Is pop music at its bottom?

[DuX]

What is it with all these doom merchants ? The world's in great shape compared to other eras of history. Try to get dental work done in the 1700s, or a minor operation in the Middle Ages. Or if you're a young male the last few decades have been the only time in history you wouldn't have been drafted to fight in some colossully-deadly war. Got kids ? Then thank God you live now and child mortality is so low.

Now, get on with life you little whingers.

See what I meant? I used to be a "doom merchant", but not anymore. I aged too much to "waste my life thinking about world problems"... I don't find myself thinking about it as much as I used to when I was 20 or so.

Can you honestly say my statements were wrong? Can you say everything is actually all right? There are no problems?

[Lady J]

if only you knew.

[Amberience]

Doom merchants? Well if I'm that, then by implication, you (Cabinfever) must be a mirth merchant. Which is equally as bad as a doom merchant.

Relativity, gotta love it.

[ermi]

...girls can't get enough of it, esp. during puberty, it's a whole genre, a whole industry geared at girls.

erm, it's *far* from industry geared for girls. Sure some of the pink girly part of the industry is easiest to point and laugh at. These people forget linkin park, eminem, nirvana and the likes

Yeah, but those 3 artists you mentioned have at least some quality, don't you think?
Hell, even Linking park, probably.
Sure, they sell their image as well, but not to a degree of girl/boy bands and stuff... their (nirvana, eminem..) songs don't depend entirely on their MTV videos, as opposed to the songs which are targeted mostly at teenage girls (boy bands, dancish, r'n'b songs, 50 cent with no shirt...).

Bottom line: it's probably true that the music sold at young girls has less musical value (it has more 'image', 'looks' value) than the music sold at boys.

[DWb]

I just reckon a society that is based on fear and fads is a long way from enlightenment.

I think a society where it's assumed that anyone lacking a Y-chromosome only wants to shop, have babies and not worry her pretty 'lil head about those nasty people with guitars or drum machines is a long way from enlightenment.

(I'm not saying that there isn't a tendancy. But there's also, for instance, a more pronounced tendancy for people of afro-caribbean origin not to go to university, and that doesn't mean that black people are stupid.)

[ermi]

....Is it reaching the bottom? Going back up?.......

err...before I answer can you define the
term "Pop Music".

I'd say it's a bit difficult to define it, 'scientifically'... maybe not impossible, tho.

But you can probably 'feel' a song that is pop. It will definitely have a catchy hook, it will express some very common emotions (mostly 'love'/'sexuality', but also 'self realisation', 'independence', 'excitement'-you know, those rockish songs...) in an easily understandable way.
But a lot (not all) of pop is also based on their (MTV) videos. It seems that this is the only way such songs can have a meaning.

I must say that I don't dislike pop songs by defeault, there have always been some great pop songs.

[DWb]

Bottom line: it's probably true that the music sold at young girls has less musical value (it has more 'image', 'looks' value) than the music sold at boys.

This is probably true (although I doubt that Britney appears in FHM because they're interested in the music), but it probably says more about the prejudices in the industry than about the actual audience.

[Kingston]

Yeah, but those 3 artists you mentioned have at least some quality, don't you think?
Hell, even Linking park, probably.
Sure, they sell their image as well, but not to a degree of girl/boy bands and stuff... their (nirvana, eminem..) songs don't depend entirely on their MTV videos, as opposed to the songs which are targeted mostly at teenage girls (boy bands, dancish, r'n'b songs, 50 cent with no shirt...).

Bottom line: it's probably true that the music sold at young girls has less musical value (it has more 'image', 'looks' value) than the music sold at boys.

I hope you realise Linkin Park is just another boy band and eminem a britney spears for boys. Yeah, it's not the easiest concept to grasp, but the same image builders and production teams are equally hard at work on britneys and 50 cents. When it's all dark and "street wise" with drugs and guns, it's harder to see this, but the marketing machine and parts of the song writing teams are exactly the same.

Dre/eminen/snoop camp is pretty much equal in this, just slightly different demographic and channeling.

And yes, all these depend entirely on MTV.

And as far as measuring quality. Any linkin park, eminen or nirvana song has an equal measure of catchy hooks compared to any of the girlier stuff. The corporate image control machinery of the "street wise punk" stuff is maybe less exposed.

[davor]

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.

Precisely.

[ermi]

And as far as measuring quality. Any linkin park, eminen or nirvana song has an equal measure of catchy hooks compared to any of the girlier stuff.

Here is where I mostly disagree with you.
I know it's not so easy to talk about quality, but still...
I don't think you really mean that Nirvana is on the same quality level as Britney, J-Lo, Usher, 50 cent... Sure Nirvana had some simplier songs for a wider range of listeners... but even those were two levels above any J-Lo song. They had some musical value.
(But then I realise that it's maybe not so easy to put Nirvana under pop music.)

Or take Eminem. The guy has some talent. And I'm not talking about looks, but real musical (if rap is music) talent. J-Lo doesn't. It's simple as that.

On the one side, there are some artists with talent, on the other side, there are marketing teams.

Sure, also people with talent get promoted and sold as images, but we already agree on that.

[nuffink]

Pop's always been at its lowest ebb.
Except when I liked it.

[Kingston]

I don't think you really mean that Nirvana is on the same quality level as Britney, J-Lo, Usher, 50 cent... Sure Nirvana had some simplier songs for a wider range of listeners... but even those were two levels above any J-Lo song. They had some musical value.
(But then I realise that it's maybe not so easy to put Nirvana under pop music.)

Or take Eminem. The guy has some talent. And I'm not talking about looks, but real musical (if rap is music) talent. J-Lo doesn't. It's simple as that.

This is where objective comparisons get absolutely impossible,

but take alicia keys and nirvana. which has more talent, and how do you measure? Or eminem and beyonce? In my books they're the same. That's what I was talking about when comparing girly stuff to boys's and their toys.

Sure when you throw in J-lo and britney things change a bit. But even they have the best production teams and mixing talent behind them, which you can appreciate even if you hate their marketed personalities.

[Lady J]

can't be arsed (bun intended) to read the whole thread so can someone tell me if anyone has posted a pic of Lady J's bottom yet?

not yet...there's one from the tour floating around.

[DuX]

Pop's always been at its lowest ebb.
Except when I liked it.

reminds me of someone [me?]. But my love for didn't last very long, just through my childhood. Now that possibly indicates something?

[DuX]

Could it be this? Pop music=marketing team and making as much money as they can and not thinking about art and/or love for music. Alternative/indie music=more about art and love for music, and there is not too much marketing or marketing teams involved?