Why even bother asking :laughing:

I made that statement because nonprofits are much more present in today's society, and there is a major push for the wealthy and those in the limelight to participate in giving back. just because they aren't making songs about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

That question was directed toward Frownland. I wanted to hear his take on the question.

What Chula said, the mainstream music industry is far more monopolized than ever before. There's also the fact that a lot of people turn to pop to listen to something fun and don't want to be weighed down by heavy issues. I believe that someone else mentioned it here, but I think that the democratization of information through the Internet also plays heavily into the change that we see in the mainstream. Back in the days of yore, the population that knew of the music world outside of what the radio played was an incredibly miniscule part of the population so there was more of a burden on the artists to bring this stuff to the public's attention if the media wasn't going to do it. Now niche markets are becoming the norm in music, and major labels have their system down pat. There's not too much overlap in the audience that wants to hear about social issues and the audience that wants to hear pop, especially when social issues are all the rage on social media.

There are other sources for the public to inform itself on these issues, which is why a socially conscious song is no longer seen as powerful because often times these issues are already well in the public eye.

Can you back up your opinion with any proof?


I can list all the charities MJ, U2, Madonna, Whitney etc support and contribute to compared to the popacts out now. It will take me a little while but I can do it.


Would you be able to provide receipts for your claims?

I think music is still a powerful tool that can expose people to these issues because it reaches more people.

How do you know the masses don't want to hear this type of music?

They are only listening to what is being force fed to them.

^Because they're looking for something fun and upbeat when they turn on the radio and social issues tend to be downers. You don't think that the music industry has done any research to come to this conclusion? With it being so massive I'd say that they have loads of evidence to support their actions from a profit-based perspective. Music can be a powerful tool, but so can social media. I think you're completely ignoring the fact that there are other facets for social issues to become known outside of music. I would say that social media is even more effective than popular music in this sense, because there are a lot of self-righteous *******s like myself who avoid the radio and participate in social media so it has a wider reach. That's not to mention that while people do take the words of their idols seriously, they also give a lot of heed to what their friends, family, and acquaintances say through social media.

LOL, so you don't know what you're talking about when you just straight up refute someone? Classy.

Here's a short list of charitable popular artists: Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Jack White, Kanye West, Moby, Jack Johnson, Foster the People, Lady Gaga, and Justin Bieber. Need I list more?

Frown lol what did you mean by your statement about refuting I am lost.

My argument was that artists of the past contributed MORE than the artists out now. That list really does now show proof of that.

lol

I asked you could you provide receipts for your claims but you never responded

SF, you made the initial statement. How about you back it up with some numbers? Otherwise you are nothing but hot air and hyperbole.