Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
I already defined it for you. People who find most(Not all) chart music safe & boring.
|
That is not a definition and you never defined it
I am asking you to define what boring music is to you
What consists of boring music? Is it bland sound or lyrics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
Nope, I can remember the chart being crap in the 90s, the 80s. I can look back at charts from the 70s & 60s and you'll see it filled up with tons of novelty & corporate crap.
|
Well of course every era of music had crap in it. I dont think I implied ALL the music from the past eras were perfect and if I did that was not my intentions. I just argued the pop scene during those eras were much better than what it is now. It had more variety and competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
It's so easy to look back with rose tinted glasses & think everything in the past was better but the fact is you have only listed 6 artists from over a 40 year period.
|
Of course there were more than six artists during that period but I purposely listed those artists for a reason. They were some of the most popular artists of their time and they still manage to produce quality music. I just brought those artists up to show you that there was a time that pop music had quality and talent. I can name drop 30 more artists from those eras that are still way better than whats out now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
Why do you think people look out the charts & look for other things in the first place? without that you'd have no metal, no punk, no hip hop, no dance music, no electronica, no nothing.
You should be thanking people who want something new to listen to, not criticising them.
|
Where did I critize anybody for looking for other types of music besides mainstream? I actually do the same thing myself because the current mainstream music does nothing for me.
The only point I was trying to make to you was that not all mainstream is bad and there was a time that the mainstream scene was alot better than what it is now. How is that criticizing someone who chooses to listen to other types of music?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
No, you are.
You're the one that said people just hate mainstream music. I didn't.
|
You insisted that popular music had the lowest of the denominator which is why I responded to your post. To me that implies that you have a negative view of mainstream music. I never disagreed that it was music geared toward mass appeal. I just simply argued that the industry use to not be like how it is today and there actually use to be quality pop music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
Did you not read where I said most people with any real appreciation of music will give artists credit?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
Your opinion only
Manufactured pop acts have been around since the dawn of the charts. And every single major record company started for the sole intention of finding the next big seller and making money, whether that hit was actually musically worth anything substantial was just a bonus.
|
LOL Your repeating what I already said but for some reason you seem to have a hang up over this. I dont see why the intentons of the label matters. If the artist is creative, artistic, talented and the music is good then what is the problem?
So just because their backed by a popular label that makes them bad? I just dont get that logic. And there are alot of singers that ruled the charts during their time that I wouldnt necessarily call "pop stars" like Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
Nobody is saying this other than you. The reason I replied to you in the first place was to refute this claim you made.
|
Then what is your hang up with pop music then?
Because that is the only reason why I replied to you to show to you than the pop industry was different in the past than what it is now. I dont particularly care for the pop music now but it wasnt always like this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
I think he had it initially but he became so far away removed from any kind of reality to the point where he was just making crowd pleasing music that made money because that's what the record company expected of him.
When you sell truck loads of albums record companies expect the same thing from the next one. They don't want you taking risks.
And that's how we get back to boring music, music made to make money with no risks involved.
Do you see now?
|
Finally you define "boring music" lol I agree with your definition.
However,
If someone has talent then they have talent, period.
The rest of the post is your opinon which you are entitled to have. I disagree with it though. Ive listened to all of Michael Jackson music from when he was with the Jackson 5, to his early solo Motown albums, from his adult group with his brothers "The Jacksons" and listened to all his adult solo albums and his catalgoue is experimental, diverse and covers a wide range of themes and genres. I would suggest you listen to his music more than just his singles if you are basing his music on just his singles. I just think to say his music was not creative is laughable. Even alot of his singles were creative and experimental. I admit not all of them but most of them were.
From your posts it just seems like anything that is "popular or has mass appeal" is not creative and that is not necessarily true. It is also quite narrow minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
You're missing the point here totally.
I was asking how you could claim someone hasn't heard him properly when he's releasing around 7 singles an album.
Like I said, in the UK he released 9 singles off an album that had 11 songs.
I don't understand how you can say that someone hasn't heard something when 9 songs off an 11 song album are regularly getting airplay & TV time.
Are the other 2 songs off the album really that amazing to change someone's opinion when they've heard the other 9 songs?
|
Your talking about the BAD album and I agree if someone was basing their opinion on JUST the BAD album 2 songs wouldnt necessarily change their opinion but the rest of MJs albums he didnt release the the same amount of singles. BAD is actually a pretty good pop album with alot of strong singles. In Michaels case, I dont think its fair to judge all his albums the same because all his albums dont sound the same. Off The Wall doesnt sound like Thriller. Thriller doesnt sound like BAD. BAD doesnt sound like Dangerous and so forth.
I could see you making this arguement if he contiuned to use the same formula but his music was very diverse and different on all his albums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
I just don't get how you can claim Jackson is one of the biggest pop artists ever in one breath & then claim that people have not heard him in another. It makes no sense, I hear the guy on the radio practically every day without wanting to hear him.
|
I did not imply that at all.
I just simply said that you might would be interested in hearing his lesser known songs that are experimental if you dont care for his well known songs. Just because he is popular doesnt mean he doesnt have lesser known songs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?
I don't see how anybody can look at Michael Jackson and say to someone 'You've just not listened to him properly yet'.
|
Most of his music with Quincy gets more credit than his later works which I find to be more experimenal and risk taking not to mention he does more producing and songwriting. Once again, just because he is popular doesnt mean he doesnt have lesser known songs.