posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 05:03 PM
So since the conception of American Idol, other "idol" shows have popped up around the world. I don't want to hate on the shows, but the emphasis
of the shows is not creativity and actual musical talents but rather the ability to sing and perform. It also serves to promote the general "pop"
music. It would be perfectly fine if it were only one country doing this, but now this is worldwide, meaning a merging of the world's popular music.
I believe music to be representative of a culture, and the more freeform music is allowed to be, the more openminded the culture. The messages of the
music also influence culture immensely. Most would agree that over the past 10 or so years, the quality of music has generally decreased. This is
extremely evident in commercial hip hop and pop music right now. The commercial hip hop/rap really does not convey any real message or meaning and its
lyrics are at best mediocre. The only "redeeming" factor is their beats, but even the beats are predictable and are all generally the same.
Now don't get me wrong, there are still rappers and hip hop producers out there who are extremely talented and creative, such as the Wu-Tang members
who are still rapping/producing (like Ghostface Killah, RZA, GZA) and producers such as Dan the Automator and Madlib. However, most of the stuff on
the radio these days are formulaic regurgitations of the same essential things. For example, see Lil Wayne. Pop music is also the same now, as the
popular culture has chosen commercial hip-hop and good looking singing performers who don't really write their own things and are just musical
puppets. Their songs are catchy but there is no innovation. The indie scene is growing and many of the bands are innovative, but by definition of
"indie" few of them will ever be "big", as in those songs that are played repeatedly on pop radio stations. But what does it mean to be "big"?
They must be generally liked by the whole or the population. However, the general population no longer has a taste for good innovative music (such as
the Beatles and the Byrds, who where the pop music of the sixties and sang of peace, togetherness, and freedom) but instead have a taste for
repetitive music about money, sex, drugs, (except for non hip-hop/rap pop songs, they are almost always about love). There are few songs these days
that spread the message of freedom. In the older days, such folk legends as Pete Seeger and Woodie Guthrie, and later Arlo Guthrie, Bob Dylan, and
even later, Billy Bragg all sang of freedom and political inequities in an attempt to bring it to the attention of the people, and they were extremely
popular. Billy Bragg is still around and making music but he is not very popular.
It seems that the worlds popular music is being molded by the powers that be into mindless, yet feels good if you don't really pay attention to it,
music. Or perhaps it is the other way around. Perhaps the popular music of our day is merely representing the mindlessness of the brainwashed
"sheeple", as so many admiringly call them. As in, I am not sure if the music is a result of the culture, or that the culture is a result of the
music. However, it seems like a positive feedback loop, as the music promotes the culture and the culture likewise promotes the music. Musicians who
are actually innovative are forced underground (such as the indie and underground hip-hop scene) and most will only gain prominence within their own
Essentially, I am trying to say that there is a noticeable trend in the quality and message of popular music, and that trend appears to be that after
the late 90s, all popular music began to sound the same and have generally the same messages. Then, this style of "pop" music/culture is being
promoted by the idol shows all over the world. This is sort of a rant, but I think something might be going on!
[edit on 16-3-2008 by italkyoulisten]
[edit on 16-3-2008 by italkyoulisten]