![]() |
Mainstream Music
DISCLAIMER: Sorry for repeating myself A LOT. And being A little bias.
Mainstreamism. And why it’s bad. Lil’ Wayne, Lady Gaga, Chris Brown, Rhianna, Katy Perry, and Soulja Boy are all perfect examples of what mainstream music is. They all sound the same, and they all have similar lyrics. I’m not talking about a Katy Perry and Lil’ Wayne next to each other of course, but Lil’ Wayne and Soulja Boy could be the same “artist.” Their music sounds the same with that bassy kick landing on the same beats every time, and that annoying snare roll you always hear in their “transitions.” I put the word “artist” in quotations because it is very freely thrown around in the common day. It is very hard for me to call people like Lil’ Wayne and Chris Brown, “artists.” They are not coming up with anything new, and they are not doing anything that is original, they are going with what they know and they are copying (for lack of a better word) what everyone else is doing, making it (their “music”) mainstream. I am not just talking about music here. there is mainstream physical art (i.e. painting, drawing, etc...), mainstream fashion, mainstream television, and a bunch more. Mainstream art forms hinder creativity. When mainstream artists put in your head that what everything their doing is the right way to go, then the generation it pertains to will follow that, thus losing all creativity. The point I am trying to make here that mainstream art forms are in no way, beneficial. And the media is shoving mainstream art forms down peoples throats and its slowly killing creativity and hindering people who wish to stray away from the “norm.” Artist Statement. The Ass-Backwards Of Mainstream. I made this one a picture because it would be impossible to send people the same message in words. In this photo you can see a boy standing there in cloths that you would generalise as over-worn, saying, “I’m A Follower.” then you can see a group of people behind him who all look the same saying, “I’m an individual.” What this is saying is that being an individual has become the new mainstream. The media and other people have put the idea in your heads that being an individual is the good thing to do, and so everyone then states that they are individuals, but since everyone is now an “individual,” individualism is no longer the unique thing to do, and thus it becomes mainstream. The “follower” is now the unique one since being a “follower” is not the “good” thing to do so everyone gravitates away from it. This picture is showing the other “use” of mainstream art forms. The definition of original is not what is common. But if there was no common there would be no original, so there must be a common for their to be a unique. What I am saying is that there needs to be mainstream art forms for there to be not mainstream art forms. Mainstream art forms are beneficial when used as a comparison to make not mainstream art forms look good, but mainstream art forms in themselves are not good things. P.S. I contradict myself in the second article, 10 points if you can find it. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Mainstream makes money, that's all. It's funny because people who dislike it argue and debate it all they want, while the company execs who enjoy the money being made market it more and more, collaborating with other companies to put it out there.
Such as DDR Extreme 2 and later... We can argue like an unorganized rebellion, or we could do something like organized protesters. That's what it comes down to. But as long as people try to dominate as leader of the pack instead of contributor to the cause, it won't be done. |
Re: Mainstream Music
I dislike most mainstream music..I actually kinda like Lady Gaga though. D:
But eh people are into whatever is "popular". I'm really annoyed at how dance music is going on the radio. It kills me. What's really weird is how I can listen to a song I've had since like 09, and I'm still not tired of it, but as soon as it's mainstream it's like PASS. But uh, I don't know what else to say about it. :s Oh, and just checked out your site. I like Push It. c: |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
also, not sure what the debate is here, it's basically just you ranting about mainstream music (probably because you are such an ARTIST yourself right?). |
Re: Mainstream Music
I can listen to mainstream and enjoy it, but I'd prefer to listen to songs that actually have a meaning, especially ones that have catchy tunes or very beautiful music.
If I ever listen to mainstream, the reason being is because of the beats and not the rap or the song itself (music one would normally dance to in parties, etc.) |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
First article is extremely opinionated, like waaayyyy to one side. And its not me ranting whatsoever. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Globalization and rapid diffusion of popular culture to the core and to the periphery making the whole dam world an isotropic plane as auto-tuning and cheesy lyrics are ubiquitous. The folk culture preserved within world beats and in general, original music is facing cultural indifference by the globalized uniform people of today.
It is almost like ethnic cleansing in a perspective of the people being cleansed are the folk culture and the cleansers being the hierarchy of popular culture. P.S. It makes sense, i am just trying to prepare for my AP human geo exam ****. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffff......
globalization = .... the diffusion (spread) of popular culture popular culture = in this case mainstream music folk culture = in this case non-mainstream music isotropic plane = everything is the same. ( think of mcdonalds and a kfc or another fast food resturant being near) ubiquitous = everywhere (i.e. water) ethnic cleansing = killing, raping, burning someone of a different ethnicity but in this case i am modeling it as the non-mainstream artists SUM: Mainstream music aint making it any easier for non-mainstream music to get out there. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
I think the best part is to ask oneself to define mainstream. The definitions you'd receive may astonish you.
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Music is music, sadly. Mainstream artists are always going to base their works on 'underground' trends to sell out to that trend's demographics and cash in on it regardless of creativity or not.
Contrary to the above, mainstream music isn't my cup of tea. Maybe I'll find one or two songs decent by a mainstream artist albeit, I'm more of a "hipster", as they call it. |
Re: Mainstream Music
If the band/artist didn't take an hour of bored music surfing to find, chances are it's not any good.
Granted there are exceptions. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Mainstream music is evolutionary and its fitness criterion is $$$. Its purpose isn't to make you happy, its purpose is to make $$$. Turns out the best way to do this is to be as catchy as possible while also being as vapid as possible, oops.
Anyway this isn't going to change until the record industry disintegrates. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Basically this
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
Favorited on youtube. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
wait till dubstep becomes a sellout
|
Re: Mainstream Music
With Magnetic Man, it already is.
|
Re: Mainstream Music
I've been attending a d.i.y. punk-rock venue for 5 years now, and am now a volunteer/booking agent there. I get to chose bands to play certain shows, invite touring bands to play, and etc. Nobody at our space (www.1919hemphill.org) gets paid. None of the local bands get paid. The money is split evenly between the space to pay the bills and stay open, and the touring bands to pay for gas so they can get to the next stop on their tour.
We charge $6 at the door. No more, no less, no matter what. We've been open for 8 years and we're still going strong. There are more places like this around the United States, in big cities and small towns alike. The way I see it, anything that isn't d.i.y. is mainstream. Any band that has had funding from a record label to put out their next release is mainstream. Any band that plays at House of Blues is mainstream. Any band that plays at a concert where actual profit is made is mainstream. The profit from a band's t-shirt goes to the materials used to make the shirt and any future batches of shirts, gas money, and instrument costs. The profit from a band's album goes to the materials used to make the album and any future albums, gas money, and instrument costs. It's simple. BEING A MUSICIAN DOES NOT PAY THE BILLS. Now about the mainstream: The state of the music industry is regressing to what it was back in the old days of opera houses and music halls. Artists don't make any money off their recordings. Back then, there was no way to record. New-age musicians have grown accustomed to the fact that they will not make money on their recordings and have adapted, ushering in the indie scene. The indie scene is largely based on live performances. Albums are sold for $5-$10 directly from the artist, which is significantly less than the $12-$18 you would pay at the mall's CD store several years ago. I've heard the argument before that an artist that allows you to download their music for free will reach more people than an artist that doesn't, making them more successful. The record industry is losing money and it is becoming more apparent every day that their case is not worth defending. Edit: As for dubstep, it always has been a sellout genre. When producers noticed that 1/10 cars on the road is blasting enormous amounts of bass, it became obvious that heavy bass lines (found in Drum n Bass and rap) and pop-sensation remixes would bring a great amount of profit. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
apparently none of you have every partied to lil jon
SHOTS SHOTS SHOTS SHOTS |
Re: Mainstream Music
For the predictable and similar music structure, they have a purpose. It's what defines a genre, a sound, a mood, which are taken into consideration by the artist that best fits the idea they have for the song. There is nothing wrong with mainstream music doing this, and has been a practice far longer than modern music. We need these things to cling on to, and the more substantial and innovative bits shouldn't be the dominating factor of a song. If it becomes too weird or challenging, no one will want to hear it. We need familiar territory, then be sold the innovative idea once on the ride. Most of the time we don't even need an innovative idea for a great song. The Beatles' early career was based on nothing relatively innovative. Standard Mersey Beat numbers, based on American blues. If I had a dollar for every time they had a 12 Bar blues, or their middle-eight (bridge) in the subdominant key, boy I'd be rich. But even then, they did have novel ideas which made them strong songwriters, aside from being extremely charismatic and their conscious lyrics. Take the song P.S I Love You for example, one of the very first songs they ever written (since most of their songs, even in the Quarrymen days, were covers) had some interesting musical ideas (arguably equals their later years). Among these are the interesting use of the flat-VI and flat-VII chord on a D major progression. You really start to take notice the subliminal effect this subtle motion has on our musical subconscious as we start to become aware of the cadences it presents; they resolve deceptively, yet tenderly, in the verses, and provide a humbling realistic shyness that coyly plays hide-and-seek on your emotions, that otherwise belies the cookie-cutter-Valentine of the lyrical content.
With their success by appealing to such a great amount of audiences, they were able to expand their horizons, taking on the influence of the great Bob Dylan. This affected their music with more introverted and sarcastic songs (innovative elements at the time), and steered them towards more folksy instrumentation. This ultimately gave them more praise. Midway in their career, the psychedelic turn of 1966 can be contributed by two factors: The Beatles' massively influential Revolver (and the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds for the other side of the Pond), and the common practice of drugs, notably weed and the then-experimental LSD. As the Beatles were quickly becoming the most successful band ever, they were given exclusive access to the Abbey Road studio, and continued to progress to distance themselves from the traditional tropes of rock music, as seen in their last two albums, Rubber Soul and Revolver. This lead to what would be consider the greatest recording of all time, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. In retrospect, one would wonder how would psychedelic music be so critically important in a time when music was more about marketing, and not a medium of fine arts. If it did then, why not now? The truth in this lies in the fact that music is only as important as the people making it. Music has traditional structures that make them successful (even as avant-garde Pepper might seem, it still contains very traditional elements). Artists are people, but they represent a reflection of their society of their generation (validating the Beatles' success post-psychedelic era). This is what makes them appealing. In a sense, they are leaders that liberate all our feelings of love, trepidation, glee, our beauties, and flaws. They are giants among common men, which can be said about anyone who's famous. There are two types of people in this world, common people, and famous people. The line between them is the exposure they have, and their influence on culture they have as a whole (the public eye, basically). So essentially, famous people are common people too, and that's why we're so intrigued by them. Good music isn't on how one melody moves on to the next, or what instrument they use, but they do indeed help. Ultimately the best kind of music is the kind that comes from real artists that people can believe in, and seek to be relevant and important, social, political, and cultural, for anything else is bound to fade away. As I was just elaborating, the best music isn't from great musicianship alone. It's about the human consciousness as a whole, and artists like Radiohead and Nirvana do that not by going mainstream, but making the greater mainstream go to them. There will never be another Beatles, and that's not because they were so good, but because what makes an artist's music important and great is what it says about them and the state of people as a whole. Yeah, there are a lot of not-so great artists out now, and it does appear that mainstream is stagnating. But going around and saying what makes Radiohead substantial over so-and-so, or Outkast is better than whoever isn't the way to go about it. We listen to who we want because they speak to us, and make us feel important and relevant like them (not like the least common denominator). So not every artist out there needs to go nuts in India like the Beatles, become paranoid electronica in the spirit of Bjork (who was actually not weird in her early career) like Radiohead, or be all types of bat-sh*t crazy like The Mars Volta (who don't get a lot of critical praise). This is why a hip-hop (say, Beastie Boys?) hit that was meant to get you partying is no less significant than a Daft Punk hit, because they essentially have the same goal. Music is culture. The defining point that gives a song a marginal merit over the next is just how culturally significant it is, and even then its a trivial thing to be aware of. Whether you like songs because they're mainstream, or the genre, or the sound, is all personal preference. That is entirely different than saying what is good and what is bad, since anything that is getting picked up on any radar makes it mainstream. Some figure this out their own. In my case, I went through Beatlemania. It's really changed my perspective on music, and made me even more open-minded than I already was, which speaks volumes. Now when I listen to something anthemic like Hey Jude, Imagine, or My Iron Lung, I know why it's vital and great. Now when I listen to something that showcases great songwriting like Heart of Glass, Kiss from a Rose, or Born This Way, I know why it's vital and what makes it great. Now when I listen to something that's infectious and real, like Ring of Fire, Now That We Found Love, or Dancing Queen, I know why it's vital and what makes it great. If I want something thought provoking, forward thinking, or unique, I know I can turn to Pink Floyd, Between the Buried and Me, Crystal Castles, or Tool. Whether I like it, or dislike it, or care for mainstream isn't the issue. What I choose to listen to and why is something no one can take. But to discredit mainstream music is a strange statement that I never understood, because mainstream music covers such broad territories (yes, even "underground") and have done so much for music and people as a whole. I don't particularly like Katy Perry, as most of her contributions do little to stimulate music and culture. Though she does have good things about her too, like creating an identity for herself, and using universal themes in her songs. But do we hold her, or others like her, to fault "mainstream" music? Music must be a very dismal and bleak medium for anyone to feel that way. What do you expect to listen to? 18 minute long, recyclable, guitar solos? Shakespearean poetry for lyrics? With this way of thinking, anything will be a gimmick. Maybe Philip Glass is the only one doing it "right". Music is real, whether or not it's mainstream. Don't like this artist even if they are important for valid reasons? That's good, at least you're honest. Speaking words of wisdom, let it be. (Yes, I am that cheesy) |
Re: Mainstream Music
O.o welcome to FFR.
I'll respond to this later. |
Re: Mainstream Music
awesome first post
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
And Mainstream is NOT just peoples way of saying "its too popular and I don't wanna be the same as everyone else" read the OP (Specifically the artist statement). |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, you sacrifice sound quality when you do D.I.Y. recordings. But if it's good music, it will shine through the quality. If you're wondering why you would only get -120 hits on a good day, it's because promotion is hard work. With the powerful tool of the internet, you can promote yourself as well as any record label could, you just have to actually do it. Make yourself a tumblr, upload your poor-quality mp3s, tag them with their respective genres. People looking at said tags will listen to your music, if they enjoy it, they will reblog, and often add something nice to say. Maybe you'll garner enough of a following to go on a tour. Just keep in mind that not even record labels can make it happen over night. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Mainstream music is just there for the sakes of public appeal, commercialism, and its the most general way that people get into music in the first place.
Without mainstream music, what would people listen to, and how would the majority of the populace even get into music (counter-argument would be that bands promote themselves but with too much variety people are never quite satisfied, besides eventually bands would be promoting themselves by shelling out bucks and what not, hence creating a mainstream image, its almost inevitable) Besides debating musical taste is retarded: everyone likes something else. My dad prefers pop, and that's okey dokey. If anything mainstream music serves as the foundation where people can come together, then go in deeper. Many people i grew up with started off with radio/mainstream and eventually split off to whatever they personally liked. If anything be thankful people listen to the radio, be thankful that there are bands/people who are willing to sell themselves as a product for the sakes of entertainment. If it were not for these people, you wouldn't be here making this statement, this thread, you wouldn't be the same person. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Firstly, although there's clearly not another good way to refer to a mainstream artist, many mainstream artists are simply a face to someone else's producing. Those artists that were listed in the OP, I would hardly be surprised if the same producer(s) were being used. Secondly, in regards to indie performances, live performances are great and all, but if you're someone who doesn't even use a live instrument in their music, you can still create something not mainstream, and never really want to play a live show because there's nothing live about the music. Thirdly, by defining mainstream as unoriginal, you're bascially saying nonmainstream is, which means that you haven't thought about the psychology behind what people create as art and why they like it. IMO, mainstream music is just music that's just a little too 'old' sounding to really enjoy it, and it pulls from genres which I may, generally, not like at all. I mean, any music that I'd make right now and what I like now is heavily influenced from what I liked and what I've heard previously.
But overall, all the hate about mainstream is just you being an iconoclast. It really annoys me when someone says that they hate a song because it sounds the same too much, or is just like everything else, because if you actually listen to what they like to listen, someone who dislikes what they like could say the same thing about their own musical taste. But because you like it, it doesn't matter if it all sounds the same, because that sameness is still good to your ear. |
Re: Mainstream Music
I want to make love to Katy Perry, but I hate her music.
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
oh f*** lady gaga alright |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
I actually like Lady Gaga. Does anyone know how fuccing talented that woman is on instruments? And I kinda like weird chicks anyway. Also, the transvestite shit aint true. And even if it was, i'd still fucc her.
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
Yes, it would be awkward. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Kesha has no talent that I know of Katy Perry is Hot Justin Beiber is a little girl with terrible hair. I actually Love Lady Gaga and Lil Wayne lol I love to hear other people's input though
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
mainstream music sucks therefore i am smart listen to this generic newgrounds music that i worked 15 minutes on in fl studio
|
Re: Mainstream Music
There is no truly successful mainstream artist with no visual representation. Music wouldn't be what it is without television and youtube.
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Mainstream Korean pop is awesome.
I used to like Lady GaGa until I decided I didn't want to be part of a bunch of braindead idiots who think she is a God or something. Plus I really liked the way she looked in Poker Face. The black eyebrows and ugly yellow hair is ugh. And her songs are ugh now too. I listen to pop music for the fun of it, which is why The Fame was so great. And so was The Fame Monster (the music videos for that album were godawful though). After that I just completely lost interest in her. Plus the fans are annoying as fck. It's annoying to see some asswipe go to music vids of someone I like and say "Looks like Lady GaGa". I mean, seriously, fck off. Fans are so dumb. Just cause Lady GaGa does something or wears something, it's automatically credited to her. Practically everything she has ever worn is a total rip of Roisin Murphy and even Madonna. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Main stream music really sucks these days. Not going to sugar-coat it, mainly because - like what some people said - it's about money. "Artists" these days have figured out the best way to make money is to slap together the worst possible sounding sh*t into some amazing sounding late 80's-early 90's music.
All I ever hear on the radio from rappers are how they either: -Have sex with random girls -Do drugs -Have money -Have been hurt from some girl -How they think they are better than everyone in the world It's really getting repetitive. It also seems like a bunch of mainstream "music" is just auto-tuned crap. If I could simply talk into a microphone and have someone edit what I said into some robotic sound, then turn that into something that will make people freakout whenever they hear it, I'll start saving for an auto-tuner. It also seems like there is a new "number one hit" on the radio every week. People who listen to mainstream "music" remind me a lot of hardcore multiplayer fans - they will play/listen to whatever is newest, and then stop playing/listening to whatever when the next game/"song" comes out. People these days are easily distracted. They have about has much attention span as my cat. The only thing they ever seem to listen to is whatever happens to be playing on the radio. And I know this because the bus I take to and from school is filled with stupid people who listen to mainstream crap, and I hear a different song coming from a different "artist" or group every week. And people love it... how terrible. One last thing: I thoroughly believe that the current mainstream "music" is corrupting the younger generation. On top of what I mentioned above, rap "songs" tend to talk about murder, rape, and gangs. Ever heard of the NWA? It stands with n-word With Attitude. Believe it or not, they actually have a song called "Cop Killer." And they also have a song called "Express yourself." Killing cops... expressing who you "truly are," these could possible be contributing to younger kids becoming more troubled. I rest my case. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Cop Killer was written by Body Count, not NWA.
Ice-T (the lead singer) wasn't even associated with NWA . . . As for liking mainstream, and saying that it's corrupting the minds of the young; what do you think of artists like Mumford & Sons, Coldplay, Relient K, Fleet Foxes, or Imogen Heap? I've yet to really see how artists who have exposure really be negative influence on our minds, as far as who we are as people or choices we make. I let people have their opinions, listen to what they want, like who they like, and all that, but I never understood how they could walk all over an artist and their music, and give it a bad name - because that's no different than slapping the faces of people who enjoy it. We can all come up with reasons why we listen to something, or not like something, and no one will ever be right, if you think about it. I don't know, maybe there's just something wrong with me . . . |
Re: Mainstream Music
Uh NWA didn't do Cop Killer Body Count did
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Its not going to change until people open their eyes to the bs and stop following each other like blind herded sheep. MTV and its jersey shore shit isn't really helping either. Our government wants us to be mindless idiots basically
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
And Treia, it would be difficult for you to understand and realize that I live right next to a very bad city. There are so many troubled kids in that city, and all they seem to listen to is rappers, and it just so happens to be that a good chunk of kids from that city go to the same high school as me, so I can clearly see what terrible people they are. The rap "music" may be contributing to what is making them troubled, but I also blame their parents, but this isn't the thread for that. |
Re: Mainstream Music
I don't want make it sound like I'm a golden rule or exception, but I actually grew up on hip-hop, rap, and reggae. My parents weren't the most positive influence, or best they could be either. I never got the Birds and the Bees talk (I still don't know it, so I have to create my own way to teach my children, if that day comes). They never sat me down to teach me the repercussions of drugs, alcohol, and choices I make. They are heavy drinkers, and smokers (unfortunately). And, well, they never really invested in any of my interests. As you might of guess, I've been severely shorthanded by them, even to this day. I was born in 1990, and urban music was the only music I even considered listening to and liking, up to 2004. In late 2004 was when I actually started to consider other music, and even then, I thought rock and classical was for "pussies". I felt embarrassed when in mid-2005, that's when I started to really like other types of music that I never liked before, and felt like a hypocrite. So you do the math, in all my life, I haven't been listening to other types of music half as long as I have been listening to urban music.
Currently, I'm a fairly open minded, humbled, Hispanic individual. I celebrate all walks of life, and respect everyone, and receive them without bias or prejudice. Hip-hop and Rap are integral to my music life, and dear to me, because they give me a sense of home (I mean, I grow up with it, how can I not?). But to use music as a scapegoat is sheepish, and pussyfoots from the real issue. You brought up the main issue, which is the community that we live in. I grew up in New Jersey (really close to the Jersey shore haha). I wouldn't doubt that if I lived three hours up, in New York, my upbringing might be totally different, even in a negative direction. As sad is it may seem for me to say, "Hey, living in New York means you're going to be a corrupted," but I'm only speaking about it in the sense that it is more realistically possible for it to occur there than elsewhere. I have a lot of friends and family from New York who don't even have a shred of the "hood" mentality, but we can't dismiss that urban life has its negative effects. It's important to note that there are no absolutes as to what really may or may not make a person "corrupt", like me growing up in New Jersey, should we consider Mark Chapman. In regards to negative lifestyles, the connotation of bad neighborhoods and upbringing can be attributed to the lifestyles of the people who live there. But again, using music as the culprit is dead wrong. Not everyone is passionate about music. Some people listen to it just because it's there. Realizing this, who are we to say that music has a considerable effect on anybody knowing that not everyone really cares about music? Music is a form of expression, and urban artists do express their hood lives, but they don't do it to commandeer our minds or body to take action in anything; that's solely our doing. Like Cop Killer, looking over the lyrics, or listening to the song, one might get the impression that cops are bad people, the enemy, and we must do away with them. To people in tuned with music, they would understand that it wasn't a song to say let's kill cops, because it was a response to the unjustified brutalities of the 90's, but the artists' social commentary and metaphysical concept to this issue that's more relevant as a statement then as it is now. But what about the people who are indifferent to music? If an artist is writing about the hood life, are they to blame for lives people live? What people listen to, how they listen to it, where they hear the music, is totally out of the artists' control. Sure, they have a responsibility for the music that they write, like any action we commit, but that's what makes them an artist. If not, we might as well program robots to write music. The state of a neighborhood is governed more by the people who live there, and not the music that just so happens to be popular in that area. Public Enemy's "Fight the Power" is the only song I can honestly say was relatively created to incite a mental movement and reaction in the listener. I feel that some of the lyrics were a bit abrasive, but these challenging expressions of truth are necessary to grow from. If we become corrupt individuals, we as people are to blame. People who force on us negative lifestyle choices, like violence, and theft. People who force on us negative and unrewarding ways of thinking. We are a product of what we take in from the world. We might not have a choice of where we live, and some of us have it so hard that there is no easy escape. Yes, music does define a culture, but plays no major role in who we are and what we do. Ultimately, we have full control and final say of who we are, and what we do, as our surroundings is ours to discretion their potency to us. Corruption is us as a person who tries to be like other people, perhaps from fear, or for our ill-perceived notion of "success". People who can help or guide others from growing up corrupted like this, but don't, are more to blame than music, because I've yet to see anyone toting music like the Bible. Blaming, and taking away music isn't the solution, because another art form will be in its place, because art is everywhere and will always be everywhere, regardless the type or demographic. If music's purpose was to really dictate our lives like "Think this way. Live this way. Express yourself this way. This is the truth, and the only truth," wouldn't you think we'd all have the same opinions and beliefs? If I was listening to Beethoven on my iPod, and I walked passed you, would you instinctively know all of this about me? Let's say scenario A doesn't happen. Instead, what if I walked passed you one day, and I had the Marshall Mathers LP in my headphones, would you tell me to stop listening to it, and say I'm being corrupted? (yes, these are rhetorical questions) |
Re: Mainstream Music
So much reading....
I'm not saying that it is rap or hip-hop's fault for corrupting children, I'm saying that it could be a contributing factor. And even if it's not, I have noticed that kids with troubled lives usually listen to some form of rap or hip-hop. And you can't say your life wasn't troubled because you said your parents never seemed to take interest in your interests. Living right next to Pontiac, and having half of their teenage population come to my high school makes me clearly see that there are a bunch of troubled kids, and they just so happen to listen to rap. And how do I know this? Because they can't shut up about their favorite rapper. They are rude, disrespecting, troubled, and ignorant. I'm not saying you are, but these kids... are terrible. Once again, I'm not saying it's rap's fault, but it could contribute to it. I think the main contributing factor to troubled kids is actually their parents not caring enough for them, but this isn't the thread for that. |
Re: Mainstream Music
I personally think that the music industry involves a lot of hypocritical point of views. The term "mainstream" honestly is used for music performers that make a salary out of the music they create for the general public, whatever you would call mainstream music. Over the years there has been invalid arguments over ridiculous points and those arguments usually tend to venture outside the point. Imo, the only ppl that actually have an understanding of what music really is are the people that really do listen to EVERYTHING. By listen to everything I don't mean a couple songs that happen to be in that genre, I mean the same way you listen to hip hop or metal or country or whatever the fucc ppl listen to these days. Those are the only ppl. And even those ppl can be biased because they still favor one genre over the other music. And who doesn't do that? The biased opinions will always exist. Whatever music that you really enjoy, I haven't one doubt in my mind that you have at least one biased opinion on it. I like to enjoy music that has a lot of musicianship and creativity(dare I say). With that, I listen to metal, all kinds(and that's why I said, "dare I say"). I enjoy it because I am a musician myself and have been playing guitar for years. Except I can't say the same for metalcore, that's repetitive bullshit(see what i mean?? lol). But I also enjoy other music too, because sometimes, when you wanna chill and listen to some tunes, Derek Rydquist or Randy Blythe aren't the ideal chill-out singers to listen to.
.... totally forgot where I was really going with all this, but idgaf. I wasnt on the debate team in high school for a reason. |
Re: Mainstream Music
@OP:
Honestly, I don't understand why people, in this day in age, make such a big deal about mainstream music. To be completely honest with you, most of the "mainstream" music you see are usually directed towards a younger crowd - a crowd of people who are not (YET) capable of forming a unique taste of music. You have to think about the technological advancements we've made when considering something like mainstream music. Not too long ago, before the internet was prevalent amongst the general public, usually what you heard on TV was, more or less, all that you really had a choice of listening to. Now with the internet, more musicians have the possibility of being discovered. More musicians are capable of self-promotion without some giant record label assisting them. Before the internet was relevant, you never ran across people ranting about how bad mainstream music is. I have such a wide variety in terms of taste of music. I listen to, and thoroughly enjoy everything from classical music, to rap, to dubstep, to classical rock, to folk, to jazz, to instrumental music, to culturally themed music (ie. Icelandic music, polish music, African music, japanese music). Some young people I know haven't yet developed a true understanding for what music is. Most people listen to a certain band as a way to ultimately fit a certain image. I don't do that. I listen to what makes me happy. My music taste is so personal and often times people become confused (to say the least) when they take a look-see through my iPod. Usually people who feel the need to boast to others or imply that they have a better sense of music are the ones who contribute to this problem. The mainstream artists you mentioned: Lil' Wayne, Lady Gaga, Chris Brown, Rhianna, Katy Perry and so on; while these artists produce what most would consider "generic" music, it gives young people a place to start on their journey of music. How many people in their 30's do you know of that exclusively listen to mainstream music? Little to none. Mainstream music is no different than mainstream fashion. Young people are likely to be seen wearing things like Hollister, Abercrombie and Fitch, New Era, North Face, American Eagle etc. Mainstream things give young people a foundation to begin as they grow older, they develop a more personal and unique sense of music. In the end, I don't really see what good it does for someone to complain about it. As long as there's media, there will be mainstream music. The fact that you're aware of this is a good thing, I suppose, but arguing about it and pointing out how "bad" it is won't do you any good. The whole argument behind what's "good" and what's "bad" is, needless to say, completely subjective. Different music serves beneficial purposes depending on the situation. I'd gladly listen to one of Lil Wayne, or Lady Gaga's songs at a party - this isn't to say that I'd prefer the same when I'm on a subway ride across the city, in which case I'd prefer to listen to something like Explosions in the Sky, Radiohead, etc. It's all relative. When it comes to this topic of debate, there's are two extremes and a medium, in my opinion. On on of the extremes, you have like-minded people who all too often listen to what everyone else is listening to and very rarely have respect for those who have a unique or "deviant" sense of music. On the other extreme, you have pretentious, elitist, music snobs who are so close-minded when it comes to music. To them, anything mainstream is worthless. They rarely even bother to give it a chance - and oftentimes INTENTIONALLY seek out to find/listen to musicians that very little people are aware of. In the middle, you have what I would like to consider people who have a fundamental understanding for what music really is. These are people who understand the benefits of submerging themselves into both a mainstream music culture as well as a non-mainstream music culture. These are people who listen to certain music because of how it makes them feel, not how it makes them appear (to everyone else). These people embrace the diversity of everyone's music tastes and don't subject themselves to one or two genres of music exclusively. Once people realize that there is no definitive answer to what "GREAT MUSIC" constitutes - there is no one genre to what the best music falls under, they will develop a true understanding for what music really is. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
@3lijah: I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Whenever someone asks what I listen to, I am at a loss as to what to say. Do I answer with the general genres I occupy myself with? Do I answer the artists that I (personally) can't live without? I listen to anything and everything, so I just told myself I should answer with, "Music", because I listen to music, and not "whoever" or "so-and-so" because there are too many things for me to note and consider just to pick. But I'll back up your observation, because even I am biased to a certain type. It almost feels like I'm an acclaimed cuisine critic and historian, but have a passion for microwave food. I can't describe my love for Chinese traditional folk music. I can indulge in what makes classical music, or prog-rock/metal, or any artist for that matter, complex and have incredible musicianship. But there's this spiritual connection to Chinese traditional music that captivates me. It's more about culture, I think, because it transports me into a new state, and it's not about listening to "music", but more about "being" and "living" in that moment. I realized this because I can be immensely effected by their music that isn't melodic and/or harmonic. Most of their melodic/harmonic music comes from the instruments the guqin, xun, erhu, pipa, or voice (I love their work songs haha). But their strictly rhythmic music that are just chanting and percussion instruments, even if it's a droning lone cymbal, has the same power as their "beautiful" music. So maybe I can't even relate it to this thread, since it's more about an experience, rather than the conventional act of listening. When I first heard it (with a conscience mind), it felt like I've been hearing these sounds for a lifetime. Perhaps it's an imprint of one of my past lives haha |
Re: Mainstream Music
Jesus. Are these guys alts? If not, you two should post more.
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
So what I'm saying is, you're wrong. People have ranted about mainstream music before internet was relevant. It was just a different style of music that was mainstream at the time. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
Now, you compared Soulja Boy and Lil Wayne being the same "artist" because of their instrumental, instead of their lyrics. Well first off, Soulja Boy and Lil Wayne have far different types of instrumentals used in their albums. Take Soulja Boys recent song "Speakers Going Hammer"(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbGJCT3R154) for instance. This song just by listening to the first 10 seconds I can tell that there's two different types of "snares" in this beat, being and actual snare, and a clap which would be the snap sound. Then you have the hit sound during the hook, and then the "snare" part changes temporarily. This concept, of two snares, a base, and a hit is common in Soulja Boys music. Just listen to "Turn My Swag On" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRme0C2pmI) same concept.. Now if you actually listened to the lyrics of the song you'd notice that it's almost the opposite of what Lil Wayne raps about. Young Jeezy's new song Ballin' with Lil Wayne (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tYMAwN73Lw) is a completely different beat. Using a BOOM BOOM BAP type of beat. Meaning, you get two base hits, and a snare hit per measure, and sometimes you'll get that third 16th note right before a base hit. Then we have the "annoying snare roll" you were talking about. It's actually called a hi-hat. This being lots of 8th and 16th notes using one or more different hi-hats to create the "roll" effect. This my friend is the difference. The second song i explained, (Ballin') is more of a dirty south beat, were-as soulja boy's speakers going hammer, is more of a west coast style beat. Hardly the same "artist" if you ask me. Now lets get to probably one of the dumbest things I've read on the internet to date. You say Quote:
That's just me defending music, sure i just talked about Hip-hop, but that's what this idiot decided to attack. I think you should learn more about music, and it's community, before you go attacking it on public forums. You might get sued, or worse, trolled. Your a dumbass, and that's sugar coating it for the sake of your virgin eyes. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
I'm sure im telling you something you've probably heard before, but don't let your parents lack of presence change you as a person, though im almost certain you've already acknowledged that, and triumphed. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Lil' Wayne has some serious UNMAINSTREAM albums, whatever album that pick the world up thing is on is completely against everything.
But it only made like 1/1000 of his other crap, so why care about integrity or however that's spelt/spelled. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Thanks for your words, Litholia!
You're right, I didn't let my parent influence me negatively. Yes, they way the raised me does give a bad taste in my mouth, and usually the mouths of people who I tell the story, but I love my parents more than anything. Instead of taking their influence in the easy (negative) way as a kid, I took the cards I've been dealt and made those influence me positively. The main message I was trying to get across is that we all have influences, and I wasn't trying to neuter music as influence-less (because that's not possible). However, to say someone is the way they are and why they do what they do ("corrupted") because of music doesn't seem logical. I never made my choices, or geared my personality, to reflect the music I listen to. I just don't see why anyone would say, "I do this because of the music I listen to," or "I am this way for the music I want to listen to," so to say it contributes isn't something I'm entirely comprehending. If we had a life couch or were in therapy, does the therapist ask what music we listen to that might diagnose our personality issues? I don't even think that would be a professional diagnosis. Since there are people who are indifferent to music, it's not a legitimate source of "corruption". Also, when I brought up Mark Chapman, not everyone listens to rap, so how would a therapist suggest the "right" music for someone to correct "corruption"? Will he suggest "good" music? Therapists are the only one who know good music? Is the music you're listening to responsible why you're a good person ( does your music really tell you to be the positive and respectable individual you may be)? If so, should everyone listen to what you're listening to? This is relevant to the topic because it is all about mainstream music, and hip-hop/rap (a very mainstream format) was the leading music form in my life. Discussing the psychological and sociological implications of hip-hop/rap is just as relevant what makes it good/bad since it is a recognized art form and an immediate mainstream genre. Another thing to notice is that not everyone is the way they are forever. To say that we're identical to the person we were years ago doesn't seem very possible. I believe people can grow and change, such as their interests, type of people they like (as friends, or romantically), and even their music interests. Fractions of ourselves grow and change sometimes on a daily basis, and sometimes more over the long-term. I'm not saying that everyone will eventually be perfect, respectful, and grateful people. There are criminals, and will always will be criminals. But to say someone is doing it right by being respectful now doesn't mean they're certainly not going to be a criminal or do something that people think is a very negative choice for them in the future (happy people commit suicide). Same thing goes for someone who is "corrupted" in the here and now. |
Re: Mainstream Music
"On the other extreme, you have pretentious, elitist, music snobs who are so close-minded when it comes to music. To them, anything mainstream is worthless. They rarely even bother to give it a chance - and oftentimes INTENTIONALLY seek out to find/listen to musicians that very little people are aware of."
Not 'giving mainstream music a chance' isn't necessarily bad. Firstly, even me when I'm being a hermit, I still manage to get bombarded by mainstream music. I hear it, ergo I am forced to give it a chance. Secondly, even if I like it, a lot of music grows old. I'm certain this happens to everyone. To me, the more I hear the song is strongly related to how soon it will get 'old' to my ears. This means that even if I like mainstream music, it has a good chance of growing old without me ever intentionally listening to it. Lastly, if people never sought out non-mainstream music purposefully, well, we'd have no new mainstream music. On an aside, I think that beyond all the cultural aspect of music, I really think you will rarely have a mainstream piece of music not be catchy. If we could somehow define 'catchiness', I think we would also find that we would find that the catchiest songs also get old the quickest. I did read a psychology study done in the 1920's regarding how much enjoyment people got out of classical versus pop (the study talked about it as pop, but they did refer to it as jazz at some points.) I don't remember the details, but after each listen to either classical or pop song(s), which I'm presuming the participants hadn't heard at all before, they rated how much they liked it. The peak of enjoyment to the jazz song happened after only a few listens, while the very last time the people heard the classical song was the most enoyment they had of it, implying that even further listens would make them like it more. |
Re: Mainstream Music
lil b the based god is the greatest artist of all time
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Thank god it wasn't Viagra.
I have enough supplies of that already . . . . |
Re: Mainstream Music
Yeah i dont dig any mainstream at all, i stick to my metal and classic rock ;)
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Treia, I just finished reading through your posts. you're an inspiration. *standing ovation*
great post made by Fun as well. this topic sure is interesting. thanks for spurring the discussion, midnightraver. I'll just address a couple points that really caught my attention: Quote:
another possible misunderstanding is exactly how people complain about mainstream music. in past decades, some people drew heavy criticism to certain music that was popular at the time. this criticism rarely led to claims that all popular music was horrible compared to other music that was being listened to by far fewer people. in short, the belief that popular music shouldn't even be given a chance has become far more prominent in recent years. Quote:
I'm not going to say I truly endorse the idea, but I do think questionable content in media can have a negative impact on young people. I firmly believe that other factors are far more important for development, however. by the way, I happen to enjoy most hip hop myself :) now for a different note. it seems to me that more and more "indie" acts have achieved mainstream popularity as of late. among the artists you can vote for on vh1's top 20 are Death Cab for Cutie, Kings of Leon, Mumford & Sons, and Two Door Cinema Club. what are everyone's thoughts on this trend? personally, I'm conflicted. I'm glad that more people will be exposed to different types of music, but I'm not looking forward to hearing some songs I would normally love over and over until they no longer seem special to me. |
Re: Mainstream Music
I find that popular indie music has yet to make the 'this will be played in every store you go into, and on half the music radio stations' route. I've noticed it being used more commercially, but I feel like I still have to make a conscious choice to listen to their music.
I agree with Treia in that no adult would do something because their fav music group does something, but kids and impressionable teens I think would. Another thought that just occurred to me, is that there are some people who I feel won't listen to music from a certain group not because they are popular per se, but because they don't like the image of the group, or feel they are fake, and will not bother to critique the music separately. (Or perhaps its just those people giving themselves a reason beyond 'I don't like that music' to not listen to it, because they feel they have to justify their tastes somehow or something.) |
Re: Mainstream Music
Well, thank you, dAnceguy117!
Now I'm understanding that whole concept better. See, that's the type of response I was looking for. When MopeyJoe presented the idea, all he said was "I think it's a contributing factor" to bad behaviors or choices. He provides a stance, but nothing for me to change me mind. I'm all for meaningful discussions, and enjoy changing/expanding my mind, as long as the responses are thought-out, engaging, and with the least bit of credibility. Most of the time, I don't have a clear stance, or make one. My philosophy in debates is that I have to convince myself first before I try to convince others, no matter how compelling the evidence I might have for either side. I do this because I like to see what both sides have to offer, and so I run into less situations where a piece of information or concept I haven't noticed appears, putting me at a disadvantage. I don't try to consider everything so I have a better chance of winning. I try to cover all aspects so that in case of these situations, I still have a shot in the debate, because I'm more about getting to the truth more than I am about winning, so getting pushed out of the debate because of my lack of resourceful thinking makes me feel like I just wasted effort. I don't think I really had a stance or made one, according to the OP, but I only shared my thoughts because I think there's a large misconception about mainstream music. I see it happen everywhere. When I saw the thread title, I was like, "Oh no, don't tell me this is a thread on mainstream music being bad," and it was. I wouldn't have responded if this was a years ago, or even a few months ago. But it was the straw the broke the camel's back, so I felt I should try to stand up for mainstream music, because I think it's misconceived and gets a bad rap for no reason. To be honest, I don't even think there is an argument in the OP. What I take from it is that the they try to make music some sort of accessory for themselves. Seeking individuality with something that somebody else made is kinda preposterous. There wasn't anything that provided a stimulating point on their end, but did set up the foundation of a good dialogue. However, since it's their post, I was hoping more participation from them, because the accompanying analogy doesn't qualify as a validating factor that can prove how mainstreamism (the proposed argument) is bad. What I identified from the analogy is it's more concerned about appearances. What we see creates an identity, and the more we see it, the less it is substantial. So, apparently, mainstream music is bad, and liking it is bad because it supports how mainstream music is hindering the real creativity of unheard artists, and creates an identity for ourselves (which it doesn't for either of these). I don't mind getting back on track to the topic expressed in the OP, so feel free (either the the original poster, or anyone else) to guide me through to what I'm not seeing. I think before anyone can make a claim on mainstream music, they'll either need to have a fair understanding on the advancement of musical expression through the ages, or the economy of commercialism (as far as the topic in the thread is of concern). Before recording, music was an event. You had to make an effort to enjoy music. The experience included dressing up, paying money, then going and staying at a certain area at a certain time. But lo and behold, our technology advances, and music recording was created. Music was no longer transient. It's now this thing with durability, no different than limited edition trading cards. Now the accessibility of music has changed; how we listen to it, how we can listen to it, and it is a never changing performance that can exist far past the time the creator has left us. It shouldn't be a wonder how this greatly affects how it changed our point of view on music as a whole. If you can't understand the concept of how recording changed music and its value, then I can't possibly trust you know enough about commercialism or artistic expression. Sure, you could probably become a music exec to get your foot wet in the principles and effects of commercialism, but you'll ultimately appreciate mainstream music more, and understand its quality as music, and not some fashion trend. To get a better perspective for artistic expression (but on a more immediate scope, ie. here and now) you can become an artist. Writing music isn't hard to do. There a millions of artists out there, so it's safe to say that music isn't exclusive for people who exceed a threshold of intelligence, or other pre-requisites. So yeah, we can make music, but how many of us can make music A LOT of people will like or care to listen to? Music's immediacy and accessibility makes it a whole lot tougher to be something substantial for the greater populace because the average person has a global context of music, whereas before recording, you could only listen to the styling of your neighboring area. Try to be successful and vital before you say someone else's music isn't substantial, because even if it is (not substantial), that doesn't mean ALL of their music is substance-less or unrewarding (1-hit wonders, or coasters [people who "safe" music that plays to what's currently acceptable]). With that above note, that sorta reflects with my thoughts on indie artists getting mainstream exposure. I'm actually glad. Maybe a few years ago, I would of thought it was lame, and wish it wasn't that way. But I would of probably never of heard of Mumford & Sons or Two Door Cinema Club (who actually were getting exposure almost 2 years ago, from World of Jenks) without the exposure they get. I don't care how everyone else gets to it, as long as it has got to me in some form for me to enjoy. I think it's more about us being grateful to listen to an artist more than how we're getting to them, or their exposure (but I sympathize with your statement of worrying us getting tired of it from hearing it too often because of tv/film/radio). If Joanna Newsom or Tom Waits was getting this same exposure, I wouldn't think less of them, and it won't change how I feel when I listen to them. I've been an artist of several projects, so I can see how being a breakthrough artist and having fans can be overwhelming feeling (no, it's not like Facebook friend whoring), so there is a quality of substance even if the music isn't innovative or game-changing. So, yeah, I'm down with indie artists getting mainstream popularity. But, it's not like there is a whole lot of change. Most of the indie artists don't make very high on the top 20. Radiohead, who can't be mistaken with non-mainstream and bad music, didn't even place this year (though, I'm not offended haha). So it's clear where the consensus is. We'll always have weird moments of when the music isn't too great, but there are a lot of fans and commercial success (if it's working, I can't complain), and when the music is different and have a lot of fans, but no commercial success. I'm good friends with Ben Cooper (I was introduced by his younger brother, one of my best friends) who is of Electric President and Radical Face "fame". But he's not a great commercial success. Also, I'm good friends with Rob Roy. He's a rapper from Jacksonville, who has based himself in California now. I first met him when he was in the seminal Cue Estey. Cue Estey really had what it took to be huge, but they broke up in the mid 2000's. Rob Roy is a very talented artist, who like Ben, has a lot of fans and people who like his music, but isn't so much a commercial success. Despite this, I think it's more important that people CAN listen to these artists, rather than how they get heard, etc. etc. Because at the end of the day, we're all just living people dying. (I'm repeating myself now). I hope I provided some ideas to reflect and expand on. |
Re: Mainstream Music
To put this whole debate in simple terms....
People have different likings. Some people will like mainstream some people won't. If you can't agree all music is ok then : I agree to disagree. |
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
|
Re: Mainstream Music
Quote:
that's so cool, dude. wanna tell Ben I'll buy five copies of the most recent Electric President album if he registers here and says hi? hahaha. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution