Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulflower
I really don't care whether she becomes popular or not. I like to use her as an example because she is one of my favorites at the moment and she is a current artist that goes against the ideals of what is popular right now. I admire what she represents which is why I cite her but I really do not care whether she becomes more or less popular because I am always going to be a fan regardless.
|
I'll believe you when you say it, but realize it can be easy for people to get confused when you seem like you take so much offense to who the industry chooses to promote.
Quote:
My was point was that if Janelle can chart at no. 5 without the industry backing than she surely can top the chart if the industry chose to market her. Her success despite her lack of marketing proves as well as shows that she is "interesting" and marketable.
If Prince, David Bowie, Boy George, Rolling Stones etc were popular in the 80's how come someone like Janelle Monae can't be popular now?
I think the general public accepts what the industry markets. I believe if the industry started to market more variety, the public would accept it like they do all these other boring acts.
I don't care about other's perception. I am just making a obvious observation when it comes to popular music and popular trends. Janelle Monae is an artist that deserves to be a superstar and I believe if she had the backing she would be.
She is not going through hardships. This is a music forum and I am just giving my opinion.
|
I don't know what I can add to this that hasn't already been brought up. I think it's probably as simple as, in the case of Monae, that from a purely economical standpoint, her label has concluded (not necessarily correctly) that there is more money to be made on prioritizing other artists. They don't take into account how popular an artist "deserves" to be (whatever that may mean).
Oh, and the part about "economical hardships" was a rhetorical question to get my previous point across.
Quote:
My point was that in previous decades popular music was never this bland and it actually had more variety in terms of acts, music and genre. There was objectively more creativity and more experimentation compared to what is going on now.
Would you say Prince and David Bowie were not interesting in the 80's?
I just asked since you are implying popular music has always been just catchy and not risk taking which I completely disagree with.
|
Bowie: Infinitely better in the 70s (As Urban mentioned, he did "dumb down" his music in the 80s for more commercial appeal.)
Prince: Don't know his material
all too well, but as far as I can tell his No. 1 singles could be considered some of his "safest". I really don't know much about promotional history for these though.