Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
must everything "pop"?
- Thread starter scorpionldr
- Start date
- Feb 27, 2005
- 3,218
- 125
- Disclosures
- Full disclosure, I'm a certified Fender technician working in a music store that carries Fender, Yamaha, and Ibanez products among others.
Why should they? I have the tastes in music I have because I put a lot of importance in a lot of things that most people just don't care about. It's important to me, no reason they should put in the time and effort necessary in learning music theory or playing an instrument so that they can properly appreciate Charles Mingus, George Crumb, or the latest metal god. In some cases, I'd rather they focus on being an engineer or chef so that I get neat electronics and more interesting uses for bacon. Not everyone was built to be a music connoisseur, and I'm fine with that. There are enough people who care about great music to keep great musicians employed, and every now and then some of that great music leaks out to the general public. That's good enough for me, at least, and I don't see the point of wishing everyone liked the same things I do.
Point being, again, why SHOULD people search harder at finding music that musicians deem "good"? What's the point of art or entertainment anyway in your opinion? I'm really curious as to what you think it is, what's driving your line of questioning.
Febs is dead on.
As for being able to proove it, you would have to be able to appreciate the value of art you have closed your mind to in order to understand the proof.
If you haven't, you'd already see why your entire line of logic is as humorously ironic as it really is.
it just all sounds the same to me. From Creed to Staind almost even to Mastodon. And thats just rock!
Pop I can barely even name the names, it all just sounds like one long song after a while. Boring and undifferentiated.
Sounds like typical self righteous "I'm better than you because this is what I think and I don't care about what you think" type of nonsense thinking. Just get over yourself dude and keep making the music you love. It seems like you are just angsty because your family doesn't appreciate what you're doing. Don't play music to try and be popular, play it because you love it.
What a funny discussion.
If you have the economic means, make music that pleases YOU first. If someone else happens to like it - awesome. If no one else happens to like it - awesome. Why worry about pleasing those close to you?
You have referenced the 'talent' of artists / musicians several times thus far. How is this to be judged objectively? Specifically, how do you judge the musicians making the metal CD you just purchased against everyone involved in making a Lady Gaga hit? Is playing a note on a stringed instrument more *real* than organizing some electronic sounds?
Let's take it further. As an analogy, "Metal band cited is to Lady Gaga as __________ is to the metal band cited". Couldn't someone else come along and say the exact same thing about the band you patronize? How do you assess them relative to a classical or jazz guitarist?
If you made some tunes with n number of chords that became immensely commercially successful, someone, somewhere would be posting on the internet how they are not appreciated for making a Gaga-type track, and trying to offer something different than the ubiquitous "Scorpionldr" track.
If you have the economic means, make music that pleases YOU first. If someone else happens to like it - awesome. If no one else happens to like it - awesome. Why worry about pleasing those close to you?
You have referenced the 'talent' of artists / musicians several times thus far. How is this to be judged objectively? Specifically, how do you judge the musicians making the metal CD you just purchased against everyone involved in making a Lady Gaga hit? Is playing a note on a stringed instrument more *real* than organizing some electronic sounds?
Let's take it further. As an analogy, "Metal band cited is to Lady Gaga as __________ is to the metal band cited". Couldn't someone else come along and say the exact same thing about the band you patronize? How do you assess them relative to a classical or jazz guitarist?
If you made some tunes with n number of chords that became immensely commercially successful, someone, somewhere would be posting on the internet how they are not appreciated for making a Gaga-type track, and trying to offer something different than the ubiquitous "Scorpionldr" track.
- Feb 27, 2005
- 3,218
- 125
- Disclosures
- Full disclosure, I'm a certified Fender technician working in a music store that carries Fender, Yamaha, and Ibanez products among others.
Okay, and I'd agree with that assessment and extend it to other artists and genres of music, including most metal. I don't see how my (or your) opinion or lack of interest in those types of music make them invalid or lesser artistically.
And none of that answered my question
I'll check in again after work, have a great day!
Well if those 5 different chords are what sell, which ultimately determines what's 'popular' then you can't complain if you choose to work with different chords, arrangements, and genres of music. If this is what you choose, you can't complain if it falsl outside of popular favor. It's like people like to buy cars for their transportation. You know this, but you decide to create motorcycles because you like motorcycles better. You can't create motorcycles (no matter how great they are) and complain when people in the market for cars don't buy them. It just creates an unnecessary headache for yourself.
I can't argue on the whole against that thread. But I'll say what I've seen so far, seeing as I do read a ****load of Computer Music mag. Remember, I used "real" in talking about content.
Generally, the sounds are math. A bunch of algorhythms. But its become lately about "the hot synth". We have our precision basses, they have Native Instruments' "Massive", which pretty much automates a ton of the sound that they get out of it, the note choices not withstanding. The note composition in most tracks I've heard is minimal.
Compared to a group of musicians who prettymuch have the skill to practically play robotically, musical contentwise, electronic only really shows its talent colors in breakbeat music. Something Gaga is not.
with my family, its one of these things where when it becomes a fixture of conversation of "what you like to do" and you consistently hear "why can't you be more like....." it's one of those natural cases where you wish you just weren't there.
I'm slowly getting to the point of just starting off a conversation with "never talk to me about music ever again."
Welcome to the Machine. Conform, or don't conform. If you want to make liveable wages then, as you pointed out, it looks like it's going to require you conform to those 5 chords and a the latest synth tone with a little autotune thrown in for good measure. Even if you have the formula in place, there's still a good chance you WON'T make it, because the other part of the business you forgot to mention is WHO YOU KNOW (production, marketing, advertising, distribution, etc). Additionally, if you choose to not use the formula, you're more than likely NOT going to meet the person or people you NEED TO KNOW in order to be 'popular'. Like I said earlier, that's just the nature of the beast. Complaining about it is as futile as complaining about the weather.
You continually cite Gaga as the essence of what you dislike about pop. The fact is that Gaga is a very talented artist, composer and performer. This is proven time and again by the fact that she composes and performs music that appeals to a large number of people - as well as the fact that it's harmonically and melodically rich, rhythmically sound and clearly taps a vein of demand.
Gaga sits down at a piano and plays very solidly and sings with a well-trained voice. She combines rhythms and sounds in a way that makes people want to dance and composes melodic hooks that stick.
Summarily dismissing all of this proven skill and talent only means that you don't understand or appreciate what it takes to do exactly what she has been doing with a great degree of repeatability for a few years now. Your choice to describe what she does as 'artistically bereft' only highlights your own insecurities about your own abilities - because it does not even come close to accurately describing what she's doing.
You don't like it, but that doesn't change the facts.
The sooner you quit looking for reasons to justify your ignorance, the sooner you might find your own way into a similarly rewarding and lucrative musical space.
Pffft , today's pop "music" can't hold a candle to grocery-store muzak-fluffery.
Music or art need only be relevant to 1 to have impact. To say it serves no purpose is painting with a universe sized brush loaded with the paint of your opinion. You are entitled to it, but that doesn't make it right. I lived in that "silly era" and still find the music palatable.
I've never cared about what popular opinion is regarding music. If it moves me, then clearly they have done something right ( to my listeners ears ). Be it Gaga ( yes I like a few songs ) or Skrillex ( never heard of him till a TB thread, gave Cinema a listen and dug it ) It has equal time on my playlist along with CSN&Y, Neil Diamond, Nickle Creek, Judas Priest and many many others. I think it's safe to say I wasn't in Skrillex's target demo, yet here I am, appreciative of what he did with that song.
You mention that the music you're trying to make is because you feel it's needed to offset the other music that's out there. Is that reason enough? I'm not questioning your motive, just pointing out that you are trying to fill a perceived niche in the market. How is that any different than what "pop" music is? I think if you're passionate about the music, any music, it will find an audience. If it's formulaic in intent and design, chances are it's not going to last or be well received. There are plenty of those bands littering the highways of sound.
Despite all this back and forth, I'm still a firm believer in the notion that good music always finds an audience.
Yes, because businesses are in the business of supplying what their customers wish to buy.
wikipedia describes it as mainly androgynous and diverse, not "pushing for change" like said. Diverse means diverse, that doesnt' mean that some of the worse musicians of the genre don't iconify the image
What ever "good" is
I agree. That's the best that we, as musicians, can hope for. Someone hearing what we do, and FEELING it. No better pay off.
Some of the writers & producers on mass pop albums are also the same people who write & perform with "real" musicians. So do they only have talent on Tuesdays?
This whole argument is ridiculous....there's no hard line in the sand that determines if a song is "real music" or not. Keep patting yourself on the back for being the spokesperson of real music if it helps you get through the day.
This whole argument is ridiculous....there's no hard line in the sand that determines if a song is "real music" or not. Keep patting yourself on the back for being the spokesperson of real music if it helps you get through the day.
Hey - it's all good. You feel that way about pop and who am I to try to change you?
Good luck!
