12 Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Music

Newch91

One of the rock radio stations here in CT, 99.1 WPLR, posted this on Facebook. Some of it is really depressing.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/12-extre ... opular-mus

thefixer9

Most of those I wasn't surprised about but number 9 had me

tybird

Disheartening...indeed....surprised about R.E.M. never topping the charts. :-o

Cosmo

It really only proves one thing... there is more disposable income to young kids today, than in 1963-1980.
Most kids I knew growing up didn't have money other than collecting reusable Coke and Pepsi bottle for the deposits or cutting people's lawns. We didn't buy shit til we were old enought to get a job at a Pup N' Taco or score the Holy Grail of after school jobs... a box boy at the supermarket.
Parents... this is what your kids are spending the money you give them on... Rhianna and Jay-Z.
...
The Streisand and Celine Dion thing is simply attributed to bad taste in general.

dcfaithful

Disappointing yes, but they only compare numbers because to compare the quality would be an absolute no contest.

dpmay

probably hendrix should have worked on his pecs more than his music.

Newch91

dpmay wrote:

probably hendrix should have worked on his pecs more than his music.

SVRDhand13

Who cares? If the bands I liked were higher in demand, I would have an even harder time getting good tix. Let the masses listen to their junk.

tybird

Cosmo wrote:

It really only proves one thing... there is more disposable income to young kids today, than in 1963-1980.
Most kids I knew growing up didn't have money other than collecting reusable Coke and Pepsi bottle for the deposits or cutting people's lawns. We didn't buy shit til we were old enought to get a job at a Pup N' Taco or score the Holy Grail of after school jobs... a box boy at the supermarket.
Parents... this is what your kids are spending the money you give them on... Rhianna and Jay-Z.
...
The Streisand and Celine Dion thing is simply attributed to bad taste in general.

Back when bottles were made of glass....those were the days, eh

dpmay

you know, i've been thinking about this thread and i think i'm just going to go ahead and argue that there really isn't any reason that hey jude is a better song than anything by flo rida (whoever that is) anyway. i don't think anyone can give a reason that hey jude is better which doesn't boil down to "i like it more". so, maybe in fact flo rida IS better than the beatles.

who's to say?

SVRDhand13

dpmay wrote:

you know, i've been thinking about this thread and i think i'm just going to go ahead and argue that there really isn't any reason that hey jude is a better song than anything by flo rida (whoever that is) anyway. i don't think anyone can give a reason that hey jude is better which doesn't boil down to "i like it more". so, maybe in fact flo rida IS better than the beatles.

who's to say?

I always thought Hey Jude was the worst Beatles song. The end is so annoyingly drawn out.

goldrush

SVRDhand13 wrote:

dpmay wrote:

you know, i've been thinking about this thread and i think i'm just going to go ahead and argue that there really isn't any reason that hey jude is a better song than anything by flo rida (whoever that is) anyway. i don't think anyone can give a reason that hey jude is better which doesn't boil down to "i like it more". so, maybe in fact flo rida IS better than the beatles.

who's to say?

I always thought Hey Jude was the worst Beatles song. The end is do annoyingly drawn out.

Isn't that Flo Rida song the one that Tom Cruise dances to in Tropic Thunder? That scene alone makes it better than Hey Jude for me! As for the rest of the list, that's every reason I don't listen to commercial radio anymore. 'Popular' music is just so depressing these days

keeponrockin

In related news: A lot of terrible movies make way more money than great movies.

DewieCox

dpmay wrote:

you know, i've been thinking about this thread and i think i'm just going to go ahead and argue that there really isn't any reason that hey jude is a better song than anything by flo rida (whoever that is) anyway. i don't think anyone can give a reason that hey jude is better which doesn't boil down to "i like it more". so, maybe in fact flo rida IS better than the beatles.

who's to say?

Anybody with ears.

IgotshitID

shity list indeed

Cosmo

dpmay wrote:

you know, i've been thinking about this thread and i think i'm just going to go ahead and argue that there really isn't any reason that hey jude is a better song than anything by flo rida (whoever that is) anyway. i don't think anyone can give a reason that hey jude is better which doesn't boil down to "i like it more". so, maybe in fact flo rida IS better than the beatles.

who's to say?

...
It's more about today's market vs. the markets of 1963-1980... and less about the music in general.
Kids between the ages have money... 100% of which is disposable income. With disposable income, comes disposable goods. I mean, does anyone really believe Ke$ha or Glee compares to the Beatles... that Creed is better than Hendrix? That Ke$ha, Glee or Creed will stand the test of time? No. Those CDs will eventually show up in in droves in the 99 cent bin at the used record stores (if the used record stores will even accept them).
All it means is that today is all about marketing to a broader market that includes little kids. And little kids are notorious for having bad taste... I mean, little kids think Spagetti-Os taste good.
Good music, endures.
...
Side Note: The Creed thing might just be because of the whole Christian Rock thing... again, Christian Rock... come on... really? Not a knock against Christians in general... just their bad taste in music.
And the Streisand thing... well, the American public's favorite television shows are 'Dancing With The Stars' and 'American Idol' and drove the Macarena to Number One. What does that tell you?

dpmay

Cosmo wrote:

dpmay wrote:

you know, i've been thinking about this thread and i think i'm just going to go ahead and argue that there really isn't any reason that hey jude is a better song than anything by flo rida (whoever that is) anyway. i don't think anyone can give a reason that hey jude is better which doesn't boil down to "i like it more". so, maybe in fact flo rida IS better than the beatles.

who's to say?

...
It's more about today's market vs. the markets of 1963-1980... and less about the music in general.
Kids between the ages have money... 100% of which is disposable income. With disposable income, comes disposable goods. I mean, does anyone really believe Ke$ha or Glee compares to the Beatles... that Creed is better than Hendrix? That Ke$ha, Glee or Creed will stand the test of time? No. Those CDs will eventually show up in in droves in the 99 cent bin at the used record stores (if the used record stores will even accept them).
All it means is that today is all about marketing to a broader market that includes little kids. And little kids are notorious for having bad taste... I mean, little kids think Spagetti-Os taste good.
Good music, endures.
...
Side Note: The Creed thing might just be because of the whole Christian Rock thing... again, Christian Rock... come on... really? Not a knock against Christians in general... just their bad taste in music.
And the Streisand thing... well, the American public's favorite television shows are 'Dancing With The Stars' and 'American Idol' and drove the Macarena to Number One. What does that tell you?

i tend to agree with your economic and historical points - it's a different world we are living in.

however, i am actually making an artistic claim here: that it is IMPOSSIBLE to establish that hendrix is better than creed. i believe that, you believe that, i bet literally 100% of the members of this board believe that. but that's just, like, our opinions, man.

seriously, how on earth could we objectively judge say the beatles BETTER than celine dion (or whomever)? can't do it.

EdsonNascimento

dpmay wrote:

i tend to agree with your economic and historical points - it's a different world we are living in.

however, i am actually making an artistic claim here: that it is IMPOSSIBLE to establish that hendrix is better than creed. i believe that, you believe that, i bet literally 100% of the members of this board believe that. but that's just, like, our opinions, man.

seriously, how on earth could we objectively judge say the beatles BETTER than celine dion (or whomever)? can't do it.

Then how do we know Michelangelo is better than some other artist we never heard of?

The point is - I think folks here are making (reasonable) real time estimations of who will be in the discount bin and who will be remembered. And that latter group are the modern day Michelangelos.

So, actually, it's quite easy. The Beatles have (to a much lesser extent) stood the test of time. Jimi Hendrix has stood the test of time. Celine Dion is a glorified lounge act that if Vegas didn't exist wouldn't even be in our collective consciousness at the moment.

dpmay

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Then how do we know Michelangelo is better than some other artist we never heard of?

The point is - I think folks here are making (reasonable) real time estimations of who will be in the discount bin and who will be remembered. And that latter group are the modern day Michelangelos.

So, actually, it's quite easy. The Beatles have (to a much lesser extent) stood the test of time. Jimi Hendrix has stood the test of time. Celine Dion is a glorified lounge act that if Vegas didn't exist wouldn't even be in our collective consciousness at the moment.

yeah i agree the beatles music will be better remembered and more loved for waaaay longer than celine dion. but does that make it "better"? i don't think it does. that makes it "more popular for longer".

musicismylife78

interesting facts. however, i cant really explain the numbers. i think its clear that across the board kids, teen and 20 year olds buy less music than they ever have in history. whether illegal downloading is something you support or not, its a fact that most people obtain music either through iTunes or via illegal downloading. and thats available via the numbers in any chart of the top selling albums of the week in this year and any year before.

All laptops come with Cd burners, and kids now know how to torrent or download.

that said, i do think audience is a big thing. who ones audience is. i think of bands like radiohead or The XX or Jay-Z and its obvious their fan base is quite aware of the torrent sites, and their sales of albums will be reflected any time they release stuff.
on the flip side, Britney, Kelly Clarkson, Christina Aguilera, the country music scene with Taylor Swift, their fans are less likely to be aware of those outposts for illegal music.

that said, ive maintained for years now, the kids, 7 years old, to 13 years old, and or teens 13-19, when they get allowance. Say they get an allowance. I would bet the mortgage that most of them dont save up to buy the newest albums at the store. thats just the way it is now. in the past this was something of a right of passage. how many of us here, as kids would do that? would get allowance and save up to buy an album, and then physically go down to the store and get it?

so im having trouble reconciling the article with facts i know to be true. yes music has never been more vibrant or important or ubiquitous as it is in 2011, but i dont think people are buying music at the rate or at the same numbers as they did last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago.

and i think whether you are bieber or gaga or radiohead or grizzly bear or an indie band new on the scene, record sales have never been as low and as insignificant as they are right now.

ive maintained for years that billboard is no longer a reliable source of info for album sales. they dont take into account the illegal filesharing numbers, and of course those are elusive.

The biggest selling album of the 2000's was Eminems Marshall Mathers LP, sold 10 million by 2009. i think its safe to assume way more than 10 million people own that record.

musicismylife78

i think there is a difference for most people, that i dont subscribe to between masterpiece music, ala the beatles, led zep, the stones, dylan, bruce. music that is considered great. and on the flip side music thats commercial, and on the radio and popular and hip. while i am the biggest beatles fan around, i enjoy commercial radio as well, and think a well written, well sung, hook laden, catchy song is as important a contribution to music and to culture as creating lasting powerful art. its a gift and an art to create a catchy song and im in awe of those who have accomplished it.

im a hipster, and love arcade fire, modest mouse, sufjan, and iron and wine, radiohead, but can also appreciate and love so called pop music. justin timbertake, kelly clarkson, gaga, beyonce, im a fan of them as well.

if a song is catchy and good i love it. simple as that. music is music is music. ultimately i think people dont like admitting things like guilty pleasures in music because there is some unwritten rule that you cant love or enjoy pop and or commercial music if you are a serious music consumer and lover. i think thats a falsity and absurd.

will the beatles last forever? i hope so. but lets not forget the music thats often considered important and groundbreaking often has a pop edge. Nirvana was a self admitted pop band. Elvis took blues music and made it pop.

dpmay

musicismylife78 wrote:

i think there is a difference for most people, that i dont subscribe to between masterpiece music, ala the beatles, led zep, the stones, dylan, bruce. music that is considered great. and on the flip side music thats commercial, and on the radio and popular and hip. while i am the biggest beatles fan around, i enjoy commercial radio as well, and think a well written, well sung, hook laden, catchy song is as important a contribution to music and to culture as creating lasting powerful art. its a gift and an art to create a catchy song and im in awe of those who have accomplished it.

im a hipster, and love arcade fire, modest mouse, sufjan, and iron and wine, radiohead, but can also appreciate and love so called pop music. justin timbertake, kelly clarkson, gaga, beyonce, im a fan of them as well.

if a song is catchy and good i love it. simple as that. music is music is music. ultimately i think people dont like admitting things like guilty pleasures in music because there is some unwritten rule that you cant love or enjoy pop and or commercial music if you are a serious music consumer and lover. i think thats a falsity and absurd.

will the beatles last forever? i hope so. but lets not forget the music thats often considered important and groundbreaking often has a pop edge. Nirvana was a self admitted pop band. Elvis took blues music and made it pop.

good post. musical taste is not a statement of personality. like what'cha like - that is all.

Newch91

musicismylife78 wrote:

The biggest selling album of the 2000's was Eminems Marshall Mathers LP, sold 10 million by 2009. i think its safe to assume way more than 10 million people own that record.

The Beatles "1" was the biggest selling album of the 2000's, selling 31 million by 2009.

Newch91

musicismylife78 wrote:

i think there is a difference for most people, that i dont subscribe to between masterpiece music, ala the beatles, led zep, the stones, dylan, bruce. music that is considered great. and on the flip side music thats commercial, and on the radio and popular and hip. while i am the biggest beatles fan around, i enjoy commercial radio as well, and think a well written, well sung, hook laden, catchy song is as important a contribution to music and to culture as creating lasting powerful art. its a gift and an art to create a catchy song and im in awe of those who have accomplished it.

im a hipster, and love arcade fire, modest mouse, sufjan, and iron and wine, radiohead, but can also appreciate and love so called pop music. justin timbertake, kelly clarkson, gaga, beyonce, im a fan of them as well.

if a song is catchy and good i love it. simple as that. music is music is music. ultimately i think people dont like admitting things like guilty pleasures in music because there is some unwritten rule that you cant love or enjoy pop and or commercial music if you are a serious music consumer and lover. i think thats a falsity and absurd.

will the beatles last forever? i hope so. but lets not forget the music thats often considered important and groundbreaking often has a pop edge. Nirvana was a self admitted pop band. Elvis took blues music and made it pop.

Like this post. You sure you're the biggest Beatles fan around?

My guilty pleasure is Alicia Keys. She's amazing and very talented.

conman

:(

musicismylife78

Newch91 wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

The biggest selling album of the 2000's was Eminems Marshall Mathers LP, sold 10 million by 2009. i think its safe to assume way more than 10 million people own that record.

The Beatles "1" was the biggest selling album of the 2000's, selling 31 million by 2009.

good catch. i got mixed up. but eminem was the top selling artist of the decade, with 2 albums in the top 10 selling albums of the decade list. but you are right the beatles 1 was the champion in terms of top selling album.

Johnny Abruzzo

Newch91 wrote:

My guilty pleasure is Alicia Keys. She's amazing and very talented.

Me too. Are her songs written in a board room like Rhianna?

Newch91

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

My guilty pleasure is Alicia Keys. She's amazing and very talented.

Me too. Are her songs written in a board room like Rhianna?

I believe she writes her own songs, words and music, something Rhianna doesn't do.

tybird

I wonder what would happen if one looked at the average sales of each album by the artists mentioned....how albums has Babs released....and what's the average sales of each compared to say Pearl Jams average per album...not counting the official boot legs, I guess... :twisted:

musicismylife78

tybird wrote:

I wonder what would happen if one looked at the average sales of each album by the artists mentioned....how albums has Babs released....and what's the average sales of each compared to say Pearl Jams average per album...not counting the official boot legs, I guess... :twisted:

good question.

i dont wish to diminish or minimize the success of PJ, but unless you are the beatles, elvis, led zep or pink floyd or something, album sales are shockingly low for huge bands.

since 1991, PJ has sold over 30 million albums. thats a ton of albums. But think about it. thats 31 million records in 20 years. spread out over what 7 or 8 albums, countless official live releases, hundreds of official bootlegs and so on. hell Ten alone accounts for a third of the 30 million records.

i think as i said, unless you are led zep 300 million or pink floyd 200 million albums or Elvis and the Beatles 1 billion albums sold each, the album sales numbers really arent that shocking or interesting.

i also think there is a difference between albums sold in terms of pop music like the christinas and gagas and britneys of the world, and albums that mean something to the artists fans beyond background music.

with the beatles, a few years back that Across the Universe film, brilliantly depicted the 1960's world, with a script made of nearly entirely of beatles lyrics. i think that speaks to the importance and impact of the beatles. will people feel that way in 20 or 30 years about britney, or gaga, or shakira? i have no idea, but my gut says no on that, but that doesnt mean they dont make catchy fun songs.

there is a reason the pop songs get stuck in our heads. plus, lets be honest, i love getting lost in emotional, powerful albums when im sad or depressed, but i also think there is nothing better when feeling sad than listening to the radio and hearing a top 40 hit. those songs were written to help me, and the collective us deal with the world. thats the value of pop music. its life affirming. it gets your mind off the world

Newch91

musicismylife78 wrote:

tybird wrote:

I wonder what would happen if one looked at the average sales of each album by the artists mentioned....how albums has Babs released....and what's the average sales of each compared to say Pearl Jams average per album...not counting the official boot legs, I guess... :twisted:

good question.

i dont wish to diminish or minimize the success of PJ, but unless you are the beatles, elvis, led zep or pink floyd or something, album sales are shockingly low for huge bands.

since 1991, PJ has sold over 30 million albums. thats a ton of albums. But think about it. thats 31 million records in 20 years. spread out over what 7 or 8 albums, countless official live releases, hundreds of official bootlegs and so on. hell Ten alone accounts for a third of the 30 million records.

i think as i said, unless you are led zep 300 million or pink floyd 200 million albums or Elvis and the Beatles 1 billion albums sold each, the album sales numbers really arent that shocking or interesting.

i also think there is a difference between albums sold in terms of pop music like the christinas and gagas and britneys of the world, and albums that mean something to the artists fans beyond background music.

with the beatles, a few years back that Across the Universe film, brilliantly depicted the 1960's world, with a script made of nearly entirely of beatles lyrics. i think that speaks to the importance and impact of the beatles. will people feel that way in 20 or 30 years about britney, or gaga, or shakira? i have no idea, but my gut says no on that, but that doesnt mean they dont make catchy fun songs.

there is a reason the pop songs get stuck in our heads. plus, lets be honest, i love getting lost in emotional, powerful albums when im sad or depressed, but i also think there is nothing better when feeling sad than listening to the radio and hearing a top 40 hit. those songs were written to help me, and the collective us deal with the world. thats the value of pop music. its life affirming. it gets your mind off the world

Don't forget Michael Jackson, who has sold over an estimated 750 million albums.

I thought Pearl Jam was at 60 million?