Why do people pass off pop music as though its less...

[Tempest19]

Theres only one problem I see with these anologies.

People will always say, Timberlake is not in the same league as Jackson or Stevie, the thing is, they've had their day.

Its time to give somebody else a shot.

If we knew nothing of a Stevie or a Jackson, then maybe Timberlake would be the star?

Maybe the only reason people make comparisons to the 'greats' is cos they were around before anybody else. I think time is often the factor.

Just throwing something into the discussion

[JP11]

I don't think Timberlake is hurting. I'm sure his bank account is overflowing. And he's lucky that people like Wonder and Jackson are past their prime.

But I'm just comparing as to try to figure out why these sorts of pop stars don't get any, or much, or too much, respect.

And I think it's because they're simply not that good. And they wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the people who wrote all the blueprints for what they do. They're artistically blank! They'd have to copy someone or something else.

Michael Jackson definitely gets a ton of cred for being the first, probably the true originator of this sort of dance "pop" we're talking about here. Timberlake may be new, but he's just a copy, and he's not nearly as good. So what's the point? Just that he's new(er)? He should get boatloads of respect for being an inferior copy of Michael Jackson? Like Behringer, or a Chinese knockoff of a U47?

And in comparison to Stevie Wonder, oh my god.

I think even people who don't really like R&B still give major respect to Stevie because of his immense talent. His originality, his deep knowledge of music, chord structure and arranging, his prolific high quality songwriting, his amazing vocal talents, his amazing talents on many instruments, and so on.

It's not just because he's old or was first. If he were a new young guy now you don't think he would crush Timberlake? You'd be all over Wonder I bet. Trying to sing and write like him (just like Timberlake is trying to do, I mean where do you think his style comes from, he's just trying to copy people like Wonder and Jackson).

Stevie has more soul in his pinky toe than Timberlake could ever hope to have. When I hear Timberlake sing, I hear a white guy trying to sound black in the worst way. Sort of like modern christian music. I'm surprised that he gets away with it at all.

Some people may like Timberlake now because he's new and there's not much going on, and only time will tell, but I think he'll end up status-wise like the guy in New Kids On The Block. (Unless all that dumbing down of people that many go on about is real.)

[madcowvt]

Originally Posted by Spectacle

But the ability to play one's own instruments is part of it. Actually writing the songs yourself is also a key part. And then there's the lyrics. If it's pretty shallow stuff to just go over the top of a beat and a catchy hook, that's gonna inspire a pretty healthy dose of disdain from a lot of people (or at least they might not care much either way, but would have a difficult time being particularly impressed or inspired by them). Add to this a manufactured image, or the fact that it isn't even a group of guys who grew up knowing each other, but were rather carefully chosen from different places by some group-creator in order to maximize profit-potential, and you begin to see how such an act might be taken a bit less seriously.

But as War said, his 12-year-old daughter loves a bunch of this stuff. Pop promoters really know their business model.

My thoughts exactly.....

[espen askelad]

Aside from the dark cloud cast over pop by vapid popstars, there's the question of longevity - so much in pop music is written as a quick flash to appeal to the moment it's released, but does not age well at all. Same goes for the more commercially-minded in rock, hip-hop, whatever - I guess it's just that there isn't as much of a pure "pop" underground as there is for rock, hip-hop, metal, etc. It becomes dated quickly. 98 Degrees was what, six years ago? Mission of Burma was 25+ years ago and "VS." still sounds
exciting. I love all sorts of music, provided it isn't written to cash in on three weeks of sales on iTunes and then be forgotten, which unfortunately, "pop" is more than any other genre.

[Jim Kerr]

"Pop" stands for "Popular"

[espen askelad]

Originally Posted by Jim Kerr

"Pop" stands for "Popular"

technically, sure. but it's also come to stand in as a (very broad) stylistic description.

[Jim Kerr]

Originally Posted by espen askelad

technically, sure. but it's also come to stand in as a (very broad) stylistic description.

No I know....Thats the problem now. We all know what "pop" music sounds like, at least these days. Pop music in the 80's 70's all the way back was something that was a bit more cool, sort of, kind of.

[tzujan]

Originally Posted by Spectacle

But the ability to play one's own instruments is part of it.

So when did a person's voice not become an instrument? And everyone on here who thinks that it is not, I'd love to hear them sing... um, well on second thought...

Originally Posted by Spectacle

Actually writing the songs yourself is also a key part.

So, Roger Daltrey, Frank Sinatra, every Opera star to grace the stage of the Met are a bunch of vapid pop *****s? I actually think it would be refreshing to have a few more interpreters in popular music.

Originally Posted by Spectacle

or the fact that it isn't even a group of guys who grew up knowing each other, but were rather carefully chosen from different places by some group-creator in order to maximize profit-potential, and you begin to see how such an act might be taken a bit less seriously.

Like Led Zeppelin (one of my favorite bands), their producer-creator Jimmy Page wanted to create a "super group" and was looking for a hot singer (Plant didn't play an instrument, at least not to the level of a Tmberlake, he did bring his friend Bohnam along), add a session musician John Paul Jones - sounds kind of corporate to me. How about all the early Motown, various incarnations of Yes and countless other bands who have been helped along with the input of management and record labels.

And lets face it, almost every artist in popular music, has been branded and marketed, including most of our heros (especially the ones who have the vibe of no marketing) and often times in insincere ways. I think those who believe otherwise must be pretty naive, or are so caught up in identifying themselves with the artist that they can't see them any other way - but as their own. Think of the Beatles (also one of my faves, at least Rubber Soul onward) who in the early days couldn't oppose The Vietnam war publicly, nor let anyone know that they were married or the 14 year old girls would not by their records, thus lessening their profit-potential. It could cynically be interpreted that they vocally opposed The Vietnam war when it became popular to do so, or at least join the artists who were not perceived as so pop as they were, by joining the vocal opposition.

[Alex Niedt]

Originally Posted by JP11

(they don't sound particularly original to me, what is original about them?)

The song "My Love", for instance, made a number one hit out of a fusion of trance synths, beatboxing, silly laughter samples, and operatic vocal samples. I can't think of anything else particularly like it, especially within the realm of music on the charts.

On another note, regarding comments about pop music being simple/easy...simplicity is usually not easy for most people (look at all the people who bloat their songs with a million tracks of junk simply because they have no control). Time for the old cliche...if pop was easy, everyone would have a number one single. How many songwriters have a number one single? Less than one percent?

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Alex Niedt

The song "My Love", for instance, made a number one hit out of a fusion of trance synths, beatboxing, silly laughter samples, and operatic vocal samples. I can't think of anything else particularly like it, especially within the realm of music on the charts.

Really? This sounds like Usher to me, or any number of other tracks you'd hear in a club. Melodically, it's nothing new. Lyrically, it's about as cliche as you can get. Beats, samples, rapping, falsetto singing? I'm really not getting some overwhelming breakthrough originality here. If I didn't know who this was, I'd think it could be almost anybody.

On another note, regarding comments about pop music being simple/easy...simplicity is usually not easy for most people (look at all the people who bloat their songs with a million tracks of junk simply because they have no control). Time for the old cliche...if pop was easy, everyone would have a number one single. How many songwriters have a number one single? Less than one percent?

I don't think this is directed at anything I said, because I sure don't think writing a simple song is easy (one that is truly good, that is).

Writing one in general is pretty easy though, compared to other forms. I think you're going to have to be fairly knowledgeable to write jazz or classical.

But I don't think complicated guarantees good.

On the other hand, being simple minded is nothing to get all worked up about either.

I also don't think it's easy to get a number one, or even a hit of any kind. A lot of things have to fall into place for that to happen. Marketing is a lot of hard work, all the business stuff, writing that rap, getting permission on the samples if you took them from somebody else's hard work.

But I think it's very possible for mediocre or bad songs to become hits, don't you? Do you think every song that's ever been a hit is brilliant?

Crappy hits are hard, crappy TV is hard, crappy movies are hard, it's all hard.

(What's really hard though, is having hits and being a true artistic success. Those few that do that, get plenty of respect.)

[JP11]

Originally Posted by tzujan

So when did a person's voice not become an instrument? And everyone on here who thinks that it is not, I'd love to hear them sing... um, well on second thought...



So, Roger Daltrey, Frank Sinatra, every Opera star to grace the stage of the Met are a bunch of vapid pop *****s? I actually think it would be refreshing to have a few more interpreters in popular music.

I agree with that. Singing is enough (or can be enough).

I said this already but, I think it's really dumb and annoying, probably a marketing move, or an ego move, when so many of these "vapid" stars all of a sudden become "writers", like they're going to all of a sudden dig deep into their souls and master the craft of songwriting all by themselves (oh, and maybe a team of paid professional writers and producers might chuck in a few ideas).

Avril is one of the latest, with her "I A & Red this myself!" Wow. I'm sure all the 10 year olds are impressed. So it was her idea to re-write old Ramones songs. Neat!

Joss Stone is another one. Why have pro writers steal old soul tunes, when she can get in on the royalties herself.

[tzujan]

Originally Posted by JP11

I said this already but, I think it's really dumb and annoying, probably a marketing move, or an ego move, when so many of these "vapid" stars all of a sudden become "writers", like they're going to all of a sudden dig deep into their souls and master the craft of songwriting all by themselves (oh, and maybe a team of paid professional writers and producers might chuck in a few ideas).

I somewhat agree, however I think what has happened, which this thread can attest to, is there is a credibility issue for artists who don't write - which seems stupid to me, the vast majority of people who buy the records and the concert tickets don't care - think for a minute who does care, and maybe examine why - especially if it is yourself (this not directed to you JP11). Also, there is a huge money issue, labels don't have the signing money they used to, publishers do.

One can't forget what a school a world tour is. Singing the same songs over and over, night after night is one hell of an education, one on par with, if not greater that four years of college - I'd argue that it would allow these artist to contribute more than just 'being in the room' on a writing appointment. I also think to judge these musicians who were kids when they were signed, in some cases before they could drive, is unfair to some extent. I can't imagine my high school experiences being a prefix to define me now - I can here the ladies now "don't waist your time with him, he's just a two pump chump!"

Originally Posted by JP11

Joss Stone is another one. Why have pro writers steal old soul tunes, when she can get in on the royalties herself.

Steal is a pretty strong assertion, though I don't know any legal details of Joss Stones' career. This once again puts Led Zeppelin there with, if not worse than, Joss. Zeppelin was sued and lost for actually stealing from Willie Dixon, Muddy Waters, and Howlin' Wolf. I believe in early printings of "Zeppelin I" Jimmy Page took writer's credit on "Black Mountain Side" which is an almost note for note rendition of a traditional song "Blackwaterside." And where does your language put someone like Ray Charles? Would you say he basically "stole" gospel music and added pop lyrics to it. Or how aboout the early Beatles who cleaned/bubble gummed up, Elvis and Little Richard.

[pwpi]

Originally Posted by tzujan

One can't forget what a school a world tour is. Singing the same songs over and over, night after night is one hell of an education, one on par with, if not greater that four years of college - I'd argue that it would allow these artist to contribute more than just 'being in the room' on a writing appointment. I also think to judge these musicians who were kids when they were signed, in some cases before they could drive, is unfair to some extent. I can't imagine my high school experiences being a prefix to define me now

I have to agree and add . . . after playing your material live (post recording) how often have you discovered that you wish you'd known then (while recording) what you've come to know playing the song nite after nite in front of a live audience?

Consequently, lack of rehearsal, impetuousness, and the availability of "technical artistry" (PC based software that allows anyone to be an instant musician) which aids and abets non-artist people to write songs when they'd otherwise be pumping gas, all contribute to the issues you're all speaking about.

Does this mean it's wrong, or that they're performing useless services? I don't think so. Thankfully, people will always have the choice to listen to either Timberlake or Wonder, Zeppelin or Lavigne and make their own choices.

Is a hybrid Rose less a Rose? I think that anything that proliferates creativity, is a positive move. Not only do we have the choice to listen, we have the choice not too. Howard Stern always received calls from his listeners bitching at him for things that he "had the nerve to say". His rebuttal was always the same, "Why are you listening then?"

People love to bitch, and bitchers love to be heard, and be bitched back at. It's a sickness of sorts, but as well, can be looked at as positive. Otherwise, what the hell would we have to do if this thread wasn't started?

BTW, I have to admit. I have 2 Lavigne CD's and from that there is one song I rather like; "Anything But Ordinary". I also admit I don't know a damned thing about her and her writing methods so in that respect, I'm taking the approach of a listener who really doesn't give a f*uck. (regarding Avril)

I started a post the other day that skirts this topic in another light and would love some contributions and opinions. I think it could be a lotta fun.

What a Wonderful Time to be a . . .

[chymer]

there is more to pop than meets the eye...........

[pwpi]

Originally Posted by chymer

there is more to pop than meets the eye...........

Wow, was that just Avril Lavigne? Sounds like something she may say. Kinda looks like her too . . . ?

[JP11]

I'd argue that it would allow these artist to contribute more than just 'being in the room' on a writing appointment. I also think to judge these musicians who were kids when they were signed, in some cases before they could drive, is unfair to some extent.

It's hard to say for sure. Not many, if any, of these people seem to have songs that they get sole credit for though.

It may not be fair to judge, but I'm not sure it makes sense to heap praise and respect on them either unless they're really doin' it!

I mean, we know for absolute sure that people like Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney can write, perform ALL the instruments (real ones!) and vocals, arrange, and produce hit songs all by themselves. And they don't need Fruity Loops to do it.

It's probably Michael Jackson who started this way of working with producers and writers, since he's not really an instrumentalist in the traditional sense. But he does get sole credit on a number of his songs, and I think his vision, though presented through other musicians and producers, is, or was, pretty clear and strong.

(But Paul McCartney, who wrote with both Wonder and Jackson, was once asked if he respected Jackson as a writer, and he said No! He respected Stevie more. That's kind of interesting I think.)

Madonna and Janet Jackson as well. Not sure if either of them ever gets sole credit.

And this practice seem to have steamrolled for the various reasons we're talking about.

No doubt if Sinatra or Elvis were new, they'd be jotting down their feelings in a journal, "A & Ring", and sticking their name all over the credits, instead of letting some of the greatest songwriters and arrangers of the 20th century do their thing.

Btw, it's undoubtedly The Beatles fault that everyone thinks they're a songwriter, or should be.

Steal is a pretty strong assertion, though I don't know any legal details of Joss Stones' career. This once again puts Led Zeppelin there with, if not worse than, Joss. Zeppelin was sued and lost for actually stealing from Willie Dixon, Muddy Waters, and Howlin' Wolf. I believe in early printings of "Zeppelin I" Jimmy Page took writer's credit on "Black Mountain Side" which is an almost note for note rendition of a traditional song "Blackwaterside." And where does your language put someone like Ray Charles? Would you say he basically "stole" gospel music and added pop lyrics to it. Or how aboout the early Beatles who cleaned/bubble gummed up, Elvis and Little Richard.

I was sort of joking when I said "steal". I just meant they don't sound particularly original.

Most everyone nicks things and is influenced greatly by things, but the great ones usually prove themselves by pushing it to new places.

I think The Beatles (and Zeppelin, too I think) proved themselves pretty well in the originals department.

I looked up Joss Stone btw, to see if she wrote any by herself. Shockingly, she did not.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by pwpi

Consequently, lack of rehearsal, impetuousness, and the availability of "technical artistry" (PC based software that allows anyone to be an instant musician) which aids and abets non-artist people to write songs when they'd otherwise be pumping gas, all contribute to the issues you're all speaking about.

Does this mean it's wrong, or that they're performing useless services? I don't think so.

I don't think it's wrong, though it may be pretty lame.

The point of this thread (I think) is to figure out why some get respect and some don't or shouldn't.

I'm just trying to help .

(And yes, the internet is all about being a bitchy blowhard .)

[pwpi]

Video, MTV and the like provoked a new criterion with record and publishing companies. They now had (in their minds) to find actors and actresses that A) looked great B) could do more than just sing and write. But if they couldn't sing, or write . . . oh well, we'll just have "our writer's" fix that and technology is such that today, we can fix their voices with production. "May as well, cuz we've already have signed writers and they owe us material."

Elements of the music business have become no different than the construction business: one guy for every job, all of whom are responsible for the end result. Where did the Artist go? Who is the Architect really?

It can be both a frightening, and educating experience to be in a marketing meeting when these guys decide who to sign, and why.

[Tempest19]

Go easy on My Love a little.

I can't hear any Usher in it. I think it sounds quite original.

Lets be honest, how original can you get. If you do something totally crazy its going to sound alien

[Alex Niedt]

Originally Posted by JP11

Really? This sounds like Usher to me, or any number of other tracks you'd hear in a club. Melodically, it's nothing new. Lyrically, it's about as cliche as you can get. Beats, samples, rapping, falsetto singing? I'm really not getting some overwhelming breakthrough originality here. If I didn't know who this was, I'd think it could be almost anybody.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but I take it you rarely, if ever, listen to pop? I say this because your comment reminds me of some people I know who never listen to metal, and wouldn't see much difference between Tool and Opeth, for instance.

[JP11]

You're somewhat right, I don't go out of my way to listen to what you guys call "pop" (my girlfriend loves this shit, so I hear it more than I'd like to). If this song is blazingly original to you, and your listening for minutiae between these sorts of dance tracks, then good luck with that.

I suppose that explains this thread.

Or I guess I'm the dumb one.

Maybe other's who are knowledgeable about music will listen to this track and help explain to me why Timberlake is a genius and why this song is completely original and brilliant (and nothing like Usher, omigod i'm like so totally embarrassed). Why these beats, these samples, this rap, these lyrics, these chords, and this melody have changed the landscape of pop(ular) music forever and for the better, and will put Timberlake's name in the hall of fame next to Stevie and all those other old losers.

I'm here to learn.

[Alex Niedt]

Please lose the unnecessary patronizing sarcasm and negative attitude. I would have actually enjoyed discussing this subject in a friendly manner...

[C Heat]

Originally Posted by JP11

You're somewhat right, I don't go out of my way to listen to what you guys call "pop" (my girlfriend loves this shit, so I hear it more than I'd like to). If this song is blazingly original to you, and your listening for minutiae between these sorts of dance tracks, then good luck with that.

I suppose that explains this thread.

Or I guess I'm the dumb one.

Maybe other's who are knowledgeable about music will listen to this track and help explain to me why Timberlake is a genius and why this song is completely original and brilliant (and nothing like Usher, omigod i'm like so totally embarrassed). Why these beats, these samples, this rap, these lyrics, these chords, and this melody have changed the landscape of pop(ular) music forever and for the better, and will put Timberlake's name in the hall of fame next to Stevie and all those other old losers.

I'm here to learn.

It's pop. And it normally mirrors the current landscape.

Dumb it down.

[JP11]

Please lose the unnecessary patronizing sarcasm and negative attitude. I would have actually enjoyed discussing this subject in a friendly manner...

Sorry, my apologies. I thought your comment was attacking me a bit as if I don't understand this kind of music and that's why I don't like it or think it's very good. I think I have a pretty good understanding of this music, and have, in fact, even done some.

Please continue on with the chat, with or without me!

[Tempest19]

I was thinking today, I think that music you like to listen to is possibly related to the area you live in.

The current trend is for everybody at university to like indie bands. So everybody does.

What do they call that?

Something influence or what not :confused:

[Stevil]

for me it's the difference between hearing a guy who experienced something tell a story or hiring James Earl Jones to read an edited transcript of what someone thinks should have happened.

theres a raw honesty that tends to dissapear the more layers of production you put between an artists inspired creation & the end 'product'. some people are good @ mimicking the emotion, others are good @ maintaining intensity in public or recording enviornments & using the studio as an instrument. theres alot of skill sets @ work. "pop" tends to rely on the proven gimmicks over & over which makes for amazing production of songs that tend to have the "soul" removed from them.