Why does the mainstream industry only want a select few to be popular?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-21-2014, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

Lol

I want to ask you this before I answer this question because I don't want to misinterpret your post.

Are you saying she is too talented and interesting for the casual music listener OR are you saying her music is not that good?

I'm saying she's clearly talented but it's like I said before if you want to appeal to the masses you have to dumb down.

Take Bowie for example, despite the whole Ziggy Stardust thing, the whole Berlin trilogy thing which was showered with critical acclaim and have come to be thought of as classic albums. You know what his most successful commercial period was?
It was the mid 80s when he was putting out terrible albums like Tonight & Never Let Me Down.

Like I said, you want to appeal to the masses you have to dumb down.

DwnWthVwls · 09-21-2014, 01:25 AM

Pop just means popular music. There is no particular sound or style that defines the genre.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I guess we just define what pop(ular) friendly music is differently then. If extremely popular songs weren't pop(ular) friendly, how would they get so popular?

I think we are defining the word differently.

I understand your definition and the way you define the terms does make sense. However, I am defining the term differently.

Based on my definition what makes a song pop friendly is how well it reflects current pop trends that is what makes it pop "friendly". It reflects the current pop music scene at the current time

It really has nothing to do with accessibility or how popular it becomes. There are plenty of popular songs that are not necessarily "pop friendly" (as in they don't reflect current pop radio trends)

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Pop just means popular music. There is no particular sound or style that defines the genre.

I agree.

**Frownland** · 09-21-2014, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

I think we are defining the word differently.

I understand your definition and the way you define the terms does make sense. However, I am defining the term differently.

Based on my definition what makes a song pop friendly is how well it reflects current pop trends that is what makes it pop "friendly". It reflects the current pop music scene at the current time

It really has nothing to do with accessibility or how popular it becomes. There are plenty of popular songs that are not necessarily "pop friendly" (as in they don't reflect current pop radio trends)

I see. How would you define something attempting to set trends? Is it only in hindsight that it's pop friendly?

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

I'm saying she's clearly talented but it's like I said before if you want to appeal to the masses you have to dumb down.

Take Bowie for example, despite the whole Ziggy Stardust thing, the whole Berlin trilogy thing which was showered with critical acclaim and have come to be thought of as classic albums. You know what his most successful commercial period was?
It was the mid 80s when he was putting out terrible albums like Tonight & Never Let Me Down.

Like I said, you want to appeal to the masses you have to dumb down.

Okay I gotcha and I do agree

But in the previous decades, popular artists have made descent popular music with quality.....why is the industry not allowing it to happen now?

I think if they shoved Janelle Monae down our ears like they do Beyonce and Rihanna people would like her. They probably would not have to shove her as much because she actually makes interesting music.

It is almost like we are being forced to accept these mediocre artists and I just don't like that

Back in the day, we had more variety but we were not forced to like those pop stars.

**Frownland** · 09-21-2014, 01:34 AM

I would argue that we have a lot more variety these days due to the evolution of music coexisting with throwback-ism.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I would argue that we have a lot more variety these days due to the evolution of music coexisting with throwback-ism.

I agree...

I am mostly speaking in terms of the mainstream market.

The mainstream market is not that diverse.

DwnWthVwls · 09-21-2014, 01:37 AM

Janelle Monae is way more popular than most artists can ever dream of being. I think it's safe to say she has made it. I don't think radio play and popular music videos are the end all be all to defining success in the industry.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I see. How would you define something attempting to set trends? Is it only in hindsight that it's pop friendly?

I don't understand what you are trying to ask....

Are you asking me how would I define something that is trendy?

09-21-2014, 01:34 AM	#197 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	I would argue that we have a lot more variety these days due to the evolution of music coexisting with throwback-ism. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x