The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I hate pop bands they are crap! And here is why:
1. Most of them do not play their own instruments
2. There are about 5 or 7 singers - Whats the point? you only need one!
3. Half of them don't write their own songs - they pay people to write songs cause they can't think of anything them selves.
4. Most of them mime as well! Like posh spice caught miming on stage and I was watching a program and it showed Steps and S club 7 miming!
Why can't they be more decent?
1. Most of them do not play their own instruments
2. There are about 5 or 7 singers - Whats the point? you only need one!
3. Half of them don't write their own songs - they pay people to write songs cause they can't think of anything them selves.
4. Most of them mime as well! Like posh spice caught miming on stage and I was watching a program and it showed Steps and S club 7 miming!
Why can't they be more decent?
hmmmm i dunno it's the boy bands that annoy me they can sing happy birthday and the 12 year old girls would still buy it.
Me myself am into R'n'B and hip-hop which is sorta poppy sometimes.
but POP covers quite a few different types of music so to say it sucks you really saying that all music Genere's apart from claissical and a few other suck.
you shouldn't of been more genral you seem to hate boy/girl bands which are normaly aimed at young teenage girls anyway.
come back when you got a better argument
Me myself am into R'n'B and hip-hop which is sorta poppy sometimes.
but POP covers quite a few different types of music so to say it sucks you really saying that all music Genere's apart from claissical and a few other suck.
you shouldn't of been more genral you seem to hate boy/girl bands which are normaly aimed at young teenage girls anyway.
come back when you got a better argument
I agree pop s**ks though a few tunes are quite good but most are copied like the new Blue tune that went to number one yet the original by next wasnt such a hit, no wonder they got cussed by eninem.
Okay Ole Gunnar I am going to deal with your post now..
first of all the 'pop' = 'dance' bit:
> OK mister happy, i'll accept all that. But what most > people mean by 'pop' music is 'dance' music.
You say most people and therein lies my argument. Most people is a majority. What most people like is thus popular and therefore 'pop'. So if metal becomes more liked, more so than dance, it becomes 'pop' instead.
> they start off at an 'underground' level and work their > way up to the top. Just like Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park > and Staind have all done over the years.
I think Limp Bizkit jumped on the Korn band wagon after Freddy D tattooed one of Korn's members.
And Korn were good back then, so I wouldn't call LB underground. Nor 'Staind' through association with LB. Plus I've never seen any of them playing at Baker St, or Waterloo, or Charing Cross..
Finally I think you should think on this... Imagine a few years down the line. Limp Bizkit will be getting regular chart smashes, and Linkin Park'll be right up there. In that climate will Pete Waterman still be writing S-club 7 sickly sweet Ballads? I don't think so. Pop bands cater for whatever is popular and many metal bands are facing the worrying prospect of being popular. It is worrying because only very rarely can a band combine chart success with credability. I think Tool have managed it, but other than that very few. Most nu-metal bands turn into complete idiots, ie Papa Roach. 'Pop' is all pervasive you know, you shouldn't fight it because you like 'pop' music too. If you don't like a band then don't like a band. If you don't like a genre then you're on thinner ice. But not liking pop is just stupid. You are part of 'pop'. At the end of the day you buy a band's albums, you tell your friends about them and you make them popular. You cannot escape pop music so just give in to it.
first of all the 'pop' = 'dance' bit:
> OK mister happy, i'll accept all that. But what most > people mean by 'pop' music is 'dance' music.
You say most people and therein lies my argument. Most people is a majority. What most people like is thus popular and therefore 'pop'. So if metal becomes more liked, more so than dance, it becomes 'pop' instead.
> they start off at an 'underground' level and work their > way up to the top. Just like Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park > and Staind have all done over the years.
I think Limp Bizkit jumped on the Korn band wagon after Freddy D tattooed one of Korn's members.
And Korn were good back then, so I wouldn't call LB underground. Nor 'Staind' through association with LB. Plus I've never seen any of them playing at Baker St, or Waterloo, or Charing Cross..
Finally I think you should think on this... Imagine a few years down the line. Limp Bizkit will be getting regular chart smashes, and Linkin Park'll be right up there. In that climate will Pete Waterman still be writing S-club 7 sickly sweet Ballads? I don't think so. Pop bands cater for whatever is popular and many metal bands are facing the worrying prospect of being popular. It is worrying because only very rarely can a band combine chart success with credability. I think Tool have managed it, but other than that very few. Most nu-metal bands turn into complete idiots, ie Papa Roach. 'Pop' is all pervasive you know, you shouldn't fight it because you like 'pop' music too. If you don't like a band then don't like a band. If you don't like a genre then you're on thinner ice. But not liking pop is just stupid. You are part of 'pop'. At the end of the day you buy a band's albums, you tell your friends about them and you make them popular. You cannot escape pop music so just give in to it.
That was indeed my own Loki. It was a flash of inspiration rather than any prolonged display of genius on my part. I'm glad someone appreciated it.
OK mister happy, i'll accept all that. But what most people mean by 'pop' music is 'dance' music. We see them as 'pop' music because that style of music has been the most commonly recognised genre of music for many, many years! We're still not used to all the 'nu-metal' acts ebtering the 'pop' charts, as they start off at an 'underground' level and work their way up to the top. Just like Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park and Staind have all done over the years.
But the 'pop stars' we know have all had it a lot easier. The hardest part to get to where they are know was the auditions. Yes, it must have been very difficult to have been chosen as the S Club '7', from thousands of other pop star wannabees.
Nu-metal bands and some rap/hip-hop groups/artists aren't recognised by the genral public as 'pop'. As eversince they started in the underground scene they've had to work towards the top, creating music, but unknown to the genral public as 'underground' and not 'pop'.
By the way, I think your post was definitley worthy of a GAD/FAD prize, mister happy! Especially with the ending. Good luck.
But the 'pop stars' we know have all had it a lot easier. The hardest part to get to where they are know was the auditions. Yes, it must have been very difficult to have been chosen as the S Club '7', from thousands of other pop star wannabees.
Nu-metal bands and some rap/hip-hop groups/artists aren't recognised by the genral public as 'pop'. As eversince they started in the underground scene they've had to work towards the top, creating music, but unknown to the genral public as 'underground' and not 'pop'.
By the way, I think your post was definitley worthy of a GAD/FAD prize, mister happy! Especially with the ending. Good luck.
misterhappy wrote:
You know if you add an "e" to pop it becomes
> Pope, and he's infallible. There's no point complaining about pop because it too
> is infallible, or perhaps infallibl, it's always going to be around because some
> form of music will always be popular.
That was quite possibly my cleverest thing I have ever read on these forums. If you came up with the 'infallibl' argument yourself you should be worshipped as true a master of demented logic. Quite, quite brilliant.
You know if you add an "e" to pop it becomes
> Pope, and he's infallible. There's no point complaining about pop because it too
> is infallible, or perhaps infallibl, it's always going to be around because some
> form of music will always be popular.
That was quite possibly my cleverest thing I have ever read on these forums. If you came up with the 'infallibl' argument yourself you should be worshipped as true a master of demented logic. Quite, quite brilliant.
Well done misterhappy, saved me the bother. Pop stars are fantastic performers and DO have tallent. Sure, they usually don't play their own instruments - neither did Beethoven. They don't always write their own songs - as you point out, neither did Elvis or a lot of the "greats", most notiably huge chunks of the Rat Pack.
What they do is put on a show that entertains - fair play to them.
Oh, and if I don't like whay they're singing I'll stick on a CD.
What they do is put on a show that entertains - fair play to them.
Oh, and if I don't like whay they're singing I'll stick on a CD.
Has it ever occured to you that the bands you like might be equally contrived and meaningless. Fine S Club-7 don't write their own songs, but neither did Elvis and he was a god. Everyone knows that popstars mime, it's nothing to get worked up about. If you want to criticise pop then fine but just realise, pop is short for popular. Staind are popular at the moment, Slipknot are popular, the Linkin Park hoodie is the latest accessory in the playground, Limp Bizkit had a number one, OPM had a number one, Wheatus charted highly. Are all these bands pop? Do you hate them?
Why can't they be more decent? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Pop groups are very good at what they do, mainly harmonise, sing what they're told to, mime what they're told to and dance in pretty patterns. Surely that's more decent than Staind who sit around smoking and moaning about how crap their lives ae now they have loads of money and a best-selling album. I would much rather that some Swedish bloke wrote Limp Bizkit's songs for them.
At the end of the day there's no point moaning because pop is popular music and it only caters for what is in demand. You've probably noticed that metal bands are getting into the charts more and more. They are the new pop and it won't be long before they start wheeling nu-metal groups out to cater for demand, Linkin Park for instance, who ae widely believed to be manufactured.
You know if you add an "e" to pop it becomes Pope, and he's infallible. There's no point complaining about pop because it too is infallible, or perhaps infallibl, it's always going to be around because some form of music will always be popular.
Go and get angry about the war in Afghanistan. It's a far more worthwhile cause to channel your anger against.
Why can't they be more decent? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Pop groups are very good at what they do, mainly harmonise, sing what they're told to, mime what they're told to and dance in pretty patterns. Surely that's more decent than Staind who sit around smoking and moaning about how crap their lives ae now they have loads of money and a best-selling album. I would much rather that some Swedish bloke wrote Limp Bizkit's songs for them.
At the end of the day there's no point moaning because pop is popular music and it only caters for what is in demand. You've probably noticed that metal bands are getting into the charts more and more. They are the new pop and it won't be long before they start wheeling nu-metal groups out to cater for demand, Linkin Park for instance, who ae widely believed to be manufactured.
You know if you add an "e" to pop it becomes Pope, and he's infallible. There's no point complaining about pop because it too is infallible, or perhaps infallibl, it's always going to be around because some form of music will always be popular.
Go and get angry about the war in Afghanistan. It's a far more worthwhile cause to channel your anger against.
I hate pop bands they are crap! And here is why:
1. Most of them do not play their own instruments
2. There are about 5 or 7 singers - Whats the point? you only need one!
3. Half of them don't write their own songs - they pay people to write songs cause they can't think of anything them selves.
4. Most of them mime as well! Like posh spice caught miming on stage and I was watching a program and it showed Steps and S club 7 miming!
Why can't they be more decent?
1. Most of them do not play their own instruments
2. There are about 5 or 7 singers - Whats the point? you only need one!
3. Half of them don't write their own songs - they pay people to write songs cause they can't think of anything them selves.
4. Most of them mime as well! Like posh spice caught miming on stage and I was watching a program and it showed Steps and S club 7 miming!
Why can't they be more decent?