aimless conversations: like an intermission where the band keeps playing

Today's Music Scene

mahoney:
I think a lot of the msuic that's out today is pure crap with some rare exceptions like hanson or course. It's mainly all rap, hip-hop, dance, techno, junk. Real talented artists can't get theri foot in the door or on radio because of it and it really sucks. Welcome your thoughts on either side of this issue.

koolbeans:
i kind of hate being a part of the hip hop nation .. i mean, i definitely listen to some of it, i can get into a lot of the rap and whatnot... but at the same time it's bringing music to such a low standard. is that wrong? it's possible that i don't like it just because it's not exactly my taste in music... but i really just don't see hip hop as a form of music that requires a terrible amount of talent.

music is made for all different types of reasons, and there are so many different types... but i honestly do not see any positive cultural value in it.

i hope i don't get lynched for this post, but by all means, if i'm wrong then please educate me! because these are feelings i've always had toward hip hop, and i don't really like that i look down my nose at it.

mmmbopme25:
I dislike a lot of rap... a lot of it sounds so similar, with the guy holding the top of the steering wheel with all of his "bitches" saying "I'm pimpin' it wit' mah thugz, g!" and the numerous variations of that phrase. there are a lot of rappers that are unique, like Eminem and Kanye West maybe (except that "Through the Wire" song. I'm getting jaw surgery, and my mouth'll be wired shut. maybe I can be a rapper too, now! lol j/k) but the majority of them are all about their "hoes" and pcp.

I don't like this pop-punk stuff either. I mean, I know that New Found Glory was around before it became a fad, but the singer's voice really annoys me. I'm sure it's possible to find a singer whose voice isn't so whiny and nasal. And then of course, they were followed by Simple Plan, Something Corporate... these guys are nothing to scream about.

fangirl:
we talk like we only have crap stuff to listen to, but there was crap stuff before our time too -- its just that only the good stuff has survived. my dad explained this to me after i had the same conversation with him. he remembers pleanty of bad songs from the 60s and 70s that ive never heard of because im lucky to only be familiar with the fantastic music that survived to make it onto cd.

plus think of how rock n roll mustve sounded to people when it first arrived. i dont want to land heaps of praise upon hip hop, but it is obviously touching someone -- and in the future, only the best of it will survive.

AnnR:
i totally agree- with the exception of like Johnny Lang, any blues or like John Mayer, coldplay but for rock and roll- it's hanson, hands down(up) for music, lyric etc. they could even get a little edgier if they wanted. i love their music, it's real.

lildiva:
Music always goes in cycles and I'm hoping (and praying) that the one we are currently in, will change soon. The next few years are going to be very interesting ones for music. It's strange to walk down the street of a record industry and see "for sale" signs in their yard.

faerieclaire:
nyssa has it down - there's always been crappy music. i know i'm the first one to jump up and praise the 50's, 60's, and yes the 70's as being decades of GREAT music...but for every great song, there's another that's not as good. i think a lot of what you guys are saying has more to do with preference than the actual quality of the music. just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad music. it's just not what you prefer. example: i don't like a lot of 80's music because of the eletronic sound songs have to them. i know there's a number of bands from the 80's who were good and made a profound impact on music [the beastie boys jump to mind] but i don't care for them because of that particular sound. c'est la vie.

oops, i forgot...tara's point was great too. popular music has trends based on what the average listeners like and what is being promoted to them. rap has seemed to be a constant underlying trend of the last few years while things like a brief rise in singer-songwriter artists [michelle branch, vanessa carlton, john mayer] and the pop-punk. it'll definitely be interesting to see if/how this cycle changes over the next decade. i think we're in for a lot of bands who want artistic control doing exactly what hanson did. they weren't the first and they certainly won't be the last.

freshspringroll:
personally, i agree that there is a lot of crap in today's music scene. i know there has always been bad songs around, but i think that the 'charts' today are a complete farce, music videos are 90% awful and it's also a shame that reality tv has slipped over into the music industry and has started clogging it up. i'm actually not against 'idol' etc. artists because a LOT of them have great voices... it's just the whole way that they're marketed and distributed that disappoints.

in relation to rap and hip hop etc.... there is obviously a market for this kind of thing and that type of music is pretty much just a progression of generation music. blues has been done, swing has been done, rock n roll has been done... rap and hip hop are the new sounds of our century and something else will probably come in soon enough. two bands that i really like, and are very different to my usual taste, are N.E.R.D. and the black eyed peas. i'm rubbish at classifying music so i don't know where you want to put these two acts, but i suppose i'm saying that not all 'rap' / 'hip hop' equates to bad musical taste...

i don't know... there is definitely a lot of appalling stuff out there and the whole big record labels / big money culture is probably partly to blame. but i like to think of the music industry as swings and roundabouts and hopefully, there will be a wave of something new in the not too distant future. i can sense it already.... maroon 5 are absolutely huge at the moment, while there is not really a massive boyband out there (i don't think..? lol). complete reversal to just a couple of years ago...

and hey.... there are always good bands to listen to; you just have to hunt for them, since they won't necessarily be in the charts. :)

zeus22:
It's not necessarily the music scene, 'cause there's always gonna be great bands to listen to. It's just the radio that seems to keep getting worse and worse.

faerieclaire:
laura, don't you ever use the dreaded b-word and maroon 5 in the same sentence again. i will have to hurt you if you do. ;)

It's not necessarily the music scene, 'cause there's always gonna be great bands to listen to. It's just the radio that seems to keep getting worse and worse.

absolutely.

music videos are 90% awful.

i really think MTV was the beginning of the end for the music industry. it's what makes me disregard the 80's the way people disregard the 70's. sure, it was a brilliant idea at the time, but the way music videos are used has been so abused that now they're all about selling your song. can we say TRL? massive musical propaganda going on there. [if you honestly believe you control what song ranks where...well, at least it's good to know some good, naive people still exist in the world.] yes, there's still artistic value, but very little. it's all about making money. music became a business. that's what killed it.

BlueYonder03:
It's not necessarily the music scene, 'cause there's always gonna be great bands to listen to. It's just the radio that seems to keep getting worse and worse.

i totally agree with that. there are plenty of absolutely awesome bands out there, you just need to look a bit harder. :) yay for music!

fangirl:
radio isn't all bad, it's commercial radio that's going to the dogs.

i work in community radio, and i mean, you have to hunt high and low to get the frequency, and then listen at the right time of day, but we rarely play "chart music" because none of our members like it. there's a lot of country, i play a lot of pop stuff that doesn't get a release, plus other songs that don't get play on commercial radio because they're too far out there.

the internet has been my favourite way of finding new music, that's why i'm upset with the way filesharing has been dealt with over the last couple of years. but nothing beats word-of-mouth. if someone's good, people are going to want to share.

AlenaCal:
I agree that commercial radio has really been going down the tubes. I really think there's going to be a paradigm change in the next few years regarding radio and record companies... there's only so much consolidation and mergers that can happen before Clear Channel owns everything and people start fleeing from it. I view it as like a pendulum... it's at one extreme right now, but eventually things will have to swing back to the other end.

fangirl, you're right, the internet could be such a HUGE, major force if companies would stop trying to control file sharing. Hanson has the right idea, striking off on their own with their own label, and by using the internet for a lot of promotion.

gander2004:
There is simply NO EFFORT at all these days, every other song is a poor cover version, I wish they would ban covers and ban rereleasing loads of live versions of popular songs which reappear on singles every other year. Make singles worth buying! A single is Ł4 here in the UK and for your Ł4 you get a measly two songs. For two songs the labels may as well return to vinyl and stop producing CD's with less than 50% content on them. The music scene here in the UK is so POOR that I have given up on the singles chart, I really have.

girlofGod:
Not to get philosophical on it all but what do we classify as music? Is music honesty from the heart that touches someone else or is it chords and lyrics that satisfy the ear? Hip hop to some is stupid and all sounds the same but to others, they close their eyes and completely understand what the Black Eyed Peas are singing about.

I have to admit that I think manufactured music is pitiful but then again, there's a lot of work and honesty found in what Diane Warren or the Matrix write. I just have trouble respecting artists that don't try to evolve and grow or choose to put fame and fortune over the love of music.

As for MTV and a good portion of radio, they've always been creative entrepreneurial ventures. They thrive on money so that they can keep their programs up to date, deliver on promotional ventures (including concerts) and have artists on their program although, artists need MTV and radio as much as MTV and radio need them.

I was able to visit New York last November and being my first experience with MTV (being Canadian), I remember thinking "I'm sure I would support MTV if I didn't think it had world domination in mind". That my friends, is the truth. MTV wants the money and has come to a place where the collective is truly in need the money. It's a greedy process but because it serves both artist and commerce, it's justified by those that need it.

If MTV and VH1 were truely dedicated to music, they wouldn't need to have so much programming. I admit to enjoying shows like "Newlyweds" and "Cribs" but ultimately, when do they truly focus on the music even during a show like "Making the band"? It all just boggles me so!

rockstar82:
I think a lot of what you guys are saying has more to do with preference than the actual quality of the music. just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad music. it's just not what you prefer.

I couldn't agree with you more claire about saying that about preferance. I was actually just thinking that when then I read your post.

To me all music is talent. I respect every kind rather I listen to it or not. It just a matter of what you prefer. Music today..I do think it all sounds the same. I think we need that special band or artist to come out and give us something orignal that we haven't heard yet or has been done. I think some bands or artists get to comforable with a certain sound and are to afraid to kick it up a few noches. To me, its all about growing and discovering new roots you haven't taken.

freshspringroll:
i admit to enjoying shows like "Newlyweds" and "Cribs" but ultimately, when do they truly focus on the music?

exactly... it's a bloody misrepresentation for mtv to be called MTV.

girlofGod:
Just thought I'd throw in this quote from a local newspaper.

"The multi-platinum achievements of Josh Groban's two albums might be indicative of a public thirst for something different, which might explain the unexpected popularity of the O Brother, Where Are Thou? soundtrack, the eventual breakout of Norah Jones, the posthumous successes of Eva Cassidy or Israel Kamakawiwo'ole.

"'I agree. Music listeners are much more keen,' says Groban. 'They're aware that they're being force-fed. I'm glad that people are discovering the music on their own.'"

Just thought it sort of fit in to the conversation.

By the way, I love threads like these because there's the opportunity to learn as you read others posts. I'm still a little dissapointed that the fan culture post wasn't revived after the board being cleared out a few months ago.

fangirl:
the thing with mtv was it started out as a really awesome idea. i love music, i love making it, but i love music videos too (is that a crime?). some of them truly are art, like anything the white stripes do, some of them reflect the song wonderfully, like 'penny and me', and maroon 5's 'this love' (all that colour!!!), and then some of them are like mini-movies, like micheal jackson's videos. it's an alternative to radio, something our generation could really relate to, being the square-eyed kids that we are (nothing to be ashamed of). the sad thing is, while trying to pioneer a really cool idea, mtv "sold out", the worst crime to commit if you're a mtv-watcher.

i don't know about america, but in australia we have some other music stations, like channel v, which are totally going with that hip vibe, all music and one or two kitchy music programs, which I love watching. it's not a dead medium yet, we just need to get the fuddy-duddy money makers out of there, and get people who love it in. music is art first, business second, but they can work together. ask that band, you know, those penny brothers...

faerieclaire:
those penny brothers...lol.
nyssa, you make me want to change the world...turn it back a few decades and make it about the art. *sighs* unfortunately, i don't think i can do it.

girlofGod:
Quick question:

Is the music scene today a victim due to artists who are not concerned about the quality of their music or is it artists being bullied into singing/creating/playing what record companies threaten them with?

I guess what I'm asking is, are artists really that willing to be "owned and attached at the hip" to record companies all for a record deal?

Is it fair to say that these artists don't know better or do they truly desire fame so much that they are willing to put creativity on the line?

Do a lot of artists unknowingly get "trapped" into creating what record excecutives want instead of what they know should be made?

Anyone care to comment...

fangirl:
if you think about shows like 'pop idol', it's glorifying the audition process for record contracts, and people think that's the way its done. and because most of the work is done by the tv stations, record reps are believing it. they're believing that this is all people want, because it's being forced down people's throats.

i read a lot about indie artists turning down deals because they're being told to change their act, but then there's some people who will just do anything to make music, to be famous. the acts we should be looking up to for creativity and sucess don't come along very often (off the top of my head: alicia keys, macy gray, john mayer, and of course, hanson) and are often lurking in your local live scene or rehersal room. record companies just aren't putting in the hard yards because there are so many other people willing to do it for them.

faerieclaire:
i agree 100% with nyssa. some of the best music you will find available today are indie acts who aren't interested in comprimising their music for the fame and money. i applaud any band, regardless of what type of music they play, for standing up and saying no to labels who are looking for the next hot thing. esp. now that 'indie' has become a trend in the music industry - look at the exposure modest mouse is getting! they've been around for a good long time making quality music and with their new album, their song is everywhere.

i think it's a both. you get people who are just trying to caplitalize on their popularity. i use hillary duff as an example because she seems to be taking over the pre-teen part of the entertainment industry with tv, movies, and now her music. that doesn't mean she doesn't do it well, i just see it as 'well i'm popular now, so i might as well make the most of it.' then you have the singers we've gotten off idol shows who are just looking to make it and are willing to do whatever it takes. now that i've written that...i think part of what is slowly but surely killing artist control is individual artists who just sing. they'll let a company mold them [for the most part] into anything as long as they get to sing. there's something to be said for following your dream, but when you're letting someone else control you... that said, i don't think bands are nearly as willing to be "owned and attached at the hip." i think people who write, play and sing there own stuff have a better grasp on the art than someone who simply sings. not always, there's still bands who are willing to let a record company mold them. while i don't buy all the hype surrounding them, good charlotte pops to mind. blah, it's one gigantic mess. someone needs to shut down the music industry completely and reconstruct it. unfortunately, that's just not possible...

blondie78:
I agree,there are afew exceptions,but most of it is rubbish.I hate most rap,heavy metal, just pure loud noise! Its ugly to listen to.I dont like the 'artists' who think they can sing and make a video with girls flaunting themselves they may aswell not have any clothes on at all! lol For instance I normally dont like Nelly but i like his new song My Place,its nice to listen to and i actually understand what he's saying,plus he's not rapping that much.But what i think is rubbish someone else may love. Hanson are the best today,but i'm biased! i'm gonna say that! lol but if someone can sing i give them credit,you can tell in a song if someone can sing or not,or just flaunting themselves just to be famous and have their 5 minutes of fame.They dont last.Just about anyone can get famous and get a song out these days,no matter if theyve got talent or not.A puppet can get to number 1(those of us in the UK will remember that one! lol)

girlofGod:
This is a little off topic but today I was watching a television program that featured school teachers and they way musicians effect students.

One teacher pointed out that a lot of music videos are elongated commercials for clothes, cell phones, cars, etc. I have to admit that she really was right on with that observation!

I wonder how much sponsorship plays into "music". I truly realised how much I respect honesty, ingenuity, and creativity in music.

malimoclaire:
My opinion (you asked for it lol) is that i find it very disrespectful for others to call other music crap or talentless just because they don't like it. Who's to say that someone isn't a "real artist" anyway? You might say Britney Spears can't sing and she only sells because she dresses like a ___(whatever), but that doesn't mean she's not talented. She can dance and she can entertain. I'd say that should get a lot more respect than people give her. I'm getting sick of the whole rap, hip-hop thing, but I don't think it's "pure crap" because I'm not interested in hearing it right now. There's always going to be a music stage/era that reigns power, so I say if you're sick of hearing something, don't complain and just do something about it if you really feel that strongly against what's being played out there right now. If people acted, things would get heard and done and it might change the music path in a diff direction... one where you might enjoy it and one where others might think it's "pure crap." I'd agree that the music industry nowadays is a little twisted... they want to sell more than anything and will do anything... a lot of artists aren't getting creative freedom, BUT I'd say as time goes by, more and more artists are finally getting that freedom and it's becoming more clear to the record labels, etc. that the artists need creative control in the near future for the industry to move forward. What do you think? We have to remember not to blame the record labels entirely for making the industry a piece of work, but we should all be complaining to the companies that keep the labels under their belts like... General Electric, etc. They're companies that don't care what's going on in the music industry... they have no experience in the music industry, their field is in a different industry... yet they tell the labels to reel in the big bucks or else. So, what do you think?

you guys are saying do the artists like to be attached at the hip with the label and maneuvered around like puppets..... what if they really do? The label is backing them with tons of money to start a career that might land them millions, get fans, be famous, travel the world... and for what? The sacrifice of some control over their personality or their music. I'd say both sides are taking big chances and risks and if they're willing to take those chances and they know of those consequences before they take those chances, then it's what they want. I think it all depends on each situation. You could have someone like Avril Lavigne or Alicia Keys have almost total control on their careers. Or you could have someone like Ashlee Simpson where the label is helping her make changes in her life to create an image or whatever. But she's going along with it willingly... so as long as their happy and they feel that they're still expressing themselves enough, I think it's alright.

faerieclaire:
so as long as their happy and they feel that they're still expressing themselves enough, I think it's alright.

i don't. whether you realize it or not, i don't think you should ever compromise yourself just for a shot at fame, money, travel, etc. if you give up yourself, then what do you have left?

girlofGod:
Hey Malia,

I respect what you've said. You put a lot of thought and passion into what you posted.

I'd like to address a couple of things though:

a) When you say people judge Britney Spears unfairly, I agree. She has a lot of talent and she puts on a good show. The problem with Britney (and her backing) is that she is an entertainer. Her musical potential was focused into dancing and running a great show over evolving her musical skills. Her voice is good. She can do a lot with her voice and command an audience but don't believe that her musical skills alone have carried her thus far.

She is more entertainer than artist. I think what most people are trying to say is that Big labels are trying to create entertainers, not foster artists because they want and thrive on the immediate revenue entertainers bring.

b) Big labels have been the cornerstone for music in the past. Right now though, the labels are abusing their power. Whether they are owned by General Electric or Kraft foods, we all recognize that something is not right. Maybe the labels should fight for their right to be independent. Label mergers compromise identity as well. Besides that, artists are left out in the cold because there is no time to have artists grow when money needs to be made to keep the businesses going. It's a bigger struggle involving more people than what many of us can comprehend but just like the Hanson's fought for their individuality, so should labels. We would sure respect them a lot more on this forum if they did.

Just a thought or two.