aardvark15 said:

Because not everyone has the same music tastes as you

You did not understand the thread question at all.

babybugz said:

Everyone has different taste, what maybe terrible to you might be good to someone else.

I understand that but I was simply seeking perspectives as to why some of the legendary acts go overboard with praising certain artists that do not live up to that praise.

To be honest, if they like them, they like them but calling them legendary, genius and innovative is way overboard to me. I just thought it would be a interesting topic because sometimes I feel their opinions are not sincere and are mostly just for t.v.

Scorp said:

mjscarousal said:

I know just crazy

the hype is working.....you got guys all over the place who have been convincd Lebron is better than Jordan

even guys on ESPN have stooped low by saying Michael Jordan faced inferior competition to that Lebron has faced......

I could not believe that network stood on that....

they forgot to consider the fact the 80s and early 90s featured at least 6-7 all time centers who made the greatest 50 ever list who Jordan faced throughout his career

no center in the league now is going to crack that top 50

and Lebron bailed ship and joined forces with another top 5 player and top 10 guy to win a league mandated championship while Jordan paid all time dues before winning his first championship

to "prove" Lebron is better, those running basketball have resorted to tearing down the greatest player ever to build their argument

Agree with everything.

The 80s and 90s players were FAR more talented then the today players who ever said todays players were more talented needs to get fire off ESPN asap.

I dont feed into that stuff. The media manipulates people into thinking people are greater or bigger than what they actually are. How is Lebron gonna be better than Jordan with one ring? Not to mention he had to collab with other superstar players to get it.

The game was not like that back in the day and Jordan wouldnt make no punk ass move like that, fuck the bullshit

mjscarousal said:

Scorp said:

the hype is working.....you got guys all over the place who have been convincd Lebron is better than Jordan

even guys on ESPN have stooped low by saying Michael Jordan faced inferior competition to that Lebron has faced......

I could not believe that network stood on that....

they forgot to consider the fact the 80s and early 90s featured at least 6-7 all time centers who made the greatest 50 ever list who Jordan faced throughout his career

no center in the league now is going to crack that top 50

and Lebron bailed ship and joined forces with another top 5 player and top 10 guy to win a league mandated championship while Jordan paid all time dues before winning his first championship

to "prove" Lebron is better, those running basketball have resorted to tearing down the greatest player ever to build their argument

Agree with everything.

The 80s and 90s players were FAR more talented then the today players who ever said todays players were more talented needs to get fire off ESPN asap.

I dont feed into that stuff. The media manipulates people into thinking people are greater or bigger than what they actually are. How is Lebron gonna be better than Jordan with one ring? Not to mention he had to collab with other superstar players to get it.

The game was not like that back in the day and Jordan wouldnt make no punk ass move like that, fuck the bullshit

lolllllllllll.........it's real

the NBA had everything riding on the line last year, hyping up Lebron James since he entered the league in 2003....no way the NBA could afford for Lebron to end the season w/out a championship

the finals were stolen from Kevin Durant and OKC......robbed....that's why David Stern got booed during the draft this past summer lollll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gm-WKXUwRE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvMG7mZGo04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYNTmEYSMvY

Jordan stayed the course.......Lebron took the all time bailout shortcut route, and STILL needed help from the officials for him to get his "ring".....

mjscarousal said:

MickyDolenz said:

Unless you have ESP, how do you know what someone else likes? Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean another person doesn't. There's no such thing as "crap" music, just music snobs. Being a music bigot is not really any different than any other type of prejudice, judging things you don't like, and putting it down. It can't be proven that one act or music is better than another, it's your opinion, not a fact.

The thread is not about people.

The thread is about legendary artists (celebrities) who alot of times say things publicly because they do not want to appear like the very thing you are implying in this post.

How is someone a music snob just for pointing that fact out?

I said that there was nothing wrong with the legends liking certain artists but I think sometimes these legends go overboard with the praise just for (t.v.) (AND THEY DO)

I am simply seeking to understand why they cant be more real and objective in their opinions instead of just kissing ass.

But as usual this board will twist and turn and make everyone a music snob just because they may not care for certain artists or seek understanding in anything in that area.

The thread has nothing to do with people or the general public's opinion on music.

So celebrities and so-called "legends" are not people? What are they then, Klingons? The celebrities are not God, they're people the last time I checked. Maybe if folks didn't worship other folks because they're famous and call them "legends", "icons", "geniuses", "kings/queens of this & that" because they made some records or acted in a TV show/movie, then perhaps their opinion wouldn't mean anything to you.

I guess the "Debbie Downers" here expect everyone to be negative about everything, and if they're not, then they're lying. It's not that serious. If what a "legend" says bothers you so much, no one is forcing you to listen to what they have to say.

MickyDolenz said:

So celebrities and so-called "legends" are not people?

The purpose of the thread was to simply give people the opportunity to express their perspectives on why some legendary artists might not be as openly truthful about their feelings on the current music scene

Some here commented on musical taste and respecting other peoples taste when that had nothing to do with the topic

Of course legends are people but I was specifically talking about a particular demographic of people and you used people in "general" terms. Once again, the thread is about legendary artists.

Dont make more of it than what is there

What are they then, Klingons? The celebrities are not God, they're people the last time I checked. Maybe if folks didn't worship other folks because they're famous and call them "legends", "icons", "geniuses", "kings/queens of this & that" because they made some records or acted in a TV show/movie, then perhaps their opinion wouldn't mean anything to you.

Its not that deep.

This is a music forum so I just simply asked a question related to legendary artists. Just because I made a question related to legendary artists and their opinions doesnt mean I worship them or even care about their opinions. I am just trying to start an interesting topic to hear other perspectives.

I guess the "Debbie Downers" here expect everyone to be negative about everything, and if they're not, then they're lying.

I dont expect the legendary acts to have negative opinions about everything but it is interesting how NONE of the legendary acts have had any criticism or real objective insight on the current music scene. So far I have just seen major ass kissing comments.

And no I do not think for one minute that ALL those public statements on other artists are how they sincerely feel. I think it is because they dont want to appear like a music snob, old head, etc I just simply asked others what reasons some artists might have for not being as publicly honest about how they feel when someone askes them about the current music scene.

But thats how society looks at everything and it is even evident on this board. As soon as someone questions or criticizes something they are bashed or bullied which is why people are not individuals and dont express their opinion in fear of backlash, im glad im not like that

It's not that serious.

YOUR the one making more out of what I said.

If what a "legend" says bothers you so much, no one is forcing you to listen to what they have to say.

So just because I ask a question that means Im bothered by it?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe I just started the thread just to hear other responses and to just start a topic? Why do I have to be bothered by something to ask a question?

mjscarousal said:

Of course legends are people but I was specifically talking about a particular demographic of people and you used people in "general" terms. Once again, the thread is about legendary artists.

Again, you must be a mind reader, because people are people to me. I don't believe in using terms like "legendary artists" or "icon" to describe people because it doesn't mean anything, so I said 'people'.

So just because I ask a question that means Im bothered by it?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe I just started the thread just to hear other responses and to just start a topic? Why do I have to be bothered by something to ask a question?

Because you're saying that because someone else is saying something you don't agree with, then they're apparently lying, when you don't know if they are or not. All it is doing is speculating.

Again, music being good/bad can't be proven. If someone says Ed Wood made the worst movies of all time, that is not a fact, it's an opinion. Someone else might think his movies are good. So just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that a so-called "legend" has to agree.

MickyDolenz said:

But seriously, I'm pretty much in agreement with Micky about this.

MickyDolenz said:

Again, you must be a mind reader, because people are people to me. I don't believe in using terms like "legendary artists" or "icon" to describe people because it doesn't mean anything, so I said 'people'.

I already acknowledge that (people- veterans artists) like what they like but just thought some of the exaggerated comments are questionable and could possibly just be statements made for the public and not how they sincerely feel. On the other hand it is a strong possibility that that is how they feel but just started a thread to seek different perspectives on the issue.

I dont think it is fair to use the term people in general terms because I am not referring to all people I am referring to a particular group of people (veteran artists who are celebrities) and I think it is narrow minded to argue that ALL their opinions are their sincere opinions- that should be respected when it is a possibility that their opinion is just something they bullshit for the media. I am not trying to argue that ALL their opinions are bullshit but I think it is a possibility that some of their opinions could be and just wanted to discuss the possibilities.

Although you insist you are using the word "people" to refer to them you could have been clearer on your previous posts with who you were referring to. Also, you are still using the word people in general terms because I am talking about a particular group of people. Titles dont mean anything to me either but just thought it would be a interesting topic to discuss.

The fact that they are people doesnt change that the topic is still on a specific group of people. It doesnt even have to be about legends/icons it could just be on VETERAN artists.

Because you're saying that because someone else is saying something you don't agree with, then they're apparently lying, when you don't know if they are or not. All it is doing is speculating.

Thats the whole point of the thread. People are just giving their perspectives and opinions on what the reasons for this could be. If you look at the thread people have offered a wide range of opinions. Some insisting the usual arguement like you are arguing and others really giving thoughtful responses on the topic.

Again, music being good/bad can't be proven. If someone says Ed Wood made the worst movies of all time, that is not a fact, it's an opinion. Someone else might think his movies are good. So just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that a so-called "legend" has to agree.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe their opinions are not how they REALLY feel and maybe JUST maybe some of their opinions are because they want to please the public or because they have meant the artists they are talking about and dont want to offend them?

That is just what the topic is about. Whats so wrong in discussing that?

Your making more out of it than what is really there.

mjscarousal said:

when they know its crap?

This is not another complaint thread but a serious question because I just dont understand how artists who play instruments, write their own music and put time into their music can compliment media stars and puppets.

Are they just punkasses (afraid of backlash) or do you think they sincerely enjoy bad music?

I do not know how many times I have heard iconic rappers compliment Drake, Lil Wayne, Nikki music etc likewise with the singers.

I just dont understand it

Are they doing it so they can be "hip"

What are they smoking?

Nobody out now is making any thing iconic or half way descent on the radio. The radio has been shit for over a decade now and these legendary singers glorifying these wack ass acts.

I understand where you're going with this. A singer friend of mine noticed Lionel Ritchie praising some new artists on the red carpet. She brought it up to me.

When you see legendary artists fawning over people who are tone deaf, no rap skills, etc., it does make you think. I know people have different tastes and all, but still. Come on.

I guess I'm used to it because Prince has been doing it for years, lol. He will claim some new "protege" is just the greatest thing, when they sound like they wouldn't even make the cut as one of his backup singers, much less a lead singer. They sound/ed basic at best, most sound sub par, with few exceptions. Chile...

I love Prince, and he's the best to me, but that's one thing he does. He aligns himself with some of the worst.

mjscarousal said:

Maybe they simply want to keep the cashflow coming in and being down with whats happening is the only way to do it?

phunkdaddy said:

mjscarousal said:

Did you ever stop to think that maybe their opinions are not how they REALLY feel and maybe JUST maybe some of their opinions are because they want to please the public or because they have meant the artists they are talking about and dont want to offend them?

That is just what the topic is about. Whats so wrong in discussing that?

Your making more out of it than what is really there.

Oh why try to use logic here.

all of this.....all of it points to the dysfunctional manner in which the Pop Ascension broke down the foundation of genuine music and musical entertainment

the Pop Ascension is a real entity and it was introduced by the establishment during the late 1980s, I would say 1987 is the definitive moment and year

not only did it create a talent disparity for the sake of image to generate greater record sales but created a generational gap in the process, not just in music, but in many aspects of culture

where it use to be that the luminaries were those the latest generation looked to for influence, now we see the luminaries or genuine artists/musicians being forced to placate in order to sustain prominence and their livelihood

the greatest factor that shaped this dynamic, the practice of sampling

the artists who crafted and shaped that exceptional music being sampled, they could not put up any resistance BECAUSE for the simple fact........................

only a handful owned the songrights to their music, the record labels did.....

and if sampling was not allowed on a professional scale the way it has been during that past 26 years......we would never have this problem now we are speaking on

[Edited 4/7/13 10:08am]

mjscarousal said:

Also, you are still using the word people in general terms

If I explained what I meant, and you still say I mean something else, then you don't comprehend well.

Some insisting the usual arguement like you are arguing and others really giving thoughtful responses on the topic.

What's thoughtful about agreeing with what you say? You just want folks to say what you want to hear, the same thing you're accusing the celebrities of doing. Also sports and music are not the same thing, so that comparison doesn't make sense. Music and records are not a competition or a race. You can't determine a winner or loser from listening to music, there's no score or points.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe their opinions are not how they REALLY feel and maybe JUST maybe some of their opinions are because they want to please the public or because they have meant the artists they are talking about and dont want to offend them?

Let's just say that some are just giving PR statements, and not saying what they really think. So what? Nobody has any obligation to tell the truth because you want them to. If they want to tell the truth, they can. If they want to lie, they can do that too. Just because you buy their records, they don't owe you anything. It's like when Ringo Starr told fans not to send him any fan mail or gifts. If he doesn't want fan mail, then that's his business. If Prince wants to be a Jehovah's Witness, then that's his life. You're just buying a product (record/tape/CD) they're selling. When you go to the store and Mrs. Baird's bread, you probably don't care what the Baird family or the CEO of the company thinks. They're selling something just like the entertainer is. Fans want celebrities to be at their beck and call, that's why there's tabloids and paparazzi bothering them all the time. They don't have to be nice to you or sign autographs if they don't want to.

Fans think enteratiners have some kind of special power to do and say what they want. They're employees of a company. Do you go to your job and tell the boss you're not going to do something or tell him/her the truth about everything? If the record company tells the entertainer (employee) to tell the public they're younger or older that they really are, send them to a charm school, tell them not to speak about ceratin topics, then that's what they have to do if they want to keep their job. This is their occupation.

As far as the audience is concerned, the entertainer has to worry about saying something like Natalie Maines and get banned from radio and have much of their audience turn on them or people burning Beatle stuff and shooting at their plane because John Lennon made a comment about Jesus. That is hurting their finances, future, or even their life. So if someone wants to give out PR statements to avoid losing the audience, then that's their prerogative. Also, the famous person could be a nice person and it might not be in their personality to put something down. Some are going to complain no matter what the celebrity says. Gene Simmons & Ted Nugent are not known for giving out PC statements and pretty much say whatever they want, they still get put down.

my guess is many old musicians don't listen to that much [current pop] music, and just try to stay relevant by being somewhat aware of what is hot these days.

Scorp said:

the greatest factor that shaped this dynamic, the practice of sampling

the artists who crafted and shaped that exceptional music being sampled, they could not put up any resistance BECAUSE for the simple fact........................

only a handful owned the songrights to their music, the record labels did.....

and if sampling was not allowed on a professional scale the way it has been during that past 26 years......we would never have this problem now we are speaking on

There's more types of music that doesn't sample than do, so how did it ruin anything? If there wasn't any sampling, then most of the music that is sampled would be long forgotten. A lot of it still is, because the records in question are out of print and in many cases never made it to CD and are not available to download, especially for really small obscure record labels. Acts/producers that sample often get used records from resale shops and even Goodwill. Some songswriters and performers have praised sampling because they get paid for it, and really well if the song is a popular seller.

Technically, performers have always "sampled", even when sampling machines didn't exist. Isn't that what Led Zeppelin were doing when they were copying old blues songs and not crediting the source? Then there are the cases when a certain song becomes popular and then there's a bunch of soundalikes afterward, such as Good Times by Chic with Rapper's Delight, Bounce Rock Skate Roll, Christmas Rappin, Another One Bites The Dust, etc. Or songs like I Can't Go For That, Billie Jean, Carribean Queen, Night Rider, Dirty Dancer, and so on.

MickyDolenz said:

Scorp said:

the greatest factor that shaped this dynamic, the practice of sampling

the artists who crafted and shaped that exceptional music being sampled, they could not put up any resistance BECAUSE for the simple fact........................

only a handful owned the songrights to their music, the record labels did.....

and if sampling was not allowed on a professional scale the way it has been during that past 26 years......we would never have this problem now we are speaking on

There's more types of music that doesn't sample than do, so how did it ruin anything? If there wasn't any sampling, then most of the music that is sampled would be long forgotten. A lot of it still is, because the records in question are out of print and in many cases never made it to CD and are not available to download, especially for really small obscure record labels. Acts/producers that sample often get used records from resale shops and even Goodwill. Some songswriters and performers have praised sampling because they get paid for it, and really well if the song is a popular seller.

Technically, performers have always "sampled", even when sampling machines didn't exist. Isn't that what Led Zeppelin were doing when they were copying old blues songs and not crediting the source? Then there are the cases when a certain song becomes popular and then there's a bunch of soundalikes afterward, such as Good Times by Chic with Rapper's Delight, Bounce Rock Skate Roll, Christmas Rappin, Another One Bites The Dust, etc. Or songs like I Can't Go For That, Billie Jean, Carribean Queen, Night Rider, Dirty Dancer, and so on.

and this is where the problem is...because it's about point of referrence.....

there's tons of music made in the 1980s and 70s that are being sampled as we speak....

yeah, you had a handful of performers who have been paid but that always wasn't the case when sampling began to proliferate

teh first artist to receive royalites for sampling was Rick James, and the only way he got it was because he sued MC HAMMER for copyright infringement

but you have a litany of artists whose work has been hijacked who can't sue because they never owned their songrights, therefore, those who are sampling their work don't have to pay

but its to the point now where the samples are being sampled and there won't be anything else to sample when the next generation hits, and then what are they going to do?

we've had interpolations of previous work happen, but sampling has totally gotten out of hand and has created great harm, more harm than good

Scorp said:

but you have a litany of artists whose work has been hijacked who can't sue because they never owned their songrights, therefore, those who are sampling their work don't have to pay

That's no different than any other time in the music business. Since the record industry began, most acts don't get royalties, and there was no sampling. Managers and/or record company heads have added their names to songs that they had nothing to do with. There was a doo wop group called The Cadillacs in where the members wrote some of their songs, but their manager Esther Navarro registered the songs at the copyright office only under her name, and the group were not credited at all. She made all of the money. Most of those classic acts you're talking about were ripped off with bad record contracts or by shady mangerers, accountants, promoters, entourage, publishing companies, etc. So the acts weren't going to get paid in the first place, whether or not they are sampled, if their records are in print, or if their songs are used in commercials, movies, TV shows, or compilations like the ones sold on those Time/Life infomercials.

MickyDolenz said:

If I explained what I meant, and you still say I mean something else, then you don't comprehend well.

I comprehend just well but even after you explained what you were referring to, all of your posts implies that you are still talking about people in "general terms"

What's thoughtful about agreeing with what you say?

Everyone here has not agreed with me but some here have given more interesting posts besides scolding me on asking the question.

You just want folks to say what you want to hear, the same thing you're accusing the celebrities of doing.

Now look who is the mind reader....

Also sports and music are not the same thing, so that comparison doesn't make sense. Music and records are not a competition or a race. You can't determine a winner or loser from listening to music, there's no score or points.

What are you talking about? Where did I make a comparision? Scorp made a comment about the NBA and I just agreed to it. My original question has NOTHING to do with sports.

Let's just say that some are just giving PR statements, and not saying what they really think. So what? Nobody has any obligation to tell the truth because you want them to. If they want to tell the truth, they can. If they want to lie, they can do that too. Just because you buy their records, they don't owe you anything.

As far as the audience is concerned, the entertainer has to worry about saying something like Natalie Maines and get banned from radio and have much of their audience turn on them or people burning Beatle stuff and shooting at their plane because John Lennon made a comment about Jesus. That is hurting their finances, future, or even their life. So if someone wants to give out PR statements to avoid losing the audience, then that's their prerogative. Also, the famous person could be a nice person and it might not be in their personality to put something down

Thank Goodness!!! because I was getting concerned.

Why couldnt you just make this post to begin with instead of making long drawn out irrelevant arguements about nothing?

Thats all I was asking and you finally answered the question. All this other irrelevant stuff is unnessary.

Fans want celebrities to be at their beck and call, that's why there's tabloids and paparazzi bothering them all the time. They don't have to be nice to you or sign autographs if they don't want to.

Well your right...artists dont owe the public anything (as far as their personal life and opinion goes) BUT they DO owe something to their fans (the people that puts million dollars in their pockets and who makes them who they are)

Fans think enteratiners have some kind of special power to do and say what they want. They're employees of a company. Do you go to your job and tell the boss you're not going to do something or tell him/her the truth about everything? If the record company tells the entertainer (employee) to tell the public they're younger or older that they really are, send them to a charm school, tell them not to speak about ceratin topics, then that's what they have to do if they want to keep their job. This is their occupation. Some are going to complain no matter what the celebrity says

I dont expect for them to say and do what I want but I just think it is interesting how they bullshit for t.v.or for their own personal gain. Whats so wrong with talking about it? This is a music forum and it is assocaited with music. It seems to really bother you so why does it bother you so much? If you dont care to talk about it than dont....but you dont have to insult and give labels to other people just because you dont think the topic is important.

Bit of an immature thread.

I concur with Micky above.

MickyDolenz said:

Scorp said:

but you have a litany of artists whose work has been hijacked who can't sue because they never owned their songrights, therefore, those who are sampling their work don't have to pay

That's no different than any other time in the music business. Since the record industry began, most acts don't get royalties, and there was no sampling. Managers and/or record company heads have added their names to songs that they had nothing to do with. There was a doo wop group called The Cadillacs in where the members wrote some of their songs, but their manager Esther Navarro registered the songs at the copyright office only under her name, and the group were not credited at all. She made all of the money. Most of those classic acts you're talking about were ripped off with bad record contracts or by shady mangerers, accountants, promoters, entourage, publishing companies, etc. So the acts weren't going to get paid in the first place, whether or not they are sampled, if their records are in print, or if their songs are used in commercials, movies, TV shows, or compilations like the ones sold on those Time/Life infomercials.

And most other acts got their names stolen from them... it goes deeper than hip-hop/rap doing it... the music business is fucked up.

Graycap23 said:

Politically correct.......hoping that there are some talented folks on the horizon.

Why kill the golden goose with your tongue?

Apparently being politically correct is immature

Timmy84 said:

And most other acts got their names stolen from them... it goes deeper than hip-hop/rap doing it... the music business is fucked up.

Yeah, like the mafia and criminals being involved in record labels and the clubs performers appeared in. Some labels were fronts for money laundering or drug dealing. Back in the old days some acts were paid in furs, cars, booze, and drugs instead of royalties. The labels also supplied drugs, cash, women, drugs, etc. to radio DJ's to get airplay. They bought many of their own records to spike the charts. Even Dick Clark was accused of taking payola in the 1950's for booking acts on American Bandstand and having acts he was invested in on the show.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

And most other acts got their names stolen from them... it goes deeper than hip-hop/rap doing it... the music business is fucked up.

Yeah, like the mafia and criminals being involved in record labels and the clubs performers appeared in. Some labels were fronts for money laundering or drug dealing. Back in the old days some acts were paid in furs, cars, booze, and drugs instead of royalties. The labels also supplied drugs, cash, women, drugs, etc. to radio DJ's to get airplay. They bought many of their own records to spike the charts. Even Dick Clark was accused of taking payola in the 1950's for booking acts on American Bandstand and having acts he was invested in on the show.

And most of these "legendary singers" got that treatment and we wonder why they're dead.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

Yeah, like the mafia and criminals being involved in record labels and the clubs performers appeared in. Some labels were fronts for money laundering or drug dealing. Back in the old days some acts were paid in furs, cars, booze, and drugs instead of royalties. The labels also supplied drugs, cash, women, drugs, etc. to radio DJ's to get airplay. They bought many of their own records to spike the charts. Even Dick Clark was accused of taking payola in the 1950's for booking acts on American Bandstand and having acts he was invested in on the show.

And most of these "legendary singers" got that treatment and we wonder why they're dead.

You hear some saying that the recording industry went down the tubes when "college educated suits" with a degree took over the labels. But at least they don't have the performers beat up, hung from balconies, and worse like the rumors that Sam Cooke's death was a mob hit for refusing to give up his publishing/SAR record label, that Frank Sinatra talked a mafia boss out of putting a hit on Sammy Davis Jr., and Jimi Hendrix being kidnapped.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

And most of these "legendary singers" got that treatment and we wonder why they're dead.

You hear some saying that the recording industry went down the tubes when "college educated suits" with a degree took over the labels. But at least they don't have the performers beat up, hung from balconies, and worse like the rumors that Sam Cooke's death was a mob hit for refusing to give up his publishing/SAR record label, that Frank Sinatra talked a mafia boss out of putting a hit on Sammy Davis Jr., and Jimi Hendrix being kidnapped.

Pretty fucking much... so things "weren't better back then"...

mjscarousal said:

when they know its crap?

This is not another complaint thread but a serious question because I just dont understand how artists who play instruments, write their own music and put time into their music can compliment media stars and puppets.

Are they just punkasses (afraid of backlash) or do you think they sincerely enjoy bad music?

I do not know how many times I have heard iconic rappers compliment Drake, Lil Wayne, Nikki music etc likewise with the singers.

I just dont understand it

Are they doing it so they can be "hip"

What are they smoking?

Nobody out now is making any thing iconic or half way descent on the radio. The radio has been shit for over a decade now and these legendary singers glorifying these wack ass acts.

Luckily i havent been forced to hear that from the artists that i love and respect enough to listen to what they have to say about music. As far as it has gotten was Barry Manilow saying Lady GaGa has what it takes to be a long time artist, though im not crazy about her the talent is there for sure. And then you have Prince, i think Prince draws the line though at Beyonce and Alicia, as far as mainstream and though we all may not like them, again the talent is there what they do with it is a different story, i think if i hear Prince touting Rhianna "is a force to be reckoned with" i will drop dead. Outside of that, artists i respect to listen to opinions really when speaking of aritsts they like NEVER mention anyone charted or in the light so i have been fortunate with that. Even Richard Marx whom i respect to death as a composer and artist even draws the line, though he is a "mainstream" writer when you ask him who he listens to, it again is artists not even charting now or ever really. Rick Springfield whom i respect to death, Never really names artists, he basically has issues with how now, u could never do what artists did in the 70's and 80's ACTUALLY NOT SELL right away, Elton John also has voiced this opinion, and even HE who is very mainstream with his likes, also doesnt really tout pop stars now.

I agree on all your points i just think the ISSUE i have now, isnt really what is in mainstream, its the fact that there is such a limit on what gets out there, this i blame on djs vjs labels radio execs etc...NO ONE thinks out the box anymore, there is NO competition, as Dave Grohl said "Just because there are many more ways to put music out and more of it, DOESNT MEAN THERE IS MORE GOOD STUFF OUT THERE" and this to me shoots down the myth that there is "gold" out there waiting undiscovered, sometimes peeps need to just accept that one time was better than another. ANd now that the focus is a SINGLE and not an ALBUM how the hell can you grow by putting out one song every year?

lastdecember said:

mjscarousal said:

when they know its crap?

This is not another complaint thread but a serious question because I just dont understand how artists who play instruments, write their own music and put time into their music can compliment media stars and puppets.

Are they just punkasses (afraid of backlash) or do you think they sincerely enjoy bad music?

I do not know how many times I have heard iconic rappers compliment Drake, Lil Wayne, Nikki music etc likewise with the singers.

I just dont understand it

Are they doing it so they can be "hip"

What are they smoking?

Nobody out now is making any thing iconic or half way descent on the radio. The radio has been shit for over a decade now and these legendary singers glorifying these wack ass acts.

Luckily i havent been forced to hear that from the artists that i love and respect enough to listen to what they have to say about music. As far as it has gotten was Barry Manilow saying Lady GaGa has what it takes to be a long time artist, though im not crazy about her the talent is there for sure. And then you have Prince, i think Prince draws the line though at Beyonce and Alicia, as far as mainstream and though we all may not like them, again the talent is there what they do with it is a different story, i think if i hear Prince touting Rhianna "is a force to be reckoned with" i will drop dead. Outside of that, artists i respect to listen to opinions really when speaking of aritsts they like NEVER mention anyone charted or in the light so i have been fortunate with that. Even Richard Marx whom i respect to death as a composer and artist even draws the line, though he is a "mainstream" writer when you ask him who he listens to, it again is artists not even charting now or ever really. Rick Springfield whom i respect to death, Never really names artists, he basically has issues with how now, u could never do what artists did in the 70's and 80's ACTUALLY NOT SELL right away, Elton John also has voiced this opinion, and even HE who is very mainstream with his likes, also doesnt really tout pop stars now.

I agree on all your points i just think the ISSUE i have now, isnt really what is in mainstream, its the fact that there is such a limit on what gets out there, this i blame on djs vjs labels radio execs etc...NO ONE thinks out the box anymore, there is NO competition, as Dave Grohl said "Just because there are many more ways to put music out and more of it, DOESNT MEAN THERE IS MORE GOOD STUFF OUT THERE" and this to me shoots down the myth that there is "gold" out there waiting undiscovered, sometimes peeps need to just accept that one time was better than another. ANd now that the focus is a SINGLE and not an ALBUM how the hell can you grow by putting out one song every year?

I agree with everything and I have the same issue. Its frustrating that there is artists that are not even new artists that come out with music but their music does not get the right radio promotion for whatever reason.

And I just want to add this.

I dont see anything wrong with saying someone is talented. Because everybody has some form of talent one way or another. Some have more than others. But I just think calling someone the second coming and legendary is to extreme (when there talent or music does not reflect that) wPrince has NEVER said that about Alicia or Beyonce he just said that they are talented which I dont disagree with but not extradionarily talented, original or creative. Im sure Prince also knows that behind closed doors and when the camera is not rolling.

Your right. Coming out with an album every single year or even two years is just crazy to me because if you constantly coming out with music and doing other things you do not have time to grow as an artist.Like I said, these artists nowadays are not real artists there just media stars and just care about the spotlight. Its sad that the real artists have to suffer because the industry promotes media stars instead of real artists.