The shallow world of Popular Culture.

[SimuLord]

I'm currently in rage mode right now so I'm simply going to say is that if you slapped some sunglasses on a Mozart picture and photoshopped that onto a tshirt and played that on the radio with some news announcer saying it's on the top 40 then the children would be all over it like the witeless followers of fashion they are at there young age and for some reason people would still complain about it.

Bollocks. The main market for Andre Rieu is old people.

All Andre Rieu needs is shocking red hair and white makeup and a big red nose. Carlos Kleiber and Herbert von Karajan are turning in their graves. Thank the gods Rieu's never been asked to conduct the Neujahrskonzert.

 

[SturmDolch]

Really, SimuLord? I see you on the forums quite a bit, and usually you make some fine points. I would even go so far as to call them intelligent. But a generic, useless "POP IS SUCK" thread? Wow. I didn't expect that.

On topic: It's not terrible. You say it's terrible, but that's just your opinion. I'm sure you listen to some things that I can't stand. It all comes down to personal preference. And pop music represents the personal preference of a large proportion of people.

So you don't like pop music? Good for you. What do you want? Some sort of prize? I happen to like a bit of pop music, in addition to whatever else I listen to. Yes, people actually do demand and like "this insipid garbage". So sorry to disappoint your "faith in humanity". God forbid anyone like something you don't.

Pop music is fun. It's modern. It's catchy. Some of it can be deep, some of it isn't; it doesn't need to be. Not all films are deep. Not all games are deep. We need some things that are pure fun to balance out the heaviness.

I'd like to see you go to a club and play your Mozart music. I'm sure you would be all the rage.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

Today music is about image and marketability. I don't like to mention his name but Justin Bieber. He makes money and sells albums for these two reaons. One, thirteen year old girls like him and therefore think he's a good artist. Two, most of the world listens to rap and pop so there's a bigger chance he'll sell. Ensiferum does not fit this. They are a viking metal band from Finnland. They have long hair, don't wear shirts on stage, growl a lot, play power cords and don't sing about freaking sunshine, puppies and love. So they don't fit into the niche of everybody else and you'll never see them being played in a mainstream place, unlike Pop.

Plus most Americas don't know what or where Finland is. There is a chance for metal in the US though. Lamb of God got to #2 on the Billboard 200 in 2009 with Wrath, All That Remains was like #8 with their last one, and Devildriver has been in the top 10 too. But you don't hear their music on the radio, which is where the top 40 come from.

Also, listening to Ensiferum. Pretty damn good.

Teehee Lamb Of God and Devil Driver are metal equivelants of shallow pop music. Their commercialised within metal itself.

I just love this how some people think their music is soo deep when their listening to the same shit wrapped in a diffrent aesthetic, this time its harsh guitars and vocals. "Hurr durr lady gaga suxx i listen to hard music liek slipknotz"

I don't really agree with much of that. They are the equivelants because they are the most popular? O.K. I don't know of any of their songs that are shallow in the way that Ke$ha is talking about partying and fucking all the time. If they were commercialized within metal wouldn't more people know about them overall? If they have marketing teams behind these groups, they are doing a terrible job. I have never heard a Lady Gaga song speaking out against the American government, or a Justin Bieber song about how religion is bullshit. All they sing about is love, partying, and fucking; ANYTHING is deeper than that. I don't think you really know much about this to be commenting about it sooo....

...go listen to you're precious Beatles and Rolling Stones you trolling fuck.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Pop music is like candy floss. Sweet but bland, and not filling at all. Pretty empty and forgettable. People who are into music tend not to like it because they want something a bit more substantial, but most people aren't that bothered and just like a catchy tune. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. There's no law stating people need a large interest in music.

Today music is about image and marketability. I don't like to mention his name but Justin Bieber. He makes money and sells albums for these two reaons. One, thirteen year old girls like him and therefore think he's a good artist. Two, most of the world listens to rap and pop so there's a bigger chance he'll sell. Ensiferum does not fit this. They are a viking metal band from Finnland. They have long hair, don't wear shirts on stage, growl a lot, play power cords and don't sing about freaking sunshine, puppies and love. So they don't fit into the niche of everybody else and you'll never see them being played in a mainstream place, unlike Pop.

Plus most Americas don't know what or where Finland is. There is a chance for metal in the US though. Lamb of God got to #2 on the Billboard 200 in 2009 with Wrath, All That Remains was like #8 with their last one, and Devildriver has been in the top 10 too. But you don't hear their music on the radio, which is where the top 40 come from.

Also, listening to Ensiferum. Pretty damn good.

Teehee Lamb Of God and Devil Driver are metal equivelants of shallow pop music. Their commercialised within metal itself.

I just love this how some people think their music is soo deep when their listening to the same shit wrapped in a diffrent aesthetic, this time its harsh guitars and vocals. "Hurr durr lady gaga suxx i listen to hard music liek slipknotz"

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree. The majority of metal bands have an infinitely larger creative input than most pop acts, that makes it more meaningful to me, at least. Lamb of God's sound wasn't devised by someone at a record company, it was made by the band themselves.

 

[Dys]

I have had the foxtel music channels playing a bit over the past few days, and with the exception of "special programming" it is a cycle of around 20 songs. Some of them aren't too bad to listen to (sure, they aren't "technically impressive" in any sense, but they are fairly well produced and are not difficult to listen to...at least the first couple of times), but at least half of them are produced by the least inspired people on the planet, generic and horrible sounding shit (Rhianna springs to mind).

The truth is, these songs are played on loop because if people aren't constantly hearing them, they won't ever sell (the only thing anyone could conceivably like about a great many of these songs is that they are familiar, hence the constant play cycle). The pop stars are chosen to be replaceable, so the record companies can exploit them. Even the songs that are well produced are designed in such a way that if the singer, for any reason, no longer is associated with that label or the applicable sponsors, they can be instantly replaced by whoever's next in line. These songs aren't even a true list of what people are buying and listening to a lot of the time, which is why different "countdowns" often have such dramatically different results.

What you've got to look at here is this: in music, who decides what's "cool"? When it comes to music, believe it or not, it's the people who are listening to it and buying it who determine that.

Which people who are listening to it? The people where? This is, obviously, wrong. The lists are determined from a sample group usually from a targeted demographic. Record sales and overall popular opinion have little to do with it. Sure, there is a level of popular opinion, but there are also examples of songs or artists that pushed, hard, that then fail completely. Elvis, the rolling stones and the beetles have sold a great many albums, mostly after their release yet they've never resurfaced on 'pop' radio stations and countdowns, and wasn't here some thing last year when everyone went nuts buying "killing in the name" by rage against the machine to knock it up to number 1 for the year? (it was certainly no.1 on the tripple J top 100) yet it was completely unheard on the countdown programs.

The tripple J top 100 songs are consistently dramatically different from the youtube "most popular songs" which are again dramatically different from the Foxtel music channels top lists.

I just love this how some people think their music is soo deep when their listening to the same shit wrapped in a diffrent aesthetic, this time its harsh guitars and vocals. "Hurr durr lady gaga suxx i listen to hard music liek slipknotz"

There's a gargantuan difference between "popular" or "commercial" and "shallow". Just because it's obscure doesn't mean it's somehow superior, likewise just because it's popular doesn't mean it's somehow inferior. The slipknot example, for instance, is one that's hard to contest because their lyrics are fairly consistently 'shallow'. The same, however, can not be said for other popular metal bands. Lamb of god had an entire album specifically anti war themed, talking about the propaganda used to fuel what they perceive to be an illegal war, the lack of respect shown toward the soldiers (particularly those who die), the moral dilemma faced by the brass who are sending troops into the war etc.

Ironically, it's hugely closed minded and shallow (fuck I'm overusing that word in this post) to dismiss something as lacking meaning or depth simply because it's popular, seemingly more so than the people who exclusively source their music from the 'itunes' best selling list.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

im in the same boat as you OP. Whatever happened to the deep and thoughtful music of the 60s and 70s?

i personally blame Madonna and Michael Jackson for making music more about visuals than about, you know, THE MUSIC! and dont flame me for this, but look at this objectively.

The Beatles ruined popular rock (stay with me on this)

they made "Rock" more about marketing to screaming girls than actually... you know... making good music (oh sure, they did sometimes, but most of what they did was just pandering to teenage girls by being "heartthrobs")

And for some reason, it seems like the music is more marketed towards tweenage girls than anything else.

in fact... i think the entire music industry may be geared towards angsty, wannabe party girls. that would explain the success of Brittany Spears, Katy Perry, and Ke$ha all in one go. And why you will usually see 8 year old girls who are hardcore Ke$ha fans.

dont have anything against females. just the whiny, angsty, pre-buscent twi-hard ones who are ruining music.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

im in the same boat as you OP. Whatever happened to the deep and thoughtful music of the 60s and 70s?

i personally blame Madonna and Michael Jackson for making music more about visuals than about, you know, THE MUSIC! and dont flame me for this, but look at this objectively.

The Beatles ruined popular rock (stay with me on this)

they made "Rock" more about marketing to screaming girls than actually... you know... making good music (oh sure, they did sometimes, but most of what they did was just pandering to teenage girls by being "heartthrobs")

And for some reason, it seems like the music is more marketed towards tweenage girls than anything else.

in fact... i think the entire music industry may be geared towards angsty, wannabe party girls. that would explain the success of Brittany Spears, Katy Perry, and Ke$ha all in one go. And why you will usually see 8 year old girls who are hardcore Ke$ha fans.

dont have anything against females. just the whiny, angsty, pre-buscent twi-hard ones who are ruining music.

Deep Music exists today.

But its not in the mainstream, its alot more inaccessible, and all the close-minded people who cling onto 60s,70s classics are too close-minded to except the new deep music.

Check out Cynic,check out Neurosis,Opeth, Radiohead, Ulver, Sigur Ros, and im only taking a tiny part here from Metal/Rock, because within other genres there is deep music too.

Cling on to your 60s/70s classics all you want, but until then you simply refuse yourself to see modern and deep music.

oh i know about all those guys, what im saying is that there is no good music in the mainstream anymore. you're right about the good music being inaccessible to the layman.

besides that, you listed Opeth and Neurosis, can i assume you like Dream Theater and Biomechanical?

i KNOW good modern music exists, but the mainstream and corporate music industry is doing its best to stifle it.

i enjoy myself some Behemoth, Eluveitie and Korpiklaani as for modern music. but i will not usually touch anything on the top 40 singles list. :/

 

[BonsaiK]

Teehee Lamb Of God and Devil Driver are metal equivelants of shallow pop music. Their commercialised within metal itself.

I just love this how some people think their music is soo deep when their listening to the same shit wrapped in a diffrent aesthetic, this time its harsh guitars and vocals. "Hurr durr lady gaga suxx i listen to hard music liek slipknotz"

I don't really agree with much of that. They are the equivelants because they are the most popular? O.K. I don't know of any of their songs that are shallow in the way that Ke$ha is talking about partying and fucking all the time. If they were commercialized within metal wouldn't more people know about them overall? If they have marketing teams behind these groups, they are doing a terrible job. I have never heard a Lady Gaga song speaking out against the American government, or a Justin Bieber song about how religion is bullshit. All they sing about is love, partying, and fucking; ANYTHING is deeper than that.

Believe it or not, he's actually got a point - metal is pop music, some bands are more popular than others, and the ones who want to become or remain successful play the sort of music that they know their audience wants to hear.

Let's do a quick comparison for educational purposes:


I know it's meant to be all serious, but when watching it all I could think of was "oh my god, he's playing a Stratacoustic, that's so funny". Anyway, here's the words:

Spoiler: lyrics

The hour of reckoning draws near, Judgment day is here and gone
Sweetly she tucks me into her arms
A liquid embrace to chase the day away

Sedate numb, deaf and dumb, stumbling into solitude
A clouded judgment day is fueled
Take me under your black wings
Mark my words and remember me

So sweetly she sucks away at my time, so sweetly she draws me nigh
Closer and closer towards never ending sleep
Spin the bottle, kiss only the bottle
The dark mistress of many, beholden to none
Slips a ring of needles around your arm in an engagement
Eternal engagement, never consummated, never consummated

Take me under your black wings
Mark my words and remember me

Destroyer of senses
So take as needed for the pain
Another gray morning dawns across an ashen sky
My sweet demoness beckons me

Ever again and again and again and again
The dark mistress of many, beholden to none
My sweet demoness beckons me

Ever again and again and again and again
Take me under your black wings
Jacked up on the taste of self-destruction

And yeah I deliberately picked the most materialist Lady Gaga song I could find, just to play into all the stereotypes about her for your entertainment. Anyway, lyrics:

Spoiler: lyrics

Beautiful dirty dirty rich rich dirty dirty
Beautiful dirty rich

We got a redlight pornographic dance fight
Systematic honey, but we got no money

Our hair is perfect while we're all getting shit-wrecked
It's automatic honey, but we got no money

Daddy I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, yeah
We just like to party, like to party, yeah

We live a cute life, sound-fantatic
Pants tighter than plastic honey, but we got no money

We do the dance right, we have got it made
Like ice-cream with honey, but we got no money

Bang bang we're beautiful and dirty rich

Differences between the two songs:

* The musical melody and texture is very different.
* The themes explored in each song are different (war for Lamb Of God vs materialism for Lady Gaga)
* Both songs have a marked difference in the demographic of their target audience.

Similarities between these two songs:

* Song structure is nearly identical: while there is some variation, both songs feature identifiable verses, choruses, repeated motifs and bridge/"breakdown" sections in more or less the same places.
* Both songs clock in at a radio-friendly timeframe.
* There is an emphasis on rhythm as opposed to melody as the main driving force behind the music.
* A topic is used that is proven to be successful with the target audience in question.
* No explicit political statement or judgement about the topic at hand is made - the Lamb Of God song could be interpreted as pro-war, anti-war or as a more generalised social comment, likewise Lady Gaga's materialism could be interpreted as sincere, ironic or just for fun.
* Both songs are being performed by popular artists in their respective genres.
* Both artists are musically talented individuals with a proven body of work exhibiting vast technical skill (and I know some dimwit out there will call me on this, before you do please go to YouTube and type "Lady Gaga acoustic" to save me the trouble of educating your ass)
* Both artists exhibit fashion sense which fits into the accepted onstage dress code for the genre in question.
* Both artists recorded in a professional studio, using producers with a proven track record, and are using relatively high production values in their respective genres.
* The songs were released commercially and marketed to their target audience, generating substantial renevue for the artist and the record company.

Conclusion based on the above research: metal = pop = metal, so anyone in this thread who is a metalhead (I include myself here) can get off their high horse straight away. And rest assured, I have references.

 

[GrimHeaper]

What about the people who turn the music so loud it causes hearing loss and they do it with headphones on no less.
Pretty bad when you have it plugged into your ears and I can hear it 10 feet away.

 

[BonsaiK]

What about the people who turn the music so loud it causes hearing loss and they do it with headphones on no less.
Pretty bad when you have it plugged into your ears and I can hear it 10 feet away.

I agree with you that those people are insane. However this post is so awesomely off-topic-yet-arguably-still-related that you deserve some kind of special forum award.

 

[Dys]

There's a gargantuan difference between "popular" or "commercial" and "shallow". Just because it's obscure doesn't mean it's somehow superior, likewise just because it's popular doesn't mean it's somehow inferior. The slipknot example, for instance, is one that's hard to contest because their lyrics are fairly consistently 'shallow'. The same, however, can not be said for other popular metal bands. Lamb of god had an entire album specifically anti war themed, talking about the propaganda used to fuel what they perceive to be an illegal war, the lack of respect shown toward the soldiers (particularly those who die), the moral dilemma faced by the brass who are sending troops into the war etc.

Ironically, it's hugely closed minded and shallow (fuck I'm overusing that word in this post) to dismiss something as lacking meaning or depth simply because it's popular, seemingly more so than the people who exclusively source their music from the 'itunes' best selling list.

Well thats nice you have a deeper interpretation of Lamb Of God, that doesnt change that their sound is still commercialised metalcore bollox.

Oh, I perhaps misinterpreted, I assumed you meant their lyrical content was shallow. I'm a little confused then, by what you mean by shallow. You clearly didn't mean that the songs all sound the same (because you mentioned slipknot before and their instrumental style changes considerably from album to album) and there is definite progression through a most of their songs (they aren't opeth, but it's still fairly progressive). I suppose I'm playing semantics at this point though, as you've not used the word shallow and are instead criticizing them for being "commercialized", though how that makes them bollox I don't know As I seem to remember it,there are quite a few well respected bands that have been heavily commercialized considerably more than any of the examples you've given, though I suppose it would be too hard to troll by saying the beetles or rolling stones are utter rubbish because of how commercial they were.

 

[Kuroneko97]

This is why I listen to J-pop. It may be popular there, but nobody knows about it here. You guys should listen to it. The music made in Japan I think is about 50 times better than the music here. I still like music from the U.S., but often as soon as I get home, I turn on my computer, go to youtube, and turn on a Japanese song. It's as somebody said, the more obscure music often sounds better.
Here's an example of a song:
<youtube=arL22U8lO_Y>

I'll be honest, for a while I did like the popular music here, but after a while I drifted to J-pop. I still think that the popular music from the U.S. is good. I just like J-pop more.

 

[GodofCider]

Eugh...beauty 'is' in the eye of the beholder.

Things sell because people like them, or at the very least think they like them; which arguably is the same thing.