Is it possible that popular music doesn't suck

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Your argument makes absolutely no sense, if I’m understanding you correctly (if I’m not, correct me - but I take it you’re saying that bands that are obscure are inferior to bands that are popular.) It’s like saying that a painting painted by an obscure painter is not a good painting simply because nobody’s heard of it. Or that a steak from a cow on some small rancher’s farm out in rural Indiana is inferior to a McDonald’s hamburger, because the McDonald’s hamburger is popular. Or that a wood bureau crafted in an obscure Amish village is inferior to one that you’d buy at Ikea, simply because Ikea is more well-known.

If I’m wrong, correct me.
[/QUOTE]

I think Exapno is arguing that it is implausible to think that the only good music that there is exists outside the mainstream. One step in his argument apparently involves a notion that it is implausible to think that, as a rule, quality music would not be generally appreciated.

-FrL-

22

By the way, I don’t want to sound rude, and rereading over my last post, I get the impression that I did, so I apologize. I like you and I like your posts, so it’s not my intention to sound peevish.

But I want to know why you feel this way. How much obscure music have you listened to? I listen to a college radio station, WIUX, that plays exclusively underground, indie, and experimental music, and I have been listening to it every day for the past year. I go to local shows and local music stores, I furiously browse Wikipedia in search of new bands, I make every effort possible to discover the maximum amount of new and unique music, most of it obscure. And consequently, I’ve discovered a huge number of bands and artists that are amazing.

Now, I’m hesitant to get into a “better than” argument, because I understand the limitations posed by subjectivity as it relates to the arts. But I will say that there is a certain level of musical creativity - in terms of chord structures, instrumentation, lyrics, incorporating influences from other genres of music - in most of these obscure bands that I’ve discovered than there is in anything in the mainstream. There is real musicianship at the underground level, guys who truly live the musical life and are out there busting their asses at local shows and festivals and trying to get their CDs sold at indie music stores. And there are hundreds of appreciative fans, many of them musicians themselves. In short, there is a thriving, vibrant, energetic scene of new and obscure music, and unless you have experienced it, you can’t say that it’s inferior to mainstream music just because it’s not as popular.

23

[QUOTE=Frylock]
I think Exapno is arguing that it is implausible to think that the only good music that there is exists outside the mainstream. One step in his argument apparently involves a notion that it is implausible to think that, as a rule, quality music would not be generally appreciated.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is far closer to what I’m saying.

It is obviously possible that some good music will not find a spot in the light, for any of a hundred different reasons. It’s a tough business.

But people keep arguing that the reason that all the music that is well-known is also mediocre is because all the good music is hidden away far from popular view. That argument I reject.

I have never said that “bands that are obscure are inferior to bands that are popular,” nor will I ever.

Popular is not the same as good. Good is not the same as popular. But the history of music says that good stuff in the genres that get the most attention becomes popular stuff. (Good jazz will never be popular, unless and until a major shift in music tastes occur.) When people say that law has been broken by the internet, I disagree.

24

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]

But people keep arguing that the reason that all the music that is well-known is also mediocre is because all the good music is hidden away far from popular view. That argument I reject.

[/QUOTE]

Well, I’m in agreement with you there. Plenty of great music is every bit as accessible as the music on MTV. iTunes has made it possible to easily access all kinds of music, and sites like Pitchfork or Arthur make it easy to learn about new music. I just bought some songs by Polaris from the Adventures of Pete and Pete soundtrack on iTunes, for example. If anything, the ease with which people can access music means there’s no excuse for not widening your musical collection!

25

[QUOTE=fruitbat]

Regina Spektor - “Fidelity” - She reminds me a bit of a less annoying Tori Amos, or even Joni Mitchell before her voice went downhill. Nice fun song with a good hook. I have listened to some of her other stuff and it may not be for all tastes, but it is original and interesting.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t think she’s annoying? That one single made me want to slash my wri–i-i-i–i-i-i–i-i-i-i-i–ists!

Get the album. There are at least three songs on it that are even better, and about fifteen that are almost as good. I’m 46 and I don’t get easily excited by new female vocalists. She blows away pretty much all of them. And “Alfie” will make you deliriously grateful that she ain’t* your *sister.

26

[QUOTE=Krokodil]
Get the album. There are at least three songs on it that are even better, and about fifteen that are almost as good. I’m 46 and I don’t get easily excited by new female vocalists. She blows away pretty much all of them. And “Alfie” will make you deliriously grateful that she ain’t* your *sister.
[/QUOTE]

Wow, seriously? All I’ve ever heard about Lily Allen was her tartish, drunken antics and feud with Lady Sovereign, so when “Smile” came out, I was practically embarrassed that I liked it so much. I’m a ska musician (not just a fan), so I appreciate any catchy pop songs with a ska-like beat.

And I can vouch for Amy Winehouse being amazing. Pick up her album, Back in Black – it’s the best album I’ve heard this year. Her voice is sultry and soulful, and her arrangements are lush and horn-filled and retro-sounding, harkening back to the golden age of R&B and soul.

27

Gotta disagree with you there. 1999-2005 was a great time for popular music. Great bands from the so-called garage rock revival hit the airwaves and were a success for some time. They didn’t take over and cause the revolution that was predicted, but the The White Stripes, The Strokes, The Hives, Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Modest Mouse, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs all put out great albums that scored major hits and sold well.

More importantly, these hits were played alongside the obnoxious rap-metal, emo-core, and radio rap. It showed that the popular music market could be rich and diverse, with a little something for everyone’s tastes. This is why Regina Spektor, a (great) anti-folk weirdo touring with The Strokes, beating on a guitar case, yelling “you’re so goddamn young”, can polish her act a little and hit the mainstream.

I think you’ve articulated exactly why popular music doesn’t necessarily mean good music. The average Top 40 radio listener isn’t that interested in music. They don’t read music websites or anticipate new releases from favorite artists. They hear stuff and like it. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s the same disconnect you get with all art. Most music sucks, most movies suck, Dan Brown sells more books than Jesus, etc. The great thing about iTunes and the internet is bands can make great music for people who like music and still find a sizable audience.

28

You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope, I think.

The entire world is dying for great new music to arise. Companies know they can make money, stores know that they can sell albums, the music channels know they can attract listeners, radio stations know they can get ratings, magazine know they can garner readers. On and on. Everybody wins if good music breaks out and becomes popular. You can’t run a whole book industry on Dan Brown and you can’t run a whole music industry on Shakira. You need a new Shakira every week.

“The White Stripes, The Strokes, The Hives, Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Modest Mouse, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.”

What a blah collection of names. So-so or barely above average. A few listenable songs here and there. No wonder the world didn’t fall all over themselves about them. None of them are true breakthrough bands. Maybe they stand out compared to the competition, but that only brings them to a tiny, if fervent, slice of the music-listening population.

Everybody stands to gain when a really good act comes to light. People talk about radio and the big corporations promoting mediocrity, but they want to make money. They would seize an opportunity in a heartbeat if it came along. A marketable act has lots of fans, even more casual listeners, many people who hum along without knowing who they are, and few people who actively hate them. The White Stripes have fans. See the difference?

29

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
“The White Stripes, The Strokes, The Hives, Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Modest Mouse, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.”

What a blah collection of names. So-so or barely above average. A few listenable songs here and there. No wonder the world didn’t fall all over themselves about them. None of them are true breakthrough bands.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong, wrong, WRONG! Man, why do you always come and throw your endless opinions around like they are facts?

30

As opposed to everybody who agrees with you and therefore are throwing around facts instead of opinions? :smiley:

31

[QUOTE=Krokodil]

Get the album. There are at least three songs on it that are even better, and about fifteen that are almost as good. I’m 46 and I don’t get easily excited by new female vocalists. She blows away pretty much all of them. And “Alfie” will make you deliriously grateful that she ain’t* your *sister.
[/QUOTE]

Heh. Yeah, I love this album. Lots of fun.

32

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope, I think.

The entire world is dying for great new music to arise. Companies know they can make money, stores know that they can sell albums, the music channels know they can attract listeners, radio stations know they can get ratings, magazine know they can garner readers. On and on. Everybody wins if good music breaks out and becomes popular. You can’t run a whole book industry on Dan Brown and you can’t run a whole music industry on Shakira. You need a new Shakira every week.

“The White Stripes, The Strokes, The Hives, Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Modest Mouse, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.”

What a blah collection of names. So-so or barely above average. A few listenable songs here and there. No wonder the world didn’t fall all over themselves about them. None of them are true breakthrough bands. Maybe they stand out compared to the competition, but that only brings them to a tiny, if fervent, slice of the music-listening population.

Everybody stands to gain when a really good act comes to light. People talk about radio and the big corporations promoting mediocrity, but they want to make money. They would seize an opportunity in a heartbeat if it came along. A marketable act has lots of fans, even more casual listeners, many people who hum along without knowing who they are, and few people who actively hate them. The White Stripes have fans. See the difference?
[/QUOTE]

I’ll leave it at just one wrong, but you’re making my point for me. You say the entire world is dying for great music? The problem is they’re finding it. Turns out a lot of people really like Fallout Boy and Linkin Park. It’s not surprising when bands that I find fantastic seem blah and so-so to you. You’re not going to capture the AdmiralCrunch and Exapno Mapcase demographic very easily because our tastes differ. That’s why Seven Nation Army was such a massive hit. People liked it. You didn’t have to be a White Stripes fanatic to like it. In the mean time, the White Stripes were making their music before they got big and they’re making it after they got big. I still dig it; most people don’t.

The information age is a double-edged sword. It’s a lot easier for people to find the music they really love, but it also shows people that they don’t have to listen to what they don’t like. The music market has become fractured for the better, IMHO.

33

I’m 34 so none of this is particularly new to me. Since I started listening to music it has always been the same. There are always self-proclaimed music snobs who think that everything played on the radio sucks because only sucky music gets played on the radio (which sucks). They have their obscure little bands that they and a few of their friends listen to. It’s the greatest band in the world until they actually produce a hit, at which point the band has “sold out”.

What makes music “good”?

Is it enough to be technically proficient?

Is it good if it appeals to a large audience?

Is it good if it only appeals to a small subculture? IOW, it can’t be good if soccer moms listen to it in their SUVs?

Does it need to be groundbreaking and new?

34

[QUOTE=AdmiralCrunch]

The information age is a double-edged sword. It’s a lot easier for people to find the music they really love, but it also shows people that they don’t have to listen to what they don’t like. The music market has become fractured for the better, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately it’s also gotten harder to actually find the good stuff. Between the Virgin Megastores, MySpace, iTunes, MTV, the radio, satellite radio, and the rest of the Internet, I’m exposed to more music than I could ever possibly listen to. And I don’t want to listen to hours of crap to find the one song I might like.

35

I think 1999-2005 was a stagnant period in rock only because of the resistance of mass media to fully support emo to the extent that people actually liked it. For instance, up until 2005, I listened to local rock stations once in awhile and I had heard a total of two songs that could be even considered emo on local commercial radio. Even bands that their station is doing a promo for, they didn’t actually play on the radio.

Since 2005, however, truly massively popular bands that are called emo are so big the stations can’t ignore them, and even bands that are either indifferent to classic emo (neither emulating nor exemplfying it,) or even actively hostile to it draw their chord and singing influences from emo. (For instance, either The Lawrence Arms or The Loved Ones, both of whom I saw at a concert together, denigrated overly lachrymal bands in between-song chatter, then both of them proceeded to play songs full of high-pitched, tight hooks.)

I think that popular rock is quite good these days: much better than around 2000 where you had a horrible mix of Goth Metal wannabes, Nu-metal rage rockers, and faux-angsty Creed clones like Nickelback. Too bad that the rock stations continued to play them up until recently.

ETA: popular soul and R+B, on the other hand, the less said about the better. But that’s always been the case: I think it just doesn’t speak to me as a genre.

36

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
I think 1999-2005 was a stagnant period in rock only because of the resistance of mass media to fully support emo to the extent that people actually liked it.
[/QUOTE]

I think people tend to overstate how much other people like their music.

37

[QUOTE=Krokodil]
You don’t think she’s annoying? That one single made me want to slash my wri–i-i-i–i-i-i–i-i-i-i-i–ists!
[/QUOTE]

I can definitely see how she would annoy with her style but, personally, I adore her. She’s one of my favorite musicians and is going to be at Bonnaroo this year, which I am very excited about. She and Tool alone are easily worth the $250 ticket price.

38

I think it’s pretty simple, actually. Fergie and Nickelback make music for people who don’t like music. Or maybe they do like it, but their tastes haven’t really developed yet because most of the people who listen to top 40 songs are young teenagers. And teens (or their parents) spend more money on music than people in their 30s.

It’s the same reason that Bud Light is made for people who don’t like beer. It’s extremely bland and yet it’s the most popular beer in America, but the young people (and their companions) still want to get drunk, so they order the watered down crap. Plus, Bud Light has more money and marketing which is also true for most top 40 “musicians.”

39

It is possible to say that, while popular music isn’t by default worse than indie music, that indie music, as a whole, relies on less formulatic song structures, elements, and lyrics. While this isn’t always the case - Modest Mouse had a bit of success in 2004 and there are a million indie/local bands that rely on generic pop structures to get by - the bands featured in Pitchfork, You Ain’t No Piccasso, whatever are all different than radio play. Almost always, there is a movement in radio that has a general sound, look, and taste of a particular “genre.” Often times, these movements coincide. Rap and this non-sense “emo punk” boy band shit, for instance.

Therefore, most of us self proclaimed music snobs view it as bland and stale. Generic, to us, is “not good” in that we have heard way, way more interesting things in life and can’t go back.

In a related matter, my goal at the moment is to get Arboretum to become widely popular. Go listen to “Mohammed’s Hex and Bounty” on myspace: Arboretum | Listen and Stream Free Music, Albums, New Releases, Photos, Videos They seem like they could be popular, but when I went their show, there were maybe 5 people there, all for the beer.

40

[QUOTE=ZebraShaSha]
Modest Mouse had a bit of success in 2004 and there are a million indie/local bands that rely on generic pop structures to get by -
[/QUOTE]

Are you saying Good News For People Who Love Bad News is formulaic or typical of what’s on the radio? Surely you don’t think Dancehall, Bury Me With It, Bukowski or even the big radio hit Float On were conventional songs? Isaac Brock’s voice alone is enough to set Mouse apart from most popular music.