Anyone these days knows it can be cool to say they hate bubblegum music, that its shallow, mass produced, meaningless, bland or whatever.. dont stop them listenin to it, dancing to ir or buying cds. :o

Sure, commercil pop tunes - from Britney to BOyzone to American idol winners - are turnd out like fast food and doesnt come from true singer-songriters usualy. Yet they do get heard, rememberd + can give new phrases to language, just like old classics.


So, in future, will todays hated bubblegum styles have a proper place in music history?

It probably will. Today it is easy to make pop music. The followers will grow....

The question is; what constitutes art? It's interesting that I can now listen to old hits by The Monkees and The Osmonds for example and not feel utterly sick, as I did the 1st time round.

I think the future will appreciate it and rightfully so.
The only reason hip people have such a hard time appreciating it is because they attempt to find a value in it similar to what they find in their chosen more "meaningfull" and "deep" genre, and predictably don't find it.
That's like trying to sniff the mona lisa.
Pop requires a completely different kind of perspective to be appreciated.
Either mindless pubescent girl going with whats easiest to enjoy for the raw melodic and simple satisfaction pop gives to their ears.
Or, you can appreciate the intricate ingenius production of the song.
Many can't get past the faces of pop, these talentless losers making millions of dollars for being irritating. It really puts a wall up, I can understand it, and it can get to me too.
But just listening to the radio, I've come to appreciate pop.
It's seems so empty and shallow and light hearted, and thats almost part of the genius.
In reality, the construction of these songs is done with almost diabolical brilliance. It's like a science, it's sculpting music into what will most effectively exploit the masses. It's insulting to the intelligence of humanity really, treats them like animals, and I think thats why I like it.
Either way you look at it, those at "the top of the charts" are winning.
They've successfully brainwashed the masses with their product, and now they're raking it in as idiots waste their own(or their parents) money like sheep. You can't help but feel like pop producers are some superior form of life. Like scientists watching over lab rats.
I have much respect for the pop industry.

Like, Jennyrater!!

So, in future, will todays hated bubblegum styles have a proper place in music history?
The pop you'll find a hundred years from now will be the pop that perseveres- it will be the one most perfectly fit to the kind of mind its meant for.
You will still see Brittney, where Madonna or Whitney Houston will die off for trying to change it.

Much as I'd love to call the pop mentality moronic for being so simple, you can't say that pop is 'light' music for stupid people who can't take it complicated and 'classical' the medium of philosophers.
Mozart, for the most part, wrote flippant music that catered to the lower classes.
Strauss sounds like he photocopied all his music and rearranged the parts to pretend at a new piece, the way alot of rappers nowadays do a remix of old songs and call it music or talent.
Take Shakespeare- the man was a rapper.

And even so, Billy Joel and Elton John take themselves way too seriously and complicate all their music.
As did the Beatles.
And they're both pop.
So just because something is complicated or 'deep' or easy and dumb does not define it as genre.

Tablerdim:

The question is; what constitutes art?
Art

Lou:

They've successfully brainwashed the masses with their product, and now they're raking it in as idiots waste their own(or their parents) money like sheep. You can't help but feel like pop producers are some superior form of life. Like scientists watching over lab rats.
I have much respect for the pop industry.
If they didn't buy into their own bullshit I would.

When you can separate yourself from the inanity you're spewing- total respect.

They are what they’re doing.

You will still see Brittney, where Madonna or Whitney Houston will die off for trying to change it.
Why do you think Britneys music, in particular, wil outlast Madonna's? Or do you mean there'l still be stars LIKE Britney in a 100 years?


Take Shakespeare- the man was a rapper.
:D ;) :p


As did the Beatles...

Theyre surely classics already, but did anyone really slate them when they were first big hits?

Rembrant is Art; a pile of bricks is art; Beethoven is art; Britney is art; Jenna Jameson is art; rap is art; hip-hop is art; I'm art; you're art. But we all fart.

Just to answer my own question.

We're art? Id say were life, art imitates life - an when we make ourselvs up and dress fancy, life imitates art.

So youre saying Britney + rappers are as much art as Rembrant is. Good answer, tho poncy painting students might be ofended..

Are'nt all forms of art subjective? One mans meat is anothers poison etc..

Anyone these days knows it can be cool to say they hate bubblegum music, that its shallow, mass produced, meaningless, bland or whatever.. dont stop them listenin to it, dancing to ir or buying cds. :o

Yes it does stop 'us' from listening to it, dancing to it or buying CDs.


Yet they do get heard, rememberd + can give new phrases to language, just like old classics.

They give new phrazes to the language of 14 year-old girls and it is this group whitch will remember them.

I too am guilty of remembering some truely shit music from when I was a child/young teen. But in practice it gets filtered out of my long term memory as more important things take up a more prominent role.

So obviously some of the bubblegum will be remembered by those who chewed it. Some gum tasted particularly sweet before it was spit out and replaced by a new flavour.


Bubble gum pop has a certain characteristic nature. Catchy phrazes and melodies, easy rythms and familiar chord-structures. Things that are easy to digest and require virtualy no effort to appretiate for those prone to appritiate it. For some it is impossible to appretiate it and for others it will do when drunk and dancing in a club.

Better music like Classical, Jazz, Progressive rock/metal, experimental rock, some progressive techno etc... Requires a certain investment for it to be appretiated fully.

These pieces need to be listened to several times to discern different complexities and subtleties. Some bands like Dream Theater require a certain knowledge of music in order to appretiate how technical their music is. Jazz is also rediculously technical.

The true masters like Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Bach etc... could weave immense and epic pieces. Incredible ranges of sound, complexity and emotion in their pieces.

Arguably it is these artists who will be remembered in history because once one has learnt to appretiate their music the incredible skill and passion become apparent. There is just that an incredible skill and passion that bubblegum lacks. Because bubblegum is made to be consumed, it is made to sell not for the sake of the piece itself. The ture artists make music that is for the sake of the music itself.

They can speak of perfection in pieces because they know that they could not have done them in any other way. Perfection for a bubblegum artist is a song that everyone in the world buys 10 copies of.



However obviously art is purely subjective. One can't claim that one artform is superior to another. Because art is purely what the individual atributes to a piece of art. Music is just sounds without someone to make it into a masterpiece.

So it is wholely unfair to say that someone who listens to Wagners 'Walküre' and discerns an epic and cosmic tale of love, deciet and death appretitates it more than someone who listenes to Westlifes 'When Your Looking Like That' and attributes to it an epic and cosmic tale of love, deciet and death.

Give me a J give an E...yay!:

Why do you think Britneys music, in particular, wil outlast Madonna's?
Because she's the most loyal to its stupidity.

I'll make it simpler for you.
Michael Jackson was a media darling when he first came out.
He broke record sales with his Thriller album, but everything went downhill when he took it seriously and betrayed the bubble gum formula.
See where I'm going with this?

Here's another one. Johny Depp was immensely popular playing a common heartthrob on “21 Jump Street”
Until he took himself way too seriously and left the show for something "more mature".


Theyre surely classics already, but did anyone really slate them when they were first big hits?
Their music was bubble gum awful.
No talent, ugly, and British.

Producers took them seriously for the same reason they revered Elvis: shrieking women with spending money.

Exito Human:


Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Bach

Arguably it is these artists who will be remembered in history because once one has learnt to appretiate their music the incredible skill and passion become apparent
Think about what you’re saying.

Those 4 you named up there are remembered today for the same reasons bubble gum is so prevalent- the masses like them.

Mozart, for the most part, wrote flippant music that catered to the lower classes.

Compared to the tonally straight-jacketed nursery rhymes most people write today, Mozart is...
well...
a genius.



If they didn't buy into their own bullshit I would.
When you can separate yourself from the inanity you're spewing- total respect.
They are what they’re doing.
This is where the damage is done. I have personally heard, many times, a real artist justifying the "art" of the bubblegum crap they are playing/creating because it pays the bills, and they need to feel good about selling out. Sad.
There are a few people I know who can separate art from commerce, but not many.
This justification is a virus in the bloodstream of an already hurting artform. The backlash against it is resulting in a lot of good music (although something to react against shouldn't be necessary for creating good music), but once you get the public used to eating McDonalds, they start to think it is actually good food. The same goes for Mcdonalds music.

but once you get the public used to eating McDonalds, they start to think it is actually good food.

McDonalds food is good food. That is, it's rich in all the hard to get, energy rich resources– sugar, fat and salt.

It's only natural that we like McDonalds. People who don't like McDonalds are simply social sheep, hating on Ronald because Ronald serves the proletariat. The aristocracy never eats what the peasants do.

Cole grey:

Compared to the tonally straight-jacketed nursery rhymes most people write today, Mozart is...
well...
a genius.

And compared to the complexity of Bach, Mozart is baby food.

But its funny the way you say 'write' as if someone like Simpson or Spears actually writes down their words, notes, melody on paper as opposed to just, like, *flips hair* showing up.
It’s the titties.


This is where the damage is done. I have personally heard, many times, a real artist justifying the "art" of the bubblegum crap they are playing/creating because it pays the bills, and they need to feel good about selling out. Sad.
That's just it, though.

They're telling us that they're only in it for the money, or don't really believe it, but one takes a look at that monkey flipping on stage all synchronized and impassioned with the rest of the monkeys and you know that he's lying.

I've seen them pouring their hearts out in the studio, as if their 'art' were gold.
They tell you the stories of growing up broke and tortured artistically.

How many times now- 100?- has one suffered the story of Mariah Carey's anguish over being a talented mixed child in the ghetto, as if her race has anything to do with her being acoustic slaughter?

The funniest thing in the world is a Backstreet Boy who'll swear on his grandmother he's “only in it for the money'.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Ronald serves the proletariat. The aristocracy never eats what the peasants do.
Ronald malnourishes the proletariat. Especially the children.



And compared to the complexity of Bach, Mozart is baby food.
What? You're crazy. What exactly do you mean by this? Give me a musical example of any sort. Obvious "no way" would be use of changes of tonal center, use of incidentals, song form, and complexity of instrumental arrangement. All of which seem to favor Mozart.
Baby food. What? Oh, I said that already.




It’s the titties.
The guys I work with, and I, say this all the time. It is more tit-illating coming from you, though. Lindsey Lohan was the latest joke. A friend of mine was singing songwriter demos for her album, and we were just wondering, why not this girl instead of Lindsey Lohan?
It is not even about the music.




They're telling us that they're only in it for the money, or don't really believe it, but one takes a look at that monkey flipping on stage all synchronized and impassioned with the rest of the monkeys and you know that he's lying.
They have to believe in it to justify the time they are NOT spending on serious music. Or better, there are a lot of musicians who actually are just doing it because of the perks and would be just as happy working at the bank if the perks were as good.

Cole Grey:

What? You're crazy. What exactly do you mean by this? Give me a musical example of any sort. Obvious "no way" would be use of changes of tonal center, use of incidentals, song form, and complexity of instrumental arrangement. All of which seem to favor Mozart.
Baby food. What? Oh, I said that already.

My, where do I start?

Consider the crab cannon- its a theme played backwards in time.
Now, Bach wrote a special piece for some king I'm too lazy to look up (some Louis?) called the Musical Offering in which you have something like 6 different themes clashing against each other ....in perfect harmony.

Juts think of a more sophisticated form of “Three Blind Mice” played by 10 different instruments.
And then copying these "redecorated" songs over and over again- you’ll now either invert some of them to go backward, or change the pitch of another or the time of another, but still leaving them all sounding like “Three Blind Mice”

Now you stack them all up together into an escalating fugue.
Only a genius could have this chaos to the ear remain so gorgeously beautiful.

This is what Bach accomplished in his Offering with so many themes playing against each other- its something like playing 10 games of chess simultaneously and winning them all.

Mozart was poetic talent. But Bach was mathematical genius.

Roman:

It's only natural that we like McDonalds. People who don't like McDonalds are simply social sheep, hating on Ronald because Ronald serves the proletariat. The aristocracy never eats what the peasants do.
You only posted this to make trouble.

I totally respect this.

Mozart was poetic talent. But Bach was mathematical genius.

Of course Bach has that. You put that up against this - "changes of tonal center, use of incidentals, song form, and complexity of instrumental arrangement" - and you have two of the greatest of all time.
I will give this to Bach, he was first. Without Bach, there would be no Mozart.
Like without the cure, and the pixies, there would be no radiohead. Doesn't take away from radiohead, though. Nothing evolves in a vacuum.

I will give this to Bach, he was first. Without Bach, there would be no Mozart.

In other words, "Gendanken, you conniving whore, I fold"


Like without the cure, and the pixies, there would be no radiohead. Doesn't take away from radiohead, though. Nothing evolves in a vacuum.
Absolutely.

In other words, "Gendanken, you conniving whore, I fold"

You got my meaning all the way up to your second comma.
I never said Mozart was light years ahead of Bach, just that it isn't "baby food".

Credit due (Mozart) = I give credit.

Credit due (the pixies)= I give credit.

Credit due (britney had that advertisement where she was dressed up like elvis for a las vegas gig, and has great mixes, and nothing else) = I give credit.

You got my meaning all the way up to your second comma.
You just called me a whore??!!

I’m shocked, how dare you.
Your chauvinism is uncalled for.

I never said Mozart was light years ahead of Bach, just that it isn't "baby food".

Credit due (Mozart) = I give credit.

Credit due (the pixies)= I give credit.

Credit due (britney had that advertisement where she was dressed up like elvis for a las vegas gig, and has great mixes, and nothing else) = I give credit
Agreed.
(and light years measure distance, not time)

You just called me a whore??!!
I’m shocked, how dare you.
Your chauvinism is uncalled for.
You are a bad actor.



(and light years measure distance, not time)
Figure of speech, you know. Obviously, Mozart can't be ahead of Bach temporally. And it seems like they couldn't really be light years apart in distance.

"You are a bad actor. "

And you a bad reader.
Technically, I called me a whore.

I know.
I was commenting on you acting shocked and offended at my joke.

Okay, okay.

Just let me get the last post, I’m being silly tonight.
Stop posting.
Yes, its childish, but I’m chuckling here.

I now pronounce this the last post.

I think the future will appreciate it and rightfully so.
The only reason hip people have such a hard time appreciating it is because they attempt to find a value in it similar to what they find in their chosen more "meaningfull" and "deep" genre, and predictably don't find it. That's like trying to sniff the mona lisa.
Pop requires a completely different kind of perspective to be appreciated.
Either mindless pubescent girl going with whats easiest to enjoy for the raw melodic and simple satisfaction pop gives to their ears.

Brilliant. I fully agree.



Or, you can appreciate the intricate ingenius production of the song.
Many can't get past the faces of pop, these talentless losers making millions of dollars for being irritating. It really puts a wall up, I can understand it, and it can get to me too.
But just listening to the radio, I've come to appreciate pop.
It's seems so empty and shallow and light hearted, and thats almost part of the genius.
In reality, the construction of these songs is done with almost diabolical brilliance. It's like a science, it's sculpting music into what will most effectively exploit the masses. It's insulting to the intelligence of humanity really, treats them like animals, and I think thats why I like it.
Either way you look at it, those at "the top of the charts" are winning.
They've successfully brainwashed the masses with their product, and now they're raking it in as idiots waste their own(or their parents) money like sheep. You can't help but feel like pop producers are some superior form of life. Like scientists watching over lab rats.
I have much respect for the pop industry.

Exactly!

Similarly, I watch some telenovellas -- and I am in awe. In awe of the professionalism it took to make this kind of shows. Wow.

Telenovellas? YOu mean tv movies?

I like what Dr. lou said about empty + shallow being part of the genius - people mostly dont want to feel deep or complex emotion all the time, they want to have fun. Something whixch just makes you light heartd without taxing your thoughts.. its the art most of us can enjoy.

Before I read the entiety of this thread, what the hell is bubblegum music?

Telenovellas: Mexican, Venezuelan, Colombian etc. soap operas. The Latin Americans excell in this.

bubblegum music is an organization of sound, sometimes referred to as art, that is one step above the sound of ambient noise in its level of emotional complexity.
The star performers often have little musical talent, but make up for it with lots of physical appeal and flashy performances.

One step above bubblegum music is the type of pop music which tries to pose as something deep, which I refer to as "the ikea soundtrack". (You can switch out ikea with the name of any large store that chooses background music that must appeal to "everyone")

Water:

Similarly, I watch some telenovellas -- and I am in awe. In awe of the professionalism it took to make this kind of shows. Wow.
Pause.

You realize he's mocking it?

For that matter- the tap-water tears and overdone gestures not to mention the silly plots of Marlena marrying Billy who’s really her incestuous son born to a retard!
And then her getting buried alive for months without a glitch in her hair or her makeup!
Then the torment of wondering who is pregnant by whom, who's fucking whom, who said what of whom, why, when, where all the social dynamics of kindergarten excelled into high school.

You think this takes professionalism? It takes as much to just stomach it.

Jennyrater:

I like what Dr. lou said about empty + shallow being part of the genius - people mostly dont want to feel deep or complex emotion all the time, they want to have fun. Something whixch just makes you light heartd without taxing your thoughts.. its the art most of us can enjoy.
And you too don't realize he's mocking you.

Jennyrater:

And you too don't realize he's mocking you.

No, she is right. Mocking or not, she is correct in what she said. Ask anyone with their radio blaring why they can stand this crap and the answer is always the same for me: "Thoughtful music is cool and all but after working all day you don't want no shit to make your head hurt, you want some phat beats and shit"

When I didn't have a job I didn't understand it, now that I do, I do. Simple beats are THE most effective and catchy ones.

Sargenlard:

No, she is right. Mocking or not, she is correct in what she said. Ask anyone with their radio blaring why they can stand this crap and the answer is always the same for me: "Thoughtful music is cool and all but after working all day you don't want no shit to make your head hurt, you want some phat beats and shit"

No, no- I agree.

A profundity exaggerated is a wanting to be of that image, you can't go around listening only to Grieg or Handel and not come off a poser.
The most interesting people are flexible.

I was only pointing out that Lou's post was praising something in order to mock it.
Something like Voltaire praising Christians.
Get it now?

You realize he's mocking it?

Lou may be mocing it, but I mean it.
It could by my being European, or my subversive reading/seeing -- but I am just stunned by this kind of music.

I keep thinking that those people actually play their roles, Britney Spears *plays* a singer, she isn't one. I keep thinking that they are consciously keeping up an act, and do it professionally.

Look at a Slovene bubblegum artist http://www.natalijaverboten.com/ .
Her songs are ... well, bubblegum, the texts are idiotic. But when you listen to the woman in an interview -- wow.
I don't get this. So my inference is that they are actually smart, but play "cheap and stupid".



For that matter- the tap-water tears and overdone gestures not to mention the silly plots of Marlena marrying Billy who’s really her incestuous son born to a retard!
And then her getting buried alive for months without a glitch in her hair or her makeup!
Then the torment of wondering who is pregnant by whom, who's fucking whom, who said what of whom, why, when, where all the social dynamics of kindergarten excelled into high school.

You think this takes professionalism? It takes as much to just stomach it.

Again, it must be my subversive seeing.

Watching a film or a show of quality (" "), they have this air of artistic competence and surety. I enjoy that, it keeps me interested, alert -- but it grabs my attention and the watching is effortless.

But with a soap operas (although there are *very* different kinds; the American ones are unwatchable, blegh) it is different. For me, they demand professional effort to watch them, they grab my professional attention. I would never watch a soap opera for fun. The enjoyment I have with them is clinical, a kind of polite professional bored attention.
Uh, I guess this comes from me being spoiled by the numerous books I have to read for my literature exams -- having to read so much forces one into a clinical professionalism. Bah, I do not like it, don't think that for a moment.

i] "Thoughtful music is cool and all but after working all day you don't want no shit to make your head hurt, you want some phat beats and shit"[/i].

Thanks for your suport, Sarge!

>>water - that slovene popstar looks cool whatevr her style of music, does she sing only in that language? I dont supose4 youve got some translations of her lyrrics we could reaD?

I'd just like to interject with this thought: Telenovelas seem perfectly normal to me.

Then again, I am the secret princess lovechild of the bandit lord and Maria, his crazy, perfectly coifed wife who is herself secretly the heiress to a tortilla fortune! Now, if you'll excuse me, the demonic hamster released by my wicked deformed twin is menacing the Parliment, and only my direct intervention can save the day.

Ahem.

OK, really, I can see water's point. Given the nature of the media beast, perception is reality. <i>Por ejemplo</i>, even if Jessica Simpson is, in reality, a genius of the first order and Rhodes scholar, the public is plunking its hard-earned cash on the counter to buy music sung by a pneumatic simpleton who has trouble discerning the difference between chicken and fish. So away goes the thinking cap, and out comes the simpering pout and expansive decolletage. She's worth millions and doing what she wants to do, while her fans are sitting in their Ikea-furnished living rooms eating Chicken of the Sea with a side of winking, smug condescension- so who's the idiot in this scenario?

Pop is a real and significant force in the music world, but it isn't a musical panacea. Just as one wouldn't wear Manolos jogging through a gravel quarry and then scoot off to their 10:00 brunch, one needn't (and dare I say, shouldn't) reach for the angst-ridden pipings of a Lindssica Britney Love Moore for every musical occasion.

Gendanken's 100% ke-rect...flexible is best.

If, as water said, "Britney Spears *plays* a singer, she isn't one",
What type of art is this?
Is it musically artistic, or is the music just a prop for the real genius of it, which is non-musical?
If you want to say this type of music is often art in a non-musical sense, and non-art in a musical sense, then we are all in agreement.

If we define art, as 'the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings' (Cambridge online dictionary), then, we must ask a Britney fan, whether they find those qualities in her music. My feeling is that they would. For the rest of us, art would perhaps be a too strong word to use, though it's technically true, but, even if she's playing at it, what she represents is surely, Artistry; 'great skill in creating or performing something, such as in writing, music, sport, etc' (C o d). You cannot have artistry without using art as its foundation.

I find myself agreeing with Cole's perspicacious assertion that while Britney and her ilk are indeed "artists," the art they employ is one of presentation and performance rather than "skillful creation," at least from a musical standpoint. The thing to be appreciated, the mastery to be lauded, is not in the chirping chippy, but in the puppet mastery used to create such a facade of public-pleasing pabulum.

They may not be Grammy™ worthy, but they may just deserve a shot at the Acadamy Award®. :)

If, as water said, "Britney Spears *plays* a singer, she isn't one",
What type of art is this?
Is it musically artistic, or is the music just a prop for the real genius of it, which is non-musical?
If you want to say this type of music is often art in a non-musical sense, and non-art in a musical sense, then we are all in agreement.

Yes, thank you!
Oh, the clarity.




I find myself agreeing with Cole's perspicacious assertion that while Britney and her ilk are indeed "artists," the art they employ is one of presentation and performance rather than "skillful creation," at least from a musical standpoint. The thing to be appreciated, the mastery to be lauded, is not in the chirping chippy, but in the puppet mastery used to create such a facade of public-pleasing pabulum.

They may not be Grammy™ worthy, but they may just deserve a shot at the Acadamy Award®.

Yes!

I find myself agreeing with Cole's perspicacious assertion that while Britney and her ilk are indeed "artists," the art they employ is one of presentation and performance rather than "skillful creation,"

that might be stretching the word ARTIST a bit.. if presentation + performance alone are enough, then anyone who can put together a decent MS powerpoint slideshow + make it entertaining for the audiense must be an artist too.
Why should music, rather than info, make a show count as art? Especily since a lecturer or exec might assemble, s cript and "perform" the Powerpoint presentation all on her own, while Britney has a staff of thousands writing her music + shooting the vids.

We seem to be moving towards the difference between "art" as in, there is an art to (insert activity here), and art. Artfulness, and artistry.
I have tried to think of a phrase that would be comparable to the phrase one uses when referring to visual art that is not classified as art, i.e. "graphic design." Of course one could argue that graphic design is art, but at least there is a term. The best I could come up with for music that isn't especially groundbreaking, but fulfills a purpose is "follower art", but that isn't catchy at all.
Any ideas?
Whoever thinks up the best phrase should know that I will immediately promote its use among every musician, producer, engineer, and music business-person I know. Someday people will read about the history of popular music and find your eternal gift to mankind's understanding of art right there on the page, hooray for you.

I think britney thinks she's a singer, she's being used as a tool by superior organisms. She's treated just as condescendingly as the masses are, she just also gets alot of money.
And thats only because there's alot of money to spare and it aids in maintaining the tool.
New popstars are paid a pitence. Not many people realise this, those "trialled" pop stars you see once and never hear from again make sweet fuck all. Even if technically their song made a couple of million.
Only once popstars prove they are a consistently profitable tool do they start recieving scraps that are substantial enough to talk about.
Britney's clearly coming up towards her expiration date (why don't ya do sumthin?), and that inevitably happens when the tool starts requesting artistic freedom.
It's really quite comical. It's almost like the universe balances out when the untalented go insane with their false sense of being special, thinking anything they do will be ok, like they decide whats acceptable, only to plumet devestatingly into the dirt. Their embarrassment being public and historical makes up for their fame and fortune.
Then the producers can say "gee, it all seemed to go downhill right when you started writing lyrics and making executive decisions... hmmm... perhaps we'll see you around sometime"

For the record, I'm not entirely mocking. I love pop music as it comes out, I like how it's an ever changing competitive genre. And I actually can enjoy the music on the radio and enjoy catching the new music videos. I agree with jenny rater and sarge.
It's a light fun colourfull little world.


Something like Voltaire praising Christians.
Yes, if he also enjoyed sitting in church on sunday mornings and praying for the fun of it. Eating the little wafers and joking about consuming the equivalent of 7 full bodies of christ.

I don't respect the popstars themselves or the music in the same way I respect other forms, but I respect the real artists behind it all, the producers of pop music. Perhaps more than I respect the artists who make great unpopular music through their raw talent. They just seem like they're on a level above. Probably because the "real" "artists" so commonly fail to get it. I'd bet the pop producers could appreciate great music as well, they just also understand this strange thing called pop that the artists don't.

I know I'm respecting jew qualities, but it's just hard not too, because it's so diabolical. The pop industry really puts what the jew is capable of on display.
And while I'm an enemy at heart, it's an impressive power they have.
I'm sure lions can't help respecting hyenas every now and then.

Who are real singers anymore?
Besides people that have been around for a while, i am more talking about any singer that has come out in the last, say 7 years. They are all shit

I don't think that there's much to it. The producers simply pick catchy music that is similar to other popular music out there. There isn't much genius behind the process. Its like "gee, rap-rock is it nowadays. we need more rap-rock artissts, one might strike big" pop music is satanic. I despise it.

They are all shit

some people mustve said the same about Frank Sinitra or even ELvis when they 1st got going...

today's bubbleguma cts might be part of revivial roadshows and 'classic of the 00 years' albums someday.. just as leatherjacket idiots from the 50s who could hardly sing either are admired now, th e likes of Fabian + Marty Wild.

yeah fair call "generater" although, Frank Sinatra and Elvis both came out with a lot more origanal stuff then these guys do, most of the songs out these days are just adapting old stuff that has a bit more of a beat to it. I know this has been going on for years and i know people would have called elvis and franky poo although the point still remains that they will always be held on the top shelf rather then be put in the same classification as the music these days. Futher more as someone else said in this thread the only good music at the moment is this rap/rock stuff, for the fact that it is new!
But i know as they do now and as you said they will be classics one day BUT you will find it will be more the one hit wonders that will be remembered rather than hillary duff, if you know what i mean.

the only good music at the moment is this rap/rock stuff, for the fact that it is new!

Whoever comes up wit a whole new style realy has it made.. the ground-breakin groups arent bubblegum I supose, though the ones who follow them in that style may be. who can tell what the next big thing willbe - how about setting middle ages hymns or folksongs to techno?


will be more the one hit wonders that will be remembered rather than hillary duff, if you know what i mean.

I dont much listen to Hilary anyhow. we cna at least be sure Christina + Britney wil be rememberd, like Alma coogan + Doris Day..

Rap-Rock is merely a commercialization of what has all been done before. Hip-hop has long been incorporating other beats into music. It has always been about mixing, and I guarentee you that it has been done way before Linkin'park or any of these crap bands.

what I realy dont think is art is all that sampling stuff where you just take 1 or 2 lines from an old song and paste it over + over, without having any new music either.. that reminds me of a shopfull of TVs all showing the same face..

I can listen to The Monkeys and understand why someone might think the songs to be 'classics'.
I also can understand the fact that The Monkeys were faking pussies, with some good tunes- which they accidentally did not make themselves.

What i can not understand is how Britney Spears's songs could someday be labelled as classics. She will be a mark of an era, or some silly glamorizing trophy title like that etc.. so people who dug her can feel that listening to her was not such a fuck-up afterall.
But the fact remains that it is in general consciousness that she is only a product, which was not the case in the 60's, 70's.. even 80's. Still, people dont care, they watch MTV with the knowledge that it is all a goddamned set-up, they mesmerize themselves and google. They know the people who put together this simplistic drivel are behind the skenes collecting 70% of the cash flow, and yet, they dont give a fuck.. why should they?
The difference between looking back into the past today, and looking this day from the future is just that. They had a devious plan in the past, deceiving people in a cunning way, no one had any idea.. and back then, people would have cared ( the monkeys scandal ). But today, we KNOW people dancing for us are just fakes, eventhough they themselves do not.

I can listen to The Monkeys and understand why someone might think the songs to be 'classics'.

right, they were just a fictionl group invented for a tv show who decided to release their prop-tunes for real... and it worked. Like the Archies but using live actors.


But the fact remains that it is in general consciousness that she is only a product, which was not the case in the 60's, 70's.. even 80's.

Tats not true - as long ago as 1955 producers were signin up goodlooking teenagers ,manufacturing them - their hair, their clothes, their songs of corse + even their names. Billy Fury + marty Wlde werent christened that.. and the guy who recruted them was famously gay, you can imagine how young men got his contracts!

jenny : "Tats not true - as long ago as 1955 producers were signin up goodlooking teenagers ,manufacturing them - their hair, their clothes, their songs of corse + even their names. Billy Fury + marty Wlde werent christened that.. and the guy who recruted them was famously gay, you can imagine how young men got his contracts!"


Ofcourse it has allways happened, allways will, but it was not allways known by the puplic what kind of figurines the artists really were. Hence i used the phrase in general consciousness.