| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:33 |
 Failcore wrote:
This. In defense of OP, there is commercialism in all music, but it is more blatant and unabashed in pop music. That's not saying there isn't marketing and industry forces present in other genres. But in the pop music arena, they have focused so much on marketing to the point that it is deleterious to the music. Call me a cliche progger, but I think this dysfunction came about in the early 80s, when record label execs figured out you could just hand a hot dude/chick a guitar and use studio magic to cover his lack of instrumental acumen and make big money.
|
It has always been like that - The Monkees didn't play on their early recordings, neither did The Sweet. While live on stage Sweet were a balls-out heavy rock band in the studio they were singing vocals over sessions musicians recording of Wig-Wam Bam and Poppa Joe. At that time it was cheaper to pay a sessions guitarist £20 to record a track than spend hours on studio trickery.
|
|
What?
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:36 |
Failcore wrote:
darkshade wrote:
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
The man of few words sums it all up.
|
If you think the whole record buying public is under the age of eight then sure.
This is what I really don't get about this thread... you are not members of the demographic that is buying this manufactured pop you all so vocally decry. What does it matter that pre-teen girls pin-up pictures of Justin Beiber and Katy Perry - no one is expecting you to go and buy any of it.
This is not what is wrong with the music industry.
|
|
What?
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:42 |
Dean wrote:
Failcore wrote:
darkshade wrote:
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
The man of few words sums it all up.
|
If you think the whole record buying public is under the age of eight then sure.
This is what I really don't get about this thread... you are not members of the demographic that is buying this manufactured pop you all so vocally decry. What does it matter that pre-teen girls pin-up pictures of Justin Beiber and Katy Perry - no one is expecting you to go and buy any of it.
This is not what is wrong with the music industry. |
I'm not concerned, I know I'm not the demographic, I'm just following this thread. My sister is just starting to become a real person (she's 15 now) but is still into all that stuff, along with some of her friends, so I think it goes on past the age of 8. I remember when I was 15 girls my age were still into Backstreet Boys and N'SYNC, and this was 2003 already.
|
|
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:43 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
. When Peter Gabriel struggles to hit his high notes on stage or when Steve Howe misses a few notes in his solo, I don't consider that to be a failure in reproducing the studio record. It's musicians showing that they're human, whereas on a record everything has to be perfect, by today's standards, anyway. The audience knows this, and they know that nothing can be reproduced exactly the way it was recorded.
|
Sorry but I have to differentiate between the two here. Gabriel struggles most of the time to hit them, not only on his bad days which is perfectly acceptable. Some other member of this forum once mentioned that plenty of overdubs were used to beef up his voice. I am not saying it tantamounts to miming, but there is some level of make believe in supposedly authentic music too. What is the point of recording in a studio if you don't get the most out of its facilities, after all.
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:44 |
rogerthat wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
. When Peter Gabriel struggles to hit his high notes on stage or when Steve Howe misses a few notes in his solo, I don't consider that to be a failure in reproducing the studio record. It's musicians showing that they're human, whereas on a record everything has to be perfect, by today's standards, anyway. The audience knows this, and they know that nothing can be reproduced exactly the way it was recorded.
|
Sorry but I have to differentiate between the two here. Gabriel struggles most of the time to hit them, not only on his bad days which is perfectly acceptable. Some other member of this forum once mentioned that plenty of overdubs were used to beef up his voice. I am not saying it tantamounts to miming, but there is some level of make believe in supposedly authentic music too. What is the point of recording in a studio if you don't get the most out of its facilities, after all. |
This is why I like jam bands and jazz bands, most, if not all, of their greatest works, are recorded live, warts and all.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:47 |
darkshade wrote:
Dean wrote:
Failcore wrote:
darkshade wrote:
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
The man of few words sums it all up.
|
If you think the whole record buying public is under the age of eight then sure.
This is what I really don't get about this thread... you are not members of the demographic that is buying this manufactured pop you all so vocally decry. What does it matter that pre-teen girls pin-up pictures of Justin Beiber and Katy Perry - no one is expecting you to go and buy any of it.
This is not what is wrong with the music industry. |
I'm not concerned, I know I'm not the demographic, I'm just following this thread. My sister is just starting to become a real person (she's 15 now) but is still into all that stuff, along with some of her friends, so I think it goes on past the age of 8. I remember when I was 15 girls my age were still into Backstreet Boys and N'SYNC, and this was 2003 already.
|
I wasn't aware that girls of 15 watched the Disney Channel, it was seldom on when my daughter was younger.
|
|
What?
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:48 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for.
|
But this is again a matter of perception. There are kids who claim listening to Linkin Park changed their lives, what are you going to do about that. I have heard people who work in the music industry cite some sappy Michael Jackson ballad as something that changed their life. There is no universal perception of true beauty; it's all in the eyes of the beholder. So a hypothesis that today's pop is incapable of achieving anything more than momentary titillation, which the OP seems to be driving at, may not be very accurate.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:51 |
darkshade wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
. When Peter Gabriel struggles to hit his high notes on stage or when Steve Howe misses a few notes in his solo, I don't consider that to be a failure in reproducing the studio record. It's musicians showing that they're human, whereas on a record everything has to be perfect, by today's standards, anyway. The audience knows this, and they know that nothing can be reproduced exactly the way it was recorded.
|
Sorry but I have to differentiate between the two here. Gabriel struggles most of the time to hit them, not only on his bad days which is perfectly acceptable. Some other member of this forum once mentioned that plenty of overdubs were used to beef up his voice. I am not saying it tantamounts to miming, but there is some level of make believe in supposedly authentic music too. What is the point of recording in a studio if you don't get the most out of its facilities, after all. |
This is why I like jam bands and jazz bands, most, if not all, of their greatest works, are recorded live, warts and all.
|
On the other hand, I have no objection to Gabriel or anybody else enhancing the appeal of his singing or performance in the studio. I just don't buy into any pretension of perfection. I should hope that that is not all prog music is meant to be and the best prog music certainly means a lot more to me than just being 'authentic' or 'replicable'.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:52 |
Snow Dog wrote:
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!! Back up there! You are Indian? |
Yes. I have mentioned it before in conversations, I think, though it's not mentioned in my profile.
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 12:09 |
Failcore wrote:
A complete sidetrack, but Nightwish is going to be at PPUSA?!!! I might cancel my plans to go now. What a dreadful inclusion. |
No disrespect, but that's a silly reason not to go for two reasons: 1) they're not really part of the fesival but actually play the "pre-party" Wed and Thurs night shows, and 2) it's ONE of 16 bands at the festival....
|
|
|
|
Luna
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 28 2010
Location: Funky Town
Status: Offline
Points: 12794
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 12:31 |
|
OP is SO BRAVE
|
|
|
|
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 12:50 |
Man that hurt my brain! Just read through this nonsense over two takes, and people should really think before posting. Yeah well maybe so should I. BUT - for future references and as long as we're talking music: Be sure to have a definition of what you mean ready, or else all of the tongue-twisters, semantics junkies and IT lawyers are going to jump on you like a regular kangaroo gang-bang. Again we seem to be headed over to that most precious of questions: What is (insert type) music? Pop can be everything under the sun. It can also just be popular music. Mozart was pop. Admittedly I prefer music where the musicians themselves also have a certain something to say, and not merely act as some kind of tasteless sonic wallpaper, but that is my preference. I like Fiona Apple, Amy Winehouse and some others that I forget, but I can somewhat understand why certain people get a bad taste in their mouths whenever the subject turns to pop. Then again, like others here have mentioned, it is not really meant for us - or indeed everybody - just like Universe Zero aren't meant for 9 year old girls who also fancy Twillight.
|
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 12:56 |
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dictionary wrote:
Entertainment: 1. The act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement; solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many. 2. Something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind: the highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment. |
You're defining entertainment by it's word roots, not by what it actually means in the English language. These definitions include words and synonyms like "agreeable," "pleasure," "amusement," and "diversion," but not anything about power and lasting effect and unspeakable beauty and the experience of love, joy, and agony through music. Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for. |
Those synonyms are not replacements for "entertain" - you don't go to see an agreeablement, you don't come away having been pleasuremented, the artists on stage are not diversioners - while amusement is partial, not every entertainment will amuse you. The etymology of words is a means of understadning why we can use some words in some contexts and not in others, for examle the dictionary definition of entertain is most certainly "to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind" and "to hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting" and that is the reason why we use "entertainment" for a for an activity that diverts the mind. I think you are understating the lasting power of any "entertainment", belittling them with your own indifference as it were while overstating the life-changing effect of "art".
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Remember, I never said that music meant for entertainment couldn't have artistic value. In fact, I said just the opposite. I know full well that a great deal of classical music was meant for entertainment. I will defend the value of Rush's music till the day that I die, and they see themselves as entertainers. I'd imagine that most prog bands think the same way. I'm not "making distinctions based upon intent;" I'm making distinctions based upon musical value, regardless of intent. I never said anything about our modern analysis of classical music, either; our analysis is not the art, the music itself is. |
I fear you are still making distinctions based on intent ... you are giving a low value to music produced (in your eyes) solely for entertainment ... ie it is the intention of the artist merely to entertain. I am saying that all art is entertainment. This is not something I've just invented for this discussion - I have made this point dozens of times throughout this forum - all music is art, all art is entertainment. You can be as judgemental as you like on the value or worth of some of that art if you wish, but it is your judgement, not a universal truth.
|
I never said that those synonyms replaced the word "entertain;" they explain it. Entertainment is something that holds your attention with amusement or diversion; this definition suggests nothing of any real effect on the mind, any lasting change or any catharsis; it merely implies a pleasant distraction. Does this exclude the possiblility that a piece of music may be entertaining but also truly move the soul and make one experience true beauty and catharsis? No, it does not, but it does not include these in entertainment, either. The dictionary definition of the word "entertainment" implies no lasting value but a momentary diversion. How can you tell me I'm "still making distinctions based on intent," when I've just given examples of music meant for entertainment that I consider to be great art, also? If you want another example, how about Coldplay? I think that their music is great modern art, some of the most beautiful stuff produced in the 20th century. What do you think they see their music as, other than entertainment? If you're a good artist, you can create good art even if you don't necessarily see your music as something beyond entertainment. I've already given examples, so please do not imply that I'm lying. I see your point in saying that "all art is entertainment;" I don't deny that something can have a lower purpose (entertainment, the diversion/distraction) as well as a higher purpose (the life-changing power of art), and I think you're right in saying that the higher purpose carries with it the lower purpose. I know that the determination of artistic value is heavily reliant on personal judgement, because no one experiences art in the same way. But I do believe that there is objective value and beauty, and I believe that we can recognize that value even if a piece of art does not profoundly effect us personally. There are no clear dividing lines; no one can objectively say whether Mozart or Beethoven is better, or whether Rush is better than Yes, or anything of that sort, but I do think that we can make distinctions between art that is good, art that is mediocre, and stuff that has so little artistic value that it can barely be considered art at all.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 13:46 |
Dean wrote:
Failcore wrote:
darkshade wrote:
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
The man of few words sums it all up.
|
If you think the whole record buying public is under the age of eight then sure.
This is what I really don't get about this thread... you are not members of the demographic that is buying this manufactured pop you all so vocally decry. What does it matter that pre-teen girls pin-up pictures of Justin Beiber and Katy Perry - no one is expecting you to go and buy any of it.
This is not what is wrong with the music industry. |
My girlfriend and her sister still listen to the Bieb and the Disney pop tarts, and they are both well into their 20s. It happens quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 13:48 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
Failcore wrote:
A complete sidetrack, but Nightwish is going to be at PPUSA?!!! I might cancel my plans to go now. What a dreadful inclusion. |
No disrespect, but that's a silly reason not to go for two reasons: 1) they're not really part of the fesival but actually play the "pre-party" Wed and Thurs night shows, and 2) it's ONE of 16 bands at the festival.... |
Well, still I liked it when it was more about helping people discover obscure gems instead of spamming bands thatare already widely successful. Yet they have Epica, MaYan, Redemption, SyX, Kamelot, and now Nightwish playing. I wanted to go to hear good new music is all.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 13:52 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dictionary wrote:
Entertainment: 1. The act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement; solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many. 2. Something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind: the highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment. |
You're defining entertainment by it's word roots, not by what it actually means in the English language. These definitions include words and synonyms like "agreeable," "pleasure," "amusement," and "diversion," but not anything about power and lasting effect and unspeakable beauty and the experience of love, joy, and agony through music. Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for. |
Those synonyms are not replacements for "entertain" - you don't go to see an agreeablement, you don't come away having been pleasuremented, the artists on stage are not diversioners - while amusement is partial, not every entertainment will amuse you. The etymology of words is a means of understadning why we can use some words in some contexts and not in others, for examle the dictionary definition of entertain is most certainly "to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind" and "to hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting" and that is the reason why we use "entertainment" for a for an activity that diverts the mind. I think you are understating the lasting power of any "entertainment", belittling them with your own indifference as it were while overstating the life-changing effect of "art".
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Remember, I never said that music meant for entertainment couldn't have artistic value. In fact, I said just the opposite. I know full well that a great deal of classical music was meant for entertainment. I will defend the value of Rush's music till the day that I die, and they see themselves as entertainers. I'd imagine that most prog bands think the same way. I'm not "making distinctions based upon intent;" I'm making distinctions based upon musical value, regardless of intent. I never said anything about our modern analysis of classical music, either; our analysis is not the art, the music itself is. |
I fear you are still making distinctions based on intent ... you are giving a low value to music produced (in your eyes) solely for entertainment ... ie it is the intention of the artist merely to entertain. I am saying that all art is entertainment. This is not something I've just invented for this discussion - I have made this point dozens of times throughout this forum - all music is art, all art is entertainment. You can be as judgemental as you like on the value or worth of some of that art if you wish, but it is your judgement, not a universal truth.
|
I never said that those synonyms replaced the word "entertain;" they explain it. Entertainment is something that holds your attention with amusement or diversion; this definition suggests nothing of any real effect on the mind, any lasting change or any catharsis; it merely implies a pleasant distraction. Does this exclude the possiblility that a piece of music may be entertaining but also truly move the soul and make one experience true beauty and catharsis? No, it does not, but it does not include these in entertainment, either. The dictionary definition of the word "entertainment" implies no lasting value but a momentary diversion. |
I see no statute of limitations within any definition of "entertainment" - I do not believe there is any time duration implicit in entertainment.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
How can you tell me I'm "still making distinctions based on intent," when I've just given examples of music meant for entertainment that I consider to be great art, also? If you want another example, how about Coldplay? I think that their music is great modern art, some of the most beautiful stuff produced in the 20th century. What do you think they see their music as, other than entertainment? If you're a good artist, you can create good art even if you don't necessarily see your music as something beyond entertainment. I've already given examples, so please do not imply that I'm lying. |
Sorry - did it appear that I was implying you were lying? Please forgive, that was not my intention - I do not beleive that any of the examples you have given intend to produce mere entertainment.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I see your point in saying that "all art is entertainment;" I don't deny that something can have a lower purpose (entertainment, the diversion/distraction) as well as a higher purpose (the life-changing power of art), and I think you're right in saying that the higher purpose carries with it the lower purpose. |
I don't see music as having a lower purpose period or a higher one - it's just music.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I know that the determination of artistic value is heavily reliant on personal judgement, because no one experiences art in the same way. But I do believe that there is objective value and beauty, and I believe that we can recognize that value even if a piece of art does not profoundly effect us personally. There are no clear dividing lines; no one can objectively say whether Mozart or Beethoven is better, or whether Rush is better than Yes, or anything of that sort, but I do think that we can make distinctions between art that is good, art that is mediocre, and stuff that has so little artistic value that it can barely be considered art at all. |
But you appear to be saying that Mozart is better than Rush - and I don't accept that objective valuation.
|
|
What?
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 13:53 |
Dean wrote:
Failcore wrote:
This. In defense of OP, there is commercialism in all music, but it is more blatant and unabashed in pop music. That's not saying there isn't marketing and industry forces present in other genres. But in the pop music arena, they have focused so much on marketing to the point that it is deleterious to the music. Call me a cliche progger, but I think this dysfunction came about in the early 80s, when record label execs figured out you could just hand a hot dude/chick a guitar and use studio magic to cover his lack of instrumental acumen and make big money.
|
It has always been like that - The Monkees didn't play on their early recordings, neither did The Sweet. While live on stage Sweet were a balls-out heavy rock band in the studio they were singing vocals over sessions musicians recording of Wig-Wam Bam and Poppa Joe. At that time it was cheaper to pay a sessions guitarist £20 to record a track than spend hours on studio trickery.
|
Of course some hacks have always been extant. But now they seem to be far and away ruling the industry.
|
|
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 14:25 |
There are still obscure bands in the lineup. Glen has to sell tickets, and this has been a problem, to the point that he's saying if it doesn't sell out ir come close this year, he's done. So OF COURSE he booked a few bigger names this year. Sad thing is it still hasn't sold out...yet.
|
|
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 15:52 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
There are still obscure bands in the lineup. Glen has to sell tickets, and this has been a problem, to the point that he's saying if it doesn't sell out ir come close this year, he's done. So OF COURSE he booked a few bigger names this year. Sad thing is it still hasn't sold out...yet. |
Well, there's an example of market forces at work in prog right there. It's not Glen's fault, but he's still having to play the game. I really think he could benefit by getting some prog groups not related to metal. In other words, axe Nightwish, and add TMV or some such. As the festival has been going more and more towards the power side of ProgPower, they have been narrowing their appeal to an already small audience. The set of people who like prog is fairly tiny; the set of people who like prog and metal is tiny^2 .
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 15:55 |
Guldbamsen wrote:
Pop can be everything under the sun. It can also just be popular music. Mozart was pop.
|
Not in the contemporary understanding.
| It is tempting to confuse pop music with popular music. The New Grove Dictionary Of Music and Musicians, the musicologist's ultimate reference resource, identifies popular music as the music since industrialization in the 1800's that is most in line with the tastes and interests of the urban middle class. This would include an extremely wide range of music from vaudeville and minstrel shows to heavy metal. Pop music, on the other hand, has primarily come into usage to describe music that evolved out of the rock 'n roll revolution of the mid-1950's and continues in a definable path to today.
|
Pop music has certain characteristics: - ABAB structure
- Length between 2:30 and 4:30 minutes with exceptions
- An aim of appealing to a general audience, rather than to a particular sub-culture or ideology.
- Emphasis in recording and production, over live presentation
- Simple lyrics and based in feelings and universal themes, most frequently in personal affections
- Frequently oriented towards dance.
Mozart in no way can be considered Pop.
Some people even consider POP a musical genre Independence from Rock, Jazz or Folk.
Iván
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
How to Create a Pop Star
