Justin Bieber Breaks Record Fastest Single To Re

[VforVendetta 2,024]

An "excuse"? And who are you that everyone has to impress with the quality of their music?  The artists you mentioned don't claim to be groundbreaking artists, and if people like fun and digestable music then let them enjoy it. You could just listen to something else and focus your energy on things that actually concern you rather than what other people like. Just a thought.

Of course they are, they are on top of the Pop industry. They give the music educaton to this generation, Miley Cyrus gives music education to Your generation, be proud.

[Harry 26,836]

Of coure there are still great artists and I can name a few, this doesn't mean that the quality hasn;t fallen dramatically. And since it seems that you don;t get t I am talking about commercial music, music that talks to the masses. When it comes it music a few peopl that can digest it, there will alway sbe quality music there. To see the quality of one generation's music standarts you judge commercial music, not indie music. 

And the decay of our generation has nothing to with the artists themselves, bad artists always existed, it has to do with the quality standarts and culture of the generation. If you actually knew how to distinguish the artists that matter all this junk wouldn;t be part of the industry today so don't come to call me a music snob when you are a music ignorant.

What is really "commercial" now, though? Charts are not even totally an indicator of what's truly popular. The music landscape has changed dramatically since our parent's generations now, thanks to the internet. People in the 60s/70s/80s etc had no choice but to listen to what they were fed by the radio. Of course more obscure music existed, but it was harder to find. Those people had a tunnel vision look on what was happening in the world, musically. In 2015 we can choose to listen to literally anything. Pop music these days go through trends on a yearly basis, sometimes passing trends happen even quicker and that's because mainstream artists are exposed to so much of what is happening globally/with underground artists.

What I'm trying to say is that all the commercial landscape of radio and media is very generic and for the most part bland, so it is worse. But artists as a whole today are more exciting than they ever were, you just have to look beyond "commercial". There's no way you can use "our generation" as a blanket group of artists because everything is so different now.

So you can continue whining about Justin Bieber and Katy Perry being played on radio, or you can just accept that's where popular music is in 2015 and explore all the exciting things that are happening elsewhere in music.

EDIT: And I know you aren't gonna sit there and slut shame and then tell me that I'm ignorant

[VforVendetta 2,024]

What is really "commercial" now, though? Charts are not even totally an indicator of what's truly popular. The music landscape has changed dramatically since our parent's generations now, thanks to the internet. People in the 60s/70s/80s etc had no choice but to listen to what they were fed by the radio. Of course more obscure music existed, but it was harder to find. Those people had a tunnel vision look on what was happening in the world, musically. In 2015 we can choose to listen to literally anything. Pop music these days go through trends on a yearly basis, sometimes passing trends happen even quicker and that's because mainstream artists are exposed to so much of what is happening globally/with underground artists.

What I'm trying to say is that all the commercial landscape of radio and media is very generic and for the most part bland, so it is worse. But artists as a whole today are more exciting than they ever were, you just have to look beyond "commercial". There's no way you can use "our generation" as a blanket group of artists because everything is so different now.

So you can continue whining about Justin Bieber and Katy Perry being played on radio, or you can just accept that's where popular music is in 2015 and explore all the exciting things that are happening elsewhere in music.

EDIT: And I know you aren't gonna sit there and slut shame and then tell me that I'm ignorant

You actually say the same thing and agree that the msuic quality is much lower though so don't.

And the internet gives you possibilities like nevr before but is the user that ddefines the quality. On the internet you can find all kinds of things but it's you who decide hat you want to give attention to.

And of course I'm gonna complain, I am not gaonna sit down and pretend that everthing is fine when popular musi cof today is a complete decay.

And Pop music always exists eben know with the internet. Pop musi cis not only the music that is everywhere. it's th music that appeals to the masses (which has always been a lowering in quality compared to less popular gernes) but some quality in Pop is more important than all the quality in indie music simple because it is music that talks everyone. I can name you many great indie and more unpopular acts of today and I can even name you some great Popular acts but the majority of the popular acts of today are junk and that's a fact.

 

 

[Harry 26,836]

You actually say the same thing and agree that the msuic quality is much lower though so don't.

And the internet gives you possibilities like nevr before but is the user that ddefines the quality. On the internet you can find all kinds of things but it's you who decide hat you want to give attention to.

And of course I'm gonna complain, I am not gaonna sit down and pretend that everthing is fine when popular musi cof today is a complete decay.

And Pop music always exists eben know with the internet. Pop musi cis not only the music that is everywhere. it's th music that appeals to the masses (which has always been a lowering in quality compared to less popular gernes) but some quality in Pop is more important than all the quality in indie music simple because it is music that talks everyone. I can name you many great indie and more unpopular acts of today and I can even name you some great Popular acts but the majority of the popular acts of today are junk and that's a fact.

I don't agree that music quality today is lower... In fact totally the opposite. I prefer a lot of what's happening now, mostly in electronic and hip-hop. I just think that the standard for what radio accepts and gives to mainstream audiences is very restrictive. I also don't think it matters anymore.

Your problem is that you think "music today" = top 40. You need to open your eyes. Yes it's all for consumption, but young people are exploring different music thanks to the internet. Not every 15 year old loves Katy Perry and One Direction.

But at the end of the day I honestly don't see why it matters. Labels have been churning out bubblegum **** for years to cater to young teens. Even The Beatles earliest stuff, Please Please Me & Love Me Do etc, those are simple pop songs and the appeal was the same as these artists now. It wasn't until a little later that they started to do interesting stuff.

[VforVendetta 2,024]

I don't agree that music quality today is lower... In fact totally the opposite. I prefer a lot of what's happening now, mostly in electronic and hip-hop. I just think that the standard for what radio accepts and gives to mainstream audiences is very restrictive. I also don't think it matters anymore.

Your problem is that you think "music today" = top 40. You need to open your eyes. Yes it's all for consumption, but young people are exploring different music thanks to the internet. Not every 15 year old loves Katy Perry and One Direction.

But at the end of the day I honestly don't see why it matters. Labels have been churning out bubblegum **** for years to cater to young teens. Even The Beatles earliest stuff, Please Please Me & Love Me Do etc, those are simple pop songs and the appeal was the same as these artists now. It wasn't until a little later that they started to do interesting stuff.

Music of today is NOT the top 40 I agree but the music of the majority is still the top 40 simple not oly because top 40 is the music accessible to the masses but because the music education that this generation gets is music of that level and quality that's the point.

[Harry 26,836]

Music of today is NOT the top 40 I agree but the music of the majority is still the top 40 simple not oly because top 40 is the music accessible to the masses but because the music education that this generation gets is music of that level and quality that's the point.

And this is what I'm saying... Now any kind of music is accessible to anyone that has an internet connection. If they decide that they don't like what they hear on the radio, they can open up Spotify and explore. Some people do just like what's considered accessible and top 40, and they're perfectly within their rights to enjoy it without being told their taste is 'trash'.

[Raikov 183]

Firstly, Pink Floyd aren't, by any stretch of the word, "pop music." They're a prog rock band and have no place being compared to the pop artists of today since they were never pop. Only one of their singles (Another Brick In The Wall Pt 2) reached #1 in the US, and it's no coincidence it's the most disco influenced one. The only proper comparison is to compare them to today's rock scene. And Pink Floyd didn't really have mainstream recognition before DSOTM, so until that point they were more similar to "the indie scene."

Your comparison is also fallacious in that you select what history has determined what the cream of the crop of the 60s-80s was and compare it to everything today. Do you remember Olivia Newton John? 100 million records sold? 4 time Grammy winner? 15 Top 10 singles? She was a very successful artist during the 70s (and she actually crossed over from country to pop), yet I never see her mentioned when people talk about how good music "used to be". What's the reason for this? Despite being popular, her music was nothing groundbreaking. But we have the benefit of hindsight to be able to compare all the artists from an era and select the best. What you're doing is lumping in all the artists that are popular right now and saying "look, they suck!" when you're comparing them to a very selective category from the past. A truly honest comparison would look at the artists that were most popular in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, not just the current critical darlings. Is Katy Perry's brand of bubblegum pop truly worse than Olivia Newton John? Olivia has a better voice, but other than that, they both make nice, foot-tapping, consumable pop music. There are many other forgotten artists that used to be extraordinarily popular that are always conveniently left out of these "the past was better!" discussions. 

I used to think like you, only I cut the deadline for "good music" off at 1979. Starting from 1980, popular music (not the same as pop music, which is a genre) was crap! I only listened to artists from the 60s and 70s. Then I started listening to some contemporary artists. And I liked them. Gaga especially got me into today's pop scene. The songs had a good sense of melody and were well-produced. I realized that my prejudice was unfounded. Moreover, studying music made me realize that practically all popular music was similar. It's extremely unlikely that extended tonality or straight-up serialism will ever find a home in popular music. The Beatles got away with experimenting with music because they mixed it with catchy melodies, but for the most part their experimentation was tame (especially considering what other, less popular, bands were doing).

Your comment about indie music "not reaching the masses" is nonsensical in light of the fact that artists that fail to impact the charts, like Lana Del Rey and Marina and the Diamonds, are still known by their target audience. I'd say pretty much all my peers know who Lana is, despite her only hit single being a remix somebody else made of her stuff. A significant number of them also know who Marina is. Before the internet, indie music was extremely hard to get a hold of or play on the radio. That's not true anymore. Songs literally recorded in someone's bedroom can have an exposure of millions. Lorde and the Weeknd got their original fame from their internet releases, when they were shadowy and mysterious and nobody knew anything solid about them. Now they've crossed over into mainstream success, but it would never have been possible without the audience they first amassed through the internet. Almost everybody I know listens to music that isn't on the charts, in addition to music on the charts. Tastes today are probably more eclectic than they were in our parents' time, when your possibilities for music exposure were limited to what the music industry bigwigs told you to hear.

Can you tell me, concretely, why it is a fact that the popular music of today "sucks" in comparison to that of the past? I studied music theory, so feel free to lay all that jargon on me. If you have any training in literary a--lysis, I'd certainly be glad to hear it. My personal observations have led me to note that recorded popular music, since the invention of recorded music in the late 1890s, has always been predictable and rather bland, having predictable chord progressions, song structure, and lyrical content. The difference is that each era has a different chord progression, structure, and lyricism. The melodic inflections that were all the rage in the 1910s won't find an audience in the 70s, and the secondary dominants that generic pop ballads of the 50s loved don't ring true nowadays. However, within each era of pop music, the music is mostly homogenuous, calculated, and "safe." It's completely disingenuous to talk about the pop music of an era, as a whole, being better than another, because it's always served the same purpose of moving records.

In 30 years, we can have this discussion. When the sands of time have determined which artists of the 2000s and 2010s were the best, we can compare them to the best of all the previous eras. That's the only fair comparison. You can't leave the trash out of the past but shove it into the present just because it won't fit your point. And keep in mind - the artists that we venerate today were not always considered so in their time. Today, it's accepted that ABBA were a great band, with incredible vocals and a knack for melodies. In their time, ABBA were despised by "serious" music critics, who called them slick and overproduced garbage, bemoaned the music of their day and instead listened to the Beatles and the Who... sound familiar?

By the way, do you listen to rap? Because Nicki Minaj is actually a very clever rapper. I share your disappointment that her lyrical scope is limited, but nevertheless I feel that she's very talented with regards to word play. Instead of focusing on her image, which you don't like, how about focusing on the music? It's not as if the artists of the past didn't have their own problematic images, either (the disgusting, entitled attitude of rock bands during the 70s never ceases to repulse me. Trashing hotels is not cool), but we choose to judge them on their musical output because nowadays, their image doesn't matter.

The children of the 80s didn't like being told by their parents that the music they were listening to was crap and that Michael Jackson was nothing next to Led Zeppelin (another nonsensical comparison since Led Zep was rock and MJ was pop, but musical elitism knows no boundaries). Now we say that MJ was a great artist of the 80s. Can you really judge an entire generation of pop music, especially when you haven't even heard all the wonders it has to supply? Kids today are no longer shackled to the radio, so don't use that as the only benchmark for what is "popular." Be open minded and you'll find a lot of incredible and unique music being produced today.

[SexXDreams 184]

The new queen of pop has arrived.

[VforVendetta 2,024]

And this is what I'm saying... Now any kind of music is accessible to anyone that has an internet connection. If they decide that they don't like what they hear on the radio, they can open up Spotify and explore. Some people do just like what's considered accessible and top 40, and they're perfectly within their rights to enjoy it without being told their taste is 'trash'.

Yes but of course not all people are gonna have the background to search for quality (which most can't distinguish at all). That's why they are called the masses.

[Harry 26,836]

Yes but of course not all people are gonna have the background to search for quality (which most can't distinguish at all). That's why they are called the masses.

They can still decide if they like something or not... Your idea of quality is different to someone else's. Why do you think you can/want to dictate what people should be listening to? That's very snobby.

[Runway 27,876]

Zayn took the talent and success with him when he left 1D :(

[malazam 15,710]

Well, he still a dumb person and the song is not that good at all

'Celebs like Mark Wahlberg, Ellen DeGeneres, Ashton Kutcher, Usher, Ariana Grande, Kylie Jenner and Kendall Jenner all posed with pictures that marked how many days until it dropped.'

On the right: Justin bieber 30 days hyped single which broke the record by FIVE MINS

On the left: DMD which had no promo, released at night...

 

 

[VforVendetta 2,024]

Firstly, Pink Floyd aren't, by any stretch of the word, "pop music." They're a prog rock band and have no place being compared to the pop artists of today since they were never pop. Only one of their singles (Another Brick In The Wall Pt 2) reached #1 in the US, and it's no coincidence it's the most disco influenced one. The only proper comparison is to compare them to today's rock scene. And Pink Floyd didn't really have mainstream recognition before DSOTM, so until that point they were more similar to "the indie scene."

Your comparison is also fallacious in that you select what history has determined what the cream of the crop of the 60s-80s was and compare it to everything today. Do you remember Olivia Newton John? 100 million records sold? 4 time Grammy winner? 15 Top 10 singles? She was a very successful artist during the 70s (and she actually crossed over from country to pop), yet I never see her mentioned when people talk about how good music "used to be". What's the reason for this? Despite being popular, her music was nothing groundbreaking. But we have the benefit of hindsight to be able to compare all the artists from an era and select the best. What you're doing is lumping in all the artists that are popular right now and saying "look, they suck!" when you're comparing them to a very selective category from the past. A truly honest comparison would look at the artists that were most popular in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, not just the current critical darlings. Is Katy Perry's brand of bubblegum pop truly worse than Olivia Newton John? Olivia has a better voice, but other than that, they both make nice, foot-tapping, consumable pop music. There are many other forgotten artists that used to be extraordinarily popular that are always conveniently left out of these "the past was better!" discussions. 

I used to think like you, only I cut the deadline for "good music" off at 1979. Starting from 1980, popular music (not the same as pop music, which is a genre) was crap! I only listened to artists from the 60s and 70s. Then I started listening to some contemporary artists. And I liked them. Gaga especially got me into today's pop scene. The songs had a good sense of melody and were well-produced. I realized that my prejudice was unfounded. Moreover, studying music made me realize that practically all popular music was similar. It's extremely unlikely that extended tonality or straight-up serialism will ever find a home in popular music. The Beatles got away with experimenting with music because they mixed it with catchy melodies, but for the most part their experimentation was tame (especially considering what other, less popular, bands were doing).

Your comment about indie music "not reaching the masses" is nonsensical in light of the fact that artists that fail to impact the charts, like Lana Del Rey and Marina and the Diamonds, are still known by their target audience. I'd say pretty much all my peers know who Lana is, despite her only hit single being a remix somebody else made of her stuff. A significant number of them also know who Marina is. Before the internet, indie music was extremely hard to get a hold of or play on the radio. That's not true anymore. Songs literally recorded in someone's bedroom can have an exposure of millions. Lorde and the Weeknd got their original fame from their internet releases, when they were shadowy and mysterious and nobody knew anything solid about them. Now they've crossed over into mainstream success, but it would never have been possible without the audience they first amassed through the internet. Almost everybody I know listens to music that isn't on the charts, in addition to music on the charts. Tastes today are probably more eclectic than they were in our parents' time, when your possibilities for music exposure were limited to what the music industry bigwigs told you to hear.

Can you tell me, concretely, why it is a fact that the popular music of today "sucks" in comparison to that of the past? I studied music theory, so feel free to lay all that jargon on me. If you have any training in literary a--lysis, I'd certainly be glad to hear it. My personal observations have led me to note that recorded popular music, since the invention of recorded music in the late 1890s, has always been predictable and rather bland, having predictable chord progressions, song structure, and lyrical content. The difference is that each era has a different chord progression, structure, and lyricism. The melodic inflections that were all the rage in the 1910s won't find an audience in the 70s, and the secondary dominants that generic pop ballads of the 50s loved don't ring true nowadays. However, within each era of pop music, the music is mostly homogenuous, calculated, and "safe." It's completely disingenuous to talk about the pop music of an era, as a whole, being better than another, because it's always served the same purpose of moving records.

In 30 years, we can have this discussion. When the sands of time have determined which artists of the 2000s and 2010s were the best, we can compare them to the best of all the previous eras. That's the only fair comparison. You can't leave the trash out of the past but shove it into the present just because it won't fit your point. And keep in mind - the artists that we venerate today were not always considered so in their time. Today, it's accepted that ABBA were a great band, with incredible vocals and a knack for melodies. In their time, ABBA were despised by "serious" music critics, who called them slick and overproduced garbage, bemoaned the music of their day and instead listened to the Beatles and the Who... sound familiar?

By the way, do you listen to rap? Because Nicki Minaj is actually a very clever rapper. I share your disappointment that her lyrical scope is limited, but nevertheless I feel that she's very talented with regards to word play. Instead of focusing on her image, which you don't like, how about focusing on the music? It's not as if the artists of the past didn't have their own problematic images, either (the disgusting, entitled attitude of rock bands during the 70s never ceases to repulse me. Trashing hotels is not cool), but we choose to judge them on their musical output because nowadays, their image doesn't matter.

The children of the 80s didn't like being told by their parents that the music they were listening to was crap and that Michael Jackson was nothing next to Led Zeppelin (another nonsensical comparison since Led Zep was rock and MJ was pop, but musical elitism knows no boundaries). Now we say that MJ was a great artist of the 80s. Can you really judge an entire generation of pop music, especially when you haven't even heard all the wonders it has to supply? Kids today are no longer shackled to the radio, so don't use that as the only benchmark for what is "popular." Be open minded and you'll find a lot of incredible and unique music being produced today.

When it comes to indie music it doesn't mean that all indie music is musi cof the same quality. The fact that an artist shas the label indie it doesn't mean that they are good as well. Also I never said that Rock like Pink Floyd was Pop but ROck was the Pop music back then.

And as I said above of course there are great acts if you search for them, the problem is that there is a decay in Popular culture of today and that's the indicator. Of course as you said with the internet someone that has will and the background can search for more quality acts but like every type of music has it's plac Popular music is the music that talks to th ebeiggest part of the people and it's music that can give music culture to the new generations (along with the family of course). That's my point, it's worrying when in Popular music the level of qualtity is low cause it creates a generaio with very low music fountations.

Huge post, wow

[Melech 9,900]

When it comes to indie musi cit doesn't mean that all indie music is musi cof the same quality. The fact that an artist shas the label indie it doesn't mean that they are good as well. Also I never said that Rock like Pink Floyd was Pop but ROck was the Pop music back then.

And as I said above of course there are great acts if you search for them, the problem is that there is a decay in Popular culture of today and that's the indicator. Of course as you said with the internet someone that has will and the background can search for more quality acts but like every type of music has it's plac Popular music is the music that talks to th ebeiggest part of the people and it's music that can give music culture to the new generations (along with the family of course). That's my point, it's worrying when in Popular music the level of qualtity is low cause it creates a generaio with very low music fountations.

 

Music always changes. Beethoven or Mozart would cringe if they hear Beatles for example. Music is always changing over the time. I mean what is Quality in the first place?? And who are you tell people they don't listen to "quality" etc? 

[VforVendetta 2,024]

They can still decide if they like something or not... Your idea of quality is different to someone else's. Why do you think you can/want to dictate what people should be listening to? That's very snobby.

I am not talking about level, I am talking about background. If you want to distinguish a good wine from a bad one you need to have background on the drink, it's secrets and experience in quality as well. If your background is low you will drink everything they give you. The same happens in music. Of course you can find good music yourself but you first need to have the background to know what is good music. It's not like all these people that fandom for all these Pop Stars know what they are, they think that this is what music all about and that's why so many people are offended by this, because you destroy their whole identity when you tell them that the musi cthey think is great. To sum it up it's not understanding, it's ignorance.