My distaste for popular music...

[DrBloodmoney]

53 minutes ago, Stardew Shelly said:

 

Could you elaborate how exactly? Because I like what I like, not much I can do about that. Sure, I can listen to songs/albums more often and with more thought and can discover something I find meaning in but still, that has to be something I am fond of in the first place, knowingly or not.

 

For example I HATE Death/Black Metal. With every fiber of my being. Listening to this genre I would almost discribe as physical pain for me. Not judging btw, you guys listen to what you like, no need for arguments here.

However, I am not able to like this music, in other words, no, I cannot control what kind of music I like.

 

You are absolutely right - and being comfortable liking what you like and not caring what anyone else thinks of it is the best place to be

 

Unfortunately, I think what was implied in the post you quoted is not “You can control what kind of music you like”, but rather “you can control what kind of music you tell people you like so that you fit into whatever mould you are trying to project”

 

I’ve always figured that if you look through someone’s ipod, or spotify, (or CD collection - damn, I feel old!) and you see nothing but ‘embarrassing’ stuff (guilty pleasure type stuff, or cheezy pop or whatever), then that person might not be ‘cool’ in your eyes, but at least they know what they like and are happy with it.

 

If, on the other hand, you see nothing ‘embarrassing’ - everything is super-hip, or super-niche, or super-cool - then that person actually doesn’t like music at all. They just like looking like they like music, but it’s really just an extension of a mystique they are carefully crafting.

 

To me, there is nothing more boring and dispiriting than hearing someone disparage someone else for their taste in music. 

Like what you like: don’t be ashamed of any of it, because, as you say, it is not in your control!  

 

Now i’m off to listen to my Marilyn Manson/Taylor Swift/Rob Zombie/Nicki Minaj playlist. Peace ✌️ 

 

[Lillia]

I'm very open minded when it comes to music. I can like literally every type of music. 

From "cheap" pop to heavy metal. The fact I mainly listen to rock music does not mean I will disqualify other genres. 

There is no "real" music in my opinion. Each genre can have good and bad songs. 

[RevengeancePrime]

Music is something to be enjoyed. There will always be music you like and dislike regardless of what's in the mainstream.

[Charizarzar]

I find that I listen to a lot of 90s music because it tends to be my sort of thing. Usually alt rock. Not even stuff that I’ve necessarily heard before either, I often listen to random albums on Spotify while I’m playing a game. But I’d like to think I’m pretty open minded for the most part. I love Katy Perry for example. Out of your list Rihanna and JT have a lot of talent (imo) and I like that they’ve changed their style over the years.

 

I guess I’ll admit I’m getting a bit tired of hearing generic DJ songs where the lyrics are just the same line repeated over and over, but that sort of thing doesn’t make up all popular music. 

[Dr_Mayus]

2 hours ago, Charizarzar said:

I guess I’ll admit I’m getting a bit tired of hearing generic DJ songs where the lyrics are just the same line repeated over and over, but that sort of thing doesn’t make up all popular music. 

Unfortunately...it kind of does  We use to play a game in my old office called "count the lyrics" where we would all place bets on how many different sentences a song had and then look up the lyrics to see who got the closest. The reason these songs are popular is because they are designed to get stuck in your head. They are simple songs that allow the listener to sing along if they like because the words are easy to learn. The beat is catchy and safe. This is all done on purpose. It doesn't matter who the singer is because chances are they didn't write the song, didn't compose the music and their voice is altered to be more appealing. 

 

 

And now because the world needs more good music. I present one of my favourite albums. I have dubbed it a "near perfect album" . There is also a 4 or 5 minute video where he explains the Ballad of Cleopatra and it is wonderful how they were able to string these songs together (along with the music video) to tell a sad but touching story of a woman and her choices

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Dr_Mayus

[Yrva]

You're letting your hatred for mainstream music blind you if you genuinely believe that most of these immensely popular artists are talent less. I absolutely hate Taylor Swift and her music, but I cannot discredit her ability to make catchy and relatable music to the common (usually female) listener. An incredibly popular artist like Drake has mainstream appeal because he applies both (usually) great production with, again, incredibly relatable lyrics. That in itself is a talent, whether they do it alone, or has a team help them. With that being said, most of these artists are about as deep as a puddle; not in a sense of exposing underlying themes and all that, but rather the depth of the literal music production.

 

Now take an artist like Kendrick Lamar and compare it to one of the genre's biggest contemporaries, Drake, and Kendrick outclasses Drake in every single way possible, except for perhaps the mainstream radio appeal. Kendrick's music has incredible instruments, story telling, and all around fantastic as a piece of consumption. Drake on the other hand, might lack the depth that someone like Kendrick has, but he still has such a great formula to combine fun/relatable lyrics and great production to create songs that people can mindlessly put on to enjoy. Both of these, while are not in the same lane, both are arguably the best at what they do, and neither should be dismissed because one is "mainstream" and the other not so much.

 

Another example is Taylor Swift and Carly Rae Jepsen. Taylor applies the same methods that Drake does in making, to put it simply, great radio music with an extremely broad appeal. Carly Rae Jepsen on the other hand, which is essentially just a more fleshed out and developed Taylor Swift, makes just as fantastic music, but isn't anywhere close to as popular. This is particularly due to Taylor Swift being America's sweetheart among all other things, but Carly Rae Jepsen's music is genuinely fantastic, and just because it is pop and borderline "mainstream", doesn't make it any less credible than another. 

 

The bottom line is that, unless a particular kind of music/artist literally hurts people's ears, the words talent less should not be applied simply because you don't like it. Music is considered the universal language for a reason, it's not something that should be entirely dismissed, although can be viewed purely objectively; a mix that is rarely ever done properly. You shouldn't let other people change your opinion and taste on music, nor should you try to change anyone elses. Accept that other people will have other tastes, and not very many artists that most people label as not talented are actually untalented. Limiting yourself to any specific genre, or completely cutting off others is simply closed minded, and people will probably just feel bad for you if you do this to yourself.

Edited May 16, 2018 by ManaFear

[Z1MZUM]

Punk music was a necessity in the late 70's and 80's to destroy crap like The Eagles and Pink Floyd. Yep, that's all I have for this topic.

[AJ_Radio]

On 5/16/2018 at 1:32 AM, Z1MZUM said:

Punk music was a necessity in the late 70's and 80's to destroy crap like The Eagles and Pink Floyd. Yep, that's all I have for this topic.

 

If you think Pink Floyd is crap you must be smoking something. 

 

Sorry but I just had to say it.

[FrumpleOrz]

12 hours ago, Spaz said:

 

If you think Pink Floyd is crap you must be smoking something. 

 

Sorry but I just had to say it.

Eh, Pink Floyd after Syd Barrett left is pretty boring to me too.  I can't sit all the way through Dark Side of the Moon or Wish You Were Here without wanting to fall asleep.

 

And doesn't smoking something usually lead people to enjoy Pink Floyd MORE?

[Z1MZUM]

21 hours ago, Spaz said:

 

If you think Pink Floyd is crap you must be smoking something. 

 

Sorry but I just had to say it.

 

If I was smoking something they would probably sound good

 

[Dr_Mayus]

23 hours ago, Spaz said:

 

If you think Pink Floyd is crap you must be smoking something. 

 

Sorry but I just had to say it.

As others have said..Floyd and "smoking something" usually go hand and hand

[audiopile]

They have talent, you can’t take that away from them. What I agree with is that the music is formulated to sell and it does. Good thing they can’t make me listen to it!

 

Myself, i’ve recently refilled my old 200CD changer and am loving the music I bought back in the days before the internet ruined any magic music had for me. I like a handful of bands from the 2000s on but there sure ain’t as much original music as there used to be. 

 

KEXP.org , 3wk and thecurrent.org are pretty good a finding new artists to listen to that haven’t been fondled by the industry, if anyone is looking. 

[Z1MZUM]

In all honesty everyone can listen to whatever they like, Music is freedom at the end of the day.

[Ric]

Music is subjective, everyone likes what they like .

Edited June 5, 2018 by Ric

[AJ_Radio]

To clear things up, I was being arrogant and rather brash with my opening post.

 

I do realize that the reason so many of us listen to music is so we feel good. If we like the music enough, we buy the merchandise that has a picture of that band or artist we love. Whether it's on a magazine, a book, a television show or whatever, we buy those things because their faces are on them.

 

My issue is much of the music you hear that is popular or at the least, relevant in the music industry today and in the past few years is generally simplified so that it can be heard from a general audience. Boy bands and male/female pop artists tend to fall into this category, and their main audience is the kids and teenagers. This isn't a new occurrence, but something that has occurred from generation to generation for the last several decades.

 

People my age may remember The Spice Girls and Aaron Carter. Both catered to a very young audience, were extremely popular in the late 1990s - early 2000s, and had very simplistic, overly generic songs. I too enjoyed a couple of their songs, but once their careers fizzled I realized that they were simply honing that boy band/pretty girl image that so many kids loved to see. Those of you older than me in your 40s may remember New Kids on the Block. They were also extremely popular and had more or less than boy image that catered to little kids and young teenagers.

 

Many of those bands however don't have staying power, so they mostly only stayed relevant for a few years until the sound in the music industry changed and they had to groom the next budding pop sensation into a real star. Justin Beiber's career has lasted a lot longer than I initially expected, but his later material has not sold as well as his early stuff, and the numbers show. While I don't like Justin Timberlake, I will give him credit for being one of a very select few who has managed to propel his career far beyond his initial stardom with N'Sync, and he has diversified his choice of music and songs for an older, more mature audience. Sadly most artists can't make that kind of transition, and when they don't have staying power, they are gone within a few years.

 

Bands that did have staying power, like Pink Floyd, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and the like are long remembered long after their time and passing. Michael Jackson I feel in ways was far overrated, given that Thriller and Billie Jean literally propelled the MTV era and he is in the same company as Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe as far as legacy goes. I'm not the biggest fan of pop, and over the years I have noticed that pop has always been about appealing to the masses. Most people generally want music with a catchy beat and a rhythm that they can dance to at the bars and at the sports stadiums. Doesn't necessarily have to be compelling or stimulating, because that would be too much, especially for little kids that much of pop music is targeted towards.

 

We are free to like what we like, and hate what we hate. Entertainment to put it brief, is a good way to distract us and keep our minds off of things. We listen to music because it stimulates us and makes us feel good inside, much like we play video games, watch television and movies, read a book, or whatever we do that keeps us entertained. I just feel, in my mind, that I don't particularly enjoy the mainstream music scene of today because of it's simplicity and sound. But as I'm saying this, I'm not really the age group that is being targeted for that. It's the kids, the 12 to 16 year old high school teenagers that the music is catering to. It's always about the kids. Pretty much most forms of music going back many generations has always been targeted to a young audience. My generation is the generation making the music today. And I think it's shit and filled with garbage, at least what's heard on the radio. But today's kids don't think like that. Someone born in 1998 or 2000 is probably going to have a different opinion of music than I do, which is probably why I see a lot of mixed feelings in this thread.

 

Hopefully this helps clear a couple things.

[DrBloodmoney]

1 hour ago, Spaz said:

To clear things up, I was being arrogant and rather brash with my opening post.

 

I do realize that the reason so many of us listen to music is so we feel good. If we like the music enough, we buy the merchandise that has a picture of that band or artist we love. Whether it's on a magazine, a book, a television show or whatever, we buy those things because their faces are on them.

 

My issue is much of the music you hear that is popular or at the least, relevant in the music industry today and in the past few years is generally simplified so that it can be heard from a general audience. Boy bands and male/female pop artists tend to fall into this category, and their main audience is the kids and teenagers. This isn't a new occurrence, but something that has occurred from generation to generation for the last several decades.

 

People my age may remember The Spice Girls and Aaron Carter. Both catered to a very young audience, were extremely popular in the late 1990s - early 2000s, and had very simplistic, overly generic songs. I too enjoyed a couple of their songs, but once their careers fizzled I realized that they were simply honing that boy band/pretty girl image that so many kids loved to see. Those of you older than me in your 40s may remember New Kids on the Block. They were also extremely popular and had more or less than boy image that catered to little kids and young teenagers.

 

Many of those bands however don't have staying power, so they mostly only stayed relevant for a few years until the sound in the music industry changed and they had to groom the next budding pop sensation into a real star. Justin Beiber's career has lasted a lot longer than I initially expected, but his later material has not sold as well as his early stuff, and the numbers show. While I don't like Justin Timberlake, I will give him credit for being one of a very select few who has managed to propel his career far beyond his initial stardom with N'Sync, and he has diversified his choice of music and songs for an older, more mature audience. Sadly most artists can't make that kind of transition, and when they don't have staying power, they are gone within a few years.

 

Bands that did have staying power, like Pink Floyd, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and the like are long remembered long after their time and passing. Michael Jackson I feel in ways was far overrated, given that Thriller and Billie Jean literally propelled the MTV era and he is in the same company as Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe as far as legacy goes. I'm not the biggest fan of pop, and over the years I have noticed that pop has always been about appealing to the masses. Most people generally want music with a catchy beat and a rhythm that they can dance to at the bars and at the sports stadiums. Doesn't necessarily have to be compelling or stimulating, because that would be too much, especially for little kids that much of pop music is targeted towards.

 

We are free to like what we like, and hate what we hate. Entertainment to put it brief, is a good way to distract us and keep our minds off of things. We listen to music because it stimulates us and makes us feel good inside, much like we play video games, watch television and movies, read a book, or whatever we do that keeps us entertained. I just feel, in my mind, that I don't particularly enjoy the mainstream music scene of today because of it's simplicity and sound. But as I'm saying this, I'm not really the age group that is being targeted for that. It's the kids, the 12 to 16 year old high school teenagers that the music is catering to. It's always about the kids. Pretty much most forms of music going back many generations has always been targeted to a young audience. My generation is the generation making the music today. And I think it's shit and filled with garbage, at least what's heard on the radio. But today's kids don't think like that. Someone born in 1998 or 2000 is probably going to have a different opinion of music than I do, which is probably why I see a lot of mixed feelings in this thread.

 

Hopefully this helps clear a couple things.

 

Hey man, while we might not always agree, this thread allowed for some reasonable discussion.

 

The thing is, I suspect (based on what you have cited here and in your other posts) that we actually have a lot of crossover in the music we like - we are clearly a similar age - and I’m not necessarily gonna make the case that all pop music is good, but what I will say is: 

 

Of course the most popular stuff is less edgy and experimental and nuanced. That’s always been the case, and not just in music.

 

Games, TV, Film, Literature - every creative medium has the more universal, simple and more accessible stuff rise up the populaity charts, and the more esoteric, creative and less accessible stuff around the edges.

 

What I will say though, is that comparatively, I think there is more creativity and variety in the mainstream pop music now than there was when I was in school in the 90’s.

 

While I wouldn’t argue that all the biggest selling pop acts are musical geniuses, I do think that the current output of Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Lorde, Adele etc. is a step up from the Spice Girls and Take-That and the Vengaboys, and Boyzone.

 

Part of that is due to the reduction in physical, paid-for media (an artist has to appeal to an even broader cross section to make it now, and so that includes more than just teeny-boppers) but also because the democratisation of the tools required to make music have removed enough of the financial barriers that talent has become an asset again.

 

The fact that Lorde (as an example) was able to release her stuff wide enough to find an audience and build on that to where she is now is a good thing, whether or not you like her particular output. Back in the 90’s, she would have had to be ‘discovered’ by some sleazy Simon Cowell type, who would have proably passed, in favour of a better looking blonde who he could auto-tune into his own version of her.

 

I like a lot more pop music now than I did then, (though, in farness, I like a much broader swathe of music genres generally than I did 15 years ago) and I really have no issue telling people that I like Taylor Swift and Lorde in the same breath as saying I like Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Wu Tang, The Smashing Pumpkins and Pink Floyd, the Offspring, the Velvet Underground, Marilyn Manson and Leonard Cohen.

 

I don’t think anyone should be forced to like or appreciate any music that they don’t choose to, (and there are far more pop acts I don’t care for than ones I do) but I think that the arguement that these pop artists have no talent is no longer true.

[AJ_Radio]

21 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Hey man, while we might not always agree, this thread allowed for some reasonable discussion.

 

The thing is, I suspect (based on what you have cited here and in your other posts) that we actually have a lot of crossover in the music we like - we are clearly a similar age - and I’m not necessarily gonna make the case that all pop music is good, but what I will say is: 

 

Of course the most popular stuff is less edgy and experimental and nuanced. That’s always been the case, and not just in music.

 

Games, TV, Film, Literature - every creative medium has the more universal, simple and more accessible stuff rise up the populaity charts, and the more esoteric, creative and less accessible stuff around the edges.

 

What I will say though, is that comparatively, I think there is more creativity and variety in the mainstream pop music now than there was when I was in school in the 90’s.

 

While I wouldn’t argue that all the biggest selling pop acts are musical geniuses, I do think that the current output of Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Lorde, Adele etc. is a step up from the Spice Girls and Take-That and the Vengaboys, and Boyzone.

 

Part of that is due to the reduction in physical, paid-for media (an artist has to appeal to an even broader cross section to make it now, and so that includes more than just teeny-boppers) but also because the democratisation of the tools required to make music have removed enough of the financial barriers that talent has become an asset again.

 

The fact that Lorde (as an example) was able to release her stuff wide enough to find an audience and build on that to where she is now is a good thing, whether or not you like her particular output. Back in the 90’s, she would have had to be ‘discovered’ by some sleazy Simon Cowell type, who would have proably passed, in favour of a better looking blonde who he could auto-tune into his own version of her.

 

I like a lot more pop music now than I did then, (though, in farness, I like a much broader swathe of music genres generally than I did 15 years ago) and I really have no issue telling people that I like Taylor Swift and Lorde in the same breath as saying I like Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Wu Tang, The Smashing Pumpkins and Pink Floyd, the Offspring, the Velvet Underground, Marilyn Manson and Leonard Cohen.

 

I don’t think anyone should be forced to like or appreciate any music that they don’t choose to, (and there are far more pop acts I don’t care for than ones I do) but I think that the arguement that these pop artists have no talent is no longer true.

 

I'm inclined to disagree with a number of things you said here, particularly with pop stars of today. But I'm going to do my best to not sound like a tight asshole like I did in my opening post.

 

It takes a lot for me to be impressed with today's music, and most of that is underground, far from the clutches of American Idol, America's Got Talent and the sheer crap that is modern talent shows which take artists based on their looks and style rather than for their singing talent. Singing talent is what American Idol should of done from the start but when I was watching that show for the first several seasons it was picking the brightest looking young pop stars, usually from their late teens to early - mid 20s, because they are the most marketable. Real rock music and artists have no place on American Idol or any top talent show. Over the past decade I have gone to Death Metal, Nu-Metal and a number of other subgenres in metal/rock that I feel have more buzz and substance than what is seen in the pop scene today. Pop doesn't have to have deep meaningful lyrics as long as little kids and teens/college students can dance and sing to it.

 

I went from enjoying Pop to almost completely transferring over to Rock. I've said a lot of bad things about Rock as a genre in the recent past but I feel that Rock is in a better position to really branch out and take the stand. Rock was always tied to rebellion and long stood against the popular norms which is one of the reasons why I appreciate it as an art form.

 

Hip Hop/Rap I find a lot more difficult to find good artists. MF DOOM was probably my favorite underground rapper, he went against what was popular and formed his own style of rap which is still pretty decent to listen to. In more recent years I discovered guys like Gift of Gab who actually could rap. The real problem is the trash rappers like Lil Wayne, Future, Waka Flaka, Jay Z, Kayne West and the like absolutely dominate the charts and the airwaves. It took me having to listen to guys on Twitch livestreams and actually doing an extensive search to find good rappers. Rap videos do nothing to help if they just feature rappers and half naked sluts in revealing clothing dancing around in a stripclub while money is being thrown around. I can barely understand what the fuck is being said in the lyrics, and many rappers, especially in the mainstream scene from the south, particularly Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, have absolutely no rhyme, rhythm or talent to rapping. Doesn't help that they autotune, and I generally consider autotune to be shit when it's to mask a singers voice when they can't display raw talent otherwise.

 

Taylor Swift to me is not my cup of tea and never will be. She was supposed to be country, but she is much more pop which goes back to the mainstream pop singers, most of whom I don't care for.