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 4th March 2014
  #241
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquez View Post
Dude, come on, admit when you are wrong or backup your opinions with some common sense or better yet with some facts.

Today people have the choice to listen to almost every piece of music ever recorded at almost no cost. You seriously assume people choose spending their limited and valuable time listening to something they don't like?
You think you'll entice me and others on to the bandwagon with that sort of faith in the hype machine ? That's all it is, a hype machine, with a weak, gimmicky product (just listened to the song for the 2nd time, and will struggle to keep applying a 2.5 stars / 5 rating to it).

The number of views you hype are often artificially inflated with a software program and by curious listeners who happen to be indifferent or negative to the song. You underestimate what % of total available listeners are actually choosing to listen to something else.

Name a country, it's population of listeners and what % you think have positively embraced the song in question. I'll likely think it's less than you do. Why ? Because I'm being skeptical and scrutinizing the situation, while you are casually promoting the conformist hype and bandwagoneering.

I'm not saying it's unpopular, just that you are overrating it's popularity (and quality) by faithfully citing modern hype machine indicators.
Old 4th March 2014
  #242
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
It may actually be you who is providing a flawed interpretation, by faithfully adhering to the restated claim that their songwriting approach is NOT inherently based on a formulaic & mechanical approach and NOT overtly calculated in a highly contrived, extremely conscious, methodical manner.
The flaw is that you're taking your perception of formulaic & calculated and inserting that assessment into the mind of the songwriter when he wrote the song and assume that's his perception of his own music. You're not taking into account the Theory of Mind.

Your assessment that the song is mechanical and predictable may often times be justifiable, and you can also get many to agree with you (including me), but that is a separate concept from overlaying that mode onto the songwriter when he created his music.

In other words, the songwriters just do what they do because they like the way the song sounds. Often times the end result will sound formulaic to you... but not to the songwriter.

For your position to work you have to:

* deny the pop songwriters like their song creations; they only like the calculation of songwriting
* insist that pop songwriters have a "non-formulaic" mode that they also hold in their own songwriting minds as "non-formulaic"; you're convinced that your ears hear formula and therefore it's not flawed for their ears to hear the same thing
* insist that the pop songwriters have secret "I am the Walrus" songs that they are hiding from the world and these are the songs you'd hear if you had a hidden microphone in their bathroom shower
* maintain this split personality of the formulaic/non-formulaic Jeckyll & Hyde persona from their teenage years to the time they hit it big in the 20s

Taking all those bullet points together, it's just a bizarre twisting of songwriters mentality to fit your worldview.

Hang around some teen songwriters who are getting into pop music composition. Ask them for their non-pandering non-formulaic mode. They're not going to have any other songs. There is no other "true" persona. What you see is what you get. Instead of realizing they just write what they like to write, you ignore that very reasonable possibility and assume they hate their work and it's the result of the calculated persona.

We could overlay any crazy theory of motivations on any genre. See those progressive rock musicians with their multiple changes of key and time signature? It's obvious they're just insecure about writing simple 3 chord songs so they mangle their songs with a bunch of music theory alterations. Or maybe, the musicians actually like the sound of multiple changes instead of 3 chord songs. Their "busy" progressive songs are a natural extension of their music personality. At the core of every genre including hip hop and country are people doing that type of music because they truly like it.
Old 4th March 2014
  #243
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
We could overlay any crazy theory of motivations on any genre.
Theorizing about motivations isn't inherently crazy, it's human nature. You are theorizing about the possible or probable motives of the writers in question as well, albeit implicitly. And you offer up repeated hypothetical examples.

I've already stated that my view of Dr. Luke and other mainstream pop songwriter's motivations isn't objectively absolute or factual, but speculative, and you seem to want to disallow that skeptical scrutiny and speculation. It's really about you denying the likelihood of those motivations being actually what I suspect them to be.

What about those who have speculated about the motives of Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld invading the Middle East ? It's a perfect analogy.

By denying people the room to skeptically speculate about motives, you are implying that it's not probable that those skeptical speculations hold any truth, therefore, you yourself are engaged in a form of optimistic speculation about their motives without even realizing it.

It's funny how I'm in no way trying to stifle your speculation, but you are indeed trying to stifle mine, when I already said, it's a non-factual endeavour.
Old 4th March 2014
  #244
Lives for gear
 

Btw Jason, by equating Dr. Luke speculation with teen songwriter speculation, you are close to providing a red herring.

We all know Dr. Luke's history and qualifications - he's no amateur.

I speculate that he's intentionally dumbing down the material to pander to the L.C.D. and to get big cash because it I'm willing to give him the credit for consciously pursuing that path as opposed to the speculation that he is so creatively and imaginatively disabled that he can't come up with anything other than sheets of mechanically assembled rice paper for songs.

It's a bit of generosity on my part, yet, I actually might want to speculate that he's perhaps at the mercy of both motivational impulses.
Old 4th March 2014
  #245
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
We could overlay any crazy theory of motivations on any genre.
Theorizing about motivations isn't inherently crazy, it's human nature.
Wow, it's like you've got this dyslexic rearrangement of reading the sentences people write.

The word "crazy" was the adjective modifier for the "theory". That's why I actually wrote "crazy theory". The word "crazy" was immediately adjacent to the word "theory." See the quote again.

The "crazy" was not the modifier to describe the act of speculating. Speculate all you want but for songwriters to take you seriously, it has to be based on common sense instead of just inserting your external perceptions into the other pop songwriters' heads and assuming they think exactly like you.
Old 4th March 2014
  #246
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
Wow,
No need to be insulting (I knew exactly what you meant), it's as if you view skeptical speculation as factual statements needing to be officially invalidated. You must really find them threatening and/or disturbing. Maybe it's because you fear, deep down, that the skeptical speculation is indeed really on to something.

Apparently, you have an inherent disdain for skeptical speculation of motives, specifically in the context of how professionally emboldened, privileged and enshrined 21st century pop songwriters approach their craft. Others do not have said disdain and will continue to wonder about the motivations involved in the consistent product manifestation.
Old 4th March 2014
  #247
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
No need to be insulting, it's as if you view skeptical speculation as factual statements needing to be officially invalidated. You must really find them threatening and/or disturbing.
No, it's that your speculation is based on working backwards from money and assuming a set of motivations that seem to fit that story around money. Connecting the dots this way creates a fundamental misunderstanding of how musicians work.

Another type of speculation is based on hanging around actual pop musicians and experiencing first hand what they like to do. Ask them!

Do they love the pop songs they wrote? "yes"
Do they want to write "I am the Walrus" type of songs? "no"

Other musicians aren't going to view their music creations the same way you view it. For some reason, this seems difficult for you to grasp.
Old 4th March 2014
  #248
eldon2975: You mention Dr. Luke all the time. Dr.Luke == Dr.Evil taking over world?

I actually enjoy many of his productions (when I take them for that it is). There are far worse producers and songs out there (like Avicii). But yeah I know he has a whole team behind him so its not probably fair to compare him to other single working producers.
Old 4th March 2014
  #249
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
No, it's that your speculation is based on working backwards from money and assuming a set of motivations that seem to fit that story around money. Connecting the dots this way creates a fundamental misunderstanding of how musicians work.
You really are failing to comprehend the speculative connections being made.

Starting premises :

1) Dr. Luke is well versed in theory, and has extensive musical experience with a wide variety of material.

2) He consistently puts out songs which are the artistic equivalent of mechanically assembled sheets of rice paper.

3) He gets rewarded exorbitantly for 2)

4) Inside information has described the writing process within the assembled Dr. Luke team as a very methodical, clinical endeavour which strictly emphasizes the strategic and systematic assembly of contrived, effective hooks and predictable, looping repetition.

Now you may not want to come to any conclusions based on the preceding premises, but others certainly have the right to.

And again, I speculate that he is inherently motivated by continued financial rewards, maintaining his lofty position of esteemed industry power, and possibly by a preexisting defective, handicapped, disabled/gimped imagination (I speculate about the possibility of him being intentionally self-handicapped too) because the song's manifestations are always the same.

I suspect he's overtly pandering to the lowest common denominator for money, and because his musical artistry is functionally operating at the level of a moron, without exceptions.

I'll keep speculating, but you don't have to. The more you order me to stop speculating, I'll just get more speculative about your intervening.

Again, my speculation is non-factual, because it cannot be categorically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's based on possibilities and probabilities, derived from premises and observed patterns of behavioural manifestations.

Ultimately, it's just an opinion. Not fact, but opinion.
Old 4th March 2014
  #250
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepc0re View Post
eldon2975: You mention Dr. Luke all the time. Dr.Luke == Dr.Evil taking over world?

I actually enjoy many of his productions (when I take them for that it is). There are far worse producers and songs out there (like Avicii). But yeah I know he has a whole team behind him so its not probably fair to compare him to other single working producers.
I've said many times he deserves a place in the pop songwriting world, and deserves success for writing catchy, trite tunes and being a hard worker.

The point people keep conveniently omitting is that other songwriting approaches do exist, and shouldn't be entirely shut out of the 21st century pop music mainstream as they currently are.

I can't emphasize those 2 points enough. Some people keep obfuscating my synopsis.

Oh well.
Old 4th March 2014
  #251
Lives for gear
 

An important note of fact regarding Spotify:

Total users reached 20 million by December 2012, 5 million of whom pay a monthly subscription fee that varies based on locale.

Spotify - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old 4th March 2014
  #252
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
systematic assembly of contrived, effective hooks and predictable, looping repetition.
But it's flawed to assume Dr Luke wants to write songs with non-repetitive refrains and instead writing more progressive changes or jazzy alterations. What you want to hear isn't necessarily what he wants to write.

The two ideals can be two different things. Surely, you can concede that is possible for people can want different things out of music.

Whatever quantity of theory isn't the final or only determinant of what he wants to do. I've studied jazz piano theory but I personally do not write jazz piano type of songs. It's just not my nature. When I write ballads, it is not my tendency to use chords with 11ths and 13ths extensions even though my academic mind knows exactly what they are. It's not just the music theory; there also has to be desire for usage of that music theory.

Quote:
The point people keep conveniently omitting is that other songwriting approaches do exist, and shouldn't be entirely shut out of the 21st century pop music mainstream.
Yes, other songwriting approaches do exist and they're very valid. Often times, they are much more interesting. But you look for that alternative in other musicians who naturally write that way and not pop musicians who don't want to.
Old 4th March 2014
  #253
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
I've said many times he deserves a place in the pop songwriting world, and deserves success for writing catchy, trite tunes and being a hard worker.

The point people keep conveniently omitting is that other songwriting approaches do exist, and shouldn't be entirely shut out of the 21st century pop music mainstream.

I can't emphasize those 2 points enough. Some people keep obfuscating my synopsis.

Oh well.
I see. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think anyone is being shut out of music mainstream.

Take for instance the horrible norwegian Ylvis - The Fox song which was meant a joke or PSY - gangnam style.
Old 4th March 2014
  #254
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
But it's flawed to assume Dr Luke wants to write songs with non-repetitive refrains and instead writing more progressive changes or jazzy alterations. What you want to hear isn't necessarily what he wants to write.
It's also flawed to entirely deny the possibility that he is actually incapable of writing sophisticated, highly imaginative songs with deep artistic meaning.

Again, we are (and have been) in the realm of opinionated speculation, which ultimately doesn't come down to irrefutable facts, but instead to suspected possibilities and probabilities.
Old 4th March 2014
  #255
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

The only thing that shuts something out of "the mainstream" is folks' tastes. If enough people like it, it becomes mainstream. As long as liking it is relatively rare, it won't become mainstream. It's that simple.
Old 4th March 2014
  #256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
The only thing that shuts something out of "the mainstream" is folks' tastes. If enough people like it, it becomes mainstream. As long as liking it is relatively rare, it won't become mainstream. It's that simple.
Taste and ignorance are different things. I'm sure many songs could have been liked more if they where heard by enough people. There is many examples of songs that turned into hits long after they where released.
Old 4th March 2014
  #257
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepc0re View Post
I see. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think anyone is being shut out of music mainstream.

Take for instance the horrible norwegian Ylvis - The Fox song which was meant a joke or PSY - gangnam style.
It's not the latter, but is instead sophisticated, unpredictable, bold, inspired and innovative songs with complex harmonic structures and elaborate melodies, extensive dynamics, deeply poetic lyrics, unpredictable mid-song shifts, hard to digest the first time around, weird, daring, unconventional, atypical forms which are entirely banished.

They simply will not be supported financially under any circumstance.

I'm speaking of the modern day compositional equivalents of Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, God Only Knows, Good Vibrations, Surf's Up, Wouldn't It Be Nice, Up Up and Away, Aquarius, etc.

No use even trying to write something remotely like that if you want to get through the narrow window of 21st century pop music acceptance.
Old 4th March 2014
  #258
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
The only thing that shuts something out of "the mainstream" is folks' tastes. If enough people like it, it becomes mainstream. As long as liking it is relatively rare, it won't become mainstream. It's that simple.
Folks tastes are now in many ways programmed and influenced by a predetermined mass media bias for only providing songs which conform to the paradigm. In the current context of hyper-corporate conglomeration, the executive decision making is in the hands of very few, who are unwilling to groom any deep art, or tolerate any financial risk whatsoever.

Now, the suits are telling people what they can consume in the realm of music, and art has been replaced by predictably vacuous product placement of the lowest common denominator variety followed by relentless hype. No exceptions allowed.

It wasn't always like that, and the music industry was actually more artistically vital, diverse and willing to let the adventurous artist call some or most of the shots. The financial rewards were spread out vastly and lucratively.

David Bowie's Ashes To Ashes, Changes & Space Oddity come to mind as do many Stevie Wonder tunes.

Now the mainstream music industry operates like a totally conformist little clique providing intellectually vacant pieces of musically trite, 1-dimensional, disposable, plastic, glossy, predictably derivative, uninventive fodder.
Old 4th March 2014
  #259
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepc0re View Post
I'm sure many songs could have been liked more if they where heard by enough people.
I don't disagree with that, but I'm not talking about individual songs, really, I'm talking about genres/styles, and although tastes always obtain in individuals, when we're talking about something being mainstream or not, we can't be talking about individuals as such--we're talking about commonalities (or a relative lack of them) over a large number of people. Over a large number of people, there's not really ignorance about, say, harsh noise music (there's a genre known as "harsh noise" just in case anyone reading this isn't familiar with it). It's just that harsh noise doesn't appeal to nearly as many people as other genres, so harsh noise doesn't become mainstream, since "mainstream" just hinges on folks' (masses of folks) tastes.

There are people who are ignorant of harsh noise music who might like it, sure.

But based on the sample we have so far, it's probably unlikely that the total set of people exposed to harsh noise so far, people who have heard it and decided whether they wanted to focus on it, keep pursuing it or not, try to turn other folks onto it or not, etc.--it's unlikely that that set of folks just so happened to be the set of folks least likely to enjoy harsh noise compared to other genres.

In fact, the opposite is probably true, because the people who tend to find genres like that include the rare folks more likely to enjoy them.

In other words, if people were as or more likely to dig Merzbow than Avicii, then Merzbow love would rapidly spread--it's not as if people don't know about Merzbow, don't tell others about him, don't let others hear him, etc.--and then Merzbow would be mainstream, because that's what more folks love. Merzbow isn't mainstream, though, because Merzbow doesn't appeal to as many people as Avicii does, even though yes, it's true that there are individuals who never heard of Merzbow before who would like him more than Avicii.

The thing is that those individuals seem to be rare (based on the data set we have so far of people exposed to Merzbow and other stuff), and there's no reason to believe that there's some quirk in the data so that ONLY the people less likely to enjoy Merzbow more have been exposed to him so far. Rather, the way we tend to work socially is that the people more likely to enjoy Merzbow tend to find him more easily, because other things and other people lead individuals to stuff like that when their tastes are a good fit for it.
Old 4th March 2014
  #260
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
It's just that harsh noise doesn't appeal to nearly as many people as other genres, so harsh noise doesn't become mainstream, since "mainstream" just hinges on folks' (masses of folks) tastes.
Purple Haze by Hendrix, Sex Pistols tunes, Sonic Youth tunes, Nirvana tunes, Don't Be Square by Adam & The Ants (featured during the best new artist category of the 1982 Grammy nominations), were allowed back then and subsequently mass consumed. The first step is to allow them the opportunity to become successful. In the current pop music paradigm, noisy material of that nature aren't given any promotional backing or any kind of support at all by the puny handful of hyper-conglomerated corporate music labels.

It's been banished, none of that ever makes it through, no exceptions. Ever. The opportunity has been eliminated.

The artistic freedom has been severely hampered and stifled, as it's all about manipulative control by the executives. I speculate that they really like their stranglehold on power, and will keep ordering the mass dumbing down for their focus is solely on maintaining monopoly and quarterly profits. Why threaten to upset the paradigm or risk sabotaging your own disproportionately exorbitant power ratio ?
Old 4th March 2014
  #261
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
It's also flawed to entirely deny the possibility that he is actually incapable of writing sophisticated, highly imaginative songs with deep artistic meaning.
One last question I'd like a clear "yes" or "no" answer to since you haven't made it explicit in any of your previous posts:

Do you believe pop songwriters (Dr Luke, etc) do not love the songs they write?

(And please don't rewrite my sentence to be "yes they love the challenge of demographic" . Just an answer to the actual question I wrote would be fine.)

Quote:
They simply will not be supported financially under any circumstance.
...
It's been banished, none of that ever makes it through, no exceptions. Ever. The opportunity has been eliminated.
I think there are many of us here are writing non-mainstream material that we hope will become more mainstream. Some of us do not think it's impossible. To be forward-thinking about the craft of songwriting and share ideas about what to do is more productive use of a "songwriting" forum, don't you think?

You seem to just want to vent. There's actually a subforum acting as an outlet for that:

The Moan Zone - Gearslutz.com
Old 4th March 2014
  #262
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
One last question I'd like a clear "yes" or "no" answer to since you haven't made it explicit in any of your previous posts:

Do you believe pop songwriters (Dr Luke, etc) do not love the songs they write?

(And please don't rewrite my sentence to be "yes they love the challenge of demographic" . Just an answer to the actual question I wrote would be fine.)



I think there are many of us here are writing non-mainstream material the we hope will become more mainstream. Some of us do not think it's impossible. To be forward-thinking about the craft of songwriting and share ideas about what to do is more productive use of a "songwriting" forum, don't you think?

You seem to just want to vent. There's actually a subforum acting as an outlet for that:

The Moan Zone - Gearslutz.com
1) Now you want to be a participant in the speculation ? My personal opinion : I suspect that the established clique of 21st century pop songwriters who currently dominate the industry obviously love their privileged positions, and the enjoy (or endure ?) the process of speed-constructing the next contracted, anticipated smash megahit.

But do they love their musical offsprings in the same way a George Harrison loved his musical offspring "Something", no, probably not.

It's likely a more detached manifestation of valuing something of power, success and prestige rather than feeling deeply & emotionally intertwined with a divinely inspired work of art.

2) Your speculation about me just wanting to vent is false (but understandable). I'm actually totally exhausted and just want to stop being enticed, even provoked, into responding.
Old 4th March 2014
  #263
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
But do they love their musical offsprings in the same way a George Harrison loved his musical offspring "Something", no, probably not.
Thanks for answering. This underlying belief of yours explains everything for me.
Old 4th March 2014
  #264
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
1) Now you want to be a participant in the speculation ? My personal opinion : I suspect that the established clique of 21st century pop songwriters who currently dominate the industry obviously love their privileged positions, and the enjoy (or endure ?) the process of speed-constructing the next contracted, anticipated smash megahit.

But do they love their musical offsprings in the same way a George Harrison loved his musical offspring "Something", no, probably not.

It's likely a more detached manifestation of valuing something of power, success and prestige rather than feeling deeply & emotionally intertwined with a divinely inspired work of art.

.

Another real world check, as opposed to your rewriting the world to fit your ideology:

Harrison put "something" on ice for 6 months because he thought it was no good. It was only after he received your Pavlovian reward in the form of approval from others that he came to love the song.

Exact same psychological mechanism you're imposing on Dr Luke and other pop writers to somehow reduce the meaning of their work. By your reasoning, that an artist's work isn't "true artistry" (whatever that means) if their love for the work stems from an underlying psychological motivation for positive attention from others, then "Something" is certainly not art either in your book. .

I personally find the depth of human behavior and emotion to be so much greater and infinitely more complicated than a set of Pavlovian responses to various stimuli that I find the whole "underlying motivation as a measure of artistic merit" to border complete absurdity.
Old 4th March 2014
  #265
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Harrison put "something" on ice for 6 months because he thought it was no good. It was only after he received your Pavlovian reward in the form of approval from others that he came to love the song.
Obviously explainable by the fact that as a writer he was the much more bashful Beatle, living in the shadows of the 2 greatest pop-rock songwriters ever, feeling he could never match the standards they set. He obviously had an inferiority complex about his writing at that time which he heroically defeated.

When was Dr. Luke ever bashful about submitting a song, and when did he ever write an artistically deep masterpiece ? He is a veritable steamroller pandering to the lowest common denominator, (the total opposite of a Harrison), and is not playing 3rd fiddle (or even 2nd fiddle) to anyone. He is essentially the ring leader, of a modern day poptart circus filled with obnoxiously lame and untalented clowns putting forth gimmicky, frivolous pancakes for songs (no offense to pancakes intended).

Harrison's lack of confidence was all about the traditional (way pre-2000) idea of genuine artistic merit in songwriting, as well as the desire to match the impeccable standard of creative artistry set by John & Paul with their never-ending stream of jaw-dropping masterpieces. It had nothing to do with Pavlovian monetary response (which is based on strategically manufacturing a song primarily to satisfy commercial requirements).

If I were the 3rd Beatle, I too would be hesitant about submitting a song, praying it wouldn't be totally dwarfed alongside the pure, undiluted, uncompromised creative genius of John & Paul.

Come to think of it. I wouldn't mind an enthusiastic Pavlovian pat on the back from a John Lennon, or a Paul McCartney. Yeah, actually, I'd really dig that experience, and it would likely encourage and inspire me 100,000%. They wouldn't be saying, "oh, you can't put that many chords in there", or "oh, you better make it more predictable, repetitive, loopy, and hooky" or "oh, the melodic theme covers too much ground".

I believe that impressing a Paul McCartney or a John Lennon with one's songwriting prowess has got to simply be one of the most heavenly experiences ever documented. The ultimate in INTANGIBLE, SPIRITUAL, INTELLECTUAL rewards.
Old 4th March 2014
  #266
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
Harrison's lack of confidence was all about the traditional (way pre-2000) idea of genuine artistic merit in songwriting, as well as the desire to match the impeccable standard of creative artistry set by John & Paul with their never-ending stream of jaw-dropping masterpieces. It had nothing to do with Pavlovian monetary response (which is based on strategically manufacturing a song primarily to satisfy commercial requirements).
All that typing about "artistry" and never mentions G Harrison's plagiarism manifested in "My Sweet Lord".
Old 4th March 2014
  #267
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
complete absurdity.
Complete absurdity is the notion that Dr. Luke and the modern day mainstream pop songwriters are even remotely in the same league of John & Paul artistically.

In terms of financial impact, maybe. But as writers ? Yeah, that's Dr. Luke right now listening to the contrived opening pseudo-rap of Tik-Tok (featuring industry pawn Kesha !), and feeling soooooooooooooooo deeeeeeeeeeeeply moooooooooved by the magnificent masterpiece !

ROFL !!
Old 4th March 2014
  #268
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
All that typing about "artistry" and never mentions G Harrison's plagiarism manifested in "My Sweet Lord".
Didn't I say he was playing 3rd fiddle as a writer in The Beatles ? Didn't I say he wasn't at their level ? The above (a ruling of subconscious plagiarism) doesn't cancel out or apply to his masterpiece, "Something".
Old 4th March 2014
  #269
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
Obviously explainable by the fact that as a writer he was the much more bashful Beatle, living in the shadows of the 2 greatest pop-rock songwriters ever, feeling he could never match the standards they set. He obviously had an inferiority complex about his writing at that time which he heroically defeated.

When was Dr. Luke ever bashful about submitting a song, and when did he ever write an artistically deep masterpiece ? He is a veritable steamroller pandering to the lowest common denominator, (the total opposite of a Harrison), and is not playing 3rd fiddle (or even 2nd fiddle) to anyone. He is essentially the ring leader, of a modern day poptart circus filled with obnoxiously lame and untalented clowns putting forth gimmicky, frivolous pancakes for songs (no offense to pancakes intended).

Harrison's lack of confidence was all about the traditional (way pre-2000) idea of genuine artistic merit in songwriting, as well as the desire to match the impeccable standard of creative artistry set by John & Paul with their never-ending stream of jaw-dropping masterpieces. It had nothing to do with Pavlovian monetary response (which is based on strategically manufacturing a song primarily to satisfy commercial requirements).

If I were the 3rd Beatle, I too would be hesitant about submitting a song, praying it wouldn't be totally dwarfed alongside the pure, undiluted, uncompromised creative genius of John & Paul.

Come to think of it. I wouldn't mind an enthusiastic Pavlovian pat on the back from a John Lennon, or a Paul McCartney. Yeah, actually, I'd really dig that experience, and it would likely encourage and inspire me 100,000%. They wouldn't be saying, "oh, you can't put that many chords in there", or "oh, you better make it more predictable, repetitive, loopy, and hooky" or "oh, the melodic theme covers too much ground".

I believe that impressing a Paul McCartney or a John Lennon with one's songwriting prowess has got to simply be one of the most heavenly experiences ever documented. The ultimate in INTANGIBLE, SPIRITUAL, INTELLECTUAL rewards.
Full of inconsistencies and personal opinion touted as fact. Not even going to bother with a point by point. I fully understand your world view and no longer care to convince you otherwise. It'll be nice to have such a dark and cynical perspective in other threads, a nice thankful reminder of why I turned away from that path years ago.
Old 4th March 2014
  #270
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
The number of views you hype are often artificially inflated with a software program and by curious listeners who happen to be indifferent or negative to the song. You underestimate what % of total available listeners are actually choosing to listen to something else.

Name a country, it's population of listeners and what % you think have positively embraced the song in question. I'll likely think it's less than you do. Why ? Because I'm being skeptical and scrutinizing the situation, while you are casually promoting the conformist hype and bandwagoneering.

I'm not saying it's unpopular, just that you are overrating it's popularity (and quality) by faithfully citing modern hype machine indicators.
From wikipedia:
"The single has peaked at number one in 22 countries to date, ... in addition to reaching the top 10 in six others."

No matter what you think, "wake me up" was and still is actually very popular and a lot of listeners have embraced this song.

Distribution channels today are far less controlled by label marketing power than in the past. People can and do choose what they listen to.
This puts far more pressure on artists, as it is no longer enough to put two good songs and 10 fillers on an album and release it or throw money at a substandard single and hope for the best - it won't work.
Therefore one might actually argue that the increased competition for listeners in todays music marketplace leads to an increase in music quality.
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