Do songs really matter anymore?

[woomanmoomin]

Nice post, TREMORS.

Originally Posted by TREMORS

They want their favorite song to play when you see their new pictures on MySpace.

MySpace is a case in point. If ever I start browsing on there, I get annoyed with it pretty quickly, partly because half of it is glittery pink Playboy logos, kitten pictures, tongue-poke photos, 'total bitch' cartoons and what sound to my jaded ears like just so many very similar dance tracks. Booba booba booba booba. I'm sure the girls whose profiles those are would feel similarly unimpressed if they ever ended up on my profile and found they had to listen to some old dirge by Nick Drake, or Ivor Cutler waffling on about somebody's 'tomato brain' or whatever.

Lots of the songs on MySpace Music aren't even attributed to the right artists...

[RainbowStorm]

Originally Posted by woomanmoomin

I'm sorry, but when you talk about 'the artist' as such an abstract, passive entity in this way, the picture I get in my head is that of some kind of creature on a par with Billy Ray Cyrus being led around a studio on a leash tied to a ring though its nose or something. I think you wildly underestimate the complexity and role of 'the artist' here, or at very least the difficulty of working with a lot of individual performers!

Well, it's only my view, sure it's a simplification. I think successful producers tend to not finish records made by too complex-to-work-with performers, as a result these don't tend to reach the top. The artists might be complex, but it's up to the business owners of that artist to make sure something simply great comes out of him/her. In that process a lot of the complexity is actually never used.

[MarsBot]

It's very important we figure out a way to tell the story, so that people buy the whole artist, not the single.

To paraphrase Living Color it's the cult of personality, the cult of personality, the cult of personaaaaality.

The saleable item is the "person" now. Any song that sounds like other current stuff will do. We encourage each other to "market ourselves effectively." The pop stars are just really good at it compared to the rest of us. How far away from the Idoru concept are we (artificial, computer generated personalitites/images as pop icons)? Of course, you can't generalize about this too much because different genres value different things. But the music business always reflects the underlying philosophies and values current in society. The most popular values and philosophies right now are just plain idiotic. The crappy music is just another indicator that we're in deep trouble as a species and possibly on our way out.

[mizzle]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

To paraphrase Living Color it's the cult of personality, the cult of personality, the cult of personaaaaality.

The saleable item is the "person" now. Any song that sounds like other current stuff will do. We encourage each other to "market ourselves effectively." The pop stars are just really good at it compared to the rest of us. How far away from the Idoru concept are we (artificial, computer generated personalitites/images as pop icons)? Of course, you can't generalize about this too much because different genres value different things. But the music business always reflects the underlying philosophies and values current in society. The most popular values and philosophies right now are just plain idiotic. The crappy music is just another indicator that we're in deep trouble as a species and possibly on our way out.

I wasn't going to bring that angle of conversation here, but you opened the door.
Pop stardom and monetary wealth have reached a point of societal paradox. Some people are famous simply for being famous, just as some are rich simply for being rich. Think about how many people are buying into an artist because that artist is presenting the image of a whealthy lifestlye. The catch is essentially that they are being paid to be rich! Not only that, but it also promotes the income gap between classes which leads the general population further away from the possibility of attaining (or aquiring) any part of the lifestlye being idolized. Who wants to be a millionare? Billions of people on this planet do, but this is an impossibility (excepting inflation). It leaves me to say that most of the "artists" in question can only retain that title in the context of "con-artist". I will not give my money to anyone whose sole contribution to society is to tell me how awesome their new tricked out Aston Martin is. It's a scam.

[tomwehrle]

Originally Posted by mizzle

I will not give my money to anyone whose sole contribution to society is to tell me how awesome their new tricked out Aston Martin is. It's a scam.

I have a 92 mazda mx-3 gs, its not really "tricked out" but this past week I topped 170,000 miles on her, she's kinda tricked out in that aspect, oh and it also leaks water when it rains haha...oh yeah, does that qualify, or can i expect the giving to start :)

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by mizzle

I will not give my money to anyone whose sole contribution to society is to tell me how awesome their new tricked out Aston Martin is. It's a scam.

good points....especially when much of the superficial sh&t is on loan....
for 'cribs' and 'lifestyles' shows, and many of the artists aren't earning jack sh*t..

i interviewed one entertainment lawyer in the UK,
who actually had "enjoys his weekends polishing his aston martin"
listed as a hobby on his professional bio webpage...what a laugh...

....

[kittyboy]

Originally Posted by joemeekfreak

I have a 92 mazda mx-3 gs, its not really "tricked out" but this past week I topped 170,000 miles on her, she's kinda tricked out in that aspect, oh and it also leaks water when it rains haha...oh yeah, does that qualify, or can i expect the giving to start :)

Yeah, man, I've got $5 for that.

What's your paypal?

--David

[tomwehrle]

Originally Posted by kittyboy

Yeah, man, I've got $5 for that.

What's your paypal?

--David

haha, its fanmail at tomwehrle.com

[Bounce]

Can we get back on topic?

Is Norah Jones hot or not?!

[cortisol]

With modern successful songs it's about the sound of the vocal and the melody. I think lyrics with depth and literacy aren't essential or necessary! Even older hit will usually have parts where you can't quite make out what the lyrics are. I would love for skilled songwriters who are creating great songs with lyrics that connect to the emotional nature of the music to be at the for but people want to replicate success.

I'm finding that some people on here think that so long as something is successful then it's a validation enough for them to model their own success upon. I think that these people will force things to go their way. Because they resemble the formula that has gone before...

I hear musicians/singersongwriters all the time creating and performing songs that are far more successful as songs and as music over what is in the charts. But no one will take a chance on good music. They will take the chance on a formulaic song for a glorified karaoke singer who is easy to market.

The attention that deserves to go to the masters of the art and craft of music composition and performance goes to the karaoke ho singing a song by a song designer replicating a formula because they are easy to market!

The modern music industry will try to get you to like something by repeating it to you until you do! That approach and sticking to the formula is a vicious cycle. And that is why the Major record lables have diminishing profits. People can get that some more of that formula music for free of the net! My heart bleeds for those lazy bastrds it really does.

Peace and love,
cortisol

[kittyboy]

Originally Posted by joemeekfreak

haha, its fanmail at tomwehrle.com

PP sent.

[quietdrive]

We finally got some proof that songs STILL matter!

http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031907tequila2/view

No matter how much promotion power you have, if your music sucks, you will not go platinum - even if you have 1.7 million friends on MySpace!

I find this all hilarious. She stated in one of her blogs 1 month ago that her intent was to start a music "revolution" and show people that you don't need labels anymore! Guess her agenda failed... big time.

Tila Tequila (you know.. the chick from MySpace)


BTW... KOAR worded it beautifully:

Tila Tequila who is best known for her appearances in Stuff, Maxim, and as a host of the FUSE TV show Pants-Off Dance-Off has failed to move digital sales. She also was the most popular person on Myspace with close to 2 million friends. So why are her virtual friends leaving this singing sensation behind? Possibly because the song “I Love U” aint a HIT and her virtual friends would rather see her in leather lingerie rather than holding a mic getting jiggy with it. This isn’t brain surgery, and coming out to the PUBLIC with a G- string riding up your ass won’t strike a 40 million dollar deal with Vegas.

http://www.kingsofar.com/2007/03/20/...dustry-news-6/

[woomanmoomin]

Originally Posted by Sqye

i interviewed one entertainment lawyer in the UK,
who actually had "enjoys his weekends polishing his aston martin"

Dude, the guy is a musical genius. This is clearly a New-Wave Blues motif. As in:

Baby if you see my Aston Martin
Honey polish up that car
Baby if you see my Aston Martin
Honey polish up that car
I'm too busy scavenging off some poor kid that wanna be a star

[mizzle]

Originally Posted by woomanmoomin

Dude, the guy is a musical genius. This is clearly a New-Wave Blues motif. As in:

Baby if you see my Aston Martin
Honey polish up that car
Baby if you see my Aston Martin
Honey polish up that car
I'm too busy scavenging off some poor kid that wanna be a star

I say use it! I could imagine Zappa doing it.

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

We finally got some proof that songs STILL matter!

http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031907tequila2/view
\/[/url]

smells like there must be nipple invollved. didn't check out the site, i'm just guesing.

nipple always rules over the song.

[Unclenny]

Originally Posted by mizzle

I say use it! I could imagine Zappa doing it.

Suzie?........Suzie Creamcheese?

It's still all about the songs.
On stage, in the hands of the producer, even in my tiny studio....the song still really matters.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by Vermeer

I remember being shocked when reading that Kenny Rogers' "Lady" was written by Lionel Richies and that Rogers/Parton's "Islands In The Stream" was written by The BeeGees. Also there's "I will aways love you" written by Dolly Parton. I was shocked because, quite frankly I don't like country, yet I liked these songs.

Sure. Great songs transcend genre.

Islands in the Stream was originally written for Diana Ross.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K8njCwGwGwI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K8njCwGwGwI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by zaza

Image is not MUSIC just like Rap has no hook !!! myabe thats why i listen to NPR , Plubic Radio network, i hate mainstream radio.

I got a stack of NWA/Snoop Dogg/Dr. Dre/Slick Rick/Beastie Boys/Eminem/Tupac that says you're wrong.

What annoys me is NPR.

Weeeha.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWOsbGP5Ox4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWOsbGP5Ox4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[jmikeperkins]

Writing good songs actually requires talent, originality, and hard work, things which always seem to be in short supply. Since song writing is such a personal, indivudual, and essentially HUMAN process, it will never be mass produced. The big business side of music does not like such human things because they can not be replicated on a large scale. Since so much of today's music is total disposable crap, its easy to get cynical and believe the song does matter any longer, but I know with all my heart and mind, that IT WILL ALWAYS BE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. The song will stand the test of time.

Long after the Beyonces, Kelly Clarksons, Hanna Montanas, Justin Timberlakes, and whoever are dead and rotting in their graves, people will still be performing Harold Arlen's "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" (written in 1939) and some kid's eyes somewhere will light up when they first hear the magic songs of the Beatles. Don't believe the lies, nothing is more important than the song, not even GEAR!. That's like saying you prefer to make love to a robot because who needs people?

J. Mike Perkins jmikperkins.com

[dbbubba]

Of course the song matters, but the DEFINITION of what constitutes a "good" song has and will always be changing.

I was just today playing a CD of Frank Sinatra hits and while those are undoubtably great songs they wouldn't fit today's artists very well. In fcat, VERY few could sing the melodies much less take the song anywhere!

Occasionally a song transcends generations like The Black Crows singing "Hard to Handle."
Who can name the original artist that had a "hit" that song?
It was a LONG time ago and it was a HUGE star, too.

The biggest problem I see with popular music these days is that people are NOT very adventurous in what they write, choose to sing, play or even listen to.

Most importantly, VERY few people want to be challenged musically.
This applies to artists and the general consumer equally.
Sure, there are artists who create art and put out quality material, but most hits are re-hash of previous formulas.
For me Kelly Klarkson could be any current startlets. Maybe her stuff rocks a bit more, but that was producers choice. She didn't write that stuff.
For that matter... of course it is a huge marketing campaign that put Kelly Klarkson where she is! Do you think that American Idol's people take the effort to build up the artists and their image on that show only to say "bye bye." They OWN those people!

Britney, Hannah Montanna (anyone know who her daddy is?) Nelly, Christina Aguilara... pretty much the same thing really.

Other than occasional bands that are unique (White Stripes comes to mind) most sound like a jillion other bands before them! Yeah, those dudes dancing on the treadmills came up with something kinda' neat, but that song could be a million other bands.

Also, the definitionj of a "good song" has been prettty diluted because by many people's definition "Hey Yah" is a "good song." Is it a "song" or is it really just a chant?
It is a cute and VERY catchy cycle of silly, giggly grooved out muisc, but is it a SONG?

Maybe if people start to yearn for more involved melodies and concepts good melodies will retuen, but these days it is GIVE IT TO ME RIGHT NOW! Over and over and over... yeah, baby... that feels good!

[woomanmoomin]

Originally Posted by jmikeperkins

That's like saying you prefer to make love to a robot because who needs people?

You'll love it. It's a way of life.

Actually, I agree with most of your analysis. I'm just not so sure that the songs will win through. Even the classics are in danger of getting buried in a great big layer of candy-floss detritus.

[hitmaker]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

For me Kelly Klarkson could be any current startlets. Maybe her stuff rocks a bit more, but that was producers choice. She didn't write that stuff.

Wrong. It was her choice, not the producer's. Eg, Kelly's song "Since U been gone" was initally supposed to be a pure pop song. Research it. She was responsible for the "heavier" guitars and drums. She actually had to push her own producers to make it more rock.
Plus she got out of her idol contract and got a new one. She wasnt satisfied with the musical direction of her first album. She wanted it to be more rock. Girl got a new contract and told her producers to make the songs more "rock". She got what she asked for. Plus, she's also a songwriter with much talent and potential. Her hit song "Because of you" was mainly written by her. Hudges and Moody just helped her mold it a bit.

[woomanmoomin]

She still sucks ass though.

[hitmaker]

Originally Posted by woomanmoomin

She still sucks ass though.

Says who? You, some frustrated, failed wannabe rockstar, who has no other use of his time than to talk bad about other musicians?

I know your kind. You spend your days bad mouthing commercially successful artist since you never got your own break. And you blame the music industry and fans for it... for not recognizing your "talent". For the sake of it, just stop already. If you would've been talented you would've gotten your big break. Kelly is most likely more talented than you will ever be, no matter how many lifetimes you gonna live.

[woomanmoomin]

If I'm a frustrated rock-star, it's probably my fault. I certainly couldn't give a flying f*ck about DA PUBLIC or WOT DA PUBLIC LIKES.

Talent=marketability? What's the point of that?

My heroes are people like Frank Zappa or Bill Hicks. Not some new f*ckin' cr@p off a production line.

Generally, IMO, people who win talent shows SUCK, because they are fake enough to do all that sh*t like pretending to pull the camera in toward them and blah blah blah. For me it's just so much plastic. Baby baby shut the f*ck up.

[mizzle]

Originally Posted by hitmaker

Says who? You, some frustrated, failed wannabe rockstar, who has no other use of his time than to talk bad about other musicians?

I know your kind. You spend your days bad mouthing commercially successful artist since you never got your own break. And you blame the music industry and fans for it... for not recognizing your "talent". For the sake of it, just stop already. If you would've been talented you would've gotten your big break. Kelly is most likely more talented than you will ever be, no matter how many lifetimes you gonna live.

Listen, first of all "talent" is a load of b.s., it is a myth used as a crutch for laziness.
Music that has stood the test of time is remarkable for the amount of work it took to create it. Skill is where it's at, and it takes loads of effort and concentration. Some artists get up on stage and make it look so effortless, as if it just "happened" magically, but this is the beauty of the illusion.
Where am I going with this? Experienced musicians. As anyone out there who has sung in a chorus knows (as I have), there are some amazing singers out there. Just from my choir alone (there were about 100 of us), 70% of the women in that choir were just as skilled as Kelly Clarkson, and upwards of 50% had an edge. 25% of those girls could smoke her crisp. This is just one chorus out of literally tens of thousands on this earth. You do the math. In the world of skilled musicians Kelly Clarkson is rather unremarkable.
So what does that leave us with in the equation of greatness? The fact that she requested her album to be more "rock"? Note the sarcasm:
WOW THAT"S VERY REVOLUTIONARY! I WISH I HAD THOUGHT TO MAKE SOME "ROCK" MUSIC! PEOPLE WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT HIT 'EM IF I MADE SOME "ROCK" MUSIC!

But, let it be known that I do not have anything against her. She is a very nice girl who happens to have won the music buisness lottery. What I do have a problem with is the status she has been given, by the people who are making loads of cash on said status. By defending this status you ought to think about what, truly you are defending.