Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=87311 Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 22:15 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How to Create a Pop StarPosted By: dtguitarfan
Subject: How to Create a Pop Star
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 19:09
Last night I watched most of the movie this came from. Really cool
stuff. But this is the most brilliant part of the movie. I don't HATE
many forms of music, but I absolutely HATE pop music with a passion, and
this is why:
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Replies: Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 20:33
Yes, some pop "artists" are purely crap, but there are pop artists who actually write their own music and do a fantastic job, like Fiona Apple and Hikaru Utada.
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:01
Calling a pop musician an artist is like calling someone who can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a chef.
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:05
dtguitarfan wrote:
Calling a pop musician an artist is like calling someone who can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a chef.
So is calling you a music lover a bit like comparing Hitler to Martin Luther King? Here, pop music.
So much for making better sandwiches than the gourmet chef that fails hard, then.
Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:10
1:50 - 2:05 Forgive for sounding harsh, but, assuming that this wasn't a rehearsal, good gravy was that bad!
2:21 - 2:28 Um, a little better, I guess?
BTW, that was for the first video, not the Stevie Wonder song.
------------- He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball!
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:20
rogerthat wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
Calling a pop musician an artist is like calling someone who can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a chef.
So is calling you a music lover a bit like comparing Hitler to Martin Luther King? Here, pop music. So much for making better sandwiches than the gourmet chef that fails hard, then.
First of all, you're not making sense. Second of all, Stevie Wonder was way more than pop. He was soul, funk, jazzy, all kinds of influences all boiled into one very unique package. I'm talking about something very different - I'm talking about the music pollution that these corporations are churning out - producing "artists" by the hundreds every year that sound EXACTLY like every other pop artist...because duh, they slap together the same dang chord progressions in the same rhythm and use the same melodic patterns as every other pop standard out there. Stevie Wonder does not fall into this category. Stevie Wonder did something new.
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:22
rogerthat wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
Calling a pop musician an artist is like calling someone who can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a chef.
So is calling you a music lover a bit like comparing Hitler to Martin Luther King? Here, pop music.
So much for making better sandwiches than the gourmet chef that fails hard, then.
Stevie Wonder is NOT a pop star in the sense that is being referred to in this thread. He is an R&B and funk musician who has had great success despite his unfortunate case of being born blind.
By the way, I listened to that album last night. Great stuff, I love "Golden Lady".
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:23
Yeah there's a fundamental problem here; other than the fact that there have been many high quality pop musicians ( ^ Stevie Wonder an excellent example), the main factor missed is the skill, or skill set, that distinguishes great Pop music from the crap in the first post-- to be able to craft something good by stripping away and distilling rather than adding and developing is a rare and admirable trait. Songsmiths do what they do best, if it's called "Pop" because it's more popular than Industrial Minimalism, so be it.
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:26
darkshade wrote:
Stevie Wonder is NOT a pop star in the sense that is being referred to in this thread. He is an R&B and funk musician who has had great success despite his unfortunate case of being born blind.
By the way, I listened to that album last night. Great stuff, I love "Golden Lady".
THANK YOU. Someone who knows what I'm talking about.
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:31
dtguitarfan wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Stevie Wonder is NOT a pop star in the sense that is being referred to in this thread. He is an R&B and funk musician who has had great success despite his unfortunate case of being born blind.
By the way, I listened to that album last night. Great stuff, I love "Golden Lady".
THANK YOU. Someone who knows what I'm talking about.
We're talking about the Lady Googoo's, Rebecca Black's, and Justin Beaver's of the world, yes?
I know Lady Gaga can play piano and write music, but it doesn't seem that she cares about any of that and is just about her image and doing one ridiculous thing after another.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:33
dtguitarfan wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
Calling a pop musician an artist is like calling someone who can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a chef.
So is calling you a music lover a bit like comparing Hitler to Martin Luther King? Here, pop music. So much for making better sandwiches than the gourmet chef that fails hard, then.
First of all, you're not making sense. Second of all, Stevie Wonder was way more than pop. He was soul, funk, jazzy, all kinds of influences all boiled into one very unique package. I'm talking about something very different - I'm talking about the music pollution that these corporations are churning out - producing "artists" by the hundreds every year that sound EXACTLY like every other pop artist...because duh, they slap together the same dang chord progressions in the same rhythm and use the same melodic patterns as every other pop standard out there. Stevie Wonder does not fall into this category. Stevie Wonder did something new.
Define "pop genre". No such thing as that. It has always been only a mix of contemporaneous music influences. Stevie Wonder may have done it better than most others, but it's still pop music. Pop music is simply accessible music revolving around a chorus that is intended for a large audience. The point is there is nothing inherently wrong with pop music that makes pop artists all those things that you mentioned. Proof being that you also have tr00, uber kvlt heavy f****ing metal bands who sound exactly like each other. You also have celebrated rock bands who make the same album at least 10 times over. That has nothing to do with the nature of pop music.
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:34
darkshade wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Stevie Wonder is NOT a pop star in the sense that is being referred to in this thread. He is an R&B and funk musician who has had great success despite his unfortunate case of being born blind.By the way, I listened to that album last night. Great stuff, I love "Golden Lady".
THANK YOU. Someone who knows what I'm talking about.
We're talking about the Lady Googoo's, Rebecca Black's, and Justin Beaver's of the world, yes?I know Lady Gaga can play piano and write music, but it doesn't seem that she cares about any of that and is just about her image and doing one ridiculous thing after another.
Yes, basically. Kesha and Black Eyed Peas are also good examples (I can feel IQ points dropping when they come on in a public place).
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:38
And what of Tom Petty, Paul Simon, Stevie Nicks, George Harrison, Prince, Tori Amos, Seal? Whether you like them or not, all high quality Pop artists.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:40
Atavachron wrote:
And what of Tom Petty, Paul Simon, Stevie Nicks, George Harrison, Prince, Tori Amos, Seal? Whether you like them or not, all high quality Pop artists.
My point exactly. I would not like to posit that calling someone an artist is ridiculous only based on their genre. Or even if they are mediocre (in my opinion). Any form of self expression in any possible medium, like music, cinema, literature, painting, is art. That is all.
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:41
I believe the topic of this thread is "How To Create A (late-2000s/early2010s) Pop Star
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:44
darkshade wrote:
I believe the topic of this thread is "How To Create A (late-2000s/early2010s) Pop Star
Like Norah Jones? She's not half bad either. Pretty good, I should say, though I am not terribly fond of her work.
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:47
rogerthat wrote:
darkshade wrote:
I believe the topic of this thread is "How To Create A (late-2000s/early2010s) Pop Star
Like Norah Jones? She's not half bad either. Pretty good, I should say, though I am not terribly fond of her work.
No, she's been around for a while now. We're talking about pop artists like Lady Gaga, Justin Beaver, Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Taylor Swift, Rebecca Black, etc... The ones who can't really sing and rely on auto-tune to the max.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:49
darkshade wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
darkshade wrote:
I believe the topic of this thread is "How To Create A (late-2000s/early2010s) Pop Star
Like Norah Jones? She's not half bad either. Pretty good, I should say, though I am not terribly fond of her work.
No, she's been around for a while now. We're talking about pop artists like Lady Gaga, Justin Beaver, Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Rebecca Black, etc... The ones who can't really sing and rely on auto-tune to the max.
Don't know about the Beavers and the Rebeccas but Lady Gaga can sing, irrespective of whether she uses auto tune (which Wilson does as well, anyway). And what about Adele?
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:49
Ugh. Just go watch "Before the Music Dies" - it makes my point much better than I ever could. It's about companies, headed by people who know nothing about music telling artists what to do and grabbing pretty people who have absolutely no musical talent and using tricks to make them seem better than they are. It's about focus groups listening to ten second clips and these results being used to determine if music should be invested in.
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:52
rogerthat wrote:
darkshade wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
darkshade wrote:
I believe the topic of this thread is "How To Create A (late-2000s/early2010s) Pop Star
Like Norah Jones? She's not half bad either. Pretty good, I should say, though I am not terribly fond of her work.
No, she's been around for a while now. We're talking about pop artists like Lady Gaga, Justin Beaver, Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Rebecca Black, etc... The ones who can't really sing and rely on auto-tune to the max.
Don't know about the Beavers and the Rebeccas but Lady Gaga can sing, irrespective of whether she uses auto tune (which Wilson does as well, anyway). And what about Adele?
I know Gaga can sing, she just got lumped in with the other sorry sacks because that's who we're talking about. I already expressed my views on Lady Gaga.
Plenty of people use auto-tune for what it's supposed to be used for. These pop artists use it for the sound it makes when you can't hit a note consistently (also known as the T-Pain Sound)
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:52
dtguitarfan wrote:
Ugh. Just go watch "Before the Music Dies" - it makes my point much better than I ever could. It's about companies, headed by people who know nothing about music telling artists what to do and grabbing pretty people who have absolutely no musical talent and using tricks to make them seem better than they are. It's about focus groups listening to ten second clips and these results being used to determine if music should be invested in.
I don't dispute that. I hate the pop music-making industry, just as I hate the Hollywood factory. But I believe those points can/could be made without insinuating that the artists involved are talentless; it certainly doesn't seem to be necessary. Because, frequently, that is not the case. For instance, I find Chester Bennington annoying as hell but he is a talented singer.
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:54
dtguitarfan wrote:
Ugh. Just go watch "Before the Music Dies" - it makes my point much better than I ever could. It's about companies, headed by people who know nothing about music telling artists what to do and grabbing pretty people who have absolutely no musical talent and using tricks to make them seem better than they are. It's about focus groups listening to ten second clips and these results being used to determine if music should be invested in.
I would say that stuff like that has probably been going on for a long time now, it's just that the quality of the music has dropped considerably in the past 12 years; and especially in the last 5 years.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 21:58
darkshade wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
Ugh. Just go watch "Before the Music Dies" - it makes my point much better than I ever could. It's about companies, headed by people who know nothing about music telling artists what to do and grabbing pretty people who have absolutely no musical talent and using tricks to make them seem better than they are. It's about focus groups listening to ten second clips and these results being used to determine if music should be invested in.
I would say that stuff like that has probably been going on for a long time now, it's just that the quality of the music has dropped considerably in the past 12 years; and especially in the last 5 years.
Even Karen Carpenter used to mime in television appearances because these folks are so obsessed with eliminating errors. I don't know of a genius working in music right now, whether in the mainstream or otherwise. There are plenty of people who sing or play incredibly well and not many who display unbelievable creativity. That is partly a byproduct of so much music weighing down on contemporary artists and possibly also a factor of the capacity of music to attract talent, the best minds.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 23:52
dtguitarfan wrote:
Calling a pop musician an artist is like calling someone who can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a chef.
If you think that of all pop musicians then your statement is transparently lazy and naive bollocks.
A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament (Oscar Wilde)
I suspect that in your cramped and humid musical cosmology, Pop can be defined in the same way as say, Satanism e.g. it's everybody else's religion apart from your own?
-------------
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 00:08
dtguitarfan wrote:
Ugh. Just go watch "Before the Music Dies" - it makes my point much better than I ever could. It's about companies, headed by people who know nothing about music telling artists what to do and grabbing pretty people who have absolutely no musical talent and using tricks to make them seem better than they are. It's about focus groups listening to ten second clips and these results being used to determine if music should be invested in.
You mean like what was happening in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?
Old news, and it don't scare me. Things are more wide-open now
than ever, let the b*stards just try to stop it.
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 01:56
rogerthat wrote:
darkshade wrote:
I believe the topic of this thread is "How To Create A (late-2000s/early2010s) Pop Star
Like Norah Jones? She's not half bad either. Pretty good, I should say, though I am not terribly fond of her work.
Norah Jones has been around in early 2000's as well. "Come Away With Me", anyone?
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:10
ExittheLemming wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
Calling a pop musician an artist is like calling someone who can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a chef.
If you think that of all pop musicians then your statement is transparently lazy and naive bollocks.
A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament (Oscar Wilde)
I suspect that in your cramped and humid musical cosmology, Pop can be defined in the same way as say, Satanism e.g. it's everybody else's religion apart from your own?
You just defined exactly why I hate the kind of pop music I'm talking about with your Oscar Wilde quote there. Because it's not unique. AT ALL. They use the same chord structures, the same melodic patters, and the same rhythms as all the other pop songs. Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches. The first one was unique, and wonderful. But after millions of them - sorry, it's NOT art any more.
And bringing in Beatles, and Stevie Wonder, etc., to try to argue that pop music has its merits - I asked my wife "do you consider the Beatles and Stevie Wonder pop music?" She looked at me with a look that said it all. Let me ask you something - when you turn on the radio to the local hits station in your town, do they play Stevie Wonder and the Beatles? No. What they play - THAT'S what I'm talking about. I'm sorry, but Beatles and Stevie Wonder are NOT pop. They may be POPULAR, but they're not Pop. Neither is Dave Matthews Band. Or Eric Clapton. There is a distinction between popular and pop.
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:15
dtguitarfan wrote:
And bringing in Beatles, and Stevie Wonder, etc., to try to argue that pop music has its merits - I asked my wife "do you consider the Beatles and Stevie Wonder pop music?" She looked at me with a look that said it all. Let me ask you something - when you turn on the radio to the local hits station in your town, do they play Stevie Wonder and the Beatles? No. What they play - THAT'S what I'm talking about. I'm sorry, but Beatles and Stevie Wonder are NOT pop. They may be POPULAR, but they're not Pop. Neither is Dave Matthews Band. Or Eric Clapton. There is a distinction between popular and pop.
Yes, I suppose pop is what derisive elitists would like to label popular music as. So there must be a distinction. Right, if you have a problem with labelling Beatles as pop, how about Toto? Made up of sessions guns and wrote some interesting songs like Africa which became huge hits.
If you have a very specific notion of pop in making your points, it is better to clarify that at the outset than to assume that this is some universal notion which everybody ought to agree with. And even then, you are simply generalizing at your peril. Didn't you have some serious objections to people saying prog metal bands are same sounding? So how does this work?
EDIT: And by the by, whether I like them at all or not is beside the point but if somebody played songs by Adele, Lady Gaga, Norah Jones, Michael Buble and Rihanna back to back, I would not be able to say it is all the same. It would only be to the extent that they are all pop in some or the other way, which is like saying one Oscar Peterson performance sounds at least somewhat like the next. So it is not necessarily true that all contemporary pop is the same; it depends on what artists inform your perceptions.
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:40
rogerthat wrote:
If you have a very specific notion of pop in making your points, it is better to clarify that at the outset than to assume that this is some universal notion which everybody ought to agree with. And even then, you are simply generalizing at your peril. Didn't you have some serious objections to people saying prog metal bands are same sounding? So how does this work?
The difference lies in the fact that I can play a Rhianna song and say "this is a four chord song", and then I can play a Lady Gaga song and say "this is ALSO a four chord song - same progression", and then I can play a Katy Perry song and say "hey, this is ALSO a four chord song with the same progression...and guess what, they're all in 4/4 time!" There's a BIG difference in saying all pop music sounds the same and saying everything in other genres sound the same - you can actually back up the statement about pop with technical FACTS.
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:45
dtguitarfan wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
If you have a very specific notion of pop in making your points, it is better to clarify that at the outset than to assume that this is some universal notion which everybody ought to agree with. And even then, you are simply generalizing at your peril. Didn't you have some serious objections to people saying prog metal bands are same sounding? So how does this work?
The difference lies in the fact that I can play a Rhianna song and say "this is a four chord song", and then I can play a Lady Gaga song and say "this is ALSO a four chord song - same progression", and then I can play a Katy Perry song and say "hey, this is ALSO a four chord song with the same progression...and guess what, they're all in 4/4 time!" There's a BIG difference in saying all pop music sounds the same and saying everything in other genres sound the same - you can actually back up the statement about pop with technical FACTS.
All four chord songs are not necessarily the same because they may involve different textures, both melodic as well as percussive. If this were not the case, cover artists would be completely out of business and nobody would want to listen to a performance of a jazz standard. So, you are probably 'backing' up your statement with only one set of facts that you have selected, while ignoring others. I Kissed A Girl does not sound like Rolling in the Deep, that's pretty obvious and doesn't need any investigation into the 'facts'.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:46
I tend not to waste my time or worry about pop music. Whenever I am inadvertently exposed to the latest new thing, there's nothing distinctive about the music. It just sounds like everything else to me. Case in point, there was something in pop news recently, Madonna in rehearsal in the middle of rehearsing one of her songs starts singing Lady Gaga. I couldn't tell the difference. In the end that's why Gaga has to the meat suit, etc. It's a way to get attention when there's nothing distinctive about your music. Having grown up in the '70's and being a consumer of pop music then, it seemed that an artist could put something out that was different and have a hit. These days conformity rules more than ever.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:47
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:53
dtguitarfan wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
Calling a pop musician an artist is like calling someone who can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a chef.
If you think that of all pop musicians then your statement is transparently lazy and naive bollocks.
A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament (Oscar Wilde)
I suspect that in your cramped and humid musical cosmology, Pop can be defined in the same way as say, Satanism e.g. it's everybody else's religion apart from your own?
You just defined exactly why I hate the kind of pop music I'm talking about with your Oscar Wilde quote there. Because it's not unique. AT ALL. They use the same chord structures, the same melodic patters, and the same rhythms as all the other pop songs. Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches. The first one was unique, and wonderful. But after millions of them - sorry, it's NOT art any more.
And bringing in Beatles, and Stevie Wonder, etc., to try to argue that pop music has its merits - I asked my wife "do you consider the Beatles and Stevie Wonder pop music?" She looked at me with a look that said it all. Let me ask you something - when you turn on the radio to the local hits station in your town, do they play Stevie Wonder and the Beatles? No. What they play - THAT'S what I'm talking about. I'm sorry, but Beatles and Stevie Wonder are NOT pop. They may be POPULAR, but they're not Pop. Neither is Dave Matthews Band. Or Eric Clapton. There is a distinction between popular and pop.
If only more of us had access to your wife. She might be able to explain that when you type 'pop musician' you really mean something else entirely, something specifically generic and formulaic that could not possibly include the secular epiphanies represented by the greatest POP MUSIC e.g. Beatles, Abba, Beach Boys, Stones, Who, Madness, Police, Kinks, Burt Bacharach, Nilsson, Elton John, Billy Joel (the list goes on)
Had you typed talentless, opportunistic, charlatan we might have understood you better.
-------------
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:56
Trouble is that pop is not a genre just a catch all word that encompasses many styles of music.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:58
Snow Dog wrote:
Trouble is that pop is not a genre just a catch all word that encompasses many styles of music.
A point seemingly lost on him because I mentioned that earlier in the thread as well.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 06:59
dtguitarfan wrote:
Calling a pop musician an artist is like calling someone who can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a chef.
But what if a pop musician made PB&Js like http://pickyeaterblog.com/the-peanut-butter-sandwich-reinvented/" rel="nofollow - this ?
I love good pop music, just as I dislike bad prog music. And despite what that statement implies, the two are http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=3" rel="nofollow - not opposites .
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 07:14
^ Depends on how you plate up the PB & J...
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: ColonelClaypool
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 07:23
------------- With magic, you can turn a frog into a prince.
With science, you can turn a frog into a Ph.D. and you still have the frog you started with.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 07:26
That is one of the greatest videos- seen it several times and still love it.
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 08:21
I think I need to clarify something. I have no problem with a four-chord song, per se. What I have a problem with is when an artist has an entire collection of nothing BUT four-chord songs that never go anywhere, never add any unique elements, never strive for excellence, and this artist is worshiped by millions of rabid fans, they have multiple mansions on opposite sides of continents, and they win awards - like our society is saying "THIS is the best we have to offer." I have no problem with finger-painting either - my kids make finger paintings, and they go on my fridge and I see beauty in them. But if there were an "artist" who made nothing but this type of painting, and made millions of dollars doing it, and appeared on the covers of magazines, and won awards, while millions of teenage fanatics and middle aged women credited this artist as the greatest artist ever while simultaneously saying Leonardo Da Vinci was nothing special, it would infuriate me.
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 08:27
dtguitarfan wrote:
I think I need to clarify something. I have no problem with a four-chord song, per se. What I have a problem with is when an artist has an entire collection of nothing BUT four-chord songs that never go anywhere, never add any unique elements, never strive for excellence, and this artist is worshiped by millions of rabid fans, they have multiple mansions on opposite sides of continents, and they win awards - like our society is saying "THIS is the best we have to offer." I have no problem with finger-painting either - my kids make finger paintings, and they go on my fridge and I see beauty in them. But if there were an "artist" who made nothing but this type of painting, and made millions of dollars doing it, and appeared on the covers of magazines, and won awards, while millions of teenage fanatics and middle aged women credited this artist as the greatest artist ever while simultaneously saying Leonardo Da Vinci was nothing special, it would infuriate me.
It sounds like it already does.
I see no reason for my blood pressure to increase just because more people like something I don't. Ever since the advent of the middle class, people in general have enjoyed what entertains them- not necessarily what stimulates their intellect. That they spend their money that they earned (or their parents earned) on a form of music that isn't complex or unique is something they are free to do. It doesn't bother me in the least.
And I would add that being a pop sensation is much, much harder than finger painting. I know, for example, that I could not make a video and dance the choreography in it.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 08:47
dtguitarfan wrote:
I think I need to clarify something. I have no problem with a four-chord song, per se. What I have a problem with is when an artist has an entire collection of nothing BUT four-chord songs that never go anywhere, never add any unique elements, never strive for excellence, and this artist is worshiped by millions of rabid fans, they have multiple mansions on opposite sides of continents, and they win awards - like our society is saying "THIS is the best we have to offer." I have no problem with finger-painting either - my kids make finger paintings, and they go on my fridge and I see beauty in them. But if there were an "artist" who made nothing but this type of painting, and made millions of dollars doing it, and appeared on the covers of magazines, and won awards, while millions of teenage fanatics and middle aged women credited this artist as the greatest artist ever while simultaneously saying Leonardo Da Vinci was nothing special, it would infuriate me.
Well, that definition probably fits Bob Dylan nicely, if you take lyrics out of the equation. It certainly does fit AC DC and they enjoy a lot of goodwill in rock circles too and they don't even write anything as profound as the Zimmerman. So I will have to disagree with that, I don't think there is any compulsion on artists to progress music or make something new. They can make what they like; I personally do find derivative music of any kind boring, be it within pop or prog. And I certainly find it harder to endure uninspired, by-the-numbers prog epics rather than a short pop song which might at least be catchy while it last, but that's a different story.
The last sentence sort of resonates with me. I don't have a problem with who they call the greatest as long as they respect my taste. I don't want to hear about how I am this weirdo or show off just because I am more open minded and adventurous in exploring music than people who listen to nothing but radio hits. I am not inclined to give courtesy unless it is reciprocated, which is why I generally avoid conversations on music 'offline'.
Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 08:52
rogerthat wrote:
Define "pop genre". No such thing as that. It has always been only a mix of contemporaneous music influences. Stevie Wonder may have done it better than most others, but it's still pop music. Pop music is simply accessible music revolving around a chorus that is intended for a large audience. The point is there is nothing inherently wrong with pop music that makes pop artists all those things that you mentioned. Proof being that you also have tr00, uber kvlt heavy f****ing metal bands who sound exactly like each other. You also have celebrated rock bands who make the same album at least 10 times over. That has nothing to do with the nature of pop music.
Excellent point. Pop, like all genres, isn't necessarily popular, but a sound, we can all agree on that. Therefore, pop music means something totally different than its actual, literal definition. Therefore, the definition of pop music can apply to anything. All music is pop music. Hahahaha lol ROFLCOPTER.
Everybody thinks today's stuff is crap but the stuff back then was great. OK honestly ABBA??? Come on! It's hard for me to see the difference between ABBA and Lady Gaga. The only difference is that I can enjoy ABBA sort of sometimes.
rogerthat wrote:
I don't know of a genius working in music right now, whether in the mainstream or otherwise.
Terrible point. Not one genius in the entire music industry?????? Not even one????? One????????? Uno??????אחד??????
C'mon....
------------- There be dragons
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 08:54
frippism wrote:
Terrible point. Not one genius in the entire music industry?????? Not even one????? One????????? Uno??????אחד??????
C'mon....
I only said I do not know of. There may well be one in the fragmented web that is the music industry today but the only geniuses I know of are those who were acknowledged as such long ago and are still working. I know of many talented musicians who make excellent music but none from the new crop that I could call a genius.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 08:57
frippism wrote:
Everybody thinks today's stuff is crap but the stuff back then was great. OK honestly ABBA??? Come on! It's hard for me to see the difference between ABBA and Lady Gaga. The only difference is that I can enjoy ABBA sort of sometimes.
I think ABBA were indeed in a different league altogether. They just lacked some healthy dose of tastefulness, imo, but they could do some conceptually interesting stuff once every few songs.
However, there's plenty other 70s pop I could hardly bear. Diana Ross is terribly boring to my ears. And what of the much acclaimed Hotel California? I don't know of many other anthems that could be as dull, as un-catchy, etc. That's just me but there surely was terrible music in the 70s too.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 08:58
frippism wrote:
OK honestly ABBA??? Come on! It's hard for me to see the difference between ABBA and Lady Gaga. The only difference is that I can enjoy ABBA sort of sometimes.
.
Yep, cut the crap, you hear one of ABBA's classic hit singles and you ain't singing it inside your head for weeks thereafter? You're a lying sack of flotsam if you think that type of song is easy to write without stellar talent
-------------
Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 09:00
ugh Hotel California is horrible song... sorry.
Yeah there are some ABBA songs which are disgustingly catchy.
------------- There be dragons
Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 10:30
Yay troll threads.
If you hate bad pop, then avoid bad pop and listen to good pop instead, which is still being made today. It's not that hard to find; it's just not being crammed into your face like the flavor of the week Lady Gaga (by whom I still have not heard a single song).
I think this thread is focusing mainly on modern electro/synth/bubblegum pop or whatever it's called (I'm no expert), but there is always at least a few artists grouped into any genre that I find enjoyable and that is because I think music always has its merits and nothing is entirely awful (even if I don't like it). I personally think people should be more open minded and willing to understand and enjoy other types of music even if their preconceptions about a genre is kind of negative. Or else I'll start a thread about how people don't have the same tastes as me and defend my stance as the superior music listener, but that sounds like something that everyone might want to avoid.
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 10:46
colorofmoney91 wrote:
Yay troll threads.
If you hate bad pop, then avoid bad pop and listen to good pop instead, which is still being made today. It's not that hard to find; it's just not being crammed into your face like the flavor of the week Lady Gaga (by whom I still have not heard a single song).
I think this thread is focusing mainly on modern electro/synth/bubblegum pop or whatever it's called (I'm no expert), but there is always at least a few artists grouped into any genre that I find enjoyable and that is because I think music always has its merits and nothing is entirely awful (even if I don't like it). I personally think people should be more open minded and willing to understand and enjoy other types of music even if their preconceptions about a genre is kind of negative. Or else I'll start a thread about how people don't have the same tastes as me and defend my stance as the superior music listener, but that sounds like something that everyone might want to avoid.
Dream Theater is awful.
/troll
------------- Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.
Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 10:46
colorofmoney91 wrote:
frippism wrote:
ugh Hotel California is horrible song... sorry.
I thought I was the only one who thought this.
------------- There be dragons
Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 10:46
Horizons wrote:
Dream Theater is awful.
/troll
high fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive
------------- There be dragons
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 11:00
frippism wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
frippism wrote:
ugh Hotel California is horrible song... sorry.
I thought I was the only one who thought this.
I don't like anything by The eagles but this song is one of the worst.
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 11:23
Snow Dog wrote:
frippism wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
frippism wrote:
ugh Hotel California is horrible song... sorry.
I thought I was the only one who thought this.
I don't like anything by The eagles but this song is one of the worst.
+1.
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 11:47
I despise autotune and all of this too, but I guess that some people might argue that guys like Meshuggah's Jens Kidman also use effects to make his growls sound "growlier" (or whatever they should sound like), or that some metal guitarists effects can be partly used to mask minor playing mistakes or to make some rather trivial playing sound spectacular.
I myself play guitar and I know by experience that when you play with high-end gear and sophisticated effects it's so much easier to play and give an impressive sound, and small mistakes become unnoticeable.
Isn't it a bit like what auto-tune does for vocalists?
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 11:49
Cynic also use effects on their vocals, they are fabricated pop crap,
-------------
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 11:54
Kate Bush was sexy and a pop star in the late seventies. Was she crap ?
You may find crap in every miusical genre, including classical and jazz.
------------- "Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 12:32
frippism wrote:
colorofmoney91 wrote:
frippism wrote:
ugh Hotel California is horrible song... sorry.
I thought I was the only one who thought this.
I don't think it's all that bad, but then sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder or something.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 13:01
frippism wrote:
Horizons wrote:
Dream Theater is awful.
/troll
high fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive
Oh go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you.
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 13:06
we be kraaaazy
------------- There be dragons
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 13:24
dtguitarfan wrote:
frippism wrote:
Horizons wrote:
Dream Theater is awful.
/troll
high fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive
Oh go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you.
I just ignore those ignorant, off-topic, troll comments
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 13:30
darkshade wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
frippism wrote:
Horizons wrote:
Dream Theater is awful.
/troll
high fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive
Oh go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you.
I just ignore those ignorant, off-topic, troll comments
This whole thread is ignorant man.
------------- Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 13:32
Well there was some meaningful discussion besides "Dream Theater is awful. /thread"
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:00
I wish some people would think these ideas through before dumping them on us like they've had some road to Damascus epiphany that they really need to share.
If creating a Pop Star was easy we'd all be doing it - to hell with artistic integrity, bring on the champagne and caviar, limos and easy action - dammit I want a big house in the country and a fleet of Italian supercars to drive to Domino's for a take away pizza - if writing a 4-minute, 4-chord wonder is that easy then let's do it now - come on guys, we've got the talent and I'm sure we can find some leggy bimbo to front the band - our 90% split between us would still be a tidy sum of cash.
damn, this is one catchy tune:
------------- What?
Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:11
Dean wrote:
I wish some people would think these ideas through before dumping them on us like they've had some road to Damascus epiphany that they really need to share.
If creating a Pop Star was easy we'd all be doing it - to hell with artistic integrity, bring on the champagne and caviar, limos and easy action - dammit I want a big house in the country and a fleet of Italian supercars to drive to Domino's for a take away pizza - if writing a 4-minute, 4-chord wonder is that easy then let's do it now - come on guys, we've got the talent and I'm sure we can find some leggy bimbo to front the band - our 90% split between us would still be a tidy sum of cash.
and as usual Dean wins the discussion.
darkshade wrote:
Well there was some meaningful discussion besides "Dream Theater is awful. /thread"
well yeah but it was all what is pop and what pop is bad and is all pop bad and stuff like thatz.
------------- There be dragons
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:12
How to Create a Pop Star
plasticine can help
-------------
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:20
Just curious, who amongst our long time prog fans hasn't gone through a period where you looked down on pop after becoming a prog fan?
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:21
hm yeah but that passed after I was 14 :D
------------- There be dragons
Posted By: frippism
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:24
aginor wrote:
How to Create a Pop Star
plasticine can help
We have the technology
------------- There be dragons
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:25
Slartibartfast wrote:
Just curious, who amongst our long time prog fans hasn't gone through a period where you looked down on pop after becoming a prog fan?
Ive gone on to appreciate pop more after becoming a prog fan when I was 17. I like some pop when I was 10-12 years old, but that's cause I was so young and not exposed to much music (besides classical).
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:27
The only pop song that's come out in the last 5 years that I truly liked, was C. Lo Green's "f**k You", and it's probably because it's so derivative of 70s R&B/funk (and the lyrics).
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:31
Slartibartfast wrote:
Just curious, who amongst our long time prog fans hasn't gone through a period where you looked down on pop after becoming a prog fan?
Not me - I bought Electric Warrior and Meddle in the same year - I've always like Pop and Prog.
------------- What?
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:34
Not me. I've always like some pop and some prog. I always thought there was good pop and good prog. Weird I know!
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:35
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:35
(see Kate Bush for example)
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:36
darkshade wrote:
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
Technically everything under the sun is pop that is not Classical or Jazz or serioius experimental composers
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:37
Dean wrote:
If creating a Pop Star was easy we'd all be doing it - to hell with artistic integrity, bring on the champagne and caviar, limos and easy action - dammit I want a big house in the country and a fleet of Italian supercars to drive to Domino's for a take away pizza - if writing a 4-minute, 4-chord wonder is that easy then let's do it now - come on guys, we've got the talent and I'm sure we can find some leggy bimbo to front the band - our 90% split between us would still be a tidy sum of cash.
Oh, but it is that easy. The only ingredient you're missing is money. You either need to have a whole lot of it, or know someone who does and is willing to invest it in you. Pop stars ARE created these days from talentless bums by people who have a tidy sum of cash. Ashley Simpson? Read this article from someone IN the business: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mellencamp/on-my-mind-the-state-of-t_b_177836.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mellencamp/on-my-mind-the-state-of-t_b_177836.html
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:40
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
Technically everything under the sun is pop that is not Classical or Jazz or serioius experimental composers
Well, was classical (Romantic, Classical, etc) not the pop music of it's day?
And Jazz has been pop music at least 2-3 times in it's history. Swing, 70s fusion, and smooth jazz.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 14:41
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
Technically everything under the sun is pop that is not Classical or Jazz or serioius experimental composers
Well, was classical (Romantic, Classical, etc) not the pop music of it's day?
No, not really. Plus the word pop had not been created.
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 15:27
Anybody ever heard about this story: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/virtual-japanese-pop-star-sells-concerts-makes-more-204736890.html" rel="nofollow - http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/virtual-japanese-pop-star-sells-concerts-makes-more-204736890.html
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 15:30
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
Technically everything under the sun is pop that is not Classical or Jazz or serioius experimental composers
Well, was classical (Romantic, Classical, etc) not the pop music of it's day?
No, not really. Plus the word pop had not been created.
Doesn't mean it wasn't "pop"ular.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 15:39
Pop means you can put in a pop up toaster...
Pop star = shellack a cow turd and convince enough people it's a plop of gold.
If you want to find the equivalent of pop music in the pre recorded days what you want is folk music, except it wasn't commercialized.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 15:44
In past centuries actually some kinds of folk music were in the place of modern pop.
------------- This night wounds time.
Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 15:47
^But of course this is a very general comparison. Pop music is a phenomenon of sound recordig era.
------------- This night wounds time.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 15:57
ole-the-first wrote:
In past centuries actually some kinds of folk music were in the place of modern pop.
I thought that was the point I was making.
Music for the masses had to be fairly simple so that actual people could play it, otherwise how could people experience it? The advent of recorded music changed things. It could be shared without people actually physically making it in person.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 16:03
Slartibartfast wrote:
Just curious, who amongst our long time prog fans hasn't gone through a period where you looked down on pop after becoming a prog fan?
I never looked down on pop, but I have always been picky about the pop I listened to anyway.
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 16:58
Slartibartfast wrote:
Just curious, who amongst our long time prog fans hasn't gone through a period where you looked down on pop after becoming a prog fan?
There is some pop that I look down upon and some that I simply revere. I can't speak in too general a fashion.
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 17:00
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
Technically everything under the sun is pop that is not Classical or Jazz or serioius experimental composers
Well, was classical (Romantic, Classical, etc) not the pop music of it's day?
No, not really. Plus the word pop had not been created.
Doesn't mean it wasn't "pop"ular.
There are many reasons this music was created. Most was heard by the few. Not so popular.
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 17:05
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
Technically everything under the sun is pop that is not Classical or Jazz or serioius experimental composers
Well, was classical (Romantic, Classical, etc) not the pop music of it's day?
No, not really. Plus the word pop had not been created.
Doesn't mean it wasn't "pop"ular.
There are many reasons this music was created. Most was heard by the few. Not so popular.
I think the main reason the music was created in the first place was for the Catholic Church, so in fact, most people heard this music at church mass. As it became more of an art form with Beethoven, it was performed in halls, but only the rich could afford to see it, but it was still the popular form of music/entertainment. Even the poor talked it up, because of how popular guys like Beethoven (for example) were.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 17:07
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
Technically everything under the sun is pop that is not Classical or Jazz or serioius experimental composers
Well, was classical (Romantic, Classical, etc) not the pop music of it's day?
No, not really. Plus the word pop had not been created.
Doesn't mean it wasn't "pop"ular.
There are many reasons this music was created. Most was heard by the few. Not so popular.
I think the main reason the music was created in the first place was for the Catholic Church, so in fact, most people heard this music at church mass. As it became more of an art form with Beethoven, it was performed in halls, but only the rich could afford to see it, but it was still the popular form of music/entertainment. Even the poor talked it up, because of how popular guys like Beethoven (for example) were.
I disagree. Popular music were the songs sung in pubs and bars.....on streets....travelling wotsits. No one goes to church to hear popular music. Unless it's gospel.
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 17:09
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
Technically everything under the sun is pop that is not Classical or Jazz or serioius experimental composers
Well, was classical (Romantic, Classical, etc) not the pop music of it's day?
No, not really. Plus the word pop had not been created.
Doesn't mean it wasn't "pop"ular.
There are many reasons this music was created. Most was heard by the few. Not so popular.
I think the main reason the music was created in the first place was for the Catholic Church, so in fact, most people heard this music at church mass. As it became more of an art form with Beethoven, it was performed in halls, but only the rich could afford to see it, but it was still the popular form of music/entertainment. Even the poor talked it up, because of how popular guys like Beethoven (for example) were.
I disagree. Popular music were the songs sung in pubs and bars.....on streets....travelling wotsits. No one goes to church to hear popular music. Unless it's gospel.
And Baptist church haha
I don't know. It's really hard to speculate what was truly popular back then. I mean, folk songs and other songs went down the generations, but what was popular in one part of the world, was unknown in another not too far away.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 17:13
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
darkshade wrote:
Technically, most 70s prog is pop music pushed to it's limits, with added eclecticism. This could be why some people don't like modern prog, and some have said it lacks that 'hook'.
Technically everything under the sun is pop that is not Classical or Jazz or serioius experimental composers
Well, was classical (Romantic, Classical, etc) not the pop music of it's day?
No, not really. Plus the word pop had not been created.
Doesn't mean it wasn't "pop"ular.
There are many reasons this music was created. Most was heard by the few. Not so popular.
I think the main reason the music was created in the first place was for the Catholic Church, so in fact, most people heard this music at church mass. As it became more of an art form with Beethoven, it was performed in halls, but only the rich could afford to see it, but it was still the popular form of music/entertainment. Even the poor talked it up, because of how popular guys like Beethoven (for example) were.
I disagree. Popular music were the songs sung in pubs and bars.....on streets....travelling wotsits. No one goes to church to hear popular music. Unless it's gospel.
And Baptist church haha
I don't know. It's really hard to speculate what was truly popular back then. I mean, folk songs and other songs went down the generations, but what was popular in one part of the world, was unknown in another not too far away.
True but they would have there own local songs. But songs did travel because minstrels moved from place to place.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 22:40
Slartibartfast wrote:
Just curious, who amongst our long time prog fans hasn't gone through a period where you looked down on pop after becoming a prog fan?
Pop music is what got me into MUSIC, so, no, I can never look down on pop. I don't want to become that person twenty years later either. I will not condemn the format merely because of some artists I do not like. It was talented pop artists who made the initiation easy for me while at the same time introducing me to concepts I would recognize in prog, classical or jazz and thereby expand my musical horizons. Good pop has a very important role to play in music.
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: June 03 2012 at 02:40
dtguitarfan wrote:
Anybody ever heard about this story: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/virtual-japanese-pop-star-sells-concerts-makes-more-204736890.html" rel="nofollow - http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/virtual-japanese-pop-star-sells-concerts-makes-more-204736890.html
At least she seems to play with a real band (although you never know, it could well be playback too).
I really don't know but I would say that still most pop-star hit songs are written by a human composer / arranger, but it won't be long that even the music, or at least several of the melodical lines, harmonies etc will also be computer-generated. A computer can compose hundreds of melodies in a wink of an eye and then you just chose which one seems to have most chances of success and do the final arrangements and tidy it up.
Computer sound libraries, VSTi etc sound already very convincing and the music can be fully "played" and recorded by a computer and if it's done well many people will not tell the difference from the same music played by human musicians (still depending quite a lot on the type of instrument and music, for example electric rock guitar playing is still notoriously difficult to emulate, but it will come the day that even complex instruments like electric guitars will sound convincing enough).
Like it or not we better get ready to accept it, a good deal of music will be computer-generated and computer-interpreted. It will just be a different kind of music, like what computer-generated images are to human drawing or painting.
But there will always be music composed and played by humans (I hope, although this does not necessarily mean that it will always be better than computer-generated one).
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: June 03 2012 at 02:53
I HOPE popular music gets all super computer produced and all our pop stars are just empty shells... wait the stars are already shells. All we need is a nice little computer program that analyzes emotions and how to create each feeling with music. Yay.
Because then real musicians will HAVE to force themselves to push their musical abilities. Do I look down on pop music? Not at all. I respect the hell out of someone that makes music that other people enjoy. I can't do that very well. I can only make music that I enjoy. But I could not respect them as a friend unless I knew personally that they were doing their best to push their music and their abilities.
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: June 03 2012 at 06:07
How to Create a Pop Star
to even the colours and edge out the startkness,
USE CRAYONS
-------------
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: June 03 2012 at 23:50
rogerthat wrote:
I don't know of a genius working in music right now, whether in the mainstream or otherwise.
His name is Toby Driver, you should check him out.
------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 04 2012 at 04:13
dtguitarfan wrote:
Dean wrote:
If creating a Pop Star was easy we'd all be doing it - to hell with artistic integrity, bring on the champagne and caviar, limos and easy action - dammit I want a big house in the country and a fleet of Italian supercars to drive to Domino's for a take away pizza - if writing a 4-minute, 4-chord wonder is that easy then let's do it now - come on guys, we've got the talent and I'm sure we can find some leggy bimbo to front the band - our 90% split between us would still be a tidy sum of cash.
Oh, but it is that easy. The only ingredient you're missing is money. You either need to have a whole lot of it, or know someone who does and is willing to invest it in you. Pop stars ARE created these days from talentless bums by people who have a tidy sum of cash. Ashley Simpson? Read this article from someone IN the business: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mellencamp/on-my-mind-the-state-of-t_b_177836.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mellencamp/on-my-mind-the-state-of-t_b_177836.html
You've given up without trying, this is the internet - the point of the Walk Off The Earth video I posted is this: 115,236,716 hits ... for a little known Canadian Indie band covering this year's biggest Pop hit by an little known Australian singer/songwriter. This simple little pop song has boosted the careers of 4 separate artists (Goyte, Kimbra, Walk Off The Earth and Sarah Blackwood) without big-money backing of Svengali-like record executives and it is pretty clear that none of the artists involved are talentless bums (as you call them). Of course viral marketting is big business and I am as cynical of it as anyone else, but that does not mean that you need lots of financial backing to pull it off sucessfully - what did Rebecca Black's mother spend on "Friday"... $4,000 getting the song and video recorded and nothing on promoting it? - with our combined resourses we can record a I-vi-IV-V pop song for nothing and promote it for nothing...
Simple songs with simple structures and simple chord progressions and simple pentatonic melodies are the oldest and most common form of music in the history of everything - from folk tunes to hymns, gospel to rock and roll, troubadours and minstrels, choirs and congregations - everything is built from that, incuding madrigals and plainsong, symphonies and concertos - however complex music became its origins lay in the aural tradition of passing-on simple tunes that anyone can pick up and sing. This endures because it works, and it works because of harmony - the harmonic relationship within the chord progression is mathematical, as are the overlaying pentatonic melodies - pentatonic harmonic relationships that are prevelant in every form of ethnic music on the planet regardless of the scale or key or mode of music.
I haven't paid any attention to Ashlee Simpson to have an opinion as such - I know of her of course, but never really took any notice - reading her Wikipedia profile she doesn't seem to embody the talentless pre-fabricated mold you imply she does - she has writing credit on practically every track on all three of her albums and took creative control of her last album ... actress turned singer, famous sister, pushy parents.. the deck seems to be stacked against her but evidently you know more about her than I do, though I think there are probably better examples you could have chosen.
Yeah, I read the Mellencamp article a few years ago - he has some good points and some erroneous ones. Not sure why he picked on Mariah Carey, again I'm sure there are far better examples.
------------- What?
Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: June 04 2012 at 07:07
Oh lord, Dean, you really haven't heard about Ashlee Simpson? She is THE symbol of what is wrong with the music industry today. She is the Wizard of Oz as it were! Please go google "Ashlee Simpson Debaucle". I'll sum up what happened though. First, she was on SNL and there was a flub where it was revealed that she lip syncs. No big surprise there. But that's not where the story ends, because then it was revealed that she is tone deaf:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791368" rel="nofollow - today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791368
------------- http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List