Zhanteimi

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

William_the_Bloody

Fair enough, overall I would argue that until the last couple years pop was primarily dominated by R&B, I didn't notice a ton of variety going on. You could argue that in some ways there was more variety in past decades. It seems like radio stations today are very narrow in the scope of what they play these days (Strictly pop/R&B, strictly rock, or strictly contemporary alternative)

For me it doesn't matter what genre dominates pop music so long as the pop stars have talent and compose their own music. The rise of the manufactured pop star who relied on sampling and beat boxes because they couldn't make their own music really began to drag down the bar of creativity in the 2000's, so I'm happy there has been somewhat of shift. Goyte is a perfect example of someone who has the talent to compose a good melody that uses a variety of notes, and although she utilizes sampling, Lady Gaga is another good example. She can actually get on the stage and play musical instruments.

Frownland

@The Bolded Please, come off it with that horse piss. It does take a certain talent to effectively use samples in music, especially when it makes up the whole song. I'm a multi-instrumentalist, and I've tried and failed multiple times to be able to make a good track with sampling (I've looped things I've recorded but that's a bit different I guess). So it is a lot more difficult than it might seem. If you don't think so, go make a chart-topper, it's a win-win: you prove me wrong and you have all that money.

You also seem to think that all songs with sampling outright suck. Just ain't true man, edumacate yourself.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

William_the_Bloody

No not at all, I utilized samples back in the 90's in making my own music, & yes it does take some degree of talent, though learning how to play the guitar or piano takes more.

I use to be a huge fan of both hip hop & trip hop back of the day so I'm not opposed to sampling per say, my issue arose with it when it started to be used by major record companies as a way of supporting artists who didn't compose their own music. (Brittney Spears, Rihanna, ect) After all if you own the rights to a piece of music its cheaper to sample than it is to hire a session band.

Even when you sample a beat your simply borrowing someone else's music and building around it. This in itself is creatively stifling because you can't re-arrange the notes & sounds to your liking. I've got the same problem with DJ's who rely on the arpeggio button on their synthesizers. They can make a cool sounding Goa trance beat, but they can't do much with it because they don't know how lay chords down on their synth to make their own beat.

Personally that's why abandoned making techno music. It drove me nuts that I couldn't make my own compositions on Cubase like I could with my guitar, I found myself confined to arpeggios and samples. That and its depressing being locked up in a dark room with a sweaty guys in front of a computer, playing in a band was much more fun.

Frownland

Who cares how much 'real talent' goes into it? A fantastic track is a fantastic track no less, correct?

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

William_the_Bloody

Sure, but I think the more musical talent a person has, the more success they are also going to have in creating a fantastic track.

I'm just opposed to the rise of the manufactured pop star who relies more on image than talent because they have to need music producers to provide them with their compositions, which as discussed usually comes in the form of sampling. If they all had the talent of Portishead & Dr Dre it wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately people who go in to be pop stars are often more concerned with money and fame than making good music.

Frownland

What about artists like The Beatles or Zeppelin who didn't really write a bunch of their most popular songs? They did this without sampling, pop beaurocracy has been around since music itself. Note how quickly Mozart rubbed off on other composers: the influenced barely even wrote their own songs!

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

William_the_Bloody

True but The Beatles & Zeppelin were also exceedingly talented musicians, if you put a musical instrument in the hands of Britney Spears I don't think she would no what to do with it.

In the past record companies use to bring in session players for artists who were strictly singers, this is particularly notable with disco, but now record companies just find it more cost effective to have a producer sample a beat, which is why there has been less & less musical notes in a song, as the study in Spain found.

Anyways I'm tired, I'll let you have the day on this one, good conversation, cheers

Frownland

John Bonham couldn't even play saxophone, flute, or a guitar. What a shite musician, amiright guys?

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Urban Hat€monger ?

That's because she's a singer.
Stick an instrument in Ozzy Osbourne's hands and he wouldn't have a fucking clue either.

Didn't stop Sabbath from being great.

__________________