Elton John: ‘Chart Music Isn’t Real Music’

[MiQuenDroid 5,059]

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

I mean where are the lies.

Also, not yall thinking this means he doesn't like SFA or even Chromatica 

 

Did you even listen to his and Gaga's interview on Gaga Radio about it? He clearly LOVES the song.

He's clearly referring to the music created solely for the charts and which follows the trends of the day to secure that, meaning there's no real integrity with it, it's just all for the bling.

And the lot of you here are CONSTANTLY groaning and complaining about that type of music, yet suddenly now you're major defenders of mediocrity 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

Also, GUARANTEED that if Gaga has said this, y'all would be singing to a much different tune.

"Yaaaasss Queen"

"Preachhh"

"Spill the tea sis!"

Elton really ruffled y'alls feathers n got you triggered and we LOVE to see it! Good old hypocrisy!

[Chromatislaps 34,571]

he sounds bitter, WAP is the song I'd play on my babyshower, wedding, 50th birthday, funeral, etc 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

That picture.

[JustTea 3,043]

Agreed, since most of the charting songs are rap/trap crap...

[Wolf Boy 2,985]

Chart music is all about mass appeal, yes, but that doesn’t mean its “not music”. Also, music doesn’t always need to be “sophisticated”, he sounds like he needs to loosen up and relax a little.

[Curunir 7,510]

1 hour ago, Vergil said:

I think a song should have 1-2 songwriters and 1-2 producers max.

And what if it doesn't? 

Gaga's discography is 80% more than two writers/producers for example.

[Toph 374]

He's really not that wrong though tbh

[Curunir 7,510]

25 minutes ago, MiQuenDroid said:

Apples and oranges.

If Gaga writes for the music, that doesn't mean she can't write for the charts at the same time. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes she said "I write for the music not the charts" but let's be real here, that's not really true and she was most likely being tongue-in-cheek. Applause was made for the charts, especially with the amount of promo it got. That doesn't make it any less of a great song though.

[LadyEnigma 955]

eh that was hella hypocritical and asshole behavior...BUT Father John Misty is one of the best song writers/ producers alive rn

[Sister 9,907]

I wrote out a good reply and it deleted..maybe I will rewrite it again later. I am tired. 

[Gagas lil monster 2,424]

Everyone's dragging Elton 😭 I love him so much

[Hyperballad 4,268]

Björk said it best 

https://youtu.be/8OWBfMcwewM

[Adakam 2]

9 hours ago, M Monstre said:

I don't disagree with this, but I think the problem is that he puts an emphasis on about music being made with computers. Largely, I agree that the charts today are trash, but that's completely subjective. 

Making music using computers is just as valid as using real instruments. Of course, there will always be something special about recording something live for a song, but just because a song is made digitally doesn't make it any less good of a song.

I think that using terms like "just as valid" is the issue here, as its very subjective.

I would say that he isnt talking like that about computer made music just because it comes from a computer, but more about how computer sounds are made and used.

Lets compare current music to some of the old music, like the highest selling albums of all time:

On Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, you can hear a ton of sound effects, not very different from what we hear today, but in 1973 they didnt exist, so the band and their producer, took their sweet time to come up with everything and polish it. They wanted a lot of clock alarms going at the same time? They filled the studio with clocks. They wanted the sound of cash register machines? They got the machines and recorded them for a loop, nowadays you pick up the phone with your producer, he presses a few buttons, and he'll send you thise effects in like 15 minutes. In other words, musicians were and had to be a lot more creative, which was rewarded with a better reception and sales.

Secondly, many bands of that time like Pink Floyd, would even do concerts long before their album release, where they played the songs in their earlier forms, so they would also polish them based on public reception. Some of them ending very different on the final record. That just doesnt exist anymore, just like how bands like that would pretty much go live together on an inspiring place for months to write those songs. Nowadays we praise those that say 'i WrOte tHis sOng iN 10 mInUtEs"

 

Other example, the best and highest selling album ever, Thriller. Done entirely with instruments, it just gives you a very different result.... and sales agree with it.

In my opinion, current music is like McDonalds, its still food, and it tastes good, and it fills your stomach perfectly fine, and it sells millions every day, but a restaurant, chef-made burguer, will always be a better option.

 

Edit: Also, remember when Gaga said she had to write like 100 songs for every album and that the label would pick which ones to use? Back in the day, the musicians would be the ones that picked them, and they were able to write whatever they wanted. Thats not the case anymore, labels have taken control away from the artists.