smoothcriminal12 said:

babynoz said:

If you don't have a problem with a guy crawling around on a leash and similar gimmicks that's fine. However if I do have a problem with it why can't I say so? I already explained why I find it tiresome and unfortunate.

You seem really hostile for no reason. I'm not trying to change your mind or anything, I was just wondering what made you dislike it so much. Personally I'm not too bothered by it but I just wanted to know what bothers you. [Edited 5/30/15 15:29pm]

I have explained several times already why it bothers me. Don't know what else to tell ya. There are a couple of people on the thread who get what I'm saying though.

scorp84 said:

Britney Spears has earned her stripes and paid her dues in spades, imo. Obviously this is the entertainment that her audience paid for, so I have no issues with it. I can't point the finger at her and preach that this is what's wrong with today's industry, mainly because she's not of this current generation. She did a song with Iggy, but she cannot be lumped into that category of absurdity lol

I have issues with this trend in general. Britney is just one example.


I don't think that trashy stuff is necessarily age related. I just see a lot more of it now. Even some of the older acts are doing more silly stunts in their shows. I'm not crazy about what Madonna is doing lately either.

My opinion might be unpopular but I was so glad when Prince went from Lovesexy type shows to the Musicology style. If I want to see a circus I'll buy a ticket to Ringling Bros.

babynoz said:

lowkey said:

what if some folks find brittney more entertaining than prince or jimi? basically you dont like it so you cant imagine why anyone else would.

Again, how is that different than any other opinion posted here? See the Janet Jackson thread for example. There's also a whole thread listing people who the OP says can't sing.

Is there a list of who can have an opinion and who can't? Please provide the list and I'll do my best to follow orders of what topic I can choose to discuss.

of course everything said here are just opinions, it just seems like you are telling others what should be considered as entertainment and what shouldnt. music is art and art is the most subjective thing in the world so its not rational to think everybody will agree with whats great or whats trash.if you would have said you think what brittney does is trash i dont think the responses would have been the same.

lowkey said:

babynoz said:

Again, how is that different than any other opinion posted here? See the Janet Jackson thread for example. There's also a whole thread listing people who the OP says can't sing.

Is there a list of who can have an opinion and who can't? Please provide the list and I'll do my best to follow orders of what topic I can choose to discuss.

of course everything said here are just opinions, it just seems like you are telling others what should be considered as entertainment and what shouldnt. music is art and art is the most subjective thing in the world so its not rational to think everybody will agree with whats great or whats trash.if you would have said you think what brittney does is trash i dont think the responses would have been the same.

Again, it was a rhetorical question used to make an observation about a trend that bugs me. You cannot say that I implied I can dictate anybodys opinion except my own when I implied no such thing.

I suspect that people get what I was saying. It's just that on this site everybody wanna be a smartass.

It's one thing to disagree and quite another to say the thread doesn't make sense or to call me irrational for something I didn't do.

babynoz said:

babynoz said:

lowkey said:

of course everything said here are just opinions, it just seems like you are telling others what should be considered as entertainment and what shouldnt. music is art and art is the most subjective thing in the world so its not rational to think everybody will agree with whats great or whats trash.if you would have said you think what brittney does is trash i dont think the responses would have been the same.

Again, it was a rhetorical question used to make an observation about a trend that bugs me. You cannot say that I implied I can dictate anybodys opinion except my own when I implied no such thing.

I suspect that people get what I was saying. It's just that on this site everybody wanna be a smartass.

It's one thing to disagree and quite another to say the thread doesn't make sense or to call me irrational for something I didn't do.

It's a dry spell, I think We're a long way from AOA; the D'Angelo album's come and gone; and all hope of a PR remaster has died. We're essentially like a colony of starved rodents in an abandoned supermarket after the End of Civilisation who begin tucking into a store of candy treats that went off a long time ago. It could so easily be a tragic scene. But then, in an an exciting twist, some acquire mutant speaking organs from all the radiation, and begin to hold forth that actually there's no reason to say that this is not the greatest meal anyone's ever eaten.

"Tonight, gentlemen, we dine like kings! This party's all over as soon as we mutate a gag reflex!"

Pokeno4Money said:

babynoz said:

I have issues with this trend in general. Britney is just one example.


I don't think that trashy stuff is necessarily age related. I just see a lot more of it now. Even some of the older acts are doing more silly stunts in their shows. I'm not crazy about what Madonna is doing lately either.

My opinion might be unpopular but I was so glad when Prince went from Lovesexy type shows to the Musicology style. If I want to see a circus I'll buy a ticket to Ringling Bros.

Did you have the same outrage for Janet when she included a live panther as part of her RN stage show? And one thing I haven't noticed mentioned, Britney is doing a Vegas residency. If you know anything about Vegas, what she's doing is standard for a Vegas show.

More ASSumptions? A better question would be where is my outrage over the OP because I dont recall expressing any.


Twice now I used the terms tiresome and unfortunate to describe my thoughts about the topic. In what universe do those two words equate to outrage? I'll wait...

Secondly I'm not familiar with the janet performance you refer to. I will take a moment to slowly explain to you how this works.

You cannot ASSume that people know what you are referring to. Therefore it is helpful to post a link or a video of it as I did in the OP. Once people know what you are talking about, you may then inquire as to their level of outrage. Got it?

I must caution you however, not to make the same mistake as you have before of posting something that has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make. That didn't turn out too well for ya the last time.

deebee said:

babynoz said:

Again, it was a rhetorical question used to make an observation about a trend that bugs me. You cannot say that I implied I can dictate anybodys opinion except my own when I implied no such thing.

I suspect that people get what I was saying. It's just that on this site everybody wanna be a smartass.

It's one thing to disagree and quite another to say the thread doesn't make sense or to call me irrational for something I didn't do.

It's a dry spell, I think We're a long way from AOA; the D'Angelo album's come and gone; and all hope of a PR remaster has died. We're essentially like a colony of starved rodents in an abandoned supermarket after the End of Civilisation who begin tucking into a store of candy treats that went off a long time ago. It could so easily be a tragic scene. But then, in an an exciting twist, some acquire mutant speaking organs from all the radiation, and begin to hold forth that actually there's no reason to say that this is not the greatest meal anyone's ever eaten.

"Tonight, gentlemen, we dine like kings! This party's all over as soon as we mutate a gag reflex!"

LMAO! I knew you would get it....I wasn't even worried.

babynoz said:

Pokeno4Money said:

babynoz said: Did you have the same outrage for Janet when she included a live panther as part of her RN stage show? And one thing I haven't noticed mentioned, Britney is doing a Vegas residency. If you know anything about Vegas, what she's doing is standard for a Vegas show.

More ASSumptions? A better question would be where is my outrage over the OP because I dont recall expressing any.


Twice now I used the terms tiresome and unfortunate to describe my thoughts about the topic. In what universe do those two words equate to outrage? I'll wait...

Secondly I'm not familiar with the janet performance you refer to. I will take a moment to slowly explain to you how this works.

You cannot ASSume that people know what you are referring to. Therefore it is helpful to post a link or a video of it as I did in the OP. Once people know what you are talking about, you may then inquire as to their level of outrage. Got it?

I must caution you however, not to make the same mistake as you have before of posting something that has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make. That didn't turn out too well for ya the last time.

I come in peace, can you please keep this on subject for once? Semantics aside, you stated "If I want to see a circus yadda yadda yadda". Forgive me for assuming you were familiar with Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation heyday, THAT is the one thing of which I'm guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Cat_%28song%29

"It was notoriously performed on the Rhythm Nation 1814 World Tour, in a "pyrotechnic interpretation" which ends using illusionary magic of Jackson transforming into a panther in a cage. During the act, "menacing, feline dancers forced Jackson into a cage and covered it with a silver cloth. When they pulled it off, a real, live panther was prowling inside."

So now that you're up to date, do you feel the same way about Janet's theatrics as you do about Britney's?

And now that you know Britney's performance was part of a Vegas residency, where similar theatrics by other performers are quite common, do you still question whether Britney's performance was well received by the intended audience and viewed by them as entertaining?

I again await your answers to my questions, both of which have everything to do with the subject being discussed.

[Edited 5/31/15 17:05pm]

Pokeno4Money said:

babynoz said:

More ASSumptions? A better question would be where is my outrage over the OP because I dont recall expressing any.


Twice now I used the terms tiresome and unfortunate to describe my thoughts about the topic. In what universe do those two words equate to outrage? I'll wait...

Secondly I'm not familiar with the janet performance you refer to. I will take a moment to slowly explain to you how this works.

You cannot ASSume that people know what you are referring to. Therefore it is helpful to post a link or a video of it as I did in the OP. Once people know what you are talking about, you may then inquire as to their level of outrage. Got it?

I must caution you however, not to make the same mistake as you have before of posting something that has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make. That didn't turn out too well for ya the last time.

I come in peace, can you please keep this on subject for once? Semantics aside, you stated "If I want to see a circus yadda yadda yadda". Forgive me for assuming you were familiar with Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation heyday, THAT is the one thing of which I'm guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Cat_%28song%29

"It was notoriously performed on the Rhythm Nation 1814 World Tour, in a "pyrotechnic interpretation" which ends using illusionary magic of Jackson transforming into a panther in a cage. During the act, "menacing, feline dancers forced Jackson into a cage and covered it with a silver cloth. When they pulled it off, a real, live panther was prowling inside."

So now that you're up to date, do you feel the same way about Janet's theatrics as you do about Britney's?

And now that you know Britney's performance was part of a Vegas residency, where similar theatrics by other performers are quite common, do you still question whether Britney's performance was well received by the intended audience and viewed by them as entertaining?

I again await your answers to my questions, both of which have everything to do with the subject being discussed.

[Edited 5/31/15 17:05pm]

How flattering that you hang on my every word but please try not to twist them...


Once again I didn't say a single word about whether her performance was well received by the audience because again, that was not my point in the first place.


I find the increasing over-usage of silly, over the top gimmicks and stunts to be tiresome and unfortunate regardless of who is performing them or where and the vid I posted is just the latest example that I have seen of this trend.

Over reliance on spectacle in lieu of talent does not impress me. Like I already mentioned above, I was very happy when Prince stripped his shows down compared to his earlier tours that were full of antics. An artist of his stature especially does not need a lot of that sort of thing.

A little bit of spectacle here and there can be fun and entertaining in small doses but I'm not impressed when entertainers rely too heavily upon it.

Maybe my use of the phrase "in lieu of" is what's confusing people?

There are some entertainers who can't seem to perform WITHOUT any gimmicks.

It is very rare in this day and age, that you get to see a major-label backed artist without a full-blown stage show, and a band without SOME automation. Or they just hop out on stage and dance and sing to a backing track like Madonna did in 1982.

When Sheila E sees Van Halen at the Billboard Awards, she KNOWS they can throw down, but how can one tell when a new artist hops on stage and appears to have nothing but gimmicks?

Quite tame, very much so. Unlike the evil 90s:

GG Allin made Gwar look like Stryper.

Note the hair. And the familiar reporter?

Cinny said:

There are some entertainers who can't seem to perform WITHOUT any gimmicks.

It is very rare in this day and age, that you get to see a major-label backed artist without a full-blown stage show, and a band without SOME automation. Or they just hop out on stage and dance and sing to a backing track like Madonna did in 1982.

When Sheila E sees Van Halen at the Billboard Awards, she KNOWS they can throw down, but how can one tell when a new artist hops on stage and appears to have nothing but gimmicks?

babynoz said:

Cinny said:

There are some entertainers who can't seem to perform WITHOUT any gimmicks.

It is very rare in this day and age, that you get to see a major-label backed artist without a full-blown stage show, and a band without SOME automation. Or they just hop out on stage and dance and sing to a backing track like Madonna did in 1982.

When Sheila E sees Van Halen at the Billboard Awards, she KNOWS they can throw down, but how can one tell when a new artist hops on stage and appears to have nothing but gimmicks?

I understand!

Cinny said:

babynoz said:

I understand!

Thanks, that's a relief... Maybe I ain't senile after all.

babynoz said:

Cinny said:

I understand!

Thanks, that's a relief... Maybe I ain't senile after all.

No, but a lot of people are simply not entertained by live instrumentation, especially when it doesn't sound exactly like the record.

Double this with current pop singers over 100% synthetic tracks by producer/DJs who are either absent when it is time to perform, or couldn't really play them live anyway (see David Guetta featuring Nicki Minaj) even if they hired the entire Depeche Mode or Kraftwerk to tour with them.

In a weird way, we have seen music/production that used to be strictly for clubs become the mainstream.

Cinny said:

babynoz said:

Thanks, that's a relief... Maybe I ain't senile after all.

No, but a lot of people are simply not entertained by live instrumentation, especially when it doesn't sound exactly like the record.

Double this with current pop singers over 100% synthetic tracks by producer/DJs who are either absent when it is time to perform, or couldn't really play them live anyway (see David Guetta featuring Nicki Minaj) even if they hired the entire Depeche Mode or Kraftwerk to tour with them.

In a weird way, we have seen music/production that used to be strictly for clubs become the mainstream.

That is kind of a weird development.

babynoz said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

babynoz said:

o

Thanks, that's a relief... Maybe I ain't senile after all.

When you're dealing with a generation that has been fed generics, they're not going to understand. Only a few today would, my 19 yr old daughter understand. In fact we were discussing music, and she likes the old skool music of the 80's and nineties. As for rappers, she digs Tupac because she says he has a message behind his music. ...as for Britney Spears, she's looking like the whore of Babylon sitting on a scarlet beast, like in the book of Revelations, but that's entertainment

Hmmm...that's some food for thought right there.

LOL@ whore of Babylon.

babynoz said:

lowkey said:

of course everything said here are just opinions, it just seems like you are telling others what should be considered as entertainment and what shouldnt. music is art and art is the most subjective thing in the world so its not rational to think everybody will agree with whats great or whats trash.if you would have said you think what brittney does is trash i dont think the responses would have been the same.

Again, it was a rhetorical question used to make an observation about a trend that bugs me. You cannot say that I implied I can dictate anybodys opinion except my own when I implied no such thing.

I suspect that people get what I was saying. It's just that on this site everybody wanna be a smartass.

It's one thing to disagree and quite another to say the thread doesn't make sense or to call me irrational for something I didn't do.

I get it for sure. You never stated or told what should be considered entertainment to anyone. You

only posed a question? I understand and pretty much agree.

MickyDolenz said:

Talent can't be proven, it's an opinion

That sounds fine in theory but in practice no-one believes it. You don't and neither do I.

To really believe it you'd have to believe that you are just as good a dancer as Michael Jackson was. But you don't believe that and if you say you do then you're a liar.

I don't think babynoz is saying that gimmicks and spectacle are a new thing, just that they have become more and more common and are basically masks to disguise the emptiness of the "artists". This breed just doesn't have anything else to offer.

babynoz said:

Do I really need to explain this for the umteenth time?

.

Don't you know that the org has changed these days? You're supposed to remember that there has always been shitty acts in the past but you're supposed to forget that back then, the good acts outnumbered the shitty acts. You're supposed to act as if the music business never changed for the worst and if you don't like what's being made these days, it's because you're "getting older" and "every generation complained about the younger generation's music". Be sure to leave out the part about the grandparents and great grandparents not liking our parents' music because it was fast and rhythmic which they thought was the "devil's music" because the younger generation (at least the younger R&B generation) has lost it's rhythm so if you brought it up, then that shoots their argument out of the water.

.

You're supposed to just sit around and listen to the two, maybe three, good new songs that's out right now and see them as the glass being "half full instead of half empty". Don't ever bitch or complain about there not being any jams out there because you need to develop a sexual fetish of "searching for good new music". Sit around and agree with everybody, hold hands and sing "Kumbaya", and then skip off into the sunset like it was a hap hap happeeeeee day.

.

.

.

[Edited 6/6/15 19:20pm]

vainandy said:

vainandy said:

babynoz said:

Do I really need to explain this for the umteenth time?

.

Don't you know that the org has changed these days? You're supposed to remember that there has always been shitty acts in the past but you're supposed to forget that back then, the good acts outnumbered the shitty acts. You're supposed to act as if the music business never changed for the worst and if you don't like what's being made these days, it's because you're "getting older" and "every generation complained about the younger generation's music". Be sure to leave out the part about the grandparents and great grandparents not liking our parents' music because it was fast and rhythmic which they thought was the "devil's music" because the younger generation (at least the younger R&B generation) has lost it's rhythm so if you brought it up, then that shoots their argument out of the water.

.

You're supposed to just sit around and listen to the two, maybe three, good new songs that's out right now and see them as the glass being "half full instead of half empty". Don't ever bitch or complain about there not being any jams out there because you need to develop a sexual fetish of "searching for good new music". Sit around and agree with everybody, hold hands and sing "Kumbaya", and then skip off into the sunset like it was a hap hap happeeeeee day.

.

.

.

[Edited 6/6/15 19:20pm]

Church!

phunkdaddy said:

vainandy said:

.

Don't you know that the org has changed these days? You're supposed to remember that there has always been shitty acts in the past but you're supposed to forget that back then, the good acts outnumbered the shitty acts. You're supposed to act as if the music business never changed for the worst and if you don't like what's being made these days, it's because you're "getting older" and "every generation complained about the younger generation's music". Be sure to leave out the part about the grandparents and great grandparents not liking our parents' music because it was fast and rhythmic which they thought was the "devil's music" because the younger generation (at least the younger R&B generation) has lost it's rhythm so if you brought it up, then that shoots their argument out of the water.

.

You're supposed to just sit around and listen to the two, maybe three, good new songs that's out right now and see them as the glass being "half full instead of half empty". Don't ever bitch or complain about there not being any jams out there because you need to develop a sexual fetish of "searching for good new music". Sit around and agree with everybody, hold hands and sing "Kumbaya", and then skip off into the sunset like it was a hap hap happeeeeee day.

.

.

.

[Edited 6/6/15 19:20pm]

Let's not forget there is no such thing is Real Music. It's just a figment of our imagination. It never existed. Artists like Prince, The Stones, Queen, Zapp, Lakeside, etc ain't shit. They were just posers. They can't jam like the Drake's and Britney Spears of the world. My favorite is one poster who is always bringing up this phantom argument about orgers that state musicians are automatically better than non musicians. I rarely see that brought up around here unless it's by that particular poster. No need to beat a dead horse but I agree with you and Babynoz. The level of talent back then far outnumbered gimmicks where as today it's in reverse. Just a fact.

SoulAlive said: