The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Its been a good decade or two since pople still thought that pop-peeps wrote their own music or lyrics...
Being more of a front end, the shiney, glossy shell hiding the inner working of either, depending on how you look at it, the music process, or the record distributor cash cow?
The design behind pop people it seems (besides the big money making thing) is less to sell music, more to sell a complete package, an image, a look, a style, a vogue.
Surely then, they should never be referred to as 'Arteests' ... nor as 'musicians' ...
But as maybe representatives or brand names or...?
Should pop music be represented as BEING these front men... or should it be represented as the whole... The front men are important, the inner workings often being confusing and messy... but should be be lead to believe that band IS the people miming to the music...
I dont think there are many people left who really believe in the credability of the BackstreetBoys, Blues, etc... So why not seperate, in the media, to the public, the difference betweenthe 'developed', 'created', 'controlled'? music, and the 'discovered' music... the difference between the manufactured music.. and the people who spent time sweat and toil to create their own works?
Especially since, often the fans of N'Synce would rather not be linked with those of Clutch...
Is it time pop and manufactured music became, as a publically used standard, seperated from intenral (to an individual performer), creative music?
Being more of a front end, the shiney, glossy shell hiding the inner working of either, depending on how you look at it, the music process, or the record distributor cash cow?
The design behind pop people it seems (besides the big money making thing) is less to sell music, more to sell a complete package, an image, a look, a style, a vogue.
Surely then, they should never be referred to as 'Arteests' ... nor as 'musicians' ...
But as maybe representatives or brand names or...?
Should pop music be represented as BEING these front men... or should it be represented as the whole... The front men are important, the inner workings often being confusing and messy... but should be be lead to believe that band IS the people miming to the music...
I dont think there are many people left who really believe in the credability of the BackstreetBoys, Blues, etc... So why not seperate, in the media, to the public, the difference betweenthe 'developed', 'created', 'controlled'? music, and the 'discovered' music... the difference between the manufactured music.. and the people who spent time sweat and toil to create their own works?
Especially since, often the fans of N'Synce would rather not be linked with those of Clutch...
Is it time pop and manufactured music became, as a publically used standard, seperated from intenral (to an individual performer), creative music?
Page:
Bonus wrote:
The decent people who
> write and perform their own stuff rule. But how long before we start to get
> manufactured rock bands and indie bands?? The big money bags guys will get in
> on the act if this type of music isn't seen as just a passing fad.
We have had manufactured rock bands and indie bands since, at the very least, the early ninties...
Though, I was thinking more of a direct, redirection... I'm not in anyway saying that if music is pop, then it automatically sucks... just that given the enourmous differences in the source and destination of manufactured/natural (i suppose?) music, why not use them as seperate entities... as a marketing ploy it could work for the bigger companies...
The decent people who
> write and perform their own stuff rule. But how long before we start to get
> manufactured rock bands and indie bands?? The big money bags guys will get in
> on the act if this type of music isn't seen as just a passing fad.
We have had manufactured rock bands and indie bands since, at the very least, the early ninties...
Though, I was thinking more of a direct, redirection... I'm not in anyway saying that if music is pop, then it automatically sucks... just that given the enourmous differences in the source and destination of manufactured/natural (i suppose?) music, why not use them as seperate entities... as a marketing ploy it could work for the bigger companies...
True.
I think we are about to start arguing the same point, just from different staring positions. Manufactured bands suck, and the intelligent people who care about this sort of stuff will let them know they suck.
The decent people who write and perform their own stuff rule. But how long before we start to get manufactured rock bands and indie bands?? The big money bags guys will get in on the act if this type of music isn't seen as just a passing fad.
The decent people who write and perform their own stuff rule. But how long before we start to get manufactured rock bands and indie bands?? The big money bags guys will get in on the act if this type of music isn't seen as just a passing fad.
But surely you wore what your granny bought you for Christmas, at least for that one special day of the year. :D
You should stick to your guns, keep it about the music and not the money, because you guys are really good.
:D
You should stick to your guns, keep it about the music and not the money, because you guys are really good.
:D
Bonus wrote:
> Are they classed the same??
Movies... no, they arnt... thats my point :)
But music, yes...
> I think
> we will both agree that POP sucks, but the little girl who just saw westlife
> getting into a taxi will be a lot harder to convince.
I'm not trying to say pop sucks (it does that well enough by itself :) ) ... just that given the different direction they are comming from, surely they are too different to mix?
Classical Art is considered in a different light to modern art...
> Are they classed the same??
Movies... no, they arnt... thats my point :)
But music, yes...
> I think
> we will both agree that POP sucks, but the little girl who just saw westlife
> getting into a taxi will be a lot harder to convince.
I'm not trying to say pop sucks (it does that well enough by itself :) ) ... just that given the different direction they are comming from, surely they are too different to mix?
Classical Art is considered in a different light to modern art...
Bonus wrote:
I'm sure if Parker get signed up by
> someone big, a successful pop act will almost single handedly be indirectly
> funding you guys.
I'm not whining about these bands, just saying they shouldn't be ranked alongside bands that spends hours gigging and rehearsing and coming up with music themselves.
Treat them exactly like what they are:
Products designed for marketing and consumption. It's not about music, it's about shifting units.
WHEN we get signed by someone big, I'll be just as vocal about this situation.
It's already started with us, stylists trying to get me to wear stuff or look a certain way for photo-shoots and I refuse point-blank to be bullied by a businessman.
At the end of day, speaking only for my band and me, they can say what they want, but it comes to us 4 guys in a room together making music.
and nobody tells me how to dress since I was 3.
I'm sure if Parker get signed up by
> someone big, a successful pop act will almost single handedly be indirectly
> funding you guys.
I'm not whining about these bands, just saying they shouldn't be ranked alongside bands that spends hours gigging and rehearsing and coming up with music themselves.
Treat them exactly like what they are:
Products designed for marketing and consumption. It's not about music, it's about shifting units.
WHEN we get signed by someone big, I'll be just as vocal about this situation.
It's already started with us, stylists trying to get me to wear stuff or look a certain way for photo-shoots and I refuse point-blank to be bullied by a businessman.
At the end of day, speaking only for my band and me, they can say what they want, but it comes to us 4 guys in a room together making music.
and nobody tells me how to dress since I was 3.
Are they classed the same?? They may be put into the same chart, as are movies based on revenue taken in. It's just that the average age of movie go-ers is hampered by censoring and age restrictions. Just look at Harry Potter, how long will it last at number one?? Quite a while I would think. But anyway, I think we will both agree that POP sucks, but the little girl who just saw westlife getting into a taxi will be a lot harder to convince.
:D
:D
Bonus wrote:
> Surely you guys can't be whining about the fact that these bands make massive
> amounst of money so that the record companies have expendable income to take
> chances with little less known bands. I'm sure if Parker get signed up by
> someone big, a successful pop act will almost single handedly be indirectly
> funding you guys.
Well... I dont know if youve seen the charts lately... but there have been a great deal fewer non-manufactured bands doing well in the charts...
Most of those that do well are signed to smaller labels...
Also... I'm not GoatBoy... :)
I'm not having a go at pop music...
Hollywood movies, for expample, have no problem with seperating themselves from smaller movies, or art house movies, etc...
This isnt to say Hollywood only make bad movies and that everybody elses music is fantastic... but they have clearly identified themselves as seperate enty, which does, infact work in their favour...
Even further... I'm not stating a refernece to large labels... just different types of 'music' ... Groups who are part of a larger business machin, like Steps, Atomic Kiten go through a completly different process to bands which write, perform, etc.. their own tracks... so why class them as the same?
> Surely you guys can't be whining about the fact that these bands make massive
> amounst of money so that the record companies have expendable income to take
> chances with little less known bands. I'm sure if Parker get signed up by
> someone big, a successful pop act will almost single handedly be indirectly
> funding you guys.
Well... I dont know if youve seen the charts lately... but there have been a great deal fewer non-manufactured bands doing well in the charts...
Most of those that do well are signed to smaller labels...
Also... I'm not GoatBoy... :)
I'm not having a go at pop music...
Hollywood movies, for expample, have no problem with seperating themselves from smaller movies, or art house movies, etc...
This isnt to say Hollywood only make bad movies and that everybody elses music is fantastic... but they have clearly identified themselves as seperate enty, which does, infact work in their favour...
Even further... I'm not stating a refernece to large labels... just different types of 'music' ... Groups who are part of a larger business machin, like Steps, Atomic Kiten go through a completly different process to bands which write, perform, etc.. their own tracks... so why class them as the same?
Bonus wrote:
> Surely you guys can't be whining about the fact that these bands make massive
> amounst of money so that the record companies have expendable income to take
> chances with little less known bands. I'm sure if Parker get signed up by
> someone big, a successful pop act will almost single handedly be indirectly
> funding you guys.
Well... I dont know if youve seen the charts lately... but there have been a great deal fewer non-manufactured bands doing well in the charts...
Most of those that do well are signed to smaller labels...
Also... I'm not GoatBoy... :)
I'm not having a go at pop music...
Hollywood movies, for expample, have no problem with seperating themselves from smaller movies, or art house movies, etc...
This isnt to say Hollywood only make bad movies and that everybody elses music is fantastic... but they have clearly identified themselves as seperate enty, which does, infact work in their favour...
Even further... I'm not stating a refernece to large labels... just different types of 'music' ... Groups who are part of a larger business machin, like Steps, Atomic Kiten go through a completly different process to bands which write, perform, etc.. their own tracks... so why class them as the same?
> Surely you guys can't be whining about the fact that these bands make massive
> amounst of money so that the record companies have expendable income to take
> chances with little less known bands. I'm sure if Parker get signed up by
> someone big, a successful pop act will almost single handedly be indirectly
> funding you guys.
Well... I dont know if youve seen the charts lately... but there have been a great deal fewer non-manufactured bands doing well in the charts...
Most of those that do well are signed to smaller labels...
Also... I'm not GoatBoy... :)
I'm not having a go at pop music...
Hollywood movies, for expample, have no problem with seperating themselves from smaller movies, or art house movies, etc...
This isnt to say Hollywood only make bad movies and that everybody elses music is fantastic... but they have clearly identified themselves as seperate enty, which does, infact work in their favour...
Even further... I'm not stating a refernece to large labels... just different types of 'music' ... Groups who are part of a larger business machin, like Steps, Atomic Kiten go through a completly different process to bands which write, perform, etc.. their own tracks... so why class them as the same?
Surely you guys can't be whining about the fact that these bands make massive amounst of money so that the record companies have expendable income to take chances with little less known bands. I'm sure if Parker get signed up by someone big, a successful pop act will almost single handedly be indirectly funding you guys.
Page: