~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,304	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.