"The truth is that the majority of pop music was always unmemorable and vapid."The exact same can be said for all music and all art (I'm not saying you implied it isn't). Most artists suck a lot, brah.
I see absolutely no reason for why pop would be viewed differently and few things are as dumb as something like "Fred listens to Nirvana, Bob listens to Lady Gaga, so Fred is better, because Nirvana is better". No, Nirvana isn't better than Lady Gaga and Fred is not better than Bob and pop isn't worse than other genres (I'm not saying you implied that).
"There is however one area I will concede. That is that the barrier for entry for being a pop musician/performer has almost certainly diminished somewhat thanks to the greater potential of technology. Performers who have become successful on the basis of their marketability over that of anything else is nothing new, but there was probably a time where one still had to have something somewhat exceptional to work with in order to get to the point where one could be marketed."
The following is a mix of me arguing against that and me off-topicly free flowing through my stream of conciousness:
Nowadays, there is a much higher emphasis on playing live, due to:
- it's more possible now to play live on TV shows and other venues where in the past it wasn't (few studios were properly equipped)
- they get a lot of money from tours (200 000$ per show, if you're popular; Bieber reached 400 000$)
- it became almost like a sort of test thing, "X is a true band/singer, if he can perform live" + sometimes they even have to play acoustic
=> you need to be able to sing/perform live
In Romania, we have a genre called "manelism", which is kinda Gypsy+Turkish music. Most of the songs have terrible grammar and almost all songs are about being mobsters (from people that have quite close ties with mobsters, kinda like Frank Sinatra had), having money, having women, violence, LOOK AT ME!, hating police, etc. It's pretty much like most rap. As you could guess, the Romanian wannabe intellectuals hated it a lot and said they aren't real artists, etc. That was the mainstream view for quite some time. Then, people started inviting them to shows and making them:
- sing acoustic
- sing rock
- sing Romanian folk songs
Etc. Almost all of them did well. A lot did great. All of the sudden, people realised that those motherfuckers can really sing and perform live. So, nowadays, it's "I don't like their music, but I respect their talent", not "they aren't real artists".
This is manelism:
Most of the songs sound the same: long and annoying "aaaaaaaa"s, same rhythms, same dance moves, etc.
He went on a show where celebrities have to portray various singers (keep in mind he does't even know the languages in which he is singing):
This is him acting as a Romanian folk singer:
Some anecdotal evidence about the past:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkees= best example of an artificial band
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli#Media_backlash
= best example of no skills, as far as singing goesRegarding some of today's pop artists: Bieber is clearly the biggest pop artist today.
I don't like his pop songs, so far.
Here is Gaga:
I never heard a Gaga song I didn't like and I don't care about the marketability aspect. I heard almost all of her songs before I watched the videos. I don't have them on any device and I don't search for them on yt, I just hear them on tv/radio (also, generally, in Romania, pool clubs and bars tend to just pick a radio station instead of making playlists). I like Bad Romance a lot and Applause is good.
Here is Perry:
Her songs are decent. Btw, first time I heard that, it sounds great.
We can go on and on with this. As I said earlier, most of them had to do the acoustic test, the live test, the perform covers test, etc. The +1 technology + the increase of the importance of live music + the tests I mentioned + easier to make music and show it to the world (aka more competition) = pop artists nowadays have more real skills than the ones in the past.
At the start of this post, I said that most artists. I think it's likely that while reading all of this, you might have thought "hey, what about classic?".
Anyway, keep in mind that every single classical piece you ever heard in your life (unless you like non-mainstream classical music) is the product of centuries/decades of (in lack of a better word) approval. It's the result of 100 000s of people saying "yeah, this is good, we'll go with this" when choosing what to play/listen. Their choices were a bit less superficial than ones regarding pop music ("I'd totally fuck artist X").
All of this means that you only/mostly heard the best of the best of the best composition of the best of the best of the best composers played by the best of the best of the best performers. So, obviously, your opinion on classical gets fucked, because you actually have an opinion on the highest form of classical music possible. It's like me giving you the best ever pop performances and telling you that's pop. I know this is pretty obvious, but plenty of people miss it. Just like plenty of people get distracted by "well, 10s of sharply dressed people are playing this using fancy instruments, so it has to be good, it just has too!", so they get +1.
The simple fact that today there is something called "classical music" that is used to label anything with an orchestra shows how much lack of understanding the world has regarding it.
Anyway, have fun with these:
Also, do this:
- check other songs by them and by composers you haven't heard of (and vids with few views)
- look at the likes vs dislikes
- click and listen to this, without watching the clip:
- only reason why it's almost impossible to find a classical song with more dislikes than likes and why that song has 725,172 diskiles is because it's cool to like classical and to dislike Cyrus (obviously not the only example)
The same things are everywhere. One hit wonders? Yep.
Here is an awesome example:
Marketing? Sure. "Come see the 6 years old child prodigy", when Beethoven was 7. -1 in age = +1 in moneyz.
It's now a given that marketing and pop music go hand in hand, but it's nuffin special.
- the Sex Pistols were created by McLaren, who wanted to cause controversy. He told this annoying brat (Rotten, who spat on people for lulz) to become the lead. He booked them on conservative venues and shoes, to create controversy. That's why Rotten ended up hating his manager so much, because he viewed all of it as a fraud (he then went on to do cool shit in Public Image Ltd).
^>the Beatles pre-Epstein, when they were playing in titty bars in Germany. Epstein manufactured them later, in England. Paul also did this:
www.gigwise.com/news/47129/Sir-Paul-McCartney-Deported-From-Germany-After-Condom-Fire before becoming as charming as possible.
Layne in Alice N' Chains, when he was glam rock, before going grunge with Alice in Chains.
Diamond Lie, being glam rock, before it became Alice in Chains.
Like the blonde chick? She was 16 in that pick (15 when she joined the band). The fact that she was 16 was advertised. Their first hit was pretty much about it:
Like the song? The Clash was forced to have songs like that in each of their albums: songs that can be played on the radio.
That's what The Clash was actually about. They liked to be experimental and combine stuff.
Cool song, innit?
"The band saw their albums as indivisible, complete listening experiences, disliking the re-editing of existing tracks for release as singles. Grant maintained an aggressive pro-album stance, particularly in the UK, where there were few radio and TV outlets for rock music. Without the band's consent, however, some songs were released as singles, particularly in the US.[34] In 1969 an edited version of "Whole Lotta Love", a track from their second album, was released as a single in the US. It reached number four in the Billboard chart in January 1970, selling over one million copies and helping to cement the band's popularity.[35]"
Btw, most of their songs are folk and blues. They even have albums were the majority of the songs are acoustic. But, hey, it was easier to sell them as hard rock, even if it was a very small part of what they were doing.
- Black Sabbath wanted to scare people, because they saw that horror films earn money doing that
- The White Stripes led people to believe the band members were married, when they were in fact siblings
As I said on TFA on various subjects about art: I don't care about the skills involved, the originality, the person/people making it, their motives, etc. I only care about: "do I like this?". I like almost all of the bands I mentioned when talking about marketing (not a Beatles fan, I only like 1-2 songs; I like some of the mainstream Led Zep songs, but not a fan; only like "7 nation army" by white stripes, but haven't heard a lot from them). Alice in Chains, Nirvana and Sex Pistols are some of my favourite and I'm getting more and more into The Clash. I like some of Runnaways songs, but I prefer Joan Jett's stuff after she left the band.
Shirley Manson said she is doing music for money. Marilyn Manson wanted to become a rockstar, because it was cool (he even has songs about this). Both of those answers are as good as any, imho (same goes for the classic: "to get laid").
I listen to bands that have rapists and killers in them, without any sort of "maybe I shouldn't".
As far as pop goes: I like today's pop more than the past pop.
This is my favourite pop album:
Also, oddly, I seriously still haven't heard a Bieber song on radio/tv/bars/etc. Vh1 doesn't seem to have any on their daily weekday playlist.