Why the hate on mainstream music?

[MuffinManRock]

Why so much hate on pop music and mainstream music? I love listening to it. Please explain this to me. I'm not wanting to start an argument, I am just honestly wondering.

[Sotsirc]

Originally Posted by MuffinManRock

Why so much hate on pop music and mainstream music? I love listening to it. Please explain this to me. I'm not wanting to start an argument, I am just honestly wondering.

Well, maybe I'm getting old but I was listening to some top 40-lists on Spotify a few weeks ago and I honestly didn't find more than one or two tracks that were even listenable. I really think 70% of the music today is the worst in the history of music. Having said that, there is some really cool music being made and I'm sure quality will somehow come back in style in a bigger way. I believe it does have a lot to do with how people are listening to music nowadays. People don't generally sit down in their armchair and listen to a record from start to finish, they tend to listen to music while doing other things. For this reason alone, it's pretty hard for subtle arrangements and songwriting to have a big impact.

[StringBean]

Originally Posted by MuffinManRock

I love listening to it. Please explain this to me.

You have poor taste in music and/or don't understand what makes music good. That's all

[MuffinManRock]

Originally Posted by Sotsirc

People don't generally sit down in their armchair and listen to a record from start to finish, they tend to listen to music while doing other things. For this reason alone, it's pretty hard for subtle arrangements and songwriting to have a big impact.

I have never thought of it like that before. I guess I could understand why someone who does sit down and listen to a whole album like this wouldn't like 4-bar beats that loop.. I still like it on my iPod though ! Anywayz, well said.

[filipv]

Originally Posted by MuffinManRock

Why so much hate on pop music and mainstream music? I love listening to it. Please explain this to me. I'm not wanting to start an argument, I am just honestly wondering.

cause we're old farts

[LimpyLoo]

Originally Posted by MuffinManRock

Why so much hate on pop music and mainstream music? I love listening to it. Please explain this to me. I'm not wanting to start an argument, I am just honestly wondering.

It has no soul. It is all surface. It illuminates nothing. It's rarely clever. It all sounds the same.

There is real art in this world. Beautiful and breathtaking. You won't find it on the radio.

We are talking about the difference between 2001: A Space Odyssey and Transformers 3.

[MuffinManRock]

Originally Posted by LimpyLoo

We are talking about the difference between 2001: A Space Odyssey and Transformers 3.

Good analogy because I thought Space Odyssey was slow and boring.

[Krypticghost]

I think it's pride. Music these days uses the same chord progressions, similar instruments and professional studios found in the 'ole days.

The only difference is the loudness, the arrangements (pop music especially, very vocal-heavy) and way the parts interact with each-other. Music is just looked at differently now... Seriously, I can listen to popular music now (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry) and I can see the little things; if you put the time in to listen, it's not too bad at all.

I am no troll..

[Krypticghost]

Originally Posted by MuffinManRock

Good analogy because I thought Space Odyssey was slow and boring.

+1

Amen.

[MuffinManRock]

Thanks for the answers so far y'all. I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Keep em coming !

[IRA]

Originally Posted by MuffinManRock

Why so much hate on pop music and mainstream music? I love listening to it. Please explain this to me. I'm not wanting to start an argument, I am just honestly wondering.

To me radio/pop music is for the mindless and lazy (no offense). You do not have to think about it, it uses basic music theory, and/or copies music from the past (unoriginal). The lyrics are uninspiring and are based on sex, partying, drinking, broken hearts, love, etc (more unoriginal, thoughtless topics). It uses little catchy hooks to draw in listeners into getting it stuck in their head, even if its horrible (more uninspiring lyrics). These hooks are also recycled too much (more unoriginality) where there are plenty of hip-hop songs on the radio that are almost all filled with previous hooks.

Another personal reason why I do not like it is the facade that the artists are behind it all. Most of us know here that the "artist" in the pop scene usually has a producer that makes the track and a lyricist who writes the song. The artist may change a few things or have some input, but in reality its just someone to put on the front page of a magazine and sell $$$. So I just see these people as sellouts and corporate money makers that I do not support (which in my mind devalues the music that is made).

Another thing (this has to do with lyrics mostly), the audience pop music is for, teenagers and their older counterparts that never grew up, makes the songs have such horrible substance. Either the song is way too happy or emo (rolling emotions of a teenager), or talks about sex, drugs, and partying (which is what they want to do and curious about).

...end rant

[LimpyLoo]

Originally Posted by MuffinManRock

Good analogy because I thought Space Odyssey was slow and boring.

[pipamail]

Mainstream is a kind of piracy on somebody else's audience

[frawnchy]

Originally Posted by LimpyLoo

'Boring' seems to be a euphemism for 'Make Brain Think-Hurt' these days.
Someday soon, commercial pop'll reach it's zenith - three minutes of auto-tuned chorus, singing about whatever lowest-common-denominator topic most people in the world can relate to that day (thanks focus groups!).

Katy Ga$ha can sing it. I hear her vocals are the ones most kids want to slightly hear.

[ofie]

In the motherland (Africa), we call our music functional music, ie; music that aids you to perform a chore. That is the essence of African music and now the rest of the world is catching up. Remember the slaves on the plantations?

[camus]

Originally Posted by MuffinManRock

Good analogy because I thought Space Odyssey was slow and boring.

Try Beverly Hills Chihuahua, sounds right up your alley.

[pqlia]

Originally Posted by Krypticghost

Music these days uses the same chord progressions, similar instruments and professional studios found in the 'ole days.
I am no troll..

Hey, I’m not one for starting a fight... but respectfully: is this a correct statement???

I suppose it'd depend on what you're listening to?

To my ears there has been a massive change over the last 10 years in pop music generally – especially in what used to be termed RnB…which is now more accurately ‘euro pop’

BUT... I’ve come to learn that not everything that was old was better.. I reminded myself of some 80's music on spotify the other day and was more than a little surprised at it’s conceptual similarity to what's going on now.

I think there are just phases in popular music informed by different things, some would say it evolves, others (like me) say it changes.

[pqlia]

Originally Posted by ofie

In the motherland (Africa), we call our music functional music, ie; music that aids you to perform a chore. That is the essence of African music and now the rest of the world is catching up. Remember the slaves on the plantations?

Interesting, please expound.

[The Vulture]

If you can`t see the value in modern pop music that is your problem.

Music was not better before by a long shot. It was just different with lesser variety.

[doose80]

This thread reminded me of this ol' video Axis of Awesome - 4 Four Chord Song (with song titles) - YouTube

[Sotsirc]

Originally Posted by The Vulture

If you can`t see the value in modern pop music that is your problem.

Music was not better before by a long shot. It was just different with lesser variety.

Well if "better" means "will stand the test of time" then I would say yes, music was better before. I remember Ed Cherney (at Pensado's Place) saying that songs by eg The Beatles and Led Zepelin will be around as long as civilization itself. That makes me think about today's music and what could possibly survive more than a few years (or months, more likely). Ok, those were different times and music had more impact then since we hadn't yet OD'd on popular culture. But that is not the only (or even main) reason, I believe.

[Sotsirc]

Originally Posted by ofie

In the motherland (Africa), we call our music functional music, ie; music that aids you to perform a chore. That is the essence of African music and now the rest of the world is catching up. Remember the slaves on the plantations?

That's very interesting to think about, maybe the need to call everything "art" is mostly a western thing.

[adrianww]

Originally Posted by IRA

To me radio/pop music is for the mindless and lazy (no offense). You do not have to think about it, it uses basic music theory, and/or copies music from the past (unoriginal). The lyrics are uninspiring and are based on sex, partying, drinking, broken hearts, love, etc (more unoriginal, thoughtless topics). It uses little catchy hooks to draw in listeners into getting it stuck in their head, even if its horrible (more uninspiring lyrics). These hooks are also recycled too much (more unoriginality) where there are plenty of hip-hop songs on the radio that are almost all filled with previous hooks.

Another personal reason why I do not like it is the facade that the artists are behind it all. Most of us know here that the "artist" in the pop scene usually has a producer that makes the track and a lyricist who writes the song. The artist may change a few things or have some input, but in reality its just someone to put on the front page of a magazine and sell $$$. So I just see these people as sellouts and corporate money makers that I do not support (which in my mind devalues the music that is made).

Another thing (this has to do with lyrics mostly), the audience pop music is for, teenagers and their older counterparts that never grew up, makes the songs have such horrible substance. Either the song is way too happy or emo (rolling emotions of a teenager), or talks about sex, drugs, and partying (which is what they want to do and curious about).

...end rant

Er...you do know that you've pretty much just described the history, structure and development of almost all popular music in the last 70 years or more there?

Using basic music theory and copying from the past - check.

Uninspiring lyrics based on sex, partying, drinking, broken hearts, love, etc. - check.

Catchy hooks to draw the listener - check.

Recycled hooks - check.

Artist is the front man/woman, with separate producer/composer/arranger and lyricist responsible for actual song - check.

Target audience is teenagers and similar - check (well, since at least the 50's anyway).

To return to the original question, I think that a lot of older people (or younger ones who like to think of themselves as musically educated or sophisticated) profess a dislike for modern pop music because they want to appear clever or don't want to be seen as just following the herd. Or possibly some of them feel a little jealous or hurt that some manufactured, talentless (in their eyes) nobody is getting the fame and glory when they've worked at their own art for however many years and never achieved the break. (Hey, it's human - there will be people out there like that.)

Of course, there is a lot of total and utter drivel and dross in the pop world and the modern trend for completely manufactured TV talent-show artists (a la X-factor in the UK or American Idol or whatever in the US) does seem to be making things worse for now. But there's always been a lot of dross in popular music. The point is that the older tracks and artists that people hold up as shining examples of how much better it used to be are the good ones who got remembered precisely because they were good. The really crappy ones just don't get remembered and don't enter the discussion.

Basically, there is still good music out there and there is still bad music out there - you just need to be prepared to look for it or listen with a more open mind. It could be argued that the ease with which technology now allows people to make recordings, coupled with the TV talent show bland cookie-cutter production line, current models of music content delivery (e.g. MP3 players and single track downloads) and a tendency towards short-term, quick-buck artist development mean that there's a higher proportion of shit you have to wade through before you find the good stuff. But there is still good stuff out there.

[windmillsound]

You would have to define your eras, but say you look at the 1950s (not my favourite period). Most of the music was written and arranged by conservatoire musicians and was performed live in single takes by people who could perform live. Try thinking of the Andrew Sisters singing close harmonies round a single mic and see if you can even imagine any girl group today doing that in separate takes with protools editing and autotune.

Probably songwriting has been the biggest casualty. Of course there are great songwriters today - but they aren't working in pop. I am guessing for instance that Beyonce is a great singer - but its very hard to tell since most of her tunes lack even a basic melody and never once has she been given a great song to sing. 'If I were a boy' came close, but its an OK not a great melody. Certainly nothing that can even be compared to anything Aretha Franklin was given to sing.

There have been huge changes in mixing such that now the art and performance of mixing is probably more important than the song.

When I was a kid everyone listened to the regular weekly chart shows. These included every song in the top 40 plus every new release in the top 100. Today the radio seems to feature the top 10 and focus on the top 5. Local bands sometimes sold more singles than would be required to get to No. 1 today.

In the early 1980s I remember writing down a list of genres A-Z with my family and there were multiple entries for each letter - I don't think that is the case today.

The record companies were always controlling, always trying to dumb down music and always interested in money not quality - they are just more successful at achieving that today. Funnily enough the thing they are less successful at is making money. There might be a link.

[adrianww]

Oh - and the person who mentioned Axis of Awesome's 4-chord song? Absolutely - still makes me laugh every time I hear it.

[The Vulture]

Originally Posted by Sotsirc

Well if "better" means "will stand the test of time" then I would say yes, music was better before. I remember Ed Cherney (at Pensado's Place) saying that songs by eg The Beatles and Led Zepelin will be around as long as civilization itself. That makes me think about today's music and what could possibly survive more than a few years (or months, more likely). Ok, those were different times and music had more impact then since we hadn't yet OD'd on popular culture. But that is not the only (or even main) reason, I believe.

Great music will always live, independent from time and trends

[antti]

No hate on mainsteam music here but have to admit
that these days it rarely offers anything interesting/new or is anyway ´groundbreaking´. Listening to radio stations that only play ´modern hits´is quite boring as it all sounds pretty much the same (songwriting/production/mixing/loudness war). Radio stations who play music from different decades/wider spectrum of music styles is a lot more fun (to me at least). Having said that I´m already 34 years old (nearly half of that in da music bizz), married and have a kid.. those facts shouldn´t stop me enjoying music though.


Have a brilliant rest of the year!


Elefantti

[Anthony Duran]

Originally Posted by IRA

To me radio/pop music is for the mindless and lazy (no offense). You do not have to think about it, it uses basic music theory, and/or copies music from the past (unoriginal). The lyrics are uninspiring and are based on sex, partying, drinking, broken hearts, love, etc (more unoriginal, thoughtless topics). It uses little catchy hooks to draw in listeners into getting it stuck in their head, even if its horrible (more uninspiring lyrics). These hooks are also recycled too much (more unoriginality) where there are plenty of hip-hop songs on the radio that are almost all filled with previous hooks.

Another personal reason why I do not like it is the facade that the artists are behind it all. Most of us know here that the "artist" in the pop scene usually has a producer that makes the track and a lyricist who writes the song. The artist may change a few things or have some input, but in reality its just someone to put on the front page of a magazine and sell $$$. So I just see these people as sellouts and corporate money makers that I do not support (which in my mind devalues the music that is made).

Another thing (this has to do with lyrics mostly), the audience pop music is for, teenagers and their older counterparts that never grew up, makes the songs have such horrible substance. Either the song is way too happy or emo (rolling emotions of a teenager), or talks about sex, drugs, and partying (which is what they want to do and curious about).

...end rant

Could not have said it better!!!

[baikonour]

[QUOTE=MuffinManRock;7373548]Why so much hate on pop music and mainstream music? I love listening to it. Please explain this to me. I'm not wanting to start an argument, I am just honestly wondering.[/QUOT

Mmm in a few words?...Because it's generally speaking soulless, mercantile crap, which is not only crass and/or offensive to the hears but also offensive to the soul and contributes to the general malaise of our society by spreading noxious values: mindless consumerism, the cult of celebrity for celebrity's sake and the systematic dumbing down of popular culture.

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by IRA

To me radio/pop music is for the mindless and lazy (no offense). You do not have to think about it, it uses basic music theory, and/or copies music from the past (unoriginal). The lyrics are uninspiring and are based on sex, partying, drinking, broken hearts, love, etc ...

Another personal reason why I do not like it is the facade that the artists are behind it all. Most of us know here that the "artist" in the pop scene usually has a producer that makes the track and a lyricist who writes the song. ...
...end rant

When I was in high school, I used feel this way about mainstream pop. It's fascinating that I eventually changed my mind and now 100% embrace the music that IRA complains about.

I used to think it was so "cool" that I was in to all the alternative bands that the MTV crowd wasn't aware of. Progressive rock songs with 10 minute interludes, jazz fusion with ambiguous tonality, classical, etc. Basically, the more obscure (and more pretentious), the better. I still like that "weighty" music but I have a better understanding why the typical person can't connect with it.

And the so-called "manufactured" artists that don't write their songs? I used to think they weren't "real" muscians. Now, I LOVE 'EM! Their existence gives me -- the songwriter -- an outlet for getting my work heard. I don't want to sing my own songs (and if you heard my voice, you wouldn't want to either.) We need more "facade" singers in the pipeline! It gives me more choices to shop my songs!