bobzilla77 said:

rialb said:

Bieber's first single was released on May 18, 2009, so yes, he has been a recording artist for roughly two years.

The Beatles' first single was released on October 5, 1962. Rubber Soul was released in December, 1965, more than three years after they debuted, so you are not really being fair to the Bieb. Give him just one more year and he will easily equal, if not surpass, those silly Beatles.

I stand corrected!!

I am coming back to this thread in one year. Then we'll know.

The problem with Bieber is NOT that he has a lot of teenage girls in his audience.

His problem is, he sucks donkey balls in hell.

Just come back in two months. That will give Bieber enough time to come up with his equivalent of "I Feel Fine" b/w "She's A Woman."

I’m not offended because I know the truth.

2freaky4church1 said:

Most of the best music is being done by women, now, so what's your point? Corporate America sells what it thinks the public wants, then forces it down our throats. Don't believe the hype. Look how well they market war, they could easily market Frank Zappa or Richard Thompson. They just don't want a cultured populace. That's how the public takes things into their own hands, which the oligarchs are against.

bobzilla77 said:

rialb said:

Bieber's first single was released on May 18, 2009, so yes, he has been a recording artist for roughly two years.

The Beatles' first single was released on October 5, 1962. Rubber Soul was released in December, 1965, more than three years after they debuted, so you are not really being fair to the Bieb. Give him just one more year and he will easily equal, if not surpass, those silly Beatles.

I stand corrected!!

I am coming back to this thread in one year. Then we'll know.

The problem with Bieber is NOT that he has a lot of teenage girls in his audience.

His problem is, he sucks donkey balls in hell.

WELL DAMN!

Justin Bieber get’s so much hate it’s sad I understand when it’s other’s his age that diss him but when I see Grown Ass people I’m like really. You are that concerned with what that little boy is doing he has more money than you will ever have

2freaky4church1 said:

Most of the best music is being done by women, now, so what's your point? Corporate America sells what it thinks the public wants, then forces it down our throats. Don't believe the hype. Look how well they market war, they could easily market Frank Zappa or Richard Thompson. They just don't want a cultured populace. That's how the public takes things into their own hands, which the oligarchs are against.

lol okay.

If they could sell Zappa to the masses why wouldn't they?

There has to be a real reason behind it.

Money hungry corporations wouldn't refuse to make profit simply because they don't want a 'cultured populace'.

^ He was considered "too weird" and "bizarre" for mainstream then for some odd reason. They wanted, as they STILL do, someone SAFE.

babybugz said:

You are that concerned with what that little boy is doing he has more money than you will ever have

Doesn't Raven Symone & Miley Cyrus have more money than him?

MickyDolenz said:

babybugz said:

You are that concerned with what that little boy is doing he has more money than you will ever have

Doesn't Raven Symone & Miley Cyrus have more money than him?

I know Raven does lol

elmer said:

allsmutaside said:

Yes! Sure, why not. Justin Bieber is on the same artistic level as the Beatles! I'm not sure what early Beatles recordings you have been listening to, but your implication is that there is a great deal of difference in terms of maturity, composition and performance qualities, from JB and the boys at similar stages of their careers. This is not the case. I'm pretty sure they didn't even have "careers" at a similar age. The Beatles and the Beatles' army grew up, and so will Justin and his fans. A Beatles-like body of work to follow may be a bit much to expect from Bieber, but he certainly has some raw talent that could head in good directions, despite the snobery of some listeners.

Goodness grief.

minneapolisFunq said:

The music industry has catered to young women for as long as I can remember.

Hip-Hop in particular, has become watered down to the point of self-parody due to the increasing demand for the "club single" aimed towards the female audience.

Is it proven that women are more likely to purchase an album?

I can't think of any other reasons why pop radio would target them at every opportunity.

Is it working in their favor? Are women buying into the mainstream, diminishing the value of quality in favor of marketability?

I know its a business, but people are always complaining about pop radio, and I'm sure they always have.

Oh, please - guys are just as big on 'club hits' as girls are, I've seen enough guys in their 20s blasting "Like a G6" on cam in Tinychat and dancing to it to know it's true.

In anybody is really responsible for the decline in modern music, it's the record execs who give artists who really want to create good music, a hard time and try to dictate to them what kind of music to make and pretty much get in their way and give them a hard time in every sense possible - and that's when they actually bother to sign real musicians and artists, which they usually don't because they're too busy looking for the cutest faces they think will sell the most records.

But sure, like most things in life, if they go wrong - it's always 'our' fault, right?

armpit said:

minneapolisFunq said:

The music industry has catered to young women for as long as I can remember.

Hip-Hop in particular, has become watered down to the point of self-parody due to the increasing demand for the "club single" aimed towards the female audience.

Is it proven that women are more likely to purchase an album?

I can't think of any other reasons why pop radio would target them at every opportunity.

Is it working in their favor? Are women buying into the mainstream, diminishing the value of quality in favor of marketability?

I know its a business, but people are always complaining about pop radio, and I'm sure they always have.

Oh, please - guys are just as big on 'club hits' as girls are, I've seen enough guys in their 20s blasting "Like a G6" on cam in Tinychat and dancing to it to know it's true.

In anybody is really responsible for the decline in modern music, it's the record execs who give artists who really want to create good music, a hard time and try to dictate to them what kind of music to make and pretty much get in their way and give them a hard time in every sense possible - and that's when they actually bother to sign real musicians and artists, which they usually don't because they're too busy looking for the cutest faces they think will sell the most records.

But sure, like most things in life, if they go wrong - it's always 'our' fault, right?

That's why I said earlier it's the labels. Again people are giving some people too much power over something that we can't control. Men or women.

PLUS can I say comparing the Beatles to Bieber is like comparing a T-Bone steak to steak cubes. COME ON NOW!

[Edited 5/24/11 18:59pm]

Timmy84 said:

armpit said:

Oh, please - guys are just as big on 'club hits' as girls are, I've seen enough guys in their 20s blasting "Like a G6" on cam in Tinychat and dancing to it to know it's true.

In anybody is really responsible for the decline in modern music, it's the record execs who give artists who really want to create good music, a hard time and try to dictate to them what kind of music to make and pretty much get in their way and give them a hard time in every sense possible - and that's when they actually bother to sign real musicians and artists, which they usually don't because they're too busy looking for the cutest faces they think will sell the most records.

But sure, like most things in life, if they go wrong - it's always 'our' fault, right?

That's why I said earlier it's the labels. Again people are giving some people too much power over something that we can't control. Men or women.

True, though...

We don't have "labels" anymore we have conglomerates and though profit has always been paramount to both entities they've functioned in different ways. How they've functioned has been based on culture, demographics, geography, the evolution of media and technology.

It's my understanding (people who work in radio in Chi-Town) the demographic target for most radio stations are people who range from the ages 13 to 22. It's also my understanding girls / young woman now make up the majority of radio listeners. This hasn't always been so, one has to ask what happend to the guys / the men? I would surmise the Internet, video gaming, cable TV, and computer technology has pulled them away from radio. I would also surmise that radio conglomerates have also had an impact on which artist and music is played.

So in my opinion the title of this thread, the thesis ('Are women responsible for everything that is 'wrong' with popular music?') put forth is a tad simplistic....

It's a fact that more tween girls will buy an album by a good looking guy than tween boys will buy an album by an attractive woman. Boys don't want to be seen as soft at the age usually, so it's harder to get them to listen to a girl singer because of that.

But tweens of any age are a marketing wet dream. They're insatiable once they get obsessed with something and they have their parents' "shut-up" money. If they thought monkeys dressed as clowns that walk on their hands would sell big, we'd be seeing a lot of albums by monkeys dressed as clowns that walk on their hands.

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

That's why I said earlier it's the labels. Again people are giving some people too much power over something that we can't control. Men or women.

True, though...

We don't have "labels" anymore we have conglomerates and though profit has always been paramount to both entities they've functioned in different ways. How they've functioned has been based on culture, demographics, geography, the evolution of media and technology.

It's my understanding (people who work in radio in Chi-Town) the demographic target for most radio stations are people who range from the ages 13 to 22. It's also my understanding girls / young woman now make up the majority of radio listeners. This hasn't always been so, one has to ask what happend to the guys / the men? I would surmise the Internet, video gaming, cable TV, and computer technology has pulled them away from radio. I would also surmise that radio conglomerates have also had an impact on which artist and music is played.

So in my opinion the title of this thread, the thesis ('Are women responsible for everything that is 'wrong' with popular music?') put forth is a tad simplistic....

It absolutely amazes me how things, beginning in the 1990s on up to today are the complete opposite of how they were in the 1980s, especially the early 1980s.

Shit hop is what happened to the men. Before shit hop, it was the men that were into the "club hits". A "club hit" back then was the 12 Inch version of a song that sometimes had a different intro, a lengthier breakdown, or an extended part that continued after the album version was over. 99% of 12 Inch singles were fast songs. You never saw a slow song on a 12 Inch unless it was the B side because the 12 Inch versions were for the clubs and you had one song on the A side and one song on the B side, not eight different versions of the same song that began in the 1990s.

Men were mainly into the 12 Inches because men were the ones usually into the funk. Girls could dance their ass off but if you ever had a "Music Day" at school like we did sometimes where everyone would bring some records to school and the teacher would play them, they guys would usually bring some slammin' jams and most of the girls would have a hand full of 45s that were ballads. Even when we would write song titles all over our paper textbook covers, guys would write jams all over them and girls would write ballads all over them. Even when it came down to Prince. When I hear someone say that women are more into Prince than men, I know it is someone young that is saying it because back in the day, if you mentioned Prince, the first thing a girl would holler is "Do Me, Baby" and "Still Waiting" but the guys would name out endless jams such as "Controversy", "Uptown", "Sexy Dancer", "Lady Cab Driver", "Let's Work", "Head", "Partyup", etc. Same thing with Rick James. The first thing girls would holler is "Fire and Desire". It's like you could have an album full of fast jams and the girls would find the one slow jam on the album and make it their favorite and many times, that one slow jam was the very reason they bought the album. That's why it trips me out when I hear people saying that girls like the "club hits" because it was the exact opposite back then. The same goes with the rock side of the fence also. The guys were the ones mainly into the super fast heavy metal head banging stuff much moreso than the girls.

Shit hop came along and things became the exact opposite. Guys got all into it and it was as slow and rhythmless as a damn Lawrence Welk record. I have never seen guys whose tastes are 100% completely slow unless they were gay and even the gay guys who didn't like fast jams were considered "uncool" and "dorky". But shit hop just changed everything and now guys have the musical tastes with the tempo of old women that used to watch "Murder She Wrote". Since comparing the shit hoppers to dorky "waldos" isn't phasing them, maybe I'll have to get even bolder and start comparing them to the type of gay men before the disco era that were all into the classical shit. Hell, that was more like a "fag" than someone "gay". And considering how homophobic they are, "fag" would be perfect to compare them to.

.

.

.

[Edited 5/25/11 7:12am]

vainandy said:

Shit hop came along and things became the exact opposite. Guys got all into it and it was as slow and rhythmless as a damn Lawrence Welk record. I have never seen guys whose tastes are 100% completely slow unless they were gay and even the gay guys who didn't like fast jams were considered "uncool" and "dorky". But shit hop just changed everything and now guys have the musical tastes with the tempo of old women that used to watch "Murder She Wrote". Since comparing the shit hoppers to dorky "waldos" isn't phasing them, maybe I'll have to get even bolder and start comparing them to the type of gay men before the disco era that were all into the classical shit. Hell, that was more like a "fag" than someone "gay". And considering how homophobic they are, "fag" would be perfect to compare them to.

Something about your post strikes me as weird and then I realized something:

In your post how is disco taken into account? Especially since there was a HUGE anti-disco movement back in the late 70s. Some say that the anti-disco ferver was fueled by anti-black, female, and homosexual sentiments of the times. Around that time more heavy metal bands came around and heavy metal music is reflects a much more conservative attitude than that of disco.

vainandy said:

Shit hop is what happened to the men. Before shit hop, it was the men that were into the "club hits".

Depends on what men you're talking about. I'm pretty sure guys bought stuff like Van Halen, Styx, Rush, Ratt, Willie Nelson, Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC, KISS, etc. I recall that some guys were into goth music, and wore black clothes, Doc Martens, eyeliner, and avoided the sun. They probably weren't listening to rap, nor funk, nor adult contemporary.

[Edited 5/25/11 7:25am]

Unholyalliance said:

vainandy said:

Shit hop came along and things became the exact opposite. Guys got all into it and it was as slow and rhythmless as a damn Lawrence Welk record. I have never seen guys whose tastes are 100% completely slow unless they were gay and even the gay guys who didn't like fast jams were considered "uncool" and "dorky". But shit hop just changed everything and now guys have the musical tastes with the tempo of old women that used to watch "Murder She Wrote". Since comparing the shit hoppers to dorky "waldos" isn't phasing them, maybe I'll have to get even bolder and start comparing them to the type of gay men before the disco era that were all into the classical shit. Hell, that was more like a "fag" than someone "gay". And considering how homophobic they are, "fag" would be perfect to compare them to.

Something about your post strikes me as weird and then I realized something:

In your post how is disco taken into account? Especially since there was a HUGE anti-disco movement back in the late 70s. Some say that the anti-disco ferver was fueled by anti-black, female, and homosexual sentiments of the times. Around that time more heavy metal bands came around and heavy metal music is reflects a much more conservative attitude than that of disco.

The "Disco Sucks" movement was fueled by a bunch of anti-black and anti-gay assholes. But if you look back at all the old clips, those were mostly white men blowing up those disco records in that baseball field. As for black guys, I never personally heard a black guy badmouth disco until the shit hop era began. The reason I got into funk in the first place is because in 1980, when disco was declared officially "dead" on white radio, I didn't like the type of music I was hearing on the white stations. I went through the dial and found three stations that were playing things like "A Lover's Paradise" by Change, "Firecracker" by Mass Production, "Bounce, Rock, Skate, Roll" by Vaughn Mason and Crew, "Rough Rider" by Lakeside, etc. at the time and thought I had found the last three remaining disco stations. Well, they weren't disco stations. They were black stations and what I was hearing was funk which sounded exactly like disco.

I kept those three stations on my dial and took the white ones off my dial and the funk that was being played on those stations gradually evolved a little more with the times but still had that danceable feel that disco had on up until 1985 when folks like Shitney came on the scene, then Freddie Jackson, then Anita Baker, then Mikki Howard, and the jams got more scarce and eventually went totally underground. Rap, which had came out during the disco scene was a fast party genre and when the funk groups started dying off in the mid to late 1980s, rap took the place and filled the "fast music" void and continued with that disco dance pace until it slowed down, stripped down, got "gansta", and turned into shit hop. That's when I first heard a black person badmouth disco, but never before.

As for gay being "cool" or "uncool" before, during, or after the disco era, me, and I'm sure a lot of other folks my age that loved disco music as well, didn't even know that gay people were associated with the genre. All we knew was, the music sounded great and we loved it. Even when the gay images were flashed right in front of my face, I didn't notice it until the disco haters started pointing them out and using them to turn people against disco. I'm sure a lot of disco haters were previously disco lovers until the disco haters pointed out those things because like Gloria Gaynor said...."If you hate disco so much, then where did you get the records to blow up". A lot of people didn't even know that gay people were associated with disco until we saw the documentaries in the 1990s about it. I know when I was growing up, I was never around any gay people and I associated them all as listening to nerdy and dorky things like classical music and show tunes and before the disco era, a lot of them were. If I had known all along that they were some cool ass motherfuckers listening to some badass disco, I would have come out of the closet years earlier. Disco is what got us away from being considered "uncool" because it was such a hip, cool ass, fast paced genre that so many straight people loved also. They didn't know we could party like that. Hell, I myself didn't know we could party like that until it was exposed that we were responsible for disco. Disco changed a lot of people's attitudes about us but if a person hates us to begin with, nothing is going to change their attitude.

.

.

.

[Edited 5/25/11 8:06am]

MickyDolenz said:

vainandy said:

Shit hop is what happened to the men. Before shit hop, it was the men that were into the "club hits".

Depends on what men you're talking about. I'm pretty sure guys bought stuff like Van Halen, Styx, Rush, Ratt, Willie Nelson, Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC, KISS, etc. I recall that some guys were into goth music, and wore black clothes, Doc Martens, eyeliner, and avoided the sun. They probably weren't listening to rap, nor funk, nor adult contemporary.

[Edited 5/25/11 7:25am]

True, but "club hits" are usually associated with the R&B genre which includes disco, funk, rap, and house since 12 Inch singles were made for the clubs so a lot of those guys wouldn't have been into to it to begin with.

.

.

.

[Edited 5/25/11 8:16am]

bobzilla77 said:

The problem with Bieber is NOT that he has a lot of teenage girls in his audience.

His problem is, he sucks donkey balls in hell.

Excellent, a negative post on Bieber with integrity and truth. A statement - this is how I feel, "he sucks donkey balls in hell." No bullshit data points, soul-less backpeddling, mindless hair splitting or anecdotal contrivances. Personal opinion is always just that, personal opinion, no matter how hard one works to masquerade it in some higher ground.

Are women responsible for everything that is 'wrong' with popular music?

No. Actually, it's the Jews!

Shame on all of you MFers that have no sense of (dark) humor!

JoeTyler said:

This IS a slippery thread.

Anyway, I feel forced to post these:

60's:

Now:

[Edited 5/24/11 5:04am]

You blame white girls?!?

MickyDolenz said:

vainandy said:

Shit hop is what happened to the men. Before shit hop, it was the men that were into the "club hits".

Depends on what men you're talking about. I'm pretty sure guys bought stuff like Van Halen, Styx, Rush, Ratt, Willie Nelson, Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC, KISS, etc. I recall that some guys were into goth music, and wore black clothes, Doc Martens, eyeliner, and avoided the sun. They probably weren't listening to rap, nor funk, nor adult contemporary.

[Edited 5/25/11 7:25am]

Right!

minneapolisFunq said:

Two words: Boy Bands.

I rest my case.

You actually are blaming THESE^ poor kids?!?

THe better question should be:

Are snobs responsible for everything that is 'wrong' with the way we think of popular music?

Timmy84 said:

THe better question should be:

Are snobs responsible for everything that is 'wrong' with the way we think of popular music?

"Are the cynical powers that be" responsible pimping the lowest common denominator?

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

THe better question should be:

Are snobs responsible for everything that is 'wrong' with the way we think of popular music?

"Are the cynical powers that be" responsible pimping the lowest common denominator?

Are the powers that be responsible for the mainstream nitpicking of artists that don't have that much power of ruining their favorite type of music?

Those three questions would be way more accurate than the title of this thread.

electricberet said:

bobzilla77 said:

I stand corrected!!

I am coming back to this thread in one year. Then we'll know.

The problem with Bieber is NOT that he has a lot of teenage girls in his audience.

His problem is, he sucks donkey balls in hell.

Just come back in two months. That will give Bieber enough time to come up with his equivalent of "I Feel Fine" b/w "She's A Woman."

Hey, Tony V: No shame in the Prince.org humor game.

Just come back in two months. That will give Bieber enough time to come up with his equivalent of "I Feel Fine" b/w "She's A Woman."