dumbing down the music business one song at a time.

Songs like this are a good example of how we are allowing the dumbing down of music. Pop songs have always been around that is true but, at one point even pop songs had some meaningful lyrics. This is just.... well, you decide. But I warn now I will be responsible if you feel you have lost minutes of your life by watching this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DwT_2QQU64

....this song seems like its of the same vein as Friday

its almost like what is outlined in the Fountain head and Atlas Shrugged. You get all these people telling the younger generation that this IS GOOD music, pretty soon people don't know what the big deal about Music is. Cause its all watered down un-realistic stuff.

But i'm always torn between taking music too seriously and then not taking it serious enough. If this is what makes people feel good, then hey why not.

Honestly, I don't care much about the words.
IMO, lyrics are just a necessary evil in the context of a song. Very good songs have been done with less-than-litterate lyrics.
But I worry more about the synthetic drum sound (although it seems like there was a real drummer at some time), the now oh-so-common abuse of autotune and the seemingly mandatory rap (or whatever dub-something they wanna call it) that replaces the middle-8.
Seems to come direct from an assembly line...

Just horrible on every level. And it got more than 10 million hits - but also more than 90% of people who voted disliked the track...

abbey road d enfer said:

Seems to come direct from an assembly line...

Click to expand...

That's just it. And...examples of bands that sound like they put something together as a band are getting harder and harder to find. There's a far greater obvious move towards the individual artist, singer, idol, etc. Bands like The Stones and songs like 'beast of burden', 'before they make me run', etc....'music played together by people', are almost gone.

Every one of these modern artists on the radio 'just' sound like the machines that back them...some more elaborately done than others. Why blow money on a person playing drums, why waste time(and money) on singing perfectly, with autotune around.. Machines make people lazy and ensure the lack of any emotion in music. The average person is just as responsible as the corporate entity for all of this.

I recall a few decades ago arguing with my roommate about whether the words or music was more important, today we have a third component in the physical attractiveness of the performer.

It's just a business... pandering to lowest common denominator.

JR

JohnRoberts said:

I recall a few decades ago arguing with my roommate about whether the words or music was more important, today we have a third component in the physical attractiveness of the performer.

It's just a business... pandering to lowest common denominator.

JR

Click to expand...

But the physical attractiveness of the performer has been important since the dawn of pop music. Or does anyone thing that Elvis would have become what he was if he had been an ugly little fat kid with glasses?  8)

Yes, it's a business, but I think it has become worse in terms of creativity, melodies and sonics in many ways... Same as in other businesses, overemphasis on short-term gains ruins everything in the long run.

living sounds said:

JohnRoberts said:

I recall a few decades ago arguing with my roommate about whether the words or music was more important, today we have a third component in the physical attractiveness of the performer.

It's just a business... pandering to lowest common denominator.

JR

Click to expand...

But the physical attractiveness of the performer has been important since the dawn of pop music. Or does anyone thing that Elvis would have become what he was if he had been an ugly little fat kid with glasses?  8)

Yes, it's a business, but I think it has become worse in terms of creativity, melodies and sonics in many ways... Same as in other businesses, overemphasis on short-term gains ruins everything in the long run.

Click to expand...

Elvis was helped by the notoriety surrounding his stage persona. Early TV appearances cut off his image below the waist.

Prior to MTV, music sales was driven by radio airplay and a mostly sonic exercise. MTV created a market for visually attractive performers sometimes lacking in musical chops, never very likely with radio. Some artists were arguably better looking than sounding. Later as it became so easy to steal music, concert performances became more of a business driver. While Lady Gaga is still selling music.

Kind of like the transition from silent movies to talkies, reordered Hollywierd somewhat... not that I was there.. 

-----
Music has always been driven by popular appeal which is not likely to exhibit long term effects or involve very high art. 

We get what we buy...

JR

How do these "artists" perform live? Lip sync? I don't know.

Rebecca Black and Jenna Rose seem to be just the tip of the ice berg. There are a whole host of teenage singers under the Ark label. I could understand the lyrics if the singers had a hand in writing them, but this is not the case. The Ark Music Factory is just that. A factory with bad QC.

I heard years ago that music sales are driven by teenage girls. Now I believe that to be true.

Lady Gaga is at least living proof that physical attractiveness isn't a necessity... 

lady gaga is an attractive man so  guys who prefer guys got her covered.

As for the ark label, I sent them a Cease and Desist Letter  for the greater part of humanity but either the ignored it or didn't get it. Might have to take it up a notch and get a real lawyer for this one.

Speaking of Elvis, he has no rival in ruining popular music IMO.

There used to be people who went out into the clubs (remember when there were clubs with live bands?), and they would look at artists and say, "That act is unique, and more people should know about them. Sign 'em up!"
The art of live music performance is relegated to folks playing for free for "exposure" now, since no one has enough disposable income (or time) to go pay to see a live performance these days.
Now, some business major decides some girl is cute enough, and hires one 'musician' to create a backing track, and a song is auto-tuned into existence, that sounds very similar to a recent successful offering. Movies seem to be made the same way, and if a song can be tied into some movie or fashion trend, then even more money can be squeezed out of the equation.
Kids grow up and think this %^&! is music, and the downward spiral continues. Bleak.

"Music has died....and no one cried."
Frank Zappa "Yo Cats" 

P.S. Gaga is a male Madonna impersonator. LOL! Of course! It makes too much sense.

It's not as easy as that sounds... I know a guy who tried to package his teen age daughter to be a commercial success. She was attractive enough but there wasn't any there there, of course luck is involved too. If the act doesn't resonate with the public it will fly like a lead ballon not matter how well positioned.

JR

well at the case in question, she has a huge amnount of views forget that they dislike her they still have seen it. It's annoying enough that that dislike will turn into I don't mind it if played often enough

pucho812 said:

lady gaga is an attractive man so  guys who prefer guys got her covered.

As for the ark label, I sent them a Cease and Desist Letter  for the greater part of humanity but either the ignored it or didn't get it. Might have to take it up a notch and get a real lawyer for this one.

Click to expand...

Lady Gaga is now making a push into india with bollywood remixes and all... If she is a male madonna impersonator, (s)he's  a relatively successful one...  8)

JR

tchgtr said:

There used to be people who went out into the clubs (remember when there were clubs with live bands?), and they would look at artists and say, "That act is unique, and more people should know about them. Sign 'em up!"
The art of live music performance is relegated to folks playing for free for "exposure" now, since no one has enough disposable income (or time) to go pay to see a live performance these days.

Click to expand...

You guys sound like a bunch of geezers 

Major labels are evil (another rant for another time) but with the rise of the digital era it's become easier for small and mid size indies to compete.  The clubs here are packed every night with young creative bands making great music.  They are getting paid and the indie labels are signing them up.

Every time I visit a friend, be it in Brooklyn or Toronto they spend the time sowing my the great local bands, clubs and labels.

It's an exciting time to be a music fan (indie rock anyway).  There is tons of great music out there, it's just not on MTV, VH1 or your local clear channel owned radio station.

Mike

(Determined not to be a "you call that music?!" geezer)

Echo North said:

You guys sound like a bunch of geezers   

Click to expand...

Indeed.
This was the #1 record the year I was born.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AkLE4X-bbU
All pop is a -product-
I'd hazard a guess that the biggest hits got that way because people -liked- them

Geezer? Hardly. There is plenty of non vh1 and mtv music outlets that in the u.s. happen to play good music and music I like. Good pop is good pop. I like good pop. The beach boys come to mind as does les paul & mary ford, etc, etc, etc. However  the song in the original post is hardly an example of good pop.  Yeah kids 13-18 buy the majority of music and blah blah blah. so what... They are now buying bad pop.

i thought it was good for a laugh.  i think only about half the 13 year old girls it targets will get that they are the brunt of a joke. as for musicallity??  i dont think it really matters if gag songs have any. in this instance its almost the point!!!