Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Pop
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
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 05-11-2011, 01:12 PM   #21 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,955
Default

Pop necessitates a mastery over a variety of styles. You don't need to do everything, but you do need to be flexible; a master of arms as it were.

Both McCartney & Jackson nailed their style of music, but they tend not to branch out further. When I think of the folks making pop music today: Pink, Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, and to a lesser extent Bruno Mars & Ke$ha I think of people all over the freakin map.

I think its why pop bands never fair as well. Studio musicians are almost a must. The legends certainly pushed an envelope, but the way technology is advancing, they never stood a chance. And in Pop music, there never should be a classic, really.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
I don't think they had nuclear weapons in the Bible.
TheBig3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 02:57 PM   #22 (permalink)
quarantined
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
Surely. He must have wrote many more great melodies than Michael Jackson. The whole Michael Jackson as 'king of pop' was just a record company idea in the early 90s.
Pop isn't a genre and so to compare certain artist together is like comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing a singer/songwriter/musician to an entertainer/dancing fool.

Paul McCartney definitely influenced Rock and Roll and a lot of the sub-genres that followed have something they owe to The Beatles. I don't think one can talk about Rock and act like Paul McCartney didn't matter, and not acknowledges his influence on it. I think he does have a positive and lasting influence on music in general. There are probably more artists (from all different musical backgrounds) that cover Beatles songs than any band I know. That shows he what he wrote wasn't just for the charts to be forgotten but his songs had substance that other musicians could recognize.

Michael Jackson had a hard childhood and (to put it kindly) a bizarre adult life. Musically I don't care for Michael Jackson, he's creepy the way he sings his high notes, and not to mention the other things he did. There are plenty of singers regardless of genre that are better than Michael Jackson. And his dancing wasn't original when he was young he imitated James Brown, and when he was older he took moves from Bob Fosse and most likely what moves he didn't steal, were taught to him. One thing I didn't care for was when Michael Jackson toured Eastern Europe I heard he charged something like 3 month salary for a ticket. I don't care what antics he can pull on while dancing on stage he could he shouldn't had change them that much, he could afford to give them a free concert if he wanted to, he is not as great as people make him out to be.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 03:15 PM   #23 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
Pop isn't a genre and so to compare certain artist together is like comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing a singer/songwriter/musician to an entertainer/dancing fool.

Paul McCartney definitely influenced Rock and Roll and a lot of the sub-genres that followed have something they owe to The Beatles. I don't think one can talk about Rock and act like Paul McCartney didn't matter, and not acknowledges his influence on it. I think he does have a positive and lasting influence on music in general. There are probably more artists (from all different musical backgrounds) that cover Beatles songs than any band I know. That shows he what he wrote wasn't just for the charts to be forgotten but his songs had substance that other musicians could recognize.

Michael Jackson had a hard childhood and (to put it kindly) a bizarre adult life. Musically I don't care for Michael Jackson, he's creepy the way he sings his high notes, and not to mention the other things he did. There are plenty of singers regardless of genre that are better than Michael Jackson. And his dancing wasn't original when he was young he imitated James Brown, and when he was older he took moves from Bob Fosse and most likely what moves he didn't steal, were taught to him. One thing I didn't care for was when Michael Jackson toured Eastern Europe I heard he charged something like 3 month salary for a ticket. I don't care what antics he can pull on while dancing on stage he could he shouldn't had change them that much, he could afford to give them a free concert if he wanted to, he is not as great as people make him out to be.
Ty for formatting your opinion this way, I knew by the time I got to MJ that I was going to be in for a biased one.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 03:21 PM   #24 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 936
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
Pop isn't a genre
I agree and I'm sure I must have said that on this forum or another one. Pop covers very many different styles and McCartney has probably covered most of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3 View Post
Both McCartney & Jackson nailed their style of music, but they tend not to branch out further. When I think of the folks making pop music today: Pink, Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, and to a lesser extent Bruno Mars & Ke$ha I think of people all over the freakin map.
I don't agree that those you mention have branched out more than McCartney. He has been around since the 60s from beat music, tin pan alley style, rock, psychedelia, disco, acoustic folk style, classical music, experimental music. I don't really get the comparison to those you mention.

Last edited by starrynight; 05-11-2011 at 03:27 PM.
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 04:24 PM   #25 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
I don't agree that those you mention have branched out more than McCartney. He has been around since the 60s from beat music, tin pan alley style, rock, psychedelia, disco, acoustic folk style, classical music, experimental music. I don't really get the comparison to those you mention.
If you're including his work with the beatles.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
I don't think they had nuclear weapons in the Bible.
TheBig3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 02:57 AM   #26 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 936
Default

Well many of his Beatles songs he wrote alone anyway. Even post-Beatles he's done a variety of things. The names you mention I don't think have been going long enough to make a valid comparison.
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 03:18 AM   #27 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,039
Default

i like Macca more than Wacko Jacko

as to King of Pop, I don't think there's one fit for the throne
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 07:19 AM   #28 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
Well many of his Beatles songs he wrote alone anyway. Even post-Beatles he's done a variety of things. The names you mention I don't think have been going long enough to make a valid comparison.
No, probably not. But my point was that, in their short time, they've expanded what a "base sound" is in pop music. I'm saying pop songs will inherently sound dated as technology advances. Not to mention these songs are made to fit the times. Even Madonna, who has every right at the throne has a catalog that sounds old at this point.

Its not a dispersion. Pop, more than most other genres (can't think of another one), requires the existence of fore-bearers. It moves so fast that as an artist you need to focus on whats relevant. Things like choreography, arrangements, hell even musical theory requires a "team" over time to build. Where was back-up dancing before MJ? No where. Now everyone does it.

Where was stylistic change ups before Madonna? No where. Now everyone has a spanish song no matter how gringo because of her.

Where was the bass-less funk song before Prince? No where. He was just that nuts. And now ridiculous instrument choices are the soup de jur. (no idea if thats correct).

You need precedent for the extra stuff, but Pop rarely has a classic save for a handful of songs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
I don't think they had nuclear weapons in the Bible.
TheBig3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:30 AM   #29 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

Paul McCartney's solo work is abysmal. Lennon was much better in that regard.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:33 AM   #30 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
Paul McCartney's solo work is abysmal. Lennon was much better in that regard.
Better sure, but I'd say they were both pretty terrible. Lennon consistently hits me as a guy I'm supposed to like because of precedent.

"Aw man, how can you not like Lennon"

"I don't ****ing know, because it all sounds the god damned same and his lyrics aren't nearly as engaging as everyone pretends they are...thats how?"
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
I don't think they had nuclear weapons in the Bible.
TheBig3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2021 Advameg, Inc.