27 Nov 03
Why? How? Who buys this crap? If the record companies didn't have these idiot things then surely they'd have to, you know, go out and find new bands with that.......what's the word......oh yeah, talent! And our ears wouldn't be assaulted by this monotonous drivel!
(sits down, has a cup of coffee, and breathes again)
Please explain this to me.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
28 Nov 03
They are aimed at the singles rather than album market. Singles are bought by, on average, 12-14 year old girls. These groups are built around the fantasy of 12-14 girls, cashing in on the "teen pound".
They are not meant to last or have any substance, their role is simply to fill the gap until the next group / band comes along. I think they are best ignored, just leave them with Barbi and Action Man.
An interesting fact is the importance of the "gay pound" for a lot of boy bands as they try to get established. In the UK for example Robbie Williams is portrayed in the media as a sex god, yet the band that launched him (read boy band) spent two years in gay clubs and were synonymous with that scene.
So its all marketing people and publicists pedeling cheap c*ap.
Andrew
28 Nov 03
well-i think some of them are talented. kinda. and the kids buy them! you wouldn't want to have your kids listening to nu-metal shizzle about how the singers dad used to beat him and his mum turned a blind eye or that people = a certain dispicable word often assosiated
with jobies...but then again-sex with your teacher? underage sex? pre-maritial sex?
so, we're rasing a bunch of young whores rather than depressed kids.
kinda makes you wonder...maybe i'll try and get my kids into indie...
28 Nov 03
Interesting point, and also worth noting that Robbie Williams gets a lot of mileage out of his fairly ambivalent sexuality (from the tabloids anyway)
An interesting fact is the importance of the "gay pound" for a lot of boy bands as they try to get established. In the UK for example Robbie Williams is portrayed in the media as a sex god, yet the band that launched him (read boy band) spent two years in gay clubs and were synonymous with that scene.
Andrew[/b]
Gary (calmed down somewhat now)
28 Nov 03
Originally posted by mmanuelwas worried there for a minute!😀😉😛😉
...and some of them are nice to look at!
edit: girl bands that is!
I think that *insert country here* Idol is a load of crap. Ban this message if you will, but It takes away air time when we could have The Simspons, or a movie.
30 Nov 03
Originally posted by D43M0NI beg to differ. Your statement is elitist in the extreme. The idea of lowest common denominator entertainment notwithstanding, the three American Idol winners (Kelly Clarkson, Clay Aiken, and Ruben Studdard) are all fine singers. They all have wonderful tone, timbre, instincts, and pitch. They are technically "good" singers by that definition.
I think that *insert country here* Idol is a load of crap.
However, the actual songs that they sing are suspect. Trite vocal melodies (simply alternating pitches between the tonic and dominant notes of the key in which they are singing) and lazy backing instrumentation (emphasis on the 2 and 4, and the 1 every four measures) are what primarily contribute to the "sameness" of all of their songs. I suspect that if a pop songwriter with some knowledge of theory (I'd love to hear Tori Amos write for Kelly, for instance) wrote any of them a song, they would shine.
But, even then, how can you possibily say it's "crap?" The songs are easy to sing. You can dance to the beat. Pop music like that simply serves the purpose of making people feel good without having to intellectualize it. Look at the Beatles. I'd go so far to say that the American Idol winners are technically superior singers than John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Their music is the paragon of simplicity. But their thing was singing catchy tunes that people could have fun listening to. There are many people who think the Beatles (Ringo in particular) are "crap."
But they're missing the point of the music. And I think you are too.
Remember that, at one time, Bach, Mozart, and Stravinsky were considered "crap."
30 Nov 03
Originally posted by Poison GodmachineI believe you misunderstood him. He didn't say the contestants were crap, just the show. And I happen to agree.
I beg to differ. Your statement is elitist in the extreme. The idea of lowest common denominator entertainment notwithstanding, the three American Idol winners (Kelly Clarkson, Clay Aiken, and Ruben Studdard) are all fine singers. They all have wonderful tone, timbre, instincts, and pitch. They are technically "good" singers by that definition.
...[text shortened]... are too.
Remember that, at one time, Bach, Mozart, and Stravinsky were considered "crap."
The winner's first single/album will be snapped up by all the squealing 13 year old girls who made up the crowd during the final stages of the show, and then he will be forgotten. That knowledge, gained from following previous shows of this type, killed any enjoyment I might have gained from watching this tribute to pop music. The whole thing was pointless.
30 Nov 03
3 edits
Originally posted by dylOK, perhaps I misunderstood, but what's the difference? Why should you care that "squealing 13-year old girls" (another elitist statement) derive enjoyment from this? How specifically is another person's enjoyment of music inferior to your own? Do you think that your particular opinion of "good" music (which is also subject to scrutiny) will die out as a result?
I believe you misunderstood him. He didn't say the contestants were crap, just the show. And I happen to agree.
The winner's first single/album will be snapped up by all the squealing 13 year old girls who made up the crowd during the fin ...[text shortened]... hing this tribute to pop music. The whole thing was pointless.
Is there some sort of "Art Manual" that is being compromised?
When I was younger, a friend of mine had a tape with a recording of a "C" note held for the duration of the tape. He would listen to that one note for 45 minutes at a stretch. He found an emotional tie to the sound. It was just that one note, held and repeated after it faded! Is it rational for me to go to him and tell him his music is "crap?" Absolutely not. He found an emotional response within himself that related to the sound. Who am I to quaetion that?
I freely admit that I am somewhat of a snob regarding music, because it is such a large part of my life. But I will never go so far as to say that another's enjoyment of music is somehow invalid because I do not subscribe to the genre.
Both of you are saying that the blatant commercialism of American Idol is what disgusts you. I'm simply saying that, no matter what, "pop" music will reign as both a money-making and dance-inspiring medium. And there is, literally, nothing wrong with that, as long as someone derives enjoyment from it.
Ever heard 4'33" by John Cage?
To quote David Hirson, "Mediocrity thrives while excellence struggles to survive."
30 Nov 03
Originally posted by Poison GodmachineNow you've misunderstood me.
OK, perhaps I misunderstood, but what's the difference? Why should you care that "squealing 13-year old girls" (another elitist statement) derive enjoyment from this? How specifically is another person's enjoyment of music inferior to your own? Do you think that your particular opinion of "good" music (which is also subject to scrutiny) will ...[text shortened]... Cage?
To quote David Hirson, "Mediocrity thrives while excellence struggles to survive."
I didn't dislike the show because of the music; I disliked it because of the superficiality of it all. I get annoyed at squealing 13 year old girls for the exact same reason. All but a few will be squealing for an entirely different person who sings in an entirely different style by next week. I'd feel exactly the same way about the show and the fans if they were listening to some talented pianist playing one of Beethoven's pieces.
01 Dec 03
Originally posted by dylsee, Dyl understands me!
I believe you misunderstood him. He didn't say the contestants were crap, just the show. And I happen to agree.
The winner's first single/album will be snapped up by all the squealing 13 year old girls who made up the crowd during the final stages of the show, and then he will be forgotten. That knowledge, gained from following previous shows of this type, ...[text shortened]... I might have gained from watching this tribute to pop music. The whole thing was pointless.