Popular music and it's drastic turn for the worst

**che** · 01-26-2011, 01:50 PM

Years ago, people would agree that the music was about talent I think. Now it seems that it's pretty much accepted that everyone knows the music is bad, but it's so catchy they can't stop listening to it.

A few days ago I was bored and switched my AIM buddy icon to Justin Bieber. My friend noticed and asked me if I liked him. I told him I don't hate him, but I don't really like him and that I couldn't find myself to hate him. He told me I was part of the problem with people letting (and thus supporting) people making shitty music.

I told him I wasn't defending him, just that I couldn't bring myself to hate him. Sure, he sold out with some shitty songs (arguably, maybe you like Bieber) at 16 and his first car was a Lambo, but I say more power to him. If people are into shitty music, why not make shitty music and bank off the fact that that is what everyone likes?

Is my friend actually doing more than me to support "good" music?

**Rocky** · 01-26-2011, 01:55 PM

Though I agree with you to a certain extent, picking on J-Beebs is a little mean because he actually has the potential to make some great music through not only his marketability but his voice too, and his business mentor is Usher, so it's not like he's on the path to failure by any means.

I have several different issues with today's music, but it's not because it's what I would consider bad, just very moneymilking, much like the whole 2560837 spinoffs of FF7.

*will be back to make a detailed post after work*

**Taco-Calamitous** · 01-26-2011, 02:12 PM

Usher is terrible. That song he won a grammy for back in like the first half of last decade that only had like three notes making up the background melody, that was super-repetitive, slow and boring, I hear was like the cream of his crop. That's pretty bad. Now he has this new song, "OMG," that even his fans admit is a shitty song. And that fan said that he liked "Yeah" or whatever the earlier one I mentioned was called because it had a beat you could dance to. Well, if all you need to make a successful song is a beat that can be danced to, what's the point of having vocals at all? Of having any background melody? All you need is a beat, apparently, and you're good. Everything else could be anything, and people would probably still like it, if you're nice to look at, and have a somewhat decent voice.

I haven't been able to stand listening to much pop music for years. Back in the 90's when I was younger, it seemed okay. Now if I have to listen to a top 40's station, I groan. If you like this music, I'm sorry. Really. But if you start playing today's pop music around me, if it's not entirely inexcusable, I will likely leave the room.

I think you should listen to and support music that you actually like, not just music that doesn't entirely upset you, haha. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

**Kaiden** · 01-26-2011, 02:18 PM

There are a ton of reasons why music is really different from what our parents grew up listening to, or atleast my parents who grew up in the 60's. The biggest two though,

1. Technology, The way music is made is so different from before the digital age, its hard to compare a classic rock tune to that of a rapper over a digital beat.

2. I think music is looked at as a compliment to something else now instead of the big thing. Music goes well with... instead of music being the main source of entertainment.

**smurphy** · 01-26-2011, 05:16 PM

The reason I think mainstream music sucks and has sucked for a while is that most of it is identikit bullsh*t. There has of course been some truly original rays of light( Gnarls Barkley stands out) but they are getting rarer as the years wear on. I wouldnt be able to name a number one single from the past 2 years at the very least. And dont get me started on these young "prodigies" like Bieber et al who get instant fame and dont have to work for their lofty positions in the music industry.

And since I now dont get "todays" music, does that make me officially old? At 20 I would have thought I would be a bit young for that.

**che** · 01-26-2011, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by smurphy

The reason I think mainstream music sucks and has sucked for a while is that most of it is identikit bullsh*t. There has of course been some truly original rays of light( Gnarls Barkley stands out) but they are getting rarer as the years wear on. I wouldnt be able to name a number one single from the past 2 years at the very least. And dont get me started on these young "prodigies" like Bieber et al who get instant fame and dont have to work for their lofty positions in the music industry.

And since I now dont get "todays" music, does that make me officially old? At 20 I would have thought I would be a bit young for that.

In any case, and I don't mean to come across as an ass, it doesn't matter if you don't get today's music or not and if you feel older for it.

Agree with Gnarls Barkley though. No autotune, no synth beat, just pure soul.

**Unknown Entity** · 01-28-2011, 05:18 AM

I think it does to some extent have something to do with age. Justin Bieber, for example, has his music slated by older generations yet younger generations like it. If people like something enough, they'll buy it.

I don't know. Maybe we're all just used to what we know and enjoy and it's difficult to find something to beat that. I find it difficult to get into a band when I first hear them, but I know if I was exposed to it more often, I'd like it more - that happened with MCR. I guess if you watch... one of these... childish channels on tv (see how out of tune I am?), you'll be more exposed to Justin Bieber, Jonas Brothers, Hanna Montanna, etc.

Quite honestly, I've not listened to new music in a while. It's difficult to get into something new when a lot of music is dominated by things I'm not interested in. I know what I like, and I'm not bored of listening to the same stuff yet. Some music will grow on you, and some won't I guess.

**JuzamDjinn** · 01-28-2011, 04:00 PM

In situations like that I think it's more about familiarity than quality. People, especially children want to feel comfortable by exposing themself to something they are used to.

Take for example the movies you would watch over and over as a kid, now ponder what you would think of them now. The quality of the films may be quite low, but as a child it was easy to take comfort in watching them.

The marketing people know this, so they make sure that kids have time to get to know Miley Cyrus, or Justin Bieber from watching them on TV.

**ZantetsukeN** · 01-29-2011, 07:29 AM

The way I see it is that we all need music we consider bad, because it makes the music we like that much better to us.

I don't have a problem with popular music because it's popular (but there are some I don't get). I think nowadays, because it's easy for anyone to make music with stuff like FL, years of hard work learning to play instruments and whatnot aren't necessarily needed, and I think that is what people resent about these artists.

**JuzamDjinn** · 01-29-2011, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by ZantetsukeN

I think nowadays, because it's easy for anyone to make music with stuff like FL, years of hard work learning to play instruments and whatnot aren't necessarily needed, and I think that is what people resent about these artists.

I think it's always been like that with most rock based genres. Punk seems to take pride in their musical ignorance. Also alot of rock take little to no effort to write think Blink182 and Metallica.

However "music" is equally about message and image. So the musicianship shouldn't be the primary aspect we use to judge the artist, for example: KISS puts on an amazing show, Hardcore punks put the first amendment to use, Slipknot brings people together (

). Non of these peoeple can truely be called "good musicians" but their presence in pop culture will be remembered for years.