State of music today

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 :).

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.

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

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

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.

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

Mumford & Sons are amazing they deserved to win the grammy

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.

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

00:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y58OT...layer_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.

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.