A reflection on today's music

[Threadkiller]

hey guys, this was sent to me, and it expresses everythig i feel, funny how this reflects our reality...

Why I dislike "pop" music

To get this clear, I am talking about music that the likes of Britney Spears (or whoever is popular this month) and Staind play - music that is good for radio play, popular status, record sales, and, finally, disposal. I am talking about the easy-to-listen-to, mass-market, formulaic crap that is regularly heard. I am talking about N'Sync and Papa Roach. None of these artists has the illusion of permanancy. We listen and then we forget. In five years time, if I were to talk about those musicians, nobody would know what I was talking about.

And that is a major problem - for our culture as a whole. The problem is that after seeing things go by so fast - TV, radio, music, Razor scooters, Pokemon - we don't have any sense that anything lasts. We could not have a peace movement like that of the 60's because our attention spans are tiny. Can you imagine the youths of America - or, heck, even the adults - being committed to something so important?

I can't. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I believe that we have lost all sense of time and scale. Look at it this way: a person starts doing drugs to become "cool", and later, in the rehab center or on the streets, he explains "I thought that doing it once couldn't hurt, that drugs aren't that big of a deal." People like this will give the rest of their lives up for a moment of "coolness", making the decision with the feeling that drugs aren't permanent, and that doing something as major as drugs "isn't that big of a deal." With attitudes like this, it is practically a wonder that we can achive anything

In addition, things are getting as flashy, glitzy and fancy as possible. If a musician has no talent (like Britney Spears), he/she can dress it up, add a few gimmicks, and sell. Emphasizing form over substance is also bad, because it gives people the wrong impressions. There are many smart people I know that choose to sacrifice their future (through school) to pander to ideas of "coolness". These people decide that it is nicer to have a life full of scum - people like them, doing anything for a rise in the popularity chart - than to accomplish something.

I realize that this is getting off-topic, but if you look at what today's pop music is, you will see that all of it applies. Look at the music on radio stations - it does not remain. It has no essential substance, and just enough form to make some money. We do not remember Jimi Hendrix, Nirvana, the Beatles and Elvis because they were popular once - we remember them because their is something left when the costumes are stripped off.

When we wake up 20 years from now and look at our stuff, all bought when it was "cool", what will we think? Will we say, "God, all this stuff is awful! Why did we buy this?" Or will we be more introspective? But perhaps . . . we will feel nothing at all


thoughts on the subject are welcome...

[Hagar]

I think there's as much snobbery about music now as there always has been. What is now regarded as classical music was the pop music of the day. My parents disliked my music just as much as I dislike some of the stuff now. This doesn't mean it has no value & there is some "pop" music that I like a lot. The main difference is that there is much more choice now & the recording quality & musicianship is generally better. Music is music to me. I don't criticise something simply because I don't understand it. If you don't like something you're not forced to listen to it.

PS. In my day most of the hit records lasted for much less than 2 minutes. They were certainly not intended to be permanent works of art. I went to an Everly Brothers concert once & they had performed all their big hits in not much more than 1 hour. (They had a lot of big hit records.) That was it. No supporting act. End of the concert. It was an excellent show but I left feeling somehow cheated.

[Threadkiller]

yeah, u do have a point there, but certain acts, like the underground punk or bands like Ramones never got the recognition they deserved when they raged, only till much later... so yeah

pop to me really started back in the late eighties, and the few artist i and ppl remember are madonna...and, mabe vanilla ice (i think it was the m the ones that lip-sang their shows and stuff...) pop, from them only a few songs survive to mark trends lived thru times, seldom one hears the name and history of individual groups, on the other hand, with bands like BlackSabbath, Ramones, KISS and other, are bands that broke ground in one way or another and not only apported to the music industry with their ground brakin "things" and developed "technology" but also left timeless hits that even today one can identify with.

[Hagar]

Well Ace. It's all a matter of taste. I've always had a very wide taste in music. I can't speak for the US punk bands but generally speaking I disliked the punk culture intensely & still do. With a few exceptions it's not something I would choose to listen to. I would go further & say what the average punk band did had very little to do with music.

In the 60s most groups & pop artists, including the Beatles, mimed on TV, some very badly. In fact some were pitiful to watch. This was not their fault so much as the way it was done in those days. It was well known that many members of the top groups of the day did not perform on their own hit records. This was not due to the fact they couldn't sing or play their instruments although in my opinion this was certainly true in some cases. It was mainly because studio time was expensive & studio techniques were different to playing live. I'm sure this still happens today but the technology involved is so much better. I'm not convinced that some of today's bands don't use backing tracks when they play live concerts.

Most pop music is intended for dancing to, not listening to. I don't think it was ever intended to be taken too seriously. As I said before, there has always been a snob factor involved with all this. If I like something & it gives me pleasure I will listen to it & might even buy the CD. I don't have to give it a label or worry about what others think.

[eno]

Hagar .......... I agree with you ..... well sorta. But I agree with Space too.

Music is music ......... I listen to everything from "Pop" to classical ........ and ethnic to western. Theres some music that doesnt do anything for me .... theres some that stirs incredibly strong emotions. I trained as a classical violin player and was lucky enough in my late teens to be semi professional (I didnt have the dedication to go pro ... although my sister has made it her career). I have never let other peoples tastes dictate what I listen to.
However the  original posting that Space made is totally true. When it comes to the current music wannabes most of them will be gone in 2 years .... and forgotten. It is the general malaise of the "POP" music industry that everyone wants instant sucess... none of the current crop of wannabes have put any work into their sucess ........ Very few actually wrote the songs that have made them sucessful.... most of them are incapable of performing LIVE and even less of them have any actuall talent apart from looking good.
Contrary to popular belief  CD sales in the UK are not driven by the teenyboppers out there, more CDs are sold to the 30-50 year olds. If the charts were taken from album sales then the likes of Pink Floyd ... ELO ... Status Quo ... Queen ...Genesis.... Phil Collins ... The Beatles.... The Stones... to name but a few  would still be there at the top. These are all bands that had to work for their fame .... and some still do ....
Who in 10 years .... never mind the 20/30/40 years that some of these artists have put in ... will remember Brittany ... Nsync... Hearsay.... Atomic Kitten.... and plenty more. The ones that will be remembered from this period (90s-Present)... Robbie Williams ... Dido .... Westlife (Yes I know all the die hard rockers out there will disagree)... Coldplay.... and one or two others. What have they done that makes them outstanding .... Broken the "POP" mold and done something different and definitive. They will also continue to evolve and appeal to different audiences ... and the main thing ... They have a talent which has been honed and developed ..... not manipulated by others.

The one thing I admire in anyone doing anything is dedication and talent .... that applies to everything and everyone .... Those who posess these two qualities in abundance will always shine through, in whatever field they are in.

ooooooo I needed that rant ...

cheers
eno

[microlight]

Doug has a very valid point about snobbery in music (there is indeed far too much of it), and also makes a good point about not being forced to listen to music you don't want to. It's a choice thing. There's no such thing as 'bad' music; there's music you like and music you don't like - that's it.

My daughter likes the current popular rap (with a silent 'c'! oops, my bias..) songs that tend to litter the charts, but that's OK because it serves a purpose however transitory that may be. They're not designed to be memorable, they're designed to make the max money possible in the shortest possible time. Music to me has to be interesting rather than just 'chewing gum for the ears'. This is why to me, the kind of 'easy listening music' you find in lifts and supermarkets equates to 'music designed to be ignored'.

This is why Beethoven's 5th is still known, and why the swing of the Quintet of the Hot Club of France is still known; and the Everly Brothers and the Beatles..... This was all designed to be listened to, and it's lasted.

Ok, soapbox back under the stairs - I'll go and make the tea.

[Politically Incorrect]

Yes it is true that you don't have to listen to what you don't like!
But it is also true that there isn't music being made by anyone worthwhile.
It has become nothing more that a money game, like stated above the record companies and producers are no longer looking for talent they want what they can cash in on in in a hurry.
Like stated in Ace's post these "new" recording artist (for the lack of a better term) won't be known in a few years except for articles printed in the tabloids about how they lost all thier money blah blah blah.
It has been a long time since real talent has been recorded, that is where the harm in this "new" music comes from. Fads have always ruled over talent since music was first recorded but these fads are hurting the real talent out there, because if they don't have the look, sound or feel that the "kids" want the record companies will shoo them away and that is what is sad about it.
The record companies know they must aim sales at the youngest listeners they are the ones looking for the stated "coolness", and "coolness" is what sells.
I mean look at some of the things kids now days do to look "cool", Bling? What is up with kids wearing these Mr T starter kits? pants with pockets down to thier ankles etc?
To me they look like idiots, but to them it is cool. Then they grow up and look back at themselfs and laugh about how stuid they looked.
Trust me I know I was a teen in the 80's and had the hair and Parachute pants LOL!!! But it was cool.
But it is the money making fads that record companies focus on like they always have, it is just that back in the 50-early 80's some of them "fads" had great talent, musicians, songwriters and that is why people who appreciate music bought thier albums and thoses artists still sell today!

[Threadkiller]

it has a vague element of truth the afirmation that one is not forced to listen to certain music, but once again this music is pumped from everywhere into you, you turn on the TV and there it is, turn on the radio and boom! there it is, go online, and all the papers talk about and make funand idolatrate is the music. go to school and there it is played for the school during luch by the student's council and all. the masses drive sicey and those who are not part of the mases are affected by it. we are alienated, and it is ever becoming hard to find a radio station that plays worthwhile music. from today's scene i can inly point out a few artist who have sweated it for their fame and truly capture the escence of music, which is to transmit a message across to a crrowd and not to sell out to corporate fat cats, they stand by their music, and as neil young says "is better to burn out than to fade away" if you play your music, play it till the end and dont change the style just cuz the culture is changing too, somewhat of what metallica did. but im not pointing fingers here.... bands like System of a Down, and i can even get myself into the hotspot by sayin that Eminem too are ppl that had worked hard for their music, i personaly dont sympathise with eminem's r hip hop stuff u know, but i do admire his perseverance and success in a genre generaly governed by african american musicians like nelly and 2pac. enimems songs are diferent from say, nelly's i have to loisten to eminem constantly cuz my sis likes him, and he does talk about things that are issues in today's society like drugs and abuse. poverty and others....unlike other artist of the genre that wat they sing about is how poor they wer/are, how many girls they score with daily, how stoned they get and how the police pickson the for no reason. the same in metal, there are bands that arenot worthy of one's time to listen to,  and become chewin gum for the ears...

iw ill continue later, cuz i have o leave for a bbq now, hahahahaha

[Paz]

 The best thing about music is that there is so much variety to choose from, there always have been and always will be people who think the music they listen to is the only "good" or "real" music. In my opinion those people are missing out.

 If you look back, there have also always been one hit wonders or those that are "performers" rather than true musicians, like Elvis for example, he was a great performer but not actually a musician so much.

 I listen to almost everything and of course I like certain things I hear better than others, but it is not genre specific, I like Slayer and Dream Theater, I also like Cradle of Filth and Slipknot, but some of my favorite CD's also include "The Chronic" by Dr. Dre, "One night only" by The BeeGees and "Stripped" by Christina Aguilera.
 I could go on and on trying to express the wide range of music I love, which also includes Yanni, Enya and many classical CD's, I also like Mariachi music, but I have been through all of this before whenever this kind of thread gets started.

 So it goes right back to my first paragraph, to me the best thing about music is all the choices, I can't imagine listening to only one type of music, and neglecting myself of all the other variety that is available, I don't have to like it all, but I give everything I hear a chance. Then I decide whether or not it sucks!

[Hagar]

I could go on about this for hours but I won't bore you. I would just like to point out that the music business has always been a rip-off ever since I can remember. Very few musicians actually make any profit from it. They were cheated by the very people they trusted. I suspect this is still going on.

Composing & performing your own songs seems to be mandatory now for some reason I can't figure out. Until the late 50s very few artists composed their own music. Even then, you could list the successful ones on on the fingers of one hand. I think 'Love Me Tender' is partially credited to Elvis Presley but there is some doubt as to whether he actually had anything to do with it. I can't think of another of his many hit records that he composed. Many of the most talented & prolific songwriters of the 20th Century were tone deaf when it came to singing. Some couldn't play an instrument too well either. They left the professionals to perform their work.

[Threadkiller]

well to my understanding, artist today write their own stuff so they dont have to share royalties with the writers and the ppl that arrange the mmusic and stuff, and big bands like Avril Lavigne and Cristina Aguilera are paid by salary. only the artist (avril or cris in this case) get the split of the revenues and stuff

[Hagar]

well to my understanding, artist today write their own stuff so they dont have to share royalties with the writers and the ppl that arrange the music and stuff

This is what I'm trying to point out Ace. It might benefit the artists financially to write their own stuff but it doesn't follow that the music is better for it. Personally, I feel that the opposite is generally the case.

[Politically Incorrect]

I always think of the Monkees when a topic such as this is started.
Here is a group that was "made for TV" not meant to be real, couldn't even play the instruments. But because of the popularity of thier TV show were forced to learn to play as a real band so they could tour. I had the pleasure of seeing them perform live twice way back when they were popular and then in the 80's when they tried a comeback, also saw Davey Jones solo. And I must say it was pretty good, the 80's show was really good!
So here the "suits" took some actors and then realized they could make some money off them if the could play forced them to learn. Funny but they actually turned out to be fine musicians.
Allot like today the suits look for "The look" not talent, so that is why the "pre-manufactured band" is so prominent, it is all about money and they know it is short term but when the "new" fades away there will be another fad to take advantage of.
This is also a good reason to look at the smaller recording labels some really good talent there that you won't hear on the radio and maybe never hear a another album from but they are there. And they are hard working, determined artists, who make some great music. David Grey comes to mind, recorded his album on his own tape deck in his apartment, got lucky and got some air play and look millions of albums sold.

[Craig.]

OK, where to start. There are two types of musician, lucky and unlucky. The lucky ones are those blessed with good looks and talent, the unlucky ones are those who may have one or the other, and it continually branches off from there. Its all about marketability these days, and i am glad it is. i may be wrong but years ago one style of music would dominate the charts and getting anything differant would be extremely difficult, so your forced to listen to it or nothing at all. I personally cant stand some of this metal crap, a bunch of guys screaming into a mic is supposed to be singing? and to go with that i dont bother listening to it. With the diversity today if your listening to the radio and something comes on you hate you can just turn it down for a few minutes and something you do like will be played soon after. You hear all these unsigned bands complaining they cant get signed, they have sent out 50 samples of their music to agents and companies but no one wants to know, well obviously they are rubbish, then their small group of fans say no their not, however those may only number 100 or so fans, getting signed in todays music world isnt that difficult for talented musicians, and while there are a few unsigned good bands around, the majority who arnt signed just dont have what it takes to make it in the business, marketing a new band costs alot of money and few music companies are going to sign someone they know will not make them money. People say there are too many rappers around today, maybe, my style of music, but looking at it objectivley, look at how much money they will make a company, they dont care if their time is only a few years they make pleanty of money, their fans are happy, and the music industry is happy. There is as pointed out too much snobbery in music, i could say i like britney spears(i dont, just making a point) and most people here would say oh your taste in music is crap, what a load of rubbish she is, then to ask some people here what they like, slipknot, who i could say are a bunch of crap, they couldnt hit a single note correctly and dress in dumb ass outfits. And so it goes on. Who is anyone to tell me what music i should and shouldnt like, and why should i be made to feel like an idiot for liking something another person doesnt.
To close this one up. Like whatever the hell you like, but dont force it upon others and dont talk down to them if they dont like it, your not forced to listen to what you dont like why should it be any differant for the other person
Rant over

[Woodlouse2002]

I got bored of reading this around halfway though but I have to agree with whats mostly been said. I constantly believe that if i'd been born 40 odd years ago my taste in music, and my CD collection would be fantastically cool in general opinion. One thing I hate about most pop groups these days is that on the whole they do what they do because they want fame and money. Before the majority of bands played for their love of music. These are the bands that have lasted. The group of college and university students that got together for a few jamming sessions and then went to the top. These bands make music for themselves, and if other people happen to like it then thats a bonus.

I find on general that the best music has been made by those who never really wanted to be famous. Syd Barrett almost single handedly changed the face of rock and roll and practically founded the psychedellic rock genre. Yet he never really wanted fame, so he stopped playing.

Todays music is just mass produced. And today most of my peers buy albums of bands that played in the 60's 70's and 80's. Todays music has no soul and therefore the majority of it is just noise pollution.