Why does mainstream music appeal?
 

Why are crappy artists like Katy Perry, One Direction, Justin Bieber and all that getting so much attention? it's as if Old People like em, and i know the Preteenage girls, not all mainstreamers are bad, Skrillex Dizzy Rascal, Will.i.am are all actually very good artists. i just wish that metal became mainstream again, but old farts hate it and the pre-teenage girls think their ugly. the only reason why girls like this music is because they think they're cute, and have no comment on the quality of music whatsoever, Simon Cowell's Groups aren't even talented!!! so why do people like it?:mad:

easy to listen to


sounds like youre one of those ppl anyway since you like will.i.am who is like the definition of makin music that appeals tot he masses

Mainstream music is popular because it's easy to find, and most mainstream artists follow an easy-to-like pattern. Also, there is mainstream metal (kind of). The recent-ish nu metal and metalcore subgenres have enjoyed moderate mainstream success, you know, if you count them as metal at all. Iron Maiden is a well-known band, and they're still playing. Megadeth released their newest album this year, and I think I discovered it in a YouTube ad.

Your topic anwers it's own question. Because it's mainstream. The vast majority of people don't observe music as deeply or as critically as do the people of this forum, and that's ok.

Unthreatening, bland, designed to be passively consumed when you're doing tasks like driving to work, ironing etc.


Fat Pie's David Firth ridicules 2009's music scene - BBC Comedy Extra - YouTube

Pretty much... but I wouldnt say ALL mainstream music is bland but the mainstream music over the last decade has been pretty bland.


Mainstream music appeals because it is easily accesible and its not to complex for the casual music listener. It is also more memorable because of the catchy choruses and beats that makes the songs easy to recognize. Personally, I think mainstream music is not even about "music" or talent anymore and more about marketing and branding. Not to say that it hasnt always been like that but it appears that this is the only premise that the industry is looking to promote currently.

There are a ton of artists that have been in the industry for over 5 plus years that have made some amazing music but the industry just doesnt want to promote it. As a result, the youth are forced to consume corporate puppets as their music library because that is all that is being given to them. Just imagine if an artist like Janelle Monae or Jack White had the backing and support of the industry it would add some needed flavor in this bland mainstream industry.

Once upon time, music listeners had control over what got played on the radio but its not like that anymore. Now the powers that be control what gets played which is why you will find the same artist played 6 or 7 times within in a hour on 3 different stations because of Clear Channel, Viacom, etc

Its all bull**** to me which is why I dont listen to the radio or watch award shows. Its all about money and popularity and less about quality music. Mainstream music wasnt like this in the past but its trash now...

LOL, I bet if someone actually released "This is the song I made" it would be a big hit, even if just as a goof. :laughing:

Mainstream music has always been generally bland. But you get some gems here and there.

Also, some people just don't like more "alternative" styles of music, even if they attempt to listen to it.

Agree that it's always been wank, it's just that imo it moves with the times depending on what's in at that particular moment, but it's just a watered down version of said genre. Dubstep was big here 2008-2012 roughly, the only tracks that charted were piss poor interpretations of that genre. Can keep going back in time and it's always the way. There are exceptions, not many.

Agree, also radio stations hammering the same 10-15 songs all day long until it's stuck in your head has something to do with it.

Yeah, which is why the music itself is so vanilla, because that allows it to appeal to the widest possible audience, thus more $$$

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1c2OfAzDTI

LOL, had never heard that song before.

Almost a case of, "It's so bad, it's good." :laughing:

Companies pay billions of dollars to "help" you discover music.

It's not all bad, I like a lot of mainstream music. Lorde is a great example of brilliant talent and a fantastic debut album.

It's as if making catchy fun music is a bad thing or something. Ill jam to biebs anytime come at me.

people don't like to have fun that's why it's so easy to constantly trash mainstream music.


I love mainstream music just as much as some of other things I end up listening to that are more underground. Sometimes I'm in the mood for it.

A lot of mainstream music is great- like Billie Jean for example. I guess you could also say bands like Radiohead and Led Zep are mainstream even though right now they might not be as listened to as Nicki Bieber: A Train of One Direction.

I don't know why mainstream music is mainstream music. Maybe because it doesn't demand a great deal of inspection, analysis or interpretation? I don't know. I don't really care why it's popular to be honest. Or that it is popular. Who's to say someone listening to, say, Lady Gaga, isn't reaping the same joyous experience as someone listening to Beethoven's 9th? It's easy to be snobby and elitist about music, but pointless.

I love Iron Maiden!!!

They deserve your love.

Anyway, why can't major labels just sign some good bands? There are plenty of them out there, and they wouldn't have to pay for voice correction tools. I'm convinced that a lot of non-**** bands would sell, since a lot of people will listen to anything that's thrown at them and as long as it's marketed correctly it won't really matter if there's a ****ty reggaeton beat or some proper drumming.

Those so called good bands aren't marketable/catchy enough though that's why.

Some mainstream music is fun.


Sam and the Womp | Bom Bom (Official Video) - YouTube

Can confirm I destroy the dancefloor when this one comes on.

It's weird to me that people think that the audience that Katy Perry is geared towards is brainwashed to the point that replacing her with Iron Maiden would be an unnoticeable change. It's a niche market for bubbly catchy dance music. How would Iron Maiden be marketed correctly to fit into that niche?

It shouldnt be hard to see why that wouldnt work.

My theory is that if they marketed so-called non-marketable music towards a large audience, more people would listen to it.

Not all mainstream music is dance music, and not all non-mainstream music is metal. You probably know that already, though.

Yeah but I was referring to the part of mainstream music that seems to take the most flak (and what was specifically talked about by OP) ie the Ke$has and Biebers of the world.

Agree



I think the industry itself creates these markets and brands.

Because there is not a doubt in my mind that if the industry promoted and marketed acts like Janelle Monae they would be just as popular. I think the industry purposely chooses to market certain artists and certain songs over others because they want a particular brand of music to sell.

If kids are only exposed to the Gaga's or the Bieber's that is only thing they are going to have to judge by. People just listen to what is easily accessible not necessarily because its prolific.


Take Miguel for instance, he makes some of the most blandest non catchiest music known to man (come me a snob or a elist I dont care its true) but ...he is oddly widely popular, do people honestly think this is by coincidance?

The same with Frank Ocean who doesnt have marketbable looks (although I do think his cute) and okay music but the industry decided to promote him therefore he was successful.

So all this talk about so and so isnt marketbable is all bull**** because there have been successful artists who dont have catchy music or marketbable looks who have been successful ex. Adele...

But this isnt exclusive to mainstream music. Each part of the music industry has its darlings and I dont think there is a huge difference in how one finds these artists/albums/songs. If you're a giant indie rock fan that regards Pitchfork's reviews highly, then yeah you're probably going to like Vampire Weekend and Grizzly Bear over Foster the People. If P4k had given Torches a 9.5 BNM you dont think more people would think it was a better record? It's just a matter of trusting your sources. If you like Scaruffi and he rated a new album very highly, chances are you will listen to it. If you like billboard chart music and they show a new Katy Perry song, chances are you will listen to it.

Pitchfork is just as easily accessible as MTV, it's just a matter of what your tastes are.

Adele is an exception and a rare one. How many other types of Adeles and unmarketable mainstream artists do you see out there? They are far and few between.

Also that Janelle mention doesn't hold up either. I personally think she's great and talented but it doesn't seem like the masses think so. I went to her Today show concert in the morning and it wasn't as packed as when I went to see Flordia Georgia Line featuring Nelly in the same place.

Also if it was just Nelly there headlining by himself. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been as packed either but country fans know how to turn up for bands that they love.

Thats a good point. I just think for alot of people these tastes are shaped based on what the industry promotes. I was specifically referring to audiences that rely on the "mainstream" for their music. I know this issue can go many different ways for other forms of music.

I also want to make this clear that I am specifically referring to the current mainstream industry and not the way it has operated in the past.


I just think naturally people are going to like what they constantly see and hear all the time not because they think its great but because that is all that they are use to listening too. I think the corporate machine and the industry itself has more to do with why certain artists are more commercial than others.

Back in a day a song played 5 times on the radio because it was a popular song that the PUBLIC voted on. Nowadays, the INDUSTRY will play a bland song 50 times within 5 hours and it is a song that the public didnt even request or vote on. In other words, its popular because the INDUSTRY said so.
As a result, we blindly fall in love with these bland pop songs not because its good but because after listening to the same damn song over 12,000 times we begin to like it.

I just think the powers that be controls the dynamics of the industry, its really sad because the real artists suffer.


Thats why I said pop music isnt about music anymore and it pushes people to dig and discover music on their own (not that that is a problem) but just saying..

I agree Adele is an exception. However, her exception still shows that in this new generation of music and pop stardom, a singer with no "pop star" qualities can still become a superstar for her "voice" and "music" alone. Adele is a superstar because of her TALENT not because of ANYTHING else. No gimmicks, no stripping butt naked on stage, no booty bounce... none of that.

I also I disagree with your opinion on Janelle.

The reason why Janelle is not as famous is because for one thing she is on one of the most sh!ttiest labels known to man (Bad Boys) and she is being managed by one of the most the sh!ttiest business managers known to man (Diddy) who has jacked up alot of promising careers.

The MAJOR reason why she isnt as famous is because the industry simply won't promote her. Ive listened to all her music and although her production is complicated and she is very artistic, she has made some radio friendly songs that if the industry promoted it they could have easily been semi successful or successful on the radio.

So how can the masses not like her if she hasnnt even been given a chance? "The Electric Lady" debut at number 5, which is pretty darn good for an album that received 0 promotion besides two music videos at the time of its release. So people respect Janelle as an artist. She actually has a pretty nice size following for someone who isnt as famous as her peers and she is very critically acclaim. If the industry promoted her, man she would be huge. She has everything there to be a superstar. (Looks, good singer, good dancer, good songwriter, good performer, interesting, artistic, different etc)

The thing about is that even though she is signed to Bad Boy Records they have been doing really good by her. They have left her alone creatively and haven't been too intrusive in that regards so they aren't ruining her career any. She has the artistic freedom of someone that isn't signed or that's on an indie label but while being on a bigger label.

It's not even about the industry promoting her. She's doing well all on her own and getting Grammy nominations it's just that she doesn't have that big of a fan base and it's not because people don't know her or hear her material because they DO.

Respectfully disagree

First off, Janelle doesnt get alot of grammy nominations. Janelle was featured on the Fun song last year but that wasnt her song that was nominated. This year we will see if she has any nominations. I think the Archandroid received one nomination.

Her fans and her following support her but the average music listener is not going to know who Janelle is or any of her music. She has a pretty good following for someone of her status but she is no Bieber or Katy Perry in popularity in the way you are implying.... c'mon now. They are largely popular because their backed by their million dollar labels and the industry. There popularity is due to that mostly and not because they make "creative" music or are extremely talented.

Janelles problem is she needs a hit song that will introduce the masses to more of her music. That is what happened this summer with Robin Thicke and turned him into a pop star overnight with one song.


Just because Badboys is giving Janelle artistic freedom doesnt justify their trifliness. You still dont abandon artists on your label. Janelle needs to get off that label ASAP! I liked to see her get on Bruno's label. They did a really great job with his latest project.


Fanbases will never grow if the masses are not exposed to your music, (thats the key factor) So you cant blame it on the public if the public have not been exposed to her music. I personally dont care if she ever becomes big or not but I think she deserves it because she works so hard to be creative and she is extremely talented. She is very creative and artistic unlike most of her peers. She is also very intelligent too.

The producers claim there is a science to it and all of that, but I highly dispute this claim. My mother and both sisters are pop radio aficionados, and they'll listen to (and eventually claim to like) anything played on the radio.

Prior to their big mainstream break, I played fun. and Mumford and Sons in the car with them. All of them bitched about my crappy music the entire trip, even when I tried to sell them on the positive points, the catchiness of the songs, and anything to that effect. It fell on deaf ears.

Months later, ERMAGERD, fun. and Mumford and Sons are the best ever, they're buying full discogs and saying that the very same songs I played for them are, ERMAGERD the greatest songs ever.

Basically, put it on pop radio. If it has a hook, the people will listen, and grow to like it. Any song with anything remotely catchy or interesting will do.

Mumford and Sons? ppffft I look for music that isn't as mainstream as that.:shycouch:

Damn, the industry people who choose the crap people have to listen to should be fired. Why serve people crap when it's just as easy to serve quality? Also, I'm sure many people would choose a premium steak over some garbage sweaty cheeseburger if they had a choice. But of course people are going to choose the cheeseburger when it's the only choice they think they have, or the only thing they're used to. FYI, the cheeseburger is what the mainstream has a lot of.

I think we are just going to get into a chicken vs egg debate but I tend to give people who listen to predominantly chart pop more credit. Because if you're already a fan of Rihanna or Lady Gaga and a new pop star comes into the fray, is that really the industry forcing their evil music down the listeners throats or just revealing similar artists that people enjoy? It just makes sense to me that they would promote artists that are similar to those that people already like.

And I know from experience that there are people that will repeatedly try to listen to bands that they dont like just because they have critical acclaim and I see very little difference between that and hearing something on the radio until you like it. I have friends that force themselves to listen to Daydream Nation or Kid A until they "get it". It's not necessarily a bad thing to like music you previously didnt. And people have different criteria on why they think they should like something in the first place.

I touched on this earlier but this happens with most music segregations. If someone doesnt recognize the band name or song title then theyre more likely to cast it off or let it just glaze by without second thought. Ive probably done it. Youve probably done it. It's not that uncommon.

A fashionable hipster will forcefully not enjoy music that doesnt have their underground tag. In fact it can happen (more often than pop afficianados I think) that they will like something and then almost immediately not like it anymore because of bad reviews a week later. Extreme cases like this happen in all music realms not just with chart pop.

I always wanted to find an excuse to use this Rutles clip. In a way, it's the perfect answer. Someone in the consumer base likes a tune, finds out that the trousers (or in some cases, thong...) fit the image - welcome to the Top 10!

My own personal opinion is that mainstream music appeals because of how "fun" a majority of the songs are.
Catchy lyrics, nice little hooks, sing-along melodies and the same old repetitive synths in the background. It's an easy formula to follow and a majority of people like it that way. They want to hear something familiar that makes them happy but doesn't make them necessarily need to THINK.
I think mainstream music is wonderful in that way. I still listen to my favourite weird off-the-wall musical artists all the time, but sometimes its fun to jam out to APPLAUSE by Lady Gaga on my way to work. Just lose yourself in the music. Don't judge people for liking something that makes them happy. Music snobs piss me off when they do that.

BUT in the mainstream you find things A LOT worse than Lady Gaga.



This, for instance...

Its not so much that the industry is "evil" but it definitly has changed and it is heavily geared toward image and marketing versus quality catchy music.

Back in the day we had Elton John, Prince, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, David Bowie etc who were all pop stars that made descent quality pop songs. They actually had talent and they actually made descent pop music.

Nowadays the stars are not that talented and there is no quality in the music. There has been a major shift in the industry as far as which artists they choose to promote. They went from eclectic/creative music from Prince to bland Bieber music....thats a INDUSTRY problem more so than the public's problem.

If all the industry is promoting is trashy pop stars with bland music then that is all that the general public is going to know. So of course they are just going to listen to what is being constantly forced to them but if they had a choice between that and more creative music I honestly think they would choose the more creative music.

So its not that people "enjoy" those pop stars. People just listen to what is being presented to them and what they are being exposed to.

Perfect example... I didnt even know who Fiona Apple was until two years ago (honest truth lol). I discovered her on a music forum because she was releasing an album. Someone posted a performance of her on youtube and I instantly fell in love with her and researched more on her music etc Now I am a fan. Although she is an older artist, I said that example to show that people want to hear different types of music whether they listen to mainstream music or not.

I dont rely on current pop radio for music but there are alot that do and I am just referring to that population of music listners.

I enjoy Carly Rae Jepsen on most occasions over most of those pop stars that made "decent pop songs" but Im guessing we are just going to be disagreeing on tastes now. Id also take Bieber, Katy Perry, Rihanna, etc over bands like Aerosmith, Poison, KISS etc so obviously I dont think popular music quality is at an all time low or that its bland or made by hacks or whatever.

and also this

could apply to anything they put on. I mean people now complain about Mumford & Sons and Imagine Dragons being popular. People are going to complain about the industry no matter whats popular but something has to be. So yeah people are going to like it because they found it easily but that doesnt mean they dont actually enjoy listening to it. Im not really sure why "easy access" is treated as such a bad thing. If Janelle Monae and Fiona Apple dominated the industry and people liked them just because they were there wouldnt that be the same as it is now anyways?

lol I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that note... I said "descent" because I didnt want to come off "stannish" and too subjective but I personally think those group of artists made some of the best pop music of all time and I would add Stevie Wonder in group as well.

If those are your preferences in music thats fine.


Really?

People didnt complain about MJ, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Freddie Mercury, Whitney not being talented or having bland music. I think the only person from that era that people really complained about was Madonna but thats about it....



Easy access to music isnt a "bad" thing because I grew up listening to popular music just not from my generation lol but I grew up on it so being accessible isnt the issue. The issue is the lack of quality in accessible music in the new millennium.

I dont think it would be the same thing because those artists are real artists who are not driven by production teams or are pressured to make anthem type songs. They make creative music and put effort into being artistic unlike most of the pop stars out now. Alot of the pop stars now come out with the same ol songs, no inspiration, no creativity etc.