Britney Spears??!!

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
*points at Curt*
Methinks there's a punk in the room!;)
Not all pop artists are no talent wannabes!
Click to expand...

Faugh!
You insult me, Sir!
It shall be pistols at dawn!

I am no punk, but even a mohican-wearing lout can see through
The sham that is pop music.
I suppose the cattle-like conformist people need a music form
That re-assures them the world is A-OK. When it actually isn't.
Go and dream, pop-lovers!
Leave the real music to the experts!

I accept that bands like U2 and Oasis can actually play.
It's just they are not all that impressive compared to the real musicians,
Who don't have the record sales to match these hype-monsters.

It's really down to the fact that the number of people who demand
Real music with some integrity, are far outnumbered by those who
Listen to the lowest common denominator.
But pop fans like to think this is because their music is better...
All sheep dream of being donkeys!
:rolleyes:
 
:lol:

Pistols at dawn it shall be then!

Say at 300 meters? ;)


The problem is that pop music is so damn popular. Once a band gets popular, then it is seen as "popular music".

Is Metallica pop music just because the "sheep" enjoy their music?

Tom Petty isn't pop music, because he's not so popular?

Led Zepplin is the most popular "classic rock" band. Their image was crafted as well. Are they pop rock?

Bubble-gum pop, and Pop-Rock and the like are VERY hard to pin down. What is what is pretty hard to define.

I like Buddy Holly's sound, but he would be considered country music these days, and I am not a country music guy.

Or the Stone's? What would you call the Rolling Stones? I call them the best Rock&Roll band of all time.:goodjob:

I guess it's a personal preference on what you call it.:)
 
Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
:lol:
The problem is that pop music is so damn popular. Once a band gets popular, then it is seen as "popular music".
I guess it's a personal preference on what you call it.:)
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that!

How about just water pistols then?
:lol:
 
"I am no punk, but even a mohican-wearing lout can see through
The sham that is pop music.
I suppose the cattle-like conformist people need a music form
That re-assures them the world is A-OK. When it actually isn't.
Go and dream, pop-lovers!
Leave the real music to the experts!"

Tut tut, Curt. I am by no means a dictator who needs reassurance that the world is "A-OK", but I do listen to all sorts of music, including pop.
Indeed, some people have been flabberghasted trying to picture an evil overlord listening to the stuff I do.

But there you have it: personal choice and taste covers a wide spectrum. It does not make a person inferior if they listen to a certain kind of music, and I bristle at the bandying aboot of "real music" and "experts".

What exactly is "real music with integrity", and who decides on the definition? It is, in the end, just music; a collection of sounds that some may find pleasing.

And on the subject under debate, it is my ruling that Britney Spears, Madogga, and all those other female "singers" are naught but ill sounding brass, and sickening to look at, also.
 
What defines a "pop band" or "pop singer"? Record sales?

If so, the Beatles were quite the ultimate pop band, at least in their day (decade). Yet musically, they were actually quite good.

And Pink Floyd broke a record with Dark Side of the Moon--14 YEARS on the top 100! Are they "pop"?

Is it that they don't write their own songs? Elton John didn't though (I believe his "business partner" wrote all his songs, or at least the lyrics). Is he "pop" too then?

So where is this line drawn, which defines where the "pop" side of music is, where all people of integrity and good cultural taste must avoid going at all cost?

I dislike Britney's music, sure, but I do for my own reasons. I don't look at her and say, "she's too popular--I don't like her." I just DON'T like her. But there are some bands that are/have been popular that I DO like.
 
Originally posted by allan2
So where is this line drawn, which defines where the "pop" side of music is, where all people of integrity and good cultural taste must avoid going at all cost?

I dislike Britney's music, sure, but I do for my own reasons. I don't look at her and say, "she's too popular--I don't like her." I just DON'T like her. But there are some bands that are/have been popular that I DO like.
Click to expand...

Give me enough guitars (preferably metal ones - they sound awfull and they're sharper) and the line will be the face of the earth as all pop stars will be 6 feet under ground.
Seriously, I think in the modern sense pop is when music becomes just a small part of what a band is doing. The beatles made a lot of things, but their center what always music. So did other classic bands. Today Britney (:shottie::aargh3: ) is using music in order to gain more money but the focus is on how she looks and how popular she is.
 
OMG... do you guys realise how bad you sound. You are actually discussing Britney spears seriosly.


God.


:(
 
I must take the "blame" for having started this thread about Ms(?) ;) . Spears.

I was enjoying it when everybody went about bashing her and her ilk:goodjob: :goodjob: , but some dufus got into the nitty gritty of the pop industry and it became serious:rolleyes: .


Come on, people, we want more Britney Bashing :hammer: :hammer:
 
So where is this line drawn, which defines where the "pop" side of music is, where all people of integrity and good cultural taste must avoid going at all cost?
Click to expand...
I see "pop" as being any music that garners most of its popularity and sales from image and ruthless promotion, rather than through its own merits. Britney Spears, n'Sync and the rest of their ilk are products of the kind of fierce advertising that taps into the deepest human desires and fantasies (namely sex, sex and more sex).

I will not, like many anti-poppers, dismiss pop music as being largely shallow and poor (save the lyrics). Some of those boy bands and solo girls do have some pretty catchy tunes out there.

The music industry does not exist to spread music for all ears to hear. It does not exist to spread awareness, culture and harmony. It does not exist to make you feel good. It exists to do what any other corporation exists for: to turn a profit. Morals and values to these corporations extend only as far as what is legal and what is good for PR and sales.

The kind of thought and sentiment that go into producing a pop star is the same kind that goes into producing a commercial. They're both trying to sell you as much of their product as possible.

- Maj
 
Now THERE'S a good definition, Maj! That was the kind of definition I was looking for.... :goodjob:

And most of that kind of music I just so happen to dislike--I don't dislike it because of HOW it is produced though, but because (and I'm sure the process has something to do with this) it is half-assed.

But there are artists who write their own half-assed stuff too--not ALL "starving artists" are good either.

Most of what I like is probably somewhere in the middle--they write their own stuff, have talent and all, and write things "genuine" to them; but they also realize that they must make a living, so they seek to give their audience something of value to them, too. Artists of integrity, but not too arrogant for their own good.... :D (I'd say U2, for example, haven't lost their integrity--they've just become successful with it. The two things aren't necessarily incompatible.)

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Favorite mythology
Replies
13
Views
668
Hygro
Hygro
V
Fall of Rome and its relevance
2 3
Replies
49
Views
3K
banzay13
banzay13
danjuno
Former President Biden Has "Aggressive" Cancer
Replies
13
Views
634
Cloud_Strife
Cloud_Strife
W
Casual talk
Replies
2
Views
207
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Zardnaar
Sick As Dogs Breakfast
2
Replies
30
Views
854
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Back
Top Bottom