hey guys, this was sent to me, and it expresses everythig i feel, funny how this reflects our reality...

Why I dislike "pop" music

To get this clear, I am talking about music that the likes of Britney Spears (or whoever is popular this month) and Staind play - music that is good for radio play, popular status, record sales, and, finally, disposal. I am talking about the easy-to-listen-to, mass-market, formulaic crap that is regularly heard. I am talking about N'Sync and Papa Roach. None of these artists has the illusion of permanancy. We listen and then we forget. In five years time, if I were to talk about those musicians, nobody would know what I was talking about.

And that is a major problem - for our culture as a whole. The problem is that after seeing things go by so fast - TV, radio, music, Razor scooters, Pokemon - we don't have any sense that anything lasts. We could not have a peace movement like that of the 60's because our attention spans are tiny. Can you imagine the youths of America - or, heck, even the adults - being committed to something so important?

I can't. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I believe that we have lost all sense of time and scale. Look at it this way: a person starts doing drugs to become "cool", and later, in the rehab center or on the streets, he explains "I thought that doing it once couldn't hurt, that drugs aren't that big of a deal." People like this will give the rest of their lives up for a moment of "coolness", making the decision with the feeling that drugs aren't permanent, and that doing something as major as drugs "isn't that big of a deal." With attitudes like this, it is practically a wonder that we can achive anything

In addition, things are getting as flashy, glitzy and fancy as possible. If a musician has no talent (like Britney Spears), he/she can dress it up, add a few gimmicks, and sell. Emphasizing form over substance is also bad, because it gives people the wrong impressions. There are many smart people I know that choose to sacrifice their future (through school) to pander to ideas of "coolness". These people decide that it is nicer to have a life full of scum - people like them, doing anything for a rise in the popularity chart - than to accomplish something.

I realize that this is getting off-topic, but if you look at what today's pop music is, you will see that all of it applies. Look at the music on radio stations - it does not remain. It has no essential substance, and just enough form to make some money. We do not remember Jimi Hendrix, Nirvana, the Beatles and Elvis because they were popular once - we remember them because their is something left when the costumes are stripped off.

When we wake up 20 years from now and look at our stuff, all bought when it was "cool", what will we think? Will we say, "God, all this stuff is awful! Why did we buy this?" Or will we be more introspective? But perhaps . . . we will feel nothing at all


thoughts on the subject are welcome...

yeah, u do have a point there, but certain acts, like the underground punk or bands like Ramones never got the recognition they deserved when they raged, only till much later... so yeah

pop to me really started back in the late eighties, and the few artist i and ppl remember are madonna...and, mabe vanilla ice (i think it was the m the ones that lip-sang their shows and stuff...) pop, from them only a few songs survive to mark trends lived thru times, seldom one hears the name and history of individual groups, on the other hand, with bands like BlackSabbath, Ramones, KISS and other, are bands that broke ground in one way or another and not only apported to the music industry with their ground brakin "things" and developed "technology" but also left timeless hits that even today one can identify with.

Hagar .......... I agree with you ..... well sorta. But I agree with Space too.

Music is music ......... I listen to everything from "Pop" to classical ........ and ethnic to western. Theres some music that doesnt do anything for me .... theres some that stirs incredibly strong emotions. I trained as a classical violin player and was lucky enough in my late teens to be semi professional (I didnt have the dedication to go pro ... although my sister has made it her career). I have never let other peoples tastes dictate what I listen to.
However the  original posting that Space made is totally true. When it comes to the current music wannabes most of them will be gone in 2 years .... and forgotten. It is the general malaise of the "POP" music industry that everyone wants instant sucess... none of the current crop of wannabes have put any work into their sucess ........ Very few actually wrote the songs that have made them sucessful.... most of them are incapable of performing LIVE and even less of them have any actuall talent apart from looking good.
Contrary to popular belief  CD sales in the UK are not driven by the teenyboppers out there, more CDs are sold to the 30-50 year olds. If the charts were taken from album sales then the likes of Pink Floyd ... ELO ... Status Quo ... Queen ...Genesis.... Phil Collins ... The Beatles.... The Stones... to name but a few  would still be there at the top. These are all bands that had to work for their fame .... and some still do ....
Who in 10 years .... never mind the 20/30/40 years that some of these artists have put in ... will remember Brittany ... Nsync... Hearsay.... Atomic Kitten.... and plenty more. The ones that will be remembered from this period (90s-Present)... Robbie Williams ... Dido .... Westlife (Yes I know all the die hard rockers out there will disagree)... Coldplay.... and one or two others. What have they done that makes them outstanding .... Broken the "POP" mold and done something different and definitive. They will also continue to evolve and appeal to different audiences ... and the main thing ... They have a talent which has been honed and developed ..... not manipulated by others.

The one thing I admire in anyone doing anything is dedication and talent .... that applies to everything and everyone .... Those who posess these two qualities in abundance will always shine through, in whatever field they are in.

ooooooo I needed that rant ...

cheers
eno

Yes it is true that you don't have to listen to what you don't like!
But it is also true that there isn't music being made by anyone worthwhile.
It has become nothing more that a money game, like stated above the record companies and producers are no longer looking for talent they want what they can cash in on in in a hurry.
Like stated in Ace's post these "new" recording artist (for the lack of a better term) won't be known in a few years except for articles printed in the tabloids about how they lost all thier money blah blah blah.
It has been a long time since real talent has been recorded, that is where the harm in this "new" music comes from. Fads have always ruled over talent since music was first recorded but these fads are hurting the real talent out there, because if they don't have the look, sound or feel that the "kids" want the record companies will shoo them away and that is what is sad about it.
The record companies know they must aim sales at the youngest listeners they are the ones looking for the stated "coolness", and "coolness" is what sells.
I mean look at some of the things kids now days do to look "cool", Bling? What is up with kids wearing these Mr T starter kits? pants with pockets down to thier ankles etc?
To me they look like idiots, but to them it is cool. Then they grow up and look back at themselfs and laugh about how stuid they looked.
Trust me I know I was a teen in the 80's and had the hair and Parachute pants LOL!!! But it was cool.
But it is the money making fads that record companies focus on like they always have, it is just that back in the 50-early 80's some of them "fads" had great talent, musicians, songwriters and that is why people who appreciate music bought thier albums and thoses artists still sell today!

  The best thing about music is that there is so much variety to choose from, there always have been and always will be people who think the music they listen to is the only "good" or "real" music. In my opinion those people are missing out.

  If you look back, there have also always been one hit wonders or those that are "performers" rather than true musicians, like Elvis for example, he was a great performer but not actually a musician so much.

  I listen to almost everything and of course I like certain things I hear better than others, but it is not genre specific, I like Slayer and Dream Theater, I also like Cradle of Filth and Slipknot, but some of my favorite CD's also include "The Chronic" by Dr. Dre, "One night only" by The BeeGees and "Stripped" by Christina Aguilera.
  I could go on and on trying to express the wide range of music I love, which also includes Yanni, Enya and many classical CD's, I also like Mariachi music, but I have been through all of this before whenever this kind of thread gets started.

  So it goes right back to my first paragraph, to me the best thing about music is all the choices, I can't imagine listening to only one type of music, and neglecting myself of all the other variety that is available, I don't have to like it all, but I give everything I hear a chance. Then I decide whether or not it sucks!

well to my understanding, artist today write their own stuff so they dont have to share royalties with the writers and the ppl that arrange the mmusic and stuff, and big bands like Avril Lavigne and Cristina Aguilera are paid by salary. only the artist (avril or cris in this case) get the split of the revenues and stuff

I always think of the Monkees when a topic such as this is started.
Here is a group that was "made for TV" not meant to be real, couldn't even play the instruments. But because of the popularity of thier TV show were forced to learn to play as a real band so they could tour. I had the pleasure of seeing them perform live twice way back when they were popular and then in the 80's when they tried a comeback, also saw Davey Jones solo. And I must say it was pretty good, the 80's show was really good!
So here the "suits" took some actors and then realized they could make some money off them if the could play forced them to learn. Funny but they actually turned out to be fine musicians.
Allot like today the suits look for "The look" not talent, so that is why the "pre-manufactured band" is so prominent, it is all about money and they know it is short term but when the "new" fades away there will be another fad to take advantage of.
This is also a good reason to look at the smaller recording labels some really good talent there that you won't hear on the radio and maybe never hear a another album from but they are there. And they are hard working, determined artists, who make some great music. David Grey comes to mind, recorded his album on his own tape deck in his apartment, got lucky and got some air play and look millions of albums sold.

I got bored of reading this around halfway though but I have to agree with whats mostly been said. I constantly believe that if i'd been born 40 odd years ago my taste in music, and my CD collection would be fantastically cool in general opinion. One thing I hate about most pop groups these days is that on the whole they do what they do because they want fame and money. Before the majority of bands played for their love of music. These are the bands that have lasted. The group of college and university students that got together for a few jamming sessions and then went to the top. These bands make music for themselves, and if other people happen to like it then thats a bonus.

I find on general that the best music has been made by those who never really wanted to be famous. Syd Barrett almost single handedly changed the face of rock and roll and practically founded the psychedellic rock genre. Yet he never really wanted fame, so he stopped playing.

Todays music is just mass produced. And today most of my peers buy albums of bands that played in the 60's 70's and 80's. Todays music has no soul and therefore the majority of it is just noise pollution.