You know, i once made a Rockstar game thread here where i asked ppl if they rathered be a respected musician with local cred but aren't famous OR a famous musician who sold out his artistic cred for money.

And you know what the majority chose? To sell out and be rich.

Ideally artistic integrity should come 1st but realistically it comes 2nd to getting paid.

I don't get the value of these propositions.
Pop yesterday vs pop today = Beatles vs Beach Boys....
It's a matter of taste and context. More to the point, the lasting appeal of pop music is more associative than anything else. Unlike other genres i.e. jazz, classical, that transcend time/eras, pop music is a pure product of its time.
I did a list of my top 100 pop songs and then did a spreadsheet with the corresponding years. I'ld say 80% were between the years of 1968 - 1975. My late grade school and high school years, the most formative years. I doubt it would be very different for anyone else.
I'ld say those were the best pop songs ever written. My dad thought it was crap and loved the music from his earlier years. Am I right? Was he right?
Same argument, generation after generation.

They have done studies and while it is true that people tend to gravitate towards the pop music they heard in their early years my argument was about the decline in quality of pop music do to the amount of pop stars that cannot write their own musical compositions, and therefore rely on music producers to supply them with a sampled beat

The study in Spain revealed that there has been a decline in the variety of notes pop hits have had over the last decade or so, resulting in music that is sounding less diverse and more and more the same & I think there is a direct correlation between this and the sampling of beats.

In the old days record companies would hire session musicians for singers who couldn't write their own compositions & the artist would direct the process. Today record companies cut costs by sampling music they own their rights to.

Anyways I'm tired of arguing this its taking up too much of my time, if it is possible to have a mod close it as a Christmas present it would be awesome thanks!!! :)

You don't have to close it, it's a good area for conversation. I'm just confused as to why you think that the person writing the music and the person performing it should be one and the same and how that somehow diminishes quality. A good track is a good track, is it not? Maybe the writer couldn't perform it as well as x artist, or x artist couldn't write a good song to save their life, but they're a damn good singer. Does it matter if the outcome is better than what you would have if you drew some arbitrary line where the composer and performer can't be separate entities?

I hope I didn't come across as hostile or argumentative, it wasn't my intention.
And as the previous poster suggested, it IS a good topic of discussion (I may have been a little rash in discounting the value).
The irony in my response is that I DO feel exactly as you do about pop music.
And I would love to believe there is something timeless and true about what I grew up with and respond to, to this day.
But I think the older I get, the more I realize how absolutely everything is relative. I think valid pop music is as much about getting an emotional response as it is about technical composition.
People and society evolve, music evolves hand in hand. Everything does.
Is ball room dancing superior to disco dancing, I would say that technically it is, but that's not as relevant to me. Is disco dancing (a la Soul Train ) superior to bobbing to techno beats, I would say it is, but it's not relevant to the generation following me.
I can't listen to any comics pre 1970 ( with a couple of exceptions), but an older generation would suggest that our comedy is to foul and nasty, not clever enough.
Different times, different thinking.
I am constantly aware of the generational gap when discussing any of this stuff with younger people because everyone is living in their own times.
Sorry if this got too philosophical.

No you didn't come across hostile, I often highlight things in bold to make my points easier to follow.

I initially made the thread to stir up the pot, but its taking up to much of my time, so I would like to close the door on it now.

Hey man, I like your avatar.

I didn't bother reading every page, read the first, skimmed the second...

Since we're in the Pop sub-forum, of the forum, I'll apply this to Pop music as I feel it has the majority of what I am going to talk about. My evidence can be reflected in just the Pop music that's around right now, the popular Pop music topping the charts.

Is talent in an Pop artist even really important anymore? I'm not sure if it entirely is these days. From my perspective, it would seem that the standards of record labels all across the board of genre's has lessened significantly. If the individual can somewhat sing on key, has at least something they can work with, to manipulate the individual, they'll get signed. Talent just seems somewhat an forethought. I'm really not surprised at the decline in the quality of Pop music, any genre of music. But if everyone wants to blow their money on this garbage and say there is nothing wrong with it, but then contradict that on the other hand and demand serious music written by truly talented, gifted individuals. Fine. But when you complain about bad music still dominating the charts. You're part of the group of people that is putting it there by supporting it.

Modern pop music really is garbage, and there is very little good in it. I haven't heard more artists ripping off each other or those before them in a long time until this newer generation of Pop stars took a rise to fame. Originality is another thing that I feel people don't care about anymore...

I am so alone in my thoughts haha.

Not sure about modern pop, but these are three of my favorite pop songs.

Take On Me ftw