vainandy said:

MickyDolenz said:

Maybe it's weak to you, but not to the millions of people that bought Whitney, and others like the Lionel Richie, Air Supply, Styx, REO Speedwagon, & hair rock band power ballads which were popular before anybody heard of Whitney. Freddie Jackson wasn't really doing anything different than Luther Vandross and Billy Ocean were doing before him. So again, it's not Whitney, it's the record companies and the audience. The record labels are trying to make money and only puts out what the consumer wants. It's like are you going to open a McDonald's or a raw foodist restaurant?

[Edited 3/1/11 14:27pm]

Well, Shitney ain't never had no jams like Luther did with "She's A Super Lady" or the jams he did with Change. She ain't never had no jam like Deady Jackson did with Mystic Merlin called "Sixty Thrills A Minute". She also ain't never had no jam like "One Of Those Nights (Feel Like Gettin' Down) like Billy Ocean did. That little goodie two shoes cheerleader ain't never had ANY jam EVER.

As for those other groups, that's the pop/rock side which I could care less if they wanted to contaminate. And as for Air Supply....

I'm fine with adult contemporary as long as it's played on adult contemporary radio only where it can do no damage. I can understand them being played on pop radio also since "pop" means anything popular. But to play Shitney on R&B radio alongside of folks like Cameo or The Barkays just because she's black is racist. The little goodie two shoes does not fit the format. I bet they didn't play Debbie Boone on hard rock radio alongside AC/DC, I can guarantee you that.

.

.

.

[Edited 3/1/11 14:40pm]

Hello and Dancing On The Ceiling were played on R&B radio, which were before Whitney and so were I'll Never Love This Way Again by Dionne Warwick, If Ever I'm In Your Arms Again by Peabo Bryson, & I Just Called to Say I Love You by Stevie Wonder. Billy & Luther are more famous for their pop crossover songs like Here And Now, Suddenly, Get Into My Car, & Stop To Love. You're still blaming the wrong person. Who signed Whitney and spent a lot of time giving her material to sing and sculpting her image? Who was responsible for telling large funk bands like Cameo to lose the horn sections, to pare down and make synth based music. Who had Kool and the Gang to dump funk to make pop songs like Joanna, Celebration, and Misled? The labels. Who bought the records? The audience. Whitney didn't force anybody to buy her records or to play them on the radio. They got out there because the labels promoted them. They didn't promote funk music, other than Duran Duran and INXS style pop funk. The success of the Thriller album also changed how records were marketed, which is to release just about every song from an album as a single. Bruce Springsteen, who was mostly a niche act before benefited from this strategy with Born In The USA. Before Thriller, the average album just had 2, maybe 3 singles. The advance of videos also changed the marketing of music. Looks and image had started to become more important. A lot of the funk bands and soul groups weren't pretty to look at. In many cases, unless a group was on shows like American Bandstand, Midnigt Special, Shindig, or Soul Train, the average person before the 1980's didn't know what the acts on the radio looked like. That's why there's fake groups today performing as The Platters or whatever.

JoeTyler said:

BlaqueKnight said:

The fact that anyone would blame the artists when all of the business decisions lie in the hands of executives proves that people have been effectively brainwashed and properly misdirected.

People are conditioned not to blame companies and to seek out individuals to scapegoat.

You are all to blame for pop music being ruined. You buy into the conditioning, so its on you, too. Who runs to the store and buys every little trend record the execs lay out for you with millions of dollars of promotion money behind it? They couldn't do it if it wasn't funded by someone. Congrats. You all helped.

I buy music I like and no one has ruined any musical experiences for me. I learned to stop buying music I don't like and don't support artists that stop making music I like to go "experimental" or whatever.

If everyone did this, the public would have much more say-so as to what's "hot" but instead we lazily sit around and wait for the labels to hand us the choices they want us to have. You want to place blame - start at the mirror.

[Edited 3/1/11 8:22am]

what kind of bullshit is this?? I think you're confused...

I couldn't disagree more. If a band is crappy, the band is guilty; if that crappy band is promoted by a company/label, that label is guilty; if 8.000.000 people buy the album of that crappy band, those 8.000.000 people are guilty, NOT THE REST OF US.

And if that label predicts that a good band will only sell 500.000 copies because their sound is not commercial or "different", and therefore decides not to promote them correctly or even to drop them, the label is guilty, not the rest of us.

So, your logic is to blame the band that created the music rather than the company that put millions of dollars in promotions behind it, payola'd the Clear Channel network to put it in heavy rotation and the Mtv/VH1 maching to play the videos? yeah, that makes sense. If only the band hadn't made the record...

It is most definitely peoples' fault for falling for the marketing.

[Edited 3/1/11 15:52pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

JoeTyler said:

what kind of bullshit is this?? I think you're confused...

I couldn't disagree more. If a band is crappy, the band is guilty; if that crappy band is promoted by a company/label, that label is guilty; if 8.000.000 people buy the album of that crappy band, those 8.000.000 people are guilty, NOT THE REST OF US.

And if that label predicts that a good band will only sell 500.000 copies because their sound is not commercial or "different", and therefore decides not to promote them correctly or even to drop them, the label is guilty, not the rest of us.

So, your logic is to blame the band that created the music rather than the company that put millions of dollars in promotions behind it, payola'd the Clear Channel network to put it in heavy rotation and the Mtv/VH1 maching to play the videos? yeah, that makes sense. If only the band hadn't made the record...

The reason there is so much crap music infiltrating the popular music scene is because labels have realized that they can control the public's taste to enough of a degree that they can predict how much money certain "types" of artists are going to make and they can therefore sign certain types of artists who fit their parameters. They tailor their artists to be middle of the road so they can sell them to their target market - 14-24 year old females. If the public didn't go out any buy those artists, they wouldn't try to sell them. Anomalies like Susan Boyle happen every once in a while but for the most part, they have a formula and they are sticking to it because it works. THE ONLY REASON IT WORKS is because PEOPLE BUY INTO IT. If people just stopped buying mediocre or shitty artists' music by the truckloads, the labels would be forced to try something else.

It is most definitely peoples' fault for falling for the marketing.

[Edited 3/1/11 15:52pm]

MickyDolenz said:

vainandy said:

Well, Shitney ain't never had no jams like Luther did with "She's A Super Lady" or the jams he did with Change. She ain't never had no jam like Deady Jackson did with Mystic Merlin called "Sixty Thrills A Minute". She also ain't never had no jam like "One Of Those Nights (Feel Like Gettin' Down) like Billy Ocean did. That little goodie two shoes cheerleader ain't never had ANY jam EVER.

As for those other groups, that's the pop/rock side which I could care less if they wanted to contaminate. And as for Air Supply....

I'm fine with adult contemporary as long as it's played on adult contemporary radio only where it can do no damage. I can understand them being played on pop radio also since "pop" means anything popular. But to play Shitney on R&B radio alongside of folks like Cameo or The Barkays just because she's black is racist. The little goodie two shoes does not fit the format. I bet they didn't play Debbie Boone on hard rock radio alongside AC/DC, I can guarantee you that.

.

.

.

[Edited 3/1/11 14:40pm]

Hello and Dancing On The Ceiling were played on R&B radio, which were before Whitney and so were I'll Never Love This Way Again by Dionne Warwick, If Ever I'm In Your Arms Again by Peabo Bryson, & I Just Called to Say I Love You by Stevie Wonder. Billy & Luther are more famous for their pop crossover songs like Here And Now, Suddenly, Get Into My Car, & Stop To Love. You're still blaming the wrong person. Who signed Whitney and spent a lot of time giving her material to sing and sculpting her image? Who was responsible for telling large funk bands like Cameo to lose the horn sections, to pare down and make synth based music. Who had Kool and the Gang to dump funk to make pop songs like Joanna, Celebration, and Misled? The labels. Who bought the records? The audience. Whitney didn't force anybody to buy her records or to play them on the radio. They got out there because the labels promoted them. They didn't promote funk music, other than Duran Duran and INXS style pop funk. The success of the Thriller album also changed how records were marketed, which is to release just about every song from an album as a single. Bruce Springsteen, who was mostly a niche act before benefited from this strategy with Born In The USA. Before Thriller, the average album just had 2, maybe 3 singles. The advance of videos also changed the marketing of music. Looks and image had started to become more important. A lot of the funk bands and soul groups weren't pretty to look at. In many cases, unless a group was on shows like American Bandstand, Midnigt Special, Shindig, or Soul Train, the average person before the 1980's didn't know what the acts on the radio looked like. That's why there's fake groups today performing as The Platters or whatever.

Regardless of who recorded this and that adult contemporary R&B song before Shitney came along, none of them were nearly as successful as she was and before her, the funk jams far outweighed the adult contemporary songs on R&B radio. It's fine to make adult contemporary as long as you are not so successful that you influence other artists.

Yes, "Thriller's" huge success helped to ruin things also. Actually, anything that crosses over and is hugely successful helps to ruin not only the artist that crossed over's future albums (because they normally will weaken their future albums hoping for more crossover success) but the genre as a whole because other artists will start crossing over trying to get some of that crossover money. Hell, I remember being furious when I heard "Little Red Corvette" on pop radio for fear it would ruin Prince in the future. I can tolerate mixing rock with funk though because both are the strongest and hardest genres on both sides of the fence. But when you weaken R&B with adult contemporary (the weakest genre of music) and are so majorly successful at it crossing over that other artists start doing the same thing, that's when I have a problem. Adult contemporary R&B existed before Shitney but it was the funk that everybody wanted to hear and it was all over the radio. It wasn't like that after Shitney though. You had tons more adult contemporary R&B artists coming out after her and their stuff was getting more airplay than the funk. Hell, there was so much of it, that it even led to the "Adult Urban" genre that exists today.

Long live Whitney Houston. Her voice can be funky and smooth. yes i said it, listen to her voice on "I'm Your Baby Tonight" and tell me she isn't funky.

Top 10 who have fucked me over on my love of pop music

can't speak pre 1981

1. Hootie & The Blowfish (blurred the lines between bad pop and bad country)

2. Celine Dion (made it about who can sound like they are blowing a hemorrhoid in a ballad)

3. T-Pain

4. Shania Twain (ugh!)

5. Lil Jon

6. Alicia Keys

7. Journey

8. Creed

9. Beyonce (i like her ok as an artist but the homogeneity of the acts that followed = awful)

10. Boyz II Men (ditto- like them fine but the imitators/sound they spawned...ugh)

Timmy84 said:

BlaqueKnight said:

So, your logic is to blame the band that created the music rather than the company that put millions of dollars in promotions behind it, payola'd the Clear Channel network to put it in heavy rotation and the Mtv/VH1 maching to play the videos? yeah, that makes sense. If only the band hadn't made the record...

The reason there is so much crap music infiltrating the popular music scene is because labels have realized that they can control the public's taste to enough of a degree that they can predict how much money certain "types" of artists are going to make and they can therefore sign certain types of artists who fit their parameters. They tailor their artists to be middle of the road so they can sell them to their target market - 14-24 year old females. If the public didn't go out any buy those artists, they wouldn't try to sell them. Anomalies like Susan Boyle happen every once in a while but for the most part, they have a formula and they are sticking to it because it works. THE ONLY REASON IT WORKS is because PEOPLE BUY INTO IT. If people just stopped buying mediocre or shitty artists' music by the truckloads, the labels would be forced to try something else.

It is most definitely peoples' fault for falling for the marketing.

[Edited 3/1/11 15:52pm]

"PEOPLE BUY INTO IT"

who? everyone? the whole planet? I don't think so...

that's my point: I'm not guilty of anything

When Poison started to write cheesy lyrics and bland guitar riffs ready for mainstream radio they were guilty, and the label that heavily promoted them, and the copycat bands, and the people that bought their albums, but I am not guilty...

when new 90s metal bands decided that good melodies, memorable riffs and epic choruses were not cool anymore, they created the pathetic death-metal...they were guilty, and the labels that promoted them, and the freaks that bought their albums, but I AM NOT GUILTY...

when some 00's rappers decided that fast rap/political lyrics were not commercial enough for the radio, they created shit-hop, and they are guilty, and the labels that promoted them, and the insipid people that bought their albums (white bread for the most part), BUT I AM NOT GUILTY...

just some examples

this is what this thread is about: to detect and ridicule the acts that ruined the different GENRES of popular music.

[Edited 3/1/11 16:25pm]

this thread is crazy! The Beatles? The Eagles? those are two of the BEST bands of all time!

JoeTyler said:

who? everyone? the whole planet? I don't think so...

that's my point: I'm not guilty of anything

When Poison started to write cheesy lyrics and bland guitar riffs ready for mainstream radio they were guilty, and the label that heavily promoted them, and the copycat bands, and the people that bought their albums, but I am not guilty...

when new 90s metal bands decided that good melodies, memorable riffs and epic choruses were not cool anymore, they created the pathetic death-metal...they were guilty, and the labels that promoted them, and the freaks that bought their albums, but I AM NOT GUILTY...

when some 00's rappers decided that fast rap/political lyrics were not commercial enough for the radio, they created shit-hop, and they are guilty, and the labels that promoted them, and the insipid people that bought their albums (white bread for the most part), BUT I AM NOT GUILTY...

just some examples

this is what this thread is about: to detect and ridicule the acts that ruined the different GENRES of popular music.

Nobody ruined anything. The labels put the music out there, the acts don't put out the music themselves. Contrary to popular belief, performers don't have creative freedom on a major. The labels have the right to release or not release anything they like (such as Warners with Prince's Crystal Ball) or not promote if they don't want to (MJ's Invincible). They can also tie you up with contracts (Teena Marie on Motown, Tori Amos on Atlantic, Run DMC on Profile, George Michael on Sony). The labels also generally choose the singles, not the act.

It's not the radio stations' job to play music you like. It's to sell advertising. Companies aren't going to buy advertising from a college radio station or a classical station, because they have too small an audience, so they run from pledge week donations. I don't listen to the radio. I don't need somone else to program music for me to listen to or like something just because a lot of other people like it or its a "hit", I find my own music.

Also, what's cheesy? That's an opinion. Insulting people and calling them "insipid" and "whitebread" because they like music you don't, is being a music snob.

[Edited 3/1/11 17:26pm]

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

who? everyone? the whole planet? I don't think so...

that's my point: I'm not guilty of anything

When Poison started to write cheesy lyrics and bland guitar riffs ready for mainstream radio they were guilty, and the label that heavily promoted them, and the copycat bands, and the people that bought their albums, but I am not guilty...

when new 90s metal bands decided that good melodies, memorable riffs and epic choruses were not cool anymore, they created the pathetic death-metal...they were guilty, and the labels that promoted them, and the freaks that bought their albums, but I AM NOT GUILTY...

when some 00's rappers decided that fast rap/political lyrics were not commercial enough for the radio, they created shit-hop, and they are guilty, and the labels that promoted them, and the insipid people that bought their albums (white bread for the most part), BUT I AM NOT GUILTY...

just some examples

this is what this thread is about: to detect and ridicule the acts that ruined the different GENRES of popular music.

Nobody ruined anything. The labels put the music out there, the acts don't put out the music themselves. Contrary to popular belief, performers don't have creative freedom on a major. The labels have the right to release or not release anything they like (such as Warners with Prince's Crystal Ball) or not promote if they don't want to (MJ's Invincible). They can also tie you up with contracts (Teena Marie on Motown, Tori Amos on Atlantic, Run DMC on Profile, George Michael on Sony). The labels also generally choose the singles, not the act.

both the artist and the label are guilty.

"Also, what's cheesy? That's an opinion. Insulting people and calling them "insipid" and "whitebread" because they like music you don't, is being a music snob."

this thread is about opinion. If someone thinks that the Beatles ruined popular music, that's his opinion, if someone thinks that Whitney ruined R&B forever that's his opinion, if I think that Poison destroyed the credibility of hard-rock that's my opinion.

JoeTyler said:

MickyDolenz said:

Nobody ruined anything. The labels put the music out there, the acts don't put out the music themselves. Contrary to popular belief, performers don't have creative freedom on a major. The labels have the right to release or not release anything they like (such as Warners with Prince's Crystal Ball) or not promote if they don't want to (MJ's Invincible). They can also tie you up with contracts (Teena Marie on Motown, Tori Amos on Atlantic, Run DMC on Profile, George Michael on Sony). The labels also generally choose the singles, not the act.

both the artist and the label are guilty.

"Also, what's cheesy? That's an opinion. Insulting people and calling them "insipid" and "whitebread" because they like music you don't, is being a music snob."

this thread is about opinion. If someone thinks that the Beatles ruined popular music, that's his opinion, if someone thinks that Whitney ruined R&B forever that's his opinion, if I think that Poison destroyed the credibility of hard-rock that's my opinion.

I totally see your point about opinions and I think we largely agree. However, when did rock, hard or otherwise, care about credibility? Shoot, you could make a good argument that once rock music became "credible" it was all over and that's why it was eclipsed by rap/hip hop.

rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

both the artist and the label are guilty.

"Also, what's cheesy? That's an opinion. Insulting people and calling them "insipid" and "whitebread" because they like music you don't, is being a music snob."

this thread is about opinion. If someone thinks that the Beatles ruined popular music, that's his opinion, if someone thinks that Whitney ruined R&B forever that's his opinion, if I think that Poison destroyed the credibility of hard-rock that's my opinion.

I totally see your point about opinions and I think we largely agree. However, when did rock, hard or otherwise, care about credibility? Shoot, you could make a good argument that once rock music became "credible" it was all over and that's why it was eclipsed by rap/hip hop.

Poison destroyed the musical credibility of hard-rock; before Poison, hard-rock was supposed to be played by skilled players influenced by Zeppelin, Cream and Hendrix; with Poison the mainstream audience thought that hard-rock was about easy pop played with flashy guitars by guys with make-up...hard-rock lost its musical relevance with bands like Poison, Winger, Warrant, etc. the hard-rock of the first half of the 80s was still about skill, good songs and roots; since 1986 it was just fun, fun, fun...1964 Beach Boys but with spandex and make-up...

it's no wonder that GN'R is still considered one of the few influential/worthy hard-rock bands of the second half of the 80's...

JoeTyler said:

both the artist and the label are guilty.

How is it their fault? The performer is just an employee. If you work at KFC and they tell you to use their secret spices, but you tell the boss you have a spice that is better, it doesn't matter if it is, he or she is going to tell you to use the spice that has been used for decades. Look at what happened with New Coke in the mid-80's. They put it out, most people didn't like it, and Coke started losing customers to Pepsi. In the same way, if the record label tells an act what kind of music to put out, or what producers to work with, the act (employee) has to do it. If the act decides they want to use their own "secret spices", the label doesn't have to put it out. If an act doesn't want to do it, then they won't bother trying to get a record deal and put out their music themselves. But they won't have the same distribution or money. Look at Prince putting CD's in newspapers or giving them out at concerts. But the mass public aren't aware of his records now like they were when he was on Warner Bros. People on here complain about the music Prince puts out now under "artistic freedom", but like the music when he was the "Slave" of Warner Brothers. They can't have it both ways.

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

both the artist and the label are guilty.

How is it their fault? The performer is just an employee.

no, they're not; not unless you're talking about acts like the Monkees or Hannah Montana...

any artist is free to do good music or crappy music, that's why many artists frequently clash with their labels about the "appeal" of their music... if your music doesn't feature many hits or it's not similar to the stuff played on the radio, chances are that a big label will drop you...

JoeTyler said:

MickyDolenz said:

How is it their fault? The performer is just an employee.

no, they're not; not unless you're talking about acts like the Monkees or Hannah Montana...

any artist is free to do good music or crappy music, that's why many artists frequently clash with their labels about the "appeal" of their music... if your music doesn't feature many hits or it's not similar to the stuff played on the radio, chances are that a big label will drop you...

Good or crappy is an opinion of the listener. Ani Difranco never signed to a major label because she knew she couldn't do the music she wanted to on a major. So she started her own label to release her music. Artists are not free to do what they want on someone elses label. If that was the case, the label wouldn't bother writing out contracts stating what they expect from the act and what they will do for them. Most acts don't read the contracts they sign. Take for instance the Jackson 5 on Motown. Berry Gordy refused to let the group do their own songs or produce their own records. That's why they left for Epic, which resulted in a lawsuit from Motown. Flo Ballard wanted to do leads on Supreme songs, but Berry refused to let her and Mary Wilson sing leads like they did before signing with the label and had Diana Ross to do all the singing. George Benson recorded an album after Give Me The Night, but Warners refused to release it. Geffen sued Neil Young because they claimed that his album Everybody's Rockin' was uncommercial. Warners refused to release Crystal Ball and told Prince a 3 record set wouldn't sell. Why did Prince write "Slave" on his face or Michael Jackson hold up a sign saying "Mottola is the devil". Then Sony started releasing all of those MJ compilation CDs. George Michael and Run DMC were held up in litigation for years and couldn't release new music. How is that being free to do what they want? They're employees of the company, that's all.

JoeTyler said:

if your music doesn't feature many hits or it's not similar to the stuff played on the radio,

Never stopped The Grateful Dead, Bobby Blue Bland, or Black Sabbath. Prog rock wasn't driven by hit singles either.

[Edited 3/1/11 19:00pm]

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

no, they're not; not unless you're talking about acts like the Monkees or Hannah Montana...

any artist is free to do good music or crappy music, that's why many artists frequently clash with their labels about the "appeal" of their music... if your music doesn't feature many hits or it's not similar to the stuff played on the radio, chances are that a big label will drop you...

Good or crappy is an opinion of the listener. Ani Difranco never signed to a major label because she knew she couldn't do the music she wanted to on a major. So she started her own label to release her music. Artists are not free to do what they want on someone elses label. If that was the case, the label wouldn't bother writing out contracts stating what they expect from the act and what they will do for them. Most acts don't read the contracts they sign. Take for instance the Jackson 5 on Motown. Berry Gordy refused to let the group do their own songs or produce their own records. That's why they left for Epic, which resulted in a lawsuit from Motown. Flo Ballard wanted to do leads on Supreme songs, but Berry refused to let her and Mary Wilson sing leads like they did before signing with the label and had Diana Ross to do all the singing. George Benson recorded an album after Give Me The Night, but Warners refused to release it. Geffen sued Neil Young because they claimed that his album Everybody's Rockin' was uncommercial. Warners refused to release Crystal Ball and told Prince a 3 record set wouldn't sell. Why did Prince write "Slave" on his face or Michael Jackson hold up a sign saying "Mottola is the devil". Then Sony started releasing all of those MJ compilation CDs. George Michael and Run DMC were held up in litigation for years and couldn't release new music. How is that being free to do what they want? They're employees of the company, that's all.

don't forget the infamous brockert initiative, which george michael took advantage of... teena marie had battles with motown as well. these labels are insane. rather, the people who run them are. how labels are run, it's not sustainable.

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

no, they're not; not unless you're talking about acts like the Monkees or Hannah Montana...

any artist is free to do good music or crappy music, that's why many artists frequently clash with their labels about the "appeal" of their music... if your music doesn't feature many hits or it's not similar to the stuff played on the radio, chances are that a big label will drop you...

Good or crappy is an opinion of the listener. Ani Difranco never signed to a major label because she knew she couldn't do the music she wanted to on a major. So she started her own label to release her music. Artists are not free to do what they want on someone elses label. If that was the case, the label wouldn't bother writing out contracts stating what they expect from the act and what they will do for them. Most acts don't read the contracts they sign. Take for instance the Jackson 5 on Motown. Berry Gordy refused to let the group do their own songs or produce their own records. That's why they left for Epic, which resulted in a lawsuit from Motown. Flo Ballard wanted to do leads on Supreme songs, but Berry refused to let her and Mary Wilson sing leads like they did before signing with the label and had Diana Ross to do all the singing. George Benson recorded an album after Give Me The Night, but Warners refused to release it. Geffen sued Neil Young because they claimed that his album Everybody's Rockin' was uncommercial. Warners refused to release Crystal Ball and told Prince a 3 record set wouldn't sell. Why did Prince write "Slave" on his face or Michael Jackson hold up a sign saying "Mottola is the devil". Then Sony started releasing all of those MJ compilation CDs. George Michael and Run DMC were held up in litigation for years and couldn't release new music. How is that being free to do what they want? They're employees of the company, that's all.

I get your point but I'm unhappy cuz this thread is slowly (but steadily) moving towards the "do the artists have artistic freedom?" thing, and that's not the point of the thread...

the thread is still (lol) about certain bands/acts that released music that was specially harmful and, sadly, successful, changing the whole landscape of popular music...and not for the better...

MickyDolenz said:

Never stopped The Grateful Dead, Bobby Blue Bland, or Black Sabbath. Prog rock wasn't driven by hit singles either.

[Edited 3/1/11 19:00pm]

Black Sabbath had HITS, and by 1971 proto-metal/heavy rock was already a successful genre...

Prog rock was very popular among the mainstream masses

the other bands you mention are not that relevant anymore... and I can't see how a couple of examples could bring down a whole theory anway...

kitbradley said:

Not in any particular order:

1. Rhianna

2. Chris Brown

3. Beyonce

4. Eminem

5. Ciara

6. Milli Vanilli

7. Vanilla Ice

8. Lady Ga Ga

9. Justin Bieber

10. 50 Cents

Let me add Puff Daddy/ Diddy and Madonna too, to this bad artists list!

But did anyone mentioned.....

The Beatles,

Pink Floyd,

Queen

to me those bands are the creme de la creme,

absolute top quality, imo.

Great Queen albums includes imo.:

A Night At The Opera

Jazz

The Game

A Kind Of Magic (underrated imo)

Innuendo

JoeTyler said:

rialb said:

I totally see your point about opinions and I think we largely agree. However, when did rock, hard or otherwise, care about credibility? Shoot, you could make a good argument that once rock music became "credible" it was all over and that's why it was eclipsed by rap/hip hop.

Poison destroyed the musical credibility of hard-rock; before Poison, hard-rock was supposed to be played by skilled players influenced by Zeppelin, Cream and Hendrix; with Poison the mainstream audience thought that hard-rock was about easy pop played with flashy guitars by guys with make-up...hard-rock lost its musical relevance with bands like Poison, Winger, Warrant, etc. the hard-rock of the first half of the 80s was still about skill, good songs and roots; since 1986 it was just fun, fun, fun...1964 Beach Boys but with spandex and make-up...

it's no wonder that GN'R is still considered one of the few influential/worthy hard-rock bands of the second half of the 80's...

Mmm, I still gotta disagree with you. Skillful musicianship has never been a prerequisite to being a good/successful rock band. A certain level of competency is necessary but by no means do you need to be great at your instrument. Grand Funk Railroad was arguably the biggest American band of the early '70s and those guys were not virtuosos. Kiss were possibly the biggest American band of the late '70s and they are not fantastic musicians. Motley Crue were one of the most popular American bands of the '80s and they weren't great musicians, particularly Nikki Sixx who wrote most of the music. Then you have a band like Van Halen. Sure, Eddie was a fantastic musician and technically very good but in the same band you had Michael Anthony who gave the world possibly the most basic bass playing of anyone in a major band. I would also argue that Def Leppard popularised pop/metal before Poison and Bon Jovi did it at roughly the same time as Poison and were much more influential.

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

both the artist and the label are guilty.

How is it their fault? The performer is just an employee. If you work at KFC and they tell you to use their secret spices, but you tell the boss you have a spice that is better, it doesn't matter if it is, he or she is going to tell you to use the spice that has been used for decades. Look at what happened with New Coke in the mid-80's. They put it out, most people didn't like it, and Coke started losing customers to Pepsi. In the same way, if the record label tells an act what kind of music to put out, or what producers to work with, the act (employee) has to do it. If the act decides they want to use their own "secret spices", the label doesn't have to put it out. If an act doesn't want to do it, then they won't bother trying to get a record deal and put out their music themselves. But they won't have the same distribution or money. Look at Prince putting CD's in newspapers or giving them out at concerts. But the mass public aren't aware of his records now like they were when he was on Warner Bros. People on here complain about the music Prince puts out now under "artistic freedom", but like the music when he was the "Slave" of Warner Brothers. They can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure what you mean, particularly about "they can't have it both ways." Perhaps I'm mistaken but the music that Prince has released post WB does not sound any different than his WB era material. Is Emancipation appreciably different than The Gold Experience? Would Newpower Soul have sounded any different if it had been released on WB? Maybe WB would not have released The Rainbow Children but I think they probably would have.

I think it is very hard to make a case that Prince's music changed in any significant way once he became "free." Fans will no doubt argue about the quality of the music but as far as the sound and style I think that Prince sounds pretty much the same. I guess you could point to the 2000-2003 era as being somewhat different but that was a relatively brief period and since 2004 Prince has moved back to a much more commercial sound so the bulk of his post WB material is not appreciably different than his WB era material.

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

both the artist and the label are guilty.

How is it their fault? The performer is just an employee. If you work at KFC and they tell you to use their secret spices, but you tell the boss you have a spice that is better, it doesn't matter if it is, he or she is going to tell you to use the spice that has been used for decades. Look at what happened with New Coke in the mid-80's. They put it out, most people didn't like it, and Coke started losing customers to Pepsi. In the same way, if the record label tells an act what kind of music to put out, or what producers to work with, the act (employee) has to do it. If the act decides they want to use their own "secret spices", the label doesn't have to put it out. If an act doesn't want to do it, then they won't bother trying to get a record deal and put out their music themselves. But they won't have the same distribution or money. Look at Prince putting CD's in newspapers or giving them out at concerts. But the mass public aren't aware of his records now like they were when he was on Warner Bros. People on here complain about the music Prince puts out now under "artistic freedom", but like the music when he was the "Slave" of Warner Brothers. They can't have it both ways.

I fully agree that labels are a huge part of the blame for ruining music but mainly after they started taking shit hop seriously and major labels started signing these acts and neglecting others because they saw they had something cheaply made on their hands with an audience stupid enough to accept cheap shit and bring them a huge profit.

However, since you mention Prince, he is a perfect example of a label giving an artist too much freedom to do as he pleases. "Around The World In A Day" is a perfect example of that because if I had been Warner Brothers and Prince put out an album like that right after a hugely successful album like "Purple Rain", I would have told him...."Look motherfucker, this is 1985, not 1965. What is this Beatles inspired shit you're giving us? You take your little ass right back in that studio and record us some of those cold hard jams that people know you for."......And then they let him go even further out there with his protege act The Family with orchestras on the record. And then Prince going even further out there himself with "Parade" and givng poor Jill Jones that Paris France sound knowing good and damn well that it wasn't going to sell. He might have talked me into "Around The World In A Day" and let that one slip by me just to see what would happen, but when he got even further out there, I would have dropped his ass and he would have to go shopping for another label, probably a small one like Sunnyview like Newcleus was on.

Labels are very controlling but I see them mainly being the most controlling after 1990 when they discovered the extremely cheaply made genre of shit hop and started taking it seriously promoting mainly shit hop and dropping other R&B acts unless they started cheapening their sound also. Yeah, the adult contemporary R&B acts remained because they realize that dull ass soccer moms are always going to be around but as far as filling the rebellion void that existed when funk died, they filled it with the cheaply made shit hop.

.

.

.

[Edited 3/2/11 4:56am]

vainandy said:

MickyDolenz said:

How is it their fault? The performer is just an employee. If you work at KFC and they tell you to use their secret spices, but you tell the boss you have a spice that is better, it doesn't matter if it is, he or she is going to tell you to use the spice that has been used for decades. Look at what happened with New Coke in the mid-80's. They put it out, most people didn't like it, and Coke started losing customers to Pepsi. In the same way, if the record label tells an act what kind of music to put out, or what producers to work with, the act (employee) has to do it. If the act decides they want to use their own "secret spices", the label doesn't have to put it out. If an act doesn't want to do it, then they won't bother trying to get a record deal and put out their music themselves. But they won't have the same distribution or money. Look at Prince putting CD's in newspapers or giving them out at concerts. But the mass public aren't aware of his records now like they were when he was on Warner Bros. People on here complain about the music Prince puts out now under "artistic freedom", but like the music when he was the "Slave" of Warner Brothers. They can't have it both ways.

I fully agree that labels are a huge part of the blame for ruining music

Labels are very controlling but I see them mainly being the most controlling after 1990

.

yeah, but shit-hop was not created by labels, it was created by certain rappers/producers, specially Dr.Dre. The Chronic is surely a solid album (by solid I mean good songs and very little filler, something uncommon for 90's rap) but it's certainly the first, most famous (& most influential) shit-hop album of all time...

death-metal was not created by labels, it was created by certain bands and the motherfucker producers of Florida. Some major labels try to promote those ridiculous bands with often disappointing results (less than 200.000 copies sold)

alternative-rock was not created by labels, it was and underground 80s movement that received mainstream acceptance when SOME bands (REM and Pixies, specially) had unexpected hits (The One I Love, Here Comes Your Man) and the major labels took an interest in the whole alternative-rock genre, promoting college bands that were clumsy, overrated and that featured a rather thin sound and bullshit lyrics about the "struggle" of the white middle-class.

labels are guilty because many times they have promoted music that was bad, cheap & harfmul, but that music was created by the artists, not the labels.

This whole situation pisses me off because at least until 1983/84 all genres enjoyed a peaceful coexistence (sort of) and every folk still could listen to their favorite genres because labels promoted ALL genres. Since the late-80s and specially since the early-90s, NEW (and crappy) genres overshadowed the old (and better) genres and that was frustrating.

The situation is so rotten that in the 00's we only have 5 genres promoted by major labels (alternative-rock, standard pop/rock, shit-hop, shit-dance, and modern R&B). Nowadays, the old genres (disco, electronica, traditional rap, heavy-metal, hard-rock, folk, traditional country, blues, jazz, etc) are marginalized, new bands playing those old/traditional genres struggle to get decent promotion (since many of them are signed to lesser labels) and a real world tour. If not for the INTERNET (God Bless it), those old genres and bands would be extinct.

that's still my point.

rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

both the artist and the label are guilty.

"Also, what's cheesy? That's an opinion. Insulting people and calling them "insipid" and "whitebread" because they like music you don't, is being a music snob."

this thread is about opinion. If someone thinks that the Beatles ruined popular music, that's his opinion, if someone thinks that Whitney ruined R&B forever that's his opinion, if I think that Poison destroyed the credibility of hard-rock that's my opinion.

I totally see your point about opinions and I think we largely agree. However, when did rock, hard or otherwise, care about credibility? Shoot, you could make a good argument that once rock music became "credible" it was all over and that's why it was eclipsed by rap/hip hop.

I remembered reading archives about how people perceived rock. In the '50s to think this "loud, brash, annoying, ignorant rock and roll sound" created by both the "negroes" and the "hillbilly rednecks" would have the impact that it still has not even 60 years later. I know black folks who were deeply conservative and religious had no idea of the impact of blues and R&B/early rock artists because it was all sacrilegious to them and to them it "ruined" society as a whole. This is why when I read a thread like this, I can't help but think that right now the music we love used to be dissed. It puts things in perspective to me.

MJJstudent said:

MickyDolenz said:

Good or crappy is an opinion of the listener. Ani Difranco never signed to a major label because she knew she couldn't do the music she wanted to on a major. So she started her own label to release her music. Artists are not free to do what they want on someone elses label. If that was the case, the label wouldn't bother writing out contracts stating what they expect from the act and what they will do for them. Most acts don't read the contracts they sign. Take for instance the Jackson 5 on Motown. Berry Gordy refused to let the group do their own songs or produce their own records. That's why they left for Epic, which resulted in a lawsuit from Motown. Flo Ballard wanted to do leads on Supreme songs, but Berry refused to let her and Mary Wilson sing leads like they did before signing with the label and had Diana Ross to do all the singing. George Benson recorded an album after Give Me The Night, but Warners refused to release it. Geffen sued Neil Young because they claimed that his album Everybody's Rockin' was uncommercial. Warners refused to release Crystal Ball and told Prince a 3 record set wouldn't sell. Why did Prince write "Slave" on his face or Michael Jackson hold up a sign saying "Mottola is the devil". Then Sony started releasing all of those MJ compilation CDs. George Michael and Run DMC were held up in litigation for years and couldn't release new music. How is that being free to do what they want? They're employees of the company, that's all.

don't forget the infamous brockert initiative, which george michael took advantage of... teena marie had battles with motown as well. these labels are insane. rather, the people who run them are. how labels are run, it's not sustainable.

I applaud the artists that didn't take shit from labels. Prince included.

Timmy84 said:

rialb said:

I totally see your point about opinions and I think we largely agree. However, when did rock, hard or otherwise, care about credibility? Shoot, you could make a good argument that once rock music became "credible" it was all over and that's why it was eclipsed by rap/hip hop.

I remembered reading archives about how people perceived rock. In the '50s to think this "loud, brash, annoying, ignorant rock and roll sound" created by both the "negroes" and the "hillbilly rednecks" would have the impact that it still has not even 60 years later. I know black folks who were deeply conservative and religious had no idea of the impact of blues and R&B/early rock artists because it was all sacrilegious to them and to them it "ruined" society as a whole. This is why when I read a thread like this, I can't help but think that right now the music we love used to be dissed. It puts things in perspective to me.

That only means that blues and rock& roll have proven to be relevant genres.

My point is: Whitney's music has not stood the test of time, extreme metal has not stood the test of time, etc. will shit-hop and shit-dance stood the test of time?? no, I don't think so...

and let's not forget that EVERY decade had some music that now is considered to be a disgrace:

-60s: too many folk and pyschodelic bands

-70s: too many lesser disco acts during the end of the decade

-80s: hard-dance and pop-metal

-90s: too many alternative and brit-rock bands, boybands, female singer/songwriter craze...

and now

-00: shit-hop, shit-dance

this is what the thread is about...

rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

Poison destroyed the musical credibility of hard-rock; before Poison, hard-rock was supposed to be played by skilled players influenced by Zeppelin, Cream and Hendrix; with Poison the mainstream audience thought that hard-rock was about easy pop played with flashy guitars by guys with make-up...hard-rock lost its musical relevance with bands like Poison, Winger, Warrant, etc. the hard-rock of the first half of the 80s was still about skill, good songs and roots; since 1986 it was just fun, fun, fun...1964 Beach Boys but with spandex and make-up...

it's no wonder that GN'R is still considered one of the few influential/worthy hard-rock bands of the second half of the 80's...

Mmm, I still gotta disagree with you. Skillful musicianship has never been a prerequisite to being a good/successful rock band. A certain level of competency is necessary but by no means do you need to be great at your instrument. Grand Funk Railroad was arguably the biggest American band of the early '70s and those guys were not virtuosos. Kiss were possibly the biggest American band of the late '70s and they are not fantastic musicians. Motley Crue were one of the most popular American bands of the '80s and they weren't great musicians, particularly Nikki Sixx who wrote most of the music. Then you have a band like Van Halen. Sure, Eddie was a fantastic musician and technically very good but in the same band you had Michael Anthony who gave the world possibly the most basic bass playing of anyone in a major band. I would also argue that Def Leppard popularised pop/metal before Poison and Bon Jovi did it at roughly the same time as Poison and were much more influential.

I do agree that, thankfully, Def Leppard and Bon Jovi were more influential, but I still think that Poison, due to their extremist image and easy sound, was the band that ruined the credibility of the whole hard-rock scene of the 80s.

And it's no coincidence that bands like GN'R, Tesla, Mr.Big, Motley Crue or even Bon Jovi embraced, in the fall of the 80's, a tougher & 70's-inspired image/sound to differentiate themselves from those crappy pop-metal acts...

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

I remembered reading archives about how people perceived rock. In the '50s to think this "loud, brash, annoying, ignorant rock and roll sound" created by both the "negroes" and the "hillbilly rednecks" would have the impact that it still has not even 60 years later. I know black folks who were deeply conservative and religious had no idea of the impact of blues and R&B/early rock artists because it was all sacrilegious to them and to them it "ruined" society as a whole. This is why when I read a thread like this, I can't help but think that right now the music we love used to be dissed. It puts things in perspective to me.

That only means that blues and rock& roll have proven to be relevant genres.

My point is: Whitney's music has not stood the test of time, extreme metal has not stood the test of time, etc. will shit-hop and shit-dance stood the test of time?? no, I don't think so...

and let's not forget that EVERY decade had some music that now is considered to be a disgrace:

-60s: too many folk and pyschodelic bands

-70s: too many lesser disco acts during the end of the decade

-80s: hard-dance and pop-metal

-90s: too many alternative and brit-rock bands, boybands, female singer/songwriter craze...

and now

-00: shit-hop, shit-dance

this is what the thread is about...

You mean you're bringing attention to what's "ruining" music for you. I just avoid bad music.

Timmy84 said:

JoeTyler said:

That only means that blues and rock& roll have proven to be relevant genres.

My point is: Whitney's music has not stood the test of time, extreme metal has not stood the test of time, etc. will shit-hop and shit-dance stood the test of time?? no, I don't think so...

and let's not forget that EVERY decade had some music that now is considered to be a disgrace:

-60s: too many folk and pyschodelic bands

-70s: too many lesser disco acts during the end of the decade

-80s: hard-dance and pop-metal

-90s: too many alternative and brit-rock bands, boybands, female singer/songwriter craze...

and now

-00: shit-hop, shit-dance

this is what the thread is about...

You mean you're bringing attention to what's "ruining" music for you. I just avoid bad music.

Well, there's bad music, and there's also music that ruined music lol

and this is an open range, any orger can come here and list his/her personal top10, "someone" even mentioned the Beatles

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

You mean you're bringing attention to what's "ruining" music for you. I just avoid bad music.

Well, there's bad music, and there's also music that ruined music lol

and this is an open range, any orger can come here and list his/her personal top10, "someone" even mentioned the Beatles

Then ain't that what the thread is? Personal opinion?

Honestly these acts haven't ruined music for me. Some I don't even bother to listen to so what the hell.