Jump to content

Read it and Weep: Shocking facts about today's pop music:


rasputin1963

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

 

 

Everything/Everyone is replaceable.

 

I have said this for years, todays kids in general do not get anything out of The Beatles. I`m just using them as an example because we have spoken about it at length here. Todays kids want a beat, even a really slow song and I`m not talking about a Ringo Starr beat, I`m talking about something low. deep, throbbing and in yer face for 3 minutes and out. And the lyrics must be raunchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This made the wall of one of my FB friends a day or two ago. Like the 100 Best Guitarists list and most other lists, they're just empty efforts to gin up some page views or sell some magazines in the case of the fading print world.

 

I think folks who know me know I have a rather withering disdain for pop music but mostly all I could think of, paging through that list [extra page views anyone?] was what else is new? Earlier eras were dominated by folks like Pat Boone -- a guy who made Perry Como look like Bob Dylan -- and then there were the white doo wop groups of the early 60s -- many of whom couldn't even sing harmony without veering into seasick out-of-tuneness. Or the late 60s and early 70s when songs like "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy (I Got Love in my Tummy)," "You, Me, and a Dog Named Boo," "Chevy Van," and so on rose near or to the tops of the charts. Pop culture is, was, and probably always will be a vast wasteland with the occasional flower popping up through the dung and dirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

was
what else is new?
Earlier eras were dominated by folks like Pat Boone -- a guy who made Perry Como look like Bob Dylan -- and then there were the white doo wop groups of the early 60s -- many of whom couldn't even sing harmony without veering into seasick out-of-tuneness. Or the late 60s and early 70s when songs like "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy (I Got Love in my Tummy)," "You, Me, and a Dog Named Boo," "Chevy Van," and so on rose near or to the tops of the charts.
Pop culture is, was, and probably always will be a vast wasteland with the occasional flower popping up through the dung and dirt.

 

 

Wow Blue! That was truly awesome and you really made me realize in one paragraph, how true this is across the decades. Amazing post. I may have to include it in my signature for a while until I have it memorized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Bubble Gum Music has been around for years !!!! And all on the OP link are, well, what I consider todays "Bubble Gum" {censored}. PS, Led Zepp fact. Each of their nine studio albums reached the top 10 of the Billboard album chart in the US, with six reaching the number one spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Dan has a point about a lot more people and a lot better distribution these days. But also, Hendrix wasn't really a singles artist. Aside from early Beatles, neither were they. I think this may (with some exceptions, of course) say more about the commercial viability of "singles artists" compared to "album artists."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Bubble Gum Music has been around for years !!!! And all on the OP link are, well, what I consider todays "Bubble Gum" {censored}. PS, Led Zepp fact. Each of their nine studio albums reached the top 10 of the Billboard album chart in the US, with six reaching the number one spot.

 

 

Agree. However I think a big difference is that within the last decade or so, bubble gum has been marketed towards, and consumed by, adults. Kesha and Katy Perry are basically teen artists. Their stuff is fun, forgettable, and shallow - no different from Debbie Gibson or the Archies before them. But people in their 20s and older are a huge part of their audience.

 

At some point in the late 90s, someone at a big record company said "What will happen if we market this to 20-year-olds instead of 13-year-olds? I think they'll buy it." And they were right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think Dan has a point about a lot more people and a lot better distribution these days. But also, Hendrix wasn't really a singles artist. Aside from early Beatles, neither were they. I think this may (with some exceptions, of course) say more about the commercial viability of "singles artists" compared to "album artists."

 

 

Neither was Zeppelin. They sold albums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Dan has a point about a lot more people and a lot better distribution these days. But also, Hendrix wasn't really a singles artist. Aside from early Beatles, neither were they. I think this may (with some exceptions, of course) say more about the commercial viability of "singles artists" compared to "album artists."

I think, in the case of the Beatles, after the first couple of albums, most of the singles were probably sold to people who couldn't wait for the album to come out. Back then, the ~$1 one paid for a single would buy 4 or 5 gallons (or more) of gas (in the US), or a big burger, fries, and a malt from a good non-chain joint, or five 9 volt batteries (priced those lately? :facepalm:)... etc.

 

So, in the case of the Beatles, those inclined to buy them in the first place would be most likely to buy the album for $3 or $4 rather than shell out $1 for 2 songs. (That said, there were some folks who would buy everything from the Beatles, particularly in the hope of getting a b-side that wouldn't be on an album release.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You also didn't have everyone "guest artisting" on every one else's songs. Beyonce and Rihanna sing a few notes on a ton of tunes, which has gotta add to the count.

 

I don't recall "Lay Lady Lay by B Diddy Dillin' f:Tom Jones n' Rolf Harris". Though I would have liked to have heard it.

 

js

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Of course there are many ways to play this game...we could bemoan the Beatles outselling Miles Davis. Or Miles Davis outselling Couperin.

 

 

Yep. The apples to oranges comparisons are useless. A pop singles act has more #1 singles than an rock album act? How is this "shocking" to anyone, I have no idea. And, of course, such comparisons across decades are fraught with problems as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I wonder how those numbers will look 50 years from now?

 

 

Yes ! A current snap shot of what's charting ( and the many-flavored charts have many a flaw ) doesn't really say allot ... not like something that's a recognized classic and has withstood the test of time ; that's where the rubber meets the road for me.

 

( I should also add that I'm not a believer in an automatic bias to what was about when you came of age ....; I find stuff in the archives that was coined way before my stay aboard this rock began , and the pure quality of work shines above the stylistics of the day ... a stonking melody is a stonking melody , no matter where or when it occurred ... )

 

Back in the old days of big ole bad wolf major labels there were many bands who failed that had critical acclaim of a new album backed up by serious promotion too ; so there is always some mystery as to why stuff has immediate as well as long lasting appeal ...

 

The technological revolution has increased access to the nuts and bolts of the production side but has probably removed support for the squishy creative side of the coin .... ( artist development and all that hazy conceptual thing ... bands selling 100,000 units and getting dumped for it !)

 

So wafer thin margins take a toll on long term investment and make second by second risk management king. Genres that don't require a big production budget have a distinct advantage in such an environment also ...

 

 

 

Mixer extraordinary Tom Elmhirst had this to say ( and I think it says it allot in few words ....) ( you can also substitute the word "record " with "song " if you write ..because most folks don't really get the blood , sweat and tears that an author of original lyrics can have to go through sometimes ..so easy to simply spit out the usually formulaic tripe that be truly original)

 

 

 

 

 

Because the temptation to make records as cheaply as


possible sometimes triumphs over having a shot at making as


good a record as possible
.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...