Why is it so wrong to like pop music?

Post Reply New Topic

While I agree that there are many pop artists out there who have their songs written for them by songwriters from the record companies, I don't think that writing one's own songs is a requirement for a singer to be a good artist. Case in point: the old crooners. Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Nat King Cole... They didn't write their own songs, they just performed them. Yet they were fantastic artists. Their art was their voice.

Now, we have Robbie Williams. He has been called the new 'King of Pop', at least in Europe. He started out in a boy band. Doesn't write his own songs, most of his hits were written by Guy Chambers. Yet some of those songs are lyrically great. Williams just has to perform them. And when he performs, he delivers. 'Angels', 'No Regrets', 'She's The One' (not written by Chambers), great songs, all.

And plenty of singer-songwriters these days you may either love or hate, right? Gavin DeGraw, Colbie Caillat, Sara Bareilles, Jason Mraz, John Legend... They tend not to show off more than is needed, vocally, and they write their own stuff.

I don't listen to it myself, it's not my favourite genre, but I don't think it is wrong for someone else to. That's their choice. I am OK with people listening to whatever music they wanted as long as they are forcing me to.

There's no shame in being EITHER a singer/songwriter OR a performing artist. I mean, there are some GREAT lyricists and composers out there who, for whatever reason--too old, don't have the energy/stage presence to do shows, whatever--are not strong performers. There's nothing at all wrong with someone recording guitar-and-voice or piano-and-voice demos of there songs to market to A&R pros who can match the right songs with their performers.

Think about it. It's always been that way. Even in classical music, composers are often weak conductors. The exceptions are typically those who already have a strong background in conducting to begin with and are comfortable enough to conduct performances of their own works. Or in working with small ensembles or individuals, composition is often a collaborative effort between the composer and performer(s). The reason is no single composer can reasonably be expected to understand all aspects of performance, and different performers have different abilities or sometimes even specialized areas of knowledge. A composer who is willing to try new things, do a little research, and experiment with ideas alongside a performer actually skilled in that area will always have an innovative edge over someone who composes music in a vacuum. It's not the composer who has to be good at playing instruments--it's not his job. But it is often the composer who has ideas of interesting directions the music can take, and it is the performer who provides the vehicle for getting there.

What I do is build a sort of musical toolbox for things I want to do. For example, I have sample libraries of different kinds of non-standard string playing, and I also know how to write instructions for those kinds of sound effects in the string parts. The synth isn't going to argue with me over the logic of those decisions, but a performer will. That's when I gently remind the performer that he or she is getting paid to do what I tell them to do and that he or she will get fired (and possibly the whole ensemble if I'm displeased enough) if he or she doesn't do it. I also have a library of prepared piano sounds, and being a pianist myself I find that easy to communicate. I've spent a lot of time studying extended clarinet techniques, so I have no issue with writing sound effects for clarinet. When I write handbells music, I use my own library of handbells sounds so I can hear the results as I write. I also have my own handbell studio at a church, so I can work out choreography while writing. After that it's my job to work with my partner on actual performance, and we rehearse months at a time getting arrangements absolutely perfect. And all of those things are things that typical performers do not take the time to do. Typical performers take the notes and other information as written and regurgitate it in live performance. But typical performers do not normally have the knowledge of how to write those instructions down. Not surprisingly, what you'd hear would be a lot of garbage if they did.

And the same goes for pop musicians. Songwriters are able to get there songs to performers because they are good at what they do. Some of these pop artists are so awful at lyric writing that you really would not want them writing their own songs. And the same lyricist/composer teams who write good music lack the talents that the performers have. They're good enough to make plain-Jane demos or they hire good performers to make demos for them. But it is not their job to produce that music, whereas there are equally skilled experts on music production who work with performers in crafting those songs into commercially viable work. That's why if you're lucky enough to get your music to an A&R guy, you want minimal production going into it. Short intro, strong hook, and little else. What will help your case is if you're already working with local talent in your hometown, getting your music on local radio and performing in clubs, fundraisers, and talent shows and people are going nuts over your music. If you submit a full production, you're dictating to a producer what to do with it and making it less marketable. If you're already producing music, then you should release your own albums and start your own record label. There's nothing at all wrong with working with songwriters if you're weak in making your own original music. Not everyone has that kind of talent, and neither does everyone have singing talent to perform their own work.

I like The Robbie Williams song "No Regrets" as It features Neil Hannon from one of my favorite bands "The Divine Comedy".

You can call this nit picking if you want, but I find the use of "nu metal" annoying here. Most bands of the time didn't mix rap and metal, the radios just didn't play the truly good early 2000s bands like Endo, Cold and 40 Grit. Godsmack and old Linkin Park were the only truly innovative bands that got any attention while all bands of the time are called nu metal when it jsut means metal with added influences. It is a term that annoys me to no end.

For me nu metal means rap and hip hop influenced metal. There are other terms for other metal with a hardcore element such as deathcore and grindcore. I absolutely adore all music but to say you have to listen to pop music to fit in is such a invalid argument. I would have to say there are a lot of idiots who listen to pop music, who couldn't hold an intelligent conversation even if you gave them what to say. Usually in any genre there are mainstream bands for example. Punk-Anti-Flag, Metal-Linkin Park, Pop-Katy Perry, Pop Punk-Green Day, Electronica, Skrillex. Also I don't believe s club 7 is at all mainstream.

Ah, but I'm referring specifically to bands like Godsmack and Linkin Park.

And, to be honest, they're nowhere near the first. I used to think of Run DMC as rap, but I realize years later rap is merely a mode of vocal delivery. Run DMC is rock. Same with old Kid Rock. Or, heck...dare I say it...TobyMac/dc Talk if you want to go back that far and look at Christian bands. Nu Metal really just boils down to an eclectic approach to rock and metal. I love the rap/rock/metal pastiche they all have going on. As immature and naïve as early LP was, they were certainly pioneers. And unlike a lot of pioneering artists and bands, they were actually listenable. For my personal taste, I find Godsmack to be unpalatable by comparison. To each his own, though.

Nu metal is undoubtably a force to be reckoned in the commercial music scene, particularly with regard to the effect it has had on post-rock/post-metal among other styles or genres.

I like Skrillex and DeadMau5. But the main problem I have with your typical electronica producer following in the stream of Skrillex and DeadMau5 is the ubiquitous "WUBWUB" in EVERY SINGLE TRACK. I'm annoyed by lots of things like that--especially "4-to-the-floor" drumming. The kinds of music I'm more attracted to now avoids "ooga-chahka" beats like the plague.

I don't really think of Skrillex and company, or LP and company as mainstream. What they represent are the most appealing specimens within a genre. It's kinda like taking every classical-era musical work and comparing it to Mozart. It has nothing to do with trying to be Mozart since not many people really knew who he was back then. It's just that Mozart had a gift for writing the kinds of music people were really into, and his skill for that embodies what good, listenable music in the 18th century sounded like. It's the culmination of roughly 300 years of common practice. I mean...seriously, what exactly was Mozart's genius? That he could write I-IV-ii-V7-I progressions? That's like saying Slash is a genius guitarist because he can play power chords and some scales. No, they're just good at delivering what people wanted at the times they did what they did. They make it fun to listen to.

Take Linkin Park...the Hybrid Theory album is nothing new, at least not in terms of being unprecedented. What WAS unprecedented is that an album like that came out right at the time the public was ready for it. It was a commercial music game-changer. Yeah, it's marketed to a mass audience--but it's just GOOD STUFF. Personally, I like the Reanimation remix album best from their catalog. But Hybrid Theory...just...WOW. I have to credit LP with doing much to start lifting the recording industry from the dross that was the 90's.

When Skrillex is shown on all the music video channels I feel they are mainstream. When you say wubwub do you mean dubstep?

Well, you hear that in a lot of dub step, but it seems like it's kinda everywhere in electronica. It's a particular filter synth effect--hard to do with just a plain synth filter LFO by itself, but probably gets processed with waveshaping and aggressive compression or some such. Just because Skrillex does it doesn't mean everyone should.

As a Linkin Park fan, no. Just no. They are undeniably rock up until A Thousand Suns, just with more singing.

Angelrho, I don't under wstand how there can be "post-" rock or metal considering both exist still. Post grunge I can understand, but it was just used to make the sound commercial again as a moniker. I agree on Linkin Park though, they declined quickly though I think starting on Meteora. The first EP/album remain awesome though. Shame their demos are often very low quality.

I still have yet to see anyone on here show a pop song not in 4/4 or with interesting progressions. I won't dumb down my music for social acceptance.

The problem with pop is what it is: it's simplified music made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The thing with pop is that a lot of it isn't art; it's just made by a company to get the company money. A lot of pop music doesn't have any depth to it. Also, Ke$ha is just terrible, she's krunk.

When you say Ke$ha is krunk, do you mean the music style? To me her music doesn't resemble Krunk or is it spelled crunk?

The thing is, metal is rock, so yes, Linkin Park is definately rock. If you insist on separating them then it can be said that metal is to rock as rock is to pop. Anyway, Linkin Park isn't classic metal, they are Nu Metal.

Their actually is such thing as Post-Rock and Post-Metal. The difference between Post-Grunge, Post-Hardcore, Post-Black Metal ect. and Post-Rock is that Grunge, Hardcore Punk, and Black Metal are all very extreme, unconventional genres, while Rock is very conventional, so Post-Rock isn't a more commercialized version like the others are, rather it's more expiremental. A good example is Sigur Ròs. These Post-Rock bands seek to use rock instruments and instrumentation in an unconventional way, and they tend to take a more atmospheric feel. Post-Metal is named after Post-Rock, and it's sort of a fusion of heavy metal and shoegaze, a very atmospheric form of expiremental metal. A few Post-Metal bands include Neurosis, Cult of Luna, and Rosetta.

Ugh, too many genres these days. My stuff is classified as polka, rock, metal and a few added genres like industrial, progressive and alternative before them.

If post-metal and such is mostly ambient and exploratory of other genres why not just call it experimental rock/metal? Seems far more fitting. I still refuse to accept post-grunge as a separate genre. It is rock/hard rock with grungey vocals.

The thing is Post-Rock and expecially Post-Metal aren't just expiremental rock, they have come to describe a specific sound.