So do I think pop music is crap these days because I'm getting older and I'm out of touch with what's considered cool now, or do I think pop music is crap these days because what the music industry and Clear Channel radio stations are churning out these days is absolute garbage?

I remember when I was a teenager and digging Prince and Culture Club and Eurythmics and Cyndi Lauper, and the adults would say stuff like, "I like some of their hits, but I can't understand why they're so WEIRD."

And of course, back then we had crappy bubblegum disposable crap music - Tiffany, Debbie Gibson, New Kids on the Block - but it was just one slice of the pie...there were all kinds of aspects to pop music. Now it just seems like you have two choices - fluffy bubblegum pop or fluffy bubblegum rap/r&b.

but is it really good? is there something to lindsay lohan that i'm missing? is crunk the new grunge? i'm having a hard time believing it's not all crap, and i'm thinking the problem is not necessarily with me...

Anxiety said:

the old know what good music is
the young just listen to whatevers out
they have no taste

Luv4oneanotha said:

i don't necessarily believe that. i didn't listen to a lot of the crappy pop stuff that was out in the 80s, and i was able to weed out the junk that i heard on the radio...but it seemed then like there was at least a chance to make discoveries by listening to radio.

furthermore, i've met kids over the past few years who will only listen to '80s music or '60s music...and this has been on more than one occasion. is this a trend with kids? i dunno, i don't have any.

Anxiety said:

well i guess its because thats the music they where influenced by
but i am in the 17 - 21 year age bracket
and i only listen to music from 95 and back going to like neo romanticism
i have a wide taste
i just cant get into todays music
its so lifeless
doesn't sound fun anymore
others like to stay in their age range and listen to whatevers out
i listen to whatevers GOOD!

It's definately because of the music industry and Clear Channel. Look at history, every trend such as disco, house, new jack swing, go-go, etc. lives a short life span and either dies or goes underground. When has music really changed since the early 1990s? Everything, especially in R&B, is either midtempo hip hop or ballads. We are approaching our fifth year in a new decade and there is no change in sight.

It's all about money. Record companies can save money by not having to pay a band. Tons of money can also be saved by having pre-recorded music on tours also. Who's to say that Clear Channel has not joined forces with the record companies in keeping this trend alive that has dominated for almost 15 years. Think about it, what other form of music has ever dominated the airways for such a long period of time? If Clear Channel only plays what is cheap for the record companies to make and keeps any other new form of music from getting any airplay, things will never change. People are not going to buy other forms of music if they don't know it exists. Clear Channel also owns musical venues and nightclubs. They are trying to control every single avenue so nothing else can be heard.

It's totally rediculous and something needs to be done about them.
[Edited 12/6/04 8:51am]

I actually wonder about this too.

I find myself watching MTV and VH1 late and night and after about a half hour I start to wonder why. And it always makes me feel old and out of touch. The thing is, I get it. I know the trends, I understand the lingo, I can dissect the music. It's not really a case of falling behind or "not getting it". There's just not much worthwhile to choose from. Of course, every now and then the new Gwen video or "Cinnamon Girl" will crop up. But how does even that stand a chance? I cannot believe that 3, let alone 1 Prince video got put into heavy rotation. Beyond belief.

I worked in a youth shelter for about 5 years from '94-'99. My musical taste has always been public record, so all the kids knew what I liked. They'd be like "Ew, Prince. He's gross and gay. Plus, he's so old. I hate 60's music." And I'd be like, "". Are youth really that out of touch with their pop culture heritage? To me it seems like music has become little more (if not less) than a glorified name brand. Kids have to have the right look to fit in with the flock and music has become no different. If ya ain't got yer Em cd's, you're a freak.

I was and will always be glad to be a freak. I guess it's what makes kids from our generation and every other generation seek out something other than what's fed to us through the mainstream. I feel genuinely lucky to have been alive when some "freaky" music was actually popular. At this point, I can't even believe that alternative happened. But it alerted a lot of the sheep that there was "something else" out there. And that's a good thing. Music is an extremely powerful and important form of art and there are some of us that still feel that way. But to young kids who have as their archtypes, Britney Spears, P. Diddy, Matchbox 20, Blink 182 and N*Sync, I feel sorry for you. And to those on this site under the age of 21, I salute you.

vainandy said:

I remember waiting for this decade to take shape musically. It's usually about 2 years into it before it's clear what the new thing is. But then I realized it was set into motion in like '99 by the boy bands, latin invastion, crap rap, and punk pop explosions. It'll take something really profound to wipe it away and unfortunately, The Strokes weren't able to pull that off.

Anxiety said:

I sometimes wonder whether yesterday's Lisa Lisa's, Jody Watley's and Taylor Dayne's are today's J-Lo's, Ashanti's and Anastascia's. I mean, if that stuff I loved as a kid was out today, would I think it was crap? Or has pop music really gone downhill? Or am I just romanticizing some stuff cuz it was out during my childhood? It gets confusing.

I'm 19 and I think most pop and R&B today is crap. And rock is in an even worse state.

GangstaFam said:

Anastacia I really think shouldn't be lumped together with J-Lo and Ashanti.

And Lisa Velez and Jody Watley could sing

GangstaFam said:

I still work at the Shelter and the strange thing is that the kids don't watch any of the music channels hardly at all. If they do, it's usually BET for one or two specific songs then they go fixate on Playstation2. Their focus is so narrow and they are not open to anything that their friends don't like. Last month we had a kid who actually loved Bjork and Smashing Pumpkins, Violent Femmes, The Cure and a lot of alternative and obscure underground bands. It was very refreshing to me but he was an outcast with the rest of the group. Very Sad

VoicesCarry said:

Maybe that's why I like 'em.

GangstaFam said:

Must be! I don't think you're romanticizing that music because they actually had talent.

bratchildsfriend said:

That is very sad. I remember Beck saying something like, "Pretty soon, music won't even be as important culturally as soap operas and video games." I think we're already there, folks.

Anxiety said:

This is kind of a lame answer but maybe a little of both? I do think it's harder for older folks to get into new music. And I also think that there is a lot of new music that is crap. There is still a lot of good music being made, but maybe it's just getting harder to hear it on the radio? Of course it doesn't help that so many people who have no musical talent are getting signed and worse having number one albums! I'm thinking specifically of the actor/singer syndrome and the cute teen syndrome.

[quote][quote]

GangstaFam said:

In the 1990s, around 1994 or 1995, I remember waiting for the year 2000 to arrive because I knew it would be a new decade. Looking back at history, the 1960s was a drastic change from the 1950s, the 1970s was a drastic change from the 1960s, the 1980s was a drastic change from the 1970s, and the 1990s was a drastic change from the 1980s.

It seemed that every decade saw a drastic change that usually took about two years to occur. As I said before, we are approaching our fifth year in not only a new decade, but also a new millenium and music sounds just like it did over 10 years ago. Something is keeping this trend alive and I really believe it is Clear Channel's manipulation. I read somewhere that Clear Channel had a major breakthrough in their favor around 1995. Maybe it's just a coincidence but that seems to be when radio stoppped playing house music (which is still underground so it's not dead) and they also stopped playing new tracks by older artists such as Cameo and The Barkays unless they made music to fit in with today's format.

I remember listening to Prince's "1999" back in the day and predicting music to sound like that in the actual year 1999. If only I had known back then that we would be going backwards instead of forwards, I would not have looked forward to the year 1999.

vainandy said:

There's a definite institutionalized ageism in radio now. The AC market used to be huge - it still is, but those stations don't really make an impact in terms of radio points anymore. And you're right, these stations won't often play new tracks by anyone over 30.

For instance, I miss Annie Lennox being able to chart a hit song. Obviously she's more successful than ever album-wise, but the Top 40 is off limits these days.
[Edited 12/6/04 9:56am]

VoicesCarry said:

I haven't even listened to the radio in probably over 3 years. There's no point anymore.

Music had become a product. It always was, but back in the day, let's take Motown as an example, the focus was selling music made by people who love making music. These days it is selling music by people who love making money.

It is a slight difference, but the collapse of the music industry has everything to do with managers being on positions where music used to have music lovers.

Imagine; only 20 years ago Warner was a label that allowed their artist to grow over a span over several albums. They nourished their artists like these days only Clive Davis does with talented youngsters like Alicia Keys.
It is no wonder Prince really digs these young artists like Outkast, D'Angelo and Erikah Badu. These youngsters understand that their future is not in sales, but in longevity.

CookieMonster said:

Some good points there.

I remember when I was about 6 or 7, my parents bought me this little red Sony radio/tape recorder. I was in heaven. I taped shit off the radio all the time: When Doves Cry, Here Comes the Rain Again, Let's Dance, Beat It, Like A Virgin. I had no sense that these songs were popular or cool. I just knew that I liked them and that they were 'weird'.

Same thing again in 6th grade. At every school dance I was requesting stuff like "Strangelove" by Depeche Mode. I didn't really understand that it was the alternative of its day. And that's not to say that I had better or more developed taste than some people. It's just that music during that time and in the early 90's had a lot of unique flavors to offer.

Of course there are always movements and trends, but it seems like in the past, individuality was encouraged. You could tell who an artist was within the first couple measures of the music or AT LEAST when you heard their voice. Now, everyone and everything sounds alike. There are a few hot producers, very few unique voices and not very many one-of-a-kind sounds. How many singers sound like Scott "Staph Infection" from Creed? How many paper thin R+B voices are out there? How many bored, monotone rappers a la Mase, Fabolous and 50 Cent can you think of?

And nobody has their own look anymore. There seems to be so much pressure to wear couture, have your house on Cribs and get endorsements for generic products. I'm all about using good imagery to your advantage, but there don't seem to be many ideas to go around. It's all the same image.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: CLEAR CHANNEL!!!!!

Another thing I think is important is that these youngsters today must understand where music came from. By doing that, they'll know where music is going. I certainly hope it heads into a different direction.

taken from a thread that died too soon last week...

Funky music just doesn't make it's way on the raido anymore. Everything is genre-ated, put into niche catagories. Maybe everything has gotten so niche...that pop music as we know it has evolved into the worst of what it was. All the good and wierd stuff is now delagated to the side lines. There used to be a time when all one heard on the radio was mostly good stuff, and that's because you had to have a little talent and a good tune.

Everything just about in the mainstream is bland bland bland. It's SO bland that when something slightly good comes along, everyone jumps on it and talks about how GOOD it is. It is MUCH worse now than it's ever been...dare I say even the 90's was better. Back in the day who had to sound different...execs also took chances on artists and helped them mature. Now it's just a machine that uses you until the pappz stops flashing the bulbs. Music is SO disposable now. It's not even about the music...it's about the money.

Another issue is that all one hears now on the radio is american music. In a world that we are being exposed to almost everything at once, you'd think that radio and music would open up in general. I mean as a music enthusiast, I have been exposed to much more music in the past decade due to the internet, media etc. Maybe pop music is a niche in itself that will no longer be paving the way...well unless it's just to more money. ANd then theres the whole...you don't have to have any talent to make a record. Or get a deal. Look at the latest Jessica ramblings..."I'm not going to put that much thought into it" Yes...thank you Jessica very much for promising the world crap.

NWF said:

And that's another thing that pisses me off. Why does everyone have to be 17 in order to get signed? I mean JoJo is fucking 13.

We need a revolution.

GangstaFam said:

But you have to ask yourself: if Songs In A Minor hadn't been a hit, how quickly would Clive have dropped Alicia?

VoicesCarry said:

Hehehe. Ayedunno. It depends on so many factors. But it WAS a hit. Cuz she has talent.

As we're typing, on what label was Y Kant Tori Read released? Was it WB too? Did they stick with her until Little Earthquakes?

CookieMonster said:

Little Earthquakes was Atlantic. Not sure about Y Kant Tori Read.

GangstaFam said:

I have to add...kids and the younger crowd have choices...they just don't know where the good stuff is at or how to get it. Many watch MTV and listen to the radio...that's all they have (for the average person). Unless they get exposed outside of that or become curious in nature to explore on themselves, there is no hope.

I think many of us are "in tune" with the music out there. I mean Come on...we are all contantly buying music and much of it is new. We just know the good stuff. How many of us got Bjork or Gwen or Outkast? See we DO know the good from the bad. The general buying public...does not. I think as long as we are aware of the new stuff and like someo of it and can understand it (unlike some of our parents) then we're not out of tune. We also have been exposed to at least 15 - 20 years of music that the normal teen hasn't...and isn't. For me it seems the other way around...that it is THEM that are OUT OF TOUCH with music.

So true. Also, look at the old Motown artists like Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, and Stevie Wonder. These artists had hits in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. In the 1980s, Stevie had a major hit with "Hotter Than July", Smokey had a major hit with "Being With You" and Diana had a major hit with "Diana". Even if younger crowds did not like it at the time, the albums still received major airplay and became major hits as a result. These also were not "comeback" records, these artists had never left and were still loved.

Tina Turner also made a MAJOR comeback in the 1980s. An artist that had disappeared as long as Tina had back then, would never be able to make a comeback like that these days.

I remember Diana Ross made a new song in the late 1990s called "Take Me Higher" which I thoroughly enjoyed. This song received no radio airplay. I had seen the video on BET (that's back when they still had a little tiny bit of variety left) that's the only way I even knew the song existed.

vainandy said:

To be fair, Cher did have a comeback in '99 with Believe (which went to #1 of all things), but that song, anyone could have been singing it. Bland Europop was all the rage then.