Why the hate on mainstream music?

[Ernest Buckley]

Originally Posted by O.F.F.

Watching movies for the effects is like listening to pop because of 'the beauty of Autotune'.

Have you listened to Bon Ivers use of auto-tune? Check out "Woods" for example.

The other point I will make is that not all art is beautiful. Consider Schoenberg for example, not exactly pretty music but he definitely had something to say and whether or not you like his music, it makes you feel. Thats my definition of art... it makes you feel something.

The Transformers Trilogy may not work for you but it does for a lot of kids. And from a pure special effects perspective, it was staggeringly good. ymmv

[glitchfactor]

Originally Posted by dasoundjunkie

Probably the best post in this entire thread

Well, I don't know about that, but thank you!

[pqlia]

^^^

[PdotDdot]

There is no accounting for taste. If people like something, they like it.

If you watch late night television (Letterman, Leno), you see a lot of the bands that are making it these days. From a musician and songwriter's perspective, most of it is awful. Perhaps the musicians in these bands are capable players but it would be hard to discern that based upon the performances. When I was first learning to play, most of the garage bands I knew of were better than the stuff I see at night. However, it seems someone likes this stuff as it makes it to Late Night. While I do not understand this, it is what it is.

I still hold the opinion that so much of today's music is dull and made up for by production - and of course outrageous videos. And I also believe that the current trend of formulaic product is a result of suits trying to put a box around creativity so they can make sense of it from an accounting perspective. This is why I still prefer to listen to music from the past because for my sense of taste, Bach, Sinatra, Beatles, Wynonie Harris, The Five Royales, Dylan, and so many others are so much more interesting than 99% of what I hear these days. But this is still only an opinion and as the beginning of my post states, there is no accounting for taste.

I do think it is sad that today's youth have much less in the way of true creativity to inspire them - from movies to television to music. We are living in the reality tv world and the focal attention spans have been altered by MTV and computers and the merchandizing of the the quick fix and instant gratification. The good news is the old stuff is still out there and with desire and research, some will find it and hopefully carry it forward.

[dasoundjunkie]

Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley

Have you listened to Bon Ivers use of auto-tune? Check out "Woods" for example.

The Transformers Trilogy may not work for you but it does for a lot of kids. And from a pure special effects perspective, it was staggeringly good. ymmv

Can't argue with that ( I've got 6 nephews ). The visual entertainment aspect of these movies is pretty much the reason I go see them with the kids.

[Slikjmuzik]

I think it's pretty ridiculous that we would learn music at the level we have as engineers, producers or performers, therefore we are able to disect music and find the simplicities. However, the rest of the world has no clue what a I-vi-IV-V progression and could care less that it's the progression to 'Heart and Souls' from Pete's Dragon, which is probably the 2nd most popular song that people tend to learn on piano in the early stages outside of 'chopsticks'. It also happens to be the chord progression to countless other songs to include 'I Will Always Love You', which is easily in the top 5 singles of all time. That progression works, you change the melody on top, alter the instrumentation and feel and you have a song that will break a new artist easily because it's not only familiar but sounds good and there are a variety of melodic and instrumental options that will work well with it.

With that said, if everyone was at the level of understanding this, catchy music that can be played in the background would almost never be created. Kids under 10 years old would probably never enjoy music as more complicated music can only be enjoyed once more simple music is either understood or appreciated.

On another note, why do want people listening to your music who will only disect it? This is what you're asking for. Musicians are not the reason other musicians become successfull and can live off it for the most part. Ultimately, they are in competition with you. You can create music for a variety of purposes. I'm sorry, but Led Zeppelin does not get played at parties for people to dance to.

Lastly, what you all are complaining about is simply something true to life. How often do you think a doctor performs an obscure surgery versus treating a common cold or flu?? Get over it guys, move on and focus on your own goals...

[- Michael P -]

They are just jealous that those people are successful.

[Slikjmuzik]

Originally Posted by - Michael P -

They are just jealous that those people are successful.

I agree, you can't get angry at someone else for creating something simple that earns them success that you could have easily attained had you just done it first at the same level and marketed it to the same success. Hell, we all know Facebook was created in a dorm room at Harvard!! Know how many other programmers I know that could copy the programming now that it's been created?? It's technically the same thing as myspace, just done better and does a better job at encompassing the needs MOST people were really after. The actuall concept is not hard to create.

[- Michael P -]

Originally Posted by kasperjensen

Wow. There are some really arrogant and elitist views around here.

Who made anyone the decider of what is art and what is corporate fodder?

Does art have to be some deep exploration of the souls inner chambers?
Young kids meet up at bars and have fun. Laugh and dance and sing along to the music. Having a great time. And the music enhances that. It will be a centrepiece in their memory when they look back on their beautiful, careless and joyful youth. When they hear that song again, they will think of those moments and put them right back there. That can't be classed as art?

Just because autotune is involved, and a formula is used it does not mean it can't be music.
And as pointed out before, if it is so ridiculously easy, why not produce a pop hit and then you will never go hungry again?

As far as I know, pop music was always targeted to young people. Mainly teenagers. And their parents have by and large hated it. Why? Because people always look back in time with Rose tinted glasses.

And here is another thing: The public is not stupid. It is not some mindless entity of zombies. If they were, every pop artist that was released would be successful. And that is not the case. If it was, it would be a surefire investment and would overtake the property Market in popularity instantly.
The public is your neighbour, the cab driver, the supermarket security guard. And they are not stupid, and I feel sorry for you if that's how you feel.

Listen to the music you do like. If radio insults your ears so much, change the channel or switch it off. The music industry is doing quite alright, no need to worry.

To me it always comes off as some sort of entitlement when people launch into the 'music is garbage' now. 'So and so should be what people are listening to', 'the mixing is horrible, compression is too much'.
Guess what? If everyone thought it was so horrible, they would switch it off and we would have an overnight change in the music we hear on mainstream radio.

You have so much choice now, so why waste energy on the music that was never meant for you in the first
place?

Meanwhile: Beyonce, Rhianna, Adele, Leona Lewis, Pink, Katy Perry, Keith Urban, Black Keys, Lady Gaga, Robyn, Duffy, Lilly Allen, Brad Paisley, and so and so forth, are out there making good music.
If you don't think so, then pick an instrument and try and play one of their live shows.

Aaaaahhhh... Whatever.

We'll all just make music, and hope someone enjoys it too. That's all.

You are talking to ignorants. They only accept their kind of music as art. They are know-it-alls and don't understand that music is a thing of taste. ^^

[- Michael P -]

Originally Posted by Slikjmuzik

I agree, you can't get angry at someone else for creating something simple that earns them success that you could have easily attained had you just done it first at the same level and marketed it to the same success. Hell, we all know Facebook was created in a dorm room at Harvard!! Know how many other programmers I know that could copy the programming now that it's been created?? It's technically the same thing as myspace, just done better and does a better job at encompassing the needs MOST people were really after. The actuall concept is not hard to create.

It's the various details that made facebook so popular. It's way more fun and myspace was a pain in the ass.

It's not about recreating. Pop music is easy to recreate but you must be the first one who had the idea.

[oweng]

damn- sucked - in


the people on this - the vast majority and haters

rageaholics..

it is because they are rich white millionaire bullies that thought the music industry revolves around --

and --

these same clowns ---


absolutely - in any way whatsoever - refuse to take any blame for the loudness war - when they are in fact

100% responsible for destroying the music u listen to


but don't worry - they are going the way of the record labels -

down the tubes baby

they are dinosaurs - with tiny tiny brains - make lots of noise ...
but in the end - they are extinct

--- and they are too stupid to accept it...

i love much of the music out today -
i do have to run it through a expander to listen to it -
because the clowns here - refuse to stop destroying it ...


oh ...

strike three ....?
oh my ....
what ever will i do ... i can't worship your bully asses anymore ..
u are bullies - pure and simple

i love you anyway
l8r
???? G

[RyanC]

What I don't get is all the talk about formulaic.. It's all so formulaic. What like verses and choruses and bridges, simple chords and catchy melodies? So modern mainstream songs are like all other popular songs?

Or let me guess, some indy dude with his jeans painted on, wining never ending out-of-tune vocals over 4 on the floor pawn shop drums, is supposed to be the better formula?

[adrianww]

Originally Posted by - Michael P -

It's not about recreating. Pop music is easy to recreate but you must be the first one who had the idea.

J. S. Bach and Johann Pachelbel, plus generations of other composers, jazz musicians, delta blues players and whoever else would beg to differ.

You can certainly do well enough out of being the first, but you don't have to be the first one who had the idea to make successful music (and money) out of it.

[Slikjmuzik]

Originally Posted by - Michael P -

It's the various details that made facebook so popular. It's way more fun and myspace was a pain in the ass.

It's not about recreating. Pop music is easy to recreate but you must be the first one who had the idea.

I understand what you mean. I personally vibed with myspace better, but their ads and a variety of things of that nature that became prevalent eventually got in the way, so they lost the reigns. However, I completely remember the first day I went onto facebook when myspace was big and still useful, I remember not liking how it was setup...I still don't. The wall is stupid, I could care less that you're putting butter on your toast right now. On myspace you had one screen and if you wanted to look at someones profile, you clicked on it to read, you didn't just get random messages appear on your page. I can't stand it to this day. Where they won is that they were never down, never crashed or had difficulty navigating. Essentially both are social sites and a way for people to connect, which was the main point I was making and why I was comparing the 2.

[Slikjmuzik]

Originally Posted by RyanC

What I don't get is all the talk about formulaic.. It's all so formulaic. What like verses and choruses and bridges, simple chords and catchy melodies? So modern mainstream songs are like all other popular songs?

Or let me guess, some indy dude with his jeans painted on, wining never ending out-of-tune vocals over 4 on the floor pawn shop drums, is supposed to be the better formula?

Yes, because it is all formula. Even if you try to create something from the heart, you can essentially break it down to 12 notes within an octave, which ones are played and which ones are not and the rhythmic relationship between them all.

For example, the blues, in it's basic form is just 3 chords, the I, the IV, and the IV. They are all dominant 7ths, therefore a major triad as the foundation with a minor 3rd on top of the 5th. Know how many times I've been told by a jazz professor at the University of Miami that to represent the basic blues sound all you need to play is the 3rd and the 7th?? In a C dominant chord that's an E and a Bflat, which, to me, is one of the uggliest sounding intervals ever created outside of a minor 2nd, which happens to be a tri-tone and/or a diminished 5th. However, when you play an E/Bb together for 8 counts, then move your hand down a half step playin an A and an Eb, you are then essentially representing the IV7 that creates the second chord in a blues progression. Learn to do this in 12 keys with the left hand, as simple as it may seem(but it's not, trust me), and you can hold your trumpet in the right hand and practice your improv skills that essentially translate any other song out there and become a monster musician. It sucked at first, but I can now do it.

Everything can be broken down into simplicity if you try hard enough. Those that belittle modern pop music either can't do it themselves and be successful with it or know it so well that they find it boring and either don't have the social skills to value things like commercial appeal and finding/figuring out what it is people want/need, which is the basis of a marketing degree. Again, there's no accounting for taste. I like all music because I fully understand the purpose each genre and style serves. Still, rap is my least favorite

[windmillsound]

The rise of music technology means that if you can't play in time you can still be made to sound in time. And if you can't sing in tune you can be made to sound in tune (at least in a Stephen Hawking kind of way). And if you sound wretched we can add sparkle and sizzle and so on and so on.

Some view this as the great democratisation of music. Others see that you no longer need to be a musician to be a musician or be able to sing to be a singer.
So when you live in a day whent he multi-million record selling judges on the X-Factor can't sing any better live than the people they are judging...

And you wonder why the pop music of today isn't so great?

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by windmillsound

The rise of music technology means that ...

... Others see that you no longer need to be a musician to be a musician or be able to sing to be a singer.

If you noticed my previous citations, the new singing technique (softer, more intimate) made possible by those new fangled devices called microphones and amplification was criticized as "singing" with no skill and talent.

The real singers (back then) had real lung capacity and muscular vocal cords to reach all the way to the back of the auditorium unamplified.

The microphone was the "democratization of vocal projection and volume."

We on the same page yet? If so... that means every singer except opera singers in the last 80 years is a "fake musician." You use a microphone? You're not a "true musician."

What I notice in this thread is ignorance of:
#1) history of music technology (and its initial controversies)
#2) history of music trends (generational imprinting)
#3) history of music criticism (decades of idiot cultural commentators)
#4) history of intersection between art & commerce (the "suits" have always been integral to the arts)

[RickGobe]

If music was never monetized we would have pretty good shit to be listening to these days! Cds should be sold super cheap and now that everything is digital songs should be free! You should only have to pay when you see that artist perform live. Weed out all the greed and let music be created by the talented creative people. Ohh i'm sorry i just woke up from a power nap i was dreaming again!

[Kaoz]

Originally Posted by RickGobe

If music was never monetized we would have pretty good shit to be listening to these days! Cds should be sold super cheap

lolwut?

As for the rest of the post, you could quite easily argue that a lot of people only pay for music when they see a band live already.

With bands like NiN and Radiohead being the figureheads of the pay what you want thing going around, smaller bands are starting to catch on as well.


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[JP11]

Why are people so obsessed with music from "now"?

What difference does it make?

[RickGobe]

Originally Posted by Kaoz

lolwut?

As for the rest of the post, you could quite easily argue that a lot of people only pay for music when they see a band live already.

With bands like NiN and Radiohead being the figureheads of the pay what you want thing going around, smaller bands are starting to catch on as well.


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

Dude tapes -cds -mp3 are made for promoting the band and getting you to their shows! Selling music is just stupid!

[Kaoz]

Originally Posted by RickGobe

Dude tapes -cds -mp3 are made for promoting the band and getting you to their shows! Selling music is just stupid!

You obviously missed the irony of saying if music wasn't monetized CD's would be cheaper, implying a cost, which requires it to be monetized.


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[ionian]

[RickGobe]

Originally Posted by Kaoz

You obviously missed the irony of saying if music wasn't monetized CD's would be cheaper, implying a cost, which requires it to be monetized.


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

Yeah as to cover cost of material in making a cd not making a profit! If bands had to live by playing live it would clean out all the crap. If a band is shit people would stop going and the shit band would FAIL!

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by RickGobe

Dude tapes -cds -mp3 are made for promoting the band and getting you to their shows!

There a lots of musicians that don't perform "shows."

Have you considered that aspect in your philosophy?

[RickGobe]

Originally Posted by Jason West

There a lots of musicians that don't perform "shows."

Have you considered that aspect in your philosophy?

No i guess that's why i failed in philosophy! I just think music is made to be performed live in front of people and the music should be so good we all get lost in ectasy from the energy off the performance we forget were human that hour at the show! Sorry i'm an idiot i usually don't do this forumn shit so maybe i'm talking out of my ass and just saying how i think music should be.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Jason West

If you noticed my previous citations, the new singing technique (softer, more intimate) made possible by those new fangled devices called microphones and amplification was criticized as "singing" with no skill and talent.

The real singers (back then) had real lung capacity and muscular vocal cords to reach all the way to the back of the auditorium unamplified.

The microphone was the "democratization of vocal projection and volume."

We on the same page yet?

excellent point

[MarkRB]

Surely this is obvious to everyone?

With an economic decline you cut your stock to the most popular products.

If you happen to be responsible for creating new product you stick with what is popular.

This ain't rocket salad. We are working to the lowest common denominator in order to make money.

Experimentation is way off the menu.

[LimpyLoo]

Originally Posted by Jason West

If you noticed my previous citations, the new singing technique (softer, more intimate) made possible by those new fangled devices called microphones and amplification was criticized as "singing" with no skill and talent.

The real singers (back then) had real lung capacity and muscular vocal cords to reach all the way to the back of the auditorium unamplified.

The microphone was the "democratization of vocal projection and volume."

We on the same page yet? If so... that means every singer except opera singers in the last 80 years is a "fake musician." You use a microphone? You're not a "true musician."

What I notice in this thread is ignorance of:
#1) history of music technology (and its initial controversies)
#2) history of music trends (generational imprinting)
#3) history of music criticism (decades of idiot cultural commentators)
#4) history of intersection between art & commerce (the "suits" have always been integral to the arts)

In 50 years "singers" will speak a single word into a microphone, run that through a computer that extrapolates the characteristics of their voice, then it will synthesize a vocal "performance."
Then some people will criticize them for not being able to sing, exactly like they did to Sinatra.

[Slikjmuzik]

Originally Posted by Jason West

If you noticed my previous citations, the new singing technique (softer, more intimate) made possible by those new fangled devices called microphones and amplification was criticized as "singing" with no skill and talent.

The real singers (back then) had real lung capacity and muscular vocal cords to reach all the way to the back of the auditorium unamplified.

The microphone was the "democratization of vocal projection and volume."

We on the same page yet? If so... that means every singer except opera singers in the last 80 years is a "fake musician." You use a microphone? You're not a "true musician."

Just about every classical voice teacher I've ever had wanted me to create 'spin' ALL the time. They want the palate lifted all the time and vibrato being created all the time and unless you're doing that, you're not in the sweet spot to create 100% power all the time. Guess what? I teach against this for the most part in my lessons. I teach to be able to come in and out of vibrato in the appropriate musical places, to sing soft and loud and that after singing loud, or belting, you should be able to sing that soft passage with full control and using less air. I can sing in my mask, on the breath, chest, head/falsetto and mix them so that you can tell I've switch and do either soft or loud. I can sit in jazz band or an orchestra and sightread a chart with performance majors and hang with the best of them. I prefer a microphone because of what I know I can do with it...it's the brush I use. To me, it's like a painter only using his hands and not using a brush...

On the flipside, I can't stand mic'ing up classical/ledit/opera vocalists...they have no concept of proximity effect or even how to use a handheld microphone. You have to compress the snot out of them once you've gotten your gain staging right in order to even remotely hear their low level performances. They also, for the most part, have no concept of real style in the commercial side of things. They should stay on their end, and I'm sure we're perfectly fine staying on ours...