I wonder will Music Banter shut down, Frownland AGREES WITH ME

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/129...se-break-o.gif

This is very true.


The reason why I asked these questions because although they are not social activists the people who are affected by social issues (mostly) are the people that go to their concerts, buy their CD's, perfumes etc.

So while I think they are not obligated to care about the very people who made them who they are, I think that when their audiences is affected by something I think they should at least show they care about them. I dunno. I think they should in a way be held accountable especially if they claim to care about social issues.

I think musicians don't have to be role models if they don't want to..

There will always be artist that will be more socially conscient and will try to use their influence to do good but there are other artist who simply don't care about that kinda stuff and that's ok by me.

Agree.


I just can't stand pop stars like Beyonce and Jay Z. Two of the fakest pop stars that ever existed who claim to care about social issues but really don't. I think stars like them should be held accountable for what they say and then bashed if they are proven to be fakes.

I think you take what these people say too much at face value. It may be partially sincere but I'm jaded enough to also believe it's all part of their marketing.

Not everyone is gonna be Jean Grae:

Trust and believe boo I dont take what they say as the gospel but it does make for interesting conversation because ALOT of people do.

I don't really follow the career of those 2 on stage much less off stage but if they donate money to charity or a cause or are spokespersons for one as much as i dislike them or think its just good pr work, ultimately fake or not they're helping the organization and though you and i don't see the difference the ppl who those organization help probably do.



:p:

Comments like "do you understand now?" can only be seen as a thinly veiled arrogance: it translates to "why don't you understand/are you thick?"

Also, you were NOT specific in your OP. You never said "artistes like Nicky Minaj, Taylor sSwift et al". Had you done so, then I wouldn't have had to clarify the point with you.

Anyhoo, if you're talking about artistes like the ones mentioned (and as I say, mainstream does not conform to what you want it to, it refers to any artiste working now and still popular) then it's obvious: issues in pop music don't sell, so the artistes would either be told or know not to be too "deep", as all they want to do is appeal to a younger generation who are more interested in "woo girl I wanna dance" etc than "isn't it terrible what's happening in Somalia" or whatever. It doesn't pay them to go into those issues, and anyway, they may not be interested in or even know of them. Also, they don't want to risk alienating any fans or more importantly sponsors by being too edgy or controversial, and they certainly don't want to damage their airplay chances. So they play safe. Simple as that.

If you want singers singing about issues, look outside the mainstream, but don't complain that the ones you listed don't do deep; it's just not something that's profitable to them, and for artistes like that, the bottom line is the dollar.

TH did nothing more that state artists that he considered mainstream. She did not specify it had to be only artist currently in the Top 40 or however people want to differentiate the difference between being popular and being mainstream. In the end it's a minibate over semantics, and shame on you Mr. Frownland for taking sides.

Now if someone mentions artists that is popular and mainstream and in the charts they are not good enough for SF. Maybe they not her kind of popular. But some of them do speak about issues.

Case in point - an artist that does care about an issue but SF has no respect for: Katy Perry. Katy did a collaboration with Brooke Axtell during the grammies. Brooke read a written-word piece about domestic abuse and Katy sang a song, By The Grace Of God, that appropriately followed (even thought it's not about domestic abuse.) Kudos to the executive producer of the Grammys, Ken Ehrlich for making it happen.

Brooke Axtell Joins Katy Perry's Grammys Performance To Stand Up Against Domestic Violence
Brooke Axtell Interview: Meet the Domestic Abuse Survivor Who Is Performing with Katy Perry at the Grammys

Isn't this moving the goal posts a bit? You said you wanted an example of a current mainstream musician making a stand on a social issue, but you never said anything about whether or not you personally had to find it effective or genuine.

As for the question of whether or not musicians should take advantage of their cultural position to promote a socio-political stance, I don't think they're obligated. Is it nice if they find a way to do so that doesn't involve awkwardly shoehorning a hamfisted aesop into a song? Sure, but at the end of the day, their job is to entertain.

As a side point, I'd argue that part of the problem with arguing over this topic is precisely what qualifies as "mainstream", "current", and "relevant". The idea of a "universal audience" is less applicable than it's ever been, so trying to find an artist that's "important enough" and has a high enough platform to truly make a difference is tricky at best. Trollheart bringing up figures like Springsteen and U2 really illustrates my point. I'll admit that they're mainstream, but they don't have any particular importance or relevance in my own musical sphere, and I'd say the same sentiment carries for a significant chunk of my generation.

I am not sure what you want me to say...really I don't.

I stand by that I was perfectly clear in my OP post.

I said current mainstream artists and you listed a bunch old pop singers that are not current pop singers. The reason why I said "Do you understand now" is because I wanted to make sure you understood my point but obviously you are taking my posts as if they are arrogant when in reality you are the one that is being arrogant and came into this thread with an attitude.

I am not complaining about anything. I was pointing out an observation and just simply thought it would be interesting to discuss.

The reason why I said that is because it really was not about a "social issue" and was more about the singer which is why it didn't seem genuine.

I don't think that was a good example.


My point was that a lot of the old school artists sung about social issues even artists that are not as big as U2 or the Rolling Stones. They still made songs that discussed social issues and its odd why these things can still not occur today. We still have social problems and events today that could be discussed in songs.

It's beyond a lack of social-political consciousness, most of the artists you put up for discussion don't say anything in their songs. There is no intended message, it's not uplifting, it's fun.

Mos Def also comes to mind.

I understand that but I am wondering why the labels do not want to invest in socially conscious music being with all that is going on socially in America. Back in the 70s, 80s and even the 90s lots of money was made with charity songs for causes so I am not sure why the labels and singers do not want to do the same today.

We've gone over this in other threads many times: It won't sell as good.

I agree with this.

I enjoy meaningless pop dance songs just like anybody else but i also enjoy artist that have depth are not afraid to express a social critique in their songs.

Artist like that must always exist if just to balance the superficial side of mainstream music.

But it sold it the 70s, 80s, and 90's, why cant it sell today?

It can still sell, it just doesn't sell as much, and the mainstream is controlled by giant companies making as much money as they can. If it didn't sell 1000s of indie/underground artists would not be able to live their lives as musicians.

Times are different.

Cause nowadays is all about the beat not really the content anymore..

Ive noticed the most popular parts that ppl sing out in modern pop songs is the most dumb downed part of the song that either has no lyrics and it's just a vowel chorus or it's sh*t like 'oppa ganman style' or 'Turn down for what' stuff that doesn't really mean anything but it sounds nice with a sick beat.

But still, even today you got artist like andrew jackson jihad who is like a modern Bob dylan of sorts and he's super popular.

It's still undeniably about a social issue. It doesn't matter how sincere you think it is. Once again you are letting your own bias get in the way. Your opinions on an artist don't dictate the meaning of their songs.

More about the singer? Horse ****. That song is about as blatant and ham-fisted as these kind of songs can be. I mean 'perfection is a disease of a nation'? That's specifically shifting the song's themes from the personal to the universal.

If you're just going to claim people's suggestions 'don't count' in order to validate your opinions on this, why are we even bothering? All of your threads are like this.

Because they're not signed to record companies anymore.

They're signed to multi national conglomerates who have interests in the music business.

There's a big difference between the two.

Beginning to see that. World class goal post mover.

Not to mention Clear Channel. You put out too controversial a song and they won't touch it. Which means you miss out on airplay throughout most of the US.

James I think you are a little on the naive side if you think that song reflects social issues.

I look at the artist and the sincerity behind the music because that is important as well.

I care about your opinion but that doesn't mean I have to agree.

Its a discussion board.

They do.

Charity record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see quite a lot of these went to number one.

This is actually a fair response, I wish your posts were like this more often. Maybe I am a little naive. Though I'm still sure in my opinion. Are you more getting at the idea that these themes just aren't addressed to the same quality anymore? Because that's a whole other question.

Well these themes are not really discussed at all in the mainstream.

Chula speaks truth. It's kind of like off-shoring your outrage from music onto Twitter, Facebook, or whatever the next big thing is. Those types of mediums didn't exist back then, so the only way to get a message out was through music, TV, books and so on. Social issues are talked about all the time, and the media makes double sure of that. Actually, listening to music for me is a great getaway from all the fake outrage that goes around these days.

Why can't music also be used as a tool to influence others or bring awareness to an issue?

I know social issues is talked about but why can't it be talked about in music anymore?

But they put out more controversial songs in the 70s that still got played that discussed social issues.

How great would it be to see one of these with current pop stars





I get what you're asking for Soulflower but times have changed.

In the 70s radio stations were individually owned and didn't have to answer to huge corporations.

Clear Channel (iHeart radio) was founded in 2008 and has revenues in the billions based on advertising dollars. They currently own over 850 of the major stations in the US and aren't going to tolerate anything that their advertisers might find "uncomfortable" - like a song about the Ferguson shooting.

Yea I know everyone can not be as great as my baby daddy...sigh.

Good point

I don't want to be off topic but where in the fuck are you getting these ideas from? Despite your stance on the matter, the fact that the events in Ferguson have made an impact on American racial consciousness at large is kinda not up for debate. Despite how recent it is, despite how it may have turned out in its verdict, it (along with several other occurrences) renewed the liveliness of the discourse on race in America. Perhaps the movement isn't as monumentally established as it was 40-50 years ago but that doesn't mean civil rights debate (and not just racial) has vanished.

Anyway, Lil B is mainstream enough for me (on Gucci and Wayne mixtapes, was in The Pack, is an internet sensation which is almost enough to be famous now) and put out this gem; Radiohead are a fairly popular (last album debuted at #6) and almost always concern themselves with philosophical/political/social concerns; and OG Maco, the "U Guessed It" man put out the EP "Breathe" after being enraged by the events in Ferguson. Besides that, we just had that slew of self-esteem jams back around "Born This Way" from Lady Gaga, and "New Slaves", despite what you think about Kanye, was enormously political.

I wouldn't call Ferguson and the ensuing riots/protests a civil rights movement mostly because it's a singular event, but hey that's just me.

Civil Rights Movement was a nationwide movement over the course of 14-15 years.

Ferguson was a singular event that was major blown up because of the mass media vultures that swooped in on the town and fanned the flames.

Standing Ovation :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Travyon was gunned down in 2012, and there were three other young boys that were gunned down by police after Michael Brown murdered.

I would hardly call the Ferguson protests, a "singular" event