From a long time know I have noticed how people all around has simply stoped valouring the true essence of music. By this I mean that it is no longer important what is played or how it is played but only if the one who plays it is good looking, satisfies some stupid stereotipe or is going to make millions of sales. Before I continue I would like to say that it is not that the album does not make any sales, but that that should not be the goal, but to make music from your heart and soul, it doesn´t matter which kind.
As a simple example, meaning no ofence to those who just happen to like this band, we have a little something called “slipknot” which are about 11 people on stage who just can´t play their instruments and actually think that someone screaming their guts off with no actual sense of harmony at all is cool… On the other hand we have something called “Sum 41” (once again, no ofence to those who like this bands), which are 5 guys who think they have some kind of cool retro look and that they are really great musicians because one of them uses the PRS Santana´s signature model guitar… (I would like to remind you that this are just two examples I took randomly from a million that could have been taken.)
Of course, to make good music you don´t have to be a guitar god, or a drum beast… but you must have domain over the instrument and an innovative vission when it comes to composing… examples of this would be Pink Floyd or Dream Theater, one being able to compose some of the most incredible stuff you´ve ever heard and the other one being able to put so much feeling and love into what they do that you can almost taste it…
I just wanted to know if I am the only one who is being troubled by this.
I’m with Guishe and I’m also not with Guishe (him or her? I want to use pronouns, be-darnit!). It’s not the music that’s changed much - ever since pop music got its real start in the late forties and early fifties, there’ve been commercial image acts. Heck, there’ve been such things before - not just in music, but in all forms of entertainment. Dime novels, cheap backyard plays; if there’s an outlet for entertainment, people’ll exploit it for money and fame. But on the converse, there will be people so wonderfully skilled at their art as to bring tears to eyes.
Being able to play your instruments is not prerequisite to making great music. Having a gimmick in no way means that you are not serious or are unable of making great music. Screaming is a completely valid form of vocal expression. Ugly sounding music can be from the heart, and can “move” people as much as pretty sounding music. The fact that bands who can write their own music happen to find an audience is by no means a death knell for good music. Hell, the fact that so many artists don’t write any of their own music is not a death knell for good music either; it’s been going on since… well, probably forever.
Certain people like certain kinds of music. Other people like other types of music. There is no right or wrong reason to connect to a song, genre or artist.
That is definitly a matter of opinion. I think Joey Jordison is the best metal drummer of the last 10 years. The guitars don’t need to be technical to be good. Why does it matter how many members are in a band? The other guys are there just for show, but isn’t that what its all about? Show?
I think you are missing the point of “entertainment”.
I don’t know. I usually disagree with people who complain about “those damn kids and their music that’s nothing but noise”, and I am a huge Bruce Springsteen fan, who tours with (depending on how you score it) about three completely superfluous musicians but . . . I have an aversion to band members who exist only to add “entertainment” value.
I guess my thought is that while they may be entertaining, music (in my overrated opinion) should be really more about music which is sort of a different category of entertainment than spastic out-of-work models bounding around the stage vaguely brandishing guitars.
I think the point of the OP, which I agree with, is that many audiences are more concerned with the image of the band - this would be more prevalent in Top 40, I guess - than with the actual musicianship. This kind of bothers me, too. I worked with a guy this summer who was lamenting that though he’d been in a band with some of his friends, it wasnt’ worth pursuing, because they didn’t have the right “look.” I think that was something of a cop-out on his part, and not entirely true, I’m sure it is discouraging to many artists to feel the pressure to look pretty on their album covers or music videos.
A few years ago, I was working with another woman in her early twenties. Creed came on the radio, and I off-handedly mentioned how they sounded like Pearl Jam. Maybe, she replied, but I like Creed better because the lead singer is HOT. An argument ensued about the merits of judging music by the band’s image, etc, etc. That conversation has always bugged me just a bit.
Then how come all of the music critics, (I mean you Dave Marsh and David Frick) who trashed all of the hair-metal bands simply on the basis of their hairstyles/choice in clothes, while saying nothing about the music these bands made never got called on it?
I was an early bloomer, figuring out the facts of popular music when I was 12
There is a ton of music out there that you’ll love. You just have to look for it. Not everything worth listening to is on MTV or the radio. I haven’t bought an album on a major record label in years. It’s not that I have anything against the major labels; it’s just that much of the music I enjoy isn’t popular enough to prompt the labels to sign the bands.
Despite not having the music I like easily accessible, I still find new sounds to enjoy.
If people like Britney Spears, NSYNC, Slipknot and Puff Daddy, that’s their choice. I have given up on speculating as to why they like it, as all that matters is that I know what I like.
How are the opinions of music critics relevant to my slight problem with a friend judging music by the lead singer’s looks, rather than the merits of the music itself?
Besides, saying all the music critics is pretty inclusive. Surely there were a few who took it upon themselves to critique the musical merits of Every Rose Has its Thorn? So the majority of music critics didn’t take well to the glam-rock image. Did they, perhaps, favor bands with less “manufactured” images, and what they considered to be better music?
I’m not trying to be disagreeable, I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Please elaborate.
Wls is trying to say: If people are bothered by bands being judged on their looks why did the critics get away with it in the 80s?
Becuase the music was negelibable it was just an excuse for the look and attitude (both were generally manufactured) I mean even though I liked a few of the hair metal bands the music always took a back seat to every thing else
What you wanted them to say the music sucked also? because mostly it did and some of them did say the music generally sucked
But he missed the point which was you were disturbed on someone liking a band solely on their looks he s the opposite in which it bugged him that a band was hated on its looks
The reasons people like music doesn’t really bother me at all. I figure that people like music for different reasons, and it means more to some than others. Those who really love music love it for the effect it has on them, or the genius behind it. Or a myriad of other reasons.
Those who enjoy music just for bopping around to enjoy it for perhaps different reasons.
I think it’s great to see someone who has always liked music for its image, (or because other people like it etc) stumble across something that makes them think. It’s like this big revelation, and they seem to see it in a different light.
Given that so much popular music is based less on music than marketability, it makes finding good music so much better. Today I found a Neutral Milk Hotel CD that I’ve been looking for for about a year, and finally getting my hands on it, and playing it… gaaaah. It’s very special. Even first discovering them was so great… listening to something that instantly made me scream and cry and do weird things. Not everything has that effect
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that, regardless of what’s popular and marketed etc, people will some day find stuff that they like. And if they don’t, who cares? As long as they’re haivng fun.
I agree that there has always been a segment of the music industry that catered to the lowest common denominator. Put flash on stage and somebody will pay to see it regardless of whether that means ragtime, the jitterbug or hair bands.
The problem I see that makes 2002 different than any other time since the development of recorded sound is that the people who are in a position to produce the music also control what gets placed in the music stores, what gets played on the radio and what video’s, etc. we see on tv. In all other times everyone got exposed to music outside the mainstream. Every town had indepentant radio. Not four stations playing the same music from the same programming service that only differ from each other by who has the most anoying DJ.
It no longer matters where you get your music. The only thing you hear is the same 12 songs played over and over again. And don’t bother changing to another station because they play the same 12 songs. I don’t have the numbers but look up how many stations have their music programmed by the same service. Or worse yet how many stations don’t even have any employees apart from the guy who runs the satelite download. Hundreds of stations not only playing the same music but at the same time over a feed.
The reason that this is happening is because that’s how you turn radios into dollars. Don’t pay salaries, buy your content wholesale. There are only so many frequencies available and each one is seen buy the suits as a money pipline. The object being to own as many as possible and have your cheap as possible content running down them all.
And what you get, IMHO, from running your music through a blender and delivering it through a hose is a great deal like what you would get if you did this to your dinner.
I don’t really think that 2002 is “different than any other time since the development of recorded sound.” In fact, 2002 seems a lot like 1942 to me.
Back then, big media conglomerates (the radio networks, in those days) pushed a handful of big stars, and relegated everything else (including “hillbilly” and “race” music–country and urban, in today’s parlance) to the margins. Truly esoteric music, like (then) avant-garde jazz, was relegated to tiny record labels with lousy distribution. The more things change, the more they stay the same …
In fact, things were far worse in 1942–the artist roster on the major record labels was less diverse than it is today, and God help you if you wanted to find some obscure record and lived outside a big city. There was no amazon.com to order it from, nor Kazaa to download it from.
Well, I tried that tact, Lamia, but then, that’s just as subjective as musical tastes.
Thanks, nightshadea it was late last night and I couldn’t quite get my mind around that logic. Hair bands could be considered just a way of mainstreaming metal into pop music, I guess, and they were all about image. Apparently the critics and their critics were blinded by the image factory, as well. Still penguin logic in any case.
Bands are always going to be somewhat dependent on their images, I suppose, but I just can’t see listening to one band over another because of how they look, considering most listening is from a non-visual source (ie. not MTV). I’d give Creed credit if I thought they were any good. Stapp looks creepy to me, but I’d ignore that and listen to their CD’s if I enjoyed his overwrought “singing.”
IMHO this has always been a “job” for a very large number of “musicians” or “artists”. I think that’s the problem, they’re just looking forward on what the people tastes are and they write the music in that way. They don’t compose with their hearts or with their minds, they compose the music to be liked and to be bought (make money).
Make money, sadly, it’s what’s all about.
I agree in both aspects, but as always, the money thing comes here.
Why do greatest hits albums are being compiled? To make money. Pink Floyd is guilty of this (maybe in PF’s case they try to get younger audience a glance at their great music). I’m not contradicting all the things you said about Pink Floyd and I’m not saying that Pink Floyd wrote music just to sell albums, I’m just putting an example.
Dream Theater. Why do you think they brought to the market this deluxe limited edition version of their debut album “When Dream And Day Unite”?. To make money. Again, I’m not saying they compose to make money, and I’m not doubting a bt of Petrucci’s excellent composing and playing (guitar god) abilities.
By the way, I love Dream Theater and Pink Floyd’s music, I’m not guided by their looks or anything else.
