The Smiley Smile Message Board

What do you guys think about today's mainstream music?  I personally think the majority of it is unoriginal and crappy  :P, with the exception of a few songs.  And is the British Invasion slowly coming back with artists like The Wanted, Adele, and 1D?  I like Adele's stuff but I have second thoughts about 1D  ::)

Music itself is always everything: there is always some great music, a lot of good music, a ton of mediocre music, and a ton of awful music. Always. In all eras. Genres are always emerging but throughout it all artists are always keeping one eye (or more) at an assortment of old genres, as well, for any number of reasons and with any number of results.

The primary differences are the difference in the audience and in the market. The concept of rock 'n' roll (which for our purposes here I am leaving as a big bucket, including basically all youth-oriented, rebellious popular music, so you could include certain types of country, R&B, metal, soul, rap, etc.) is different, as we have in the past couple of decades grown adult markets for it. As has happened in more recent years with video games, what was intended for kids--literally, for kids. Teenagers.--is now being consumed by everyone of all ages. Simultaneously, markets have changed. The companies that locate, develop, produce, and sell product have grown and consolidated and become quite sophisticated in what they do, but there has been a corresponding backlash that takes advantage of technology to act outside of those ever-fewer companies. All of these things mean that there aren't just a few outlets through which everyone receives the same message (musically speaking). Thus there are fewer, if not no, mega-bands of the sort that previous eras had. It's not a matter of musical quality, but of cultural, technological, and financial environments.

Back to music specifically, though, there is a ton of great music. Most people who disagree (I would and do argue) simply already have their tastes somewhat solidified, and thus whatever else happens simply isn't intended for nor attractive to them. If your ideal band is already the Beach Boys, or the Beatles, or Led Zeppelin, or Elvis Presley, or whoever else that has already come before, then anything else is being held to an already perfected standard. The bands that closely imitate them get credit for those listeners (think about people talking about bands like Explorer's Club around here), while everything else is "crap," "not even music," or whatever else. It is my opinion that the objective greatness of music is, well, not [objective]. Or at least many-to-most qualities aren't, and even those that are have been determined to be signifiers of quality through subjective means. Just as a great blues singer may be a terrible opera singer and vice versa, certain modern music can be absolutely brilliant to someone while terrible to someone else.

Hope that wasn't too much of a ramble. And now that I notice you said "mainstream" in the subject, most of what I said might be irrelevant anyway, since that is definitely a small slice of the musical pie. But there have been some very good mainstream acts in recent years, too. So I stand behind whatever I said. I think. I can't be bothered to reread it to confirm...

Closing statement: if you want to find new, good music and approach things with open ears, you'll probably find plenty. If you don't, that's fine, as there's nothing wrong with your existing collection if it fills its need.

One thing that annoys me about some of today's stuff is how some artists repeat the same line 30+ times in a 3 minute song  ::)

Not on topic but interesting note - when I had a friend listen to Pet Sounds they didn't like God Only Knows because the title gets repeated over and over again in the song. (I only count about 20ish so not quite 30+). Guess it's more about the way they repeat the same line - the  ending to GOK is genius. :S

Yea with "God Only Knows" they were singing it in a round so that's different I love that song  ;D.  Mtv has changed for the worst over the years and one day I was channel surfing and came across it and it had Rick Ross singing "Hold Me Back" (I came in in the middle of the song) I noticed that he kept on saying "I won't leh dee hatez hol me back" or something like that a lot and then decided to start counting. By the end of the video he had said that 25 or 26 times  :wall :thud (that might've been the remix though but still)

I think there's some great mainstream music.  There are just so many popular genres nowadays, not everything will be to your liking so top 40 radio stations will always sound a little messy.  You just have to look in the right places, NPR is a great mainstream radio organization that plays great contemporary music.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/

I'd say almost all modern music sucks.

I have to put up with friends listening to the latest crap, be it dubstep or the latest one-hit wonder, or the latest pop hit

In fact the only new music I'd listen to is by older artists lol

I don't mind mainstream music, but I don't take it seriously. I'll listen to it with friends, dance to it at clubs; but when I get home and turn on my sound system, you won't hear any of that crap on my speakers.

There is such a lack of humanity in modern mainstream music. I saw this yesterday, I think it applies here:

(http://i.imgur.com/SjVxfLL.jpg)

Says a lot about how shite music is these days.

I'm with you 1000% I have a friend who thought Mick Jagger was just a name of a song.....and it always ends with her saying "I'm sorry I don't know that stuff I was born in 1995  :-\" and I say "So? I was born in '96, that doesn't mean anything"  ::) :lol

Yes it does, and Beyoncé is a great singer I just wish she and Lady Gaga would use their talents for something greater than what they're doing  :(

Definitely. There are many amazing singers out there now, but it seems like they're stuck in the bubble of the greedy music business - a place where "creativity" rests on the shoulders of the man running the synth and drum machine.

I actually have to amend my previous statement: I do listen to and love some modern music, but mostly I stick with the classics.

And those that did know who he was didn't care and still didn't like him, only the song they liked.

Something I've noticed is that a lot of people around our age judge people on their age, not their talents

I first noticed this phenomenon on the Pink Floyd album Momentary Lapse of Reason, where each song had multiple writers (most outside the band) and multiple producers. The result was crap.

Music, as with food, can certainly be watered down by too many cooks, so to speak.

Agreed. Momentary Lapse was a sh*t album

I know, it annoys the heck out of me  >:(.  I don't care what decade it's from as long as it's a good quality song.  My taste in music goes all over the place.  Before I was a BB fan I was a Jackson 5/Motown fan and still am.  I like any genre of music as long as it's good.  My taste in music goes back to the 1920's

Another thing excruciatingly annoying is the autotune and the overuse of electronic effects.

To be honest I get a bad taste in my mouth even referring to it as "Pink Floyd".  :lol

Omg yes what happened to instruments and not just keyboards, drums and guitars  >:(

Agreed. There are good songs and bad songs in every genre, every era, and every artist.
It's a shame a lot of people disagree. I remember the first day of High School, I was listening to some Jimi Hendrix on my IPod. A group of girls came up to me and asked me what I was listening to. I answered Jimi Hendrix, and their response was disgusting.
They were like "Who?!" and they had literally no idea who he was. I explained and they started going on about how he's old and no one likes him and all that crap.

Even worse is One Direction fans. When 1D released Best Song Ever, part of that song sounded exactly like Baba O'Riley by The Who.
Rumours started that the Who was going to sue One Direction, and that's when it began.
Thousands of 1D fans started petitions in support of 1D and were saying that the Who were talentless nobodies and that they will never be legendary like 1D. Crap like that.

Kids have always been like that. When I was in high school in the 1990's other kids laughed about my Beatles/Elvis obsession. It's part of the circle of life, I think.

Now if I had told them I was also into Gregorian Chants, JS Bach, and Eric Satie I can only imagine what their reactions would have been.

Reminds me of a time I saw this attractive girl wearing a Muddy Waters t-shirt.

I shuffled up next to her and asked "You like Muddy Waters?!" to which she replied "Who?"

Omg I didn't know that cuz I only listened to that song once and once enough for me.  And here's the joke the boy bands I listen to and groups have a wide age range following.  the boy bands now days mainly have 12 year olds and under.  And most of my friends don't know who Jimi was either *shaking my head*.  I have a pair of Pet Sounds earrings that I got on eBay and one of my friends told me "I don't listen to that white people stuff" I told her "music has no color it shouldn't even matter":deadhorse

Did you see the clip of him performing with the Rolling Stones? Classic  :-D

 :lol :lol :lol we were listening to an Simon and Garfunkel song in English class and I was the only one who knew them,  and my friends were like "of course she knows it"  then my friend that didn't know Mick Jagger told me that in her class period she was the only one who knew it.......because she saw something about them on Glee  :wall

http://www.avclub.com/article/one-direction-fans-bravely-vanquish-some-old-band--101691

This article made me sick to the stomach  :smash
f*** One Direction and their Fans!

Simon And Garfunkel was the artist that actually got me into music, so to them I will forever be grateful.
3 of my friends introduced them to me, and that's where it began. Beforehand, I liked Pink Floyd, Queen, John Lennon, David Bowie, and Lou Reed, but I just didn't like Music in General.
I guess there are still many people in our generation who still has good taste. But the vast, vast majority...

I know right and did you see Mick Jagger's interview talking about Harry Stlyes portraying him in a movie his reaction was priceless  :lol :lol :lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt2XPAZpCyU

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems with modern music is the general tendency to emphasize style over substance.  It's all about affectation, posing, and playing a role of some kind.  I hate it.

I think it all comes down to supply and demand really.  The general public these days seems to skew more towards wanting "singers" and having less interest in musicians or bands.  As long as Taylor Swift and Beyonce and whomever else keep selling their records, we can expect more of the same with little deviation.  Not to get this thread off track onto a S&G topic but I've always been a fan as well primarily because Paul Simon is one of the few singers that I can actually emulate his vocal style so those songs are a breeze for me to sing along with.  See the thing I fear alongside the notion that so many bands from the sixties will become positively antiquated in another thirty years is that as keyboardist extraordinaire Benmont Tench put it and I'm paraphrasing:

"There are less and less kids today showing a real interest in getting out there and starting a band and taking the time to learn their craft.  It seems like everyone is interested in how fast can I get myself a record or get my face on television."

yea right now it seems that the industry has become more about "swag" than music.  to me "swag" has lost its true meaning  :(

It's also how a lot of "singers" these days actually can't sing, which is most likely the main reason why there is so much auto-tune and effects put on singers now

Hearing the word "Swag" pisses me off lol.
When I think of Swag, I think of trendy douchebags

yea they use it over and over again in songs and it's getting really old  >:( and if Gabo thinks the lyrics of All I Want to Do are offensive, let him listen to a modern day rap song  :o a lot of the songs today make All I Want to Do sound like a song on kids show  :(

I don't find lyrics in modern songs offensive. It's more how unimaginative and repetitive it has become that pisses me off

I should've been more specific, I was referring to rap songs

I used to care about "authenticity" in music too but I don't any more since I think it's sort of ridiculous to expect every performer to be good at every other aspect of music-making too. No one minds when someone doesn't produce their own material, do they? Or mix or engineer it? And no one minds if someone doesn't write their own songs, or provide instrumentation? Do you like anything Motown put out in the 1960s? Most of that, with some exceptions, wasn't mixed or engineered or written by The Supremes or whoever else... yet nobody minds! (Of course, that The Funk Brothers get their proper credits is important but not the issue we're discussing here.)

I don't care who does what for a single, album, or anything else. I'm becoming more inclined towards something like a radical subjectivity when it comes to musical tastes and preferences. I didn't like Danny Brown when I first heard him using his high-pitched voice but now I can't get enough of him -- and his beats, which he doesn't make himself, are fire. I think artistry is as much about knowing what you're good at and being selective and collaborative as it is about having your own vision. Isn't this why we like Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys, after all? Do we really care that it's not The Beach Boys playing on the majority of Pet Sounds or Today!? Maybe some people... but not the majority of us, and especially not causal listeners.

These threads are tiring and it invariably begins and ends with people going, "Music today sucks, it was so much better in ___" which isn't even fucking true. Come on folks.

The mixing/producing/engineering thing doesn't bother me as much as the songwriting aspect.  Regardless of what era the band or singer performed in, if they didn't write their own material to me that is a strike against them and I tend to look at them as a bit of a lesser act than the singers or bands who write their own material.  In fact to be quite honest I can't think of one band or artist that I regularly listen to that didn't have at least some significant hand in writing their own material.  Bands or artists that don't write their own material just don't seem to have much staying power with me. 

Do you figure out if a performer has (co-)written their own material before listening to them or, if you hear a song you like by some performer, once you find out that they didn't (co-)write it themselves do you go, "Oh, well, I suppose I can't listen to this any more!" and cast them away? I'm confused as to why this should be considered a "strike against them" beyond your personal preference for that being the case.

edit: Which I should say, is not a bad thing. You are free to have your preference be what they are obviously, I just don't understand why they should also be universalised for pop music in general.

I think just generally speaking the musicians or bands I listen to write their own material.  That is really the long and the short of it.  I'm trying to rack my brain to think of a band or artist that I listen to with any degree of regularity or that occupies a copious amount of room in my cd/record collection that does not generate their own original music and I can't think of one.  To answer your question though I probably wouldn't invest a lot of time in an artist or band that didn't generate their own original material.  Maybe I would purchase a song or two of Itunes if I really liked a particular track but I can't see myself actually going out and acquiring catalog of an artist or band whom did not contribute in some significant way to their own music.

I understand where John is coming from but damn if he is missing a lot of great music if that's the case.

Ella Fitzgerald will forever be one of all time favorites. I don't believe she ever write any of her own songs. Does that apply to classical performers? Cecilia Bartoli or Horowitz. Are they lesser artists because the interpreted other peoples music rather than writing their own. I don't know if I can dig that kind of thinking.

In my opinion they are lesser artists because they aren't as complete artists as those who actually generate their own material.  There is a reason why many baseball fans consider Babe Ruth to be the greatest baseball player of all time and while much of that has to do with his ability to hit prodigiously and to have basically facilitated the popularity of the home run, do you realize that given his stats as a pitcher, that even if Ruth never swung a bat in his life a case could be made for him going into the HOF as a pitcher?  Versatility counts.

Individuals who for the most part shy away from artists who don't generate their own original material may be missing out on some great music but the fact remains that there is more than enough great music written by acts that do generate their own original material to make up for it.  I'll also admit that in many ways it comes down to the era of music in which you were first inoculated into and what the standards were for that era.  So if the first band you were exposed to for instance was The Beatles and from there you progressed to the other mainstream rock acts of the sixties you'd find that the majority of acts that did not generate their own original material during that era, really didn't survive that era.  Some of them did but they are more exceptions to the rule than anything else.  Then again if you enjoy an era in which singers (and if we are to be honest with ourselves it's mainly acts that we would classify as "singers" that don't generate their own original material) commonly sang someone else's tune, then I can see how you could be a bit more forgiving.    

  Ella Fitzgerald, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley...lesser artists?


  Would Grizzly Bear be considered "mainstream"?

You can quote whatever names you want whether it be Taylor Swift or Ella Fitzgerald and the number still comes up the same.  What is good for the goose has to be good for the gander.  I love Frank Sinatra and think as far as vocals go that he certainly one of the best singers the world has ever known but that being said when all is said in done he's really not in the same league as someone like Paul McCartney.  The reason being Paul McCartney wrote his own songs, was known as one of the best bass players of his generation, exhibited either depending on your point of view competence or mastery of several instruments and a solid knowledge of how to produce his own music, something I'm sure he picked up from working alongside George Martin all of those years.

So yes they are lesser artists.  In fact that has actually been the word of Elvis Presley for years now, that he might be the king of rock and roll but he was hardly the greatest musical act to come from his era's talent pool so to speak.  To go a bit further, there has always been speculation that if the times were different and racial equality had come about sooner, then Elvis Presley may have not have been necessary at all.  I'm not saying that he wouldn't have found success but I think his success would have been tempered if artists like Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Fats Domino were looked upon differently than they were at the time.

It's sad what has happened to mainstream music. However, I have hopes that things might change.

Yea we've had almost a full decade of mediocre crap.   in 2007 mainstream rap music turned to garbage thanks to people like Soulja Boy  :angry.  I know there was crappy music in every decade, but the good music always overshadowed the bad.  Most of the artists in my generation won't even last 5 years from now.  One thing I hate is how a song could come out today, and then in two weeks it's considered "old"  ??? what? 

True. The Jonas Brothers, which was huge a few years ago, are literally history now. The overrated Psy proved to be a one-hit wonder, all the artists from the much-derided ARK Music Factory have suffered great ridicule and slid into obscurity. Kesha has also slid into obscurity.

Justin Bieber and One Direction should go next I hope. Them and Kanye West, Nicki Minaj, and all the other jokes who are ruining music as we know it

Justin said about a week ago that he was "retiring"  it's about time  ::) when I first saw him I thought he was one of those Kidz Bop kids

I hope he really is!
If he doesn't, I'll be pissed off  ;D

Some dude on the news said it was a gimmick because his new movie didn't do well at the box office....and I don't know what he and Miley Cyrus are trying to do they're both getting on my nerves with this "gangsta badass" stuff

They were both incredibly annoying even before they became like that, especially Bieber.
I wish they'd just disappear!

Yes I agree. I never liked Hannah Montana to begin with but now.... I never thought I would say it but I actually miss her as Hannah Montana  :o and speaking of that not only has the music gone downhill but t.v. shows have too

Sorry guys, Ye has legit musical talent apart from his grandiose personality, which I think is more funny than off-putting anyway. I understand that virtually nobody here likes hip-hop but Kanye is still a major force in that genre even if he is also a pop star as well where his appeal may be more divisive and perhaps limited. Kanye isn't anything close to an amazing rapper but he's an excellent producer and beat-maker and that's where I suspect his legacy will rest, even before he had a solo career. There's so much good hip-hop happening these days and I honestly think that is one genre where the mainstream performers are often just as listenable if not fully as good as those in the underground.

He's also the biggest egotistical douchebag in the music industry. He makes Mike Love look like a saint!

I guess I sort-of have to agree with you. All the great shows have either been cancelled too soon (Futurama for example), has ran it's course (The Simpsons, Family Guy, Two And A Half Men for example), or has retired.

I'm tired of all these reality t.v. shows and I like shows that have real live studio audiences instead of laugh tracks, excluding those classic shows such as Andy Griffith or Bewitched etc.

Yeah, reality shows sucks!
That's the main reason why MTV degenerated from a cool Music Channel and the place where you can watch Beavis and Butthead to a reality channel which is a shadow of it's former self

I know when his mom died he took it really hard  :(.  That whole thing with him and Taylor Swift at the awards show might've had something to do with that, maybe.  But I have to admit even though he was wrong for ruining her moment, Beyoncé should've gotten that award  :lol

exactly! and the joke is reality shows aren't fully reality.  a couple of my friends talk about how great an episode of Bad Girls Club is and I'm sitting there going  :wall

I don't think it's just that whole thing with Taylor Swift. I've always found him to be a egotistical douchebag anyway.
And I realize that I keep repeating "egotistical douchebag" but that's the perfect way to describe him  :lol

Yeah, a lot of "reality" shows are scripted and fake.
I don't mind Pawn Stars and American Restoration, but other than them, I can't really stand any reality shows

Lil Wayne's another one.  I can't see how people consider him to be the greatest rapper alive  ??? and he's always degrading women, but then again a lot of rappers do that anyway >:(

mm hmm and a lot of these sitcoms suck too. Big Bang Theory, I watched an episode of that and didn't crack a smile once.  Maybe it's just me I don't know  ::)

oh damn I forgot about him.
He's not as bad as Dr Dre who actually brutally beat up a woman once.
But Lil Wayne is just intolerable. f*** him! And he can't play guitar, you should see him try on YouTube, it's pretty pathetic

Big Bang Theory is highly overrated. All my friends really like it, and I used to like it at one stage.
Sheldon is overrated, and they should just reveal Penny's surname.
The show is simply not half as funny as how many people claim, and I'm over it now

Omg i just watched a video of him playing one that was...... :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol at least he.... tried?

Yea cuz i love comedy shows and I think the 70s was the golden age of them and on top of that the shows had a message to share with the viewers and the whole family could watch and be entertained by it.  Now it's....these writers.... :deadhorse

The 90's were great too with shows such as Seinfeld, Friends and That 70's Show.
But I guess shows from the 70's aren't too bad. Just not really used to them

Hopefully for the sake of everyone he doesn't try again.
But unfortunately, he's done it many times, not just once

Yea that 70s Show is one of my favorite shows too  ;D.  and shows like x factor and American idol,  some of the people that get through seem like it was all staged like 1D and on the American x factor, why did they have Britney Spears as a judge? she can't sing herself and at times she was ruder than Simon to the contestants  >:(

Yeah, I try to avoid the X Factor and the Idol shows or The Voice or any shows like that
I don't think it's worth watching, it's just a way to get famous quick

Why did my post get deleted?

What do you mean?

1st. Your post is still there, on the second page.
2nd. It's impossible to delete posts, you can only edit them.

So many people insist there is still good music being made - so how come I've not heard any of it?

+1

Though it does depend on your taste in music, like what type of genres you like

another thing that annoys me are these fan labels: Swifties- Taylor Swift, directioners- 1D, smilers- Miley Cyrus, beliebers- Justin Bieber, little monsters- Lady Gaga, katy cats- Katy Perry, rossians- Ross Lynch, etc  ???

True. Though I've never heard of smilers, little monsters, katy cats, and rossians. And I think it's Swifters.

Also, there's fan lables for fans of certain rock groups as well, so it's not just for pop

yea that's true, I still don't see what the point of it is.  the TAMI Show had all these different artists coming together (some stood out more than others) but at the end when they all came out they were all having fun together.  Now it seems with these new artists they have this "look at me, I'm the sh*t" thing going on and its more about the image now than the music which really sucks.  :(.  a great example of this are the We Are the World videos 1985 vs 2010 (I didn't know at the time that Brian and Al were in it cuz back in 2010 I hadn't become a BB fan yet).  in the first one they all were told to leave their egos at the door and it shows because everyone worked together and no one tried to outshine someone else.  in the new one......it was just one big MESS  >:( and I wish Brian had taken Michael's place making the arrangements of the vocal blend  :( I know if Michael was here it wouldn't have sounded like that (man I miss him so much)  :'(

There is.  Give a listen to the best "new" artist of the past twelve years, Sam Beam aka Iron and Wine.  You can go back more than twelve years if you search out his lo-fi demos.

I like Lorde. I think she does good stuff.

I don't know where I am with all of this?  I admit I'm as guilty as anyone because at times I've thrown my hands up in there air and thought "Why can't their be a band on the radio today that sounds like The Beach Boys or The Beatles or whomever"?  But the more I think about it, the reality of it seems to be that if a band did exist, I probably wouldn't listen to them all that much.  I'll give you an example.  Around a decade or so ago, there was this song called "100 Years" by "Five For Fighting" (I think that is the name of the artist anyhow) and I heard it on the radio and I liked the song a lot and thought to myself: this song manages to tug at the same heartstrings as "When I Grow Up To Be A Man" does and heck the singer even does sound a little bit like Brian (or Carl) Wilson.  But although, I enjoyed the song I didn't go right out and buy a "Five For Fighting" CD.  The same thing happened in the eighties when The Las had that song "There She Goes" which for my money is still the closest anyone has ever come to aping the sound of The Beatles.  I didn't become a Las fan.  I liked the song and must admit hate the remake that came out a few years ago with the girl lead singer and the slowed down tempo. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that is what made the C50 so special to me because it wasn't some other act trying to sound like The Beach Boys but it was The Beach Boys themselves up there doing their thing.  So I guess what I'm trying to say is if something came on the radio that reminded me of another artist I liked, I would probably listen to it and maybe even enjoy it but I'm not sure if I'd explore it much beyond that.

I'm honestly apathetic about most modern music. Just about the only modern band I like is of Montreal which is not mainstream by any means. I also like Amy Winehouse a lot. She was a much, much better singer and songwriter than Adele.

f*** Adele.

Agreed!

With all due respect to those involved, I believe the bulk of this thread is a little pathetic. Not that people don't have a right to like and dislike anything they want--you absolutely do!--but that the idea of starting a thread with the clear intention of just reaffirming already existing shared opinions in a manner fitting of modern cable news networks is just ... unnecessary, I guess. Does an existing opinion need reaffirmation?

The comparison between lyrics earlier, too: absurd. You're taking songs written for totally different reasons, one a dance track intended to empower (or at least sell merchandise to) young women, the other from a wholly different place. You could just as easily pick simple or silly lyrics from the "classic" era--say, "Love Me Do" or "Be Bop A Lula," and compare them to the more mature and interesting lyricists of today, such as the recently mentioned Sam Beam, or John Darnielle, or Earl Sweatshirt (on the interesting front, not the mature front).

The idea of whether musicians are better or worse for full ownership of their products, too (meaning songwriting, playing instruments, singing, producing, etc. versus just singing), doesn't hold water with me. The concept of a self-contained band barely existed before the Beatles (not to say there weren't such bands, just that it wasn't even considered before them). Most of the greatest instrumentalists or singers throughout history weren't composers. Many great composers aren't great performers. If I were a great writer, would my lack of a great speaking voice to recite my work aloud be a hindrance?

For those seeking good modern music, it isn't hard to find. I'd recommend the "best of 2013" thread in this very forum for some ideas. Outlets like Spotify or Youtube make free trials easy enough.

All that said, if you still don't like it, fine. You don't have to like anything. But it's pretty myopic to assume your opinion is in any way objectively correct.

The original We Are The World wasn't too bad, I enjoyed it.
Although, if you take away the clusterfuck of singers from that, it's only an average song.

The remake I just listened to is so much more horrible in comparison. I mean, why did they choose Bieber of all people to be the first singer? He sounds like a little kid as usual. A lot of the singers I don't care for, and the few that used autotune pissed me off.

While I was surprised to see Brian and Al in the chorus, I still don't care. You couldn't even here them, and they chose not to let them sing solo, instead giving it to crappy auto-tuned singers.

And then there's the rap section. If all of the above didn't destroy the remake, it was this. I have nothing else to say about that.

I almost wish I never listened to the remake!

the captain knows what's up. This forum's antipathy towards hip-hop is incredibly annoying too.

It's not so much hip-hop which we have a serious problem with.
It's the bloody autotune!

Well that definitely goes far beyond hip hop, then. It's a production fad, nothing more and nothing less. People say it's proof modern singers can't carry a tune, which is an analogous argument to the one about guitarists in the '80s and early '90s being unable to play just because there was an explosion of effects used, also purely as trend. (People like Adrian Belew certainly could play the guitar...) I understand, and on the overreliance on pitch correction software even agree, but it doesn't matter. Sometimes you have to see through the fad-sheen into the substance.

For those who may believe hip hop is shallow or lacking artistic merit, I'd point you to a couple relatively recent songs I think are among the best of the new decade:

Earl Sweatshirt, "Chum." The kid (and I say that because he is just a kid, or barely beyond it) is as interesting a lyricist as I've heard in any genre in a while. The wordplay is fantastic, with internal rhymes worthy of VDP. (Warning, it's explicit, for those who worry about such things.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCbWLSZrZfw

Brother Ali, "Letter to My Countrymen." For those looking for some social conscience in what might be perceived as a genre lacking it. (Also based in my hometown, which gives him a special place in my heart.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_2cVUXcbFA

The problem is your opinion much like the others in this thread are subjective.  It's sort of with the tacit understanding going into discussions like these that we are entering the realm of subjectivity not objectivity.  What remains is whether or not the subjective opinions are arguable/reasonable or not.  In regards to your argument about the artistic validity of artists that did not compose their own music, while nobody is saying they are devoid of any talent at all, there are those of us (myself included obviously) that believe their talents pale in comparison to those who did.  Remember my Babe Ruth analogy?  Ty Cobb was arguably a better pure hitter than Ruth, maybe the greatest hitter ever to play the game.  But Cobb wasn't as versatile as Ruth and therefore while he may be the greatest hitter of all time, is not regarded as the greatest baseball player of all time.  Again versatility counts.  If you were a great writer but lacked a great speaking voice, it would not take away from your abilities as a writer but would most certainly be a strike against you if put up against someone who was on equal footing as you as a writer but also was a fantastic orator as well.

The problem I've always found, subjectively speaking of course in putting something like "Love Me Do" on the same level as aesthetically banal as a Taylor Swift song for example is that in the case of almost every Beatles song there is something to validate it's merit as an addition to their musical canon.  "Love Me Do" is bluesy as hell and for the time it was released was extremely different from what was on the radio in the UK.  Several times over the years as a Beatles fan, I've found myself wondering why The Beatles simply didn't flip their first single and have "PS I Love You" as the A-side and "Love Me Do" as the b-side.  From a lyrical standpoint, "PS I Love You" is the stronger composition and has a pretty good McCartney vocal on it to boot.  The answer I come up with is that "Love Me Do" with both it's tempo and harmonica was so different from what was hitting the pop charts at the time is that it had to be the A-side.  Along those similar lines is the reason I believe they rejected "How Do You Do It".  Sometimes as an artist being different works to their advantage as an artist, sometimes it doesn't.  "Love Me Do" hit #17 in the autumn of 1962 on the UK charts which at the time was an accomplishment for a largely unknown band.  There was enough about "Love Me Do" to this day justify it as an addition to The Beatles canon as there is for "Little Child" or any of their weaker songs lyrically speaking.  The problem that I find with these other acts that people try to include in discussion somehow is I really don't see anything unique about them or the songs they write in the first place.  They aren't necessarily different or innovative or noteworthy in my opinion in regards to anything else that is on the radio.  In 1962, "Love Me Do" was!

Nice post, JohnMill.

I fully agree about subjectivity, but I guess that is the heart of the whole thing: I'm not claiming superiority of my opinion, or rejecting the quality of anything else. Rather, I'm admitting openly the subjectivity, and questioning whether other taking the position as if it were objectively true is valid.

The baseball reference would be lost on me if it weren't for you saying so, because frankly I hate baseball. Care to translate to basketball!? (Kidding. I get your point.)

With respect to that last point, I can't argue against it well. In case I haven't made the point, I am in no way diminishing the historical greats, and in fact I believe the Beatles are indeed (despite what I see as a lot of backlash against them, presumably because once anything is ingrained it is natural for people to oppose it) the best pop band of all time. So let's be clear, I agree on that. But if I were to argue, I'd say that modern listeners think they are hearing that "something" as validation in their music that someone else hears in his.

More honestly, though, what I'd say is that time eventually whittles away and leaves what matters. To think nothing modern will--in 10, 20, 30 years--qualify is almost definitely silly, because no point in time that has come before was ever lacking quality, even if every single era was looked down upon by those of previous ones. Realistically, isn't it logical to assume that (as an example) a 50-year-old at any given time is going to bemoan modern music, preferring what he heard when he was 15-25, even as that next generation is building something of value that isn't intended to appeal to the 50-year-old? That's really what I'm getting at.

I can understand that, in fact I read an article a few weeks ago about Miley Cyrus who has been discussed a bit in this thread that in what she is trying to do currently with her current persona, is alienate or agitate anyone say over thirty because that will endear her to her audience that fall under that mendoza line (sorry another baseball reference).  Whether or not that is true, what I would advise anyone who wishes to see Miley Cyrus evaporate from pop culture to do is to simply ignore her because these days bad publicity is almost as good as positive publicity.  Beyond that, all Miley Cyrus is trying to do right now (and I know this will seem like blasphemy to some) is the same thing The Beatles were trying to do around "Rubber Soul" or Brian Wilson was trying to do around "Pet Sounds" and that is try to distance themselves from their previous incarnation as a pop band that marketing to teenage girls.  Paul McCartney admits as much in the Anthology saying that around the time of RS, he and John Lennon felt that they had written enough of the "Thank You Girls" and now it was time to "start writing novels".  I'm guessing if you asked Brian Wilson back in 1966 you would find that he was on a similar wavelength in where he was trying to steer The Beach Boys with records like "Pet Sounds" and "SMiLE".

The reason that the endeavors of The Beach Boys and The Beatles to change their image are looked upon so favorably and Miley Cyrus' similar endeavors are regarded negatively are twofold.  First in regards to The Beatles and The Beach Boys, we have decades of hindsight now where we as the music buying public can gauge for ourselves the immense contributions both bands made to the musical spectrum.  With Cyrus, we don't have the benefit of hindsight yet.  Secondly while The Beatles and The Beach Boys advanced their cause by reshaping their music, Miley Cyrus is advancing her cause by reshaping her image by what some would perceive to be lewd public acts.  But I think at it's core, all parties were then and now striving for the same thing and that is to remain relevant in the highly competitive world of pop music.  

Which again brings me back to my argument about artists who are unable to generate original material.  I believe at it's core the reason why The Beatles for example endured is because they were always able to dictate their own course by continually being able to generate original material.  The problem Cyrus is going to find (as well as Bieber and anyone else you want to throw into that category) is that once they begin to age, they are going to lose a significant amount of their appeal.  Whats more is that there is someone out there in an office as we speak is already devising their successors ready to supplant them in the next several years.  So they are going to be facing an extreme amount of adversity at both ends.  For example Britney Spears as we speak is living off a reputation she established a decade ago and while I predict she will always be able to ride that wave of nostalgia with a section of the buying public, she will never again reach the heights she did ten years ago.  Even less can be said for the multitude of pop acts that preceded her.  Debbie Gibson became an actress, I'm not sure where Tiffany is, New Kids On The Block never again will dominate the charts like they did in the early nineties and while I am a huge fan of "The Partridge Family", where exactly is David Cassidy these days?  Surely the individual who as of last time I checked (which was several years ago now) still had on the books the largest fan club numbers of all time, deserved a better fate?

Before I close I would be remiss not to mention that another problem Cyrus is facing that even though her "shock and awe" tactics might grab headlines, they are far from original themselves.  I believe around a decade before Cyrus was born, Madonna was appearing on MTV in a wedding dress, doing suggestive dancing (if you can call it that) while singing "Like A Virgin".  People decried her acts then much in the same way they decry Cyrus now.  Society hasn't changed in that regard, much in the same way that Cyrus hasn't really changed anything significant from what Madonna did back in 1981.  Originality counts too.

Another wonderful post. And one thing it does is raise the multifaced universe of pop music. The songs themselves matter. The performances matter. But sales matter, and without them, it's hard for anyone to know much about the songs or performances. How to generate sales? Marketing. Image. The relative successes or failures are debatable, but modern artists are hardly the first to try to shock or confuse their elders or audiences.

In case it hasn't been clear, I'm not saying modern music is superior to the all-time greats, but rather just that there will be greats who are eventually culled from what is now modern music. (And there is plenty of music that is entirely listenable despite not being great: that enjoyable but forgettable mass of mediocrity that every generation has, allowing future generations to go back in time to research "if you liked A, you may like B!")

Really no other comment at this point.

Eeeeeeeewwwwww, I'd rather not.

I've just had a listen to a few of his songs, while they are better than the average new song on today's radio, they don't make me want to rush over to amazon and buy up all his stuff. The guy can certainly sing for real, I'll give him that but the arrangements have a slight air of (shudder) James Blunt about them at times.

Try some from The Shepherd's Dog, specifically "Lovesong of the Buzzard," "Flightless Bird, American Mouth," "The Devil Never Sleeps," or maybe most of all, "Resurrection Fern." Very nice, all.

Contemporary artists you all definitely need to listen to: St. Vincent, Arcade Fire, Tegan and Sara, The Shins, Sufjan Stevens, The Decemberists, Metric, Neko Case, Jenny Lewis/Rilo Kiley, Grizzly Bear, Modest Mouse, Phoenix, Spoon, Regina Spektor, The Strokes, Arctic Monkeys, Beach House, Animal Collective, Death Cab for Cutie...  Then there are also still-relevant groups who have been around for awhile like Radiohead, Wilco, Flaming Lips, singers like Aimee Mann. 

The main problem I have with a lot of contemporary indie (I hear it all the time in college) is that it is not nearly as melodic as a lot of music from the 60s and before. I know that's a huge claim to make, but let's face it, you aren't going to hear a lot of the kind of super catchy melodies I adore on most modern releases.


I like Animal Collective, though I find their early work (before Sung Tongs), horrible. It just sounds like stoners masturbating with electronics and forgetting to actually write songs. I honestly hate the huge emphasis a lot of modern bands put on ambience rather than songcraft. I am not musically conservative by any means but I know what I like (melodies) and if I don't hear one, I won't give the song a chance.

I have The Crane Wife by The Decemberists but I don't really like it. I love the song Yankee Bayonet but I hate how Colin Meloy tries to make every song into a work of literature. It's the kind of music a lot of polite English majors listen to, not real music fans.

I like Sufjan Stevens but he has more or less the kind of fan base The Decemberists have. I mean, I don't really care who his fans are (The Beach Boys were, of course, a bubblegum pop band), but I see them all the time and hear about him all the time.

I honestly like being trapped in my little world of music. It feels empowering having tastes and interests that aren't shared by others.

I, too, like being elitist about music and looking down on other people for their tastes and preferences!

you make some great points but I was expecting to get mixed reactions, I know that not everyone would agree and that's fine, my question was "what do you guys think?"  :).  there's been a variety of responses which is good  

I'm more apathetic than elitist I would say. I honestly don't think music today is necessarily shittier than it's ever been. I'm just too busy listening to The Beach Boys and Astrud Gilberto to really bother.

You're welcome to your taste, of course. I'd never doubt them. But you realize that last sentence has nothing to do with music, right? So IF (and this is a presupposition) you're keeping yourself in a self-imposed bubble just for the feeling of empowerment for the uniqueness of your taste, all that is actually happening is you're depriving yourself of what else is out there for a feeling that you're giving yourself. The music itself isn't giving you those feelings, but rather your feelings about your particular uniqueness.

I will say, for what it's worth, that I spent my late teens through early 20s knowing everything (as teens are wont to do) and shunning the then-modern music for what I had learned to be great. And I don't regret a single band I fell in love with or studied in those years: every one truly is great and deserved my attention. But all that it meant was that I have since gone back to realize what music I'd missed in those years, the latter half of the '90s more or less, which would include things like Beck, Flaming Lips, Eels, Tom Waits, to name just a few.

What's worse, there is something hugely important about learning and understanding music in its own context. Think about the value people on this board give to having been Beach Boys fans in the moment, how much attention we pay to those who were there in 1963, or 1967, or 1973, or whenever. There is something irreplaceable about being in the moment itself for the music. What's great will last, and you can always revisit recordings, but why not give yourself the chance to catch the moments as they really happen?

Why not hold on to what little sliver of uniqueness I actually have?

I try and keep and open mind when it comes to music. A phrase a lot of people say, but its always to varying degrees. Others might say that and listen to classical music, JPOP and Buddy Holly, while others might stop at music made in the 80's and still think of that as being musically open minded. So the meaning is relative. For me, it means I will give everything that comes into my musical orbit a fair chance, and if I like it, I will pursue it to see where it leads.

The majority of what I like comes from the 60's, but that doesn't mean I don't go out of the bubble.

I have a base of music that I always come back to. Beach Boys, Herbie Hancock, Pink Floyd, Zappa, etc etc. I never stop listening to that music.
But I do let other things drift into my orbit, even if they don't stay long. I like Franz Ferdinand, The Grizzly Bears and The Fleet Foxes, but do I listen to them consistently? No. The music from the 60's we all seem to like has lasting value, which is why we are all still listening to it. Same thing goes for other genres. I have had my stints with gypsy jazz, bossa nova, or synth pop, but it never lasts. No matter what I may be currently listening to, I will always get back to The Beach Boys.

You're absolutely welcome to, of course. It just seems to be artificial uniqueness, to be honest, if you intentionally wall yourself off from new or outside influences, as if out of fear that it would erode your individuality if you like some of those influences. Is that individuality more important than enjoyment? While not necessarily as outwardly apparent as dedicated fandom, I would argue that any uniqueness you or anyone else has is the totality of one's own honest expression as opposed to a self-imposed character. As someone who has inhabited any number of self-imposed characters, I feel somewhat authorized to speak here!

Further, finding enjoyment in other music doesn't in any way diminish the greatness of the music you already hold great. There is no zero-sum game in music; it's not a limited amount of enjoyment to be had or greatness to be shared.

But if you do indeed believe the best use of your time is deep devotion to Beach Boys and Astrud Gilberto to the exclusion of everything else, that is absolutely your prerogative. I'd just hope you acknowledge that it isn't about the lack of quality of that other music (getting to the point of the thread, whether there is quality in modern music), as your decision isn't based on the quality of music, but on your image of individuality.

As other people mentioned Sufjan Stevens earlier, his Illinois album is one of my favorite releases of these past few years.

I'm not a huge fan of Sufjan, myself--I think he could use a good editor (or learn to edit himself)--but he's certainly very talented and worth a listen.

It aired on the same day as the Olympics.  I don't like watching the Olympics but I watched it because of this remake that I had high hopes for.  when the video came on my mouth hung open the entire time cuz I couldn't believe what I was hearing :o.  There was a lot of negative reviews too so I know it wasn't just me.

I saw a bit of the Opening Ceremony, including Paul McCartney's performance. But I'm glad I missed out on that song.
Seriously, what a disaster it is!

I know and Wyclef Jean who's Haitian himself was the worst part of the song with all that yodeling  :-\

That was pretty damn awful. But to me the worst part was when a few of the "singers" used heavy auto-tune, which was around the time of the chorus and just before the rap section I think

It was for charity, and really wasn't that bad. Why pick on it so much?

I know it was for charity which I'm fine with don't get me wrong, but if  they were gonna do something like that they should've created an original song just for Haiti instead of ruining another song that was for another cause.  And it appeared to me (and a lot of other people) that a lot of those artists were just there to boost their careers. plus it looked like it was all thrown together  :-\.  If Michael was here he would've created a brand new song.  he wrote many songs with the same theme but for different issues.  This one was for Africa.  "Heal the World" was for people in general (for future generations to come). "Earth Song" was for nature (and people).  "What More Can I Give" was a song written for 9/11.

Charitable causes are a complicated thing though. First, the idea of doing anything other than directly giving money is already a double-sided issue. The most benefit to the cause would be if everyone simply gave money for direct intervention on the issue (or did the on-the-ground work itself). Things like recording a song or producing an ad campaign are expenses that take away from the actual donation. So what is the value of it? Twofold:

- The less cynical aspect is that the use of celebrity, a song, an ad campaign, etc. raises consciousness and causes more people to make the above-mentioned donations than otherwise would have. So as long as the results earn more than the more "pure" inexpensive model, it is considered a success.

- The more cynical aspect is exactly what you mentioned already, which is many, many people want to promote their brand/image and thus further their careers. That isn't to say that's their only reason for contributing their likenesses or gifts, but it certainly is a reason.

I'd suspect that the former reason is why they would choose a remake of a well-known song rather than a new one. More people are likely to take notice of something they've already heard of and have positive associations with than they are for something new. People of several generations may perk up: "oh, there's a new We Are The World? I'll need to hear that..." It helps cut through the clutter. The artistic result of such an endeavor is pretty far down the list of priorities for pretty much everyone involved.

Most of the kids I knew didn't even know about the first one.  A lot of the people that did including me did get their hopes up for this.  And Michael (who I still love to this day), his death was still recent then and I was still trying to cope with it.  For me, I'm fine with the charity effort, but looking at this for me sums up the feelings I have for music today in general. the auto tune, the yodeling, the rap, Justin Bieber, the Ray Charles impression, the over singing with Jennifer Hudson and Mary Mary etc; Beyoncé and Jay-z in particular didn't take part in this for a reason.  you had some great artists in that crowd and most of them didn't even get a solo spot  :(.  But you do make some great points still and I'll take them into consideration, but these were just my reasons for disliking it  :(.

Don't get me wrong, I thought it was sh*t. I just wasn't expecting it to be anything but sh*t.

o ok glad to see we're on the same page  :lol

I think it's a horrible song, regardless of the incarnation. Even the idea that each artist sings only one line I find silly.

To make a connection with the topic theme, I bet that most "serious" music listeners hated the song when it came out in the 80's. It's funny that now it's seen as a "great song ruined by the fact that sh*t rappers and pop divas chose to cover it" by some.

They should have been far more creative and made a whole new song instead of butchering that song.

The choice of artists was awful, and they must have been on something when they decided to use auto-tune and put in a rap section.

Besides, Retrokid and I aren't the only ones. Countless other people hate that cover, and it's gotten harsh reviews by critics (and rightfully so)

The whole "if it's rap, it's awful" thing is so tedious. Like it or not--and clearly you don't--rap and hip-hop style in general are the dominant popular musical forces of the past 25 years or so. It's absurd to think that something so dominant could possibly be inherently lacking in value. Isn't it possible that it's a vital and worthwhile form that you just happen not to like? There isn't anything wrong with that, you know. Accepting it (even if you don't like it) doesn't take anything away from the music you do like.

What they were on when they used autotune and inserted rap was the public's taste. Those things are the style, just like the shitty, cheesy synth sounds used in the original were at that time. Of course the producers would use them. They won't avoid something just because a small minority of people out there believe they know better than the majority, and don't approve.

Again, the song is sh*t. And the fact that it was for charity is irrelevant to the quality of the thing. And it's probably more about personal branding for the involved artists than anything else. Not arguing any of that. And now that I've spent maybe six or seven minutes in total writing on the subject, it occurs to me that's more than I've spent contemplating its existence or listening to it before now.

Yea because they gave this so much hype and then when people saw it....some were upset and others were MAD.  lots of people made video rants about it on YouTube the day after it aired and the artists that I already didn't like I disliked even more.  it was a complete let down for me plus I was still mourning over Michael so that made it worse  :(.  some people have expressed that they didn't like the lyrics of the song to begin with, but the talent in the first version stood out from the lyrics.

Here is my honest take on rap music: First off I don't think I've ever explored the genre enough to make a very in-depth review of the subject matter.  From what I've heard there is some material that is enjoyable because it has a decent beat to it and I think that along with the fact that it has integrated it's way into the dance scene much like disco did in the late seventies is the main basis for it's appeal.  The only thing I'd comment on aside from that is speaking in the most general terms unless you grew up from somewhat of an impoverished background or at the very least a background in which you had to struggle every step of the way, then I think a great deal of the subject matter that is dealt with in a great deal of rap music is going to be beyond your depth.  I'm not saying you still can't enjoy it or dig the beat or whatever, but I never really bought into all these suburban middle class white kids claiming that they could empathize with Tupac's lyrics or whatnot.  Enjoy them yes, perhaps live vicariously though them but beyond that a great deal of rap music's following has the word farce shining above their heads in neon letters.  Not sure that speaks badly of the music or whatnot but something I've observed over the years nonetheless.

Edit: To illustrate my point, I remember in the mid nineties when rap was just starting to come into it's own (post MC Hammer crap), Mike Judge had his cartoons "Beavis & Butthead" comment on a Snoop Dogg rap video.  Beavis begins to empathize with the lyrics claiming that he "grew up in Compton" and was "West Side Since He Was Ten Years Old" and is quickly put down by Butt-Head who tells him "The only thing you were doing when you were ten was going to flea markets with your mom!".  Clearly this was Judge's commentary on rap music's burgeoning fraud fanbase, something which I wholeheartedly agreed with. 

I do like at least two rap songs. One by Grandmaster Flash and One by Ice Cube.
Aside from the two, yes I don't like rap.

Another problem I have with hip-hop is sampling. Really that's another word for copying or in some cases, plagiarism.
They should just make their own music instead of using the music of proper artists. The fact that sampling is so accepted nowadays is disgusting in my opinion.

Still D.R.E! ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPTGR4FYCMA

Recognized it immediately because it was on GTA 5  ;D
Still don't care for the song much though.

And I've seriously had a problem with Dr. Dre after I found out he bashed a innocent woman and got away with it

I can see how sampling in rap music can get you down but sampling has always been a part of music in various guises over the years.  The Beach Boys sampled "Ticket To Ride" for "Girl Don't Tell Me".  Springsteen creatively crafted the following lyric in order to describe the Asbury Park boardwalk in "Sandy": "The wizards play down on pinball way...".  So it's always been around in some form or another.  Heck here is one for you, The Beatles sampled the theme from "Batman" for "Taxman".  It comes in all forms.

Here's a song from Eminem's new album, it uses The Zombies' 'Time Of The Season' as a sample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJe3U3CrpQ4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJe3U3CrpQ4)

"I actually loved it. I loved the way he takes words and phrases from the original record and then spins off of the particular phrases. It kicks him off onto an avalanche of funny wordplay and invention. It's very amusing. It's a waterfall of words, and the associations just keep coming. When he's singing, 'There's no rhyme or no reason for nothing', I love that it was almost identical in vowel sounds and mirrored the original, but at the same time completely inverted the sentiment of what was being said."

- Rod Argent of The Zombies

When done properly, I have no objection to rap artists using samples from other songs.

I dislike almost all rap, but Eminem is a major exception: he's a genius with words, his production is always pristine, his lyrics can be incredibly offensive or incredibly inspirational.

I've heard some of those songs.   so I have a new rule;    After the third repetition, I change the channel or push the skip button.

Yup I sometimes count just to make sure I'm not the one who's crazy  :lol but seriously I don't understand how some of these people make it, it's like they're picked up off the street or something. every time I turn around a new rapper comes out or a new Justin Bieber type kid pops up but they all sound the same to me, I've lost track  :ahh

Yeah, the worst offenders would be the ones from the dreadful ARK Music Factory.
Arseholes constantly picking random 12 year old kids who can't sing sh*t and make shitty music in a failed attempt to make them the next Bieber, and the crappy music they put out ends up ruining the kids lives

I know Rebecca Black got death threats, she didn't deserve that but "Friday" had to be the worst song of that year  :wall

Agreed. But she's not the only one. There's others like Alison Gold, Nicole Westbrook and others who I don't want to know.
I hope one day that ARK Music Factory burns to the ground for the good of the music industry!

That is an interesting point, but isn't that conflating the music itself with the subject matter for which it's most popular? People rap about a lot of things, with the whole gangsta thing really only popularized in the late '80s or early '90s and even then just being one subgenre. People rap about everything they sing about. If it's about honesty of experience, I'd question that, too, as songwriting is (or at least can be) fiction. See: Beach Boys, for one.

People who aren't rural Mississippi or Chicago area black kids have certainly fallen in love with blues; people not from Memphis or Chicago certainly loved rock and roll? Kids (or adults, for that matter) hopping onto bandwagons for the image of the thing is always annoying, but it's also just the way it goes, especially as the thing becomes commercial (and so moneyed kids can afford it and get a kick out of thinking they're somehow rebels for finding a new music by people their parents don't approve of singing [or rapping] about things their parents don't approve of [anymore because the new thing, despite being from 10,000 feet identical to their own rebel music of a few decades before, is somehow threatening or unappealing to them]).

As for the other posters' sampling debate, it's patently absurd. The creative use of anything, pre-existing or not, is legitimate in making art. You could argue Andy Warhol "sampled" in his visual art. You can point to quotations in music going back centuries in what you'd call classical music. The same thing has always happened in jazz. To put on a record by someone else, hit play, and say it's yours--that's pathetic. But to listen to Paul's Boutique, for example, and think that isn't creative art (despite making use of extensive samples) is baffling.

Yea they suck too and I'm in complete agreement with you I'll take KidzBop over them  :deadhorse

Does it bum you out not being able to listen to the likes of "I Get Around"  and "Do You Wanna Dance" anymore?

I've actually never heard of Kidzbop  :lol
Just searched them up, I'm going to avoid their "music" at all costs

Those two songs aren't too repetitive. The same can't be said about a lot of recent songs

There are creative uses for samples...for me, it's if they're used in a fashion where the sampled track sounds very different from the original to the point where it takes a while to be able to tell what it was that sampled in the first place. From personal experience, I once sampled the opening from the a capella version of Brian Wilson's 'Your Imagination'...slowed it way the hell down, and reversed it. It sounded dark and evil, and only a keen ear could tell what it was originally. I also once sampled a whole bunch of body sounds (joint popping, finger snapping, ect) and used it to form a rhythm track for a song. As far as just taking a song, sampling it, and not making any changes, I'm not really cool with it except for one thing...when it's a song that today's youth may have not known about, sometimes they can be motivated to find the original song, exposing them to something they may not have heard otherwise. That can be a good thing.

You're joking, I assume (because it would be an uncharitable assumption otherwise).

"Do You Wanna Dance?" begins every verse with "Do ya wanna dance?." The refrain, which occurs several times through the song, is:

Do ya do ya do ya do ya wanna dance?
Do ya do ya do ya do ya wanna dance?
Do ya do ya do ya do ya wanna dance?

I Get Around refrain background vox, also repeated several times:

Get around round round I get around.
Get around round round I get around.
Get around round round I get around.
Get around round round I get around.

I don't know, I still go back to my point regarding at least the initial popularity of rap and it fell into three categories.  The people who actually empathized with what was being said in the songs.  The people who just plain enjoyed the music and then the people who lived vicariously through the lyrics.  I contend that it is this third group that was responsible for pushing rap over the top.  In fact I was watching a documentary on some rap artist (It might have been Snoop Dogg) awhile back and they were talking about how during the summer of 1991, sales for this particular rapper's album skyrocketed due to the fact that the music was expanding outside of what was believed at the time to be it's target demographic.  Which means in layman's terms that suburban kids were buying this rap music and trying to pass off that they could actually relate to the songs.  I guess you can make the argument either way that if a songwriter is passionate enough about what he writes about then his audience is going to be able to more easily buy into what he is saying.  The Beach Boys were particularly good at this with all their surfing songs despite the fact that aside from Dennis, none of them were avid surfers.  Yet they sold that image to the masses and since the masses knew no different and the music were enjoyable to boot, that for better or worse became their image and one that persists to this day.

The problem a lot of people have with rap music is (or at least used to have) is that it seemed to provide nourishment for a lot of kids who were marginally angry about something in their lives.  These aspects of their lives which they were angry about, were more times than not miniscule at best and yet they found misplaced solace or kinship in the lyrics of a lot of these rap songs which were written by very angry and perhaps justifiably angry people.  You then had these kids who were marginally angry to begin with using rap music as a means of constantly feeding their anger until that anger turned into aggression and that is where a lot of the arguments against rap music came from.  Was rap music or any type of music that spoke of aggressive tendencies responsible for aggressive actions in it's listeners?  In my opinion, absolutely not but again it goes back to the idea of the way an audience can oftentimes try to identify with the artist when they have no business doing so in the first place and that happens across the board.  When Kurt Cobain killed himself in 1994, the were several copycat suicides in the weeks after by Nirvana fans because they for some reason felt whatever problems they were going through in their life were as insurmountable as Kurt Cobain's allegedly were.  Now if that doesn't speak of ridiculous thinking, I don't know what does.  But there is a viable connection there and a lot of it goes back to this notion of misplaced identification of pop culture heroes or their work. 

That sort of reminds me of how Ian Anderson said he felt fake playing blues numbers; they were white middle class kids from England, so playing music created by poor black men from the American south just felt fake to him.

I went through a brief period of listening to Dre and Snoop and I actually saw Snoop live once-he had a band with a horn section and everything. It's entertaining, I guess, but it just doesn't touch me, because it's not who I am or where I came from. Neither is blues, but I do love the blues for both the emotion and the instrumental brilliance.

To me, if a performer doesn't have something special going on musically, then I'm just not interested.

Only really huge current acts I like are Adele and Bruno Mars. There's a lot of less popular performers who are actually doing great things, however. People like Tame Impala and Alabama Shakes, etc.

I don't think people here understand that sampling doesn't have to be -- and almost never is -- just one melody that gets rapped over unchanged. Here's an immortal example of excellent sampling: "Jessica" by Herbie Hancock sampled for "Shook Ones, Pt. II" by Mobb Deep (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-QS4CTtltg&hd=1), which was created by Havoc, also one of the group's rappers. Clams Casino is another producer these days that is untouchable, his three instrumental mixtapes -- from 2011 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6QTMSVqvu8), 2012 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKaOw-JNHNw) and 2013 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xK39s9CITY) respectively -- are all stellar. It's not as if these things take no effort to think up and actually make happen since beat-makers aren't usually just using one sample; often it will be very many, sometimes hundreds. Of course, you have to keep in mind that after the Biz got sued for sample clearance in 1993 this basically made sampling financially prohibitive for a lot of labels and artists because the costs associated with clearing samples are often ridiculously high. You might then still be able to make a sample-heavy album like It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back or Three Feet High And Rising these days but the costs would be so much more because all the samples (many of which might not be able to get identified even by the people who made the beats!) would need to be cleared. I think that's a damn shame but it has for better or worse forced hip-hop beat-makers to be inventive in different ways, sampling or otherwise. This song is everything I love about Danny Brown, and the beat is absolutely insane: "ODB" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0boHcBFSR0), which I think was produced by Paul White but I'm not certain. It was very unfortunately left off his last album, Old, because they couldn't clear some sample.

Today's Mainstream music I can't really get into, but I learned a long time ago that you can't really deny that other people may be moved or entertained by stuff that just sounds like crap to you.  It's been going on since the beginning of time, or at least the 50's when kids started liking things their parents or older adults couldn't understand.  

Also if you open your ears a little bit, don't be surprised to hear some pretty good songs underneath all that annoyance that the latest pop star is throwing your way.  

Recently, on "America's Got Talent", there was a pretty cool group of a guy and his girlfriend called "Alex & Sierra".  They sang, several times, some newer stuff like 1 Direction songs, and surprisingly, it was pretty damn good.  

Here's a good example, a 1 Direction song, sang by a couple people with talent, with a little bit different production and vibe, showing that it's a pretty good song that holds up IMHO.

Alex & Sierra  - Best Song Ever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hROdUDSoHUI#t=108

I read a lot of the posts about how there are a lot of acts with little talent, that make repetitive songs or whatever and thought I'd mention something I've noticed.

IN MY OPINION (and it's just my opinion, you may or may not agree) a certain phenomenon happens over and over again in music.  There are essentially a few types of musicians, or singers.

1. legitimately talented singers.  Guys like Bruno Mars... that guy is very talented.  The reason he is successful, is because he's talented.  Period.

2. People that aren't very talented, but are successful because they have something else extraordinary... usually, this is charisma. 

So you'll get somebody like Snoop Dogg, who arguably is talented (I think he is, when he wants to work hard at it), but generally got famous on his CHARISMA.  The reason Snoop was so successful was because he's got a ton of Charisma... people from 5 years old to 90 years old, generally like the guy, even if they don't like his music or would never listen to it.  This is a guy who was in prison for selling crack; almost went to prison for murdering a guy in a park... but is completely capable of making cartoons, appearing at awards shows, doing cameos in comedies, doing commericals for major retail companies like Pepsi... the guy has talent, but more importantly has that "IT" factor that means he doesn't even HAVE to have talent.  He can write any rap song he wants, and no matter how bad, some people will like it because they like HIM. 


So this rare second type of musician opens the door for the third type of musician

3. Talentless copycat.  This is the person that sees Snoop write lines like "Snoops Upside your Head, Snoop's Upside your head!" and thinks "Hey! I can do that".  Not only do they not have any talent as a songwriter, or a singer, or rapper, or whatever, but they also don't have the charisma Snoop has.  They still get some fanbase and everything, but there's hardly anything original or unique or even redeeming about what they do.



This happens all the time, Taylor Swift is a good example.  She's a great songwriter, but not a very good singer... so since she's so successful (beacuse she's such a great songwriter!), it makes everybody who can't sing worth a sh*t say 'Hey! I could do that" and you get 30 country singers who can't sing worth a sh*t releasing records and record labels actually singing them hoping they have the next Taylor Swift.

Same thing with Beiber mentioned above.  He's talented.  The kid can sing.  He also looks good... so now any kid who looks good thinks he can be as big as Beiber but they don't have the chops to pull it off.   

The outlyers like Snoop, or Taylor Swift really screw it all up for us, lol.  Another rapper that pulls the same thing off is Flavor Flav.  He has 0 talent but the guy's pretty cool, he has a lot of Charisma.  Now every crackhead with something hanging off their neck thinks they can be big, lol.  Old Dirty Bastard.  The guy was talented as hell but it launched about 30 crackhead rappers who have a similar ridiculous style and none of them can pull it off.  Garth Brooks comes along and does country music with a rock and roll influence... gets huge... and now half the sh*t on the country channel is really horrible country music with the guitars cranked up to max and compression drowning everything out, guys trying to sing like Rock Stars but don't know a G from an F. 

It always starts with somebody who gets over on some extra-ordinary part of their character (Taylor's songwriting skills... Snoop's personality...Lisa Loeb's geeky good looks... whatever) and then you get a whole sea of no-talent copycats who try to do the same thing without the extra-ordinary character trait.

Great post, Ron. Also agree re: Bruno Mars. He is somebody who has both style AND substance, and would be big in any era. I actually get a Marvin Gaye vibe from him.

Yeah, he's a good example of why you can't just write off EVERYTHING modern.  There's plenty more like him (talented) too, you just have to open your eyes.  I would also offer up Pink as a very talented 'modern' artist.  She's good, really good IMHO.

Pink - Who Knew? (Live Acoustic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rk1YDRjbIo

How anybody could write off somebody like that is beyond me.  THAT's modern, mainstream music.  That's how good songs have always been written.  Look how at ease she is singing some a effortless song, because she wrote it and understands what the song means.  No faking emotion, no trying to inflect the important parts... she wrote the song, it reflects her, so when she sings it it's natural and sounds authentic.  A-R-T-I-S-T like Picasso

I was hoping you'd post in this thread, Ron. Both your insights and taste are always refreshing to me (even when I disagree).

Thank you, that's very kind of you to say. 

And now I'm going to start trashing you and your opinions...  ;D

No, seriously, I just always appreciate that you can speak to and from what I'll call both populist and elitist positions when it comes to music. In my experience here, you are conversant in both sides and are capable of seeing the value in each without trashing the other. Diverse tastes, open mind, a certain perspective that includes the big picture / long term, literacy ... that's what I call a good conversationalist.

Really it just says that specific song is shitty. Some days I really wish someone would force Beyonce, Gaga, Rihanna, Pink, etc. at gunpoint to work with Booker T. and Steve Cropper and/or any other surviving Stax guys, or surviving members of the Funk Brothers, or even the Dap-Kings with Mark Ronson producing.

Shouldn't lump Pink in there...sh*t, that'd probably be one of her dreams come true.

Anybody see Beyonce in Cadillac Records?  If you're an old fart like me, don't judge her untill you see the movie.  The woman oozes talent.  I just don't like the material she usually performs.

People who use samples are not musicians. They're DJ's. That's what's sad about the rise of samples: the fact that people no longer have to know how to play an instrument or know how to write their own music. It puts real musicians out of work. Many times the samples used are years or even decades old. Ironically, the music sampled was made by real musicians, who learned an instrument and wrote an actual original song or produced something fresh in a studio. There must have been something valid about that approach (making real music from scratch instead of sampling), or there would be no music to sample from. It's also bad when samples are used and no royalties are paid to the original authors/performers, nor credits given.

I should add that I think Regina Spektor is immensely talented.

This is absurd, with the exception of the last sentence. It was discussed earlier in the thread, so if you want to know the opposing position, you can go back and find it. If after you've done that, you still disagree (which, if you do read it, I suspect you still will), I'd be very glad to debate further. But I don't want to repeat the already said.

Oh, no doubt she's a fantastic singer and a pretty good actress as well.  She just lacks interesting material lately.  "Crazy In Love" is a fantastic song though.


Hell yeah she is.

I can't really stand Beyonce but she's pretty damn talented.  She's also pretty intelligent at what she does, as i'm sure most people know she just pretty much turned Itunes on it's ear a few weeks ago by releasing a full album and a video for each song with not only no promotion but no pre-notice.  She spent 0 money on promo and set records anyways.   Very smart businesswoman. 

So, I'm not a musician.

Got it.

The intro to "Crazy In Love" was taken from a Chi-Lites song "Are You My Woman (Tell Me So)" but yes she is a talented singer and that's one of my favorite songs by her.  :)

I agree with everyone that says that Beyonce is a great singer. She really is talented.

That being said, I don't listen to any of her stuff and I don't plan to in the foreseeable future.

She may be a great singer, but the material she performs is horrible, and she really has to choose far better songs!

Love Cadillac Records, great film!

Seems like I hear a lot of the good stuff on movie soundtracks or in commercials as I don't listen to the radio much anymore (except ESPN or NPR). Kinda liking some of the Dubstep I'm hearing.

yea and it's too bad Etta James got mad at her for singing "At Last" to the President  :lol

In Etta's (sort-of) defence, she did claim she was joking and she was upset that she wasn't invited to sing her song on that film.
It's also worth noting that she had Alzheimer's by then, so that most likely had something to do with that

o ok I didn't know about that, thanks

I haven't liked mainstream music since the late '80s.

Couldn't agree more. Well once in a while there's a song that I like, but nothing has come anywhere near the best stuff say for example from the 70's. And I'm a 90's kid... Can't even imagine what a person who's lived the better days of pop music thinks about these days.

I got a divorce from the mainstream in 1996.

When I hear talented people like Sara Bareilles, Regina Spektor, KT Tunstall and others, as well as bands like Wilco, I can't entirely write off modern pop music. Just can't do it.

I agree. But if I had to put a date to when I began to notice the generation gap emerging in my musical tastes, 1996 is the year.

But yes. I love Regina Spektor.

That's roughly the same time for me too, actually. The mid to late '90s.

Yes very talented.  I enjoyed her version of "Real Love".

Me too. That was the first time I heard her music. Such an excellent arrangement. Keeps it in her style, yet pays homage to the original home recordings.

The cycle theories about trends in pop music seems very convincing at the moment.....

I never thought the type of techno that dominated european radio, like Scooter and Sasha and Robert Miles would ever get back into the mainstream.

But it's happening. Zedd, are you gonna stay the night (I like it actually),Aviici just a lot songs I hear on CHR and Adult Cont radio sound like that tasteless techno from the 90s

Hell Bastion's song Pompei (close your eyes) remind me of 90s hit Ameno

(http://static.ibnlive.in.com/ibnlive/pix/ibnhome/mug1.jpg)


Hopefully now the little prick would just disappear into history!

 :lol :lol :lol did you see that newscast on YouTube where the girl interrupted an important topic for him going to jail?

Nope. Send me the link

ok here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH68bSJXGE8  :lol :lol :lol

She interrupted the Congresswoman who was talking about a very important issue for Bieber!
And his arrest is Breaking News?!

Un-freaking-believable!  :lol ;D

Bieber always acts like he's a badass and he's always trying to look cool, but really he's a little douchebag who only got famous because he was eye-candy to pre-pubescent girls!

when I first saw him I thought he looked like little Donny Osmond with a bad hair cut  :lol and yea now it's finally caught up to him.  And can you believe that his fans at one point were cutting themselves for him, (I forgot what the reason for it was) and he didn't even speak out about that.  >:(

When he tries to make himself look cool (perhaps because he realized that everything thinks he's gay?) he only makes himself look like a complete phony jackass.
Their fans I cannot stand (though I still prefer Beliebers over Directioners for obvious reasons), and the crazy ones actually started cutting themselves because Bieber started smoking marijuana!
Can you believe that?! Marijuana isn't even a bad "drug" and they're cutting themselves up over that! It's not like he was using Meth or Heroin or sh*t like that which can actually harm you and/or kill you!

o yea that sure was the reason for that.  he should be ashamed of himself  >:( and the fact that most of his fans are 12 years old and under..... can you imagine 5 year olds cutting themselves over that and probably don't even know what marijuana is (I know I didn't when I was 5).  and I know 1D fans were upset that Zayne smokes but I don't know if they do anything as stupid as what Bieber's fans did on those terms.

True. But I still say Directioners are worse, and why they're worse I already explained earlier in this thread

Perhaps fifty years ago he would have.  Now most of the world subscribes to the theory that there is no such thing as bad press. 

If you can't stand the guy don't worry though, his clock is ticking.  Unless he is able to make the transition that Timberlake made from boy band pop star to a successful adult singer, this kid is going to have his best days behind him in a few years.  Fair warning though: as I mentioned awhile back, someone in an office right now is dreaming up another one (or a group of them) just like him to serve as his "replacement".

I think you're on the right track, except one thing: the part I bolded in your quote implies that his best days are yet to come. I'd say that's highly unlikely. Usually the major non-musical drama associated with child/tween/teen pop stars only really begins once their initial musical stardom has begun to fade. Bieber's most recognizable (and I'd say best--and yes, I think it's a good song, actually) song, "Baby," is from 2010. His other biggest hit, "Boyfriend," is two years old. The girls who loved him most are a few years older, and at that age, that's usually enough to move on and find something they think is a little more substantial. So I'd say Bieber's best musical days are most likely behind him, unless he happens to find the sort of Justin Timberlake rebirth you mentioned. (I doubt this, as he doesn't strike me as even half as talented as JT.)

What astounds me, though, is that anyone outside the target markets for people like Bieber even cares at all. To read or hear in associated papers, magazines, message boards, or whatever, the kind of righteous rage or condescension to me just baffles. It's a bit like getting angry at the actors on Nickelodeon's TV shows for failing to be up to the standards of Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro, or the writers of children's books for not being Tolstoys. Pop is pop. It's meant for kids, tweens, teens. It's stupid, catchy, and put placed in the mouths of attractive performers. That's just what happens. Always has, as long as we've had mass media. Always will. It's a universe that doesn't apply to grown-ups. Why get worked up over whether it's good, bad, or indifferent?

I would get angry at him for what he did because he apparently got a DUI and seems pretty unaffected by this -- he's smiling in his mug shot, after all. His fans furthermore seem to think this is just fine as well, as they're supposedly trending on Twitter to exonerate him. That is pretty disgusting, that just because you're famous (and more to the point, wealthy) you should be able to get away with things that no one else is able to get away with. Plus, a DUI is a big fucking deal, doing that can and often does kill people...

That makes more sense, in that it isn't really about how or why he's popular or the quality of his music.

But the sense of entitlement and bad behavior does pretty much go with the territory of being a child star. Unlimited money, the adoration of a huge number of people and attempts at ingratiation (for financial benefit) of another huge number creating a buffer zone between you and reality, etc.

That the wealthy--forget famous--can get away with what the poor can't is just a pathetic piece of reality, too. Bieber's just one little example of that. (Personally I'm more frustrated by the people far more wealthy and far less famous than him, and what they get away with. But that's a Sandbox discussion...)

I don't think it should be a competition about which wealthy person can get away with worse things, it's all equally repulsive to me. And I think at this point, especially for a teen idol figure like Bieber, this will affect his popularity. Plenty of other famous, rich people do similarly terrible or worse things and get adulation for it all the same. You're right though, this is at least not relevant to the discussion of his music. I just figured it was worth pointing out since I find it especially disgusting...

Yea what you shared earlier about them is unforgivable  :wall

This is why I respect Justin Timberlake. He turned from a member of a crappy manufactured boy band to a great actor!
I wouldn't bet money on Bieber being nearly as successful

To me the word "great" is stretching it.  As captain referenced above Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro are great actors, to call Timberlake a great actor to me would be disrespectful to those who have actually earned the title.  Probably why I've always disliked how loosely the word "great" is thrown around.  "Successful" would be a more appropriate term in my opinion.

The only problem i've got with Beiber is that he's a little punk, I don't mind that he's making a fortune singing and don't mind that a ton of little girls think he sounds good.  I do mind that he's a disrespectful little twit, even down to that video of him pissing in a mop bucket at some restauraunt... he's pissing in a mop bucket, and then saying something about 'f*** Bill Clinton' or something like that, the whole thing was just stupid.  Deserves a good ass kicking and maybe he'll settle down.

Also I cannot stand that he wears those pants with the crotch at his knees, that sh*t has GOT TO GO it ought to be illegal to dress like a clown if you're not in full face paint.

BTW if you want to know why society is f***ed up, or why anybody is f***ed up, look at their father.  The lack of good fathers in society is ruining America. 

His father was there the whole day while he was getting high, and helped set up the drag race, and now his son's arrested. 

His dad ought to have his ass kicked before they kick Justin's ass. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3GBQCYxNho  :lol :lol :lol :lol the voice crack

I'm not a big fan of Timberlake (don't really like him or his songs) but at least he's a contributing member of society that you won't see going to jail for stupid nonsense, or smoking drugs or driving intoxicated.  So to me he's a respectable person because he's living his life and also has his charities and things that he works for, etc.  He's just an all around respectable guy like anybody else you might meet, just happens to be rich and famous.  If somebody's doing their thing I don't care how famous or rich they are, good for Justin that he's successful, he's not harming anybody and he's actually helping in what little ways he can, that's the sign of a good man to me.  

Good point. Guess I'll have to agree with you. Compared to the legends he's nothing, but he's not that bad.


Oh man that's funny!  :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

I bet if the bodyguard weren't there and Bieber tried to attack the Paparazzi, Bieber would have got his arse kicked!  ;D

ooo I could imagine that  :lol :lol :lol it would be ugly, and with his outfit and the blood he would be covered in red from head to toe  >:D

And Now for Something Completely Different!                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 :lol ;D yea I don't support violence either and in the past felt bad for people like him and Rebecca Black for the constant threats they were getting, but while Rebecca seems like a sweet girl, Bieber now comes across as a douchebag  >:(

Yeah, Rebecca Black is a victim of both ARK Music Factory and the Public. Bieber is just a jerk

I never cared about Bieber but you went totally overboard by posting this. I mean, he didn't do anything bad to you & your family personally. Why would you even waste time in writing sth. cruel like this? Or better yet, why would you follow his news discussing what bad he'd done then or now etc. if you clearly don't like his music? I thought everyone who's not into some artist ignores them & concentrates on their favorites.

Agreed. Definitely not what I come here to read. I like posts that are thoughtful, not fantasy beatings of a celebrity.

I fully agree with RangeRover. I never understood why so many people direct such an unhealthy hate towards somebody as insignificant from a musical point of view as Justin Bieber. He's really just another pop singer, like many were before him and many will be after him. I don't care much for his music and I don't know him personally either. Why should I hate him? Just move on and listen to what you like.  

There is only one thing more annoying than Justin Beiber....

Beiber hate that actually plays into the attention seeking.

Maybe I DON'T Know?!'s post is for lack of a better word..... creepy.

Drag Racing. Whilst drunk. And carrying marijuana? Wasn't this the kind of thing Dennis Wilson used to do all the time? Beiber is a little jerk who I can't stand but if I had his money, fame and endless teenage ass queuing up round the block I'd be pulling much worse than this stuff.

Most honest post in this thread.

And we'd be talking about what a loser you are, too, then. 

Like we mentioned above, if this is so standard and if it's because of the fame and money, then why didn't Justin Timberlake do the same thing?  The guy's never had a speeding ticket, and it's probably because he's got good parents who raised him to at least be a halfway decent human being.


It still comes down to personal choices, and it comes down to the way he was parented.  He's still young enough that we can blame it on his parents, who are pretty horrible at it, but he's an adult now and eventually he's going to have to 'rise above his raisin'

Nothing wrong with saying if a kid is acting like a punk, then he's a punk.  Justin Bieber is a punk.

I don't like the guy at all and I think he is in personal freefall in my opinion.

But to be fair his dad is a loser who was never in his life and his mom did the best she could raising him. So to have nothing and then everything is a hard transition for anyone at any age, let alone a teenager.

Didn't he tell the police that his mom doles out his anti-anxiety medication and he wasn't even sure what they were? Both parents sounds like the Lohans. The kid doesn't have a chance. I feel sorry for him more than anything else. He could wind up dead if his parents are presciption drugging him on top of the drinking and drugging he does for recreation.

After a long day I was tired and cranky when I wrote that about Bieber.
I may strongly dislike him and have zero respect for the little douchebag, but I admit I went too far.
And yes, ultimately RangeRover is right!

(http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj104/Rei_Fordham/1604498_808279369197649_48026369_n_zpscd17f8c0.jpg?t=1390888759)
I realize this is most likely fan made. In any case it's very disgraceful!

There's a petition going out for Justin Bieber being deported from the US back to Canada. It has to reach 100,000 signatures, and so far there's already around 80,000. We need 20,000 more signatures for him to be deported.
I'm not an American, but I would love to see Bieber being kicked out of that country!

The petition's right here, and I hope you do the right thing:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-justin-bieber-and-revoke-his-green-card/ST1yqHJL

....I don't know I'm starting to feel bad for him again  :lol (yea I know I'm soft  ::))

WHO CARES

How would that affect your life in any way? Stop jumping on the hateful bandwagon. Justin Bieber has no impact on my life, or on yours. I'm tired of seeing all your stupid hateful posts about him.

He wants to be Bieber at heart..... ;)

While you're all exploding over Beiber, I'm gonna stick directly to the topic at hand
-
Mainstream Music [not to be confused with Modern music] is certainly, generally speaking, a mostly overcooked kettle of fish. If heard some great melodies kicking about, but the way the music if arranged, produced, and then packaged, completely ticks me off. There is some stuff from the mainstream I admit to enjoying - as much as I hate to say it, I get a guilty kick out of One Direction - but it's the sonic quality of the majority of it I can't stand. Four to the Floor drum machines, car horn harmonies, and compression out the wazoo [though I am impressed by the dynamics of some tracks] all add up to something very different. Tracks like this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTk6eY9EY5g] have something I could definitely enjoy, but it's been served up for it's intended market - vocals processed to an extent that sits awkwardly in the mix, and the four to the floor again that, ugh.

But there is still light - Love him or Loathe him, people like Jake Bugg are certainly making a dent in the market with music that certainly hasn't been completely Big Mac'd, though there are those questionable cocredits.

But what can you do. It's not the music that totally bugs me. It's the production and the opinions of the listeners.

One thing that I don't think has been really emphasized in this thread--though maybe mentioned (or maybe I'm just forgetting it entirely)--is what mainstream even means anymore. Sales numbers for number one hits are laughable compared to earlier years. Is there a mainstream audience for mainstream music, or are there just so many segmented audiences with narrowly focused musicians to suit them that the term is anachronistic?

I think the terms "Top 40" and "Tween Music" are pretty much interchangable these days. If top 40 stations were the true guage of modern music, we`d be hearing the Fleet Foxes, Flaming Lips, Arcade Fire, Radiohead, Leslie Feist, Camera Obscura, Grizzly Bear, Sharon Jones, Death Cab, Neko Case, Neutral Milk Hotel, Wilco, My Bloody Valentine, etc. right alongside the Biebers, T. Swifts, Backstreets, Madonnas, Ushers, Nellys, and Jackos of the world.

If you don't care, don't comment. Simple  :)

I'd rather just not read it. This is where an ignore feature would come in handy.

I agreed with you up until you said "Jackos" :( that I don't appreciate at all.  If you don't like him fine, but that right there is one of my pet peeves, so I'm gonna kindly ask you not to use that term here on my thread again, thank you :(.

What is a "jacko" and why is it offensive?

Agreed with Pixletwin. Never even heard that word before in my life. Sounds kinds goofy  :lol

I was a Jackson 5/Michael fan before becoming a BB fan (and still am).  People who don't like Michael call him "Jacko" and he openly said he hated that term and his fans hate that (me) because it's disrespectful to him  :(

Not really a big fan of Jackson 5/Michael Jackson, but if it's that offensive we'll be careful not to use it  :)

Thanks I appreciate that  :hug  :)

Yeah, it was a tabloid invention, because rags like the Enquirer and the Sun always confused 'clever' nicknames with actually putting something well-written together. It wasn't limited to Michael Jackson, either. For a minute, every celebrity that was tabloid fodder had a stupid nickname.

Yup that's why people shouldn't read the tabloids most of it contains lies (even Liz Taylor said that  :-D)

Here is how I look at it:
1970-1985 Michael Jackson (cool)
1985-2009 Wacko Jacko (creepy)

The only thing remotely creepy about Michael Jackson was how he turned from black to white.

Other than that, he's not too bad.

And those paedophile rumours about him are BS.

Would you spent the weekend at the neverland ranch with him?

Here is how I look at it:
1969-2009 Michael Jackson (always cool, but misunderstood)
people who tried to destroy his life and believe anything that the tabloids tell them (always jerks)

I've said it once and I shouldn't have to say it again, please don't use that term on my thread. If you want to trash him, do it somewhere else

he had vitiligo (a skin disease that destroys pigmentation that you'll only find in the black community).  unlike most, he had money to get the blotches covered up, most people who have it have blotches all over them.  he actually still did, just not in the face you could see it on his hands and arms  :(.  he wasn't trying to be something he wasn't and other people in his family had it too.

the guy that accused him of molesting him admitted that his father forced him into saying that.  if you don't believe me do the research

Done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wtTo6X3ESo

........how about this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QJFn7EpqvU and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXXtfBG3z-I

With all due respect, starting a thread does not grant you ownership of it. I'm tempted to use the term just to spite you (but won't). You've explained your problem with the term, reasonable people will understand and move on.

As for Michael Jackson, I think he was great throughout the '80s, at the very least, and had some moments after, but there was less I heard that struck me either as inventive or as especially catchy.

Regarding the tabloid fodder, it can stay there. That kind of magazine, tv show, website, or anything else is garbage, and the only thing worse is the fact that they remain in business because people eat that sh*t up.

you're a reasonable person and I respect that  :)

about the thread, I thought it was ok to say since a few weeks ago Pixletwin got mad at me and Maybe I Don't Know for flogging his thread and asked us to stop and we did.  But then again, not everyone's going to be reasonable :(

The thing you have to learn about this forum: Double Standards are the norm. There are a few who openly oppose it (myself, you I presume, RangeRoverA1, etc.), but I suppose you have to accept that

Yup I'm starting to pick that up.....if they're gonna be like that  :whatever

If you're insinuating I am a part of any double standards, I'd ask you to point to them. Otherwise don't paint with quite so broad a brush.

No, I meant in general. I wasn't talking about anyone in particular...

OK, thanks, just making sure. I'm not a fan of generalizations., especially if I'm meant to be in them.

He was just saying he's part of the "moral" club. They're better than you are *sniff*

Can the moral club explain their ideas in one post instead of five... ::)

so is there also a "troll" club then?

Agree to disagree, folks, and move on.

I'm all for that  ;D

One thing's for sure: I'm not one of them!  :lol

You don't see how your posts in bright red moving text in CAPS might be construed by. some as trolling... Not saying I think it is, but I know it sure feels like trolling to a few people.

The size is large, but it's not in CAPS.
If people believe it's trolling, I apologize as that was never my intention

Pixletwin didn't say he owned the thread.  It's only "his thread" in that he's trying to run a Game.  IIRC it came up on a "sandbox thread," about reviving the survivor game.  Someone looking for someone who would take it on, and he volunteered.  He has taken on what I would call "a Job" doing the survivor rounds.  He has to go through the thread counting votes where folks have mangled the names of song titles (I'm guilty of that), and making other short or long jokey posts (guilty again), where the song title shows up somewhere in the post.  He just didn't also want to take on (carefully read) posters arguing with each other, you and Rei were NOT the only ones doing that. Let's make that clear, so no feelings get hurt.  Survivor is an Emotional Game.  So he has to read each post carefully "looking for clues" to find just what song was picked.  And we all want the tally to be correct, right?  Folks also state a "chosen track" more than once, and change their vote, go back and defend tracks.  And from my experience, folks are PMing friends for help in getting a favorite to move through.  I have had difficulty trying to count the votes myself, trying to save a treasured track.  It's hard when there are multiple posts from the same one or more posters.  And on the thread you reference he made it right in the end, didn't "ban" anyone, and took the time to discuss   his frustration at trying to keep it "on topic" as best he could.  Survivor threads are not the sandbox.  We are all here to have fun, and there is a Place to Post whatever we want to say.  This is OUR Board, treat it kindly.  I'm derailing THIS THREAD to explain...so, guilty again.  Hope you don't mind.  

First off, Alex you left out Beady Eye and brother Noel...let's not get Freddie upset. :lol

I've seen people do it before, but I never could understand how anybody could lump Michael Jackson in with other musicians deemed 'talentless' or just a fad.  I was a big fan since I was a kid, I can remember loving his music when I was in Kindergarten, and for the rest of my life.... so maybe I'm biased...

It seems to me, though, just my opinion, that he may very well have been the most talented mainstream musician... ever.  The guy had it all.  You can find examples of sh*t songs he did, and of course his personal life he was pretty strange, but as far as talent?  He's so far above any of his peers that I honestly can't understand how most people don't see that. 

I'm not a big fan of Bob Dylan for instance.... but I can easily see how talented the guy was, and wouldn't ever say he has no talent because it's so obvious that he does.

I don't know why people don't afford Michael that same respect.  Fantastic singer.  Fantastic dancer.  Fantastic entertainer... and he was a pretty good songwriter too although that was his weakest talent.  The guy could do anything, he's done pop, rock, standards, heavy metal, rap, even country influenced stuff. 

Might not be your cup of tea but to lump him in with 1 hit wonders and Justin Bieber is a pretty big stretch.

Modern is a comment on time, so modern would be considered the last couple years.  Mainstream is whatever's popular at a certain time.  So Oasis would be mainstream because they were popular in the 90's but wouldn't be modern because they haven't been popular in the last 5 years or so. 

The Fleet Foxes would be modern because they're doing things right now, but wouldn't be mainstream because most people don't listen to them. 

Etc.

yea I mentioned Michael because of the comment made above yours when I made the thread I was referring to the music made in the last 6 to 7 years  :) Marvin Gaye was a great friend of the Jackson family, he always came over their house and played basketball with them  :)

Agreed  ;D glad to see we're on the same page about him

Is is just me or is Michael Jackson at least slightly influenced by Little Richard?

I've always noticed a similarity with them

he was influenced by a lot of people including Little Richard  ;D it ranged from James Brown to Fred Astaire to even Charlie Chaplin  :-D

Don't care if I catch flack for this, but...

 years from now Bruno Mars is going to be looked at the same way we look back at James Brown and Marvin Gaye, just to name a few. That guy is ace

Don't much care for Bruno Mars. He's too modern pop for me.
Though he is better than a majority of modern artists

Right there with you Billy. Bruno is the genuine article.

Genuine question....how is he too modern? He's more of a retro-styled artist, especially live.

I checked out a few of his songs, and while he is retro-styled to an extent, he's just too pop for my taste

some say Janelle Monae is the female James Brown she's really talented  :)

Both Janelle Monae and Bruno Mars are fantastic. While both have retro influences, neither has to be "a new" or "the next" anyone; they couldn't be, and they shouldn't be. It's bad for music and for them if they try to be, for that matter.

there's this group out called Pentatonix who can sing any genre of music they're really good, I just found them last week  ;D

There's this radio station I listen to called Triple M. There's a bit of Classic Rock, but for the most part it's the latest Rock music.
It's quite good, and so far my only link to Modern Music.

But I'm not sure if it would be considered Mainstream as it's Rock music, and I doubt if Rock music is still mainstream, sadly

Totally agree. Really really good singer.

It's a shame that Locked Out of Heaven is so overplayed now. I've always really liked that song. Unorthodox Jukebox has some great songs.

I don't listen to much modern radio (I listen to XM usually, and aren't on the new channels, usually) but I've always enjoyed Bruno Mars' singles.  He did a gerat job at the Super Bowl too.  He has a really good sense of rhythm and a good voice too.  It'll be interesting to see how far he can go; this SuperBowl thing kind of pushed him over the top I think. 

doesn't music kind of reflect the times we're living in or is that some made up assumption?

I guess that's true.
But this means that it won't age well. Like in say, 20-30 years time, the top singles of the last few years, whether it be Gangnam Style by one-hit wonder Psy, or some of the unlistenable electronic dubstep crap that's inexplicably more popular than Rock now, would either be forgotten or looked back as old or outdated.

Only those that have stood the test of time, such as the Beatles, will be remembered as classics

if I mention a song that came out last month to a friend they would say "that song is old  :-\".....that's sayin somethin

That's one of the things that make me ashamed of my generation. So many people around our age judge songs on how old or how new it is, not for how good or how bad it is.
It's their loss that they get to miss out on classics for the sole reason that it's "old"

exactly the bands may be old but the music is timeless and that's what they don't seem to understand. some of the songs they like use samples from older songs and they don't even know or realize it.

Your generation (retrokid67) is no different than any previous generation. The vast majority of young people inherently have no concept of much beyond their immediate experience. Further, they don't care much about music other than as a tool for social affiliation and enjoyment. Fans of the bands you mention as timeless, like the Beatles, no doubt mocked even the very bands they venerated (such as Elvis, Buddy Holly) as being old-fashioned, pointless, out of touch, uncool, etc. There is nothing unique to current adolescents, ever, any more than there is to the majority of adults who behave inversely, immediately dismissing the new out of hand as not meeting the standards of their version of classics.

The truth is in between.

The benefit the classics have is that by the time they are considered classic, it is that enough time has passed to make it easy to tell. The current scene of any previous era was full of sh*t; people just don't remember, care, or talk about it anymore. There will be stone classics from the present, just as there always are from every single time period. You just need distance.

Incredibly asinine thing to say.

I really don't understand why people get offended or outraged when others don't get passionately interested in music.

word

If Music DOES represent the times we live in, that still doesn't excuse it being crap.  I've been around a bit and looking back, the 2000's was basically a wasted decade, nothing of note happened.  The 90's weren't much better either, and we're not really off to a great start since 2010...

The stuff in the 50's,60's,70's, and to an extent the 80's, was able to do a lot of stuff that hadn't been done before.  They still want to do new stuff, but the only things that haven't been done sound like the bullshit Rhianna and Lil Wayne are doing. 

 In 1983 U2's sound was new, and hadn't been done, and sounded great.  In 1973 Crosby Stills and Nash's sound was new and hadn't been done before, sounded great.  In 1965 the Stones' sound was new and and hadn't been done before, sounded great.

In 2010 Lil' Wayne's sound was new and hadn't been done before.... sounded like sh*t.

I've often wondered, too, if we don't hold the old sh*t up as 'classic' because time, and the oldies channels, has forgotten all the SHITTY music that came out back then too.  I mean maybe for every Everly Brothers there were 10 acts that were god awful. 

My dad used to tell me how he signed up for a record club, and the first record they sent him was Dominique the singing Nun.  He said he couldn't believe people were listening to that crap. 

I'd bet that there were a lot of unsuccessful acts back then that were pretty horrible, but we've forgotten them.... and for the Justin Bieber's back in the day there were guys like Fabian. 

How can the Beatles call Buddy Holly old-fashioned, pointless, out of touch and uncool if he had died before the Beatles were even formed?

I hear you  :)

I meant in terms of music tastes and ideas, I'm ashamed of my generation

You misunderstood what he said.  He said 'fans' of the Beatles, at the time, for a large part would have considered Buddy Holly's music (which is all he represented at the time) old-fashioned, pointless, out of touch, and uncool. 

The Beatles never would have said that themselves, and kids at the time would have considered him Old Fashioned whether he was alive or not, all they had to judge him on was his music which was light years behind the Beatles at the time. 

He's just saying that children (which is what anybody who isn't 18... is....) don't have the wisdom (since they're young) to fully contemplate how time works, they think everything before them is ancient and whatever's happening right now is the best that it's ever been.

You should find solace in the fact that he's apparently excluding you from that, since you don't identify with your own generation.

Because they're so passionate about it!  Passion is the line you cross and leave logic behind. 

I guess you're right. It's strange how I've never identified with my generation, I guess it's just me and my tastes

Speaking of the Survivor rounds, how come you stopped voting on them?
At the moment there's a final round where you have to vote for either Breakaway, Soulful Old Man Sunshine or WIBNTLA. We need all the votes we can get for WIBNTLA, so it would be great if you rejoin the Survivor rounds!

you're right I just needed a break from them (getting all worked up over....well you know :lol) I'll definitely vote for WIBNTLA if it's not too late  :-D

At this point, it looks like Breakaway is going to win, after all WIBNTLA has just half as many votes as that  ::).

It's madness. MADNESS I TELL YOU!!!  :old :thud

At this stage I'll be happy as long as it beats Shunshine, which WIBNTLA is ahead by one vote. It'll take a bloody miracle for WIBNTLA to catch up to Breakaway!

Seriously though, where are all the other Dennistas? It seems like most of them aren't voting! We need more Dennistas to vote!

And here's the joke, the Brianistas don't want to admit that they're Brianistas isn't that something, it just seems like every time we try to uplift Denny's work here comes one or two them to bash it.  ::)

A lot of them do admit to being Brianistas. Such as Smile Brian.
But yeah, a lot are in denial.

Now at the time of writing, it's a tie again between Shunshine and WIBNTLA. Damn....

It really is a shame that there are so many Brianistas and even Kokomaoists and barely any Dennistas. But at least we Dennistas are a small minority and accept all the other's work as long as they're great, something the others find hard to do.

exactly, yet to them they think we have an "us against them" mentality  :lol I love Brian but he's not the only member of the group that can write a great song, too bad some people have to be simple minded  ::)

Yeah. Like lately I'm really getting into Carl's music, especially his early-70's work.
Maybe it's because the Brianistas and Kokomaoists consider the pre-Pet Sounds work as the golden nuggets of the BB's discography, they disregard later, brilliant work that are not written or by Brian or Mike for the Kokomaoists.
Just because Denny, and Carl or Al or anyone else's best work came later, doesn't mean they can't be held in high regard like Brian's, especially in the case of Dennis.

This is preposterous.

Because people like one song more than another, it means they're a Brianista? Or Dennista? Or a Carlista? Or a Kokamoaist? Or a Bruce...ist? Or a Jar-head? (I just made that one up.)

Not everything fits into tiny boxes that you create. I like "Soulful Old Man Sunshine," that makes me a Brianista?
Hell, maybe the reason I like it is because Carl is my favorite Beach Boy and I love his singing on the track.

I feel like SOMS is better than WIBNTLA. Now I hate Dennis, apparently.

hahaha, jarhead  ;D nice one

if you're an open minded person then you shouldn't be offended, we're talking about the close minded people I love SOMS too

Carlista. Not bad, Bubbly Waves.
FTR, Bruce fans are known as Brupublicans. Though the only Brupublican I can think of is Juice Bronston  :lol
There's also the Marks Mafia and the Flamers if you're favourite Beach Boys is either Blondie or Ricky.

I'm not sure what fans of Al are called, but I guess Carl fans can be called Carlista. Congrats Bubbly, you're the first Carlista. How does it feel?
Also, Shunshine was written by Brian, so...

Agreed. Shunshine is a pretty good song, and it definitely deserved to make it to the finals.

That's right, so Bubbly Waves take note that we don't just like Denny songs  ;D

You make it out as though everyone is here is close minded. While I suppose there may be some, they are a tiny minority.

The great thing about this place is that everyone has different opinions. Some people hate Mike, some people love Mike. Some people think Bruce was sappy and others think he wrote great songs. We even have a few people here who say that Al is their favorite Beach Boy! Sometimes these opinions will cause debates, but we don't just sit around and mope about it.

It's part of what makes this place great - there's so many different views.
I would kindly and simply ask you to just let people have their opinions and respect them.

That's not the only part of SOMS, though! It's not the deciding factor of a song.

So much more goes in to a song than just the writers credit.

I never said everyone I said "some people" like the one who complains about "people exalting Dennis". it just so happens that when we state our opinions we're the ones in the wrong  :-\

Okay...
Perhaps Al fans can be known as Sardines or Jarheads or Calimaoists?

People exalt Brian all the time, yet when it's someone else like Dennis, people go batshit crazy and starts arguing.
Funny, Isn't it?

Exactly my point, cuz in their minds "Brian can do no wrong" and "what are they defending Dennis for, he's only a clubber, all he can write is 'I LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE YOU'" :-\

To be fair, only Devin said that. But I get your point.

yup that was just another ridiculous quote that stuck out in my mind   :-\

I guess. I was actually saying that Brianistas are voting for Shunshine as well as Breakaway, because Brian actually wrote them, not Carl.
But I'm glad Carl sang them, it's what made the songs great

Ah the ingnorant certainty of youth.  :lol

Seriously though, thanks for keeping it here and not in the survivor threads.  :3d

You should check out the Twofer polls by Buddhahat. One of them is a poll between Love You and POB. Guess which one's winning?

That's right! It's a damn tie!

53 votes for each. Now I really like Love You, though it did have to grow on me for a while. But it should be no contest. Love You is great, but POB is a masterpiece!
If non-BB's fans listened to both albums, it would be a landslide for POB!!!

It's right here: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13939.50.html

Jess and I have learned our lesson  :)

Yup we sure have  ::) and we're good at keeping promises too   :angel: :angel:

wow.....sums up what we've been talking about for the past couple months huh? Seriously, how is it a tie?  ???

I know, right! Dennis's Pet Sounds, his ultimate masterpiece, one of the greatest albums of all-time! Stuck in a tie with a goofy Brian album.
Once again, I love Love You. It's now one of my favourite BB's albums, and I love the Dennis parts of the album such as the underrated Mona and his duets with Brian. But seriously, how is this even a concert?

Yet because we see this as ridiculous we're the "ignorant ones", it's like tying Pet Sounds with Party  :wall

Love You isn't that bad. I'd say it's like tying Pet Sounds with Smiley Smile.

Just wondering, did you vote on the poll? Because I know you and Gertie chose POB, but there have been no new actual votes for POB on the poll, and one new vote for Love You. So now Love You is ahead!

did they just not count them yet? I don't know how it works if its automatic or not

It's not. You have to actually vote on the top. That's how polls work

o ok then i'll fix it

There. Finally, POB is in it's rightful position: Ahead of Love You. Thanks to you and Pixletwin  :-D

yup glad I could help  ;D

What do you think of the other Twofer polls? Some of the answers are pretty interesting!

I've only voted on three so far and I'm pretty much satisfied with the results  :-D

Can you believe that so many people are changing their profiles to stuff like Jarheads, TaterTottens, Brupublicans (or it's unofficial second name, Johnstinas), etc.

It's crazy, and at the same time, hilarious! You should change yours to reflect your Dennista status!

I know I noticed that tonight, I have "Denny the Dream" under my profile picture, I decided that each month I'm gonna change the picture to another Denny pic :-D

Your Signature is blank, perhaps you could add something there? Something like Proud Dennista or whatever.  :-D