My rant on today's pop music

I hate to again bring up Zappa's youtube video interview posted earlier in this thread, but much of what he said is so true. Today, the music industry is run by so called experts that grab a pretty face and build the (very simplistic, automated) music behind them. They think they are building a Mona Lisa, but it is really a Frankenstein in disguise. The old pop artists that were not one hit wonders were from the old school producers that just said hell, we don't know if it will work, but let's throw it out there and see.

I see this as the whole problem with the music business - it is completely opposite the rest of the arts. Imagine if we had a bunch of self proclaimed art experts deciding what we wanted to look at? Where would all the Picassos and Van Goghs be right now? Imagine if Van Gogh turned in Starry Night to an art wholesaler who in turn began to cut up the canvas to fit it into a smaller slot so that he could display more paintings, and repaint segments that he thought would not please the masses. This is where we are in the music business today. Music has lost it's value as an art, that is why it is dying.
 
I recall in the 90's, listening to grunge take over the radio, and thinking, yeah, but in 10-20 years, will be look back on this fondly with the same sense of nostalgia people give to the 50-80s? I didn't think so.

In the 90's Dream Theater really embraced the internet. Back in the days when most people only had AOL, you could go to the Dream Theater AOL board, and Mike Porntoy and then keyboardist Derek Sheridian would actually post and reply to posts from fans, as well as Mike's sister and their ex-vocalist. They helped build a huge network of online prog fans. A lot of prog musicians said wow, I can actually do this music and find an audience now. Where as before they would have limited to just playing in their living rooms.

But still, it's not like those prog bands sell millions (Tool being the exception). Most of them just get by.


Many of those Brooklyn bands are very 80s new wavish. I kind of missed the boat on that.

In the 1990s, I really started to get into classical musical. But I always found something on the pop dial that was interesting. k.d Lang was just on Leno tonight. I remember she her several great albums before giving up on music and then rediscovering herself with Tony. There was also Sarah Maclachlan and Natalie Merchant who I like. Lots of women's music. I remember an Aussie band called Dead Can Dance. I've seen Lisa Gerrard a few times live and she is like no other. One of the greatest performers I've ever heard. She didn't come from the 1970s.

I wasn't really a big grunge fan; but I liked the hits and I liked Pearl Jam, STP and then there was Primus and Chili Pepper's. There was a lot of great music, so there will be 1990s nostalgia, although it probably should have started already. Well, maybe it has as your program. I was going to listen to some of that but forgot. There would probably be another dozen artists that I enjoyed listening to from the 1990s if I though about it Marc Cohn, Beck, Elliot Smith, Jeff Buckley (he died) I lived in Oakland at the time and the college kids would journey down to LA to see Smashing Pumpkins. It meant something to them.

I used to be a member of the DT and Flower Kings groups. The reason I brought up the prog movement was because these musical movements die out when there is nobody there to support it. and then you have these 40-50 something talking about crap in the business. But they've not listened to so much music. If all you listened to was Capt and Tennille in the 70s, Thompson Twins in the 80s and Hanson in the 90s, you may get a skewed picture.

I am not going to defend a lot of the BS in the industry. it is what it is. But there is a lot of diversity if you go out and find it. Seems people are too lazy to do that, so they get Rebecca Black. You can blame it all on the execs; but if you haven't taken the time to find the quality, or to open up to something new, that is part of the problem.
 
Today, the music industry is run by so called experts that grab a pretty face and build the (very simplistic, automated) music behind them. They think they are building a Mona Lisa, but it is really a Frankenstein in disguise. The old pop artists that were not one hit wonders were from the old school producers that just said hell, we don't know if it will work, but let's throw it out there and see.

How else do you explain Tom Petty, Steve Perry and Mick Jagger? Not pretty faces, by any means....
 
How else do you explain Tom Petty, Steve Perry and Mick Jagger? Not pretty faces, by any means....

Well, he said "today" not "yesterday".

All them were signed when labels were still run by music people, and A/R had long term goals.

The fist three Journey albums bombed. The didn't have a hit until their 4th album, they never made a profit until their 5th album, and didn't become mega stars until their 7th studio album.

Today that would never happen. If your fist album bombs, you usually get kicked off the label. No label would put up with three bombs in a row, and still let the band make a 4th.

Yet, the only reason bands like Journey, Fleetwood Mac, Rush and many others became mega sellers is because they were allowed to make flops to develop their sound. Labels used to sign bands with long term goals of so many albums before they expected a return.
But since the late 80's, early 90's, all that went out the window. You either break on your first album, or get the hell off the label.
 
I thougt the term "Pop Music" referred to ... "Popular Music", clearly its not the first or last word we butcher the use of... I mean we still think there are different races of Humans... when in fact Human is the ONLY race of people thats ever been, maybe ever will be, unless Alien life is out there...

So how to clarify Pop music versus whats not Popular... I don't think Hall & Oats saw themselfs outside of R&B soul but because half the World bought their records and was played in heavy rotation ... they became "Pop Music."

I'm open to a better understanding... and just because we use it doesnt mean its correct.
 
Yet, the only reason bands like Journey, Fleetwood Mac, Rush and many others became mega sellers is because they were allowed to make flops to develop their sound. Labels used to sign bands with long term goals of so many albums before they expected a return.
But since the late 80's, early 90's, all that went out the window. You either break on your first album, or get the hell off the label.

It was TV, and MTV in particular. Even the classical composer Ned Rorem said back in the 1980s that tv was going to change classical music the way it did popular music. Whether it is a rock performer or an opera performer once it's televised, they better look pretty.

But the bands you mentioned had many incarnations, Fleetwood Mac with Peter Green and then Bob Welch before they became the big multi-million seller with Buckingham and Nicks. Journey of course was a pseudo prog band before they got Jonathan Cain from the Baby's and Steve Perry. Prog was over. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. But these bands changes their sound with changes in pubic taste. Why should a company spend millions promoting a band that isn't selling after three albums? For every Rush or Bruce Springsteen who were given the your number's about up slip and then came back with a hit, there are thousands of acts who never followed up and produced that hit.

A bigger part of the problem is the way record companies measure success. Sony will drop an artist for selling 80,000-150,000 records when for most artists that would be far from failure. But the amount of investment the record company will put up warrants that.

I just picked up Chinese Democracy for 1.99 at Best Buy, which was failure. Best Buy Spent 1.6 million to have an exclusive, bought 1,000,000 units and only sold 600,000. So they are selling 400,000 titles at 2 bucks. Geffen spent near 14 million making it, and never recovered that investment. But listening to the album Axl sounds amazing and the songs seem good on my first few listens. I guess people were expecting another November Rain. It's an example of just how fickle the industry and buying public can be. And the artist.
 
Last edited:
I foolishly bought that GNR Chinese Democracy... For my taste's the music is first and the singer is second, although a bad singer to my ears will ruin a great band just the same... Axl is fine but there is no magic,imo. November Rain is NOT for me but your point is well taken.
 
How else do you explain Tom Petty, Steve Perry and Mick Jagger? Not pretty faces, by any means....

I don't think any of those guys were systematically constructed by the industry like a Bieber, Rihanna or Lil Wayne. They were all no different from the rest of their band members when the started out. Although I am not really sure how Petty came about. I think he was a studio musician and eventually got noticed as a good artist in the LA studio scene of the 1970s. None of them were snatched up by record producers and had horribly simplistic automated music built around them, that's for sure.
 
I don't think any of those guys were systematically constructed by the industry like a Bieber, Rihanna or Lil Wayne. They were all no different from the rest of their band members when the started out. Although I am not really sure how Petty came about. I think he was a studio musician and eventually got noticed as a good artist in the LA studio scene of the 1970s. None of them were snatched up by record producers and had horribly simplistic automated music built around them, that's for sure.

That was exactly my point. They sold a lot of records because their music was good, not because they were "pretty". I can't imagine they would have a very good shot at success in this day and age. Same goes for guys like Getty Lee and Bob Dylan. Bon Jovi is one of the few acts that combined good looks with good music. I think the hair bands of the MTV era changed a lot of this, as people wanted to see the glamour look, where guys did their best to look like girls.

Same goes for politics nowadays. People are looking for rock stars to be their leaders. It's really a sad commentary on society.
 
That was exactly my point. They sold a lot of records because their music was good, not because they were "pretty". I can't imagine they would have a very good shot at success in this day and age. Same goes for guys like Getty Lee and Bob Dylan. Bon Jovi is one of the few acts that combined good looks with good music. I think the hair bands of the MTV era changed a lot of this, as people wanted to see the glamour look, where guys did their best to look like girls.

Same goes for politics nowadays. People are looking for rock stars to be their leaders. It's really a sad commentary on society.

I think Nashville was the first "music machine" to start grabbing a pretty face and teaching them three chords, writing music for them, and then having studio musicians (who they had never seen before in their life) be their so called band. I think this is why Willie Nelson started all that outlaw country stuff in the 1970s, to protest that production line way of treating artists. I think rock music was pretty insulated from that mentality, though there were a slight few pretty faced artists they did try to promote to success in the 1970s, like Gino Vanelli, and Kenny Loggins. Jim Messina was there just to get Kenny Loggins on the top 40, then he was strategically told to leave. But like you point out, it was really in the 80s when that mentality really took off, and funny enough, isn't that the beginning of the one hit wonders? That is when rock and really pop music production began to turn into a real assembly line, with generic sounds and generic images becoming the standard of the day. Image became more important because of MTV.

Yes, actors, rock stars, and pro wrestlers for president/governor is pretty indicative of how gullible and stupid we really are. We just elect the name we have seen in the lights almost regardless of what they stand for. My generation and each one behind it was reared on the boob tube, so is there really any surprise?
 
It was TV, and MTV in particular. Even the classical composer Ned Rorem said back in the 1980s that tv was going to change classical music the way it did popular music. Whether it is a rock performer or an opera performer once it's televised, they better look pretty.

MTV changed the types of bands that were getting popular for sure. Duran Duran and Def Leppard, among others, owe their careers to MTV.

But the whole concept of long term investment went out the window when all the various labels started getting bought up and housed under mega-parent corporations, and the parent corporations fired many of the long time music men that had previous run the labels and replaced them with people who's job it was to increase stock holder returns.

To maximize cash values, the labels had to cut their expenses, which meant getting rid of the policy of waiting 3 or 4 albums to see if a band is successful.

While it made good short term business sense, but in the long run, it kills things, because the next "Escape" or "Rumors" never gets made, and there is no hope of seeing the types of albums that sell 8-10 million, and lead to "best of"s that can sell in 100 million copies.


I just picked up Chinese Democracy for 1.99 at Best Buy, which was failure. Best Buy Spent 1.6 million to have an exclusive, bought 1,000,000 units and only sold 600,000. So they are selling 400,000 titles at 2 bucks. Geffen spent near 14 million making it, and never recovered that investment. But listening to the album Axl sounds amazing and the songs seem good on my first few listens. I guess people were expecting another November Rain. It's an example of just how fickle the industry and buying public can be. And the artist.

The problem with Chinese Democracy is all those songs were written and recorded in the 90's, and then sat around being re-done over and over again until finally being relased 13 years after they were written.

The album sounded very dated the second it was released, because it reflects a 90's sound. The use of loops, the guitar tones, everything about it was what Rob Zombie, Orgy and Marilyn Manson were doing 10 years ago. It had a very "been there, done that" vibe to it.

And like Hellwyck said, people were expecting rock-n-roll.

And what made Guns famous was the sound of 5 guys bleeding their soul in the music, not countless studio musicians being cut and pasted together.



Speaking of pop music...
Who knows Rebecca Black?
Think she got the idea from this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DwT_2QQU64

Both are extremely bad, but I'd rather listen to Rebecca.......

Sounds pretty much like the same song, with different lyrics.
 
MTV changed the types of bands that were getting popular for sure. Duran Duran and Def Leppard, among others, owe their careers to MTV.

But the whole concept of long term investment went out the window when all the various labels started getting bought up and housed under mega-parent corporations, and the parent corporations fired many of the long time music men that had previous run the labels and replaced them with people who's job it was to increase stock holder returns.

To maximize cash values, the labels had to cut their expenses, which meant getting rid of the policy of waiting 3 or 4 albums to see if a band is successful.

While it made good short term business sense, but in the long run, it kills things, because the next "Escape" or "Rumors" never gets made, and there is no hope of seeing the types of albums that sell 8-10 million, and lead to "best of"s that can sell in 100 million copies.

When you talk to guys over 60, they are going to tell you that music went down hill in 1973 when the mergers happened, and there is some truth to that. The guys at fifty will tell you that it all happened in the 1980s when AOR when to a strict formatted programming, and there is some truth to that. The guys at 40 will say that it happened in the 1990s when they got rid of A and R reps, and there is some truth to that. I've heard younger guys saying it all went out the window when they stopped ding hip-hop old school. But the point I am making is that it all happens when people don't go out there and find music to listen to that they enjoy. Polly was saying how she feels old now because she can't get into the newer music. But truthfully I could expect there was a lot of music in her youth that she didn't really care for. Not all music is meant for everybody. I know that Chris Brown isn't written for me. I am not going to listen to the same music as a 16 year old latina from Spanish Harlem.

What Fleetwood Mac and Journey were able to do was bring in great songwriters. That seems to be generally what they do with bands now, have them sit down with a couple of good songwriters and try to hash out a hit. I like Journey; but many used Journey as a prime example of the failure of 1970s music due to the corporatizing of music. They probably would have said the same of later Fleetwood Mac, esp as compared to the really blues albums, made for guys instead of chicks. There are a lot of deep seated issues that underscore the discussion.

I got tired of pop radio AM in 1971 and FM in 1978, and I stopped complaining about and listened to college radio. I may be a little spoiled living in NY. I went to see an India trio last week with guitar, piano and tabla, got into my car and they were playing Klaus Schultz. I mean where else could radio do that, not spoil my buzz. The other day I got into the car and they were playing Crimson "Islands" and then continued with some great space music, Mahavishnu's Meeting of the Spirits, some more newer spacey music and Neil Young's Old Man. They also segue classical tunes. The problem is they never say what the tunes are.
 
When you talk to guys over 60, they are going to tell you that music went down hill in 1973 when the mergers happened, and there is some truth to that. The guys at fifty will tell you that it all happened in the 1980s when AOR when to a strict formatted programming, and there is some truth to that. The guys at 40 will say that it happened in the 1990s when they got rid of A and R reps, and there is some truth to that. I've heard younger guys saying it all went out the window when they stopped ding hip-hop old school. But the point I am making is that it all happens when people don't go out there and find music to listen to that they enjoy. Polly was saying how she feels old now because she can't get into the newer music. But truthfully I could expect there was a lot of music in her youth that she didn't really care for. Not all music is meant for everybody. I know that Chris Brown isn't written for me. I am not going to listen to the same music as a 16 year old latina from Spanish Harlem.

What Fleetwood Mac and Journey were able to do was bring in great songwriters. That seems to be generally what they do with bands now, have them sit down with a couple of good songwriters and try to hash out a hit. I like Journey; but many used Journey as a prime example of the failure of 1970s music due to the corporatizing of music. They probably would have said the same of later Fleetwood Mac, esp as compared to the really blues albums, made for guys instead of chicks. There are a lot of deep seated issues that underscore the discussion.

I got tired of pop radio AM in 1971 and FM in 1978, and I stopped complaining about and listened to college radio. I may be a little spoiled living in NY. I went to see an India trio last week with guitar, piano and tabla, got into my car and they were playing Klaus Schultz. I mean where else could radio do that, not spoil my buzz. The other day I got into the car and they were playing Crimson "Islands" and then continued with some great space music, Mahavishnu's Meeting of the Spirits, some more newer spacey music and Neil Young's Old Man. They also segue classical tunes. The problem is they never say what the tunes are.

All valid points Ken.

Dang, now I have nothing to retort with. We have six pages, can't let this thread die yet!

On new music, yeah, I found a band in Finland, which lead to discovering the main guy behind it all is actually behind numerous projects. He writes and performs in several sub-genres of metal and puts it all out under different band names. He has become a bit of personal hero to me because he plays drums, guitar, bass and keys, and is a great song writer. Not a very good singer, but brings in some great people to fill that out.

Anyway, long story short, I've come to discover this guy making all this great music doesn't make his living from it. He makes a partial living. In the summer he does gardening and landscaping. In the winter, when it's snowing, he writes music.

There is a sadness that he'll probably never be successful enough to quit his day job. But there is an epic beauty that he can write whatever he wants, and get it out there, and his major artistic sacrifice is he has to plant flowers, mow some grass and trim shrubs in the summer.
 
Not all music is meant for everybody. I know that Chris Brown isn't written for me.

I see this as the crux of the issue. It's hardest if you're not very "normal", a bit quirky or eccentric or whatever, because very little "product" out there is made with you in mind. It's not a problem for me when choosing whitegoods or appliances or a car because that has nothing to do with expression or impression. But music and art ...

In Oz most stations either cater for young people, sports fanatics, grouchy old reactionaries, the latte set or mainstream middle aged people (golden oldies). Love to find a radio station that veered from Klaus Schultz to MO to Crimson to Neil to space music although it might not cut through so well when you have the window open at 60kph.

Thing is, while almost everyone loves music, it's always seems to play a much bigger role in young people's lives before domesticity and mammon consumes their souls. So the industry naturally focuses on the preferences of young 'uns and, especially, their LCD. I wonder, with the ageing populace, if there will be a strong demand for music that entertains retirees once they have the free time again?
 
What Fleetwood Mac and Journey were able to do was bring in great songwriters. That seems to be generally what they do with bands now, have them sit down with a couple of good songwriters and try to hash out a hit. I like Journey; but many used Journey as a prime example of the failure of 1970s music due to the corporatizing of music. They probably would have said the same of later Fleetwood Mac, esp as compared to the really blues albums, made for guys instead of chicks. There are a lot of deep seated issues that underscore the discussion.

You can say Styx was an example of this. They started in the early 70's as a straight on rock n roll band, but as they began to garner more pop success in the late 70s/early 80s, DeYoung tried to turn the band into musical theater as opposed to rock. This ultimately split the band apart, with Tommy Shaw still rocking it out today, and DeYoung putting on musicals.

Ironically a couple years ago I saw both Styx and Dennis DeYoung in two different shows in the same week. Both were excellent. Styx was the opening act for Def Leppard, but I thought they out performed them by a mile. Those guys can still get it done.
 
I wonder, with the aging populace, if there will be a strong demand for music that entertains retirees once they have the free time again?

It's a good question. Rock n roll came out of the growing teenage culture of the 1950s when for the first time more and more young people were going to high school. You had this new culture of teenie boppers. Progressive rock came out of the growing college attendance of the late 1960s and 1970s. So if the populace was getting more educated, why is it that the best thing college rock could muster up in the 1980s was REM, The Cure and later Grunge? If the Indie movement was/is college based, why is it musically not very sophisticated? I'm thinking of Tull's Thick as a Brick, ELP's Karnevil 9, Genesis Supper's Ready, Zappa's Joe's Garage, the very sophisticated level of satire in the lyrics, and the allusion, however poor, to classical composition. Some of it may have to do with that video I posted some four pages back. The speaker outlines that creativity is not based on decision making, but the ability to come up with good solutions to problems necessitates that one think up many possible possibilities for action. Kids have that at 5, and it is educated out of them by 12.
 
Back
Top