Why are today's popstars so basic?

[homomo 23,883]

7 minutes ago, Enigma said:

I agree with you that they have been trying new things lately. Which is good. I am just saying in general, they have always been very trendy and simple with their music.

What do you define as trendy and simple?

[Quark 7,098]

Just now, Interstellar said:

What do you define as trendy and simple?

Music that sounds like the music everyone else is releasing at the moment. And by simple I mean similar song structures, very similar topics, with very simple lyrics.

[androiduser 7,438]

keep in mind Lady Gaga is today's pop star

[kvnrp 48,353]

2012 was way, way worse than today tbh.

The EDM hype was so strong, everything charted high, no matter how basic and useless the song was, at least if it had some sort of Drop.

I just happy that that time is finally over and people are beginning to get a little more creative again.

And with Lemonade released and Dangerous Woman, LG5 and Britney9 around the corner, 2016 looks pretty promising.

Lets just wait until a little later in the year when all the big ones released something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

[Manul 7,377]

Rihanna is not basic.

[Roomingfree77 244]

59 minutes ago, Enigma said:

You are right in the sense that computer generated music makes everything more accessible. But there is a lot of electronic music that is actually very creative and unique. Is just that most mainstream artists don't bother to explore.

its simple Picasso  didn't have money in mind when he painted he had love that went into every stroke except for that abstract crap he painted, there he had jokes. A lot of these artist are thinkn cash and not art and computers seem to the fast track to what they desire but it is really only a small part of the real equation

[Divine 1,821]

you again?  anyways, they are basic compared to gaga, but they put out their own craft out there. I mean we can atleast consider it as a talent. (and oh, maybe for you they are basic, but maybe for some they aren't) 

[ALGAYDO 32,496]

21 minutes ago, Love Drought said:

Rihanna is not basic.

The majority of Rih's music is generic tho. Of course she gives it that "Rihanna flavor" that distinguishes her from other pop stars, but it's still genetic. And this is coming from a huge fan. But being generic doesn't mean it's bad. I mean, one of the reasons I fell in love with Rihanna was her easily relatable and accessible music. She's a really fun pop artist.

Of course, she changed that with ANTI, which is so different from anything she's done before. I love both her generic bops and her more experimental jams. 

[Quark 7,098]

13 minutes ago, Roomingfree77 said:

its simple Picasso  didn't have money in mind when he painted he had love that went into every stroke except for that abstract crap he painted, there he had jokes. A lot of these artist are thinkn cash and not art and computers seem to the fast track to what they desire but it is really only a small part of the real equation

Yes, some of these people are selling music mostly for the fame and money.

[Roomingfree77 244]

Just now, Enigma said:

Yes, some of these people are selling music mostly for the fame and money.

 

1 minute ago, Enigma said:

Yes, some of these people are selling music mostly for the fame and money.

and the fast track to that equation is nobody is buying the music until after they see a show from the performer that inspires memories so its like you gotta give the beef away to sell the sauce, but not necessarily though...lol

 

[politicqxs 358]

They are fast food..

[Grace 354]

if you think there are no artists in pop try listening to Jpop or Kpop, where creativity and artistry seems to be actively discouraged in music making...  

[Ronk 14,762]

I would not criticize any artists for being "basic".  If they are, it's because that's what people want and will buy.  They should be applauded for that, as they make millions of people happy.  What's basic to one person is wonderful to another.