music in today's society

dillwatters

Music at first was a way of expressing feelings and emotions, but now trough the likes of Simon cowel and every other musically retarded person it is now a way of getting rich fast by taking the general public and getting them to decide who is the best when in fact there always wrong. why??

Rigsby

Yes, music is a way of expressing emotions, but it is also an industry, and always has been.

Long before the advent of the likes of "The X Factor," people voted for what music they thought was the best, with their wallets and purses. In other words they went out and bought singles (no.. !!!.. not chips... 45 rpm vinyl, for the younger people among you :pac: ).

This was how the Top Twenty charts were compiled.

My main point is that nothing has changed, it is just that we had a different way of voting previously.

karaokeman

Threads like these come up every now and again.

Music is as good as ever, every decade has had its trash and treasures.

The X Factor/Simon Cowell phenomenon is no reflection of the current state of today's music as a whole.

SilverScreen

dillwatters wrote: »

Music at first was a way of expressing feelings and emotions, but now trough the likes of Simon cowel and every other musically retarded person it is now a way of getting rich fast by taking the general public and getting them to decide who is the best when in fact there always wrong. why??

Really? All of today's music? What's in the charts represents only a small fraction of the music that's out there at the moment and I can safely say that outside the charts there is plenty of feeling and emotion in music. If you bother to look you will have no problem finding it.

By the way Simon Cowell is not the only one responsible for devaluing music. In the 80's and early 90's you had Stock Aitken Waterman trying to squeeze a hit out of any actor that set foot on the set of Neighbours. Even in the 60's record companies were mainly concerned with hits and if you weren't anything more than a one hit wonder you were simply discarded.

Da Shins Kelly

This discussion always comes up. Music is as good as it ever was, and in fact with the dawn of the internet, there are now so many new ways of discovering music and new ways for artists to actually promote themselves without having to battle to get airtime on radio stations. We're no longer so reliant on radio and television to consume or put out music anymore. There is something for everyone out there if you take the time to look beyond the radio or music television.

Music has always been a business and there have always been manufactured and commercial elements to it. Motown meticulously groomed all their acts so that they were presented absolutely perfectly - appearance-wise and music-wise - and artists on the Motown label even had to attend "artist development" classes where they were taught to speak a certain way, dress a certain way and have their choreography absolutely perfect. After all, they're selling a product.

People see the past through rose-tinted glasses, as if music was "better" or more "soulful" or something back then. There was as much meddling and manipulation going on in the past as there is now. It's probably just a bit more obvious nowadays with the advent of reality television and the fact that there are more resources now to find out exactly where your music is coming from. However, there is still brilliant music being made today, and some of it is incredibly original and just as meaningful and important as any music that was made in the past.

In the future, the kids will be saying "music today is so sh*t compared to 30 years ago!"

dillwatters

well in fact music hasn't always been an industry but a way of life for most people, people that were felling down, happy or in love. but now all its about is the look in the main charts i did'nt mean all music (ZERO 1986) im talk about how we humans in society have let music with the same chord patterns and and beats take to the stage. half of popular contemporary music is mostly based on looks and has no feelings just a 4/4 time with a kick drum at the end of every four bars. i wouldn't mind if they wrote there own song but barely any have the ability to but two notes together so they get someone else to do it and they just sing it produce it to f@#k out of it and try to look sexy in the video .

Da Shins Kelly

dillwatters wrote: »

well in fact music hasn't always been an industry but a way of life for most people, people that were felling down, happy or in love. but now all its about is the look in the main charts i did'nt mean all music (ZERO 1986) im talk about how we humans in society have let music with the same chord patterns and and beats take to the stage. half of popular contemporary music is mostly based on looks and has no feelings just a 4/4 time with a kick drum at the end of every four bars. i wouldn't mind if they wrote there own song but barely any have the ability to but two notes together so they get someone else to do it and they just sing it produce it to f@#k out of it and try to look sexy in the video .

Music is still a way of life for most people, and like we've all been saying, if you look past the radio, you'll find it. It's not that difficult to find. To be honest, I don't really think people these days have anything to complain about when any kind of music you want to hear is at your finger tips due to the magic of the internet.

eamonnq

dillwatters wrote: »

i wouldn't mind if they wrote there own song but barely any have the ability to but two notes together so they get someone else to do it and they just sing it produce it to f@#k out of it and try to look sexy in the video .

Some of them can't even write a sentence or so I heard.

Rigsby

dillwatters wrote: »

well in fact music hasn't always been an industry but a way of life for most people, people that were felling down, happy or in love. but now all its about is the look in the main charts i did'nt mean all music (ZERO 1986) im talk about how we humans in society have let music with the same chord patterns and and beats take to the stage. half of popular contemporary music is mostly based on looks and has no feelings just a 4/4 time with a kick drum at the end of every four bars. i wouldn't mind if they wrote there own song but barely any have the ability to but two notes together so they get someone else to do it and they just sing it produce it to f@#k out of it and try to look sexy in the video .

Is this the fault of the (non) musicians ? No. These are providing what they see as a niche in the market. As for the big name artists not playing the music themselves, that is true to some extant, depending on the type of music . However, the session musicians are making a living this way. Granted, they are not being paid near as much as the big names they are playing for, but when was fairness ever part of the music industry ? Dont shoot the messenger. If the public did not want this type of music, it would die almost over night.

As has already been stated, there is an infinite amount of musical variation out there if you search for it. I dont understand why you seem to dwell the chart, pop star, and X Factor side of it.

BTW, could you expand on why/when you consider music was not an industry ? You say it was a way of life for most people. If these people were non musicians then they bought their music as LP's tapes CD's etc, or listened to the radio. If they were musicians then generally they got paid for making the music, like session musicians do. Granted, people often get together for a casual jam for the sheer enjoyment of playing, but as often as not, people jam in order to get to a standard where they can go out and perform in public....hopefully for money.

Blisterman

dillwatters wrote: »

well in fact music hasn't always been an industry but a way of life for most people, people that were felling down, happy or in love. but now all its about is the look in the main charts i did'nt mean all music (ZERO 1986) im talk about how we humans in society have let music with the same chord patterns and and beats take to the stage. half of popular contemporary music is mostly based on looks and has no feelings just a 4/4 time with a kick drum at the end of every four bars. i wouldn't mind if they wrote there own song but barely any have the ability to but two notes together so they get someone else to do it and they just sing it produce it to f@#k out of it and try to look sexy in the video .

Yeah. Modern music is ridiculous. I heard about this artist who was mostly promoted to teenage girls cause of his handsome looks, who didn't play any instruments or write his own music. Mostly did cover versions of other peoples songs. Yet he sold millions.

Forgotten his name. It was something Sinatra.

Rigsby

Blisterman wrote: »

Yeah. Modern music is ridiculous. I heard about this artist who was mostly promoted to teenage girls cause of his handsome looks, who didn't play any instruments or write his own music. Mostly did cover versions of other peoples songs. Yet he sold millions.

Forgotten his name. It was something Sinatra.

There was another one as well......Presley, I think he was called.

maccored

the Monkeys in the 60s were a completely manufactured band, put together with the sole purpose of making money. that was almost 50 years ago.

Blisterman

Absolutely, and read up on how Tin Pan Alley and Motown operated. Manufactured music is nothing new.

Kettleson

X Factor type programmes have without doubt, a profound effect on contemporary popular music. (ie: Wot we do hear on daytime radio).

But as its been said before, there are still plenty folk creating great music, which unfortunately, will never reach the ears of the masses.

To do that, you have to have commercial appeal to the major record labels, and there is about a 1 in a million chance of getting signed these days. And keeping a contract is impossible if you aren't bringing in many millions for the record company.

And to be honest, popular music in whatever decade you choose, was mostly about Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll.

"Pop Music" will always be a part of youth culture, and there are loads of young kids out there creating great music, but keeping it original and real is the trick.

Music should be its own reward, and if it ain't, what is it about?

Rigsby

Tom Jones is another name that springs to mind, and while I think he has an amazing singing voice, to my knowledge he does not play an instrument and writes little or none of his own songs.

Nor to my knowledge, is he short of a few bob. :pac:

Kettleson

dillwatters wrote: »

Music at first was a way of expressing feelings and emotions, but now trough the likes of Simon cowel and every other musically retarded person it is now a way of getting rich fast by taking the general public and getting them to decide who is the best when in fact there always wrong. why??

To answer your question, Popular Music is a business.

SilverScreen

dillwatters wrote: »

well in fact music hasn't always been an industry but a way of life for most people, people that were felling down, happy or in love. but now all its about is the look in the main charts i did'nt mean all music (ZERO 1986) im talk about how we humans in society have let music with the same chord patterns and and beats take to the stage. half of popular contemporary music is mostly based on looks and has no feelings just a 4/4 time with a kick drum at the end of every four bars. i wouldn't mind if they wrote there own song but barely any have the ability to but two notes together so they get someone else to do it and they just sing it produce it to f@#k out of it and try to look sexy in the video .

Music hasn't always been an industry but once there was a product that could be commercially marketed to the wider public it became an industry, and that certainly didn't happen in recent decades. You might want to go back to lute-playing medieval times if you're not happy with the way things are at the moment. Of course chord patterns and beats are going to be recycled, artists just don't pluck their all of their ideas out of the sky. If you look at delta blues in the early part of the 20th century there was a lot of similarities in chord patterns and vocal arrangements. Ever since pop music became evident it was mostly based on looks and even in the 60's some bands didn't even play on their own records.

You are acting as if all of this is a recent development and that good music is disappearing rapidly down the drain. It's not like that. Learn not to give a fuck about what clogs up daytime radio or music channels and focus on finding the music you do like.

Sinfonia

Much the same was going in the 15th century etc. It's always been there. Get over it.



Edit:
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meistersinger#Meetings

Irish Guitarist

Simon Cowell isn't doing anything new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Faces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_Knocks_%28UK_TV_series%29

EdenHazard

The meaning one derives from music is a personal thing. I listen to old songs and feel nothing, yet when I listen to Justin Bieber the music is alive to me. When people say music like his means nothing I can't comprehend it. People will try to put meaning on things to make it seem more credible as well, I've seen it with the Beatles To me their songs are so Justin Bieberesque(young love etc.) yet their songs are seen as legit and having 'meaning'

Da Shins Kelly

EdenHazard wrote: »

The meaning one derives from music is a personal thing. I listen to old songs and feel nothing, yet when I listen to Justin Bieber the music is alive to me. When people say music like his means nothing I can't comprehend it. People will try to put meaning on things to make it seem more credible as well, I've seen it with the Beatles To me their songs are so Justin Bieberesque(young love etc.) yet their songs are seen as legit and having 'meaning'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Q9D4dcYng

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys7-6_t7OEQ

Yep, really similar.

Blisterman

Not going to say Justin Beiber is on any sort of level with the Beatles, but to be fair, the early Beatles stuff wasn't exactly musically or lyrically ground breaking. ("She loves you, yeah yeah yeah!"). It was music for kids.

I often wonder if they'd be respected much nowadays if they broke up after their first 2 or 3 albums.

Da Shins Kelly

Blisterman wrote: »

Not going to say Justin Beiber is on any sort of level with the Beatles, but to be fair, the early Beatles stuff wasn't exactly musically or lyrically ground breaking. ("She loves you, yeah yeah yeah!"). It was music for kids.

I often wonder if they'd be respected much nowadays if they broke up after their first 2 or 3 albums.

Their early stuff isn't completely groundbreaking, and Beatlemania could probably be compared to the level of popularity of Justin Bieber these days, but the fact is, the Beatles did go on and evolve musically and made some incredible music and proved themselves as great musicians and songwriters. As far as I can see, it's that development and sustained popularity over decades is why they're identified as legendary and "legit". It's timeless music. That's not "trying" to make their music seem more credible. Their music is credible.

And by the way, I'm not even a Beatles aficionado by any means, they're not even among my all-time favourite artists.

Rigsby

EdenHazard wrote: »

when I listen to Justin Bieber the music is alive to me. When people say music like his means nothing I can't comprehend it.

Going by the Bieber clip you posted, that music does absolutely nothing for me. Plus, to my ears, it sounds like nothing the Beatles ever wrote. As you say yourself, music is a personal thing, so really there is nothing to comprehend.

karaokeman

The Beatles were really manufactured in the beginning, thankfully they broke away from that in the later days and made Sgt Peppers (my favourite album of theirs).

I'm not a fanboy myself, but the Beatles did prove themselves as the 60s progressed and their influence will always be there.

I would also like to say in 30 years time no one will remember JLS, Justin Bieber, The Kooks, X Factor acts or any groups that come up in discussions like this.

Sinfonia

karaokeman wrote: »

I would also like to say in 30 years time no one will remember JLS, Justin Bieber, The Kooks, X Factor acts or any groups that come up in discussions like this.

Does Robbie Williams not fit nicely into that category?

karaokeman

Sinfonia wrote: »

Does Robbie Williams not fit nicely into that category?

Are music fans not allowed have guilty pleasures?

To answer your question while I am a fan, I don't believe RW's music will stand the test of time.

stateofflux

imo scenes come from generation defining anthems...at the moment there just isnt' many bands/artists writing them to compete with X Factor. its a cycle...60's / 70's rock / pyschadelia,77 Punk and grunge,hip hop, electro, hardcore dance...any major developments in modern music were reactionary answers to stagnating bland music that came before.

rcaz

I'm interested to see what Bieber goes on to do... Maybe we'll have something deadly coming our way. Bieber's Brew perhaps. I don't think it's fair to the lad to compare him to anyone great so early on. The Beatles/Bieber comparison is complete **** at this stage.

Rigsby

rcaz wrote: »

The Beatles/Bieber comparison is complete **** at this stage.

To even consider Bieber to be anywhere within a zillion miles of the Beatles, either now or at any time, makes the mind boggle.

BTW, while I like the Beatles, I would not consider myself a fan.

SilverScreen

stateofflux wrote: »

imo scenes come from generation defining anthems...at the moment there just isnt' many bands/artists writing them to compete with X Factor.h its a cycle...60's / 70's rock / pyschadelia,77 Punk and grunge,hip hop, electro, hardcore dance...any major developments in modern music were reactionary answers to stagnating bland music that came before.

IMO scenes come from lazy journalism. Grouping bands and artists together because they either have a sound that's slightly similar, came out in a similar time frame or came from the same city or area.