Comments on: Big Music: the end of an era

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:34:07 +0000

No, you only want to act like a smnartass “PAL”. You want ME to prove something, while YOU don’t.

YOU are also required to answer MY question, or shut the hell up!

I REFUSE to answer YOUR QESTION until you answer MINE!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:19:25 +0000

Wow. Looks like some people got just a bit angry at having the party line of “RIAA product suxx0r!!!1″ questioned.

Note to you, pal: I don’t have to prove you’re wrong if you say “Britney Spears can’t sing.” To the contrary, as you are the one who has made an assertion, you are the one required to back that assertion up. And just so you know–merely repeating your position, even under the guise of other examples, doesn’t constitute a defense of that position.

It’s always fun to see people get angry when you ask them to back up their opinions–that anger you see is a manifestation of their realization that they haven’t any actual reasoning to backup their opinions. It’s never fun to be revealed as a sheep; doubly so when you’re the sort who purports to be a rebel and who makes fun of other sheep.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:35:59 +0000

Then WHY DON’T YOU PROVE I AM WRONG SMARTASS?
If you really believe you are right, then try to prove it. And nobody said you had to write your own songs or perfom them on instruments.

But then again, If you want to harp about quality, do we even have the QUALITY of music they had when groups like the beatles started out.? NO! That was my point!

If you look at todays “hits”… they never last as long on charts as songs did,when artists DID write their own stuff. Mabye there is a connection there. It is called TALENT…look it up if you don’t know what that is!

So provide you OWN PROOF that I am wrong!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:13:43 +0000

A reasoned critique of talent? You are asking people to make statements based in reason about a subject that is almost entirely subjective. People like or dislike music based largely on their emotional response to it. Looking at individual artists is not going to shed any light on the subject either.

My opinion?
(I’ll offer one even though I feel the question is somewhat of a red herring)

Looking at the combined output of the major labels over say the last decade, as a whole (with exceptions noted) there is a preponderance of music that sounds like it was created/vetted by focus groups and marketing executives. Lots of lowest common denominator pap and filler. “Safe” investments. I could go on…

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:31:59 +0000

Really?

Some in the US are emotional about rogs companies such as Vivendi, Sony/BMG EMI, Time Warner) and their dogs such as the RIAA, trampling our constitution corrupting our governement, persecuting and trying to rip off 20k US citizen.

Some of them are dangerous and you guys are looking for trouble. Since your business is basically dead I don’t see the point.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:15:38 +0000

Now here’s some reasoned critique. Thank you for not settling for bare rhetoric!

How much do you think the difference between Britney (admittedly not the best example of contemporary music, but perhaps the most assaulted by those who hate the music industry) and Eliot is a matter of style? Perhaps there are those who like the whiny voice of Britney? I for one find myself increasingly wary of disliking new music just because it isn’t like the stuff back when I was younger.

Good point about the body requirements. It’s certainly a different world when it comes to the integration of audio with visual media. Perhaps that has had some noticeable effect on the quality of music in the industry?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:10:46 +0000

You’ve critiqued the fact that some artists today (most?) don’t write their own music or necessarily play instruments. That’s not really a statement about the quality of the music.

Do you have some statistics about this magical past where all singers wrote their own music and lyrics? And who’s to say that is desirable over against the alternative?

Not much here except the old “ZOMG Britnay suxx0rZ!” line. I’m not saying she doesn’t, but if you’re going to say she does, you need to provide substantive, objective proofs, not just bare statements that only stand up because they’re so prevalent that nobody questions them.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:08:08 +0000

Okay, but what about the music itself?

I’m not sure what I think about the comment on remixes and covers–I’m not sure I care for remixes all that much (though you’re only going to see those in a few genres), but I actually like covers, so that’s more a matter of personal taste than objective quality, I think.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:15:25 +0000

I agree with you that there is some(not a lot) decent new stuff out their, but I don’t think you picked a good example with Britney Spears. As for “evidence”, I would suggest listening to anything Britney sings in her whiny voice, then listen to “White Rabbit” by Jefferson airplane(Grace Slick-singer) and “Make Your Own Kind of Music” by Cass Eliot(Mamas and the Papas). Forget about style, just listen to and compare the vocals, if you have any hearing at all you will notice a huge difference in skill level. As a side note, Cass Eliot would never get a record contract now as she was obese and would not pass the beauty standard record companies now seem to have for female singers(IE - you have to look like a model or a porn star)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:24:36 +0000

Hmmmm.. let’s see…the beatles or Britney Spears? Who has more talent? If you were to say Britney, you need a LOBOTOMY!

The fact is, that if you cannot figure out WHAT is wrong with music of today compared to when groups like the beatles…
1. WROTE THEIR OWN SONGS

2. PLAYED THEIR OWN INSTRUMENTS

3. FOUND THEIR OWN GIGS (in the beginning anyway, nowdays people want to go on “american idol” and become an instant star…no struggle…no work…sorry, it just does not work that way.)

If you still have trouble asking yourself what has the music that is done today, has lost from the past….I would say a LOT!

The examples I gave, were only a few highlights of what you had to do to make it big back in the days before shows like american idol came along.

People today want everything handed to them. No work,no struggle….just let me sing my song (weather they can actually sing or not makes no difference…they can always overdub their voice) , look sexy and collect their paycheck. No wonder the big 4 music industry is hurting for talent. They are probably all on the small labels…where you still have to actually have talent to survive!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:32:23 +0000

10 years ago i would buy a album and it would have at least 90% decent tracks. now i find that they are filled with remixes/covers of previous songs on the album and interludes(skits) to make up track numbers.

note some remixes/covers are good but in general i find about 30% of tracks worth having so the money i am prepared to spend on a album is now about 1/3 of what i would have paid in the past.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:02:07 +0000

I dunno–I think you guys overdo it on the “cookie-cutter product” thing. There’s some interesting stuff being made, and I’m not sure what it is you think is wrong with it. It’s typical, though, to hear people say things like that (”Britney Spears can’t sing!”) without actually giving any reasoning or warrants to back such a statement up. Saying something like that isn’t really putting forth an argument so much as it is making an emotional statement.

Let’s hear it, then: What actual reasoned critique of the talent of the RIAA and such (which folks are no friends of mine, mind you) can we come up with?