People that diss pop music...(rant)
- Thread starter mystixboi1
- Start date
Beyer160
Vagabond Of The Western World
You just described Motown, the label responsible for some of the greatest pop music ever recorded- music that inspired the rock musicians of the era.
speakerjones
my hat is all
I've always loved a great pop song. Writing and producing one takes true talent. Like any other form of art, I don't always want to be challenged. Sometimes I want to watch a complex film, other times I want to watch a dumb comedy flick. Sometimes I want to tackle a work of literature, sometimes I want to read a comic book. A lot of pop music truly is bad, and has little to no redeeming quality. Some of it is straight up fantastic. I wouldn't mind having Justin Timberlake's chops. One of my biggest musical crushes right now is Kimbra. Super talented and beautiful, if not conventionally so.
Peen Simmons
Let’s Get Obtuse!
Because pop music fandom occupies a weird cultural space where people get tangled up in their own inability to separate identity, morality, and taste.
When it comes to listening to pop music, people mistake their ability to endure tedium for seriousness. And they mistake their tolerance for mind-melting stupidity for having fun.
When it comes to listening to pop music, people mistake their ability to endure tedium for seriousness. And they mistake their tolerance for mind-melting stupidity for having fun.
Modern Saint
Starve your Fear, Feed your Dream!
Denverdave
Resident Ragamuffin
The singers in the classic Motown era were way, WAY above 95% of what we get today. Big difference.
ellengtrgrl
Guitar Old Timer
Let's put it this way - pop music bores me to tears. Be it the oldies bubble gum stuff like Gary Lewis and the Playboys (which I had to put up with at my old job, when coworkers insisted upon putting the local oldies station on the radio), or the latest thing like One Direction. There are some talented people making pop music, but in general, it's formulaic (in other words same old same old, because people in general seem to like what's familiar, and that's what makes the money), and autotuned to the extreme, so everything "sounds perfect," which is blah to me. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the Milli Vanilli thing still occurs in some way in the pop music world. YMMV
Gorgon90
Harmonic Dive Bomber
Think this nails it for me. There have always been performers who sung and played other people's songs (see Motown references earlier in the thread). They don't necessarily have to be able to write in my book but if you're going to get up and perform you should at least be singing it in tune and definitely not miming.This is why many people diss pop music:
Gary Blanchard
beloved, local musician
Back in the day, I preferred the music of Donovan, Dylan, Seeger, Paxton, and others of that ilk, but loved to listen to Herman's Hermits, Three Dog Night and others because it was fun. Personally, I like having variety to suit my mood. Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't. 
Dogsinplastic
avuncular to no one
Okay, to touch further upon what Flam said, pop music = popular music.
If it is available for purchase from a major label as well as many independent labels and sells, it is popular music. Pop is a broad umbrella that covers the vast majority of the genres of music most listened to by members of this forum.
From a biological perspective, we could look at art as the Domain and music as one of the Kingdoms. Popular music might fall into an Order with genres being the Families (and subgenres being the Subfamilies) or you can choose to go further down the line and place popular music as a Genus and the genres as Species. Either way, "pop" music encompasses almost any genre you can think of regardless of the scope of said popularity.
The Beatles were certainly pop, but so were Zeppelin, with rock, hard rock, blues folk, and further rockabilly, Amglo-Celtic folk being among the variations they played/dabbled/stole
thu.
I find the biggest difference being the process. Peter Gabriel is "pop" artist that used to do progressive rock and then got more into world music...which was really always pop, but he, Paul Simon, Malcolm McLaren, and others helped expose "world music" to a wider audience (because white people love a vanilla coating to their music). This made it more popular.
Classical music and it's many phases or eras were also the popular music of their day despite popularity being more insular given the limited access to much of the higher art by the masses. Folk music is arguably the oldest popular/pop music. It was/is music by and for the common people and is wonderfully diverse as we all know.
Modern popular music is as broad in scope as it always has been, but the focus of promoting and marketing has made the music secondary to the "artist(s)". The whole 360 deal as a concept makes it about marketing as much of the artist as possible to maximize profits from any and all ability they have to generate revenue. Unfortunately, I think the music projects that. Most of the stuff that has been hits for the better part of the last two decades seems passionless. So much of it is so homogenized and devoid of uniqueness. And it's not about selling image as there are tons of amazingly talented and beautiful people making excellent and even awe-inspiring music that aren't getting a fraction of the attention and exposure of people that clearly less musically able or even committed.
The modern pop artist is a part of machine that refuses to die despite endlessly shooting itself in the foot. If you want to be famous and actually make money you have to give up any notion of control and personal creativity and let the machine process you for the masses. It's disgusting. The focus is to minimize and eventually eliminate failure, create an always successful formula, but as we've all read about it doesn't always work. This idea also misses out on the growth that can come from failure or that commercial success/failure has nothing to do with artistic success/failure...they can be mutually exclusive. We've all seen amzing movies that were "bombs" and tons of shite movies that were "blockbusters".
Anyway, I'm done ranting. Good day to you all.
If it is available for purchase from a major label as well as many independent labels and sells, it is popular music. Pop is a broad umbrella that covers the vast majority of the genres of music most listened to by members of this forum.
From a biological perspective, we could look at art as the Domain and music as one of the Kingdoms. Popular music might fall into an Order with genres being the Families (and subgenres being the Subfamilies) or you can choose to go further down the line and place popular music as a Genus and the genres as Species. Either way, "pop" music encompasses almost any genre you can think of regardless of the scope of said popularity.
The Beatles were certainly pop, but so were Zeppelin, with rock, hard rock, blues folk, and further rockabilly, Amglo-Celtic folk being among the variations they played/dabbled/stole
thu.I find the biggest difference being the process. Peter Gabriel is "pop" artist that used to do progressive rock and then got more into world music...which was really always pop, but he, Paul Simon, Malcolm McLaren, and others helped expose "world music" to a wider audience (because white people love a vanilla coating to their music). This made it more popular.
Classical music and it's many phases or eras were also the popular music of their day despite popularity being more insular given the limited access to much of the higher art by the masses. Folk music is arguably the oldest popular/pop music. It was/is music by and for the common people and is wonderfully diverse as we all know.
Modern popular music is as broad in scope as it always has been, but the focus of promoting and marketing has made the music secondary to the "artist(s)". The whole 360 deal as a concept makes it about marketing as much of the artist as possible to maximize profits from any and all ability they have to generate revenue. Unfortunately, I think the music projects that. Most of the stuff that has been hits for the better part of the last two decades seems passionless. So much of it is so homogenized and devoid of uniqueness. And it's not about selling image as there are tons of amazingly talented and beautiful people making excellent and even awe-inspiring music that aren't getting a fraction of the attention and exposure of people that clearly less musically able or even committed.
The modern pop artist is a part of machine that refuses to die despite endlessly shooting itself in the foot. If you want to be famous and actually make money you have to give up any notion of control and personal creativity and let the machine process you for the masses. It's disgusting. The focus is to minimize and eventually eliminate failure, create an always successful formula, but as we've all read about it doesn't always work. This idea also misses out on the growth that can come from failure or that commercial success/failure has nothing to do with artistic success/failure...they can be mutually exclusive. We've all seen amzing movies that were "bombs" and tons of shite movies that were "blockbusters".
Anyway, I'm done ranting. Good day to you all.
Gary Blanchard
beloved, local musician
I think the problem is not pop music, but the music industry that has turned music and musicians into product. 
yabba
Weird Pick Butt Person
I like all of those songs
but then, I don't hear them very often - if I had to hear them all day every day, I'd probably hate them too. but I don't think it would be the songs, I think it would be the repetition. i.e., I'd hate any song that I had to listen to with that sort of regularity.
Denverdave
Resident Ragamuffin
I think the problem is not pop music, but the music industry that has turned music and musicians into product.
That is exactly it.
When Big Head Todd and the Monsters had their short period of more wide spread popularity. The record company they were with wanted that to continue (more profit) so they insisted the band accept outside writers who were more radio friendly. The band refused. And thus there was no release form them for 5 years at the peak of their popularity.
Dogsinplastic
avuncular to no one
Wow, that's fucking hysterical. A&R people can be such shite. Todd still writes amazing tunes...he needs ZERO help in that area and NEVER needed it.
I know Ian Moore went through a situation where he recorded an album that the record company wouldn't release. Again, another great writer that also happens to be an excellent singer and killer guitar player.