State of music today

[Grig]

Heya,

Was just browsing though this thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=710284&p and thought that this was an interesting debate. Seeing as the thread started closed this thread I've posted up a new one here.

From that specified thread I do agree with Spuds, it really is all about commercialization and selling sex. Music has become all about sex, the bulk, if not all songs by artists such as Rihanna are sex driven. There was even controversy on primetime TV within Britain as shows such as the X Factor showed performances by such artists and was not suitable for children.

Many artists have beats recycled over from other artists such as Derulo and Lopez. Switch some of their songs on, you would find a similar tune in your ears. Sony, Interscope etc. control it. For one thing, Derulo can't even sing. I'd give credit to Rihanna that she is a diva and has some voice.

It has become extremely difficult for any artist to breakthrough recently. It was fantastic to see groups such as Mumford and Sons breakthrough in the Grammys this year etc.

Anyway, this is just my view I'd thought to create this thread just to garner other peoples views on what they think on the state of music :).

[GirlNextDoor15]

Exactly!

First of all, they are actually there for commercialization. If not, they won't even exist in the music industry for they do not have the voice to sing. About the selling sex thing, I think they are selling their brand too in order to breakthrough and become famous. People usually become famous for their assets like Katy Perry's breasts. To be honest, how much do you think Katy Perry can sing? It's very unfair to people who work their *** off in order to breakthrough when they actually have the talent.

However, what they and the music companies doing now is camouflaging to whatever their listeners want to hear. So, that is why you get entertainers like Derulo and Lopez.

[vz]

I think all the songs that have made it on the charts recently around about sex, drugs or alcohol.

[Neversoft]

If you're referring specifically to chart music then okay, but to say all music is about commercialization and selling sex is absurd.

[beth]

i don't think i really listen to any "commercial" music, not in that i avoid it but that most of my favourite bands aren't majorly commerical and don't sell in their millions. so i don't come across any of this over-sexing etc. etc. thing is though, people can't be THAT offended by it because they're still buying it.

[FlyingJesus]

Totally disagree on the basis that you think Mumford & Sons are good

[Skittle]

Mumford & Sons are amazing they deserved to win the grammy

[Robi]

I don't see the fuss about Mumford and Sons but I hardly listen to their music so I can't really judge - some of the songs I heard at Glastonbury were awful.

[Spuds]

As I've previously said, the fat cats have what they want.

00:15


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y58OT6jlLvE&feature=player_embedded

2:46


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1EOGzzLy8U&feature=player_embedded

Cher Lloyd is yet another brand fabricated from a tiny speck of nothingness which can be marketed to the masses.

[Jurv]

I do agree with what you're saying about Rihanna and Jason Derulo but I wouldn't have said that all songs in the charts were all sex driven. There are actually artists out there who sell records because of their voices with Adele being one of them. Fair enough most of her songs if not all of them are about breaking up with her partner but I'm sure her voice is the main reason she's as big as she is.

As you said it was great to see Mumford & Sons receive a grammy award this year, it's about time a decent band won something.

[GommeInc]

I know nothing of music, but I can't help feel that people do not take it seriously. When Rebecca Black appeared everyone loved that song for it's crapness - crapness that sums up a lot of chart music that do not make sense lyrically. But I listen to anything, so I'm not the best person to talk to. The Rihanna thread in Current Affairs was good though, it was interesting to see what opinions were out there, even though it was one-sided hence its closure :P

Sex sells, and it sells well in the music industry. But it's up to debate if its the tune and the beat that sells the song, or the lyrics and video. Unfortunately it is here to stay.

[Jordy]

Mumford + Sons have some great songs but I find a lot of songs on their album quite unbareable. I just end up listening to the same few more often that not.

I don't think it's all about sex to be honest, music videos are perhaps but songs are just generally about love and always have been. You can go back to The Beatles and Elvis Presley and the topics of songs are pretty similar today. If you're not into the sex crazed R&B and Pop, there's lots of alternative music anyway. Whilst R&B and Pop dominates the charts there is a lot of other genres out there, it's just ridiculous to claim all music is going downhill etc. For instance look at Leeds/Reading and Download festivals, easily some of the largest in the UK yet you won't find many bands or artists attending in the charts, it's all still out there.

[peteyt]

I blame the Monkees first apparent manufactured band so they say ha.

But manufactured is the key word. Another is X Factor.

Why do a lot of artist fail who win on the X Factor? Well how many popular cover bands do you know? They call it the X Factor because they are "apparently" looking for something that's fresh, unique etc. Well that's a lie, they just want something they know they can sell in masses. They make them copy other artists, copy songs, and in the end they don't learn how to actually do their own stuff. I'd actually respect the X Factor if it allowed actual bands on the show and actually tried to help them with song writing.

Sex sells though. Look at commercials. Love also sells to the teens, who are probably going through something similar.

I'm currently listening to a favourite band of mine, the eagles. An old band, who worked together writing their own songs, playing their own instruments and years later they still are playing all over the world. They probably have more hits than 99 percent of today's artists yet they wrote most of them themselves.

Or take a look at someone like David Fords. With pen and paper, and a looping pedal, he can play all the instruments and do the singing, a one man band both in the studio and live. Extremely talented yet never really gets the break he deserves.

[simplymagic]

Like others have said sex sells. Clearly we enjoy singers singing about sex because the popular commerical artists sell quite well therefore the cycle repeats and we listen to sex all the time yay. Although like others, sex isn't the only theme repeated in music. While pop music is mainly about sex and relationships, it can be about anything because of it's genre.

Those that think the industry is autotuned, the answer to this problem is x factor or stop buying auto tuned music if you disagree with it that much (but others will still buy it anyway). I'm against auto tuning but if it produces a good song I like then I will still buy it. It's a cut throat industry to break in and I feel sorry for those good artists that can sing. However it's not just about their voice, in commerical anyway. They have to have a star image. I doubt a fat person with an amazing voice will last long tbh like her from pop idol who won.

[Spuds]

Find it strange 'Logan-' hasn't replied to the thread, he's got a level playing field here to come and explain to me why I'm wrong. Apparently he can't do that, guess I'll remain a 'hater'.

[Yupt]

OM NOM MUMFORD.

Anyway, I think that chart music is far too computerised. Yes I know all music recorded music is tweeked a little, but the whole songs aren't made on computers. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy it but Pop is literally just a computerised voice put over the top of a computerised beat these days.

[The Don]

A great example of this is Lady Gaga, where image seems to be more important than lyrics, beats and vocals.

[Neversoft]

It's interesting you mention that. In Japan they have a genre called visual kei (which basically translates to visual style) and the bands image, fashion and look is essentially what keeps them going and is considered as important as the music. I wouldn't say it has changed much over time though, music has never really been just about 'the music'.

[Spuds]

It appears Logan- is too inadequate to reply to this thread. He's now rejecting any contact from me via PM to earn a response as apparently I am not within my right to carry it on, strange as I was led to believe a debate is only ended when it's a moderator who decides to end a discussion due to rule breaking, not when a member closes a thread after quoting a user, not allowing the user to reply. Some may feel I'm acting a bit like a dog with a bone, which I probably wouldn't argue with however I just feel it's a shame Logan- is strangling an interesting debate for the whole forum due to his own selfishness.

[The Don]

It's interesting you mention that. In Japan they have a genre called visual kei (which basically translates to visual style) and the bands image, fashion and look is essentially what keeps them going and is considered as important as the music. I wouldn't say it has changed much over time though, music has never really been just about 'the music'.

Fair enough, but with Lady Gaga, it's all about the image.

[Neversoft]

Fair enough, but with Lady Gaga, it's all about the image.

People seem to get caught up in Gaga's image and deem her a talentless hack. It is definitely her image and weird persona that have gotten her noticed, but I wouldn't say she is all about image. She has talent, real enthusiasm on stage and knows how to write catchy - if sometimes unoriginal - songs.

[The Don]

People seem to get caught up in Gaga's image and deem her a talentless hack. It is definitely her image and weird persona that have gotten her noticed, but I wouldn't say she is all about image. She has talent, real enthusiasm on stage and knows how to write catchy - if sometimes unoriginal - songs.

I agree that she does have some talent, but, she changed herself completly to get noticed, you should have a look at her peforming before she became famous she looked completly different, she only got noticed when she started dressing like a clown, which is why I dislike her, she sold herself out to get fame.

[IAmAsianBoy]

I wish I was born like 30 years ago. They had better music then todays music, full of alcohol, drugs, sex, etc.

[Jordy]

I wish I was born like 30 years ago. They had better music then todays music, full of alcohol, drugs, sex, etc.Why would you base the time you were born on the state of the music industry? Does the higher standard of living improvements as well as healthcare and technological advances count for nothing?

The thing is, 30 years ago they still wrote songs about all that, 40-50 years ago the topics were all still much the same. Essentially it all stems off "Love" which is what all songwriters, write about.

[Plebings]

I wish I was born like 30 years ago. They had better music then todays music, full of alcohol, drugs, sex, etc.

If you look hard enough you will find music you like in the present, don't just generalise it and hate on music because you don't like what a majority of people do.

Yes imo pop music is in a sorry state at the moment, but pop has always been in a sorry state, each transformation of pop music usually has a similar theme.

The problem with nostalgia is that people only remember the classics, do you remember all the small #1s in the 90s? Ones that probably pissed off a lot of 17 year olds in that generation like it is doing now.

I've lost my point anyway, what I mean is that in 20 years time the songs that we'll be remembered for will be our Umbrella, Crazy In Love, Hey Ya, etc, not the current 'small fries' like Glad You Came, Don't Stop The Party, etc