Well most of this is about singles, which is mostly a flavor of the week kind of thing, and nobody will give a fuck about Kesha, Bieber or creed 5 years from now. The Beatles, Bob Marley or Johnny will still be relevant in a 100 years, because they actually have talent.
nobody will give a fuck about Kesha, Bieber or creed 5 years from now.
I'm going to have to disagree with that bit about Creed. I was saying that five years ago, and if you're bringing them up as one of those flash-in-the-pan acts now then that already proves they have some staying power.
The worst part about our generation is how they worship the Beatles, Marley, Hendrix, Queen, and all the other acts of their parents instead of actually listening to the a lot of the fantastic new music being created by our peers. Pop music always has, and always will, exist in our culture. This is nothing new.
Ro posted this on Facebook. I really need to move to a more civilized planet.
I have a friend on Facebook (oddly enough, he's a music major) who did not see anything wrong with that article.
There is nothing wrong with it, how much is a ke$ha single? 99c? how much was a Beatles single? how about distribution? was there a easy way to access music back then? was it as cheap?
How about the charts? were they as varied as they are now? with hundreds of categories?
All that article does is point out that music now is more accessible to people for less money.
The worst part about our generation is how they worship the Beatles, Marley, Hendrix, Queen, and all the other acts of their parents instead of actually listening to the a lot of the fantastic new music being created by our peers. Pop music always has, and always will, exist in our culture. This is nothing new.
I listen to plenty of music from nowadays, it just so happens that most of it is metal.
The worst part about our generation is how they worship the Beatles, Marley, Hendrix, Queen, and all the other acts of their parents instead of actually listening to the a lot of the fantastic new music being created by our peers. Pop music always has, and always will, exist in our culture. This is nothing new.
He's just saying this because he loves Rihanna. =P
I just posted it for fun. I honestly have no idea who that Ke$sha person is, and the fact she uses a "$" for her name just makes me already not like her.
I just posted it for fun. I honestly have no idea who that Ke$sha person is, and the fact she uses a "$" for her name just makes me already not like her.
KeDollarSignHa is one of the most repellent people on the planet (seriously, she raps/sings/whatever the hell it is about brushing her teeth with Jack Daniels). She also egregiously uses auto-tune as she cannot sing in any way shape or form. Her being popular basically epitomizes my hate for pop music nowadays.
I just watched the video and heard the song. I think I have heard the song before, but didn't know it was her.
While I can understand how catchy the song is, I'm not a fan. Also, I see a lot of the 80s style is making a comeback. I'm definitely no longer into the new/cool/hip things.
I listen to plenty of music from nowadays, it just so happens that most of it is metal.
Curious, what bands are you listening to?
Not all of this is metal, but this should give you a pretty decent overview: Mastodon, Baroness, Protomen, Megas, Childish Gambino, Cee Lo Green, Alestorm, Amon Amarth, Aquabats, Blind Guardian, Cynic, Dethklok, Devin Townsend, Ensiferum, Flight of the Conchords, Freezepop, Grace Potter and the Nocturnals, Isis, Janelle Monae, MC Frontalot, They Might Be Giants, Muse, Opeth, Periphery, Red Seas Fire, Star One, Streetlight Manifesto, and Tenacious D to name a few that are fairly recent.
The worst part about our generation is how they worship the Beatles, Marley, Hendrix, Queen, and all the other acts of their parents instead of actually listening to the a lot of the fantastic new music being created by our peers. Pop music always has, and always will, exist in our culture. This is nothing new.
This, this, this. A zillion times this. People are fucking lemmings. And the worst part is that they are lemmings who think everyone else are the lemmings.
Also, Omar is right.
Ro posted this on Facebook. I really need to move to a more civilized planet.
I have a friend on Facebook (oddly enough, he's a music major) who did not see anything wrong with that article.
Also also, music majors tend to have as pedestrian taste as anyone else, they just have more vocabulary words to use in order to rationalize that taste.
Why not? We hate on people who hate on things for stupid reasons all the time. We have a thread dedicated to hating on conservatives, for crying out loud.
Everything is pop. With the advent of the internet, everybody knows about your favorite band. Yes, even the super underground one that only released 15 copies of a demo that they hand-carved onto vinyl. There's an entire community dedicated to liking that band. There's a sub-community who thinks that band sold out before they even formed.
We need a different word to describe the genre that "pop" refers to. Or better yet, a willingness to classify that music in accordance with extant musical terms. Fuck "pop;" it's an overly broad word.
We need a different word to describe the genre that "pop" refers to. Or better yet, a willingness to classify that music in accordance with extant musical terms. Fuck "pop;" it's an overly broad word.
Agreed, using "pop" as a term means that Michael Jackson, David Bowie, and Ke$ha are all in the same genre.
Well, there's "pop" as in "popular" and "pop" as in "pop structure." In either sense, I don't think it's overly broad at all. When people talk about "popular" music, it's pretty clear they're referring to what is commonly played on radio or television and sells out large stadiums, regardless of genre. And using the word to describe the structure of music is very useful as a modifier, as in "pop punk" or "indie pop."
You know what? I'd say, in the broad sense, that they are. What separates them is not Genre, but time.
If Kesha was around at the same time as Michael Jackson and was doing pop music, she'd have been doing something much more like Michael. If Michael Jackson started his career at the same time as Kesha, then I think it would be much closer to the pop of today, than his career as it stands. If the Beatles were doing their thing at the same time as the Backstreet Boys or Savage Garden, they'd be doing that kind of pop.
I'm probably not explaining it well, but I do hope you get what I'm getting at.
But that term doesn't hold up over time. We can refer to Lady Gaga and Katy Perry as pop now because they are commonly played on the radio and television and sell out large stadiums, but they won't in 10 years. What will we call them then?
You know what? I'd say, in the broad sense, that they are. What separates them is not Genre, but time.
Yeah, I agree.
I think the fallacy here is just using "popular" as a strict denotation of genre, which it isn't. It only is in the sense that popular music from a certain time period tends to sound similar to other popular music from the same time period.
But that term doesn't hold up over time. We can refer to Lady Gaga and Katy Perry as pop now because they are commonly played on the radio and television and sell out large stadiums, but they won't in 10 years. What will we call them then?
But that term doesn't hold up over time. We can refer to Lady Gaga and Katy Perry as pop now because they are commonly played on the radio and television and sell out large stadiums, but they won't in 10 years. What will we call them then?
"Forgotten" has a nice ring to it.
Okay, being an asshole aside, it's really a case of how things look ten years down the road. We still call Michael Jackson's music pop, after all, but other bands which might have been called Pop at the time might be considered a different genre now - As much as The Beatles are thought of as a rock band, they were also a pop group, or at least, they were referred to as such quite often at the time, if I'm remembering these things correctly, though for obvious reasons, secondhand.
But that term doesn't hold up over time. We can refer to Lady Gaga and Katy Perry as pop now because they are commonly played on the radio and television and sell out large stadiums, but they won't in 10 years. What will we call them then?
I think that access to media means that tastes are diversifying. I think the era of the stadium concert is waning, where that is "popular" is the same among large swathes of people.
I think the fallacy here is just using "popular" as a strict denotation of genre, which it isn't. It only is in the sense that popular music from a certain time period tends to sound similar to other popular music from the same time period.
That's a good point. This is why I like to use the decade designations, and get more specific from there.
But that term doesn't hold up over time. We can refer to Lady Gaga and Katy Perry as pop now because they are commonly played on the radio and television and sell out large stadiums, but they won't in 10 years. What will we call them then?
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that they won't be selling out stadiums in ten years?
Comments
How about the charts? were they as varied as they are now? with hundreds of categories?
All that article does is point out that music now is more accessible to people for less money.
I just posted it for fun. I honestly have no idea who that Ke$sha person is, and the fact she uses a "$" for her name just makes me already not like her.
While I can understand how catchy the song is, I'm not a fan. Also, I see a lot of the 80s style is making a comeback. I'm definitely no longer into the new/cool/hip things.
Also, Omar is right. Also also, music majors tend to have as pedestrian taste as anyone else, they just have more vocabulary words to use in order to rationalize that taste.
We need a different word to describe the genre that "pop" refers to. Or better yet, a willingness to classify that music in accordance with extant musical terms. Fuck "pop;" it's an overly broad word.
If Kesha was around at the same time as Michael Jackson and was doing pop music, she'd have been doing something much more like Michael. If Michael Jackson started his career at the same time as Kesha, then I think it would be much closer to the pop of today, than his career as it stands. If the Beatles were doing their thing at the same time as the Backstreet Boys or Savage Garden, they'd be doing that kind of pop.
I'm probably not explaining it well, but I do hope you get what I'm getting at.
I think the fallacy here is just using "popular" as a strict denotation of genre, which it isn't. It only is in the sense that popular music from a certain time period tends to sound similar to other popular music from the same time period.
Okay, being an asshole aside, it's really a case of how things look ten years down the road. We still call Michael Jackson's music pop, after all, but other bands which might have been called Pop at the time might be considered a different genre now - As much as The Beatles are thought of as a rock band, they were also a pop group, or at least, they were referred to as such quite often at the time, if I'm remembering these things correctly, though for obvious reasons, secondhand.