I can't stand a good portion of modern pop music, and I, in all my smug superiority, prefer bands like Justice and Daft Punk that don't get as much love on the States.
Why do people not care about music?
- Thread starter Nerples
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You're welcome, I'm always happy to be of some help.Diligent said:
And no I'm not under his employ... or am I
You can't blame the people for never hearing of what you consider "Good music" when it really hard to advertise for a new/indy band. Some people don't have the time or the interest of seeking out something and well only listen to suggestions by word of mouth or actully hearing it.
Oh and I listen to wide range of everything excluding rap. I have nothing against rap I just really don't like it myself.
I guess the most unknow would be Jonathan Coulton. Though I bet to the nerd/gamer community he's pretty well know.
Oh and I listen to wide range of everything excluding rap. I have nothing against rap I just really don't like it myself.
I guess the most unknow would be Jonathan Coulton. Though I bet to the nerd/gamer community he's pretty well know.
I found a relatively unknown band last year at Warped Tour called Shut Up and Deal that I really enjoy.
But, so what?
Why does being recognized as talent by the bloggers/industry etc bad? Why is being unknown and underground good?
Why does listening to bands no one but you has ever heard of make you more of a music lover than me?
We see the same thing in video games. "Well I play this indie game that no one has ever heard of that I think is really good. But if you just play mainstream games, then clearly I'm better than you."
It's a load of shit.
This whole idea of "selling out" is shit too. Oh noes! They (meaning the band, the indie studio, whatever) actually want to make money doing what they love!! Isn't that the fucking point? Yeah, you can be all starving artist and "edgy" and "real" and wait tables to put food on the table. But why is it that when someone wants to make damn good money doing what they love and not being bogged down in a day job they hate such a crime?
Dear Indie Lovers: (Indie music, games, movies, whatever) GET OVER YOURSELVES. You are not uber-cool just because you like stuff no one else has heard of. Let the rest of us just enjoy what we enjoy, mainstream though it may be.
But, so what?
Why does being recognized as talent by the bloggers/industry etc bad? Why is being unknown and underground good?
Why does listening to bands no one but you has ever heard of make you more of a music lover than me?
We see the same thing in video games. "Well I play this indie game that no one has ever heard of that I think is really good. But if you just play mainstream games, then clearly I'm better than you."
It's a load of shit.
This whole idea of "selling out" is shit too. Oh noes! They (meaning the band, the indie studio, whatever) actually want to make money doing what they love!! Isn't that the fucking point? Yeah, you can be all starving artist and "edgy" and "real" and wait tables to put food on the table. But why is it that when someone wants to make damn good money doing what they love and not being bogged down in a day job they hate such a crime?
Dear Indie Lovers: (Indie music, games, movies, whatever) GET OVER YOURSELVES. You are not uber-cool just because you like stuff no one else has heard of. Let the rest of us just enjoy what we enjoy, mainstream though it may be.
I thought that I was of the few who actually like his music.FrostyChick said:
OT: I listen to whatever sounds good to me. I don't care about popularity of his/her band. If it sounds good, I'll listen. And most of my friends all listen to some bizarre bands too so its not everyone whose obsessed with popularity.
These threads always seem so silly! We're living in a time where underground, unsigned and independent acts have more chance for exposure than ever before.
Well music isn't exactly what it was 10-20 years ago, as an entertainment medium that is. I can't really explain it but I feel the purpose of it has changed. I don't have a problem with people listening to mainstream but it irritates me that most good music isn't mainstream anymore.
There is good music out there, you just have to wade through all of the things that other people like to find the things you like and a lot of people cannot be bothered to do this, so they latch on to a bandwagon. People like popular music, but people tend not to like more obscure stuff because you have to listen to a lot of different musicians before you find one that you really like.
I think that you should listen to what you like, not what is popular. For example, Busted were a pretty huge band (especially in the UK), but they split up and became drastically unpopular. I still listen to their music and I still like their music. I'm also a fan Weird Al, even though people assume that he just writes annoying parodies - some are really catchy, funny, well written and his original songs are even better. And don't get me started on how much I love his polka songs
I think that you should listen to what you like, not what is popular. For example, Busted were a pretty huge band (especially in the UK), but they split up and became drastically unpopular. I still listen to their music and I still like their music. I'm also a fan Weird Al, even though people assume that he just writes annoying parodies - some are really catchy, funny, well written and his original songs are even better. And don't get me started on how much I love his polka songs
As far as your selling out point goes, I agree somewhat. I have no problem with a band/record label having the will to make more money. What I have a problem with is when they change the style/sound of their music to do so. (See mid/late 90's and onward Metallica and post-Meteoria Linkin Park)The problem becomes much the same as the one that is plaguing the gaming industry today, and that problem is that people are afraid to try anything new/edgy/experimental for fear of the fact that it might flop. When the market becomes saturated with the same mindless tripe because that is "what the people want" is when the creativity of the artists become stifled in the name of the almighty dollar/euro/(insert your nationality's currency here)Jaded Scribe said:
"Im FLY in your soup Im the..."FrostyChick said:
"BRAINS! BRAINS! give em to me!"
"Go-ood-night- demon ssslayerr..."
voltaire=awesome.
"Nowadays"? You realize that before the internet it was pretty hard to look for new bands without actually going to random concerts?
If anything you're not just wrong, but it's somewhat opposite to what you've said. People are more likely to actively look for music themselves because it's so much easier now.
If anything you're not just wrong, but it's somewhat opposite to what you've said. People are more likely to actively look for music themselves because it's so much easier now.
I would have to say turn off the radio. period. If we could get enough people (like the entire country, which would never happen) then artists and record labels might realize the folly of what they're doing (i doubt they will but we can dream right?)Nerples said:
I'm not saying that mainstream and pop music doesn't have its fans, it does. But whenever i turn on the radio i think to myself "its all the same artists, and its all the same subject matter" and its just disappointing.
It is a tough balance. On the one hand, if a band or game studio wants to change to more "mainstream", that's their choice, and as a consumer, you can simply choose to no longer partake of their products. For example, I enjoyed LP's "Minutes to Midnight". Others didn't. So don't buy it. Then, if enough people say they don't want it, it becomes clear it was a bad choice.VegetaPrinceofSaiyans said:
Artsy decisions are risky and costly. Say you're a company who isn't completely heartless when it comes to your employees. You spend $20 million creating a game that does something new and different, and changes the way people look at games. You could end up with the next Little Big Planet or Heavy Rain, or you could end up with a steaming pile of shit. And the public can be pretty capricious about what ideas it gets behind and what it doesn't; no rhyme or reason to be found.
That $20 million has to be accounted for somewhere. Employee pay cuts, lay-offs, reduction of benefits, inability to upgrade equipment, shutting down offices and consolidating (requiring employees to uproot their families and move, or seek new employment), etc. That's a pretty big risk on a "maybe". Would you be willing to tell Joe in accounting that the health benefits that support his kid's asthma are being cut because you risked it on a crazy idea?
It's really easy, as consumers, to turn up our noses. To say "The art is the most important thing. If you aren't willing to take all the bullshit of being an artist, then get out." And with that, we lose so much of what is fun and entertaining.
Now, my example with Joe is a little extreme. Any good company will have a certain portion of their budget allotted to cover such risks without hurting the company. But, if you put that money into something that you know will increase your return, the better off the company is.
They aren't doing it just because they're whores and want as much money as they can get. It's because they know that sticking to the safe side of things allows them to continue making great games and having the capital to grow.
So while I would love to see more innovation, I understand that sometimes, the risk is too great. What we can do as gamers and consumers is that when we tire of FPSs as they currently are, we stop buying them. Unfortunately, though we'll never admit it, we'll say "Well, COD Black Ops doesn't look like anything new, but I'll buy it anyways since it will probably be fun regardless." The company doesn't know who bought the game because they were totally stoked, and who bought it because "why not?"
How is this different than any other time? I would argue that if you're so inclined it's much much easier to find smaller bands these days because that band probably has a facebook page or something similar.Nerples said:
This kinda sounds like a music version of the "weren't morals better way back when?" thread.
Sturgeons law combined with the golden age of information. No longer are we only exposed to things that happen to be played on the radio, we have 24/7 access to any information we want, and people who want us to know things can do more than ever to tell us. Instead of a daily newspaper, now there's radio, and television, and the internet, and more people have these than ever before. This means that your attention is drawn even more so now to the 90% of all entertainment that's absolutely shit, and you're reminded of it all day every day because it's all over the place.
People still care about music, but there are so many bands that exist that there's an INCREDIBLE amount of shit out there, even if there's also a considerable amount of awesome.
People still care about music, but there are so many bands that exist that there's an INCREDIBLE amount of shit out there, even if there's also a considerable amount of awesome.