The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Avicii's 'Wake Me Up' hits 200 million streams in Spotify. Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 1st March 2014
  #121
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Skrillex for example hasn't made an album and pulled 15 million in 12 months.
Their "ep" named Bangarang was an album by almost any definition. It has seven separate tracks. That's an album.

And if it's not an album, then Rolling Stone got it wrong. They named Bangarang the fourteenth greatest EDM album of all time. I guess they need to learn they can't call an album an album anymore. It's simply not politically correct.

It's just BS not to call an ep an album.
Old 1st March 2014
  #122
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
Thanks for answering.

Okay, so that's not how every songwriter thinks of it.

And I'm not the only songwriter I know who thinks of it as I do.

I would say that maybe most think of it so that some aspects of which sounds occur where (and just what sounds, etc.) are not part of composition or songwriting, but I wouldn't say that the fact that most folks think of it that way helps it make ontological sense. ;-)
Of course, anyone can think of anything however they want. You could say a novel is not simply the actual words and story, but also the ink, paper, binding, etc. Technically, you'd be right. Personally, I align my views with those of the vast majority of contemporary professionals.
Old 1st March 2014
  #123
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
Thanks for answering.

Okay, so that's not how every songwriter thinks of it.

And I'm not the only songwriter I know who thinks of it as I do.

I would say that maybe most think of it so that some aspects of which sounds occur where (and just what sounds, etc.) are not part of composition or songwriting, but I wouldn't say that the fact that most folks think of it that way helps it make ontological sense. ;-)
The "song" has legally been defined as lyric/chord/melody. Those three elements are what constitute legal ownership of the song. The production/sonics/performance have been legally defined as a "specific master recording of the song." A song can be reproduced and performed infinitely different ways and still be the same song.

That's why something like 99.99% of songwriters and producers speak in those terms, and is why the distinction is necessary.

Its not about what happens to make ontological sense to you or anyone else, I don't see why the philosophy of existence needs to come into play when discussing the very practical matter of distinguishing songwriting from production in the world of music business. Well defined terms serve the clear purpose of making communication among peers simple and effective. The guy arguing alternate definitions of terms from a philosophical perspective is the one throwing a wrench into things, making communication more difficult.
Old 1st March 2014
  #124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Case View Post
Shanana? That ain't rock. That's almost like hillbilly music to me. Or at least it sounds that way unintentionally. Or maybe it's do woop.
heh

They were HUGELY popular in their moment. They were almost certainly the most prominent act put on the map by Woodstock -- they got a weekly TV show out of the continuing exposure.

If you think Sha Na Na sounds like hillbilly music to you, man, I don't know what to tell you, except that you clearly don't know what hillibilly music sounds like. heh (Me, I love me my hillbilly music.)

You're considerably more on point on the doo wop ticket, though. I'm tempted to suggest their business model was sort of a Three Dog Night for doo wop and R&R classic sounds, as opposed to 3DN's focus on covering contemporary singer-songwriters.

They were a cartoony pastiche of cornball doo wop and early R&R cliches put together to capitalize (we assume) on the huge rerelease market then often serviced by fly by night repackagers with lugubrious late-night TV commercials in the States.


I think, in reality, we probably agree on the actual nature of rock's contemporary role in the marketplace for the most part. But where our viewpoints may diverge is in my focus on the pace of evolution and innovation in the genres -- which is why I class rock, hip hop, country, blues, jazz, symphonic, tango, etc, as classicized forms.

Now, from my point of view, much contemporary pop has been borrowing heavily from the electronica/club music scene of the 90s, grafting vocals and vocals with rap interjections onto those forms and textures. It's a hybrid form (like cowpunk or heavy metal rap), combining the increasingly electronic textures of R&B over the last couple decades with key elements of club electronica.
Old 1st March 2014
  #125
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
most who try to (like Chris Lago) find they have about the same rate of success as those dreaming of becoming major league football, baseball, basketball or hockey players.
Actually I'd have to disagree on that one, because if you're solid and you reach out to the right people/have the right strategy, you will get opportunities and eventually you'll achieve success. Why then am I releasing a song on a big dance label soon? Is that a fluke? No way. Did the stars align or something? Haha. The real truth is, I'm getting opportunities because my work is only starting to become good! It took me a ton of hours of practice but it's slowly getting there.
Old 1st March 2014
  #126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lago View Post
Actually I'd have to disagree on that one, because if you're solid and you reach out to the right people/have the right strategy, you will get opportunities and eventually you'll achieve success. Why then am I releasing a song on a big dance label soon? Is that a fluke? No way. Did the stars align or something? Haha. The real truth is, I'm getting opportunities because my work is only starting to become good! It took me a ton of hours of practice but it's slowly getting there.
Persistence and resilience are pretty much prerequisites. They don't guarantee anything, of course. But one is highly unlikely to get anywhere without a good dose of both.

Old 2nd March 2014
  #127
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Persistence and resilience are pretty much prerequisites. They don't guarantee anything, of course. But one is highly unlikely to get anywhere without a good dose of both.

It all comes down to 1 word: Delusion. I will admit, I'm a very deluded individual.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #128
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Dr Luke and Max Martin clearly love what they do and aren't being ingenuine in any way.

If you want to critique their music and songwriting that's fine, but you're here criticizing peoples underlying motives, which is a bit out of line. Most musicians immediately stoop to this, which is exactly what I find so distasteful in many of these discussions and is exactly what I'm attempting to encourage people not to do. You're essentially imposing a thought process onto musicians who find success and then ridiculing them for it (myself included, with that neat little "characterization").
Many people who hear their clinically scripted "compositions" dislike them because they lack artistic depth and imagination in the way they subvert true art for success via excercises in harmonic & melodic dumbing down, repetitiveness, predictability, production gimmicks and pandering to lazy lowest common denominator trends based on monetary/contractual impetus.

You are entitled to love them for that, but not everyone else has to. You see, the circular reasoning involved in demanding respect for Dr. Luke solely because he's raking in cash and is higher up the financial ladder, doesn't mean he actually deserves that automatic, universal and unanimous artistic immunity from scrutiny which you and others demand. It's time people starting asking whether his industry dominance is really good for pop music culture, and whether he's contributing to any degree of socially sustainable artistic enlightenment.

By saying you think he's a genuine (aka inspired, imaginative, full of integrity, has something important so say) artist/writer who you admire, means you have embraced the contemporary industrial principles of the machine paradigm and all of it's functional manifestations, including Dr. Luke worship. That's fine. For you. You are allowed that opinion. But don't demand that everyone else follows suit (emulating, accepting and following the approach of the suits). There are other interpretations of the situation. One being that Dr. Luke and pals represent a complete and total abomination of enlightened, predominantly artistic (aka Beatle-esque) songwriting.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #129
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Oh, Frank, you know that's not true.

Rock hasn't seen a significant stylistic development in more than a quarter century
Questions for all to ponder :

Was that demise externally or consciously engineered or facilitated in any way by those pull the purse strings ? (IOW not the rock musicians fault)

Was it an internal collapse brought about by a lack of new ideas, lack of creative energy and creative resources (IOW the rock musicians fault) ?

Both of the above ? Neither ?

Are the Foo Fighters really carrying the torch for modern rock (with mass appeal) in a meaningful way ?
Old 2nd March 2014
  #130
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
Oh please get a grip on reality. The mere existence of a thread in which the OP complains about a song that's 9 months old heading down the charts with bad vocals is a viral campaign?

Once again, you're seeing a theme in the thread that's not there.
I said it was functioning as a branch of a viral marketing campaign, implying that it was probably unintentional on the part of the OP. I think you are being willfully blind to the kernel of truth contained in my observation.

The observation is that the threads which pop up and which bring attention to the recently released, hyped megahit, have duped many into being willing (or unwilling) participants in a barrage of free advertising which augments the power and serves the purpose of the recently launched viral ad campaign.

And it's all to serve what, the artificially enabled few who get to dominate the modern pop music industry while 99% of artists are relegated to oblivion and starvation ?

Zoom out a little, and see the big picture paradigm.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #131
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Case View Post
Rock is still much alive.
Of course it's still alive. I agree it'll never die (in terms of total extermination).

But really, is the current level of vitality and diversity of rock acts what it was (in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's) and what it could or should be ?
Old 2nd March 2014
  #132
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lago View Post
Actually I'd have to disagree on that one, because if you're solid and you reach out to the right people/have the right strategy, you will get opportunities and eventually you'll achieve success. Why then am I releasing a song on a big dance label soon? Is that a fluke? No way. Did the stars align or something? Haha. The real truth is, I'm getting opportunities because my work is only starting to become good! It took me a ton of hours of practice but it's slowly getting there.
I'm referring to 1,000,000 hard working individuals competitively aiming for pop stardom, fame and fortune - enough to sustain them for many decades. Those are the candidates.

How many will make it ? Certainly not all.

You might increase your odds by doing certain things (like working hard consistently), but success isn't simply "chosen" and under the direct control of the individual. It's more like winning a lottery than renovating a basement.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #133
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
You are entitled to love them for that, but not everyone else has to. You see, the circular reasoning involved in demanding respect for Dr. Luke solely because he's raking in cash and is higher up the financial ladder, doesn't mean he actually deserves that automatic, universal and unanimous artistic immunity from scrutiny which you and others demand. It's time people starting asking whether his industry dominance is really good for pop music culture, and whether he's contributing to any degree of socially sustainable artistic enlightenment.

By saying you think he's a genuine (aka inspired, imaginative, full of integrity, has something important so say) artist/writer who you admire, means you have embraced the contemporary industrial principles of the machine paradigm and all of it's functional manifestations, including Dr. Luke worship. That's fine. For you. You are allowed that opinion. But don't demand that everyone else follows suit (emulating, accepting and following the approach of the suits). There are other interpretations of the situation. One being that Dr. Luke and pals represent a complete and total abomination of enlightened, predominantly artistic (aka Beatle-esque) songwriting.
That's not what newguy1 said. In fact, he said quite the opposite, that you are free to critique their music/songwriting. Just leave their motivation/goals out of it.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #134
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaOmega1 View Post
That's not what newguy1 said. In fact, he said quite the opposite, that you are free to critique their music/songwriting. Just leave their motivation/goals out of it.
Okay then, Dr. Luke and followers are motivated by enlightening the culture with artistic depth. He and they are genuine, expressive, inspired, admirable. True artists. With uncompromising vision and integrity. They offer us something meaningful. They enrich all of our lives. It has nothing to due with contractual obligations and financial motivations.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #135
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
Okay then, Dr. Luke and followers are motivated by enlightening the culture with artistic depth. He and they are genuine, expressive, inspired, admirable. True artists. With uncompromising vision and integrity. They offer us something meaningful. They enrich all of our lives. It has nothing to due with monetary/contractual obligations and motivations.
I actually agree with you that Dr. Luke panders to the lowest common denominator. He was the guitarist for SNL for several years, so obviously he knows his theory well, but he still chooses to create simple songs. Financial reasons to do so? Definitely, but yet in interviews he always talks about making great songs, perfect records. He talks like a man who is passionate about what he does. So I don't blame him for doing what he likes.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #136
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
But really, is the current level of vitality and diversity of rock acts what it was (in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's) and what it could or should be ?
In my area, we have approximately five FM rock stations. Two are classic rock, another two are modern rock of the growly metal type, and the fourth is an alt rock station that is pretty much growly as well. The problem is that rock has taken on a new definition than it had a few decades ago. Believe it or not, the Beatles were a rock band and competed for airplay on the same radio stations as the Rolling Stones. And McCartney and Lennon's solo stuff, which admittedly was pretty tame, was played along side Led Zeppelin all the time on the same so called rock stations. We don't have that diversity in what we call rock anymore.

The problem is that rock today has become so narrowly defined by radio programmers that for practical purposes it only includes metal. A band like the Rolling Stones would not have a fighting chance to be played on most rock stations today if they were a completely new unknown band. But unknown death metal bands get played all the time. That's how crazy the programming of FM rock stations has become.

Part of this mentality stems from the fact that programming for a large part is no longer done on a local level and has been concentrated in the hands of a few corporate mega-media enterprises who run their stations with a pure profit motive. The more concentrated is ownership, the less is diversity.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #137
Here for the gear
 

I think as far as commercial viability goes, rock music has nothing on pop. I don't see a rock revolution in the near future. However, indie rock is going strong, and I'm sure you could find some great bands there, so it's not all doom and gloom. It's just that mainstream rock is pretty much dead.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #138
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaOmega1 View Post
I think as far as commercial viability goes, rock music has nothing on pop. I don't see a rock revolution in the near future. However, indie rock is going strong, and I'm sure you could find some great bands there, so it's not all doom and gloom. It's just that mainstream rock is pretty much dead.
Indie rock IS ROCK. Mainstream rock IS METAL.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #139
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Case View Post
Indie rock IS ROCK. Mainstream rock IS METAL.
Yes, we are saying the same thing, except that I don't consider metal to be rock, but its own genre.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #140
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
Ok then, Dr. Luke and followers are motivated by enlightening the culture with artistic depth.
You have an interesting way of (constantly) twisting what others say to force-fit them into your canned responses.

"Genuine" and "not pandering" simply means they're doing what they like. They are motivated by creating the songs they themselves like to make. Your judgement of no "artistic depth" while a valid opinion (which nobody here is trying to dissuade you of) is not relevant to what "genuine" means in this context.

Ok, Dr Luke has music you hate. Great. Good for you. We get it. For some reason, you can't also hold the idea in your mind that his horrible music is his true identity. So, exactly what would Dr Luke do instead to be "genuine"? Is he a closet bagpipe player? Is he suppressing his true desire for writing gospel worship music or broadway musicals? Or should he "pander" to write music that meets the approval of critics such as eldon2975 instead of himself? (Now wouldn't that would be ironic -- you must pander to not be perceived as pandering!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaOmega1 View Post
He was the guitarist for SNL for several years, so obviously he knows his theory well, but he still chooses to create simple songs.
Right. I wouldn't say the the SNL gig is representative of his true musical identity. When you're a performer, you often make compromises. However as a songwriter, it is virtually impossible to fool yourself and listen to your own song you hate 1000 times across hundreds of overdubs and edits.

Max Martin was in heavy metal bands but now he writes the pop stuff. I used to be in heavy metal progressive but I now I much prefer working with vocalists on ballads. An outsider might think my heavymetal persona was true and the ballad songs are "pandering" and they would be wrong. The heavy metal thing was just a phase.

Everyone I meet who likes writing "simple pop" absolutely loves it. The music they create is a reflection of that internal love. If they are "pandering" when writing 3 chord songs, what would they write if they were not in "pandering" mode?! The classification makes no sense to me. The most reliable explanation is always that the songwriter is doing what he likes to do.

The key problem is critics get the cause & effect backwards:
Because music type X makes a lot of money and Johnny makes music type X, he's "pandering".
It never occurs to them the dominoes fall the direction:
Johnny internally likes to make music type X, and that happens to be what audiences also love, and hence pulls lots of money.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #141
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
Right. I wouldn't say the the SNL gig is representative of his true musical identity. When you're a performer, you often make compromises. However as a songwriter, it is virtually impossible to fool yourself and listen to your own song you hate 1000 times across hundreds of overdubs and edits.

Max Martin was in heavy metal bands but now he writes the pop stuff. I used to be in heavy metal progressive but I now I much prefer working with vocalists on ballads. An outsider might think my heavymetal persona was true and the ballad songs are "pandering" and they would be wrong. The heavy metal thing was just a phase.

Everyone I meet who likes writing "simple pop" absolutely loves it. The music they create is a reflection of that internal love. If they are "pandering" when writing 3 chord songs, what would they write if they were not in "pandering" mode?! The classification makes no sense to me. The most reliable explanation is always that the songwriter is doing what he likes to do.
I actually did go on to say that he is doing what he likes to do, and I have no problem with that. I really shouldn't have agreed with eldon regarding pandering, because I pretty much agree with what Celerity said about it a page or two back. So, I think we are essentially on the same page. I also had a phase where I listened almost exclusively to metal in my late teens, and I thought all pop music was garbage. Now, I actually do love pop music, when it's done right.

I don't personally enjoy many of Luke's songs, but I do take back my pandering comment.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #142
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
"Genuine" and "not pandering" simply means they're doing what they like. They are motivated by creating the songs they themselves like to make. Your judgement of no "artistic depth" while a valid opinion (which nobody here is trying to dissuade you of) is not relevant to what "genuine" means in this context.
Either way you/we are going to be guessing (hopefully in an educated manner) about what his (or any writers) true motivations are. It's impossible to avoid. You're doing the same in faithfully repeating the "he's doing what he likes" axiom without scrutinizing what "likes" means in that context. I suggest it's a false dichotomy, trying to arbitrarily separate motivations/intent/genuineness from the final song form, especially if the final song form consistently manifests in a very predictable way. I guess (though I can't claim as a matter of fact) that clinical hit construction is the primary impetus rather than a spontaneous manifestation of creative artistry via inspiration & imagination. That's my opinion, not a statement of fact. If you feel it's unsubstantiated, that's fine with me.

Here's 2 (Beatles tunes) examples : I Am The Walrus (Lennon) and Something (Harrison). I jump to the conclusion (hopefully without being arbitrary or biased) that they were not written with the primary motivation of providing the financiers with a hook-laden, chart-topping recipe for success / financial return. Sure, maybe it's presumptuous, but is it reasonable ?
Old 2nd March 2014
  #143
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Case View Post
In my area, we have approximately five FM rock stations. Two are classic rock, another two are modern rock of the growly metal type, and the fourth is an alt rock station that is pretty much growly as well. The problem is that rock has taken on a new definition than it had a few decades ago. Believe it or not, the Beatles were a rock band and competed for airplay on the same radio stations as the Rolling Stones. And McCartney and Lennon's solo stuff, which admittedly was pretty tame, was played along side Led Zeppelin all the time on the same so called rock stations. We don't have that diversity in what we call rock anymore.

The problem is that rock today has become so narrowly defined by radio programmers that for practical purposes it only includes metal. A band like the Rolling Stones would not have a fighting chance to be played on most rock stations today if they were a completely new unknown band. But unknown death metal bands get played all the time. That's how crazy the programming of FM rock stations has become.

Part of this mentality stems from the fact that programming for a large part is no longer done on a local level and has been concentrated in the hands of a few corporate mega-media enterprises who run their stations with a pure profit motive. The more concentrated is ownership, the less is diversity.
Frank seems to be on the "Rock Is Dead / Not Dead" Case with more depth and insight than most, (to be frank).

Seriously though, thanks for that response, it makes one wonder.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #144
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaOmega1 View Post
I actually agree with you that Dr. Luke panders to the lowest common denominator. He was the guitarist for SNL for several years, so obviously he knows his theory well, but he still chooses to create simple songs. Financial reasons to do so? Definitely, but yet in interviews he always talks about making great songs, perfect records. He talks like a man who is passionate about what he does. So I don't blame him for doing what he likes.
Just because someone knows theory mechanically, doesn't mean they are capable of implementing it imaginatively. "Great" in this context likely means containing 1 or 2 repetitive, catchy hooks good enough to impress the target market with a frivolously disposable product (much like fast food) thereby meeting contractual obligations and returning financial investments with reliable profitability. "Perfect" in this context likely means clinical, sterilized, artificially refined, 100% easily digestable, and bloated by a steroidized final production - just like processed food.

Who doesn't like to make cash, but that's not the question. The question is "is that all there is to the art of songwriting" ?

And you are making 2 opinionated value judgments (we're all human, we all do it, and shouldn't try to deny it) by saying he panders to the L.C.D. and is "passionate".

The passion IMO is mainly about the clinical, assembly-line construction of a finacially viable product.

That's not a statement of fact, just an opinion. Hopefully it's an opinion with some substance.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #145
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post

You might increase your odds by doing certain things (like working hard consistently), but success isn't simply "chosen" and under the direct control of the individual. It's more like winning a lottery than renovating a basement.
Well, life is a gamble, tomorrow I might not wake up so what? It's not gonna stop me from doing what I love in life. It's not about odds and making it, it's about being happy in your life, accepting where you are right now, and working towards your own vision of how you'd want to live in the world. If we wouldn't have that as human beings, we wouldn't want to live! I'd rather look at the positives in life, I see the glass as half full, if other people don't, well too bad for them, that's their problem. It's pretty clear that you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing, I'd rather not spent any minute of my life doing that. Have fun arguing with other people on here. It won't be me!
Old 2nd March 2014
  #146
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lago View Post
It's not about odds and making it, it's about being happy in your life, accepting where you are right now, and working towards your own vision of how you'd want to live in the world.
That's the sort of idealism most everyone agrees with in theory, and it would be great if the societal system we have to operate within wasn't often a practical reality obstacle, thwarting such a common sense ethical truth.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #147
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
I suggest it's a false dichotomy, trying to arbitrarily separate motivations/intent/genuineness from the final song form, especially if the final song form consistently manifests in a very predictable way.
If you observe how songs are born with many songwriters, you'd have to separate the final song form from its impetus.

I (and I'm sure many others) have witnessed a guitar player in the midst of writing a song... he'll fret the G Major chord... sing/hum some notes and then the move the fingers to the C Major and finish out the humming... and then back to G Major again.

Now, as I sit and watch this unfolding, I'm going to be polite and say, "that's a nice song" but another part of me that compares that song to my mental catalog of a thousand other songs will say it's "predictable". But to the songwriter expressing himself in that moment, it didn't feel predictable. He wasn't in "pandering mode" when he played the I chord then IV chord. It's what the songwriter liked to hear himself create. If for some reason, that particular song becomes popular, the jaded and sophisticated musicians will be unimpressed but at the same time, we shouldn't be surprised. The public happens to like simple songs that toggle from I to IV!

It makes sense to me that your ears hear "predictability" and "staleness". That's not up for debate. But you can't take that assessment of the final song all the way back to the songwriter's motivation as his diabolical plan to be "predictable and stale" for money. There a lots of folks that don't like "I am the Walrus" and have no internal desire to create a song like that.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #148
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
That's the sort of idealism most everyone agrees with in theory, and it would be great if the societal system we have to operate within wasn't often a practical reality obstacle, thwarting such a common sense ethical truth.
You're right, want a cookie? I think I need to add another doofus in my ignore list, because clearly, some people come here to argue. I don't like to debate just to debate, keep living your life, and leave the rest of us dreamers alone.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #149
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Case View Post
The problem is that rock today has become so narrowly defined by radio programmers that for practical purposes it only includes metal.
Where do you live where they still play metal on the radio!?
Old 2nd March 2014
  #150
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
But you can't take that assessment of the final song all the way back to the songwriter's motivation as his diabolical plan to be "predictable and stale" for money.
I never said that being predictable and vacuous was diabolical in itself, there should always be (and always has been) plenty of "pure fun" pop music out there. But if that becomes the ONLY permissible songwriting manifestation in the money-making mainstream, then I simply say it's lacking other alternative approaches.

I'm sure a 21st century equivalent of "I Am The Walrus" has been written sometime in the last 14 years by someone (if not equivalent, then at least similar in terms of being wacky, original, unconventional and individualistically expressive). But it's as if such bold attempts at writing outside the box / challenging the listener with freely experimental eccentricity has been entirely banished from the mainstream scene.

I simply suspect (again, this is the realm of opinion and speculation) that the motivation to finalize and deliver artistic depth and originality (especially of the whimsically inspired variety) has become unfavorable (and unfeasible) and not part of any allowable 21st century popular songwriting approach.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump