Is pop music at its bottom?

[Amberience]

I wouldn't throw Nirvana in with this crowd... man.. they were touring in a f**king van way before Nevermind was released.

[diverdee]

Nirvana played in leeds onetime, way before nevermind - kinda bleach time & were so skint the landlord of the pub (the duchess I believe) let them sleep downstairs after the gig.

[fabi]

well, to give credit where it's due, JLo did work her ass off with all her dancing if i recall correctly.

[daGuru]

And that's a whole lotta ass to work hehe

[Kingston]

I wouldn't throw Nirvana in with this crowd... man.. they were touring in a fkucing van way before Nevermind was released.

We all have our sob stories. (even J lo apparently)


The reason I used such polemic examples was simply to demonstrate the use of different images in marketing.

Nirvana=product

Just as well as Beyonce or eminem.

[Josmoker]

Is pop music at its bottom?

...it certainly is at mine!

Cheers, Jo

[Amberience]

Nirvana=product

But they weren't "created" by a label or made famous or good by a label, Nirvana had a following when they weren't even breaking rent - that's my point.

Your example would be better served by using Papa Roach or Wheatus or P.O.D - I get your point completely, you just chose the wrong band.

Nirvana are one of those rare bands who were actually very good. Just because we've been saturated with it by the suits doesn't mean it's their product.

Other good examples of this: Elvis, The Beatles, Elton John, Queen.

[DuX]

Nirvana=product

But they weren't "created" by a label or made famous or good by a label, Nirvana had a following when they weren't even breaking rent - that's my point.

Your example would be better served by using Papa Roach or Wheatus or P.O.D - I get your point completely, you just chose the wrong band.

Nirvana are one of those rare bands who were actually very good. Just because we've been saturated with it by the suits doesn't mean it's their product.

Other good examples of this: Elvis, The Beatles, Elton John, Queen.

I second that

[diverdee]

thirded my good man, thirded I say.... huzzah

[FaX]

I'm not a huge fan of "pop" music and culture myself.
Particularly modern day pop music.
The real issue for me is that it's all become so homogenous.
There is vert little real individuality.
The image is the same , the message is the same , the bodies and looks are by in large identical and the singers are pretty much average at best.
It seems that mediocrity + celebrity rules the day.
Now if I go back 20-25 years ago and look at alot of the more "popular" artists of the time I see alot more musical diversity , image diversity and a great deal more originality.
You could quite easily differentiate one artist from another.
Just for example look at this list....

Souxsie
The Cure
Laurie Anderson
Devo
Talking Heads
Yello
Echo and the Bunnymen
Cocteau Twins
Jesus and Mary Chain
The Smiths
This Mortal Coil
Lena Lovich
Nina Hagen
Yazoo
Heaven 17
Depehce Mode
Human League
Duran Duran
Culture Club
Eurythmics
Thompson Twins
Roxy Music
Blondie
Tears For Fears
Spandau Ballet
Haircut 100
Prefab Sprout
Frankie Goes To Hollywood
The Art of Noise
Propaganda
The The
U2
Kate Bush
Pet Shop Boys
New Order
The Pixies
The SugarCubes


etc ..........

All those artist's sounded distinctly different from one another , had relatively good commerial success and weren't part of some hideous homogenous music making "product" machine.
I still feel a large part of the problem is that all the majors bought out most of the decent independent and boutigue record lables.
Since then the whole industry has become very corporate , safe as houses , non risk taking and mediocre in general.
I tend too purchse CD's now from smaller independent "net labels" and artists flogging their music online.
I can still find decent music out there but it is getting harder to find.
Infact my Top 5 CD purchases this year have been (in no particular order) -

1.NineHorses - SnowBorneSorrow (I'm a huge Burnt Freedman/Flanger fan)
2.Arovane - Lillies
3.Monolake - Polygon Cities
4.Mouse on Mars - Ideology
5.Sigour Ros - ()

I care very little for modern pop music.
Occasionally the odd gem will catch you by suprise but by in large it does absolutely nothing for me.

[paulmerchant]

Hey FaX,

I like your post: the list from the 80s, the new obscure bands you bring up. And even though I don't think this is necessarily a philosophical discussion, a couple of things about your post keep bugging me.

First, while a lack of diversity may be a good sign that there is a lack of originality out there, is diversity the best criteria for an art form? If our end goal is to create a lot of diverse music and images, that doesn't necessarily mean that we will have any good music or images. And do we really have less diversity (even in pop music) than we did in the past?

Second, it seems to me that there are a lot more independent and boutique record labels than there were back then. I live in Washington and Seattle has way more decent indie and boutique labels today than it ever had in the past.

I certainly agree with the whole premise of this post that pop, or radio pop, is at a low. I'm hoping this low is just part of some seismic shifts in the music industry, shifts that will eventually take us to better distribution and radio-type outlets. Then again, it may just reflect a decline in modern pop culture.

[DuX]

So, paulmerchant, you think it's only the pop that lacks diversity? When I think about it, you could definitely be right. In the 80's music machinery and their policy had to be quite different than these days... I also think people tend to be more greedy than back then and there are way too much "vampires" sucking poor artists these days, like managers, producers, whole GD greedy P.R. teams and such to feed...

Yep, you definitely have something going on there... I'm gonna think about it some more .

Cheers!

[Voidoid Surrealist]

thirded my good man, thirded I say.... huzzah

I fourthify that motion!

[Kingston]

Nirvana=product

But they weren't "created" by a label or made famous or good by a label, Nirvana had a following when they weren't even breaking rent - that's my point.

Your example would be better served by using Papa Roach or Wheatus or P.O.D - I get your point completely, you just chose the wrong band.

Nirvana are one of those rare bands who were actually very good. Just because we've been saturated with it by the suits doesn't mean it's their product.

Other good examples of this: Elvis, The Beatles, Elton John, Queen.

I suppose I should've specified that when putting them as examples, I totally disconnected them from the cult following, artistic credibility and such. It was purely the image marketing side I was trying to portray and I had no intention to get into fights with fans of any of the example artists.

I suppose it shows a bit of the bias of KVR that you see no-one here jumping in to defend eminem or beyonce, both of which surely had artistic credibility or fans far before any major label involvement.

[Amberience]

Eminem I would agree with. Beyonce? I don't know enough to say for sure, but I doubt it.

But when you say "Nirvana=Product" ... you're blanketting everything about them.... I didn't actually realise you were just on about the image and marketing.

But y'know.. the band themselves had nothing to do with the image and marketing.... it's as if the suits saw what Kurt and the rest wore every day.. thought it had mass appeal.. looked through the dictionary, and found the word grunge.

I don't even think you can blame Eminem and Beyonce for their tactless imagery - it's not their fault. They're just doing what the label wants them to.