• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

12 Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Music

Status
Not open for further replies.
I get a little confused when people bash the terrible taste of "the masses" and then turn around and trumpet MJ, The Beatles, Elvis, and on and on and on. Isn't a little bit hypocritical? "Pop" is just a title. There is pop music out now that people call "trash" that history will show to be anything but and it's NOT because "kids these days!".

Having toddlers has changed my view about the worth of music completely. About six months ago, my youngest (20 months old, at the time) ran up to me and said "Daddy! Hippo BITE me!" with those big, wide toddler eyes. See, he had been playing some game with my 3 year old daughter and my mother-in-law and pretending to run away from some hippos that were chasing them. When he said that, and my heart just filled to bursting, I realized that the REAL beauty is in the communication and isn't something that is necessarily intrinsic to the language. My daughter talked MUCH better at his age but it made absolutely no difference to me. The connection and act of communicating is what is beautiful, whether it's with him, or my daughter, or my wife. The real beauty of music is in the communication. There are people who hate John Mayer but, because of my unique experiences and choices, there are some of his lyrics and music that communicate things that are very important to me. Believe it or not, there are people out there who need to hear what Nickelback is saying. If music is communicating to someone then it isn't "junk". I hope they bury me with my Miles Davis Quintet albums but if it doesn't communicate to someone, it's a waste. There is SOME beauty in the language but it pales in comparison to (and just becomes something to look at, with no life-changing meaning) what it becomes when it communicates to someone.

tl;dr?

I'm over being such a snob about music.
 
I saw this as fun, rather than dissapointing. You can view anything anyway you want and that should be obvious. To be honest, things like "When the Beatles were putting out albums 90% of everything in my grocery store didn't have high fructose corn syrup in it" bother me more than who sold what or who killed who (blatant Monty Python reference).

The Beatles, Elvis, etc. released albums in a completely, utterly different world than the one we drive through in our 4 cylinder economy cars today. Be thankful for the little things, like on board preamps on 6 string basses, and enjoy the afternoon :)
 
I stand by my recent musical motto of "better be chosen by me than by the masses, regardless of perceived quality". After all, what modern pop music is doing, at best, is adding to the already huge catalog of pop songs available to us. At worst, nothing is happening, and we still have music of yore.

Problem is, people are often lazy. Instead of devoting some little time to hear the songs and deciding for themselves (come on, deciding is sometimes harder than it seems!), they go directly for the top 40 songs. That's one way of narrowing things down, but not necessarily the best.

I wouldn't, say, listen to the newest album of Lady Gaga because I don't like the music, and I don't care it's popular today. But if someone likes her music, fine, as long as they have chosen out of free will, not out of peer pressure.
 
Didn't we cover this a month or so ago???

What would a month on TB be without at least one thread bemoaning the terrible terrible state of music today?

Bring back the 70s, man! I want to hear the Captain and Tennille on the radio again.... constantly... over and over and over again...
 
in a consumer culture, a main rule is that if a product is designed for mass consumption in a market, it must adhere to the schematics of similar market-available products (with small variations in the formula, creating its veneer of 'uniqueness')...
it must speak to something inherent in the consumer (the need to be "part of", the need to be seen as successful, etc)...
and it can't pose an aesthetic threat or disconnect on any level.
without straying into better or worse (however easy that would be), it seems that todays pop-music choices are designed and created largely in marketing think tanks, with inception and end-game mapped out with surgical precision, while ALL the old-school music mentioned in the OPs original article reference came about as the result of organic growth in real time by each artist, over the span of their careers.
 
in a consumer culture, a main rule is that if a product is designed for mass consumption in a market, it must adhere to the schematics of similar market-available products (with small variations in the formula, creating its veneer of 'uniqueness')...
it must speak to something inherent in the consumer (the need to be "part of", the need to be seen as successful, etc)...
and it can't pose an aesthetic threat or disconnect on any level.
without straying into better or worse (however easy that would be), it seems that todays pop-music choices are designed and created largely in marketing think tanks, with inception and end-game mapped out with surgical precision, while ALL the old-school music mentioned in the OPs original article reference came about as the result of organic growth in real time by each artist, over the span of their careers.
You do realize this is not the "bass humor" forum, right?
 
Why do people who don't like popular music have these incredibly complex theories of how it works in completely different ways from the unpopular music they like?

I'm trying to imagine a think-tank creating and designing "Ai se su te pego" and decreeing that as part of the grand plan, footballers in Europe should dance to it as part of their goal celebrations in November 2011, and then choosing which footballers to subtly influence. It really is a big part of the song's massive success, after all. Or did somebody write it for fun, and footballers dance to it because it's silly and fun?

Did a marketing think-tank create and design kuduro with surgical precision, or was it a bunch of kids in Angola who didn't have equipment to make "real music", but had a few computers they could loop some simple loops on?
 
I dont mean any offense pklima, but the previous poster was pretty accurate with the way that pop music works. Spice Girls, BackStreet Boys, Nsync, Kesha, Lady Gaga, etc...
these acts are put together by producers and marketing teams as an end result to cash in on "whats in". Maybe because youre not from the States this doesnt seem to make sense to you, but it is the reality.
 
Sorry, but I *am* in the States, and I'm with pklima. Some people actually LIKE pop music. Hell, there's even some *I* like. So what?
 
I know producers and marketing teams do exist, but no one has any kind of "surgical precision". We cover band guys can try to cash in on what's in. The big-timers really have to try to cash in on what's gonna be in next year, and the reality is that they can only guess what that's going to be. No one is smart enough or has the methodology to predict what 12-year-old girls will get bored of next year and what they'll get into more. They fail more often than not.

What I'm really saying is that a lot of popular songs get written because somebody's trying to write something that's fun and sounds good to them, and they succeed because they do actually write something that's fun and sounds good.

I'd love to think that artistic bands sit around scheming and trying to think of ways to make themselves seem more intelligent than other bands, and that it's all a grand conspiracy of pretentiousness and status-seeking. I can't convince myself of that, though. I used to play in an artsy band and really they weren't really doing much other than try to sound good and have fun, either. They just have oddball ideas of "sound good". Popular music and niche-market music don't really operate all that differently.
 
I realize that people actually like pop music, I like some myself as well.
That doesnt negate the fact that the "music industry" manufactures a lot of pop acts to generate money.
So what? So nothing, it just is. It has no bearing on whether or not people like it.
But to deny that there are marketing teams, some better than others, out there looking into whats going to sell next, or whats going to be the next big thing seems foolish to me.
 
pklima said:
I'd love to think that artistic bands sit around scheming and trying to think of ways to make themselves seem more intelligent than other bands, and that it's all a grand conspiracy of pretentiousness and status-seeking. I can't convince myself of that, though.

I thought that's what alt-rock was... :p








j/k :hiding:
 
#10 confirms what I've always thought about Marley and reggae: those who claim to be fans really aren't at all and just claim to be to fit in with what they think their peer group likes. They hear it on radio and on That One Stoner Guy's album when he throws yet another party, and they know it has something to do with smoking weed... and that's it.

Imagine my disgust at walking into a jam night at a bar and seeing reggae being played by young 'trustafarians' and fronted by one who is totally ginger with a beard and red dreads all balled up in an African-coloered tam singing about Jah and Rastafari. I'm guessing his people probably didn't have to deal with the same sort of enslavement that called for memorializing with dreads, nor did he appear to have any African 'rootz' in his lineage whatsoever. He probably doesn't know that the sacramental reefer was a gift from Jah to alleviate the pain of the whips. It was waaay more awkward than Vanilla Ice, especially while watching the drummer struggle with a 1-Drop.
 
First of all: if these "statistics" are based on facts, how can the music industry claim to be dying...? Doesn't go well together imo.

If you take into account that today a lot of record companies buy hundreds of thousands of copies of their own records just to make it to a good spot in the charts for more popularity, then it might make sense again. I don't know if that was a common procedure 30+ years ago too though...

I think what people mean by that is, the music industry for small bands is being demolished by all the larger producers.
 
#10 confirms what I've always thought about Marley and reggae: those who claim to be fans really aren't at all and just claim to be to fit in with what they think their peer group likes. They hear it on radio and on That One Stoner Guy's album when he throws yet another party, and they know it has something to do with smoking weed... and that's it.

Imagine my disgust at walking into a jam night at a bar and seeing reggae being played by young 'trustafarians' and fronted by one who is totally ginger with a beard and red dreads all balled up in an African-coloered tam singing about Jah and Rastafari. I'm guessing his people probably didn't have to deal with the same sort of enslavement that called for memorializing with dreads, nor did he appear to have any African 'rootz' in his lineage whatsoever. He probably doesn't know that the sacramental reefer was a gift from Jah to alleviate the pain of the whips. It was waaay more awkward than Vanilla Ice, especially while watching the drummer struggle with a 1-Drop.

Wow, so much ignorance in just one post. I didnt realize that one had to be a rastafarian to enjoy and perform reggae.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts