babybugz said:

MJJstudent said:

i personally see a distinction between 'popular' and 'pop'... 'pop' has turned into a limiting genre by default... i'd say john coltrane is popular, but he's not a 'pop' artist... to me, 'pop' music has been defined by what clear channel, etc. deems acceptable to rotate on commerical channels. 'pop' artists aren't always popular (people like glenn lewis)...

artists like michael and STEVIE are certainly popular, but they to me do not fit into genres. same as, elvis costello or bjork, as i mentioned earlier.

glenn lewis wasn't pop or "popular"

I didn't even see that. Glenn Lewis?!

babybugz said:

MJJstudent said:

i personally see a distinction between 'popular' and 'pop'... 'pop' has turned into a limiting genre by default... i'd say john coltrane is popular, but he's not a 'pop' artist... to me, 'pop' music has been defined by what clear channel, etc. deems acceptable to rotate on commerical channels. 'pop' artists aren't always popular (people like glenn lewis)...

artists like michael and STEVIE are certainly popular, but they to me do not fit into genres. same as, elvis costello or bjork, as i mentioned earlier.

glenn lewis wasn't pop or "popular"

i saw sony as trying to market him as a 'pop' artist... i guess all our definitions of 'pop' or popular are different then.

WOW, I created a monster with this post!

MJJstudent said:

babybugz said:

glenn lewis wasn't pop or "popular"

i saw sony as trying to market him as a 'pop' artist... i guess all our definitions of 'pop' or popular are different then.

The type of music he was doing for them, I doubt that was the direction. And besides if they tried to market him that way, maybe that's why he BOUNCED the way he did if he didn't like that direction personally.

gunner82 said:

WOW, I created a monster with this post!

Be proud. This deserves to stay.

Emancipation89 said:

I personally think it's kind of meaningless to get too technical with genre anyway

Elvis Presley is called the "King Of Rock 'N Roll", when very little of his music was actually rock. Some of his pre-Army tunes are rock 'n roll, but a lot of that was really R&B (and rockabilly). That's why he popular on the R&B chart of the time.

babybugz said:

Timmy84 said:

The media always played a part in the negative reaction to "pop music", calling it "not really music". Sure there was some stuff that can be considered noise but if done right it can be a piece of art to someone. I don't see nothing wrong with Michael being called a pop artist. Just hated how the media perceives - and continues to perceive pop music.

I see nothing wrong with pop music like you said if its done right I’m going to listen. I don’t listen by genre anyway if it sounds good I can care less if it’s pop , rock whatever it doesn’t matter. The media dont influence me that's for sure.

again, i guess it's how each of us define it. i personally am not into a lot of modern 'pop'/popular music created in the last 15 years... i haven't heard popular music done right for the most part. i can count on one hand how many artists who just came out in the past five years who are decent. and they aren't on the radio either. that's just me.

MJJstudent said:

babybugz said:

glenn lewis wasn't pop or "popular"

i saw sony as trying to market him as a 'pop' artist... i guess all our definitions of 'pop' or popular are different then.

He was neo-soul aka as hippy R&B he wasn’t promoted right and I personally don’t think he had the “it” factor anyway. I did like that first song he had though.

MJJstudent said:

babybugz said:

I see nothing wrong with pop music like you said if its done right I’m going to listen. I don’t listen by genre anyway if it sounds good I can care less if it’s pop , rock whatever it doesn’t matter. The media dont influence me that's for sure.

again, i guess it's how each of us define it. i personally am not into a lot of modern 'pop'/popular music created in the last 15 years... i haven't heard popular music done right for the most part. i can count on one hand how many artists who just came out in the past five years who are decent. and they aren't on the radio either. that's just me.

You're right.

Timmy84 said:

babybugz said:

Pop stands for “popular” which indeed he was so I see nothing wrong with the title. He was doing way more than typical R&B after thriller , pop turned into a negative thing for people over the years though.

The media always played a part in the negative reaction to "pop music", calling it "not really music". Sure there was some stuff that can be considered noise but if done right it can be a piece of art to someone. I don't see nothing wrong with Michael being called a pop artist. Just hated how the media perceives - and continues to perceive pop music.

it IS music... it's just not GOOD music. it's all mechanical and set up so people don't think. it's set up to hypnotize people. this is corporatized 'pop' music to me. if there are top 'pop' artists not in that vein i'd like to know...

where i go to train they have the 'pop' staion on... and ALL the songs sound the same... cold, mechanized and monotone. no life in these songs at all. and they're all about sex, materialism and partying. in these times we need our children hearing alternatives to this. there have ALWAYS been songs like this but they alternated with positive/political stuff on the radio as well. there's no balance in commercial 'pop' music today. they condition people to be zombies.

Timmy84 said:

MJJstudent said:

i saw sony as trying to market him as a 'pop' artist... i guess all our definitions of 'pop' or popular are different then.

The type of music he was doing for them, I doubt that was the direction. And besides if they tried to market him that way, maybe that's why he BOUNCED the way he did if he didn't like that direction personally.

good for him. he did the right thing. same with amel larrieux. they are too good to be caged up like that.

[Edited 5/8/11 21:21pm]

babybugz said:

MJJstudent said:

i saw sony as trying to market him as a 'pop' artist... i guess all our definitions of 'pop' or popular are different then.

He was neo-soul aka as hippy R&B he wasn’t promoted right and I personally don’t think he had the “it” factor anyway. I did like that first song he had though.

most so-called 'neo-soul' is boring... glenn lewis is good though. most likely because his main influence is STEVIE.

babybugz said:

MJJstudent said:

again, i guess it's how each of us define it. i personally am not into a lot of modern 'pop'/popular music created in the last 15 years... i haven't heard popular music done right for the most part. i can count on one hand how many artists who just came out in the past five years who are decent. and they aren't on the radio either. that's just me.

You're right.

and that's okay. i'm usually alone in pretty much most of my opinions on this site anyways. which artists do you like, then, and why?

[Edited 5/8/11 21:23pm]

[Edited 5/8/11 21:32pm]

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

The media always played a part in the negative reaction to "pop music", calling it "not really music". Sure there was some stuff that can be considered noise but if done right it can be a piece of art to someone. I don't see nothing wrong with Michael being called a pop artist. Just hated how the media perceives - and continues to perceive pop music.

it IS music... it's just not GOOD music. it's all mechanical and set up so people don't think. it's set up to hypnotize people. this is corporatized 'pop' music to me. if there are top 'pop' artists not in that vein i'd like to know...

where i go to train they have the 'pop' staion on... and ALL the songs sound the same... cold, mechanized and monotone. no life in these songs at all. and they're all about sex, materialism and partying. in these times we need our children hearing alternatives to this. there have ALWAYS been songs like this but they alternated with positive/political stuff on the radio as well. there's no balance in commercial 'pop' music today. they condition people to be zombies.

It’s not good music to you but a lot of that music most don’t take it as deep many take it as fun music to dance to and leave it that. It’s just what you prefer that’s fine but it doesn’t mean it’s terrible because it’s not your cup of tea. I’m not ashamed to admit that I enjoy Justin Timberlake, Usher , Gaga and Britney at times I just like them for what they are but I don’t limit myself to only them I listen to everything.

babybugz said:

MJJstudent said:

it IS music... it's just not GOOD music. it's all mechanical and set up so people don't think. it's set up to hypnotize people. this is corporatized 'pop' music to me. if there are top 'pop' artists not in that vein i'd like to know...

where i go to train they have the 'pop' staion on... and ALL the songs sound the same... cold, mechanized and monotone. no life in these songs at all. and they're all about sex, materialism and partying. in these times we need our children hearing alternatives to this. there have ALWAYS been songs like this but they alternated with positive/political stuff on the radio as well. there's no balance in commercial 'pop' music today. they condition people to be zombies.

It’s not good music to you but a lot of that music most don’t take it as deep many take it as fun music to dance to and leave it that. It’s just what you prefer that’s fine but it doesn’t mean it’s terrible because it’s not your cup of tea. I’m not ashamed to admit that I enjoy Justin Timberlake, Usher , Gaga and Britney at times I just like them for what they are but I don’t limit myself to only them I listen to everything.

Exactly!

It’s just a pet peeve for me when people compare Mainstream and Indie as well. Who cares listen to what you like , a lot that’s played on the radio is B.S but don’t let the B.S just erase every artist out here in this generation you be surprise by how there are still decent music out here. Adele is an good example.

babybugz said:

It’s just a pet peeve for me when people compare Mainstream and Indie as well. Who cares listen to what you like , a lot that’s played on the radio is B.S but don’t let the B.S just erase every artist out here in this generation you be surprise by how there are still decent music out here. Adele is an good example.

Yeah and some people have a problem with Adele too for some odd reason.

Timmy84 said:

babybugz said:

It’s just a pet peeve for me when people compare Mainstream and Indie as well. Who cares listen to what you like , a lot that’s played on the radio is B.S but don’t let the B.S just erase every artist out here in this generation you be surprise by how there are still decent music out here. Adele is an good example.

Yeah and some people have a problem with Adele too for some odd reason.

I hear she’s too boring for some I didn’t pay attention to her until now she’s good to me.

babybugz said:

Timmy84 said:

Yeah and some people have a problem with Adele too for some odd reason.

I hear she’s too boring for some I didn’t pay attention to her until now she’s good to me.

Yeah I don't get how she's supposedly boring either.

Emancipation89 said:

MJJstudent said: this is essentially what i am saying... it's like they are breeding folks to stay in this genre. i think the genre is meaningless. artists should work towards eliminating it ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Couldn't agree more! Rock, pop, and R&B these days all have the same structure they're stuck in anyway...verse - chorus - second verse - chorus - bridge - chorus...some songs have different orders but that's pretty much it. The melody itself is very short and it's just repetition until it reaches 4 minute... I can understand when people actually look into modulation, the theme of the song, how many instruments were played in the song...etc. to analyze the musical and artistic quality but I've noticed a lot of people just categorize what's rock and what's pop and what's rock & roll and then just jump into conclusion that rock music is something more serious than pop....it doesn't make any sense to me. And I do think hiphop and music that's heavily based on electric beat is kind of an exception lol 7 seconds of melody repition with the same beat... SCREW MY IPHONE!!! SPACING BETWEEN LINES IS LOST!!!!

[Edited 5/8/11 21:32pm]

yes... pretty much what you have said... when we limit ourselves with this genre creation, our imaginations and our desire to create and communicate become lost as well.

MJJstudent said:

as a friend of muine says, 'jazz is america's classical music'. classical music is also popular music. so is jazz. so is country. but they are not in the 'pop' genre. to me, again, 'pop' was created to sell to the masses, so they will blindly buy it. if britney spears was to make a jazz album, would people buy it? i don't know.

Some forms of jazz are included within the art music label, but jazz still comes from the blues even if it's referred to the bastard child of classical. While jazz is still native to the US, it was once called POP MUSIC as well and people danced to it. Just like they do to a lot of pop music now.

The only 'media' that started that racist shit was Rolling Stone magazine in the 60s. Afterwards, there became a schism as to what music is considered 'art' and music that is 'junk.' This is what I find interesting about the arguments here when people try to act the type of r&b they listen to is somehow on a higher plane than what's current, because, in reality, most black music, which includes lots of r&b isn't even really considered 'art.' It's considered throwaway music since it's...POP MUSIC. R&b and pop music have been interchangable for the last 50+ years and it's not going to change anytime soon. This does not apply to black music that has been approved by such institutions though.

But wasn't it rock 'n roll? There seems to be a difference in the genres.

This is just YOUR OPINION. This is not a reflection of any objective truth, but only a subjective one.

MJJstudent said:

it IS music... it's just not GOOD music.

What does "good" or "bad" music mean? That's an opinion of the listener. Obviously the music is good to somebody, or they wouldn't buy it (or download it for free ). I used to know a guy that didn't consider anything that was not hip-hop music. I also went to school with some metalheads who thought non-metal music was not real music.

A lot of the so-called "classic" music was trashed and called noise back when it was 1st released. Jazz and ragtime was "jungle bunny" music. Country & western was "hillbilly" or "white trash" music. The Beatles (and Elvis) were considered by the older generation to be corrupting the youth with their long hair and Afro-American influenced "rock 'n roll" music. "Soul" was considered by some to be watered down R&B. R&B itself was put down by the black church as being "devil's music" or being gospel with "worldly" lyrics. Fusion and free jazz were put down by the jazz magazines of the day (and Wynton Marsalis today ) The musicians who played fusion were called "sellouts" to the pop or rock audience by the jazz writers who considered bop and maybe swing "real jazz". Some didn't like when jazz players (like Nat Cole & George Benson) started doing pop tunes. Berry Gordy didn't like What's Going On (and other songs that wound up being big hits), and refused to release it. When rap records 1st started being made, even many R&B stations ignored it.

I don't care i'm going to continue listening to pop music might blast some Britney tonight have a problem just bring it

babybugz said:

MJJstudent said:

it IS music... it's just not GOOD music. it's all mechanical and set up so people don't think. it's set up to hypnotize people. this is corporatized 'pop' music to me. if there are top 'pop' artists not in that vein i'd like to know...

where i go to train they have the 'pop' staion on... and ALL the songs sound the same... cold, mechanized and monotone. no life in these songs at all. and they're all about sex, materialism and partying. in these times we need our children hearing alternatives to this. there have ALWAYS been songs like this but they alternated with positive/political stuff on the radio as well. there's no balance in commercial 'pop' music today. they condition people to be zombies.

It’s not good music to you but a lot of that music most don’t take it as deep many take it as fun music to dance to and leave it that. It’s just what you prefer that’s fine but it doesn’t mean it’s terrible because it’s not your cup of tea. I’m not ashamed to admit that I enjoy Justin Timberlake, Usher , Gaga and Britney at times I just like them for what they are but I don’t limit myself to only them I listen to everything.

as. i. keep. saying. music to me is a tool to communicate SOCIO-POLITICALLY. i keep saying this, but somehow this is ignored. hmmm... i wonder why.

michael is a socio-political artist to me... prince. STEVIE. the coup. KRS-ONE. these are artists you can dance to. but a lot of their music serves a socio-political purpose to me. as i said a while back, if you don't come with that message (either in your music or outside in public) then i don't respect you as an artist. you may have good tunes, but i'm not supporting you as an artist if you are not for somehow contributing pro-actively to our communities. simple as that.

i listen to everything too... AS LONG AS THE ARTISTS ARE DOING STRONG WORK IN DEED AND ACTION. i support and commend (and respect), say, david banner for his work in relation to putting his body and money behind katrina; but most of his music doesn't say anything to me. chamillionaire also speaks about political issues in his music, and i respect that. but that's not what he's told to put on the records so they can sell. THAT i don't respect. you stand behind your messages. and if the label don't wanna put it out, put out that music anyway until you fulfill your contract or they drop you. then you put out what you want anyway.

and as i said on other discussions on gaga, i think she's bred to create mindlessness and the decay of community building. she's bred to re-create the roman empire, with no regard for building relationships. she promotes dark energy/the occult... some would say 'the illuminati'. her statement about wanting 'everybody to be gay' to me is a total disrespect to all the gay people i know trying to build relationships and families. she is promoting the 'eyes wide shut' phenomenon. where nothing is sacred. i choose not to have that energy in my life.

usher, i think he's a hack who openly claims he wants to be the second coming of michael as opposed to tuning/tapping into his own creative energies. i don't know enough about britney spears to comment... i only heard her when she sang with michael at madison square garden and she was terrible. timberlake, eh...

i don't think anyone should be ashamed of liking those artists if they like them. why should you be ashamed? i personally happen to not like those artists. they don't meet my needs for what i feel music means to me. i don't think music should be mindless, and i find a lot of that music to be. some may not think of it as mindless. we all experience music differently. there are people i know who are huge activists in their communities and like that music. i have nothing gainst people who listen to things i don't like.

i think this is the problem with these forums, we judge people too much on what we dis-agree with. my thing is, the artists SHOULD do better. we should demand more of these artists to stop promoting nihilism/hatred/mysogyny/homophobia/etc.

i feel like i am being judged on my opinions here on this forum. why can't we just respectfully agree to dis-agree? y'all act like i'm terrible or think i am better than people because i don't like some music. we all put on one pant lega at a time. no one is better than anyone else.

i just, again, choose to listen to music that serves a purpose of improving communities in one form or another. we need to return to this... like gamble and huff or whatever.

MickyDolenz said:

MJJstudent said:

it IS music... it's just not GOOD music.

What does "good" or "bad" music mean? That's an opinion of the listener. Obviously the music is good to somebody, or they wouldn't buy it (or download it for free ). I used to know a guy that didn't consider anything that was not hip-hop music. I also went to school with some metalheads who thought non-metal music was not real music.

A lot of the so-called "classic" music was trashed and called noise back when it was 1st released. Jazz and ragtime was "jungle bunny" music. Country & western was "hillbilly" or "white trash" music. The Beatles (and Elvis) were considered by the older generation to be corrupting the youth with their long hair and Afro-American influenced "rock 'n roll" music. "Soul" was considered by some to be watered down R&B. R&B itself was put down by the black church as being "devil's music" or being gospel with "worldly" lyrics. Fusion and free jazz were put down by the jazz magazines of the day (and Wynton Marsalis today ) The musicians who played fusion were called "sellouts" to the pop or rock audience by the jazz writers who considered bop and maybe swing "real jazz". Some didn't like when jazz players (like Nat Cole & George Benson) started doing pop tunes. Berry Gordy didn't like What's Going On (and other songs that wound up being big hits), and refused to release it. When rap records 1st started being made, even many R&B stations ignored it.

AGAIN... this is MY opinion. what is good to me may be bad to you. come on... we can't have opinions here now?

but to answer the question, AGAIN... BAD music to ME is music that does not pro-actively serve the communities, in action or in deed. if your music is only about nihilism or materialism, it is not good. TO ME. to me, music serves a purpose. it is about energy. pop music conditions people to not notice the energies around them, because it's about hypnotizm.

[Edited 5/8/11 22:15pm]

MJJstudent said:

babybugz said:

It’s not good music to you but a lot of that music most don’t take it as deep many take it as fun music to dance to and leave it that. It’s just what you prefer that’s fine but it doesn’t mean it’s terrible because it’s not your cup of tea. I’m not ashamed to admit that I enjoy Justin Timberlake, Usher , Gaga and Britney at times I just like them for what they are but I don’t limit myself to only them I listen to everything.

as. i. keep. saying. music to me is a tool to communicate SOCIO-POLITICALLY. i keep saying this, but somehow this is ignored. hmmm... i wonder why.

michael is a socio-political artist to me... prince. STEVIE. the coup. KRS-ONE. these are artists you can dance to. but a lot of their music serves a socio-political purpose to me. as i said a while back, if you don't come with that message (either in your music or outside in public) then i don't respect you as an artist. you may have good tunes, but i'm not supporting you as an artist if you are not for somehow contributing pro-actively to our communities. simple as that.

i listen to everything too... AS LONG AS THE ARTISTS ARE DOING STRONG WORK IN DEED AND ACTION. i support and commend (and respect), say, david banner for his work in relation to putting his body and money behind katrina; but most of his music doesn't say anything to me. chamillionaire also speaks about political issues in his music, and i respect that. but that's not what he's told to put on the records so they can sell. THAT i don't respect. you stand behind your messages. and if the label don't wanna put it out, put out that music anyway until you fulfill your contract or they drop you. then you put out what you want anyway.

and as i said on other discussions on gaga, i think she's bred to create mindlessness and the decay of community building. she's bred to re-create the roman empire, with no regard for building relationships. she promotes dark energy/the occult... some would say 'the illuminati'. her statement about wanting 'everybody to be gay' to me is a total disrespect to all the gay people i know trying to build relationships and families. she is promoting the 'eyes wide shut' phenomenon. where nothing is sacred. i choose not to have that energy in my life.

usher, i think he's a hack who openly claims he wants to be the second coming of michael as opposed to tuning/tapping into his own creative energies. i don't know enough about britney spears to comment... i only heard her when she sang with michael at madison square garden and she was terrible. timberlake, eh...

i don't think anyone should be ashamed of liking those artists if they like them. why should you be ashamed? i personally happen to not like those artists. they don't meet my needs for what i feel music means to me. i don't think music should be mindless, and i find a lot of that music to be. some may not think of it as mindless. we all experience music differently. there are people i know who are huge activists in their communities and like that music. i have nothing gainst people who listen to things i don't like.

i think this is the problem with these forums, we judge people too much on what we dis-agree with. my thing is, the artists SHOULD do better. we should demand more of these artists to stop promoting nihilism/hatred/mysogyny/homophobia/etc.

i feel like i am being judged on my opinions here on this forum. why can't we just respectfully agree to dis-agree? y'all act like i'm terrible or think i am better than people because i don't like some music. we all put on one pant lega at a time. no one is better than anyone else.

i just, again, choose to listen to music that serves a purpose of improving communities in one form or another. we need to return to this... like gamble and huff or whatever.

Exactly what you doing with pop music and the people who listen to it. Whatever

Yeah I judge it sometimes so I'm guilty of it as well. Trying to stop that nonsense.

babybugz said:

I don't care i'm going to continue listening to pop music might blast some Britney tonight have a problem just bring it

and... this is fine. AGAIN, why is this bad? if that's what you like to do, so be it. it's just something I don't like to do. what is this, gang up on the person who doesn't like 'pop music' day? wow...

and yes, i don't like the thriller album either, because to me it was marketed as being 'non-political'. it was set up to breed mindlessness (even though 'beat it' and 'wanna be startin' somethin' slipped through the cracks). i prefer michael's later political/message' tracks, after thriller. this to me is where he shined. off the wall was a great album in terms of engineering, technique and production, but ultimately if he did that kind of record his whole life michael would not be one of my favourite artists.

there, i said it. beat up on me now.

babybugz said:

MJJstudent said:

as. i. keep. saying. music to me is a tool to communicate SOCIO-POLITICALLY. i keep saying this, but somehow this is ignored. hmmm... i wonder why.

michael is a socio-political artist to me... prince. STEVIE. the coup. KRS-ONE. these are artists you can dance to. but a lot of their music serves a socio-political purpose to me. as i said a while back, if you don't come with that message (either in your music or outside in public) then i don't respect you as an artist. you may have good tunes, but i'm not supporting you as an artist if you are not for somehow contributing pro-actively to our communities. simple as that.

i listen to everything too... AS LONG AS THE ARTISTS ARE DOING STRONG WORK IN DEED AND ACTION. i support and commend (and respect), say, david banner for his work in relation to putting his body and money behind katrina; but most of his music doesn't say anything to me. chamillionaire also speaks about political issues in his music, and i respect that. but that's not what he's told to put on the records so they can sell. THAT i don't respect. you stand behind your messages. and if the label don't wanna put it out, put out that music anyway until you fulfill your contract or they drop you. then you put out what you want anyway.

and as i said on other discussions on gaga, i think she's bred to create mindlessness and the decay of community building. she's bred to re-create the roman empire, with no regard for building relationships. she promotes dark energy/the occult... some would say 'the illuminati'. her statement about wanting 'everybody to be gay' to me is a total disrespect to all the gay people i know trying to build relationships and families. she is promoting the 'eyes wide shut' phenomenon. where nothing is sacred. i choose not to have that energy in my life.

usher, i think he's a hack who openly claims he wants to be the second coming of michael as opposed to tuning/tapping into his own creative energies. i don't know enough about britney spears to comment... i only heard her when she sang with michael at madison square garden and she was terrible. timberlake, eh...

i don't think anyone should be ashamed of liking those artists if they like them. why should you be ashamed? i personally happen to not like those artists. they don't meet my needs for what i feel music means to me. i don't think music should be mindless, and i find a lot of that music to be. some may not think of it as mindless. we all experience music differently. there are people i know who are huge activists in their communities and like that music. i have nothing gainst people who listen to things i don't like.

i think this is the problem with these forums, we judge people too much on what we dis-agree with. my thing is, the artists SHOULD do better. we should demand more of these artists to stop promoting nihilism/hatred/mysogyny/homophobia/etc.

i feel like i am being judged on my opinions here on this forum. why can't we just respectfully agree to dis-agree? y'all act like i'm terrible or think i am better than people because i don't like some music. we all put on one pant lega at a time. no one is better than anyone else.

i just, again, choose to listen to music that serves a purpose of improving communities in one form or another. we need to return to this... like gamble and huff or whatever.

Exactly what you doing with pop music and the people who listen to it. Whatever

i have every right to judge the MUSIC. i am not judging the people who listen to. i AM critiquing the people who willingly put out that dreck though. to me there is a difference. if you sell your soul i am critiquing you. i am calling you out.

did i say you were a bad person for listening to what you want to listen to? did you not read what i said, or did you skip it?