Today's Mainstream Music

[bluesno1fann]

so is there also a "troll" club then?

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

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

[feelsflow]

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

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

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.

.

.

To get my post on topic, I will comment on "Michael Jackson" - who is not my idea of MODERN Mainstream Music.  Unless you were referring to Mainstream Music as Old Dead Stars (no offence meant).  Then we would be talking about Marvin Gaye and James Brown.  If you look way back in this thread I did post on a Current artist I admire, it hardly made a ripple.

.

Wait, if I'm going to talk about Michael Jackson, Marvin and James are on topic.  Michael got his vocal style from Mr. Marvin Gaye, and most of his dance moves from James Brown.  If I got that wrong, you can try to correct me - I don't claim to be an expert on Michael.  When Michael went "adult" solo he ripped Marvin's first real Disco Hit, "Got To Give It Up' and turned it into a blueprint of "Wanna Be Startin' Something" and any number of tracks from Off The Wall.  Marvin was not a "Disco" artist.  He was just trying to please his fans by writing something more Modern.  I'll take "Distant Lover" or "Trouble Man" any day over that.  He was, along with Stevie Wonder, the best Soul that came out of Motown.  Fans, such as Michael was - base their sound on what came before...Happens all the time.  Old is new again.  You know, like The Beach Boys based their early sound on Chuck and The Four Freshmen. 

.

aah...how easy it is to derail a thread with no bad intention meant.  Just posting to pass the time... Here's your thread back.    peace,  Will

 

[feelsflow]

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.

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

Freddie and The Captain,  color me confused.  I just did a post were I said Modern Mainstream Music.  I thought those two went together.  What is the difference between Modern and Mainstream?

Sorry for making multiple posts, but I really thought they were one and the same.

[Ron]

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.

[Ron]

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.

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

Freddie and The Captain,  color me confused.  I just did a post were I said Modern Mainstream Music.  I thought those two went together.  What is the difference between Modern and Mainstream?

Sorry for making multiple posts, but I really thought they were one and the same.

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.

[retrokid67]

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.

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

Freddie and The Captain,  color me confused.  I just did a post were I said Modern Mainstream Music.  I thought those two went together.  What is the difference between Modern and Mainstream?

Sorry for making multiple posts, but I really thought they were one and the same.

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 

[retrokid67]

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.

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

[bluesno1fann]

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

I've always noticed a similarity with them

[retrokid67]

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   it ranged from James Brown to Fred Astaire to even Charlie Chaplin  

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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

[bluesno1fann]

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

[pixletwin]

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

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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

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

[bluesno1fann]

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

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

[retrokid67]

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

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

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

[the captain]

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.

[retrokid67]

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

[bluesno1fann]

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

[zachrwolfe]

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

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.

[Ron]

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. 

[retrokid67]

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

[bluesno1fann]

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

[retrokid67]

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

[bluesno1fann]

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"

[retrokid67]

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.