|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jul 11, 2002 23:29:22 GMT 10
"Pop" music hasn't always been so bad though. There was a time, about ten or more years ago, when "pop" music, although probably not intellectually stimulating was fun and a bit of a laugh. Same with r&b music. They weren't as pretentious as they are now days. An example... I was at the gym the other day and Nelly's new song comes on. The lyrics were something like: Nelly: oh yeah, it's getting hot in here, it's so hot in here Backup singers: yeah, it's getting hot in here Nelly: It's getting hot in here, take off your clothes Girl: I'm getting so hot in here, I'll take off my clothes Nelly: Yeah, take off your clothes, it's so hot in here and so on. Who buys this crap?  |
|
|
|
Post by left on Jul 11, 2002 23:39:28 GMT 10
Hmmmmmmmmmmm this is a popular one amoung people in my grade.  Considering most RnB and pop appeals to younger people, don't you think they should change their lyrics? Who wants their kids listening to some guy getting horny whilst singing? - It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes - Nice work Nelly, you've managed to bring down the age when men start yelling out "Show us your tits!" to 10! Also Britney's ' Hit me baby one more time ' Dude, my little sister was listening to this and she's 9!  Ahhhhhhhhhhh aren't we lucky to have GOOD taste......  |
|
|
|
Post by Captain BJ on Jul 15, 2002 0:23:51 GMT 10
I haven't been on here in ages... Moved out and haven't been able to use the computer very much. Then I forgot my password. Then I realised I had the wrong username.
Anyway, I came on here with a purpose.
Some people have admitted Britney has talent. Good to see. But remember that this is a grudging admission from people who on the whole hate pop music (or the most recent incarnation). Particularly, it seems that since I last posted on here the anti-Britney sentiment has increased with nobody to challenge them. So our local king of controversy is back (OK so I borrowed that title from Eminem but nobody has challenged anyone else while I was gone).
It doesn't matter how good the songs are written, if you can't sing them it won't do well. There's a longer way of writing that but the point of it is that there's so much more to every style of music than writing, singing and in band's cases playing (by the way Britney is a person not a band so she can't play all her own songs even if she tried.). There's the production, promotion and all that other background stuff and the live shows. From what I've heard Britney's live show is pretty good. From personal experience I know that Robbie Williams' live show fucking rawks. I'm using him because when I think solo pop artists I think Britney female and Robbie male.
Something for Kate have all of that too. Of course they do different things for promotion to pop artists. They are aiming at a different audience. They also have different opinions of what they want to be. People are whingeing that record companies are putting more money behind the pop artists. Well duh. Record companies are businesses. Where does it say they have an obligation to ensure that they will only release material that is written by the singer, that is completely innovative and with thoughtful and meaningful lyrics?
OK, if you have $50000 and you have two options for investing. One makes 10% but in two years will only make 2%. The other makes 4% and in two years will make between 3%-5%. You put most of your money behind the 10% option (but not all in case you jump off too late) and then in two years you re-invest it in the next 10% option. The 4% option is steady so you put some to make sure there will always be money there.
Fuck, if I was in a record company, I'd put my money behind Britney (not so much now because due to too many people thinking she's a whore and some not-so-flash image decisions on her and her management's part, she's on the way down unless she can deliver in what is still her main stock in trade, music. Her next album needs to be good or she will lose ground on J Lo and some of the up and coming r&b/pop artists like Ashanti).
People snap up pop music. But no matter how much they are told to, they will not flock to an inferior product. People aren't stupid. And you might think it's sad that the majority love pop music (hey why's it called that anyway?). Who are you to impose your musical opinions on anyone else?
OK that's my essay. Back in my box.
|
|
|
|
Post by WithoutWords on Jul 15, 2002 0:45:59 GMT 10
this is taken from www.somethingforkate.com in reference to the song "paintburshes" ""This song deals with the idea of 'artistic integrity'. It's such a loaded concept and ultimately no-one can judge an artist's integrity except the artist themself, others can only guess at what motivates someone to write songs, and make judgements based on their own taste in music, their own idea of what 'good music' and 'bad music' is and whatever true or false information has shaped their opinion of the artist in question. If you set out to make a million dollars by writing a throwaway radio-hit and you achieve just that, is your integrity in question? You stayed true to your aim didn't you? Your beliefs and ideologies weren't compromised were they? Good for you. Personally, I love writing and recording and touring and I hope to do it for as long as I'm able. I also hope to one day own a home and be able to afford further education, perhaps the possibility of children and the usual things a normal person hopes for and works towards. It seems that today a lot of people have a problem with some artists because they're on a major label or they appeared on a certain TV show or they're dressed a certain way or their music was heard on Neighbours etc. etc. etc. None of these are reasons to like or dislike a band. Music is music. You like it or your don't like it but you can't assign a value to it." no-one can judge an artist's integrity except the artist themself, others can only guess at what motivates someone to write songs, and make judgements based on their own taste in music, their own idea of what 'good music' and 'bad music' is and whatever true or false information has shaped their opinion of the artist in question. If you set out to make a million dollars by writing a throwaway radio-hit and you achieve just that, is your integrity in question? You stayed true to your aim didn't you? Your beliefs and ideologies weren't compromised were they? Good for you. Personally, I love writing and recording and touring and I hope to do it for as long as I'm able. I also hope to one day own a home and be able to afford further education, perhaps the possibility of children and the usual things a normal person hopes for and works towards. It seems that today a lot of people have a problem with some artists because they're on a major label or they appeared on a certain TV show or they're dressed a certain way or their music was heard on Neighbours etc. etc. etc. None of these are reasons to like or dislike a band. Music is music. You like it or your don't like it but you can't assign a value to it." not all of that is relevant to music exactly, but you get the drift, music just *is*, to some peoplw its good, to some its bad, but im personally sick of being judge for my music taste, and on these grounds i dont judge others, all i can say is what i think, which is neither giht nor wrong and thats all i have to say about that |
|
|
|
Post by Captain BJ on Jul 16, 2002 12:22:28 GMT 10
Maybe so, but do you realise you pasted the same slab of text twice? I should stop talking as all my posts turn into essays  |
|
|
|
Post by dirtgirl on Jul 16, 2002 14:50:13 GMT 10
"without words" - that's a borderline argument!! All art must be subject to peer review and criticism otherwise mediocrity just gets accepted as "artistic integrity". It's a very fine line, which is often corrupted when BIG dollars are in order. How does an artist ride this schism? I guess it has to come down to the individual... and I agree with you Etc about RnB and it's target audience. Very insightful! A lot of RnB rides the divide between what could be considered art v pornography. Why is it that women in the majority of RnB videos are portrayed as stupid, mindless sluts there for the sexual gratification of the men? (and for those about to throw the argument, what about the likes of Missy Elliott trying to correct the bias?; i find alot of what her ilk to be doing is equally distressing as their work is often a study in female misogyny (the correct word for this escapes me for the moment!!). It's just one extreme against the other. What does this say about American society and sexual relations there? What does it say about Australian society and our way of life that we absorb this stuff unquestioningly like sponges? What does this say about censorship? Is it okay for a 9 yr old to be exposed to this and potentially lose their childhood innocence or should we expose them to the harsh realities of life? It's this a type of conditioning?  |
|
|
|
Post by left on Jul 16, 2002 15:53:58 GMT 10
In music a few weeks our class got into a big argument. It was me and 2 of my friends verse the whole fucking class.
We had to tell the class about some of our favourite musicians. People got up and were talking about Nelly, Britney and Eminem. I made a comment that they aren't 'musicians' just singers.
Anyway they gave me a yelling at saying that Nelly was better than anything I listen to.
The teacher took my side and one of my friends made a comment about Britney showing her body off all the time.
They then said, "Everyone in the music industry has to have a good body, otherwise you won't get any where." I ended with " What about the singer from George? She's she's big and she's fucking awesome!" They all then shut up..................
|
|
|
|
Post by larry emdur is my hero! on Jul 16, 2002 16:33:15 GMT 10
What dirtgirl says pretty much sums about my feelings on the subject, so i wont rave on basically repeat what she said....
"Everyone in the music industry has to have a good body, otherwise you won't get any where" I think it's interesting the values western societys associate with being a "pop" star. The look, the sounds, the fashions. People assume these things are a global thing, but each country/culture would have a different reading of it all...
Look at Canada. An accurate measure of "popular music" would be the singles charts yes? Their top 10 contains: Elvis, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nickelback , Prodigy Silverchair and Oasis. The only "pop" would be Kylie (and some would argue Elvis). The only rnb would be Nelly. Compare that to Australia, were RnB and pop basically make up the top ten, and the rest of the charts. Bands making an appearance in the Canadian top 40, Radiohead (multiple enteries), The Tea Party, Nine Inch Nails, Alanis Morisette, The Strokes, Weezer, Portishead, Matthew Goodband (227th week?) , Sting, George Harrison and U2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jul 16, 2002 19:31:46 GMT 10
Mmm, there's some truth to the Something For Kate Paintbrushes argument. I obsess over various esoteric things, and I don't really care what people think. If what I like does something for me, then that's what matters. I read somewhere that Something For Kate were at some instore gig once. The presenter decided to kiss arse by telling Paul how he thinks Something For Kate are great because they write their own music that's intelligent unlike a lot of pop music. Paul said something like, "I don't agree with that. If other types of music can do something for other people and get them interested in music then that's great. Good for them." I agree with him to the extent of not ALL pop music is bad and shouldn't be labelled as such. And, oh gosh, there's an Nsync mp3 on my computer, how can I show myself on here again? I don't care. I liked the song. Would I buy their album though? Hell no! And that's where I disagree with the Painbrushes argument. There is some commercially produced pop music that's good, but there's also a lot that's crap. Who am I to judge, you ask? Just someone with an opinion. Nelly is crap. I'll say it right now. I used to work in a music store, and gosh, people on the whole, don't have any taste. I remember people getting excited when the Scandal'us album came out! I mean, urggh. |
|
|
|
Post by Glen on Jul 16, 2002 23:52:13 GMT 10
And also, everyone in the world is better looking than Joey Fatone...it's scientifically proven!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sonic Death Monkey on Jul 17, 2002 0:34:26 GMT 10
That dudes like 30 now or something, soon he'll be too old and then his dancing...singing career will be over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sonic Death Monkey on Jul 17, 2002 1:18:07 GMT 10
Its pretty clear everyone has their own opinion on the pop world and what constitutes selling out, blah blah. Pop is what it is.
But something i have been thinking about is, what would happen if suddenly all the marketing firms in the world were to disappear. What would happen to pop music, would kids still be interested in pop music if there wasn't a fancy video to accompany the song. No chance for people to see how well a singer/band can dance, how pretty they are, what clothes they wear.
I know you are thinking this is a stupid hypothetical question that doesn't have any real baring on the real world. But this does apply to artists/bands who don't fit into the realm of record companies and what they consider what will and won't sell. So then another thing to consider is that would some unknown but talented band be as succesful as britney and her clones if they had the same amount of advertising dollars to show how 'talented' they are. And if so would the consumers still be unable to decipher what is and what isn't a good product.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jul 17, 2002 13:13:00 GMT 10
Its pretty clear everyone has their own opinion on the pop world and what constitutes selling out, blah blah. Pop is what it is. But something i have been thinking about is, what would happen if suddenly all the marketing firms in the world were to disappear. What would happen to pop music, would kids still be interested in pop music if there wasn't a fancy video to accompany the song. No chance for people to see how well a singer/band can dance, how pretty they are, what clothes they wear. See now this is the Napsterphile arguement; that if it wasn't for the evil marketroids and big record companies, more musicians could be heard. More musicians could also be broke. If it weren't for Sony would Something For Kate be as successful? And "pop music". "Pop" means "popular". If Something For Kate became as famous as Kylie Mingoue could they be considered "pop" music? By definition, yes, and it wouldn't mean they'd "sold-out" or sacrificed quality. So if we can consider Something For Kate to be one day considered "pop music", then the flashy videos and other gimmicks are just trival and extra to the music. Something For Kate can do the flashy stuff because they still have the quality intelligent music. Other than her arse, what does Jennifer Lopez have besides the flashy stuff? *Tiberius comes off his soapbox...* |
|
|
|
Post by dirtgirl on Jul 20, 2002 22:41:58 GMT 10
That dudes like 30 now or something, soon he'll be too old and then his dancing...singing career will be over. whoa.... thirty is NOT old!!!!  fair call Tiberius...that was the schism I was referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by Muzzy Pepped on Jul 20, 2002 23:19:03 GMT 10
And "pop music". "Pop" means "popular". If Something For Kate became as famous as Kylie Mingoue could they be considered "pop" music? By definition, yes, and it wouldn't mean they'd "sold-out" or sacrificed quality. So if we can consider Something For Kate to be one day considered "pop music", then the flashy videos and other gimmicks are just trival and extra to the music. Something For Kate can do the flashy stuff because they still have the quality intelligent music. Other than her arse, what does Jennifer Lopez have besides the flashy stuff? My god. So you would classify Pearl Jam as pop music? they are more popular and have a larger fanbase than Kylie could ever dream of but it doesn't make them pop. 'Pop Music' has become more a term to describe a genre of music rather than a more literal definition. |
|
