Pop, is it corporate garbage or does it have it's merits? (lyrics, metal) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Pop
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-03-2008, 09:43 AM   #41 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkpb938 View Post
I think if Oomph had replaced the words 'pop' with jackhammer's 'chart music' on his first post then this thread would have made more sense. What Oomph is not realizing is that Pop =\= Mainstream neccesarily. In that respect I would have agreed with him that most 'mainstream' or 'chart music' is contrived and talentless. Not all though.
I'd suggest, "contemporary chart music". There have been times when the charts have been pervaded by pretty good music music.

Last edited by Rainard Jalen; 04-03-2008 at 09:52 AM.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 02:32 PM   #42 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
Psst. Lennon and McCartney were the very embodiment of pop and what good pop can and should be. The point that you don't seem to understand that pop can be sophisticated and experimental tells me that you don't even understand what pop is.

Go learn something about whatever it is that you're talking about, then come back and discuss it. At the present moment it's simply embarrassing.
Psst. If all pop music sounded like John, he wouldn't be the great musician he was, he would be 'average'.

And the key word here is 'should'. They 'should' be like him but they aren't.
Oomph! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 04:18 AM   #43 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oomph! View Post
Psst. If all pop music sounded like John, he wouldn't be the great musician he was, he would be 'average'.

And the key word here is 'should'. They 'should' be like him but they aren't.
I didn't say all pop music sounded like Lennon. Don't try to contrive an argument that wasn't even started.

What I put forth was that John Lennon was a pop musician, as was McCartney. The point being that pop needn't be "corporate garbage" but might be in some instances decent music.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 11:03 AM   #44 (permalink)
daddy don't
 
Molecules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: the Wastes
Posts: 2,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oomph! View Post



The only artist here I'm familiar enough with to comment on is the Beatles. The beatles are OK, back in the 60's and 70's when it took very little to be considered 'edgy', yeah the beatles were kinda cool. But we live in a much more liberal, open society now and it takes allot more more than being psychodelic to effect people. The Beatles now days, are 'lame', in the literal sense of the word. They don't really have allot of songs that invoke allot of meaningful emotion. That's always been and always will be the problem with pop music, it's designed to be catchy, it's designed to be played in the background while your playing solitiare, it's designed to be a ringtone. I preffer music that demands my full attention.
__________________

[SIZE="1"]Eff em
tumble her
Molecules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 12:56 PM   #45 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
The only artist here I'm familiar enough with to comment on is the Beatles. The beatles are OK, back in the 60's and 70's when it took very little to be considered 'edgy', yeah the beatles were kinda cool. But we live in a much more liberal, open society now and it takes allot more more than being psychodelic to effect people. The Beatles now days, are 'lame', in the literal sense of the word. They don't really have allot of songs that invoke allot of meaningful emotion. That's always been and always will be the problem with pop music, it's designed to be catchy, it's designed to be played in the background while your playing solitiare, it's designed to be a ringtone. I preffer music that demands my full attention.
What a load of blatant tosh. What does "invoking a lot of meaningful emotion" have to do with music? Music isn't inherently supposed to be evocative of emotion - though some music may be geared towards that. Music can be many things. It can be humorous, fun, witty, intelligent, psychedelic, philosophical, narrative, political, satirical, or emotional - whatever the artist decides that it should be. That's the great thing about music - there is an endless scope of possibilities. That it needs to be narrowed down to a small subset of things in your view shows just how very limited your understanding and appreciation of art is.

You also made the whole "more than just psychedelic" argument. This tells me, as it does in the case of anybody else who talks of the Bealtes in such terms, that you have hardly even listened to the band or else are totally unfamiliar with their material. Psychedelia was a tiny tiny part of the Beatles discography. They were much MUCH more experimental, both musically and lyrically, that either you know or given them credit for.

But alas. You have no notion to take any notice. Go listen to Godsmack.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 03:08 PM   #46 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
What a load of blatant tosh. What does "invoking a lot of meaningful emotion" have to do with music?
I can't believe you devalue the significance of emotion in music and then criticize (just sentances later) my appreciation of art.

Quote:
Music isn't inherently supposed to be evocative of emotion - though some music may be geared towards that. Music can be many things. It can be humorous, fun, witty, intelligent, psychedelic, philosophical, narrative, political, satirical, or emotional - whatever the artist decides that it should be. That's the great thing about music - there is an endless scope of possibilities.
There are allot of different purposes for music, something needs to be played in an elevator to relieve (at least a little bit) the generally stale atmosphere at a hotel of bussiness office. But I wouldn't value elevator music on the same level as music that inspires feeling and emotion.

Quote:
That it needs to be narrowed down to a small subset of things in your view
Oh yes, passionate meaningful music is such a small, insignificant subset of music, totally.

Quote:
shows just how very limited your understanding and appreciation of art is.


Puh-lease

Quote:
You also made the whole "more than just psychedelic" argument. This tells me, as it does in the case of anybody else who talks of the Bealtes in such terms, that you have hardly even listened to the band or else are totally unfamiliar with their material. Psychedelia was a tiny tiny part of the Beatles discography. They were much MUCH more experimental, both musically and lyrically, that either you know or given them credit for.
Except the part where I was raised listening to the Beatles by the biggest Beatles fan on Earth.

Quote:
But alas. You have no notion to take any notice. Go listen to Godsmack.
I am listening to Godsmack, they actually put passion and meaning into thier music which is why I like them so much. You can go listen to your little teeny bop "I want to hold your hand" Bullshit fine, but I have more significant movements in my bowels than listening to lame pop music.
Oomph! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 03:21 PM   #47 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Molecules View Post
What? Do you really think the 60's and 70's were more liberal than today? They were compared to prior decades but not this one. Freedom of expression has progressed alot since then, back then Black Sabbath was 'extreme', now days middle schoolers are listening to "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, we don't need no water let the motherfucker burn, burn motherfucker, burn". And Black Sabbath is baby metal now, my 9 year old brother listens to the Naked Brothers and also likes Black Sabbath (not trying to put down Black Sabbath, just saying)

In the 60's and 70's, abortion was illegal, homosexuality was almost completely inexcusable, women were still fighting for equal pay, minorities weren't as accepted as they are today.
Oomph! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 04:28 PM   #48 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oomph! View Post
I can't believe you devalue the significance of emotion in music and then criticize (just sentances later) my appreciation of art.
I didn't devalue it. Read again. I will not be lured into re-explaining myself each time somebody fails to digest a simple sentence.

Quote:
There are allot of different purposes for music, something needs to be played in an elevator to relieve (at least a little bit) the generally stale atmosphere at a hotel of bussiness office. But I wouldn't value elevator music on the same level as music that inspires feeling and emotion.
How about the other things I mentioned? Humour, fun, wit, philosophy, satire, narration/storytelling, politics... all equally valid purposes for music. None of which necessarily need to inspire feeling or emotion in order to be done well.

Quote:
Oh yes, passionate meaningful music is such a small, insignificant subset of music, totally.
Not insignificance (stop putting words in my mouth already, it makes you look foolish!), but a subset all the same. Like I said, music is not necessarily supposed to be "passionate and meaningful" - that's just one possibility for what music could be. It's not of any greater artistic value than music made in order to be fun and witty.

Quote:
Except the part where I was raised listening to the Beatles by the biggest Beatles fan on Earth.
And yet you seem to know virtually nothing about their lyrical content to the point that you exposed yourself by making that incredibly ignorant statement about the extent of their use of psychedelia.

Quote:
I am listening to Godsmack, they actually put passion and meaning into thier music which is why I like them so much. You can go listen to your little teeny bop "I want to hold your hand" Bullshit fine, but I have more significant movements in my bowels than listening to lame pop music.
It is true that the earliest Beatles stuff from '63 were lyrically speaking quite simple love songs. What I will say is that all of those songs express a lot more in terms of REAL human sentiment and things that matter to most REAL people than anything at all in the entire Godsmack catalogue - to say nothing of what the Beatles did later on. How about that, eh?



EDIT: I could go even further and tell you that Godsmack is actually complete corporate garbage. They're a major label band aimed at a certain niche market of angst ridden adolescents who are likely to find it deep and profound. At the root however, you find that lyrically they deal with the most hackneyed and cliched themes that exist period in popular culture and have nothing unique to say at all. Mass marketed exploitative rubbish.

Last edited by Rainard Jalen; 04-04-2008 at 04:33 PM.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 05:08 PM   #49 (permalink)
daddy don't
 
Molecules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: the Wastes
Posts: 2,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oomph! View Post
What? Do you really think the 60's and 70's were more liberal than today? They were compared to prior decades but not this one. Freedom of expression has progressed alot since then, back then Black Sabbath was 'extreme', now days middle schoolers are listening to "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, we don't need no water let the motherfucker burn, burn motherfucker, burn". And Black Sabbath is baby metal now, my 9 year old brother listens to the Naked Brothers and also likes Black Sabbath (not trying to put down Black Sabbath, just saying)

In the 60's and 70's, abortion was illegal, homosexuality was almost completely inexcusable, women were still fighting for equal pay, minorities weren't as accepted as they are today.
meh. The legislation's changed but society is just as cancerous as it ever was, minorities are still repressed and distrusted by idiots who live for holidays and cars, the same people that dismiss modern feminists as 'a bunch of lesbians'.

Views didn't change, the elders saw the profit in the dirty Van Halen lyrics and they let it slide. Now we're oversaturated with titillation, and people that judge music on the profanity content (Black Sabbath is 'baby metal'?). Great.
Luckily that's not a widespread phenomenon, but anything goes in the US.

Dude, duuude, I lurve freedom of expression, but let's ****ing say something eh?!

But then you have the apathetic, apolitical, 18-35 age bracket ****s like me - who aren't helping any

The Dark Ages are far from over. Heyyyy that would make a great pop song
__________________

[SIZE="1"]Eff em
tumble her
Molecules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 05:37 PM   #50 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
I didn't devalue it. Read again. I will not be lured into re-explaining myself each time somebody fails to digest a simple sentence.
You criticized my high amount of value for it, so yes in essense you did devalue it.

Quote:
How about the other things I mentioned? Humour,
Rare. Even the funniest songs I've heard doesn't remotely compete with standup comedians and comedy movies/

Quote:
fun,
I have fun listening to passionate music.

Quote:
wit,
hmmm....

Quote:
philosophy,
If the sound itself isn't passionate or raw, then they might as well speak thier philosophy or write in down as a book.

Quote:
satire,
Sometimes but that goes along with humor.

Quote:
narration/storytelling,
Uninteresting, just tell me the damned story or act it out or something.

Quote:
politics...
If they are using music as a platform for politics, unless they put some passion into the sound they might as well just perform a speech.

Quote:
all equally valid purposes for music. None of which necessarily need to inspire feeling or emotion in order to be done well.
Expressing feelings, emotion and passion with sound is the primary function of music.

Quote:
Not insignificance (stop putting words in my mouth already, it makes you look foolish!), but a subset all the same.
You said small, which is closely synonymous with insignificant , and it isn't true either way, passion and emotion is an enormous facet of music.

Quote:
Like I said, music is not necessarily supposed to be "passionate and meaningful" - that's just one possibility for what music could be.
Like I said, we ned something to play in the background of commercials.

Quote:
And yet you seem to know virtually nothing about their lyrical content to the point that you exposed yourself by making that incredibly ignorant statement about the extent of their use of psychedelia.
More matter less art please.

Quote:
It is true that the earliest Beatles stuff from '63 were lyrically speaking quite simple love songs. What I will say is that all of those songs express a lot more in terms of REAL human sentiment and things that matter to most REAL people than anything at all in the entire Godsmack catalogue - to say nothing of what the Beatles did later on. How about that, eh?
Oh now the Beatle's artistic merit is greater than godsmack because of it's realism? What's wrong with exaggeration and hyperbole in art? It's about expression, and the more exaggerated it is the more effective it is (generally)

We use art as a facet to escape reallity, especialy in the case of music, to get away from it all.

Quote:
EDIT: I could go even further and tell you that Godsmack is actually complete corporate garbage. They're a major label band aimed at a certain niche market of angst ridden adolescents who are likely to find it deep and profound.
Godsmack wasn't/isn't extremely popular, they aren't putting in effort to make machine generated chart music. They have produced 4 full albums and an acoustic EP since they began in 96, thier last album in 06. 10 years for 4 albums, they are obviously putting effort into thier albums.The only time I've ever heard Godsmack outside thier albums was a few years ago they let the Marines use the begining of the song 'Awake' for one of thier commercials.

Thier music videos are played on MTV2 or VH1 at 2:00am, you never see them being plugged and commercialized by mainstream TV or radio, they obviously aren't some corporate band, let's get real now.

At the root however, you find that lyrically they deal with the most hackneyed and cliched themes that exist period in popular culture and have nothing unique to say at all. Mass marketed exploitative rubbish.[/QUOTE]

Yeah like Wicca, reincarnation, drug rehabilitation, religous constriction, a song about a man who's wife and child died, cookiecutter bullshit I know.
Oomph! is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.