Music stereotypes

[amak11]

So with aanders insight.....

Ke$ha is everything wrong with music!

[Electro Tomato]

No.

Not all music is new, and that's including more than pop. Granted, Pop as a genre has stagnated, but they aren't the only ones who are just going through the motions. Look at a lot of rock that's popular today. Breaking Benjamin, Three Day's Grace, Skillet, et al sounds similar and boring to me.

Stop pushing your ideals onto an INDUSTRY. Your ideals are not 100% correct, nor should blanket statements be made about music as a whole.


Besides, I can still find enjoyment from some pop artists. Does that mean I'm an idiot, uncultured, etc?

Not all music is new, of course, you're just arguing semantics there. What he means is that people who view music as a business or industry that are in the charts consistently are there because they watch and follow trends and then pump out music with trillion-dollar production quality that fits with the trend or whatever people are eating up this fiscal year, using words like "cutting edge" and "fresh" to show that "THIS is what's in, THIS is what people are listening to, and THIS is what you should listen to".

Rock that's popular is no better than popular hip/hop, "R&b", or pop music. You're correct, those bands all sound alike because that sound is what makes money, so they pool together with other "rock" bands like Theory of a Deadman, Nickelback, etc. to get a slice of the industry pie. Music is not an industry. No true artist should make money solely off of their art, nor should they ever create art to please others, because that puts pressure to make art to recieve X amount of money or social recognition instead of creating art at an emotionally ripe time to make something that is sincere and of objective quality.

No, because what you don't seem to realize is that personal enjoyment does not denote QUALITY in music. Quality in music, like any other form of art, can be determined through inorganic criteria based evaluations of that piece of art. The criteria can differ, but any of the sensible ones that don't confuse quality and personal enjoyment will lead to one being able to figure out that Wagner's music conveys more emotions and messages in an objectively better way than that of Kesha because of the obvious amount of personality and sheer objective quality that the music holds compared to autotuned pop dribble.

The difference between whatever the hell I am and an elitist is that an elitist wants you to only listen to what's quality music (or what they consider to be quality music, truth be told; a lot of elitists don't actually know what they're talking about). I don't care what people listen to, I'm fine with anyone listening to and enjoying Young Jeezy and I won't think less of them as a person for it; it's when they argue about its objective /quality/ and how "Young Jeezy makes such great music" that I feel the need to be the douchebag I hate being and explain to them how they are wrong. I can admit when what I'm listening to isn't very good, I'd rather be at a nightclub with repetitious and mindless club trance playing so that I can focus on the social interaction at hand than have them play me neoclassical ambient or emotionally sincere post rock or something from the good 10% of metal, because I'm not there for music. I can enjoy the music without saying that it's good music. If I'm sitting at home with lights off and one candle lit listening to Ulver, then I'm experiencing the music and only the music in a setting befitting the music. One could make the argument that poor dancey club pop is good because it's enjoyed at while dancing at a club, but you're not focusing on the music that way. Dancing is a physical activity, and music cannot be accurately absorbed while focused on other things.

[warhol]

I'm sorry but for people who are totally against stereotypes, you guys tend to stereotype Pop real harshly.

There was that guy who complained about how some songs are popular even though they use a simple chord progression, and there's that guy who raged that pop songs are so easy to make, so elementary that it doesn't deserve to be on top.

You guys seem to forget that some people write music because they want to express a feeling they have, not to show off how well they can play with a melody or to blahblah.

To be honest, I like pop very much because of its catchy tune. I like Monster by Lady Gaga, and though Justin Beiber is annoying, I have to admit that his songs are very catchy.

And to an extent, the argument about pop is off-topic.

[Maartah]

Aander will like this

[Ambiguity]

I'm sorry but for people who are totally against stereotypes, you guys tend to stereotype Pop real harshly.

I quite love stereotypes, I find a lot of times it's the people that are against them that are the most stereotypical(look at that, a stereotype about stereotypes ^_^).

And to an extent, the argument about pop is off-topic.

^We all say things like this, yet we contribute to the off-topic discussion by posting our opinions on it in the same comment.

[warhol]

I'm sorry but for people who are totally against stereotypes, you guys tend to stereotype Pop real harshly.

I quite love stereotypes, I find a lot of times it's the people that are against them that are the most stereotypical(look at that, a stereotype about stereotypes ^_^).

It's all footloose and fancy free at certain points, but when it gets to outright insulting the crowd, I wouldn't think it's that much fun there.

And to the off-topic thing, I can't agree more :D

[vedicardi]

There was that guy who complained about how some songs are popular even though they use a simple chord progression, and there's that guy who raged that pop songs are so easy to make, so elementary that it doesn't deserve to be on top.

You guys seem to forget that some people write music because they want to express a feeling they have, not to show off how well they can play with a melody or to blahblah.

1. Simplicity has very little to do with how bad pop music is so whomever said that is simply put, wrong.
2. Yeah, none of the people that write music with that intent are pop musicians.

The purpose of pop is mass appeal, not musical expression.

-- Edit: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:45 pm --

also Electro Tomato easily made the best forum post in years just above. Read it.

Pop music isn't necessarily about how it sounds (though the largest portion of it will naturally follow the current trends in the genre), but the intent behind it, thus why there is "Pop Rock" and why I continue to say Avenged Sevenfold is "Pop Metal."

[Nathaniel607]

There was that guy who complained about how some songs are popular even though they use a simple chord progression, and there's that guy who raged that pop songs are so easy to make, so elementary that it doesn't deserve to be on top.

You guys seem to forget that some people write music because they want to express a feeling they have, not to show off how well they can play with a melody or to blahblah.

1. Simplicity has very little to do with how bad pop music is so whomever said that is simply put, wrong.
2. Yeah, none of the people that write music with that intent are pop musicians.

The purpose of pop is mass appeal, not musical expression.

-- Edit: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:45 pm --

also Electro Tomato easily made the best forum post in years just above. Read it.

Pop music isn't necessarily about how it sounds (though the largest portion of it will naturally follow the current trends in the genre), but the intent behind it, thus why there is "Pop Rock" and why I continue to say Avenged Sevenfold is "Pop Metal."

Avenged Sevenfold are weird for me. I should hate them - they look like twats, idiots like them. But really, if you listen to them... they have more compositional variety and musicianship than a lot of other pure metal bands out there.

[amak11]

Pop technically isnt even a genre. It's just something a company made up cause some of their songs were overly popular. Like i agree with Vedi about Avenged Sevenfold, but to classify some "pop" artist as uncreative is a tad bit over the line. Same can even said for the "emo" artist. Technically if the song is very emotional it should be classified as "emo". That's my 2 cents on this whole pop vs creativity thing

[vedicardi]

Emo = another term for pop punk currently, and back in the day just more extreme form of hardcore punk (it actually deserved it's own genre back then). it's not a real genre anymore.

creativity has nothing to do with it, again, it's about intent.

Avenged Sevenfold are weird for me. I should hate them - they look like twats, idiots like them. But really, if you listen to them... they have more compositional variety and musicianship than a lot of other pure metal bands out there.

that may be true, but it's the intent that defines the genre, and to me, defines the music at its core

[estemshorn]

Avenged Sevenfold are weird for me. I should hate them - they look like twats, idiots like them. But really, if you listen to them... they have more compositional variety and musicianship than a lot of other pure metal bands out there.

that's why i can tolerate some avenged sevenfold.

[aander91]

I'm sorry but for people who are totally against stereotypes, you guys tend to stereotype Pop real harshly.

The difference here is that most of the stereotypes that we've pointed out have come from ignorance, like people not realizing that all metal isn't about Satan worshiping and being obnoxious, or assuming you know everything there is to know about someone based on a very small aspect of their life.

There was that guy who complained about how some songs are popular even though they use a simple chord progression, and there's that guy who raged that pop songs are so easy to make, so elementary that it doesn't deserve to be on top.

You guys seem to forget that some people write music because they want to express a feeling they have, not to show off how well they can play with a melody or to blahblah.

This is still a problem. Pop music is almost completely devoid of emotion. Seriously, let's break this down. Pop music shoots to create these emotions or thoughts in the listeners:

-Money
-Partying
-Sex
-Fun
-Drinking

On the flipside you have love songs which certainly do contain a bit more depth than this. But for the "club" songs, this is a pretty pitiful coverage of the emotional spectrum if you ask me, and what else is art for other than to create emotion in the viewer/listener? You could argue that pop music is supposed to be accessible and easy to comprehend, but I firmly believe that the best art stimulates a wide variety of emotions.

To be honest, I like pop very much because of its catchy tune. I like Monster by Lady Gaga, and though Justin Beiber is annoying, I have to admit that his songs are very catchy.

At this point I can really only see catchy as a marketing tool to sell their song to everyone, thus using art as a product, something that I've expressed my disgust for.

[SUSAltd]

-Money
-Partying
-Sex
-Fun
-Drinking

Actually (to continue with music stereotypes), I'm pretty sure this is rap.

[aander91]

This, this, this, and the pièce de résistance.

Seriously, take that last one in.

[RedShadow]

-Money
-Partying
-Sex
-Fun
-Drinking

Actually (to continue with music stereotypes), I'm pretty sure this is rap.

I'm pretty sure this is 80's Rock and Roll.