|
||
|
Title: the state of music . . . Post by Nikolita on Jun 3rd, 2002, 2:26pm hey everyone... I have had a little spare time these days and have actually had a chance to sit down and watch television... (what a prospect! :o) Anyways, back in the day, I used to watch a lot of Much Music, and have tuned in over the last few weeks. I absolutely DESPISE boyband music and female vocalists like Britney and Christina Aguilera. But I've noticed that pop music is REALLY changing. I saw a band on Much this morning that said, "I don't think you could call us a punk band. Punk has become pop, and so I think you'd have to call us a punk band that sings rock. But really, we're neither." And I had to think about this, as I am now. I think he's right. I have a friend that's all over girl punk music, and after seeing the music video with Avril Lavigne, I wondered if she liked her music. Turns out she hates it! She feels that they were trying to sell a punk image on someone who's music wasn't really punk. And I had to think about it. Is that what's popular now? Washed out punk? I leave it to you to think about, but maybe I'm just thinking too much myself. nikolita^_^ PS: Yay for Sarah Slean! (had to mention her somewhere ;)) |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Felicity on Jun 3rd, 2002, 2:54pm Wow, i was just ranting about this exact same thing the other day to a friend of mine. In a continent where individualism is stressed, its odd that most musicians strive to conform and be like everyone else, just to guarantee that they'll become rich and famous, when in actuality, it may mean they'll only have one song and disappear. I think, in a way, washed out punk is popular because it can appeal to a wider audience. Take Avril, for example. Its bizarre that she has such a 'hard' image and such mellow, cookie-cutter, corporate rock songs. I think she was the higher-ups answer to targeting an audience that doesn't devour every britney song - the 'anti-britney', if you will. This type of music seems to be 'cool' again, which is why linkin park and limp bizkit and other 'hard, badass' bands are played on pop stations like kiss92, or why Avril is played on adult stations like CHUM. Stations that previously smothered audiences with disposable pop now smother them with disposable rock. Which is why i stick to college radio stations - for the good music that isn't played on mainstream stations. Good post, by the way, nikolita. Yours are always thought-provoking. :) |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by obi-john on Jun 3rd, 2002, 3:44pm The genre of music has never been important to me. It's the music itself. Good music is good music and doesn't really need to be labeled. I mean Britney spears is "pop" and so were the Beatles. I hate when people say that Britney Spears and other crap like it are todays beatles. Nah don't think so... Just shows what categorizing music does to people. "It took me a while to accept that I write pop music. That's what it is though. Well, maybe jazzy-rocky folk-pop," she states with a smile. Thats Martina Sorbara. Thanks to media I have this embedded belief that pop music is Backstreet boys and Britney Spears, amougst other garbage. I just find it hard to fathom Martina's music and Britneys in the same category. So to say that pop is changing is correct, but the thing is it has always been changing and not to mention growing. Growing in the fact that more music is being placed in the genre. On to your real question :) Yeah that is pretty much what is popular at the moment. Washed out punk sounds like a good label for it to, though of course i'm not one to use them. I'll admit to actually liking Avril's music. Not often I like something so mainstream. Mainstream music seems to be improving overall as I see it. Sarah Slean gets played a good bit here on Newfoundlands only good radio station, so thats good to see. Britney Spears, Cristina Auguwhatever and BSB's seem to be taking the backseat nowadays when it comes to air time on the radio. Thank God for that. Now that I think of it Mainstream is a good label. Can't get much confusion from that. john |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Jason on Jun 3rd, 2002, 4:09pm I think mainstream music is good in small doses. Too much and you're likely to burn out. Not all of it is bad but the majority certainly is. I find that turning off the radio and tv is a good way of getting out of a musical rut. I also tend to frequent indie and used CD stores and buy random albums for the hell of it. There is good music out there, you just have to find it yourself sometimes. |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Jareed on Jun 3rd, 2002, 7:25pm what's bad music and what's good music? i dont think anyone can answer that question, maybe for themselves they can, but you cant say that so and so is 'bad' music. why is pre packaged/mainstream/commercial pop music bad? because it's fabricated and 'fake'? why is fake bad? maybe i like fake! if it works for you then it works for you. i dont believe in bad music because there is no such thing. there's always something for everyone, and i think that people who like music that isnt mainstream just because it's not mainstream are a bigger problem than people who like britney. there's nothing wrong with liking britney. and about the watered down punk thing, there's no set rules to what punk music is, maybe there's a general acceptance for whatever it is but you know what i mean. labels try to promote whatever will work at a certain period of time and if avril works than she works. if sarah slean doesnt work with the mass majority of people at this time, well then too bad. it doesnt make the general public dumb or music morons, it's not what they want and they shoud'nt have to be forced to listen to what so called critics consider good music. i think critics are the biggest loads of shi* ever, who made them god? i have to many thoughts right now and i dont know how to write them all down cause my head is a mess right now, but i think you know what i'm trying to say. |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 4th, 2002, 8:02am OOoOOooO I love these talks, *pulls up a chair* Ok now children, MY opinion, obviously is the only one that REALLY matters, so...notebooks ready, this counts for half your overall mark. :P MUSIC is beautiful. MEDIA taints music. If folks like Britney and Blink and other OVERDONE acts were heard and appreciated like our Hawksley's and ours Slean's, than this world would be a better place. Music is like a CHILD, there is no such thing as a bad CHILD, only bad parents or in MUSIC'S case BAD RADIO and/or advertising. Advertising and radio make money, they don't care if the new Nickelback song is monotone and sounds like recycled BUSHx. They want to make money. They DO perhaps play SOME great music. And what makes radio great is that some people find and discover and actually enjoy and purchase the music. I don't understand how commercial, catchy music is bad and un-heard drawn-out experimental music is considered REAL. I have NEVER made any money on my music/songs and won't for maybe a long time, so as far as III know my music is ME. My artistic vision, I AM independent and NOT SOLD-OUT. Though I write my music so it's so catchy you cannot get it out of your head. I grew up on great songwriting like Simon and Garfunkel, The Beatles, Dylan, Mamas and the Papas, etc etc. SO...what I'm getting at is, when I finally come out with my album and radio plays the heck out of it. *optimistic* People will consider me a sell out? Or they'll bash me for having COMMERCIAL music? THIS I don't understand, it's the COOL thing to listen to unheard-of music? If there's a major label involved it's not COOL anymore? Take A.F.I for example, a friend of mine has 12 A.F.I. tatoos. NOW they just signed with Dreamworks Records in L.A. HE'S TERRIFIED that they're gonna SELL-OUT. People change, BUT you should respect where they wanna go. They should be smart enough not to change their sound to suit certain people and remain the band they always were to a certain extent. Problem is, people see glossy promo pics, major label, new 1.2 mill music videos, TRL guest appearences, heavy rotation on local radio and WOW these guys have sold-out! When, if they sound the same as they always have, all they've done is SOLD. Which is quite a good thing, which means they are reaching more people with their music, selling more records and have the money to express their art better than they could before. Some people like bands more when they can call them their own, it's selfishness I think. And I understand that. If Sarah Slean did a couple of commercials and did a tour with Hoobastank and still sounded the same what would we all think? MEDIA. MEDIA. MEDIA. *Sarah is obviously a smart girl and we all respect her, just wanted to ultimatley stipulate THAT fact* or Do people hate Rufus for doing a GAP commercial? THATS how I discovered him. Whats great about him is that even though he's been in commercials, Shrek soundtrack, and numerous TV specials and videos...he's STILL Rufus. So... My only real understandable point should be: If the artist values the MEDIA and money more than their ARTISTIC integrity, than I don't consider them much of an artist anymore. A la Sugar Ray, their first album was pretty dang hard with ONE, count em, ONE cheesy catchy lil pop/reggae song called "Fly", the single was number 1 for like a YEAR made about 2.3 mill and NOW... hahaha Sugar Ray are like Hostess, or Mr. Christie... All they make is sweet sounding little nuggets that will sell like CRAZY. They are not Sugar Ray anymore, they're Sugar Cane. Wrong frame of mind. So, with all that said, if you ever hear of a band named "Argyle Road", they never sold-out or chnaged, they've always been a catchy acoustic rock-pop group. And by the way, my friend Justin Abedin played on the Martina Sorbara CD. Good stuff. Check him out on MP3.com with Niki Loney. Amazing stuff. Kwando Palla Mucho Deamore A Philitay Corason, J :-X |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 4th, 2002, 8:10am Quote:
WHY do you consider it disposable? And the big difference is College radio doesn't OVERPLAY and shove music down your throat, thus making it more enjoyable. But, take the Avril song for example, that is a great pop song. The first time I heard it, I liked it, saw the video, heard it 30 more times...now I dislike it, WHY? Because I'm sick of it. WHY??? MEDIA. Hmmm Download a song by HEXSTATIC called, "Deadly Media" it's amazing. haha J 8) P.S. Slean is played on mainstream radio, climbing them charts, does this mean it's now garbage? *ponder ponder* |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by obi-john on Jun 4th, 2002, 9:49am Sarah's 14 on the muchmoremusic countdown now (better than hero, yay :P). Go sarah :) Just to show that mainstream doesn't mean bad music. |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by mysterywhitegirl on Jun 4th, 2002, 10:40am yeah rufus! :D but, in terms of the pop-punk crossover, i'd have to say that pop is the genre of music that is (obviously, the name implies) the most popular out there; in my mind is has the most "hooks" and "catches", you know? when i see a lot of the girls at my school, who are the teeny-bopper type, starting to listen to music like josie and the pussycats and avril lavagne (just as examples), i can easily think of the reason why: they want to be seen as "bad" girls, or at least not so goody-goody, and the "punk" image attracts them. see, this new-school "punk" may actually be rocked-up pop, but the image its musicians portray make its fans feel... i dunno. different? more rebellious? more "cool" and less "poppy"? that's just my opinion though, i may be way off... |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by mysterywhitegirl on Jun 4th, 2002, 10:42am okay, i definitely wrote p.u.s.s.y.cats.... |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Felicity on Jun 4th, 2002, 11:38am on 06/04/02 at 08:10:05, guyfromARGYLEROAD wrote:
When I say 'disposable', i mean a song that is here today, huge for a month, shoved down people's throats for 2 months, then disappears off the face of the earth. Take some songs by the Spice Girls, for example. Those songs were gigantic when they were out. Do you ever hear them on the radio anymore? Not really. Because they're disposable. They're made to sell a few million dollars and rake in the dough for as long as they can. That's all. And now they're no longer played because a) people are probably STILL sick of them, and b) its 'uncool' to play them, the fad (& their 15 minutes) is over, they're sooooo 4 years ago. That's what I mean when I say 'disposable'. |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 4th, 2002, 2:27pm ;D Gotcha, that's what I thought. |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Nikolita on Jun 4th, 2002, 5:29pm Wow! I check in to see if anyone had even read my post and there was 11 replies! great discussion!! My main disagreement was with Jareed: Quote:
I don't think that punk has a set of rules, but there is a sort of look, a certain sound that you expect from genuine punk. That hardcore electric sound, the outrageous clothing, piercings, crazy hair... you don't need all of these things but its all about the rage. I don't know, I was just thinking, that Avril doesn't have that. Media, or whoever, is trying to make it seem like she does, so that they can sell a half-way cd to some teeny bopper that needs to feel a little angst, and is giving us this washed out punk to make the parents still hate it, but not as much. I don't know, that's the feeling I'm getting from it. Signing off... take care! nikolita^_^ |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Jareed on Jun 4th, 2002, 7:27pm Yes good point... but ;) maybe the watered down punk thing is what avril's all about. i cant get inside her head to know whether she's a 'poser' or she is the way she is because her label told her to be like that. she knows if she's staying true to herself and maybe this is who she really is. i know this isnt' an avril discussion, but you can't judge a book by it's cover. just cause she dresses punk-ish doesnt mean she has to make punk-ish music. the image she portrays is kind of a mixed bag. if someone with 50 piercings, 50 tattoos, and a punk 'image' played classical music, does that mean they're selling a false image even though that's who they are and what they want to do? but i also agree with mr argyle road. i'm sure that if we heard what we call disposable music in smaller doses, we wouldn't be bitc*ing so much about it. if radio played david gray as many times as they play enrique but played enrique as many times as they play david gray in reality, would we call david gray disposable? maybe? maybe not? would enrique become critically acclaimed? the phone rang and i lost my train of thoughts .... well, i need to sleep anyways, good night |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 5th, 2002, 4:07am I caught the next train... I think it's the same as this, If you were all dressed up in saddle shoes and a top hat and tails and sang punk. You'd be considered a poser. RIGHT? right. Same as Avril singing pop dressed PUNK. The only reason this affects people is because of the STEREOTYPES. STEREOTYPES: what people have come to expect, the norm, the understood, rules people set up...etc. Basically she SHOULD be able to wear a tutu and combat boots and sing like Sarah Brightman if she wants, or wear nothing but a smile and sing Christian music in Latin. But the point is, she wants to dress like this, *I've seen pictures BEFORE the major label, so it's not them that's FORCING IT ON HER* She just picked a different style of clothes. So sue her. haha I don't care, and I realize that this makes her the subject of all the *She's not punk* jokes. But...don't ya think she already knows that? Jay |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by obi-john on Jun 5th, 2002, 5:53am Well said Jay. Alot of the songs on the album come off as rock to me and not so la dee da. Take Treble charger and sum 41. They dress the same way. So I wouldn't say she's a poser I'd just say alot of people who are making that kind of music dress that way. What that kind of music is I don't know but watered down punk/rock I think is a justifyable label. |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by mysterywhitegirl on Jun 5th, 2002, 11:48am but are treble charger and sum41 the greatest examples? i mean, greig nori does produce or manage or whatever sum41, so... there's an obvious influence there. but i do agree with you on that one. :) |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 5th, 2002, 5:10pm Pop Punk is similar to what grundge was like, rap was like... when you create hybrid styles, it's wierd. Even though pop-punk is not a liking of mine. But, oh well. TONS of kids love it, and Eminem. Both particularly new styles of music. IIII myself am a big POP-ROCK fan, Example: Sheryl, DMB, Beatles, CCR,...the goOod stuff. Keep it real ya'll or I bussa cap in yo GIRL THINGY. hahahahahaaa J |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by crimsun on Jun 7th, 2002, 6:14am Does it really matter what one's appearance is? Take Wesley Willis for instance or even Frank Zappa--or other peculiar artists with whimsical appearances. Do their songs lose their appeal because the media "overplays" or lambasts them [if they g{e,o}t any exposure at all]? Media is only effective if you allow it to determine whether you end up liking something or not. One of the most disheartening things the other day was hearing a friend of mine say that she didn't like Merlefest as much this year because of the buzz generated by the "O Brother" film. Did it affect the quality of musicianship or songwriting there? Hardly. $0.02 |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Nikolita on Jun 9th, 2002, 9:53am I didn't mean to make it sound as if all punk is, is what you wear. There is a certain sound, a certain feeling, I don't know how to describe it... But if some old man wearing a suit and tie were to break out in it... it would still be punk. It's got that angst, that bitter sound, the hard core electric guitar, something that's made to make your parents hate it. I caught my mom humming the Avril Lavigne song the other day and I noticed she has two Pink cd's... maybe my mom is just weird. anyway, take care! nikolita^_^ |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by redskittle on Jun 14th, 2002, 7:16pm Hey, I'm the friend that Nikolita mentioned in her initial post. My point was more about image, and the impact that marketing makes on an artist's appearence. My main concern with Avril Lavigne is that if she does indeed dress like a riot grrl skate-punk, then she probably doesn't actually sing mass-produced pop. Or if she is actually a pop artist, then she probably doesn't dress that way. Perhaps I'm wrong, but with the way that record companies manage and produce the commercial images for their artists, I suspect that Avril was handed either her songs or her outfit (and the word "grrl" used on the ad for her album) by a profit-minded record executive. |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by MatU2 on Jun 14th, 2002, 7:38pm Thats ridiculous.. Just because you dress like a "skater" girl it doesn't mean that you can't sing pop or that its forced upon her by the record label... Actually I believe she writes her own songs... I think Avril Lavigne has a lot of talent for a girl her age. Mat |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Jareed on Jun 14th, 2002, 8:08pm and really, even if it is a 'fake' image (in avril's case, i dont think it is, but i do think she tries too hard to point that out), what's the big deal? most people on this board would deem that 'morally' wrong or whatever, but so what? it's cliche to say this, but what is real? just because i think something is a certain way doesnt mean it is. maybe sarah slean sucks really bad, but you cant prove it. and maybe she doesn't, and you cant prove that either. false image/ 'fakeness'/ being 'real' etc is something that is intangible, you can't measure something like that. and you can't apply rules to it either. |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 15th, 2002, 3:58pm Ok, all together my 2 cents adds up to maybe a buck in this subject...but here goes... Last time: hehe I'll use ME *yipee* as a comparison. I listen to radiohead, sarah slean, herbie hancocck, harry nilsson, oscar peterson, randy newman, beck, bjork, portishead, glen gould, squarepusher, system of a down, zero 7...etc etc I dress: baggy cord pants, thick cut black squaretoe shoes, home made shirts (radiohead, Starsky n Hutch, Willy Wonka, Glen Gould) Buddy Holly glasses...messy spiked hair...goatee Does this reflect a guy who plays pop music? what should I wear if I play pop music? Is this what I wear? I'm just sayin, if Avril dresses like punk because she may listen to punk and LIKE punk, thats cool...but, she does write and sing *basically* pop music. It doesn't mean she must sing it just cause she likes or dresses it. I would love to be in Radiohead, I could contribute, but THIS, MY MUSIC, THAT is what I'm good at, it comes natural. Maybe Avril would love to sing like a punk, but pop comes natural. MAYBE, just MAYBE she's being told what to do like a puppet and dresses that way to appeal to teens, conning them into thinking she is PUNK music. I IMAGINE people look at me thinkin, wow he must try to write like Thom Yorke or he likes whacked out indie music so he must write like that... Nah What you wear reflects you...not JUST your musical style. I think perhaps that this subject is fantastic though, it allows people to share thier views... J later |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Raoul_C. on Jun 15th, 2002, 6:46pm Its expensive to dress like the music you listen to...I wont waste money to buy a NY hat to look like fred durst. Music that sells an image promotes segregation... but now that they have so called punk bands playing pop. the good old music industry is blurring the lines between music genres. Perception is another thing. people say that they listen to a certain kind of music because in their mind its good...but really its the style they are trying to portray, so they fit in with their friends or be different from others. |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Nikolita on Jun 15th, 2002, 7:35pm I don't think that she should have to dress to match her style of music... but what I think is happening is that she is trying to sell herself into a genre of music that has become popular by wearing the attire of that other style of music... I don't think you have to agree... but that's what it seems like to me. Great arguments though... *phew* nikolita^_^ |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by MatU2 on Jun 15th, 2002, 11:04pm ohhhhh you like Zero 7! Did you see them live yet? They were brilliant! :) Mat on 06/15/02 at 15:58:32, guyfromARGYLEROAD wrote:
|
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 16th, 2002, 8:58am Zero 7 are fantastic. I have yet to see them live. Though I HAVE talked to um, Sophie Barker in email. She sings on the Simple Things CD. She's coo. You can get her email off the guestbook at www.emalinedelapaix.com Gzunetights, Jaysef |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 16th, 2002, 9:01am P.S. Despite all our talk of Avril, I work in a CDPLUS.COM store and get to hear it a lot, her album. I will honestly say that it is well done. I like "I'm With You" great track, from whatever genre it may stem I have no idea. But, give it a listen if you like POP music. Skip the overplayed single and skip SK8TER BOI as well. Good music is good music. Just cause I don't dig on Dylan doesn't mean that you won't. haha JaYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY :-X |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Raoul_C. on Jun 16th, 2002, 12:03pm yah me's have avrils album... whatever happened to dylans sons band? The thing with avril is that they really hyped up her music. i wonder where will she be in 6 months |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 16th, 2002, 2:36pm True, I want my grin to have some longevity. The Wallflowers kinda were just that, WALLFLOWERS, meaning: They don't do much. *in a roundabout way* I thought they did fairly well for being an extremely boring group. All the best to them. Avril will be at the bottom of the play list for a lot of people. It happens to the very best of them. When it comes right down to it, a flash in the pan is still just a flash, some flashes are brighter...some...not as bright. Go rent WAKING LIFE...J |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Raoul_C. on Jun 17th, 2002, 8:12am waking life is an expensive dvd |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by Jareed on Jun 17th, 2002, 7:38pm you know, in the august of the same year Whoa, Nelly! by furtado came out, i thought she was gonna be just another pretty face flash in the pan. 3 months later i was obsessed... and the girl just won a Grammy and some MMVAs ... congrats to her by the way off topic, anybody seen mulholland dr.?! WTF is all i have to say |
||
|
Title: Re: the state of music . . . Post by guyfromARGYLEROAD on Jun 18th, 2002, 5:48am #1: Waking Life DVD is very expensive but with my discount I get it for cost. #2: Mullholland Drive looks WHACK. I like Lynch Jay |
||
|
|