Is pop music at its bottom?

Anything about MUSIC but doesn't fit into the forums above.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Lovesign wrote:Image
Wot choo talkin' bout, Love-illis........... LOL

(edit: bloody page break)
Last edited by daGuru on Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

daGuru wrote:Wot choo talkin' bout, Love-illis........... LOL
:hihi: :hihi: :hihi:
Image

Post

chagzuki wrote:Poptastic.

It's a well-oiled machine.

Anyway, you're not supposed to listen to Beyonce without also wearing her range of underwear and perfume. You have to go for the total experience.
/me is reminded of the South Park episode with Paris Hilton. Not surprisingly.

Post

peejunk wrote: It seems that in Bosnia you haven't been exposed to 80s pop ..

I'm afraid you weren't with all that turbo folk crap around you. It's no wonder you venture to compare Sam Fox to Soundgarden:)


peejunk wrote: Anyway, can anyone say New Kids On the Block, Samantha Fox, Kim Wilde, Bruce Sprin.. naah, I don't wanna touch that wasp nest with a 10-foot pole..
What about U2 (their golden period - The Joshua Tree 1987), Dire Straits (MOney for Nothing 1986), Simple Minds (Belfast Child 1988 ), Metallica ( ...and justice for all - their most ambitious album 1988), Beastie Boys ( their first best, and most influential album Licensed to Ill 1987 ), Run DMC, Prince, Talking Heads, Smiths, Duran Duran, Heaven 17, Human League, Icehouse, Crowded House ( Don't dream it's over 1987 ), Marillion, The Stranglers (Always the sun 1987 ), Paul Simon (Graceland 1986), MIchael Jackson/Quincy Jones collaboration, Erasure, Joe Satriani ( Surfing with the alien 1987 )......

BTW, SOundgarden were formed in the 80's, Sugarcubes (Bjork) made their appearance in the 80's, REM too.....

Post

Image
Obviously a computer still can’t throw a television out of a hotel window or get drunk and be sick on the carpet, so there is little danger of them replacing drummers for some while yet. -- Nick Mason

Post

Image
Image

Post

Hey! I'm new at this! Don't be so harsh on the forum timewaste photoshop n00b! (if it's me you refer to :D)
Obviously a computer still can’t throw a television out of a hotel window or get drunk and be sick on the carpet, so there is little danger of them replacing drummers for some while yet. -- Nick Mason

Post

chagzuki wrote:It's nearly impossible to just make ends meat financially, and there's just no uncommercialised public space for people to gather. There are just wank-arsed designer clubs where a pint of lager costs more than half the minimum wage and where some wanker DJ will play music so loud that the walls and floor vibrate louder than the music itself and a bunch of trendy young new media types with designer f**ked-up hair who arrived on foldable scooters will try to out-do each other in terms of their conversational references to obscure bits of popular culture. Similarly, most artist's studio spaces have been converted into offices or appartments.
:lol: This is why I don't miss living in London. Or more appropriate to that description, why I don't miss working on Old Street.

Hmph... isn't it 'pop brand', 'pop package' or 'pop image' now, rather than 'pop music'?
Why should the listeners care about the quality of the music when they can also download the ringtone, read/see about the 'artist' and their latest scandal/marriage/clothes/habit/nose-picking in the media etc. etc. It really seems like the actual music has taken a backseat. Besides, everyone seems to be listening to music on their mobiles now (playing out of tinny speakers), so who cares if it's a lush arrangement with expertly sung, thought-provoking lyrics, or a bunch of empty, boring sounds.

My point is (I think), I don't find it suprising that pop music is becoming worse and worse, as the music isn't so much what supports the popularity of an artist or group. Ok, it still is to a degree... but definately not as much as it used to be.

It's monday morning (-ish) so don't expect any of that to be coherent or anything.
We can conclude that the DCT of a pizza doesn’t resemble anything edible.

Post

chagzuki wrote: There are just wank-arsed designer clubs where a pint of lager costs more than half the minimum wage and where some wanker DJ will play music so loud that the walls and floor vibrate louder than the music itself and a bunch of trendy young new media types with designer f**ked-up hair who arrived on foldable scooters will try to out-do each other in terms of their conversational references to obscure bits of popular culture.
/me just spent a few minutes googling to try and find some stills of the 'club' scene in Nathan Barley, but no dice.

I know what you mean, although when I can't see any exciting underground stuff going on, I tend to assume that that's because it's all happening in the back room of a pub somewhere that I'm nowhere near 'down' enough to know about.

Also, your problem here seems to be that alternative stuff has been colonized by wankers - it doesn't really make much odds what's going on in big business pop. Very little of that even shows up on my radar these days.
Edit: oh yeah, that was roughly your point. And I suppose the answer is that that's what you get for living in London. There's a whole country out here, you know.

Post

Voidoid Surrealist wrote:Which brings up the question: When was pop music at it's top?

My vote goes to the 60s.

I agree somehow. That or the 70s. The melodies were on some other level back then.

I like some songs from the 70s. Like from Al Green, Ann Peebles... they had terrific arrangements and great melodies. And they were pop, IMHO.

90s still brought a lot of quality, tho. Late Metallica, Michael Jackson, Queen... Some nice rap, yeah, some of it for sure. Then there were new (electronic) genres that at least sounded fresh.

Post

Well, it all depends on people's definition of what "pop music" is.
You hear Britney Spears' "Toxic" called "pop" all the time, but you rarely hear people refer to Metallica's "Master of Puppets" as pop, despite the fact that it was by no means "underground music".

Post

Based on what I've listened to on Triple J (not even touching American crap) I'd say a big fat YES. :hihi:
Mizutaphile.

Post

does the genre even matter cos any RAP/ROCK/COUNTRY song thats listed in the top 50 is POP neways.
Kadar

Post

I think there is good music that becomes popular, a lot of which I enjoy. But then there is music that is made to be popular with a soul purpose of selling records and products and making money. I'm usually not too fond of that kind of music. In fact, it's hard to even call that stuff music, imho.

Post

kadar wrote:does the genre even matter cos any RAP/ROCK/COUNTRY song thats listed in the top 50 is POP neways.
I'd disagree.
I think "popular music" (as opposed to classical/opera/traditional folk/chant. et al.) is a much broader category than "pop music". In fact, Wikipedia has two separate entrys for them.

If you were to ask someone what genre that Madonna, or New Kids On The Block, or Ohio Express is, most people will respond that they play pop music.

Yet if you ask most people what type of music Black Sabbath, Hank Williams, or Public Enemy play, you'll most likely get the response "metal, country, and hip hop", not just "pop music", despite the huge popularity of those artists.
:shrug:

Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else (Music related)”