What is the deal with mainstream music these days?

[ElephantGun]

...when there are so many innovative and talented artists out there that barely get reckognized. Don't get me wrong, there is the odd musician on the top 20 that actually has some musical density, but most of it is compressed, shallow pop.

I'd like to see an artist that can even SLIGHTLY compare to Zeppelin or Floyd hit number one on the charts this decade.

Since when is art business?

[oddwithoutend]

There's this thing called capitalism.

[ElephantGun]

There's this thing called capitalism.
This is true.

[IWasaCamera]

Since when is art business?
haha

[theguy77]

art is only as business as you make it. an artist makes the choice whether or not to sell their art to the public and/or to a record label, and the artist is also allowed to negotiate and use their discretion to determine which components of their art the business is allowed to control, whether it's the sound or just the manner in which their honest sound is marketed. you certainly have the option of keeping your art entirely removed from the business side of it, but don't complain if you can't make a living.

i personally absolutely abhor business and the ramifications of becoming a part of it, but if it's the only way i can make a living off my music, i am willing to accept as much of it as will not compromise my artistic integrity or otherwise attach an unnecessarily egregious false image to me.

[ElephantGun]

art is only as business as you make it. an artist makes the choice whether or not to sell their art to the public and/or to a record label, and the artist is also allowed to negotiate and use their discretion to determine which components of their art the business is allowed to control, whether it's the sound or just the manner in which their honest sound is marketed. you certainly have the option of keeping your art entirely removed from the business side of it, but don't complain if you can't make a living.
It's not art anymore if you aren't doing it for passion, but for money.

[theguy77]

It's not art anymore if you aren't doing it for passion, but for money.

who says you cant try to make money off of your passion? as long as the passion isn't compromised i see nothing wrong with making money off of it.

[Burn That Shit]

how refreshing, one of these threads.

[ElephantGun]

who says you cant try to make money off of your passion? as long as the passion isn't compromised i see nothing wrong with making money off of it.
Sorry, I meant to reffer to the "musicians" who do it for the soul purpose of money. It completely kills music.

[theguy77]

Sorry, I meant to reffer to the "musicians" who do it for the soul purpose of money. It completely kills music.

sure, those people exist, but for one thing i bet you'd be surprised how many people make "shallow, compressed mainstream pop" because they love it. just because it sounds emotionless and money-driven to you (and believe me, it does to me too, i cant listen to the radio 2 minutes without going on a rant about how bad it is this decade) doesn't necessarily mean it is. taylor swift's music, for example, is some of the most torrid, cliche music i've ever heard but based on my perception of her at least, i've never once doubted her passion for writing it.

also, have you ever thought about it the other way around? maybe a particular musician's passion is not art, but money, and the ability to write and perform accessible music is merely a talent they use to pursue their passion. while i agree with you that this is not art, but consumerism, as long as they dont CLAIM to be artists or put across an image that makes them look like anything short of businessmen, then they're not necessarily dishonest. that's just what works for them, and i cant blame them for being successful and pursuing a passion thats different from mine, you know?

im just saying, i hate top 40 music these days too, but dont look at it so black and white.

[kerropi]

Uhhh that's mainstream music. Where have you been living?
Top 40 is top 40 and nothing more.
Seriously your confused?

[ElephantGun]

sure, those people exist, but for one thing i bet you'd be surprised how many people make "shallow, compressed mainstream pop" because they love it. just because it sounds emotionless and money-driven to you (and believe me, it does to me too, i cant listen to the radio 2 minutes without going on a rant about how bad it is this decade) doesn't necessarily mean it is. taylor swift's music, for example, is some of the most torrid, cliche music i've ever heard but based on my perception of her at least, i've never once doubted her passion for writing it.

also, have you ever thought about it the other way around? maybe a particular musician's passion is not art, but money, and the ability to write and perform accessible music is merely a talent they use to pursue their passion. while i agree with you that this is not art, but consumerism, as long as they dont CLAIM to be artists or put across an image that makes them look like anything short of businessmen, then they're not necessarily dishonest. that's just what works for them, and i cant blame them for being successful and pursuing a passion thats different from mine, you know?

im just saying, i hate top 40 music these days too, but dont look at it so black and white.
This is true :)
I was just at a sound convention and got to hear about the change in music and recording and it had me devastated.
just would like to see more taste, and less easy fame. Appreciate the point of view, it makes sense.

[ElephantGun]

Uhhh that's mainstream music. Where have you been living?
Top 40 is top 40 and nothing more.
Seriously your confused?
Uhh take a look at the top 40's from the 60s and 70s and there is a reason why they are up there.

[CollectiveConfusion]

...when there are so many innovative and talented artists out there that barely get reckognized. Don't get me wrong, there is the odd musician on the top 20 that actually has some musical density, but most of it is compressed, shallow pop.

I'd like to see an artist that can even SLIGHTLY compare to Zeppelin or Floyd hit number one on the charts this decade.

Since when is art business?

art isn't business, that's why there are little to no really talented artists who are commercially successful.

Uhh take a look at the top 40's from the 60s and 70s and there is a reason why they are up there.

there was no internet.


edit: i actually do think this is an interesting question, though.

[x togepi x]

It's not art anymore if you aren't doing it for passion, but for money.

andy warhol says otherwise.

[MattADALIE]

Capitalism rocks. I'm all about trying to make money with my music. I mean, we'll dress a certain way for attention and money, play music a certain way, make complete asses of ourselves with stupid video updates and publicity stunts, and so on. So far, I've made nothing and have spent the remains of my dignity as well as thousands of dollars into a pipe-dream. : )

[kearn1tm]

...when there are so many innovative and talented artists out there that barely get reckognized. Don't get me wrong, there is the odd musician on the top 20 that actually has some musical density, but most of it is compressed, shallow pop.

I'd like to see an artist that can even SLIGHTLY compare to Zeppelin or Floyd hit number one on the charts this decade.

Since when is art business?

You're like the fifteen year old who just heard that asshole in a turtleneck sweater at Starbucks rant to a potential fuck in some faux-profound way about how commercialism is "totally killing art, ya' know? The mainstream is for sheep and it's killing our freedom of expression." Then they adopt that poorly thought-out mantra and regurgitate it to anyone who will listen in the hopes of sounding equally as (faux) profound.

By this I mean, what are your thoughts on Bush Jr.?

[Debut_Fin]

why don't you just listen to what you want to listen to and not care about the rest. there are plenty of top 40 artists that are enjoyable. not everything has to be underground.

[kearn1tm]

Fun little anecdotal tidbit that no one asked for: As I get older, I find myself enjoying mainstream music more. I truly see how much bullshit that youthful need to be "different" for sake of perception was. I truly like a lot of this mainstream stuff. It's fun, and what I call "good" in many instances.

[jbertclassic]

Fun little anecdotal tidbit that no one asked for: As I get older, I find myself enjoying mainstream music more. I truly see how much bullshit that youthful need to be "different" for sake of perception was. I truly like a lot of this mainstream stuff. It's fun, and what I call "good" in many instances.

In all seriousness, examples? I mean who is even on top 40 these days? Are bands like Killers, Arctic Monkeys, Shins up there or am i way off?

[IntoTheSun]

Fun little anecdotal tidbit that no one asked for: As I get older, I find myself enjoying mainstream music more. I truly see how much bullshit that youthful need to be "different" for sake of perception was. I truly like a lot of this mainstream stuff. It's fun, and what I call "good" in many instances.

I enjoyed an FTSK song today that was posted. Mildy. I would never have listened to it or even admited it to myself if I had never joined this website. Mainstream songs are products, but occasionally good products. That's how I see it.

EDIT: But then again I might have no idea what I'm talking about. since I haven't listened to much mainstream music at all in the past few years haha, just a song here and there.

[x togepi x]

Capitalism rocks. I'm all about trying to make money with my music. I mean, we'll dress a certain way for attention and money, play music a certain way, make complete asses of ourselves with stupid video updates and publicity stunts, and so on. So far, I've made nothing and have spent the remains of my dignity as well as thousands of dollars into a pipe-dream. : )

well, i mean, as long as you'll admit that your entire livelihood is built on the backs of exploited people in the third world...yeah, capitalism totally rocks!

[beth danger]

Fun little anecdotal tidbit that no one asked for: As I get older, I find myself enjoying mainstream music more. I truly see how much bullshit that youthful need to be "different" for sake of perception was. I truly like a lot of this mainstream stuff. It's fun, and what I call "good" in many instances.

Agreed. I find myself enjoying top 40 more and more as I get older. It's not what I prefer to listen to, but I can definitely see its merits, and I feel like I missed out in my younger days when I was "rebelling against mainstream music" or whatever I thought I was doing.

[MattADALIE]

well, i mean, as long as you'll admit that your entire livelihood is built on the backs of exploited people in the third world...yeah, capitalism totally rocks!

Cheers to that! I sure enjoy exploiting people in other countries around the globe for cheap labor, thus outsourcing work overseas. Sure, in the end, it kills our economy, but, you have to follow the moneeeyyyyyyy, you know.

[kearn1tm]

In all seriousness, examples? I mean who is even on top 40 these days? Are bands like Killers, Arctic Monkeys, Shins up there or am i way off?

Kylie Minogue's Fever is one of my favorite records of the decade. I've enjoyed everything Kanye's released this decade. Fun, light Weezer is almost as enjoyable as guitar-nerd, candid and pathetically-relatable Weezer. The White Stripes are cool enough. Listening to Katy Perry being obnoxious is actually really entertaining (and the girl has great producers). Anything Danja touches turns to pop gold. He's truly becoming the next Neptunes/Timberland. Our darling Brit-Brit's last "crazy-period" (ugh) effort "Blackout" was just a tour de force of club bangers. Alysha Key's newest is really good. Beyonce is fly. I love Fall Out Boy. I loved them when I was 16, I love them at 22, I suspect that will hold true for years to come.

I don't have this "us vs. them" mentality with music anymore, or that juvenile need to feed in to conflict theory in areas it doesn't apply. I like a lot of stuff. I like a lot of somewhat-obscure stuff. I like some well-known stuff. I like radio stuff. I like stuff the radio would burn with fire and hatred and mustard (who likes mustard, seriously?!).

I enjoyed an FTSK song today that was posted. Mildy. I would never have listened to it or even admited it to myself if I had never joined this website. Mainstream songs are products, but occasionally good products. That's how I see it.

I think I could make a long rant about this post alone, but I need to think about this some more. I'll say this: I'm not quite sure if it's just a lazy sentiment to generalize mainstream music as 'products,' as it implies that the things you, I and others here dig are less 'products.' It's a thing. I don't know. Art is often times an extension of product. It's a post-industrial world we're living in.

[kearn1tm]

Cheers to that! I sure enjoy exploiting people in other countries around the globe for cheap labor, thus outsourcing work overseas. Sure, in the end, it kills our economy, but, you have to follow the moneeeyyyyyyy, you know.

Neo-Colonialism and Globalization! Fuck yeah!

Argh.

[oddwithoutend]

I didn't particularly like music until I strayed from the mainstream.

[IntoTheSun]

I think I could make a long rant about this post alone, but I need to think about this some more. I'll say this: I'm not quite sure if it's just a lazy sentiment to generalize mainstream music as 'products,' as it implies that the things you, I and others here dig are less 'products.' It's a thing. I don't know. Art is often times an extension of product. It's a post-industrial world we're living in.

I'm sorry, way too tired for any of your rants right now. Don't get frustrated with me :/

You should probably read my edit, which I put in a couple of minutes ago. Getting into this whole discussion would require our definitions of "mainstream", which are most likely differing anyway.

[kearn1tm]

Agreed. I find myself enjoying top 40 more and more as I get older. It's not what I prefer to listen to, but I can definitely see its merits, and I feel like I missed out in my younger days when I was "rebelling against mainstream music" or whatever I thought I was doing.

I mean, I think it's definitely healthy to be cognizant of the materialistic nature of and the adverse effects the mainstream has on the medium, but at the same time, there's so much bullshit posturing, especially around my age, with people who are so into this fake-construct of anti-everything in existence that they can't just have fun listening to something that their mother, their best friend, their instructor's son in fourth grade and that homeless gent who always smells like pinesol all like.

[MattADALIE]

Neo-Colonialism and Globalization! Fuck yeah!

Argh.

This calls for a round of entry-level Mercedes-Benz vehicles for everyone.

[kearn1tm]

I'm sorry, way too tired for any of your rants right now. Don't get frustrated with me :/

You should probably read my edit, which I put in a couple of minutes ago. Getting into this whole discussion would require our definitions of "mainstream", which are most likely differing anyway.

Again, as said before, it's something I need to think about myself, and really, it's not a "rant" per se, but using your comment to springboard into tangential areas. I'm still working out stuff, here. Also, I think getting to wrapped up in semantics and defining certain terms that are relatively agreed-upon, at least in this forum (the idea of objectivity being a collective agreement by those in power or influence) would damper discussion. In many instances, I'm all for defining terms, but it can also be used as a krutch. This would be one of those times. We're all relatively well-aware of what it is to be "mainstream," for the most part.

Regardless, I don't have much to posit here. I'm just weary of creating this large gap of "product" and "art" between mainstream and non-mainstream. It's dangerous and implies a lot of things.

[IWasaCamera]

Only time I ever held actual disdain for radio pop was during my scene days. Funny how my perception of good music at the time entailed shutting all other branches of the medium out.

[x1onexwo1fx]

alright, i'll say it.

you spelled "recognized" incorrectly.

hate me all you want for being a grammar/spelling nazi or whatever, but i'm only posting this because i'm amused by how you spelled it. i like 'k's, but that one's in the wrong place. i saw a your/you're mistake, but i'm not calling that person out.

[kearn1tm]

Only time I ever held actual disdain for radio pop was during my scene days. Funny how my perception of good music at the time entailed shutting all other branches of the medium out.

Yeah. That's exactly the mindset I found myself in from ages 16 to 20.

[kearn1tm]

alright, i'll say it.

you spelled "recognized" incorrectly.

hate me all you want for being a grammar/spelling nazi or whatever, but i'm only posting this because i'm amused by how you spelled it. i like 'k's, but that one's in the wrong place. i saw a your/you're mistake, but i'm not calling that person out.

You're annoying.

[x1onexwo1fx]

You're annoying.

it's what i do when i'm bored. sorry.

[IntoTheSun]

I mean, I think it's definitely healthy to be cognizant of the materialistic nature of and the adverse effects the mainstream has on the medium, but at the same time, there's so much bullshit posturing, especially around my age, with people who are so into this fake-construct of anti-everything in existence that they can't just have fun listening to something that their mother, their best friend, their instructor's son in fourth grade and that homeless gent who always smells like pinesol all like.

Or maybe some of us just geniunely enjoy music that is more "out there" because it means more to us than a radio song. But I do see your point. I guess it could also be a bit of the mentality that we want something of our own to love, but I don't know, I'm seeing that less and less in myself. Haha, one of my counselors and my English teacher are big fans of The National, and I thought that was pretty cool.

There is a lot of bullshit posturing towards Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Brothers, and a lot of the Disney stars. I somehow feel like the people my age are more against what they represent than the actual music (though their voices can be quite annoying sometimes, I'd admit). There's a lot of other examples of this happening that I can't think of right now (exhaustion, remember). Ha, Bad Romance really really genuinely irks me though. Some of her others songs are enjoyable.

[kearn1tm]

Or maybe some of us just geniunely enjoy music that is more "out there" because it means more to us than a radio song.

I'm not saying "you all" don't. I mean, look at my favorite artists in my profile. I just find there's a youthful need to foster in an "us vs. them" mentality to create a false sense of rebellion against some institution or another. It's common to see it manifest with mainstream music.


There is a lot of bullshit posturing towards Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Brothers, and a lot of the Disney stars. I somehow feel like the people my age are more against what they represent than the actual music (though their voices can be quite annoying sometimes, I'd admit). There's a lot of other examples of this happening that I can't think of right now (exhaustion, remember). Ha, Bad Romance really really genuinely irks me though. Some of her others songs are enjoyable.

I'm against what they represent myself, but probably not in the same way you are - I'm afraid of the norms they solidify in their music and how it's given to teens. The idea that a people need others in romantic/relationship context to be complete leads to the norms of relationships as necessities, and perpetuates the architypal gender roles that accompany perceptions of relationships (patriarchal units, men's worth gauged by their monetary wealth, women's identity defined by the wants/needs of the man, etc.). The materialism that's rampant in the subtext of the lyrics is also socially detrimental. It's frightening how much they serve to solidify culture to youth with their pseudo-love ballads and their kid-club stompers that promote materialism over anything else. It's frightening.

[xJesusFreakx]

I think this would be an interesting topic for discussion: Why is it that it's so easy for people with a very limited knowledge of music to love pop, and also easy for people who have experienced a much broader spectrum to accept and perhaps love it as well, but people in that in-between stage have such a tendency to hate pop (or at least claim to)?

[oddwithoutend]

"Hating" all pop doesn't make any sense. It's the same rebellious nature Todd is talking about. However, I'd contend most people with a broader, more experienced taste do not enjoy the vast majority of pop music.

[IntoTheSun]

I'm not saying "you all" don't. I mean, look at my favorite artists in my profile. I just find there's a youthful need to foster in an "us vs. them" mentality to create a false sense of rebellion against some institution or another. It's common to see it manifest with mainstream music.

Ah, gotcha. A lot of my friends listen to mainstream music, so I don't see that as much, but I do remember a couple of instances of this sort of "rebellion" happening. I'm pretty sure I went through that in middle school :-d

I'm against what they represent myself, but probably not in the same way you are - I'm afraid of the norms they solidify in their music and how it's given to teens. The idea that a people need others in romantic/relationship context to be complete leads to the norms of relationships as necessities, and perpetuates the architypal gender roles that accompany perceptions of relationships (patriarchal units, men's worth gauged by their monetary wealth, women's identity defined by the wants/needs of the man, etc.). The materialism that's rampant in the subtext of the lyrics is also socially detrimental. It's frightening how much they serve to solidify culture to youth with their pseudo-love ballads and their kid-club stompers that promote materialism over anything else. It's frightening.

Yeah, the way I meant it was more like the way people initially hated Twilight. Actually, Twilight would make a good parallel in this situation. I knew a lot of people who liked the books at first, but once they started becoming really popular and more and more fangirls sprouted up, they became critics...quite obsessive critics. In another way though, it's exactly like what you are saying. The things that Twilight represents, the messages it sends to young people...the misplaced obsession and lust, it's frightening. And it's something for me to think about more. The stuff you are saying about promoting materialism etc., is a lot of the reasons why I dislike much of it...a lot of the lyrics are mundane and lacking honesty. Like I said though, I don't spend me time and energy hating on it like I used to...it's just there, and occasionally I'd find something enjoyable.

Edit: By the way, feel free to reply but I might not respond. I have 3 finals to study for tomorrow, and a choir performance. I had two choir performances already today. So yeah.

[Chromefox]

I think this would be an interesting topic for discussion: Why is it that it's so easy for people with a very limited knowledge of music to love pop, and also easy for people who have experienced a much broader spectrum to accept and perhaps love it as well, but people in that in-between stage have such a tendency to hate pop (or at least claim to)? I think a lot of times, what changes with that growth isn't how much you like pop, so much as what you consider pop.

[xJesusFreakx]

"Hating" all pop doesn't make any sense. It's the same rebellious nature Todd is talking about. However, I'd contend most people with a broader, more experienced taste do not enjoy the vast majority of pop music.

Eh, I think this is leaning too close to elitism towards pop. I hate to use myself as an example, since I'm still playing catch-up to a fairly large extent, but I have been exposed to a pretty broad range of music and have enjoyed a lot of it, and I'm always open to something new, but I also always love a good pop song with a catchy chorus.

[xJesusFreakx]

I think a lot of times, what changes with that growth isn't how much you like pop, so much as what you consider pop.

Would you care to elaborate? I think I see where you're going, roughly speaking, but not completely, and I'm curious.

[kearn1tm]

Ah, gotcha. A lot of my friends listen to mainstream music, so I don't see that as much, but I do remember a couple of instances of this sort of "rebellion" happening. I'm pretty sure I went through that in middle school :-d



Yeah, the way I meant it was more like the way people initially hated Twilight. Actually, Twilight would make a good parallel in this situation. I knew a lot of people who liked the books at first, but once they started becoming really popular and more and more fangirls sprouted up, they became critics...quite obsessive critics. In another way though, it's exactly like what you are saying. The things that Twilight represents, the messages it sends to young people...the misplaced obsession and lust, it's frightening. And it's something for me to think about more. The stuff you are saying about promoting materialism etc., is a lot of the reasons why I dislike much of it...a lot of the lyrics are mundane and lacking honesty. Like I said though, I don't spend me time and energy hating on it like I used to...it's just there, and occasionally I'd find something enjoyable.

Edit: By the way, feel free to reply but I might not respond. I have 3 finals to study for tomorrow, and a choir performance. I had two choir performances already today. So yeah.

Twilight is a reprehensible tool in solidifying power dynamics within relationships. The way it aggrandizes passive, helpless, reliant and helpless girls enamored with obsessive, aggressive, empowered males is a travesty. Oh, and the fact that ten percent of all Myers earnings goes to the notoriously backwards Mormon church is icing on the bullshit cake.

[IWasaCamera]

I partially agree with that Rick, but only because I dislike the vast majority of music.

[oddwithoutend]

Eh, I think this is leaning too close to elitism towards pop. I hate to use myself as an example, since I'm still playing catch-up to a fairly large extent, but I have been exposed to a pretty broad range of music and have enjoyed a lot of it, and I'm always open to something new, but I also always love a good pop song with a catchy chorus.
I'd say you're in the minority.

[DejaNew]

I partially agree with that Rick, but only because I dislike the vast majority of music.
Vinh, I'm curious, do you enjoy any pop-punk?

[kearn1tm]

"Hating" all pop doesn't make any sense. It's the same rebellious nature Todd is talking about. However, I'd contend most people with a broader, more experienced taste do not enjoy the vast majority of pop music.

Yeah, maybe. I don't know. Maybe I'm an anamoly, and this is entirely anecdotal, but a lot of my friends who have had the same progression definitely enjoy the pleasures of mainstream radio.

Also, I hesitate to be labeled as a guy with "more experienced taste" or whatever. I mean, I like to get acclimated with a lot of sounds and I'm always looking for new horizons and other cliched ways to express my interest in worldly music, but I'm far from a medium expert, and more a dilettante.

[kearn1tm]

Vinh, I'm curious, do you enjoy any pop-punk?

Did you not know of his obsession with the seminal pop punk release, Dookie?

He has a pic of actual feces tattooed above the small of his back as a tribute of sorts.

[IntoTheSun]

Twilight is a reprehensible tool in solidifying power dynamics within relationships. The way it aggrandizes passive, helpless, reliant and helpless girls enamored with obsessive, aggressive, empowered males is a travesty. Oh, and the fact that ten percent of all Myers earnings goes to the notoriously backwards Mormon church is icing on the bullshit cake.

Hahahaha, yeah we've heard it all. Every Cinderella story since way back when. The only thing you can hope for those kids is that they recognize the diference between fiction and reality. Wait, vampires aren't real?

[DejaNew]

Yeah, maybe. I don't know. Maybe I'm an anamoly, and this is entirely anecdotal, but a lot of my friends who have had the same progression definitely enjoy the pleasures of mainstream radio.

Also, I hesitate to be labeled as a guy with "more experienced taste" or whatever. I mean, I like to get acclimated with a lot of sounds and I'm always looking for new horizons and other cliched ways to express my interest in worldly music, but I'm far from a medium expert, and more a dilettante.
Todd, same question for you. Do you enjoy any pop-punk?

[DejaNew]

Did you not know of his obsession with the seminal pop punk release, Dookie?

He has a pic of actual feces tattooed above the small of his back as a tribute of sorts.
Seems like an appropriate place to get a tattoo like that.

[kearn1tm]

Todd, same question for you. Do you enjoy any pop-punk?

Yes. I love actual Pop Punk and I love the shitty mall-powerpop that's labeled as pop punk (misnomer).

[kearn1tm]

Seems like an appropriate place to get a tattoo like that.

As much as I love Vinh, I don't think it's a secret the boy is a bit of a tart. You know, he's a good-time gal (only, a guy). You might say Vinh enjoys a nightcap in the federal red part of town on nights that aren't just for the weekend party pals.

I'm trying to say he's a slut, due to the tramp stamp reference, but I think that all comes across as vaguely gay. Vinh isn't gay. Or whatever.

[oddwithoutend]

I partially agree with that Rick, but only because I dislike the vast majority of music.
An interesting point. There's a hell of a lot of music in the underground I don't like, but I suppose I'm not constantly being exposed to it like I am with pop music.

[xJesusFreakx]

I'd say you're in the minority.

Maybe, but Todd just used himself as an example as well. (Using one's self as an example seems pretty arrogant, especially in my case, since I'm still rather new to all this, but it's also the best example because it can't really be proved wrong. You can't say, "No, you don't like pop.") I don't think it's that small of a minority, though I don't know what to quantify this with. Your statement probably can't really be quantified that far beyond your own taste in music either, though.

[Chromefox]

Would you care to elaborate? I think I see where you're going, roughly speaking, but not completely, and I'm curious. Now I'm not exactly sure how to put this, so bear with me while I struggle to put down what I mean.

I have been exposed to a pretty broad range of music and have enjoyed a lot of it, and I'm always open to something new, but I also always love a good pop song with a catchy chorus. I suppose what I'm saying is that as you get deeper into music and explore textures and genres and experimentation, and you broaden your horizons, it's not that you come full circle and embrace pop music, but you find that the reality is "pop" is an enormous umbrella, and considerably more music falls beneath it than you recognized with limited knowledge.

It's not that you've walked the path of pop music, strayed off it to find yourself, then rejoined it, so much as you've followed it unwittingly the entire time, and have become able to reflect upon it.

I definitely experienced the stage you mentioned where I was listening to Brand New and Fall Out Boy, and "pop" was a filthy word. Now I listen to music, and at times can't understand how what I consider a sugary hook can alienate another listener. I suppose if I were to rationalize the progress, I'd say that once you deviate from media pop, all your experience with it is dirty. Once you graduate from ie: scene music and open your mind some, you're able to recognize the pop elements of that too, and think "Well that wasn't so bad". Pop becomes a comfortable word again.

I don't know if I've worded myself particularly well, or if this even actually applies, but that's my take on your question.

[kearn1tm]

Hahahaha, yeah we've heard it all. Every Cinderella story since way back when. The only thing you can hope for those kids is that they recognize the diference between fiction and reality. Wait, vampires aren't real?

Oh yeah. Art is full of it. The fact that the idea of romance is so prevalent in, hey, music, is a testament to the culturally perpetuated norm and belief that relationships are necessities, that monogamous pairings are crucial to identity. Many bands you, I and others dig does this.

[DejaNew]

Yes. I love actual Pop Punk and I love the shitty mall-powerpop that's labeled as pop punk (misnomer).
That's cool. I've always been really interested in the shit you post, but now that I know that you may listen to some of the same music I do, I may be able to find connection in some of the recs you post. It's always easier to check out a rec when you know you have similar tastes with the person doing the recommending.

[partisanpunk]

...when there are so many innovative and talented artists out there that barely get reckognized. Don't get me wrong, there is the odd musician on the top 20 that actually has some musical density, but most of it is compressed, shallow pop.

I'd like to see an artist that can even SLIGHTLY compare to Zeppelin or Floyd hit number one on the charts this decade.




you have hot topic and 14 yr old girls to blame for that.


source: the truth.

[IWasaCamera]

Vinh, I'm curious, do you enjoy any pop-punk?
I still know the words to most of my high school favorites, so yeah I can enjoy it when I hear it -- usually if it's familiar. The little I've heard from the "genre" lately hasn't held my attention though.
Did you not know of his obsession with the seminal pop punk release, Dookie?

He has a pic of actual feces tattooed above the small of his back as a tribute of sorts.
A decision I stand by.

[DejaNew]

As much as I love Vinh, I don't think it's a secret the boy is a bit of a tart. You know, he's a good-time gal (only, a guy). You might say Vinh enjoys a nightcap in the federal red part of town on nights that aren't just for the weekend party pals.

I'm trying to say he's a slut, due to the tramp stamp reference, but I think that all comes across as vaguely gay. Vinh isn't gay. Or whatever.
I can dig that, I'm here for the music. And the friends because everyone knows people who talk on the internet have none in real life.

[IntoTheSun]

An interesting point. There's a hell of a lot of music in the underground I don't like, but I suppose I'm not constantly being exposed to it like I am with pop music.

Hmm. Constantly exposed? But you don't listen to the radio (well, I don't either)...so it makes more sense to me that you'd be constantly exposed to more underground music, since that's what you seek out.

[DejaNew]

I still know the words to most of my high school favorites, so yeah I can enjoy it when I hear it -- usually if it's familiar. The little I've heard from the "genre" lately hasn't held my attention though.

A decision I stand by.
I enjoy pop-punk for what it is, so this year I gave a fair to chance to everything new that came out in the genre. It sucks, because nothing really stood out as being well-written. Some of it was catchy, but the novelty always wore off within a week.

[oddwithoutend]

Hmm. Constantly exposed? But you don't listen to the radio (well, I don't either)...so it makes more sense to me that you'd be constantly exposed to more underground music, since that's what you seek out.
Well, the underground is different because there is essentially an endless amount of material to look at. Radio is repetitive and unavoidable at times, obviously.

[IntoTheSun]

you have hot topic and 14 yr old girls to blame for that.


source: the truth.

correlation does not equal causation.

I can dig that, I'm here for the music. And the friends because everyone knows people who talk on the internet have none in real life.

What? Real life? I am the only thing that exists...you are all creations of my mind, silly.

[partisanpunk]

correlation does not equal causation.





would you know who miley cyrus was if teen bop bop girls had popularized her?

[DejaNew]

correlation does not equal causation.



What? Real life? I am the only thing that exists...you are all creations of my mind, silly.
Wrong. I'm a robot. I did the voice acting for OK Computer.

[xJesusFreakx]

Now I'm not exactly sure how to put this, so bear with me while I struggle to put down what I mean.

I suppose what I'm saying is that as you get deeper into music and explore textures and genres and experimentation, and you broaden your horizons, it's not that you come full circle and embrace pop music, but you find that the reality is "pop" is an enormous umbrella, and considerably more music falls beneath it than you recognized with limited knowledge.

It's not that you've walked the path of pop music, strayed off it to find yourself, then rejoined it, so much as you've followed it unwittingly the entire time, and have become able to reflect upon it.

I definitely experienced the stage you mentioned where I was listening to Brand New and Fall Out Boy, and "pop" was a filthy word. Now I listen to music, and at times can't understand how what I consider a sugary hook can alienate another listener. I suppose if I were to rationalize the progress, I'd say that once you deviate from media pop, all your experience with it is dirty. Once you graduate from ie: scene music and open your mind some, you're able to recognize the pop elements of that too, and think "Well that wasn't so bad". Pop becomes a comfortable word again.

I don't know if I've worded myself particularly well, or if this even actually applies, but that's my take on your question.

Huh, that makes sense and is certainly a possibility. I started out with Christian rock and really hit mainstream pop (not a far cry from bands like dc Talk) about the same time as I hit metalcore, I think getting into Haste the Day and Avril Lavigne around the same time, so I never really reached that step. I've had some elitist stages along the way, but they were always somewhat complicated, perhaps best exemplified by my bashing of Daisy while simultaneously defending Fearless.

The way I see it, which could certainly be incorporated into what you said, is that, at least in some circumstances, it's just an excuse to be arrogant, which is a pretty easy and natural hole for a person to fall into. Scene bands, Pitchfork bands, and other such music "scenes" are much smaller than Top 40 radio, so I think people develop a sort of prestigious, pretentious mindset when they make the jump.

[Chromefox]

Of course, everyone thinks that what they listen to is the best, else they wouldn't listen to it. I definitely have surges of pride in regards to much of my current taste, and in a year or two, I'll reflect on that and think it was foolish pop and that what I'm listening to then makes me awesome. It's natural to take pride in a passion.

[IWasaCamera]

An interesting point. There's a hell of a lot of music in the underground I don't like, but I suppose I'm not constantly being exposed to it like I am with pop music.
Is pop's ubiquity the main reason for which you dislike it or do you have an issue with the music itself?
I enjoy pop-punk for what it is, so this year I gave a fair to chance to everything new that came out in the genre. It sucks, because nothing really stood out as being well-written. Some of it was catchy, but the novelty always wore off within a week.
Good thing there's new music coming at us from every direction then.

[DejaNew]

Is pop's ubiquity the main reason for which you dislike it or do you have an issue with the music itself?

Good thing there's new music coming at us from every direction then.
Yeah, I'm starting to venture off the scene path a little more.

[IntoTheSun]

Of course, everyone thinks that what they listen to is the best, else they wouldn't listen to it. I definitely have surges of pride in regards to much of my current taste, and in a year or two, I'll reflect on that and think it was foolish pop and that what I'm listening to then makes me awesome. It's natural to take pride in a passion.

Not necessaily. I don't think my music is anywhere near "the best"...I am always looking fow ways to expand and develop my music taste and knowledge. I'd like to think there's even better stuff out there than what I currently enjoy.

[kearn1tm]

would you know who miley cyrus was if teen bop bop girls had popularized her?

Yes. Teens didn't make her ubiquitous. Labels did. They made her a desirable entity and marketed her to make teens want her. That's too populist a stance. For someone who claims to know of first wave Punk and it's ethos, you're oblivious to things that were obvious to them.

[xJesusFreakx]

Of course, everyone thinks that what they listen to is the best, else they wouldn't listen to it. I definitely have surges of pride in regards to much of my current taste, and in a year or two, I'll reflect on that and think it was foolish pop and that what I'm listening to then makes me awesome. It's natural to take pride in a passion.

Definitely. I think eventually (some) people notice the absurdity of adamantly proclaiming your favorites' superiority to other music when they're constantly changing, though, and eventually come back to a more accepting mindset, more willing to say, "Alright, you dig The Devil Wears Prada. I don't. That's fine. We like what we like for our own reasons. It's all cool."

[Chromefox]

Not necessaily. I don't think my music is anywhere near "the best"...I am always looking fow ways to expand and develop my music taste and knowledge. I'd like to think there's even better stuff out there than what I currently enjoy. That first sentence was worded poorly on my part. I'm not saying there's no open-mindedness, so much as it's reasonable that people are self-satisfied in their tastes. So perhaps not that what they're listening to is the best, but that their own taste, be that present or to come, is the best. Is that a more fair way to word it?

[kearn1tm]

Of course, everyone thinks that what they listen to is the best, else they wouldn't listen to it. .

I don't believe that at all. I like it, therefor I listen to it. To say "it's the best" assumes there's a universal standard.

[oddwithoutend]

Is pop's ubiquity the main reason for which you dislike it or do you have an issue with the music itself?
No, I'd say the ubiquity just makes it appear worse than what it is. The reason I dislike most pop music is because there are inevitable rules and standards that must be met for songs to enter the mainstream. I'm not a fan of most of these standards (i.e. lyrics tend to be shallow and overly repetitious, most songs have woefully predictable structures and sound, overall there is really no freedom to experiment, etc.)

[Chromefox]

I don't believe that at all. I like it, therefor I listen to it. To say "it's the best" assumes there's a universal standard. I just acknowledged that I worded this poorly in the post above you.

[Fringe]

Hmm... I'm mostly into scene bands right now. Big surprise. I know I'm 15 XD

But I don't like most pop music, not because I rebelling against the mainstream, just because I simply don't like the way it sounds :/

[kearn1tm]

I just acknowledged that I worded this poorly in the post above you.

Oh yeah?

[Chromefox]

Hmm... I'm mostly into scene bands right now. Big surprise. I know I'm 15 XD

But I don't like most pop music, not because I rebelling against the mainstream, just because I simply don't like the way it sounds :/ You do listen to pop. Quite a bit of it. But that's fine. I listen to pop too.

[IntoTheSun]

That first sentence was worded poorly on my part. I'm not saying there's no open-mindedness, so much as it's reasonable that people are self-satisfied in their tastes. So perhaps not that what they're listening to is the best, but that their own taste, be that present or to come, is the best. Is that a more fair way to word it?

Yep, thanks for clearing that up, makes much more sense.. But I mean, self-bias is unavoidable. After all, when it comes to something as subjective as music, we really only have ourselves to refer/ compare to.

[Fringe]

You do listen to pop. Quite a bit of it. But that's fine. I listen to pop too.

Not in comparison to how much of other genres I listen to... usually if I like a pop artist, it's one or two songs, anyway.

[IntoTheSun]

No, I'd say the ubiquity just makes it appear worse than what it is. The reason I dislike most pop music is because there are inevitable rules and standards that must be met for songs to enter the mainstream. I'm not a fan of most of these standards (i.e. lyrics tend to be shallow and overly repetitious, most songs have woefully predictable structures and sound, overall there is really no freedom to experiment, etc.)

This.

[Chromefox]

Not in comparison to how much of other genres I listen to. Debatable. A considerable portion of the artists listed in your profile are pop artists, or at least contain plentiful pop influence, regardless of sub genre. I mean, when it comes down to it, this entire website's basis is in pop punk. Which still falls in the shadow of pop.

[Fringe]

Debatable. A considerable portion of the artists listed in your profile are pop artists, or at least contain plentiful pop influence, regardless of sub genre. I mean, when it comes down to it, this entire website's basis is in pop punk. Which still falls in the shadow of pop.

Well, if you are counting pop punk, then no question XD

I'm more referring to R&B-ish pop that I usually hear at school and whatnot.

[IWasaCamera]

No, I'd say the ubiquity just makes it appear worse than what it is. The reason I dislike most pop music is because there are inevitable rules and standards that must be met for songs to enter the mainstream. I'm not a fan of most of these standards (i.e. lyrics tend to be shallow and overly repetitious, most songs have woefully predictable structures and sound, overall there is really no freedom to experiment, etc.)
Interesting, I tend to find these same traits in nearly all subgenres tied to rock 'n' roll.

[Chromefox]

Well, if you are counting pop punk, then no question XD

I'm more referring to R&B-ish pop that I usually hear at school and whatnot. Ah, well, you can't go broad spectrum with a statement, and then clarify a corner of it. ;-)

There's nothing wrong with pop as a genre.

[oddwithoutend]

Interesting, I tend to find these same traits in nearly all subgenres tied to rock 'n' roll.
Of course, but the modern artists I've found that lack these traits didn't make the radio.

[Fringe]

Ah, well, you can't go broad spectrum with a statement, and then clarify a corner of it. ;-)

There's nothing wrong with pop as a genre.

Fair enough. My bad XD

And I suppose so.

[kbi the crowing]

...when there are so many innovative and talented artists out there that barely get reckognized. Don't get me wrong, there is the odd musician on the top 20 that actually has some musical density, but most of it is compressed, shallow pop.

I'd like to see an artist that can even SLIGHTLY compare to Zeppelin or Floyd hit number one on the charts this decade.

Since when is art business?

I bet some people were saying the same thing when Zeppelin was on top

[IWasaCamera]

Of course, but the modern artists I've found that lack these traits didn't make the radio.
Where lyrics and being musically predictable are concerned, that's not endemic to any one genre or division; that pervades the entire medium. To feel greater contempt for shallow pop than shallow mall indie (for example) makes little sense to me.

[oddwithoutend]

Where lyrics and being musically predictable are concerned, that's not endemic to any one genre or division; that pervades the entire medium. To feel greater contempt for shallow pop than shallow mall indie (for example) makes little sense to me.
What would be an example of shallow mall indie?

[x togepi x]

Cheers to that! I sure enjoy exploiting people in other countries around the globe for cheap labor, thus outsourcing work overseas. Sure, in the end, it kills our economy, but, you have to follow the moneeeyyyyyyy, you know.

so you're going to have poor indian people write and record your demo?

[IWasaCamera]

What would be an example of shallow mall indie?
Just about every indie-pop artist ever.

[oddwithoutend]

Just about every indie-pop artist ever.
Doesn't the fact that some artists choose to stay/be indie for the sake of artistic freedom prove the point I'm trying to make?

[cshadows2887]

Hahahaha, yeah we've heard it all. Every Cinderella story since way back when. The only thing you can hope for those kids is that they recognize the diference between fiction and reality. Wait, vampires aren't real?

I do have to say that this kind of swept-away fantasy does exist with the genders flipped in a bit of a disguised form, though the only examples I can come up with are from another medium. If you've ever seen Elizabethtown or Garden State or any other movie whose female lead fits the "manic pixie dreamgirl" stereotype, it's pretty clear that a segment of the male population is interested in some mind-blowing, aggressive girl coming in and opening the world up for them and making them change their ways. Hell even Knocked Up to a lesser extent. Obviously this isn't quite as prevalent as the Cinderella story, but the desire to be swept away and more or less taken in hand by a romantic partner isn't solely the territory of young girls.

[IWasaCamera]

Doesn't the fact that some artists choose to stay/be indie for the sake of artistic freedom prove the point I'm trying to make?
Not if they make absolutely no use of said freedom (which is often the case). Staying within the indie-pop frame, albums released under that admittedly vague rubric do not display lyrical profundity, volatile/challenging arrangements, or the latitude needed for experimentation in the least. If anything, they're perhaps even more predictable than mainstream efforts. These are tunes which, not unlike radio pop, are enjoyed because they're fun. So where's the distinction?

[kearn1tm]

I do have to say that this kind of swept-away fantasy does exist with the genders flipped in a bit of a disguised form, though the only examples I can come up with are from another medium. If you've ever seen Elizabethtown or Garden State or any other movie whose female lead fits the "manic pixie dreamgirl" stereotype, it's pretty clear that a segment of the male population is interested in some mind-blowing, aggressive girl coming in and opening the world up for them and making them change their ways. Hell even Knocked Up to a lesser extent. Obviously this isn't quite as prevalent as the Cinderella story, but the desire to be swept away and more or less taken in hand by a romantic partner isn't solely the territory of young girls.

There's still the "aggressive girl" coming in to essentially aid the male protagonist. Moreover, it perpetuates the culturally-ingrained norm that relationships are the norm, that people need another for completion, which leads to a myriad of societal woes.

[oddwithoutend]

Not if they make absolutely no use of said freedom (which is often the case). Staying within the indie-pop frame, albums released under that admittedly vague rubric do not display lyrical profundity, volatile/challenging arrangements, or the latitude needed for experimentation in the least. If anything, they're perhaps even more predictable than mainstream efforts. These are tunes which, not unlike radio pop, are enjoyed because they're fun. So where's the distinction?
It's hard for me to conceptualize this indie-pop compartment because, if it's as similar to popular radio as you're suggesting, why isn't it on the radio?

I feel like I enjoy most of my favourite music more than I could pop because of some sort of quirk or profound idea conveyed through experimentation or simply via an "album experience".

[x togepi x]

"Hating" all pop doesn't make any sense. It's the same rebellious nature Todd is talking about. However, I'd contend most people with a broader, more experienced taste do not enjoy the vast majority of pop music.

you're so right! people shouldn't have convictions based around the elitist nature of the pop production process and how it co-opts and possibly destroys the validity/relevancy of underground subcultures.

[oddwithoutend]

you're so right! people shouldn't have convictions based around the elitist nature of the pop production process and how it co-opts and possibly destroys the validity/relevancy of underground subcultures.
ha I was obviously referring to the music itself. If we're going to get into this, I hate the entire world. Now I hope we're finished.

[kearn1tm]

you're so right! people shouldn't have convictions based around the elitist nature of the pop production process and how it co-opts and possibly destroys the validity/relevancy of underground subcultures.

To be fair, I did mention this (albeit briefly) earlier. That's not what I was talking about, but rather the same compulsion kids into, say, a segmented bit of music like scene stuff hating pop simply to have something to "rebel" against. I agree with everything you've said here.

[x togepi x]

ha I was obviously referring to the music itself. If we're going to get into this, I hate the entire world. Now I hope we're finished.

no. you're obviously making an idiotic blanket statement. but hey, let's try and back out of it and forget the fact that you can't necessarily separate the product and the process. i don't eat meat. it isn't because i don't think steaks taste good, it's because the process is morally abhorrent. one can make a similar case for pop music.

To be fair, I did mention this (albeit briefly) earlier. That's not what I was talking about, but rather the same compulsion kids into, say, a segmented bit of music like scene stuff hating pop simply to have something to "rebel" against. I agree with everything you've said here.

oh i agree that's why a lot of people, young or not, hate pop or mainstream music. i just think you can't say something like "hating all pop music is stupid".

[cshadows2887]

There's still the "aggressive girl" coming in to essentially aid the male protagonist. Moreover, it perpetuates the culturally-ingrained norm that relationships are the norm, that people need another for completion, which leads to a myriad of societal woes.

While I don't think I can get on board with what seems to be a pretty bleak take on the concept of committed relationships, I'll agree that those kinds of movies/songs do promote the concept that relationships are required for a person to be "complete." Which can be a very dangerous concept. I'm in agreement with you there. I was just trying to make the point that the fantasy inherent in Twilight (which many peopel consider harmful) is not necessarily mysogynist or strictly the province of one gender.

[DejaNew]

no. you're obviously making an idiotic blanket statement. but hey, let's try and back out of it and forget the fact that you can't necessarily separate the product and the process. i don't eat meat. it isn't because i don't think steaks taste good, it's because the process is morally abhorrent. one can make a similar case for pop music.



oh i agree that's why a lot of people, young or not, hate pop or mainstream music. i just think you can't say something like "hating all pop music is stupid".
http://www.novanewsnow.com/imgs/dynamique/articles/gros/LumberjackNet_1.jpg

[kearn1tm]

i just think you can't say something like "hating all pop music is stupid".

Absolutely.

[x togepi x]

http://www.novanewsnow.com/imgs/dynamique/articles/gros/LumberjackNet_1.jpg

this is the best thing that could have been posted.

[oddwithoutend]

no. you're obviously making an idiotic blanket statement. but hey, let's try and back out of it and forget the fact that you can't necessarily separate the product and the process. i don't eat meat. it isn't because i don't think steaks taste good, it's because the process is morally abhorrent. one can make a similar case for pop music.
Nothing I've said about disliking pop music was in regard to its process. I believe I said lack of experimentation and shallow, repetitious lyrics.

[kearn1tm]

While I don't think I can get on board with what seems to be a pretty bleak take on the concept of committed relationships, I'll agree that those kinds of movies/songs do promote the concept that relationships are required for a person to be "complete." Which can be a very dangerous concept. I'm in agreement with you there. I was just trying to make the point that the fantasy inherent in Twilight (which many peopel consider harmful) is not necessarily mysogynist or strictly the province of one gender.

That may not be its intent, but yes, Twilight is incredibly misogynistic.

[x togepi x]

Nothing I've said about disliking pop music was in regard to its process. I believe I said lack of experimentation and shallow, repetitious lyrics.
"Hating" all pop doesn't make any sense. It's the same rebellious nature Todd is talking about. However, I'd contend most people with a broader, more experienced taste do not enjoy the vast majority of pop music.

Go ahead and spin your way out of that one.


That may not be its intent, but yes, Twilight is incredibly misogynistic.

That is its intent. You know the Mormon Church's stance on women's rights. They're why we don't have an equal rights amendment.

[cshadows2887]

...when there are so many innovative and talented artists out there that barely get reckognized. Don't get me wrong, there is the odd musician on the top 20 that actually has some musical density, but most of it is compressed, shallow pop.

I'd like to see an artist that can even SLIGHTLY compare to Zeppelin or Floyd hit number one on the charts this decade.

Since when is art business?

Ignoring the fact that I think Floyd and (to a lesser degree) Led Zep are a touch overrated, I think it should be pointed out that these two bands were not enormous commercial successes in their era. Especially not in the area of singles. The real chart-toppers of that (and any era) are a decided mix of quality and disposability. Listen to songs by Gilbert O'Sullivan and tell me being old makes it any less disposable than modern pop. Which doesn't make it bad necessarily either. I love Bread, Seals and Crofts, England Dan and John Ford Coley and a number of other lightweight pop acts who had enormous, chart-topping singles in that era. They wrote well-structured, well-produced, hook-laden pop and I love it without any shame attached. But don't pine for a bygone era that never existed. People in the 70's were livid that ABBA could dominate the charts when radio wouldn't come within miles of punk. Commerical success and quality have had a strained, off-on relationship as long as there has been music.

[x togepi x]

abba is better than most 70s punk bands. don't talk shit.

[oddwithoutend]

Go ahead and spin your way out of that one.
Once again, I was referring to the music itself. You hate the consequence of large amounts of people listening to it. On top of that, I doubt even your reasons would constitute hating all pop music.

[x togepi x]

Once again, I was referring to the music itself. You hate the consequence of large amounts of people listening to it. On top of that, I doubt even your reasons would constitute hating all pop music.

Where did I say I hated anything? I was saying you can make a strong argument against liking all pop music because it inherently uses a productive process that they don't like. I have friends who think this who are way more intelligent than you are. I'm backing them. My views on the subject are a bit more nuanced.

but how exactly can you separate it from the production process again?

[cshadows2887]

That may not be its intent, but yes, Twilight is incredibly misogynistic.

Can you elaborate? I never really saw that in it, but I'll freely admit I never really stopped and considered the thematic concerns of Twilight. It may very well be.

And while Twilight may be mysognistic, my point (which my poor rhetorical skills require constant clarification of) is that it is not inherently mysoginistic just because it (or a Taylor Swift song, or a teen movie) presents a fantasy of being swept-away (not the best phrase, but I'm trying to be consistent) by some perfect romantic partner, because that desire crosses into both genders. If it is mysognistic, it's for other reasons.

[oddwithoutend]

it inherently uses a productive process that they don't like.
Explain this production process that absolutely all music to ever become popular used. Just briefly.

[cshadows2887]

abba is better than most 70s punk bands. don't talk shit.

Actually, I personally like quite a few ABBA songs. My dad's always been a fan so it was inherited. I'm just saying they were a target of similar sentiments in their era. They were demonized as the evil flagship of commercialism. And yet, I'd rather listen to them than The Sex Pistols any day of the week.

[x togepi x]

Explain this production process that absolutely all music to ever become popular used. Just briefly.

the song structure.

[x togepi x]

Actually, I personally like quite a few ABBA songs. My dad's always been a fan so it was inherited. I'm just saying they were a target of similar sentiments in their era. They were demonized as the evil flagship of commercialism. And yet, I'd rather listen to them than The Sex Pistols any day of the week.

well yeah but most 70s punk band were just commercialism that looked ugly.

[saysmydoctor]

abba is better than most 70s punk bands. don't talk shit.
I love ABBA too.

[cshadows2887]

well yeah but most 70s punk band were just commercialism that looked ugly.

Hmm. Interesting. I'm not sure if I entirely understand your point, can you clarify? (Unless it was a joke, of course.) If you're referring to the fact that they basically still wrote pop music, I'd agree with you. The Ramones wrote better pop songs than most of the pop bands of their era and The Clash certainly knew their way around a hook.

[oddwithoutend]

the song structure.
Are you saying that you could expound a song structure that all pop songs use? Surely anything you could provide has a counterexample.

[x togepi x]

Are you saying that you could expound a song structure that all pop songs use? Surely anything you could provide has a counterexample.

I could but i feel like you're just going to exploit the fact that you're using a loaded term like "pop music" so what's the point. I pointed out you made an idiotic blanket statement. whatever.

Hmm. Interesting. I'm not sure if I entirely understand your point, can you clarify? (Unless it was a joke, of course.) If you're referring to the fact that they basically still wrote pop music, I'd agree with you. The Ramones wrote better pop songs than most of the pop bands of their era and The Clash certainly knew their way around a hook.

Most 70s punk bands were essentially tied to commercialized punk fashion. Like, the sex pistols were put together to promote a clothing store.

I wouldn't exactly call the Clash commercialized. at least in their time period.

[oddwithoutend]

I could but i feel like you're just going to exploit the fact that you're using a loaded term like "pop music" so what's the point. I pointed out you made an idiotic blanket statement. whatever.
In other words, we were using different definitions of "pop". Is that what you're saying? It's hard to discern through the insults.

[cshadows2887]

Most 70s punk bands were essentially tied to commercialized punk fashion. Like, the sex pistols were put together to promote a clothing store.

I wouldn't exactly call the Clash commercialized. at least in their time period.

Ok. That makes sense. I couldn't see the commercialization of The Clash. But I agree wholeheartedly on The Pistols. I've always thought their fame was as much about image and ethos as about music. Though I know there are some people who must actually love the songs, I've never understood the appeal.

On a side note: some perverse side of me wants ABBA to refuse their election to the R&R Hall of Fame (bizzarre institution that it is) the way the Pistols did. Just so The Sex Pistols can't be the only band that did it.

[x togepi x]

In other words, we were using different definitions of "pop". Is that what you're saying? It's hard to discern through the insults.

No. I'm saying that it's dumb to make a blanket statement like hating pop music is stupid.

Ok. That makes sense. I couldn't see the commercialization of The Clash. But I agree wholeheartedly on The Pistols. I've always thought their fame was as much about image and ethos as about music. Though I know there are some people who must actually love the songs, I've never understood the appeal.

On a side note: some perverse side of me wants ABBA to refuse their election to the R&R Hall of Fame (bizzarre institution that it is) the way the Pistols did. Just so The Sex Pistols can't be the only band that did it.

I hope they do. The only reason The Sex Pistols refused their election was for press. They wanted to be relevant in a time when everyone with a brain realized they were a joke. If they were intelligent at all, they would have realized their mythic stature and allowed themselves to be in the hall for that alone.

[cshadows2887]

I hope they do. The only reason The Sex Pistols refused their election was for press. They wanted to be relevant in a time when everyone with a brain realized they were a joke. If they were intelligent at all, they would have realized their mythic stature and allowed themselves to be in the hall for that alone.

Agreed. I was furious with them for it. Everyone realizes the hall is misguided at times, and rather irrrelevant when it comes down to it, but
it's an attempt to catalogue and preserve some of the history of music, which is a worthwhile goal. Why not view their selection of a punk band as a step in the right direction, rather than too little too late? God I hate Johnny Rotten and co.'s posturing.

[MattADALIE]

so you're going to have poor indian people write and record your demo?

The Indian people did a fantastic job with Justin Bieber's work, so, I considered hiring them to co-write with us. $5 a day gets us much more work done in this fashion than the hundreds or even thousands of dollars spent on Americans.

[mulcahy67]

It's not art anymore if you aren't doing it for passion, but for money.

art is not really defined by the reason you do it, because if you're doing art for money, you're still doing art. because, well, you're still making art.

[IWasaCamera]

It's hard for me to conceptualize this indie-pop compartment because, if it's as similar to popular radio as you're suggesting, why isn't it on the radio?
I didn't claim they're one and the same or anything to that effect, merely that both parties often share the traits you cited as detrimental where music is concerned. It's just a different brand of fun.
I feel like I enjoy most of my favourite music more than I could pop because of some sort of quirk or profound idea conveyed through experimentation or simply via an "album experience". Which is perfectly fine, I wasn't questioning why you like your favorite tunes but rather why you'd dislike pop music more than equally shallow forms of the medium.

[CalIsARealBoy]

Why are some people bent out of shape about people making money out of music? If they didnt try and make some money then there would no to little point being in a band or being a musician at all. All your favourite artists would be working 9-5 jobs instead of being out, creating this so called 'art'.

If it pains you so much then your not really a fan of music, your just a fool who thinks Punk isnt about making any money its about "the message". If they didnt get finacial backing to get their art out their to make record labels money in return then you would have no message to hear.

[And Hours Pass]

how refreshing, one of these threads.
Thank you. I only came in here to say this. I'm not going to bother to read through 9 pages about a topic that has been hashed out 10000000 times on this site.

[x togepi x]

Why are some people bent out of shape about people making money out of music? If they didnt try and make some money then there would no to little point being in a band or being a musician at all. All your favourite artists would be working 9-5 jobs instead of being out, creating this so called 'art'.

If it pains you so much then your not really a fan of music, your just a fool who thinks Punk isnt about making any money its about "the message". If they didnt get finacial backing to get their art out their to make record labels money in return then you would have no message to hear.

a lot of my favorite musicians have 9-5 jobs. I wasn't aware that having a real job meant you can't "create art".

try again.

[oddwithoutend]

Which is perfectly fine, I wasn't questioning why you like your favorite tunes but rather why you'd dislike pop music more than equally shallow forms of the medium.
In that case, I don't think I dislike pop any more than an equally shallow form of music. Just saying that pop tends to fall into the category the most often.

[LoginBanned]

...when there are so many innovative and talented artists out there that barely get reckognized. Don't get me wrong, there is the odd musician on the top 20 that actually has some musical density, but most of it is compressed, shallow pop.

I'd like to see an artist that can even SLIGHTLY compare to Zeppelin or Floyd hit number one on the charts this decade.

Since when is art business?

How cute

[ElephantGun]

you have hot topic and 14 yr old girls to blame for that.


source: the truth.
thank you.

[ElephantGun]

I bet some people were saying the same thing when Zeppelin was on top
This is probably very true.
Having a symphony director father, it IS true.

[RushAndAPush]

Its not wrong to enjoy pop. There are many intelligent musicians that listen to the genre.

[ElephantGun]

I just want to put this out there, my brother is a recording artist. I know a lot about how music has changed throughout the years. I know how things work compared to a few years ago.

I know the difference betweem a good recording, and a compressed bad quality piece of fake music. This is just how I feel.
If you talk to an experienced recording artist, they will feel the same way. You can like music that isn't extremely good, I just don't get why these songs are so popular. I guess it is due to the fact that most people are less educated in recording and music, so they enjoy what is fun to dance to etc.

[x togepi x]

That isn't true at all. My recording professor was all about selling out and being pop as fuck.

[briewer]

This is dumb.

[IntoTheSun]

There's still the "aggressive girl" coming in to essentially aid the male protagonist. Moreover, it perpetuates the culturally-ingrained norm that relationships are the norm, that people need another for completion, which leads to a myriad of societal woes.

I totally agree with what you're saying here, but can't it also be argued by some that it's not so much societal as it is evolutionary, since finding a mate and reproducing is something even birds do. But yeah, it also is a stigma perpetuated by societal standards.

[briewer]

Twilight is a reprehensible tool in solidifying power dynamics within relationships. The way it aggrandizes passive, helpless, reliant and helpless girls enamored with obsessive, aggressive, empowered males is a travesty. Oh, and the fact that ten percent of all Myers earnings goes to the notoriously backwards Mormon church is icing on the bullshit cake.
http://videogum.com/archives/the_videogum_movie_club/the_videogum_movie_club_twilig_1023 21.html

Second to last paragraph summarizes it fantastically.

[Chromefox]

I could write a thesis paper on how Twilight is propaganda counter-productive to feminism.

[oddwithoutend]

I totally agree with what you're saying here, but can't it also be argued by some that it's not so much societal as it is evolutionary, since finding a mate and reproducing is something even birds do. But yeah, it also is a stigma perpetuated by societal standards.
However, there is a general consensus among biologists that basically says humans are not naturally monogamous. That is to say, the desire to stay in one relationship for an entire life is a social construction.

[rettigrocker]

Whats on the radio isn't really targeted at music fans. It's targeted at people who want background noise in their car on their way to work.

That's not such a bad thing. I guess it's kind of disappointing that most of the money made from music goes to that end rather than hardworking DIY rockers, but what can you do?

[rettigrocker]

Also, why did this thread turn into one about Twilight and/or biology?

[ElephantGun]

I could write a thesis paper on how Twilight is propaganda counter-productive to feminism.
Oh I could too haha.

[kearn1tm]

I totally agree with what you're saying here, but can't it also be argued by some that it's not so much societal as it is evolutionary, since finding a mate and reproducing is something even birds do. But yeah, it also is a stigma perpetuated by societal standards.

No. The fact that you can reproduce does not draw people into monogamous, patriarchal relationships. That's a social construct. Where is it written in our genetic makeup that we're to engage in things called "relationships" after mating with someone? How does sex have an inherent patriarchal family unit clause?

[rettigrocker]

this thread has really fragmented, but I think someone mentioned great musicians that work day jobs.


Uhhhh yeah!! If you depend on your art for money i.e. your livelihood, you're most definetly going to end up doing something you don't like so that you can eat another day! (or drive your beemer another day)

it's wayyy cooler to work like everyone else and make your own music in your freetime without pressure from anyone.

[IntoTheSun]

However, there is a general consensus among biologists that basically says humans are not naturally monogamous. That is to say, the desire to stay in one relationship for an entire life is a social construction.

Oh, that's really interesting, I didn't know that.

No. The fact that you can reproduce does not draw people into monogamous, patriarchal relationships. That's a social construct. Where is it written in our genetic makeup that we're to engage in things called "relationships" after mating with someone? How does sex have an inherent patriarchal family unit clause?

I was agreeing with you, dude. I think a more interesting thing to discuss would be why humans have come to adopt these standards. There's a lot of other human traits that are purely societal too. Like in psychology class we learned about this "wild child" who was shut off from the real world, and she had dramtically lower heat senstivity than normal people.

[Yellowcard2006]

Blame the kids.

[CalIsARealBoy]

a lot of my favorite musicians have 9-5 jobs. I wasn't aware that having a real job meant you can't "create art".

try again.

I didnt say they couldnt but its not very likely that they will be able to manage both, one will have to give eventually. Point in case, one of my favourite bands, Rueben, not being able to carry on due to making little income through music, they decided that they would just have to continue with their day jobs.

Yes some bands can do it, i was merely trying to say that 'mainstream' isnt all a bad thing, hasnt done Metallica a diservice!

[x togepi x]

I didnt say they couldnt but its not very likely that they will be able to manage both, one will have to give eventually. Point in case, one of my favourite bands, Rueben, not being able to carry on due to making little income through music, they decided that they would just have to continue with their day jobs.

Yes some bands can do it, i was merely trying to say that 'mainstream' isnt all a bad thing, hasnt done Metallica a diservice!

I'm going to break this down so slowly that even a say anything fan can understand.

The chances of making money making music without compromising it? insanely slim.
The chances of making money making music without compromising it when you play anything besides radio pop/rock? even slimmer.

I would rather a band break up "before their time" than have them get signed to Universal and put out 4 mediocre watered down albums. It'd be great if everyone could just release albums and "become mainstream," but that doesn't happen in the real world. Some styles of music would need to be watered down. A good example of this is Nirvana, when recording In Utero, chose Stevel Albini who made a very raw Albini-esque mix for the album that the label hated and refused to release. Even the biggest band in the world at the time was forced to compromise their sound.

So yeah, it doesn't do bands like Metallica who really don't care about their music a disservice, but someone with actual artistic merit might care. Some forms of music just shouldn't go mainstream until that system as changed.

[CalIsARealBoy]

I'm going to break this down so slowly that even a say anything fan can understand.

The chances of making money making music without compromising it? insanely slim.
The chances of making money making music without compromising it when you play anything besides radio pop/rock? even slimmer.

I would rather a band break up "before their time" than have them get signed to Universal and put out 4 mediocre watered down albums. It'd be great if everyone could just release albums and "become mainstream," but that doesn't happen in the real world. Some styles of music would need to be watered down. A good example of this is Nirvana, when recording In Utero, chose Stevel Albini who made a very raw Albini-esque mix for the album that the label hated and refused to release. Even the biggest band in the world at the time was forced to compromise their sound.

So yeah, it doesn't do bands like Metallica who really don't care about their music a disservice, but someone with actual artistic merit might care. Some forms of music just shouldn't go mainstream until that system as changed.

Very poetic but i was generally making the same pointas you which i highlited above. however, I would like to know what you consider a comprimise? As somebody who is working in the industry i think i can clarify to you that most, around 80% of bands are giving up significant clauses of creative control in their music for a bigger advance or royalty rate, its depressing yes but not a comprimise, meerly a choice they make to earn a living doing something they love.

I do get you point that some bands fare much better if they dont become popular, but in reality its only bacause the fans of said bands get a kick out of saying "hey, look at me i know a band that isnt famous, give me cool points", we've all done it! I also see where you coming from with the Nirvana point, and yes they were forced to comprimise but hate to break the news to you...the label pays for the recordings, they pay for the artists living costs during this time and god knows what else so the artists owe the label, if the label thinks what the artist makes isnt going to make them any money then of course they aint going to release it! it sucks for some fans like us but its just smart business sense!

The only way for it not to be like this is for artists to relaese on thier own labels or distrubution such as Funeral For A Friend or Enter Shikari, or to find a really supportive label, which is unlikely unless its an awesome independent such as Domino Records, who will let artists take creative control.

[CalIsARealBoy]

I'm going to break this down so slowly that even a say anything fan can understand.

.

Nice, my musical taste shows no reflection of my understanding of the subject, im sure yours does blah blah blah.

Say Anything released on a small indie for thier first album instead of taking offers for a bigger label...why? i hear you ask?
FOR CREATIVE CONTROL AND NO COMPRIMISE.

Genius.

Saying this i do like them and other shitty arse 'pop-punk' bands, i suck i know, i should like something really cool like Heavy Heavy Low Low then i could really comment, nevermind the fact i work in and study the music industry :/

[cshadows2887]

I'm going to break this down so slowly that even a say anything fan can understand.

The chances of making money making music without compromising it? insanely slim.
The chances of making money making music without compromising it when you play anything besides radio pop/rock? even slimmer.

I would rather a band break up "before their time" than have them get signed to Universal and put out 4 mediocre watered down albums. It'd be great if everyone could just release albums and "become mainstream," but that doesn't happen in the real world. Some styles of music would need to be watered down. A good example of this is Nirvana, when recording In Utero, chose Stevel Albini who made a very raw Albini-esque mix for the album that the label hated and refused to release. Even the biggest band in the world at the time was forced to compromise their sound.

So yeah, it doesn't do bands like Metallica who really don't care about their music a disservice, but someone with actual artistic merit might care. Some forms of music just shouldn't go mainstream until that system as changed.

Much as I agree with you in principle, sometimes label interference helps. In Utero needed cleaning up. It was a mess. And the label's version of Margot and the Nuclear So and So's most recent album is a much better listen.

Not every band are artistic geniuses. Some are misguided and a helping hand to normalize them doesn't do their music a disservice. This is obviously not the rule, but it happens.

And as far as Metallica, I honestly think their music is deep and important to them. They mean it sincerely. I think their lyrical content is crap, but I don't think they're intentionally being deceitful.

[x togepi x]

Very poetic but i was generally making the same pointas you which i highlited above.

No. you were saying WAH PEOPLE IN BANDS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET REAL JOBS OH NO!

completely different.

however, I would like to know what you consider a comprimise? As somebody who is working in the industry i think i can clarify to you that most, around 80% of bands are giving up significant clauses of creative control in their music for a bigger advance or royalty rate, its depressing yes but not a comprimise, meerly a choice they make to earn a living doing something they love.

giving up creative control is a pretty textbook example of a compromise. Cool dude, i'm glad you're "working in the industry" and all but anyone with the internet could point out many great labels like Dischord Records that don't force their artists to give up creative control, yet give their bands the chance to attain some level of success.

i'm not going to tell you that being a rock star is a bad thing if that's what you want to do, but don't sit here and try to tell me that bands can't produce good music while working day jobs.

I do get you point that some bands fare much better if they dont become popular, but in reality its only bacause the fans of said bands get a kick out of saying "hey, look at me i know a band that isnt famous, give me cool points", we've all done it

This wasn't a point I made at all. Bands can get as popular as they want. I just don't like it when the music sucks. If they compromise for their label and put out something worthwhile, awesome! but that hardly ever happens. What i said was completely different than some jaded scenester saying "man, i loved thrice in 2003 but man, they suck now that everyone likes them."

I also see where you coming from with the Nirvana point, and yes they were forced to comprimise but hate to break the news to you...the label pays for the recordings, they pay for the artists living costs during this time and god knows what else so the artists owe the label, if the label thinks what the artist makes isnt going to make them any money then of course they aint going to release it! it sucks for some fans like us but its just smart business sense!

Hate to break it to you: they also get the majority of the profits to pay for the recordings/costs of living/whatever.

The fact that you justify not releasing music because it's "not good business" sense proves that we're not making any of the same points. You're a corporate stooge. Awesome. You're the problem with "mainstream music" and you're proving that the major label power structure is quite elitist.

The only way for it not to be like this is for artists to relaese on thier own labels or distrubution such as Funeral For A Friend or Enter Shikari, or to find a really supportive label, which is unlikely unless its an awesome independent such as Domino Records, who will let artists take creative control.

Most actual independent labels (ie: not ones that merely attempt to ape majors like Victory or Eyeball) give their artists more creative control, if not all of it. Most labels I like treat their bands as autonomous entities. They're not nearly as rare as you're trying to claim. Just because they might not be able to make you a rock star, doesn't mean they're not worthwhile.

Nice, my musical taste shows no reflection of my understanding of the subject, im sure yours does blah blah blah.

Say Anything released on a small indie for thier first album instead of taking offers for a bigger label...why? i hear you ask?
FOR CREATIVE CONTROL AND NO COMPRIMISE.

Genius.

Saying this i do like them and other shitty arse 'pop-punk' bands, i suck i know, i should like something really cool like Heavy Heavy Low Low then i could really comment, nevermind the fact i work in and study the music industry :/

haha, you should drop the sarcasm here when you're making one of the most idiotic say anything related points I've ever heard. Yes, Say Anything started on a small label....probably because they were a band of nobodies so sending their demo to capital or whatever would get them ignored. They basically did the same thing that every band ever does: start out on a small label, go on from there. Let's totally praise them for doing the norm!

I get it bro. I've taken classes on the music industry too. I read Tape Op in the bathroom, so I guess I "study" it as well. That doesn't make anything you're saying worthwhile. Especially when you're calling Heavy Heavy Low Low a cool band, and thinking I'm arguing from that perspective.

Much as I agree with you in principle, sometimes label interference helps.

How? Why?

Label interference in the creative process is generally meant to make the album more commercialized. How exactly does that help? I do think bands sometimes need outsiders to help their music progress, i've been in a band like that, but that is the job of a good music producer, not the record label.


In Utero needed cleaning up. It was a mess.

Have you heard the original mix of In Utero or are you just reading a quote from somebody and taking it as truth?

It wasn't a mess. Steve Albini has a signature recording style. I love it, and think it would perfectly with the style of music Nirvana was writing at the time. Plenty of bands would kill to have that sound on their records. They just aren't poppy bullshit bands. The only reason it "needed cleaning up" was because it didn't sound like Nevermind. The album would have been way better if they kept the original mixes.


And the label's version of Margot and the Nuclear So and So's most recent album is a much better listen.

haven't heard this, but it's probably terrible since that band sucks.


Not every band are artistic geniuses. Some are misguided and a helping hand to normalize them doesn't do their music a disservice. This is obviously not the rule, but it happens.

This is what a record producer does. However, a record producer does not tell them "you guys need to write a single or we won't release it" or "this just isn't the right sound." They try to make the album work. I remember my professor telling me on this subject "as a producer, your job is to help along the process. if something isn't working, you give suggestions to the band. what you're not supposed to do is alter the creative vision."

[CalIsARealBoy]

Haha okay mate, im sure you totally right, im a capatalist pig whos sucking the life out of music, i have no idea what im going on about.

I'm pretty damn sure i agreed bands could put good stuff out while working day jobs, hence why i mentioned Rueben but i also pointed out that Rueben gave up their dream beacause they couldnt afford to put out their own material anymore and didnt want to go to a label who may make them comprimeise. While i respect their stance, the music world lost a great band.

No. They dont get most the profits, 9/10 bands or artists NEVER recoup the advances they get from labels, only people such as U2 do it, hence why Bonos super rich, as cunt, but still lol! Plus you called me elitist when you flamed me for liking a band :/

I guess your gonna come back telling me how much of a dick i am etc etc so on and so forth but lets face it, of you dont like bands who comprimise, you must have a small record collection. Yes comprimise for a label can suck but its the way the industry works.

And no i didnt read the book, i was trying to say how i work for a label so maybe i had a clearer insight but naturally im lying cos y'know, im full of shit obviously.

If you only lsiten to bands who dont comprimise, please, tell me what bands you like?

[rettigrocker]

can I say g o d d a m m i t on this forum?

stop crying about it.

[x togepi x]

Haha okay mate, im sure you totally right, im a capatalist pig whos sucking the life out of music, i have no idea what im going on about.

well i mean, none of your points make sense and you think that we're somewhat agreeing when we're pretty much diametrically opposed to each other.

I'm pretty damn sure i agreed bands could put good stuff out while working day jobs, hence why i mentioned Rueben but i also pointed out that Rueben gave up their dream beacause they couldnt afford to put out their own material anymore and didnt want to go to a label who may make them comprimeise. While i respect their stance, the music world lost a great band.

We didn't agree because you're choosing to focus on the negatives. Your only example is a band that you like, who broke up "too early" and you disagree with what they did. That's hardly agreeing, especially when you go on to mouth major label talking points.

I don't think having to work day jobs is such a bad thing. everyone else does it, musicians aren't golden children. work like everyone else and if you get lucky/work hard enough, you'll be able to make that your career. however, this doesn't necessitate signing to a major label and becoming insanely compromised and boring music.

No. They dont get most the profits, 9/10 bands or artists NEVER recoup the advances they get from labels, only people such as U2 do it, hence why Bonos super rich, as cunt, but still lol! Plus you called me elitist when you flamed me for liking a band :/

This is semantics. Fine. they don't get most of "the profits" but they do get most of the money off the album. Why? because advances are ridiculous. you can make quality on much less, but labels generally frown on that for lower level bands.

and no, i said "the major label industry is elitist" because it is, and you're defending them. Yes you like shitty bands, but at least i'm not trying to deprive the world of their work just because it's not "good business sense."

I guess your gonna come back telling me how much of a dick i am etc etc so on and so forth but lets face it, of you dont like bands who comprimise, you must have a small record collection. Yes comprimise for a label can suck but its the way the industry works.

work on your reading comprehension. i said i don't like bands who compromise and end up writing shitty music. example: i like nirvana. they obviously compromised. it sucks because their music would have been better if they didn't. there's ahuge difference. i don't see why you're so caught up on me telling you that you like terrible bands since that's a subjective judgment.

no, that isn't "the way the industry works." that's the way corporate labels work. I've told you over and over there's more than just that route to be successful. Fugazi did pretty well for themselves. This Will Destroy You was doing awesome for themselves while they were on Magic Bullet. Trash Talk was making bank at one point. It's not my problem that you can't think outside the box.

And no i didnt read the book, i was trying to say how i work for a label so maybe i had a clearer insight but naturally im lying cos y'know, im full of shit obviously.

This is the first time you've stated that you work for a label. Not that it really proves that you know what you're talking about. Earlier you said you "worked in the music industry" which is such a vague claim that almost anyone can claim.

If you only lsiten to bands who dont comprimise, please, tell me what bands you like?

sunn o)))
my bloody valentine
melt banana
fugazi

[briewer]

Very poetic but i was generally making the same pointas you which i highlited above. however, I would like to know what you consider a comprimise? As somebody who is working in the industry i think i can clarify to you that most, around 80% of bands are giving up significant clauses of creative control in their music for a bigger advance or royalty rate, its depressing yes but not a comprimise, meerly a choice they make to earn a living doing something they love.

I do get you point that some bands fare much better if they dont become popular, but in reality its only bacause the fans of said bands get a kick out of saying "hey, look at me i know a band that isnt famous, give me cool points", we've all done it! I also see where you coming from with the Nirvana point, and yes they were forced to comprimise but hate to break the news to you...the label pays for the recordings, they pay for the artists living costs during this time and god knows what else so the artists owe the label, if the label thinks what the artist makes isnt going to make them any money then of course they aint going to release it! it sucks for some fans like us but its just smart business sense!

The only way for it not to be like this is for artists to relaese on thier own labels or distrubution such as Funeral For A Friend or Enter Shikari, or to find a really supportive label, which is unlikely unless its an awesome independent such as Domino Records, who will let artists take creative control.
Oh dear, you can't possibly be serious. Do you expect gold to shake the miner's hand when it's unearthed? Do you think that oil owes the petrol companies a thank you note for refining it and selling it? Face it, labels are jack shit without bands. Bands don't owe them anything.

Much as I agree with you in principle, sometimes label interference helps. In Utero needed cleaning up. It was a mess. And the label's version of Margot and the Nuclear So and So's most recent album is a much better listen.

Not every band are artistic geniuses. Some are misguided and a helping hand to normalize them doesn't do their music a disservice. This is obviously not the rule, but it happens.

And as far as Metallica, I honestly think their music is deep and important to them. They mean it sincerely. I think their lyrical content is crap, but I don't think they're intentionally being deceitful.
Yeah, good thing Reprise also stepped in when Wilco brought them their copy of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Elektra when The Stooges brought them their self-titled, Capitol when the Beach Boys were working on SMiLE...

[RushAndAPush]

As far as i know people have been complaining about popular music since the 80's.

[cshadows2887]

Label interference in the creative process is generally meant to make the album more commercialized. How exactly does that help? I do think bands sometimes need outsiders to help their music progress, i've been in a band like that, but that is the job of a good music producer, not the record label.


Have you heard the original mix of In Utero or are you just reading a quote from somebody and taking it as truth?

It wasn't a mess. Steve Albini has a signature recording style. I love it, and think it would perfectly with the style of music Nirvana was writing at the time. Plenty of bands would kill to have that sound on their records. They just aren't poppy bullshit bands. The only reason it "needed cleaning up" was because it didn't sound like Nevermind. The album would have been way better if they kept the original mixes.


haven't heard this, but it's probably terrible since that band sucks.


This is what a record producer does. However, a record producer does not tell them "you guys need to write a single or we won't release it" or "this just isn't the right sound." They try to make the album work. I remember my professor telling me on this subject "as a producer, your job is to help along the process. if something isn't working, you give suggestions to the band. what you're not supposed to do is alter the creative vision."

Sometimes, making a record more commercial simply means streamlinign out the shitty parts or beefing up the hook. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

I have heard a few of Albini's mixes, though not all. I don't think they're better. The fact that I don't care for Nirvana may skew that, but I prefer the official release.

And having worked with professional producers in recording studios, their input is much more signifcant than you'd think. They don't just guide the sound, they frequently rearrange, restructure, etc. Not even being contrary, it's just my own personal experience in professional recording studios.

[cshadows2887]

Yeah, good thing Reprise also stepped in when Wilco brought them their copy of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Elektra when The Stooges brought them their self-titled, Capitol when the Beach Boys were working on SMiLE...

I didn't say it was the rule. It most certainly isn't. Label interference often ruins things. But there are some bands who need it. You can't make a blanket generalization either way.

[Chromefox]

I didn't say it was the rule. It most certainly isn't. Label interference often ruins things. But there are some bands who need it. You can't make a blanket generalization either way. I'd rather have 50 terrible albums made mediocre with a label's help, than 5 great albums made mediocre with a label's iron fist. Much like a hundred guilty men going free rather than one innocent in prison.

[x togepi x]

Sometimes, making a record more commercial simply means streamlinign out the shitty parts or beefing up the hook. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

That isn't at all what i'm referring to. Like i've said before, I'm talking about bands like Rise Against who started out as punk bands but ended up being bro rock because of label pressure.

I have heard a few of Albini's mixes, though not all. I don't think they're better. The fact that I don't care for Nirvana may skew that, but I prefer the official release.

meh. the albini mixes weren't "messy". they just didn't sound like nevermind. you weren't a fan of the band so it doesn't really matter.

And having worked with professional producers in recording studios, their input is much more signifcant than you'd think. They don't just guide the sound, they frequently rearrange, restructure, etc. Not even being contrary, it's just my own personal experience in professional recording studios.

Nothing you've said contradicts what i told you. They do rearrange/restructure but they aren't supposed to completely alter the creative goals of the artist. What I call "compromise" is essentially a label telling them "you need to write poppier songs for a single". That isn't what producers do. They're supposed to make the song work. Making the song work doesn't necessarily mean making it poppy.

[theguy77]

I'm going to break this down so slowly that even a say anything fan can understand.

The chances of making money making music without compromising it? insanely slim.
The chances of making money making music without compromising it when you play anything besides radio pop/rock? even slimmer.

I would rather a band break up "before their time" than have them get signed to Universal and put out 4 mediocre watered down albums. It'd be great if everyone could just release albums and "become mainstream," but that doesn't happen in the real world. Some styles of music would need to be watered down. A good example of this is Nirvana, when recording In Utero, chose Stevel Albini who made a very raw Albini-esque mix for the album that the label hated and refused to release. Even the biggest band in the world at the time was forced to compromise their sound.

So yeah, it doesn't do bands like Metallica who really don't care about their music a disservice, but someone with actual artistic merit might care. Some forms of music just shouldn't go mainstream until that system as changed.

now im gonna be predictable and reference my predictable favorite band predictably again...

but as far as can be perceived, radiohead's been able to do whatever they wanted since OK computer. its an anomaly to me that they can get away with some of the shit they put out and have their label trust them unconditionally.

[theguy77]

Not if they make absolutely no use of said freedom (which is often the case). Staying within the indie-pop frame, albums released under that admittedly vague rubric do not display lyrical profundity, volatile/challenging arrangements, or the latitude needed for experimentation in the least. If anything, they're perhaps even more predictable than mainstream efforts. These are tunes which, not unlike radio pop, are enjoyed because they're fun. So where's the distinction?

indie-pop's pretty loose, man. broken social scene are considered indie-pop by a lot of people, and they absolutely have their share of catchy songs with meaningless lyrics, sure, but their songwriting and production tend to be more challenging, experimental, and loaded with conflicting melodies than anything you'd find on the radio even on the "fun" songs.

[briewer]

I didn't say it was the rule. It most certainly isn't. Label interference often ruins things. But there are some bands who need it. You can't make a blanket generalization either way.
Too drunk. Will respond to later.

[CalIsARealBoy]

well i mean, none of your points make sense and you think that we're somewhat agreeing when we're pretty much diametrically opposed to each other.



We didn't agree because you're choosing to focus on the negatives. Your only example is a band that you like, who broke up "too early" and you disagree with what they did. That's hardly agreeing, especially when you go on to mouth major label talking points.

I don't think having to work day jobs is such a bad thing. everyone else does it, musicians aren't golden children. work like everyone else and if you get lucky/work hard enough, you'll be able to make that your career. however, this doesn't necessitate signing to a major label and becoming insanely compromised and boring music.



This is semantics. Fine. they don't get most of "the profits" but they do get most of the money off the album. Why? because advances are ridiculous. you can make quality on much less, but labels generally frown on that for lower level bands.

and no, i said "the major label industry is elitist" because it is, and you're defending them. Yes you like shitty bands, but at least i'm not trying to deprive the world of their work just because it's not "good business sense."



work on your reading comprehension. i said i don't like bands who compromise and end up writing shitty music. example: i like nirvana. they obviously compromised. it sucks because their music would have been better if they didn't. there's ahuge difference. i don't see why you're so caught up on me telling you that you like terrible bands since that's a subjective judgment.

no, that isn't "the way the industry works." that's the way corporate labels work. I've told you over and over there's more than just that route to be successful. Fugazi did pretty well for themselves. This Will Destroy You was doing awesome for themselves while they were on Magic Bullet. Trash Talk was making bank at one point. It's not my problem that you can't think outside the box.



This is the first time you've stated that you work for a label. Not that it really proves that you know what you're talking about. Earlier you said you "worked in the music industry" which is such a vague claim that almost anyone can claim.



sunn o)))
my bloody valentine
melt banana
fugazi


Bands dont get the majority off the album, they get it from playing live. The bottom line is, labels dont want to release 'bad music' (subject to everyones own opinion, i know) for obvious reasons, the band/artist will want to make the best music it can and unfortuantely it can mean a label recieving a master off them and then be given it back if it sucks for whatever reason (production is shitty etc). A Band wants to release what it thinks its fans will want to hear so they can go out on tour and earn money which now leads to all this saturation in the market with whatever trend is in vogue.

Label interference isnt the monster you are seeing it is in most cases, im not condoning them telling a band to go re-record an album/song that a band thinks its good as with Nirvana but thats the way it is, having a huge stance against it instead for some sort of integrity is good and all but ultimately its going to get them nowhere. Yes, Fugazi did well but as a slim minority.

I havent said bands shouldnt work 9-5 but when your a new band starting out these days are you going to say turn down a record deal incase they might disagree with some of thier output 'quality'? if that happened, we would have no music.

I'm not trying to deprive anyone of thier work due to business sense, im not even saying its a good thing, im just saying thats how it works and why.

I work for HannahManagement who handle artsits like the King Blues, so dont say im a corporate elitist, i just happen to have an unromanisiced view on it.

[cshadows2887]

That isn't at all what i'm referring to. Like i've said before, I'm talking about bands like Rise Against who started out as punk bands but ended up being bro rock because of label pressure.



meh. the albini mixes weren't "messy". they just didn't sound like nevermind. you weren't a fan of the band so it doesn't really matter.



Nothing you've said contradicts what i told you. They do rearrange/restructure but they aren't supposed to completely alter the creative goals of the artist. What I call "compromise" is essentially a label telling them "you need to write poppier songs for a single". That isn't what producers do. They're supposed to make the song work. Making the song work doesn't necessarily mean making it poppy.

I really don't disagree with you the much, I just think you're taking a bit of an oversimplified view of it a little bit. A lot of what producers do in terms of changing songs is for the sake of making better catchier singles, and a lot isn't. And just because I don't like Nirvana that much doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on which mix I prefer. That's pretty unecessarily dismissive. You don't seem to like radio-pop, but you have opinions about it.

[x togepi x]

Bands dont get the majority off the album, they get it from playing live.

Yeah, and to "play live" they have to often deal with promoters just as shady as the major labels you're defending. The bottom line is, the system's broken and unfair to the workers (the bands) skewed towards the interests of the elite (the labels). this is a textbook case of marx's problems with capitalism son. sure we can complain all we want about bands breaking up because they couldn't make it but it's pretty possible to point out tons of bands that broke up because of issues with their label, especially being completely alienated from the musical process and having their music looked at as a mere product that they can't even profit off of because of unfair forced loans (ie: advances) from the label.

are you seriously going to tell me that if for some reason a major label asked my band to record that they'd let me waive the advance so i could record at my friend's studio for like 500 bucks? I doubt it.

The bottom line is, labels dont want to release 'bad music' (subject to everyones own opinion, i know) for obvious reasons, the band/artist will want to make the best music it can and unfortuantely it can mean a label recieving a master off them and then be given it back if it sucks for whatever reason (production is shitty etc).

The bottom line is, you just contradicted yourself earlier when you said the industry won't release certain albums/songs because it's "bad business sense." The major labels don't care about the quality of the music. they care about what will sell. they're in it to move product because they're a business. This is why they will go out and sign clones of popular bands to follow trends, then drop them when that trend moves on.

I'm just confused as to how someone who would most likely claim to love music has such a low opinion of the artists actually making music. Do you really think they can't produce quality work without some bigwig producer making them change shit because the label pressures the band to make singles? That's a pretty depressing outlook.

A Band wants to release what it thinks its fans will want to hear so they can go out on tour and earn money which now leads to all this saturation in the market with whatever trend is in vogue.

No. what leads to the saturation of trends is the completely inorganic way the major labels mine and co-opt subcultures/forms of music. They push it on the public in a way that's so forced that it necessarily must be trend. It's got its own fashion, it's own vague concept of rebellion, and it's all commodified. Then they find a new trend to push in response.

the bands themselves just make the kind of music they want to make (unless they're totally corporate whores). Like, I hate Say Anything, but I at least am sure Max Bemis is writing the kind of music he wants. Do I blame him for shitty fake pop punk being too popular? Hell no. It's not his fault.

Label interference isnt the monster you are seeing it is in most cases

define most cases.

i can point out plenty of examples where releases get fucked around.

im not condoning them telling a band to go re-record an album/song that a band thinks its good as with Nirvana but thats the way it is, having a huge stance against it instead for some sort of integrity is good and all but ultimately its going to get them nowhere.

You are condoning it the minute you say "that's the way it is." You can't defend the labels and then say "well, integrity is important but you should sell out anyway". I hate to break it to you but most bands aren't on major labels. Most of the music being put out is indie. A lot of that is good. It's quite possible to get "somewhere" sticking to a pragmatic, yet indie-minded approach.

i mean just because you're not all over mtv and the radio doesn't mean you're poor as fuck and nobody cares about your band.

Yes, Fugazi did well but as a slim minority.

What's cool here is that you ignore the very model that they set out, which is essentially a blueprint that proves the way you're defending is needless and exploitative. Plenty of bands have aped their model, with varying levels of success. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they're "a slim minority."

I havent said bands shouldnt work 9-5 but when your a new band starting out these days are you going to say turn down a record deal incase they might disagree with some of thier output 'quality'?

This hypothetical example is so unrealistic it's not even funny. If you work for a label then you should know that most bands starting out these days don't just get a deal thrown at them. Even if they do go ahead and take that deal a la Reel Big Fish, a lot of musicians end up being pissed off about it, a la Reel big Fish. Just because a lot of people might take that deal, doesn't make it a good idea, especially when you look at the long term ramifications.

I'm not trying to deprive anyone of thier work due to business sense, im not even saying its a good thing, im just saying thats how it works and why.

The fact that you're arguing with me and trying to "tell me like it is" shows that you're implicitly arguing their view even if you don't supposedly agree with it.

This is what they do. I offer you a different model. You tell me it's a bad model and bands should keep going through the normal industry. How exactly are you not trying to deprive people of their work according to business sense?

I work for HannahManagement who handle artsits like the King Blues, so dont say im a corporate elitist, i just happen to have an unromanisiced view on it.

You're not a corporate elitist. You're an apologist for them. That's arguably worse.

There's nothing romantic about my view where I think bands should take more control of their life instead of allowing them to be exploited by the labels. If anything, the romantic view would be "start playing guitar and someday you'll be a rock star and rich".

I really don't disagree with you the much, I just think you're taking a bit of an oversimplified view of it a little bit

don't be vague and explain what's oversimplified.

A lot of what producers do in terms of changing songs is for the sake of making better catchier singles, and a lot isn't.

it doesn't matter what the producer is doing. it matters why they are doing it. if a band is like "dude writing catchy songs is hard. help", then that's cool. but if the label is telling them "you need a single on this album." then there's a problem.



You don't like the music nor do you even probably listen to any of the bands Albini produce/produces. This is why you would make a claim that his mix is "sloppy" when I'd say that it was exactly what the band intended since it's his signature style. He does that all the time. It's personal preference, but that has nothing to do with my contention that the label made them make a poppier mix. They also wouldn't allow Nirvana to release the original mix as a separate album, which further proves my point.

[quote=cshadows2887]You don't seem to like radio-pop, but you have opinions about it.

i never said i didn't like radio-pop. i said i don't like shitty bands. a band like rise against, who i liked when they were a punk band, sucks when they're writing butt rock songs. lady gaga rules when she's writing stupid pop songs.

now im gonna be predictable and reference my predictable favorite band predictably again...

but as far as can be perceived, radiohead's been able to do whatever they wanted since OK computer. its an anomaly to me that they can get away with some of the shit they put out and have their label trust them unconditionally.

sure but ok computer was a pretty risky album for that band. do you think they would have got creative free reign on kid a if that album flopped?

[theguy77]

sure but ok computer was a pretty risky album for that band. do you think they would have got creative free reign on kid a if that album flopped?

definitely not but i feel like in some cases even if a band releases a record that is as critically acclaimed as OK Computer its not likely a label will be okay with them putting out something like kid A on the mainstream, especially not if they're the label's new cash cow.

[x togepi x]

definitely not but i feel like in some cases even if a band releases a record that is as critically acclaimed as OK Computer its not likely a label will be okay with them putting out something like kid A on the mainstream, especially not if they're the label's new cash cow.

it depends on what kind of band they were though. if the precedent for completely changing your sound and being successful for it is there, then a label is going to be more likely to trust you. Maybe if Kid A bombed, then the label would expect the bends again. I'm not sure.

i mean sure. set your goals isn't going to be able to release a noise rock opera, but they lack that precedence for innovation.

[kearn1tm]

Oh, that's really interesting, I didn't know that.



I was agreeing with you, dude. I think a more interesting thing to discuss would be why humans have come to adopt these standards. There's a lot of other human traits that are purely societal too. Like in psychology class we learned about this "wild child" who was shut off from the real world, and she had dramtically lower heat senstivity than normal people.

Because they've been socialized to "adopt" them. This socialization is a process driven in part by those in power, and it benefits the status quo. We are the way we are largely due to our culture. I didn't choose to value many of the things I do. I didn't adopt this. It was force-fed and reinforced in me through institutions and agents of socialization.

[lolwut1337]

As far as i know people have been complaining about popular music since the 80's.

Agreed, but people need to stop saying it's the end of the world because one bad artist releases and album. As long as there's bad music there's going to be good music and vice versa.

[Unique Dragon]

Mainstream "shit" is actually pretty good sometimes. People are too ignorant towards it sometimes. Their is a lot of crappier stuff out there that doesn't get played on the radio a lot but kids eat up. Like manchester orchestra.

[IWasaCamera]

In that case, I don't think I dislike pop any more than an equally shallow form of music. Just saying that pop tends to fall into the category the most often.
I suppose this then becomes a mere matter of exposure.
indie-pop's pretty loose, man. broken social scene are considered indie-pop by a lot of people, and they absolutely have their share of catchy songs with meaningless lyrics, sure, but their songwriting and production tend to be more challenging, experimental, and loaded with conflicting melodies than anything you'd find on the radio even on the "fun" songs.
Of course not all indie-pop is identical. However, much of it still contains the traits Rick was belittling mainstream artists for.

Apologies for the late reply to both of you. Haven't had much time on my hands.

[oddwithoutend]

I suppose this then becomes a mere matter of exposure.
ha I've been expecting this exact reply for quite some time. You're really making me think on this one.

[IWasaCamera]

ha I've been expecting this exact reply for quite some time. You're really making me think on this one.
As with most musical matters, it comes down to how we as individuals process songs. You may hear the unbearably high level of "shallowness" in pop music whereas I deem it equal to that of pisspoor bands in any number of genres.

[oddwithoutend]

As with most musical matters, it comes down to how we as individuals process songs. You may hear the unbearably high level of "shallowness" in pop music whereas I deem it equal to that of pisspoor bands in any number of genres.
It's true. Descriptors like formulaic and commonplace are highly relative.