MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Well... duh. It's still trash and it's well within my right to think so.

I like it so it's not trash to me. I don't make threads about stuff I don't like, nor click on them. That's a waste of time. Like you'll never see me post in a D'Angelo thread, because that's not my thing. But I don't call his music trash because I don't like it.

MickyDolenz said:

The fact of the matter is some of us here had never even heard of Cardi B and on first

impression she sounds like a hot ass mess. Ignorance with all the profanity especially for a female in this business is just unbecoming and a turn off. Just more ignorant shit with no substance. And miss me with all the sales bullshit and popularity. I don't give a shit if Obama, Trump, Bush, or the Pope were fans she still sounds like a hot ass mess to me and weak af. I have no issue with who likes it. Different strokes for different folks. I'll take Latifah and MC Lyte anyday over this nonsense. I realize some people may not like the music I like and I'm cool with that because the sun is gonna shine the next day whether we agree on music or not but there is no need to pick bones because someone says this Cardi B stuff isn't their cup of tea.

I agree to some extent on some of the artists that are posted here constantly like Beyonce, Janet, Madonna, etc that it's usually a pissfest waiting to happen but if you have a login you are free to have a reasonable opinion about said artist.

[Edited 10/2/17 10:54am]

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

The sad thing is there are people who defend this trash.

Well I'm sad then. Just because you don't like it don't mean it's trash. There's people who don't like your precious 1980s music you're always talking about. People always put down the popular music of the next generation, going all the way back to flappers and big band jazz. It's a hit and that means a lot of people like the song. All you "Get off my lawn whippersnapper" folks must not have anything to do but be grouchy Scrooges.

Not in this case - in THIS case, they're Right.

phunkdaddy said:

And miss me with all the sales bullshit and popularity. I don't give a shit if Obama, Trump, Bush, or the Pope were fans

If you're not interested in popularity, why did you click on the thread in the 1st place? Since it's clearly titled the song went #1 on the Hot 100 in Billboard. The entire point of Billboard Magazine is to track what is popular for a particular week. You always saying that you don't care about the mainstream, but that is what the Hot 100 chart is. It's the main chart in the magazine, and the mainstream chart for albums is the Top 200. All the rest are sub-charts like dance, R&B/hip hop, country, jazz, polka, blues, alternative rock, Latin pop, etc.

MickyDolenz said:

phunkdaddy said:

And miss me with all the sales bullshit and popularity. I don't give a shit if Obama, Trump, Bush, or the Pope were fans

If you're not interested in popularity, why did you click on the thread in the 1st place? Since it's clearly titled the song went #1 on the Hot 100 in Billboard. The entire point of Billboard Magazine is to track what is popular for a particular week. You always saying that you don't care about the mainstream, but that is what the Hot 100 chart is. It's the main chart in the magazine, and the mainstream chart for albums is the Top 200. All the rest are sub-charts like dance, R&B/hip hop, country, jazz, polka, blues, alternative rock, Latin pop, etc.

Really? I didn't know it was a requirement on the org to not click on an artist you're not

a fan of. Have you been taking lessons from the newfound American Patriots?

Read reply #27. I just gave my opinion on said artist whom I just heard about a couple of weeks

ago. You're the one whom always seem to be stuffy about someone's comment on another artist. It's not even that serious. It works both ways. If you don't like someone's response about an artist you don't have to respond. You've also commented on artists you don't like such as Joe, Case, etc. in the past so don't try to be the Watchdog authority here. This is just a message board here where we all have our opinions. It's that simple. It isn't a message board just for me or you to give our opinions it's for all the orgers here to give their opinions.

domainator2010 said:

MickyDolenz said:

Well I'm sad then. Just because you don't like it don't mean it's trash. There's people who don't like your precious 1980s music you're always talking about. People always put down the popular music of the next generation, going all the way back to flappers and big band jazz. It's a hit and that means a lot of people like the song. All you "Get off my lawn whippersnapper" folks must not have anything to do but be grouchy Scrooges.

Not in this case - in THIS case, they're Right.

.

To me, if it looks like shit, like it smells like shit and it sounds like shit... chances are its probably shit.

phunkdaddy said:

I just gave my opinion on said artist whom I just heard about a couple of weeks

ago.

I made no comment about whether you like her music or not. I replied to what you said about sales & popularity, when that is what the article and thread is about. If I made a thread about the song itself or Cardi B, then that's different. Anyway, there's a difference in saying you don't like something and calling it trash. As far as the Joe, Case, etc., I said they all sound alike, didn't know the difference between their music. It wasn't in a thread about them, it was an Eric Benet thread and someone brought them up. I didn't call their music trash or say negative things about them like Vainandy does with Whitney Houston.

yup!

StrangeButTrue said:

I just listened to this historic "1st since someone else was 1st" and this is worrisome, this is what happens after years of defunding music education. Idk u guys I haven't felt dumber for listening to a song like that in a minute.

Trash!!!!

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

The sad thing is there are people who defend this trash.

Well I'm sad then. Just because you don't like it don't mean it's trash. There's people who don't like your precious 1980s music you're always talking about. People always put down the popular music of the next generation, going all the way back to flappers and big band jazz. It's a hit and that means a lot of people like the song. All you "Get off my lawn whippersnapper" folks must not have anything to do but be grouchy Scrooges.

MD431Madcat said:

Trash!!!!

Why are you calling me trash? You don't even know me.

StrangeButTrue said:

728huey said:

it's the really lame music and beats which accompany such rap lyrics.

Trap beats, which some popular R&B singers (not adult R&B) have been using that for the last few years. Even some country songs have it now.

MickyDolenz said:

728huey said:

it's the really lame music and beats which accompany such rap lyrics.

Trap beats, which some popular R&B singers (not adult R&B) have been using that for the last few years. Even some country songs have it now.

It should be called crap beats. This shit is ruining RnB music. I listen to this and I find it embarrassing.

Is that the reason music in the 80s sold in the millions and now you can sell 5,000 copies or streams and have a number one record? Is that the reason older live acts with the exception of Bruno ( who models himself after 80s artist) sell out live venues while trap people struggle and have their tickets unloaded on Stubhub for $10.00 a pop.

People are saying this sucks because it sucks.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

The sad thing is there are people who defend this trash.

Well I'm sad then. Just because you don't like it don't mean it's trash. There's people who don't like your precious 1980s music you're always talking about. People always put down the popular music of the next generation, going all the way back to flappers and big band jazz. It's a hit and that means a lot of people like the song. All you "Get off my lawn whippersnapper" folks must not have anything to do but be grouchy Scrooges.

Grouchy Scrooges, a? Ha-ha. I lot of precious and real songwriters out there beside 80's. This smells like one-hit wonder, because guess what? You can't play with beats 4ever. And this 'in your face' writing - 'i'm on top' making money moves at 25 yrs... yea, give us your autobiography, teach us about life...haha.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

The sad thing is there are people who defend this trash.

Well I'm sad then. Just because you don't like it don't mean it's trash. There's people who don't like your precious 1980s music you're always talking about. People always put down the popular music of the next generation, going all the way back to flappers and big band jazz. It's a hit and that means a lot of people like the song. All you "Get off my lawn whippersnapper" folks must not have anything to do but be grouchy Scrooges.

laurarichardson said:

Is that the reason music in the 80s sold in the millions and now you can sell 5,000 copies or streams and have a number one record?

More people in the 1980s owned a stereo. The younger generations generally don't. They listen to music on PCs, laptops, phones, Ipods, etc. You don't need to buy a record, cassette, 8-track, or CD for that. The technology is different. How many stereo stores do you see now? Radio Shacks have been closing for the last few years. The last time I went in one, they mostly had cell phones, not boomboxes or those remote control cars and radio hobby kits they used to sell. It's been said that car manufacturers are going to discontinue putting CD players in their cars. There's also the case that post Napster, many people have grown up with free music. I'm pretty sure if the internet existed in the 1980s, people would have downloaded that music for free as well and it would have sold less. Just like some recorded their friends albums to a cassette or taped songs off the radio. Later in the decade, there were even dual cassette decks so that people could copy a tape. Some back then bought what they called "street tapes" that people sold on the corner and flea markets. They were cheaper than buying the official albums in a store. These were bootleg cassettes/8tracks of albums or K-tel style compilations of current hits. Sometime the 8-tracks didn't have the picture of the album, but a drawing or a photo of people dancing in a disco. There was also the Columbia Club/RCA Club, buy 12 albums 4 a penny. The record club sales weren't counted as sales by Billboard & the RIAA. The acts did not get royalties from record clubs, street tapes, nor cutout albums that were sold for cheap in record store. Cutouts had a slash or hole punched in the cover. So consumers having been scamming the system before free downloads was a thing. Downloading made it more widespread than copying on a tape, because more people own a computer now than people who owned a tape recorder. Downloading is also a lot faster than tape, because you had to actually play what you were recording.

MickyDolenz said:

laurarichardson said:

Is that the reason music in the 80s sold in the millions and now you can sell 5,000 copies or streams and have a number one record?

More people in the 1980s owned a stereo. The younger generations generally don't. They listen to music on PCs, laptops, phones, Ipods, etc. You don't need to buy a record, cassette, 8-track, or CD for that. The technology is different. How many stereo stores do you see now? Radio Shacks have been closing for the last few years. The last time I went in one, they mostly had cell phones, not boomboxes or those remote control cars and radio hobby kits they used to sell. It's been said that car manufacturers are going to discontinue putting CD players in their cars. There's also the case that post Napster, many people have grown up with free music. I'm pretty sure if the internet existed in the 1980s, people would have downloaded that music for free as well and it would have sold less. Just like some recorded their friends albums to a cassette or taped songs off the radio. Later in the decade, there were even dual cassette decks so that people could copy a tape. Some back then bought what they called "street tapes" that people sold on the corner and flea markets. They were cheaper than buying the official albums in a store. These were bootleg cassettes/8tracks of albums or K-tel style compilations of current hits. Sometime the 8-tracks didn't have the picture of the album, but a drawing or a photo of people dancing in a disco. There was also the Columbia Club/RCA Club, buy 12 albums 4 a penny. The record club sales weren't counted as sales by Billboard & the RIAA. The acts did not get royalties from record clubs, street tapes, nor cutout albums that were sold for cheap in record store. Cutouts had a slash or hole punched in the cover. So consumers having been scamming the system before free downloads was a thing. Downloading made it more widespread than copying on a tape, because more people own a computer now than people who owned a tape recorder. Downloading is also a lot faster than tape, because you had to actually play what you were recording.

You have not told me anything I do not know and have not explained the real reasons records sells are down. The music of today sucks.

Bruno Mars = Just hit the 1 million mark. Why!! Because the music does not suck and you can exactly understand what he is saying. He crossed over generations and racial groups while rappers still cannot figure out speaking an some ebonic language over wack ass beats does not get them longevity.

laurarichardson said:

MickyDolenz said:

More people in the 1980s owned a stereo. The younger generations generally don't. They listen to music on PCs, laptops, phones, Ipods, etc. You don't need to buy a record, cassette, 8-track, or CD for that. The technology is different. How many stereo stores do you see now? Radio Shacks have been closing for the last few years. The last time I went in one, they mostly had cell phones, not boomboxes or those remote control cars and radio hobby kits they used to sell. It's been said that car manufacturers are going to discontinue putting CD players in their cars. There's also the case that post Napster, many people have grown up with free music. I'm pretty sure if the internet existed in the 1980s, people would have downloaded that music for free as well and it would have sold less. Just like some recorded their friends albums to a cassette or taped songs off the radio. Later in the decade, there were even dual cassette decks so that people could copy a tape. Some back then bought what they called "street tapes" that people sold on the corner and flea markets. They were cheaper than buying the official albums in a store. These were bootleg cassettes/8tracks of albums or K-tel style compilations of current hits. Sometime the 8-tracks didn't have the picture of the album, but a drawing or a photo of people dancing in a disco. There was also the Columbia Club/RCA Club, buy 12 albums 4 a penny. The record club sales weren't counted as sales by Billboard & the RIAA. The acts did not get royalties from record clubs, street tapes, nor cutout albums that were sold for cheap in record store. Cutouts had a slash or hole punched in the cover. So consumers having been scamming the system before free downloads was a thing. Downloading made it more widespread than copying on a tape, because more people own a computer now than people who owned a tape recorder. Downloading is also a lot faster than tape, because you had to actually play what you were recording.

You have not told me anything I do not know and have not explained the real reasons records sells are down. The music of today sucks.

Bruno Mars = Just hit the 1 million mark. Why!! Because the music does not suck and you can exactly understand what he is saying. He crossed over generations and racial groups while rappers still cannot figure out speaking an some ebonic language over wack ass beats does not get them longevity.

I was just at the Bruno Mars show and what I notices about the audience was how many old people (including me and my sister) were there. Don't get me wrong you were right that the audience did cross over all the racial and generational groups you mention, but looking over that crowd it was obvious that he was connecting with a record buying public that wasn't young, was more susceptiible to his 90's throwback material, and was more likely to BUY a cd than the younger audience.

stpaisios said:

yea, give us your autobiography, teach us about life...haha.

Since when has having Top 40 hits been about that? What does Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep, Don't Sit Under The Apple Tree, Shake Shake Shake Your Booty, Tutti Frutti, Material Girl, Gonna Make You Sweat, or Rock Lobster have to do with anybody's life? Like the kids on American Banstand used to say "It has a good beat and I can dance to it".

laurarichardson said:

Bruno Mars = Just hit the 1 million mark.

Adele & Taylor Swift has sold a lot in recent years to. They're not the only acts in the world who makes the kind of music they do. So why aren't similar singers to Adele get the same amount of sales? Bruno isn't the only newer act who does the kind music he does, why aren't they popular if it's because their music doesn't suck. According to your logic, if a record doesn't sell, then it sucks. That must mean everybody today that is not Bruno, Adele, and Taylor must suck because they sure aren't selling. Milli Vanilli sold multi-platinum and won a Grammy and Rob & Fab had nothing to do with the record. Jazz & classical are not big sellers even in the 1980s other than Kenny G and he was smooth jazz, not staight jazz. So according to you jazz & classical sucks because it didn't sell like Michael Jackson or The Police

MonoNeon is created some sick grooves based on her instagram posts. The groove star about halfway through the videos.

MickyDolenz said:

laurarichardson said:

Bruno Mars = Just hit the 1 million mark.

Adele & Taylor Swift has sold a lot in recent years to. They're not the only acts in the world who makes the kind of music they do. So why aren't similar singers to Adele get the same amount of sales? Bruno isn't the only newer act who does the kind music he does, why aren't they popular if it's because their music doesn't suck. According to your logic, if a record doesn't sell, then it sucks. That must mean everybody today that is not Bruno, Adele, and Taylor must suck because they sure aren't selling. Milli Vanilli sold multi-platinum and won a Grammy and Rob & Fab had nothing to do with the record. Jazz & classical are not big sellers even in the 1980s other than Kenny G and he was smooth jazz, not staight jazz. So according to you jazz & classical sucks because it didn't sell like Michael Jackson or The Police

Adele, Taylor and Bruno> All of these artist sell because they have decent pop tunes that people can actually relate to. The music is not written for a five-year old. This is the reason they sell millions of records and concert tickets, I only used Bruno as in example because he recently sold a million copies of his CD and he is the only artist to do it this year and this year is just about over.

Sucky artist have always been forced on us with payola getting them airplay. Record companies even used to buy CDs to drive up sales and I am sure they do the same shit with streaming. None of those artist last very long did they.

Kenny G was never a jazz artist and always thought Clive Davis spent big money keeping his crappy elevator music on black radio stations. Where is he now?

Milli Villni were are they now and I am sure another payola scam.

Artist who consistently put out shit music are not going to have a long career and you cannot compare pop music with Classical or Jazz because how much new compositions of Jazz and Classical are being created to even begin to build an audience and of course no marketing is spent promoting those genres.

If you like Cardi B enjoy because whoever she is sleeping with will get tired of her and shelling out money to prop up her carreer soon.

You can also feel free to tell us all what the fuck she is even saying in this song or if you cannot not figure out we can find some five year to tell us.

But keep looking at those boobs.

MonoNeon is created some sick grooves based on her instagram posts. The groove star about halfway through the videos.

F**k, just kill me now(@Cardi B's lyrical skills). Seriousley though, i feel somewhat sorry for Cardi. She's a product of a f****d up enviroment. She's making her money though. so...

Bitches this, Bitches that bla-bla-bla

laurarichardson said:

Adele, Taylor and Bruno> All of these artist sell because they have decent pop tunes that people can actually relate to. The music is not written for a five-year old. This is the reason they sell millions of records and concert tickets, I only used Bruno as in example because he recently sold a million copies of his CD and he is the only artist to do it this year and this year is just about over.

Sucky artist have always been forced on us with payola getting them airplay. Record companies even used to buy CDs to drive up sales and I am sure they do the same shit with streaming. None of those artist last very long did they.

Kenny G was never a jazz artist and always thought Clive Davis spent big money keeping his crappy elevator music on black radio stations. Where is he now?

Milli Villni were are they now and I am sure another payola scam.

All acts on Top 40 radio are there by payola. James Brown paid DJs himself to play his records in the 1960s and 1970s, wasn't the record company. Do you think Prince got on the radio because some DJ wanted to play his music? If Michael Jackson signed to a small label like Malaco, he wouldn't have gotten on the radio because Malaco doesn't have the money or power of a Warner Brothers or Epic. Payola doesn't sell records. Most songs played on the radio flop, including many Prince singles. He didn't get constant Top 10 singles like Madonna, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, or Phil Collins did in the 1980s.

.

You still didn't answer the question, why aren't similar singers to Adele selling just as well as her. When disco and psychedelic rock became popular, labels signed similar acts that also sold. When The Beatles became popular, labels started signing other British acts and this became known as the British Invasion. There were a lot of glam metal bands going multi platinum in the 1980s, like Def Leppard, Motley Crüe, Bon Jovi, Cinderella, Warrant, etc. So why are only 3 acts selling a lot today, when they're not the only ones doing the style of music they're doing. If it's only the music, then those other acts should sell too. They're flukes, that's all.

stpaisios said:

Bitches this, Bitches that bla-bla-bla

I can see why 12 - 15 yr olds love this.
The shit I was into when I was 12 yrs old is not the best.
Grown ups probably like this drunk in the club or after having heard it being played to death on the radio. i heard it twice now. I think it's wack.

MickyDolenz said: