Force Pit Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 994
- Best answers
- 0
Hello folks.
I'm here to start a forum a discussion about pop music.
Let's get one thing straight, when I say pop music I'm not talking about pop music in Saudi Arabia, im talking about the western civilization - Europe, USA.
Now, as we all know, pop music isn't necessarily Kesha or 50 cent. It also can be The Beatles back in the 60s. it is all relative to the music's time.
So now we can understand what pop music actually is.
Back in the 60s and the 70s Rock just started and gained influence and popularity. We always have the "crap" and when I say crap im talking about same old tunes with the same old lyrics ("I love you", "You left me" instead of "BOOORN in the U.S.A"). I will mention this - I can't find anything special about Elvis Presley's music, he almost always talks about love in different lyrics. It's tune are pretty much the same, those tunes that girls get emotional about.
Yes, The Beatles had a lot of love songs in their starting days which I got sick of rather quickly, but later they didn't only developed their music's complexity but they also, and in my opinion more importantly, got into political activity, had meaning in their music and tried to make a change not only in the music world, but in the people who listen to it as well. And we have a lot of other groups who got political as well, like The Clash, Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan. (my favourite)
I find it very hard for me to connect, to any artist, in any art, if his goal aren't more than his art alone.
Today, pop music/mainstream music is heavily merchandised. Musicians have their very own clothing fashion - if they designed it themselves or not. A lot of today's music is more than the music itself, and im not talking about artists' political activity, I am talking about merchandising themselves, producing video clips who contain a lot of "bling bling" and hot girls dancing to the beat. In my opinion a lot of this music is entertainment rather than art, in the same sense I would consider this entertainment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_a_Guy_in_10_Days and this as art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film) .
I pretty much agree with the saying that you should not stop liking an artist's music if he got out of the underground scene, gained wide audiences, and is, to a certain degree, merchandised, as long as he didn't given up on his main principals:
- He will not change his music just so more people would like him,
- He will not submit himself to use shallow and meaningless subjects in his lyrics (don't you agree the love subject is overused and lost its depth?) and will transform his music into "light music".
But to be honest, before all different arts - Film, Music, Theaters what is most important to ME, is the message. In my book, if it has no meaningful message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_a_Guy_in_10_Days or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKDdT_nyP54) I find it hard to consider it as an artwork. Art, and in this thread, Music, has the power to change, artists have the power to make a change using their art, popularity and the feelings and understandings they can arouse inside people. I see all this artists possessing so much power over their crowds and use it for nothing, which saddens me.
In the lyrical part they talk about love (in the cheesy sense), hoes, sex, money, cars and so on. They are empty. In the musical part they use the same concept of using beats (some are original, RARE), use a lot of musical engineering to change voices and add effects.
But later on I got into this conclusion: it is not only about the genre, it is mostly about the artist. Try mixing "Blowin' in the wind" lyrics with Kesha's "Tik Tok on the clock". Sounds bad, I know, but even though it is the same music that sells and possess meaningful lyrics and message. But apparently, people don't care about the lyrics, they listen to their CURRENT popular music it in their iPods for the catchy tune and the simplicity. they listen to what is being fed to them by the radio and the record companies rather than looking for their own style (not saying some people don't ACTUALLY like it by their own taste).
Now, we must ask our selves this final question: Except for the ability to add sound effects a lot more easily this days which made this heavily engineered music much more produce-able, what makes this kind of music today popular and why bands like Queen were popular 40 years ago and you will find most people listen to them a lot less than other music or not at all (I am not talking about people who are 50 years old this days, talking about the new generation). Did the generation change? What made it change? Is it a better generation or worse? Does the current popular music reflects our youth's and young adults' intelligence or is it us and the corporations who legitimize this kind of music, contribute to it by massively producing it and delivering it's messages to the current growing youth? are we actually creating and transforming a youth that is passive and numb which does not think for them selves and let others do their thinking for them? If we do, are we doing it because it sells? We need to understand that.
I don't think we should criticize genres anymore, but criticize the artists instead and those who are responsible for producing and distributing the music and art.
If The Beatles could sell back in those days, why this type of music doesn't sell as much anymore?
Discuss and keep a healthy discussion, although I don't think much crossfires will start in this type of subject, especially because of the unified opinion I believe this forum possesses on this subject.
I'm here to start a forum a discussion about pop music.
Let's get one thing straight, when I say pop music I'm not talking about pop music in Saudi Arabia, im talking about the western civilization - Europe, USA.
Now, as we all know, pop music isn't necessarily Kesha or 50 cent. It also can be The Beatles back in the 60s. it is all relative to the music's time.
So now we can understand what pop music actually is.
Back in the 60s and the 70s Rock just started and gained influence and popularity. We always have the "crap" and when I say crap im talking about same old tunes with the same old lyrics ("I love you", "You left me" instead of "BOOORN in the U.S.A"). I will mention this - I can't find anything special about Elvis Presley's music, he almost always talks about love in different lyrics. It's tune are pretty much the same, those tunes that girls get emotional about.
Yes, The Beatles had a lot of love songs in their starting days which I got sick of rather quickly, but later they didn't only developed their music's complexity but they also, and in my opinion more importantly, got into political activity, had meaning in their music and tried to make a change not only in the music world, but in the people who listen to it as well. And we have a lot of other groups who got political as well, like The Clash, Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan. (my favourite)
I find it very hard for me to connect, to any artist, in any art, if his goal aren't more than his art alone.
Today, pop music/mainstream music is heavily merchandised. Musicians have their very own clothing fashion - if they designed it themselves or not. A lot of today's music is more than the music itself, and im not talking about artists' political activity, I am talking about merchandising themselves, producing video clips who contain a lot of "bling bling" and hot girls dancing to the beat. In my opinion a lot of this music is entertainment rather than art, in the same sense I would consider this entertainment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_a_Guy_in_10_Days and this as art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film) .
I pretty much agree with the saying that you should not stop liking an artist's music if he got out of the underground scene, gained wide audiences, and is, to a certain degree, merchandised, as long as he didn't given up on his main principals:
- He will not change his music just so more people would like him,
- He will not submit himself to use shallow and meaningless subjects in his lyrics (don't you agree the love subject is overused and lost its depth?) and will transform his music into "light music".
But to be honest, before all different arts - Film, Music, Theaters what is most important to ME, is the message. In my book, if it has no meaningful message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_a_Guy_in_10_Days or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKDdT_nyP54) I find it hard to consider it as an artwork. Art, and in this thread, Music, has the power to change, artists have the power to make a change using their art, popularity and the feelings and understandings they can arouse inside people. I see all this artists possessing so much power over their crowds and use it for nothing, which saddens me.
In the lyrical part they talk about love (in the cheesy sense), hoes, sex, money, cars and so on. They are empty. In the musical part they use the same concept of using beats (some are original, RARE), use a lot of musical engineering to change voices and add effects.
But later on I got into this conclusion: it is not only about the genre, it is mostly about the artist. Try mixing "Blowin' in the wind" lyrics with Kesha's "Tik Tok on the clock". Sounds bad, I know, but even though it is the same music that sells and possess meaningful lyrics and message. But apparently, people don't care about the lyrics, they listen to their CURRENT popular music it in their iPods for the catchy tune and the simplicity. they listen to what is being fed to them by the radio and the record companies rather than looking for their own style (not saying some people don't ACTUALLY like it by their own taste).
Now, we must ask our selves this final question: Except for the ability to add sound effects a lot more easily this days which made this heavily engineered music much more produce-able, what makes this kind of music today popular and why bands like Queen were popular 40 years ago and you will find most people listen to them a lot less than other music or not at all (I am not talking about people who are 50 years old this days, talking about the new generation). Did the generation change? What made it change? Is it a better generation or worse? Does the current popular music reflects our youth's and young adults' intelligence or is it us and the corporations who legitimize this kind of music, contribute to it by massively producing it and delivering it's messages to the current growing youth? are we actually creating and transforming a youth that is passive and numb which does not think for them selves and let others do their thinking for them? If we do, are we doing it because it sells? We need to understand that.
I don't think we should criticize genres anymore, but criticize the artists instead and those who are responsible for producing and distributing the music and art.
If The Beatles could sell back in those days, why this type of music doesn't sell as much anymore?
Discuss and keep a healthy discussion, although I don't think much crossfires will start in this type of subject, especially because of the unified opinion I believe this forum possesses on this subject.