Ashamed of the garbage people my age listen to

a reply to: calstorm

I read the article

Maybe you misunderstood my post - or the article

:-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: mahatche

I grew up in a era where several different sounds had representation.

We both now live during a time when there's a glut of available music - many, many different sounds. It's bizarre to me that anyone can rise to the top or make it - ever

A glut of available music on the internet, but most never reaches the public. The radio is still the main source for music for the majority of people. There are artists with big internet followings that get "who?" when I mention them to people outside the internet. Having a song on the internet doesn't mean you have representation.

Only the most passionate music lovers scourer the web for music. The rest are content with letting the radio do it for them.

About your last post - brainwashing. Have you been brainwashed?

At times I'm sure I have been. I don't like the word brainwash though, I prefer calling it successful marketing.

Here's a non music example. I just finished checking Michael Sam and Johny Maziel's stats for their pre-season debuts. There are plenty of players I like more than them, but I didn't check their stats. The media decided theses player are important, so naturally after hearing them so many times I became curious about how they did. You can probably say I was brainwashed into caring about players I don't care about, but everyone likes pretending they aren't susceptible.

I agree with calstorm that your point on the beetles supports the claim in the article, but I had a similar experience with the beetles. I don't know anyone who denies the beetles where creative though. My taste tells me bob dylan has an aggravating voice, but I'll never deny he's a great song writer. My opinions aren't held hostage by my taste.

If you ask any hip hop head what makes a good rapper, they will all say lyrics, flow, cadence, delivery, etc... there are standards for good. There are artists who meet those standards, they have big enough followings that denying there's a demand for their music is bull#, but those same artists will never get on the radio. Artists who come up short on those standards do get on because they have other qualities, like sex appeal which makes hacking brains easy work.

Another form of "brainwash" comes with the fact that we are all more likely to pay attention to someone we find attractive.Music fans don't mention looks as much as executives, but girls who walk around with their ass out are always more known than the more talented ones that don't.

Queen Latifah and Lauryn Hill are the last two positive non sexual female rappers on the radio. Their success proves there is a market, but the industry is full of executives that don't care. Since there are only 6 corporations contributing to our mainstream media, if only 1-2 of those 6 decide they want to promote only on thing, then that's all a lot of people are going to know. It's been a long time since they felt like a positive non sexual rapper deserved attention.

We like to think music is only popular because we all liked it, but a lot of music is popular because they decided it's going to be popular.

a reply to: mahatche

Having a song on the internet doesn't mean you have representation.

True - It doesn't. What I said is still true though: there's a glut of music available - and I don't know how anyone ever makes it to the top. Do you think industry folks aren't sifting through the internet same as you?

Was a time you only heard just so much music because there wasn't a way to hear superior music that wasn't promoted - past checking out local bands. But, the game is still the same as it was. We live in amazing times, and I agree with you - there is a lot of really good stuff out there. Having said that, there was still an awful lot of seriously amazing music in years past- that was fed to us with a spoon. Was it less amazing because it was also making people money?

And this is a real question - they mention that repetition gets people to a point where they can begin to like. Doesn't this work for everything? Has there never been a piece of music - or a composer - that you had to listen to a few times before you could appreciate what they were doing? A Painting that you didn't like at first - until you'd really looked at it a few times?

Only the most passionate music lovers scourer the web for music. The rest are content with letting the radio do it for them.

So, what you're saying is that some people have better taste than others - and those people also have a superior ability to find good music? Or, they're just not as lazy? Or - they're not brainwashed? (I actually prefer that word - it says what it means to say)

You know, I said earlier - I'm not arguing. But - I am trying to make a point. Apparently I'm not making it very well... :-)

We like to think music is only popular because we all liked it, but a lot of music is popular because they decided it's going to be popular.

Absolutely. They also mentioned - in the article - that a lot of us like things because of the times and activities we associate with them. That's fair. Someone is going to make some money off all of it - no different from the clothes we wear or the food we eat, what we read and watch, or pretty much anything we buy - right down to designer bottled water. Talk about brainwashing

They even pick the colors we'll be liking - and buying
In an airy studio on a high floor of the London College of Fashion, featuring a long conference table, white walls, and a view to an adjoining patio—where, a sign warns, bees are being kept—the hues you will see in two years are being divined by a pan-European group of colorists

Should we plan some kind of a rescue operation? Free the masses from consumerism - wrest them from the grip of this musical Stockholm syndrome :-)

I think, in the end - the music we like is the music we like. If that music happens to be Justin Bieber - well, he's kind of a gift to those of us that need some kind of benchmark - don't you think?

And that was me being snobby - right there

I agree with calstorm that your point on the beetles supports the claim in the article, but I had a similar experience with the beetles. I don't know anyone who denies the beetles where creative though. My taste tells me bob dylan has an aggravating voice, but I'll never deny he's a great song writer. My opinions aren't held hostage by my taste.

Well exactly - the Beatles are amazing - mostly :-) I fell for George first - he dragged me backwards kicking and screaming until I could hear them for myself. And then I fell for John - until I realized - there's no point in fighting it

Here's a sincere question - I've read that article 3 times. I don't see where it explains how the industry made me like the Beatles years after I hated them. There's no real money in promoting something someone won't like now - and the article I read seems to be saying that they work to create the demand for their product immediately - not years later. But I sometimes have reading comprehension problems. True story

About Bob...his voice is the only voice for those words. I swear - you wouldn't be able to hear them right any other way

But - like everything else - maybe that's just a matter of opinion

This is the song I'm currently wanting to hate


:-)