smoothcriminal12 said:

At the end of the day, in order to make a definitive statement about whether or not music has declined you need objective criteria. Not subjective (as everyone here has clung to), but objective.

It is fine to express distaste for modern music, but the problem is that the vast majority of people here are presenting their opinions as unequivocal facts, which leaves no room for argument or disagreement. Even worse, I see countless examples in this thread alone of members being chastised for daring to disagree, as if it is soooooo obvious that music has declined in quality. How, one may ask? Well, it just has! REAL musicians and REAL music consumers know this. It's plainly obvious, right?

This train of thought makes it impossible to have a fair and civil conversation. The fact of the matter is that aesthetic beauty is subjective. You have to introduce some form of criteria that we can discuss, such as musical complexity, or lyricism. Only then can we have a proper discussion. Barring that, all we have are a bunch of grumpy orgers shouting about how things were better in their time.

This post hits the mark 100 percent.

For the record, I too, do not like contemporary music. I do not like its production values; I do not
like contemporary pop music's reliance upon EDM and rap sensibilities both musically and lyrically;
I think contemporary pop music is too loud (studies show that mastering levels have steadily in-
creased from the 70s onward); and the stuff that I hear on the radio these days and played by my
younger patients seems to be heavy on drum programming and studiocraft for the sake of compo-
sition and melody. But, I would never condemn ALL of contemporary pop music because I haven't
listened to all of it; and, I would never claim ALL of contemporary pop music as being inferior to any
other era of music just because I do not like it. I would have no grounds for that because as you
point out, smoothcriminal, it is impossible to objectively prove why something aesthetical (and
therefore subjective), is better than any thing else.

You prove "facts", or, those statements about a factual matter, that is, one that can be proved true or
false. For factual matters, there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether or
not a claim is true or false. For example:

Two plus two equals 4.
The USA has 50 states.
Prince died in 2016.

But you cannot prove "taste" because that is within the realm of subjectivity and subjective claims,
are not a factual matter; they are, instead, an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference.

So, a subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria. For ex-
ample:

Parade is better than Purple Rain.
Today's music sucks.
Dasein is an ugly know-it-all dumbass who uses too many words in his posts often.

[Edited 7/26/17 11:00am]

laurarichardson said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

At the end of the day, in order to make a definitive statement about whether or not music has declined you need objective criteria. Not subjective (as everyone here has clung to), but objective.

It is fine to express distaste for modern music, but the problem is that the vast majority of people here are presenting their opinions as unequivocal facts, which leaves no room for argument or disagreement. Even worse, I see countless examples in this thread alone of members being chastised for daring to disagree, as if it is soooooo obvious that music has declined in quality. How, one may ask? Well, it just has! REAL musicians and REAL music consumers know this. It's plainly obvious, right?

This train of thought makes it impossible to have a fair and civil conversation. The fact of the matter is that aesthetic beauty is subjective. You have to introduce some form of criteria that we can discuss, such as musical complexity, or lyricism. Only then can we have a proper discussion. Barring that, all we have are a bunch of grumpy orgers shouting about how things were better in their time.

Is money objective enough for you. People are not buying this stuff and have not been for sometime.

Music is know a loss leader for most companies. It is a by product of purchasing a phone.

People are not buying music because they don't have to. They can hear almost any song/album they want for free. If streaming services were available back in the 80s and 90s, people wouldn't have been buying music back then either.

laurarichardson said:

Dasein said:

Anybody who says "today's music is shitty pop" but has yet to listen to all of today's pop music so
as to not make assumptions about the whole from the parts; hasn't told us what standards of art/
music they are using for evaluative purposes; hasn't compared and contrasted today's pop music
with yesterday's; and hasn't defined and then identified "real music", has no idea what the hell they
are talking about.

All of this is disastrously conflated when these same "anybody's" declare that this site is "shit" whilst

continuing to post here, betraying they are living with a self-defeating personality disorder for why
persist with patronizing a shitty website about music to complain about shitty music?

I know for certain that once these "anybody's" start making distinctions between what is "real music"
and what is not, then we ought to rightfully question their self-professed or seeming expertness:
there is no fucking such thing as "real music." There is simply music you like, music you don't like,
and music you are "meh" about.

You are making this much more complicated then it really is.

1) I listen to a lot of music and I give new music and artist a chance. With streaming you cannot say people are not listening to all. A virtual jukebox is available 24/7 . Consumers have more access to music then every before in the history of recorded music. So no one is making an assumption.

2) Definition of real music. People that can actually sing without autotune, actual songs with melody and hooks, no one playing around on a casio keyboard like a five year old, no mumbling, something that can people can actually dance to instead of being coma inducing.

3) This website is about Prince so we come to this site to discuss Prince. I do not think the site is shit and I do not think Prince’s music was and is shit.

4) Many musicians,musicologist and music fans have the education, talent and ability to tell you what real music is. The public can tell you with their wallets and since we have seen such a dramatic drop in sales the public is telling us something. Popular music today sucks.

Agree, this is objective criteria to judge the lack of interest in today's music. You can't use streaming as an excuse when their are artists today that go diamond. This lets me know that people will buy music if they feel it worth buying. The large decrease in todays record sells shows that people are not interested in today's music. This is objective criteria that is backed by numbers and stats.

sexton said:

laurarichardson said:

Is money objective enough for you. People are not buying this stuff and have not been for sometime.

Music is know a loss leader for most companies. It is a by product of purchasing a phone.

People are not buying music because they don't have to. They can hear almost any song/album they want for free. If streaming services were available back in the 80s and 90s, people wouldn't have been buying music back then either.

Then why did Adele go diamond twice if people just want to listen to music for free?

it's like talking to a brick fucking wall.

laurarichardson said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

At the end of the day, in order to make a definitive statement about whether or not music has declined you need objective criteria. Not subjective (as everyone here has clung to), but objective.

It is fine to express distaste for modern music, but the problem is that the vast majority of people here are presenting their opinions as unequivocal facts, which leaves no room for argument or disagreement. Even worse, I see countless examples in this thread alone of members being chastised for daring to disagree, as if it is soooooo obvious that music has declined in quality. How, one may ask? Well, it just has! REAL musicians and REAL music consumers know this. It's plainly obvious, right?

This train of thought makes it impossible to have a fair and civil conversation. The fact of the matter is that aesthetic beauty is subjective. You have to introduce some form of criteria that we can discuss, such as musical complexity, or lyricism. Only then can we have a proper discussion. Barring that, all we have are a bunch of grumpy orgers shouting about how things were better in their time.

Is money objective enough for you. People are not buying this stuff and have not been for sometime.

Music is know a loss leader for most companies. It is a by product of purchasing a phone.

Music consumption has completely changed, so it would be inaccurate to compare the sales of yesteryear to the sales of today as the industry is completely different. It would be akin to comparing the sales of Purple Rain sheet music in 1984 to the sales of Schubert's Lieder in the 1800s and using that to prove a decline in quality. It simply doesn't work.

[Edited 7/26/17 10:57am]

laurarichardson said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

At the end of the day, in order to make a definitive statement about whether or not music has declined you need objective criteria. Not subjective (as everyone here has clung to), but objective.

It is fine to express distaste for modern music, but the problem is that the vast majority of people here are presenting their opinions as unequivocal facts, which leaves no room for argument or disagreement. Even worse, I see countless examples in this thread alone of members being chastised for daring to disagree, as if it is soooooo obvious that music has declined in quality. How, one may ask? Well, it just has! REAL musicians and REAL music consumers know this. It's plainly obvious, right?

This train of thought makes it impossible to have a fair and civil conversation. The fact of the matter is that aesthetic beauty is subjective. You have to introduce some form of criteria that we can discuss, such as musical complexity, or lyricism. Only then can we have a proper discussion. Barring that, all we have are a bunch of grumpy orgers shouting about how things were better in their time.

Is money objective enough for you. People are not buying this stuff and have not been for sometime.

Music is know a loss leader for most companies. It is a by product of purchasing a phone.

Exactly.

There is a REASON why people don't buy music anymore. This is not rocket science. This has been the case for over the last 15 year now.

THEN here comes Adele, who goes diamond twice selling over 30 million on each CD, THIRTY MILLION... thats not a coincidence and its not luck.

Music buyers are obviously sending a message.

mjscarousal said:

sexton said:

People are not buying music because they don't have to. They can hear almost any song/album they want for free. If streaming services were available back in the 80s and 90s, people wouldn't have been buying music back then either.

Then why did Adele go diamond twice if people just want to listen to music for free?

The demographic of Adele's audience is mostly older and used to the old model of purchasing music.

From Billboard.com:

[Edited 7/26/17 11:05am]

mjscarousal said:

laurarichardson said:

Is money objective enough for you. People are not buying this stuff and have not been for sometime.

Music is know a loss leader for most companies. It is a by product of purchasing a phone.

Exactly.

There is a REASON why people don't buy music anymore. This is not rocket science. This has been the case for over the last 15 year now.

THEN here comes Adele, who goes diamond twice selling over 30 million on each CD, THIRTY MILLION... thats not a coincidence and its not luck.

Music buyers are obviously sending a message.

No they aren't, this is clearly an outlier and one example is not sufficient enough to base your narrative around. There are a variety of factors that contributed to Adele's success, and to assume that it can be narrowed down to a flimsy thesis about a decline in music quality is...logically risky.

The fact of the matter is that the industry has changed and Adele's music is much more traditional and appeals to an older audience in a way that, say, Future, Frank Ocean and Beyonce may not. Unless, of course, you would like to make the argument that sales = quality, but that takes this argument in a completely different direction and is, in my opinion, just as unfounded.

peedub said:

it's like talking to a brick fucking wall.

Just create your own.

sexton said:

mjscarousal said:

The demographic of Adele's audience is mostly older and used to the old model of purchasing music.

From Billboard.com:

"Only a small ­percentage of people buy a record if they can't find it streaming -- generally, they move on to something else. She's an outlier of outliers because she brings in people who are not regular music buyers. Maybe they haven't bought a record since Adele's 21," which has sold 11.3 million copies in the United States.

http://www.billboard.com/...ion-albums

Adele sells so much because her music is universal and she has a broad fan base.

Adele has high streaming numbers too.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7423908/adele-25-streaming-top-10-billboard-200

When you sell millions of records like that, you are not just appealing to one target audience.

Adele has high youtube numbers, her Hello video broke a record and she is not even a video artist.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/10/27/adeles-hello-video-sets-a-new-first-day-record-on-vevo/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

She got two number one hit singles from both albums.

And Hello was the first song to sell 1 million in just a week

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6746355/adele-hello-no-1-hot-100-debut-one-million-downloads-week

She is obviously not just popular with old people.

sexton said:

The demographic of Adele's audience is mostly older and used to the old model of purchasing music. From Billboard.com:

"Only a small ­percentage of people buy a record if they can't find it streaming -- generally, they move on to something else. She's an outlier of outliers because she brings in people who are not regular music buyers. Maybe they haven't bought a record since Adele's 21," which has sold 11.3 million copies in the United States.

http://www.billboard.com/...ion-albums

Also, there's a lot of singers like Adele who make the same kind of music, but they're not selling. If it was just about the type of music she makes, then those other singers would sell just as much. Adele's album was sold in places that normally don't carry CDs like gas stations and Walgreen's. I've seen it at Whole Foods, Barnes & Noble, CVS, and Starbucks. So people who don't do online shopping or downloading can buy it. Some places have 3 or 4 Starbucks in the same area and in some cases literally across the street from each other. It's there where potential customers can see it and some people were buying several copies for Christmas gifts. You can't say that for most albums out today. Many places don't have record stores, but they might have a Wal-Mart and they mostly sell whatever is in the Top 10 and they don't sell albums with profanity, only the clean versions.

MickyDolenz said:

sexton said:

The demographic of Adele's audience is mostly older and used to the old model of purchasing music. From Billboard.com:

Also, there's a lot of singers like Adele who make the same kind of music, but they're not selling. If it was just about the type of music she makes, then those other singers would sell just as much. Adele's album was sold in places that normally don't carry CDs like gas stations and Walgreen's. I've seen it at Whole Foods, Barnes & Noble, CVS, and Starbucks. So people who don't do online shopping or downloading can buy it. Some places have 3 or 4 Starbucks in the same area and in some cases literally across the street from each other. It's there where potential customers can see it and some people were buying several copies for Christmas gifts. You can't say that for most albums out today. Many places don't have record stores, but they might have a Wal-Mart and they mostly sell whatever is in the Top 10 and they don't sell albums with profanity, only the clean versions.

So great marketing + widespread appeal + luck + talent = profit?

smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said:

Exactly.

There is a REASON why people don't buy music anymore. This is not rocket science. This has been the case for over the last 15 year now.

THEN here comes Adele, who goes diamond twice selling over 30 million on each CD, THIRTY MILLION... thats not a coincidence and its not luck.

Music buyers are obviously sending a message.

No they aren't, this is clearly an outlier and one example is not sufficient enough to base your narrative around. There are a variety of factors that contributed to Adele's success, and to assume that it can be narrowed down to a flimsy thesis about a decline in music quality is...logically risky.

The fact of the matter is that the industry has changed and Adele's music is much more traditional and appeals to an older audience in a way that, say, Future, Frank Ocean and Beyonce may not. Unless, of course, you would like to make the argument that sales = quality, but that takes this argument in a completely different direction and is, in my opinion, just as unfounded.

My argument is not specifically and solely based on Adele's success in regards to the lack of quality music if you have been reading this thread. The buying public IS sending a message whether you agree with that or not, its all in the numbers and its all in the receipts.The bolded would have been an outlier if Adele's second album did not sell over 30 million albums... but it did. So her success is not a one incident and there are other artists that go diamond too besides her. Adele's 21 is still charting and still breaking records on Billboard as we speak. The fact of the matter is, Future, Frank Ocean and Beyonce could go diamond as well if people felt their music was worth buying. People like Adele's music over theirs which is why she sells more, that is just a fact. This is based on objective criteria. Of course the music industry has changed that is what most of us have been arguing in this thread.

Adele's success is a silent backlash to a lot of the negative changes of the industry over the years. People want quality music and Adele brings that over her peers, that is why she sells and has big hits.

mjscarousal said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

No they aren't, this is clearly an outlier and one example is not sufficient enough to base your narrative around. There are a variety of factors that contributed to Adele's success, and to assume that it can be narrowed down to a flimsy thesis about a decline in music quality is...logically risky.

The fact of the matter is that the industry has changed and Adele's music is much more traditional and appeals to an older audience in a way that, say, Future, Frank Ocean and Beyonce may not. Unless, of course, you would like to make the argument that sales = quality, but that takes this argument in a completely different direction and is, in my opinion, just as unfounded.

My argument is not specifically and solely based on Adele's success in regards to the lack of quality music if you have been reading this thread. The buying public IS sending a message whether you agree with that or not, its all in the numbers and its all in the receipts.The bolded would have been an outlier if Adele's second album did not sell over 30 million albums... but it did. So her success is not a one incident and there are other artists that go diamond too besides her. Adele's 21 is still charting and still breaking records on Billboard as we speak. The fact of the matter is, Future, Frank Ocean and Beyonce could go diamond as well if people felt their music was worth buying. People like Adele's music over theirs which is why she sells more, that is just a fact. This is based on objective criteria. Of course the music industry has changed that is what most of us have been arguing in this thread.

Adele's success is a silent backlash to a lot of the negative changes of the industry over the years. People want quality music and Adele brings that over her peers, that is why she sells and has big hits.

I think my overall issue is that you seem to be forming an overall narrative about what the issue is and then trying to form everything around that so it fits. I'm not surprised in the slightest that 25 sold well considering Adele had just come off the biggest selling album of the decade, in the same way that Bad sold very well after the astronomic success of Thriller.

You can't simply say that the "buying public is sending a message" because they are too many variables to deduce it down to one conclusion. The people who consume music are a diverse group demographically and will have vast differences amongst them. The music industry is also extremely decentralized now, allowing people to exist in media bubbles where artists that are important to them are unknown to others.

Adele's success is not an example of a uniform decision by the buying public to stick it to the industry - I haven't even seen any evidence that would suggest that. It is an outlier. Adele is akin to what Michael Jackson was in 1982, in terms of being a breath of fresh air in a struggling industry. The only problem now is that the industry is so decentralized and customizable to the consumer that it cannot be saved the same way Thriller revitalized the industry.

Numbers and receipts alone are not enough evidence to reach a conclusion about how the general public feels about music. Pop music is usually marketed to the younger generation, and they overwhelmingly consume music via streaming. Hence, the sales decline. If the younger generation is not interested in purchasing music, why would that be the metric you judge the success of their artists by? It's inherently dishonest, even if it isn't intentionally dishonest.

^

smoothcriminal12 said:

So great marketing + widespread appeal + luck + talent = profit?

It was available in many places where casual music listeners can buy it. Adele's a fluke. Top 40 has always been mainly a teen and young adult thing. If today's youth can go to Youtube and listen to whatever they want, at any time, then they don't have to buy a CD, tape, or record. Decades ago when record sales were more, people had stereos and boom boxes where you had to buy something to play on it. How many people walk around with a boombox today? Where I live most of the stereo stores are gone, except for a few high end audiophile places that few people can afford to buy anything. For an Ipod, laptop, PC, USB, phone, etc. you don't need a CD or tape. You just download an MP3, whether paid or free. It's been said that car manufactuers are going to stop putting CD players in their cars. Video games are more popular than CDs and they cost more. Technology killed what was popular before like always. Talkies killed the silent movie. Television killed the radio serial. 33 & 45 killed the 78. Cassette killed the 8-track. CDs killed records & cassette. Cable TV & VCRs shrunk the audience of the major 3 networks. Video killed the radio star. DVDs killed the Blockbuster style video rental places. The main reason video rental stores was a thing was because in the beginning pre-recorded VHS movies cost $80 & $99 and people couldn't afford it. Once the prices started to go down, it was only a matter of time before the demise happened.

.

There were fewer choices for entertainment in the past. The success of Atari and the video game arcades in the early 1980s was the beginning of music becoming less important.

There's also the case for a download, you need a credit card or something. Most teens don't have one of those and many adults can't get one because of bad/no credit or just don't want one. When records & tapes were popular teens could buy them with their allowance. Not everybody today knows how to use computers or own one. So there's not anyone really marketing to that audience.

smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said:

My argument is not specifically and solely based on Adele's success in regards to the lack of quality music if you have been reading this thread. The buying public IS sending a message whether you agree with that or not, its all in the numbers and its all in the receipts.The bolded would have been an outlier if Adele's second album did not sell over 30 million albums... but it did. So her success is not a one incident and there are other artists that go diamond too besides her. Adele's 21 is still charting and still breaking records on Billboard as we speak. The fact of the matter is, Future, Frank Ocean and Beyonce could go diamond as well if people felt their music was worth buying. People like Adele's music over theirs which is why she sells more, that is just a fact. This is based on objective criteria. Of course the music industry has changed that is what most of us have been arguing in this thread.

Adele's success is a silent backlash to a lot of the negative changes of the industry over the years. People want quality music and Adele brings that over her peers, that is why she sells and has big hits.

I think my overall issue is that you seem to be forming an overall narrative about what the issue is and then trying to form everything around that so it fits. I'm not surprised in the slightest that 25 sold well considering Adele had just come off the biggest selling album of the decade, in the same way that Bad sold very well after the astronomic success of Thriller.

You can't simply say that the "buying public is sending a message" because they are too many variables to deduce it down to one conclusion. The people who consume music are a diverse group demographically and will have vast differences amongst them. The music industry is also extremely decentralized now, allowing people to exist in media bubbles where artists that are important to them are unknown to others.

Adele's success is not an example of a uniform decision by the buying public to stick it to the industry - I haven't even seen any evidence that would suggest that. It is an outlier. Adele is akin to what Michael Jackson was in 1982, in terms of being a breath of fresh air in a struggling industry. The only problem now is that the industry is so decentralized and customizable to the consumer that it cannot be saved the same way Thriller revitalized the industry.

Numbers and receipts alone are not enough evidence to reach a conclusion about how the general public feels about music. Pop music is usually marketed to the younger generation, and they overwhelmingly consume music via streaming. Hence, the sales decline. If the younger generation is not interested in purchasing music, why would that be the metric you judge the success of their artists by? It's inherently dishonest, even if it isn't intentionally dishonest.

I am not going to entertain the MJ comparisions because he has nothing to do with this discussion but I do have to correct you though on this. BAD did not go diamond in 87, it recently went diamond last year but he did not have a diamond album back to back (when BAD originally released) like Adele. With that being said, Michael's career trajectory and the climate of the industry was different compared to Adele's so I am not sure why you used that as an example and especially when you have been arguing yourself that today's industry is different.

You need to go back and read my posts because I never suggested the bolded at all. I have not solely used Adele's success as the only proof for the lack of quality of pop music in this thread. The only reason why I mentioned record sells is because you argued that everyone in this thread have been mostly giving subjective opinions and record sells is not subjective, its objective criteria. So this makes your argument weak now because you are using your own argument against you. People have given you objective criteria to consider (which you asked) so its baseless for you to then turn around and imply that is the only evidence we are solely using. There have been various things people have noted about the lack of quality in today's pop music.

People have noted the lack of creativity, artistry and the less emphasis on music overall compared to marketing and branding when it comes to pop music as well. My issue with you is that you seem to have a personal issue any time someone says their is a lack of quality or artistry in today's popular music just because you like it. You obviously like today's music and that is fine, that is your opinion (you are entitled to it) but people are also entitled to their opinion as well. People don't have to like today's pop music if they don't want too and that doesn't make them grumpy or snobbish. Its funny to me because I feel the same way about your argument. Your only drawing conclusions and comparisions that you think fits your narrative. The only reason why I mentioned

the decline of record sells is because you said you wanted to see more objective criteria. I didn't mention that because I feel music has declined and that is the ONLY reason to back it. We obviously have different opinions about Adele's success so we can agree to disagree because my opinion is not going to change.

[Edited 7/26/17 12:24pm]

mjscarousal said:

mjscarousal said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

I think my overall issue is that you seem to be forming an overall narrative about what the issue is and then trying to form everything around that so it fits. I'm not surprised in the slightest that 25 sold well considering Adele had just come off the biggest selling album of the decade, in the same way that Bad sold very well after the astronomic success of Thriller.

You can't simply say that the "buying public is sending a message" because they are too many variables to deduce it down to one conclusion. The people who consume music are a diverse group demographically and will have vast differences amongst them. The music industry is also extremely decentralized now, allowing people to exist in media bubbles where artists that are important to them are unknown to others.

Adele's success is not an example of a uniform decision by the buying public to stick it to the industry - I haven't even seen any evidence that would suggest that. It is an outlier. Adele is akin to what Michael Jackson was in 1982, in terms of being a breath of fresh air in a struggling industry. The only problem now is that the industry is so decentralized and customizable to the consumer that it cannot be saved the same way Thriller revitalized the industry.

Numbers and receipts alone are not enough evidence to reach a conclusion about how the general public feels about music. Pop music is usually marketed to the younger generation, and they overwhelmingly consume music via streaming. Hence, the sales decline. If the younger generation is not interested in purchasing music, why would that be the metric you judge the success of their artists by? It's inherently dishonest, even if it isn't intentionally dishonest.

I am not going to entertain the MJ comparisions because he has nothing to do with this discussion but I do have to correct you though on this. BAD did not go diamond in 87, it recently went diamond last year but he did not have a diamond album back to back (when BAD originally released) like Adele. With that being said, Michael's career trajectory and the climate of the industry was different compared to Adele's so I am not sure why you used that as an example and especially when you have been arguing yourself that today's industry is different.

You need to go back and read my posts because I never suggested the bolded at all. I have not solely used Adele's success as the only proof for the lack of quality of pop music in this thread. The only reason why I mentioned record sells is because you argued that everyone in this thread have been mostly giving subjective opinions and record sells is not subjective, its objective criteria. So this makes your argument weak now because you are using your own argument against you. People have given you objective criteria to consider (which you asked) so its baseless for you to then turn around and imply that is the only evidence we are solely using. There have been various things people have noted about the lack of quality in today's pop music.

People have noted the lack of creativity, artistry and the less emphasis on music overall compared to marketing and branding when it comes to pop music as well. My issue with you is that you seem to have a personal issue any time someone says their is a lack of quality or artistry in today's popular music just because you like it. You obviously like today's music and that is fine, that is your opinion (you are entitled to it) but people are also entitled to their opinion as well. People don't have to like today's pop music if they don't want too and that doesn't make them grumpy or snobbish. Its funny to me because I feel the same way about your argument. Your only drawing conclusions and comparisions that you think fits your narrative. The only reason why I mentioned

the decline of record sells is because you said you wanted to see more objective criteria. I didn't mention that because I feel music has declined and that is the ONLY reason to back it. We obviously have different opinions about Adele's success so we can agree to disagree because my opinion is not going to change.

[Edited 7/26/17 12:24pm]

it is also a complete 180 from what you have been arguing since your first post, where you said...

'The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts.'

...which is complete nonsense, as you've proven by your inability to prove those 'facts'.

smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said:

I am not going to entertain the MJ comparisions because he has nothing to do with this discussion but I do have to correct you though on this. BAD did not go diamond in 87, it recently went diamond last year but he did not have a diamond album back to back like Adele. With that being said, Michael's career trajectory and the climate of the industry was different compared to Adele's so I am not sure why you used that as an example and especially when you have been arguing yourself that today's industry is different.

You need to go back and read my posts because I never suggested the bolded at all. I have not solely used Adele's success as the only proof for the lack of quality of pop music in this thread. The only reason why I mentioned record sells is because you argued that everyone in this thread have been mostly giving subjective opinions and record sells is not subjective, its objective criteria. So this makes your argument weak now because you are using your own argument against you. People have given you objective criteria to consider (which you asked) so its baseless for you to then turn around and imply that is the only evidence we are solely using. There have been various things people have noted about the lack of quality in today's pop music.

People have noted the lack of creativity, artistry and the less emphasis on music overall compared to marketing and branding when it comes to pop music as well. My issue with you is that you seem to have a personal issue any time someone says their is a lack of quality or artistry in today's popular music just because you like it. You obviously like today's music and that is fine, that is your opinion (you are entitled to it) but people are also entitled to their opinion as well. People don't have to like today's pop music if they don't want too and that doesn't make them grumpy or snobbish. Its funny to me because I feel the same way about your argument. Your only drawing conclusions and comparisions that you think fits your narrative. The only reason why I mentioned

the decline of record sells is because you said you wanted to see more objective criteria. I didn't mention that because I feel music has declined and that is the ONLY reason to back it. We obviously have different opinions about Adele's success so we can agree to disagree because my opinion is not going to change.

If you don't wish to change your opinion or entertain the thought that you might be incorrect that's fine by me, though it strikes me as being extremely dogmatic over such a trivial issue. You very clearly said that "The buying public is sending a message...its all in the numbers and receipts" which is why I said that numbers and receipts alone aren't enough to reach a conclusion about how the public feels about music. I was only directly responding to what you said in your posts. My previous post explicitly said that sales could theoretically count as objective criteria, but that it was still very flimsy and fallible, which is the reason I am arguing against it now. I did not explicitly endorse sales as an objective criterion and then repudiate it - THAT would be an example of me arguing against my own point. If I were to accept record sales as objective criteria then I would have to logically conclude that all music created prior to the invention of vinyl records is inherently inferior to all music that came after, and that is a position that I cannot endorse in good faith. It seems plainly obvious to me that record sales are a product of a an invention from a specific era, not an objective metric for evaluating music. I do have an issue with people stating their opinions as fact and making it seem as if anyone who doesn't agree with them is beneath them, especially when they are providing no facts or persuasive arguments other than "because I feel like it". I also tend to despise closemindedmess and conservatism when it comes to artistic matters, and I generally see that attitude of "x was better in the past" as a conservative position which misses the point of art completely.

Its not even that serious, you are stating your opinion and I am stating mines but you seem to have a personal issue that a lot here don't care for today's mainstream music.

Saying its "all in the numbers and the receipts" is not suggesting that Adele's succes should be judged only on record sells. That statement illustrates that her record sells obviously speaks to a big portion of her success and how the buying public feels about her if she is able to garner two diamond albums back to back in a dying industry. YES, that is very telling. If NOBODY else is selling and Adele is the ONLY one getting diamond albums and big hit singles back to back, IMO this sends a very very clear message. However, I in no way suggested we should SOLELY look at her numbers. Again, her stats were given because you wanted some objective criteria to support some of the claims mentioned in this thread which is why I stated it.

I never said that you endorsed record sells but you did endorse objective facts and scolded people in this thread for not using them when making their arguments about today's music. These objective facts were then given to you at your request, (i.e., record sells, stream numbers, music stats) and you now are oddly arguing against it. Yes, you are arguing against your original point that you boldly scolded others about in this thread. This is why I said it feels like you are just nit picking different things that fits your narrative. You don't want to consider the objective facts that were given because it doesn't fit your narrative or your opinions, okay that is fine but its unfair to call people close minded when they have tried to be open minded with you in this discussion.

IMO, if someone listens to a particular music over time (i.e., todays pop music)and then decides they don't prefer the genre of music, this is not being close minded BUT if someone just makes a claim that today's music sucks without even listening to it or without a legitimate reason than that is close minded, yes. However, most people here have provided legitimate reasons to back up why they don't prefer today's pop music in this thread. Now if you disagree with the reasons and don't feel they are good enough reasons that is your subjective opinion. Whether someone gives you subjective or objective facts, you will clearly disagree anyway which has been evident in this discussion. People have given you objective facts and reasonings for their opinions and you still don't want to consider that. You obviously have your opinions and preferences and people have theirs.

I also think you are confused on the type of music people are referring to in this thread. People are not referring to modern music, people here are referring to the lack of quality in todays POP MAINSTREAM music. I personally like some modern artists and support them but overall today's mainstream music is not music I prefer. I have listened to modern POP music long enough to formulate that opinion and that does not make me or anyone close minded just because we don't prefer it.

Making judgemental labels just because a person doesn't prefer a particular type of music you listen too is immature. You have your preferences and people have their's and that is OK. Just simply agree to disagree.

peedub said:

mjscarousal said:

I am not going to entertain the MJ comparisions because he has nothing to do with this discussion but I do have to correct you though on this. BAD did not go diamond in 87, it recently went diamond last year but he did not have a diamond album back to back (when BAD originally released) like Adele. With that being said, Michael's career trajectory and the climate of the industry was different compared to Adele's so I am not sure why you used that as an example and especially when you have been arguing yourself that today's industry is different.

You need to go back and read my posts because I never suggested the bolded at all. I have not solely used Adele's success as the only proof for the lack of quality of pop music in this thread. The only reason why I mentioned record sells is because you argued that everyone in this thread have been mostly giving subjective opinions and record sells is not subjective, its objective criteria. So this makes your argument weak now because you are using your own argument against you. People have given you objective criteria to consider (which you asked) so its baseless for you to then turn around and imply that is the only evidence we are solely using. There have been various things people have noted about the lack of quality in today's pop music.

People have noted the lack of creativity, artistry and the less emphasis on music overall compared to marketing and branding when it comes to pop music as well. My issue with you is that you seem to have a personal issue any time someone says their is a lack of quality or artistry in today's popular music just because you like it. You obviously like today's music and that is fine, that is your opinion (you are entitled to it) but people are also entitled to their opinion as well. People don't have to like today's pop music if they don't want too and that doesn't make them grumpy or snobbish. Its funny to me because I feel the same way about your argument. Your only drawing conclusions and comparisions that you think fits your narrative. The only reason why I mentioned

the decline of record sells is because you said you wanted to see more objective criteria. I didn't mention that because I feel music has declined and that is the ONLY reason to back it. We obviously have different opinions about Adele's success so we can agree to disagree because my opinion is not going to change.

[Edited 7/26/17 12:24pm]

it is also a complete 180 from what you have been arguing since your first post, where you said...

'The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts.'

...which is complete nonsense, as you've proven by your inability to prove those 'facts'.

I provided reasons for why I think today's pop music is shit. You chose to only focus on that one post and just ignored all the other posts I made explaining my reasonings. Its only nonsense because you disagree with my opinion.

mjscarousal said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said: If you don't wish to change your opinion or entertain the thought that you might be incorrect that's fine by me, though it strikes me as being extremely dogmatic over such a trivial issue. You very clearly said that "The buying public is sending a message...its all in the numbers and receipts" which is why I said that numbers and receipts alone aren't enough to reach a conclusion about how the public feels about music. I was only directly responding to what you said in your posts. My previous post explicitly said that sales could theoretically count as objective criteria, but that it was still very flimsy and fallible, which is the reason I am arguing against it now. I did not explicitly endorse sales as an objective criterion and then repudiate it - THAT would be an example of me arguing against my own point. If I were to accept record sales as objective criteria then I would have to logically conclude that all music created prior to the invention of vinyl records is inherently inferior to all music that came after, and that is a position that I cannot endorse in good faith. It seems plainly obvious to me that record sales are a product of a an invention from a specific era, not an objective metric for evaluating music. I do have an issue with people stating their opinions as fact and making it seem as if anyone who doesn't agree with them is beneath them, especially when they are providing no facts or persuasive arguments other than "because I feel like it". I also tend to despise closemindedmess and conservatism when it comes to artistic matters, and I generally see that attitude of "x was better in the past" as a conservative position which misses the point of art completely.

I never said that you endorsed record sells but you did endorse objective facts and scolded people in this thread for not using them when making their arguments about today's music. These objective facts were then given to you at your request, (i.e., record sells, stream numbers, music stats) and you now are oddly arguing against it. Yes, you are arguing against your original point that you boldly scolded others about in this thread. This is why I said it feels like you are just nit picking different things that fits your narrative. You don't want to consider the objective facts that were given because it doesn't fit your narrative or your opinions, okay that is fine but its unfair to call people close minded when they have tried to be open minded with you in this discussion.

I asked for objective criteria to judge music by, while also giving record sales as an example which I then said was flimsy in and of itself. You are mischaracterizing my point, completely ignoring several points I've made, and then attempting to accuse me of "nit picking" and arguing against myself.

I am not arguing against Adele's streaming numbers and sales, I am arguing against your point that they represent a backlash by music consumers against the industry. My original point is that you need objective criterion to judge the quality of music and I do not believe that sales qualify as good objective criterion and I have outlined why in my last post. However, you did not address my point. I certainly do not have a narrative here. Your opinion is that today's pop music is worse than it was before, while I am of the opinion that music is neither better nor worse than it was in prior decades as music quality is subjective. I am not crafting a story about the decline in quality of music, you are, and rather than objectively looking at the situation you are determined to hold on to this viewpoint. Notice it was you who vehemently stated that you would not change your opinion, not me. That sounds like some who is married to a narrative and is not open to receiving new information.

IMO, if someone listens to a particular music over time (i.e., todays pop music)and then decides they don't prefer the genre of music, this is not being close minded BUT if someone just makes a claim that today's music sucks without even listening to it or without a legitimate reason than that is close minded, yes. However, most people here have provided legitimate reasons to back up why they don't prefer today's pop music in this thread. Now if you disagree with the reasons and don't feel they are good enough reasons that is your subjective opinion. Whether someone gives you subjective or objective facts, you will clearly disagree anyway which has been evident in this discussion. People have given you objective facts and reasonings for their opinions and you still don't want to consider that. You obviously have your opinions and preferences and people have theirs.

I wish I would get some objective facts. All I see are flimsy arguments and dogmatism.

I also think you are confused on the type of music people are referring to in this thread. People are not referring to modern music, people here are referring to the lack of quality in todays POP MAINSTREAM music. I personally like some modern artists and support them but overall today's mainstream music is not music I prefer. I have listened to modern POP music long enough to formulate that opinion and that does not make me or anyone close minded just because we don't prefer it.

Yup, I get it and I still don't agree.

Making judgemental labels just because a person doesn't prefer a particular type of music you listen too is immature. You have your preferences and people have their's and that is OK. Just simply agree to disagree.

Aren't you the one with the comment that was snipped because of the language used that was directed towards other orgers? In this very thread? Oh okay.

Oh, you said this as well, "A lot of the orgers that frequent this site have shit taste and are hyprocrites". But let's not play this game.

I think we should just agree to disagree. It's clear we aren't going to get anywhere and will never agree on this subject.

smoothcriminal12 said:
I asked for objective criteria to judge music by, while also giving record sales as an example which I then said was flimsy in and of itself. You are mischaracterizing my point, completely ignoring several points I've made, and then attempting to accuse me of "nit picking" and arguing against myself.

I am not arguing against Adele's streaming numbers and sales, I am arguing against your point that they represent a backlash by music consumers against the industry. My original point is that you need objective criterion to judge the quality of music and I do not believe that sales qualify as good objective criterion and I have outlined why in my last post. However, you did not address my point. I certainly do not have a narrative here. Your opinion is that today's pop music is worse than it was before, while I am of the opinion that music is neither better nor worse than it was in prior decades as music quality is subjective. I am not crafting a story about the decline in quality of music, you are, and rather than objectively looking at the situation you are determined to hold on to this viewpoint. Notice it was you who vehemently stated that you would not change your opinion, not me. That sounds like some who is married to a narrative and is not open to receiving new information.

You're exaggerating,I didn't vehementaly state I did not want to change my opinion. You go from one extreme to the next. I just simply stated you obviously have your feelings and preferences and so do I, my opinion about Adele's success is not changing so we can agree to disagree. That is what I said. You are the one obviously taking this discussion personally and if I was really "not open" I would not have taken the time to try to give you the objective facts that you requested. You are the one that is not open nor being receptive to new information because it doesn't fit your narrative.

smoothcriminal12 said:
I wish I would get some objective facts. All I see are flimsy arguments and dogmatism.

Objective facts were given to you at your request, you just don't want to accept them because it doesn't fit your narrative.

smoothcriminal12 said:
Aren't you the one with the comment that was snipped because of the language used that was directed towards other orgers? In this very thread? Oh okay.

Oh, you said this as well, "A lot of the orgers that frequent this site have shit taste and are hyprocrites". But let's not play this game.

I think we should just agree to disagree. It's clear we aren't going to get anywhere and will never agree on this subject.

Here you go making more judgemental claims about things you don't know anything about. You wasn't originally here for the exchange so you don't know what was said and shouldn't make assumptions. I was personally attacked (for no reason) and I simply defended myself.

I told you 2 posts ago, we obviously should have agree to disagree. Glad you finally gave in.

MotownSubdivision said:

jaawwnn said:

I'd consider those artists pretty mainstream tbh but ok they're not commercial pop.

In regards the point of the dicussion, the most mainstream of Pop music has pretty much always been 95% cash-in and trend following and I don't see it being any different right now. The difference now is I just had a glance at the top 20 Spotify tracks both worldwide and in my country and I hadn't heard of about 70% of them, that wouldn't have been the case even 10 years ago. Fact is they can't force songs on you everywhere you go like they used to so pop music just isn't that big a thing anymore.

They still can and do, just not in all the same ways. [Edited 7/26/17 6:49am]

D'ye think? I am yet to hear Despacito anywhere except when I chose to listen to it and it's the biggest streaming song of all time. I know i'll hear it in a bar or a fucking shop if I go to one but if i want to listen to music I put on what I want. Back in the day I had to listen to the radio or put on tv and wade through their playlisting in order to find something i like.

There's many, many problems in the current model, i went into some of them earlier in this thread, but the ubiquitious song isn't one of them imho. No one really knows or cares what's top of the charts because no one has to pay attention to it in order to find new music.

Whats astounding is that yall trash legendary artists but then bitch and whine when someone constructively critque today's mediocre pop music, that is what is astounding, especially on a PRINCE site.