Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Itzjerm said...
you've sold your soul to the airwave devil javann...

is your cd player broke? Or is it the fedex truck requires you listen to radio?

The fact that you have fallen into musical depravity does not mean that you can justify this by a meager expression of word to correct.

True there have been times where pop was ok, I am a fan of quiet a bit that ended up on the radio in the 80's... in fact it was a rule then that having more than one song popular was against the rules. There may be the song here or there that is created for the main stream listener today which is listenable (i'll admit to liking some of Madonnas later stuff)... but in general pop music of the radio is basically an equation... an equation which anyone be it Paris Hilton or any other person can plug into... I'll pass... i'll find the oldies and flashback stations.. but in general pop is like country music.. to generic for my taste.



Oh come down off your high horse and stop judging people. The plug in theory is still to this day complete and utter crap. Paris Hilton did not sit down with her guitar and backing band and create music. She provided the voice and the front for Scott Storch (most notably) and for a host of other producers and yes, musicians. If you could carry a tune, then you too could be a pop SINGER. This is where your theory is ultimately flawed. I'll admit the ability to sing doesn't make you a musician. But give credit to the men and women who take mere singers and icons and transform the talentless voids they call celebrity into instantly recognizable hit machines. The same has held true since the early nineties with the exception of a few men and women who produced and sang their own brand of pop. We call these people singer/songwriters, such as Fiona Apple, Jewel, and until recently Nelly Furtado. Each of these MUSICIANS are utterly responsible for the crap they produce or the gold they spin from the hay that is the musical instrument.

I think the real reason everyone has a problem with Paris Hilton is simply because they percieve her as a musician. She is an average singer, who has the money and the affluence to have a group of musicians sit down and craft songs for her. She may gain some writing credit, because she does have input, but lets be honest. She has maybe 20% input. She is merely a front for producers and musicians. That having been said, there are millions of people who believe they are more talented than she, and also more creative. "Paris Hilton has a CD? Dude, anyone can make a CD!" No, you jealous sniveling vultures, not just anyone can PRODUCE a CD. It takes actually skill and creativity to be a producer. Can anyone sing on a CD? Believe it or not, no. Otherwise you crying children who can't carry tunes would all be inking record deals. And lets face it, unless you're Reuben Studdard (who?) you probably are going to need to be in the minority of Americans who can a) sing and b) look incredibly good in few if any clothes.

So lets wrap this up. To be a pop singer, you must carry a tune. To create pop music, to be a producer, you do need creativity, talent, and also be able to play an instrument. So stop it with indie fan boy whining already, posers.

18 comments:

Itzjerm said...

ha... and with all those words... I have to say I was not moved at all....

the wrap up...

yes pop requires certain singing skills... you have to be in a certain vein... different isn't accepted because people are close minded.

Producers.. skilled.. yes they know what sells. They know their tools to... refining behind a mixing board programing.. getting musicians.. this takes skills... business skills...
It is called systems management...getting the correct people together.

They accomplish there goals do to there ability to control... like large corporations and governments.

And once again... your rebutle.. sad at best...

And if you notice I stated I liked certain periods of Pop... but since the mid 90's music has often been in sad straits... since about 2003 things have started to have hope... its called indie go pop...

but generic pop ... the poster children... i'll pass.

Javann said...

Different? Different as in ugly and tone deaf? Obviously, you've blinded yourself with love of being different. There is no different. We all have the same body parts as roughly half the population. You know what happens when we're born with something extra or less? We're retarded. Do you want to be retarded? Apparently you do. Stop being retarded. Do some homework. Realize that producers do more musical work than you're capable of. The problem here isn't my rebutle (sic) because my rebuttal makes sense. The problem is your inability to admit that out there somewhere, someone can do something better than you, and her name is Paris Hilton. I know it makes you want to cry, but you're just going to have to deal with it.

Itzjerm said...

Ha... give me paris hiltons millions.. and Bouybee Uybee would be on the cover of magazines.

And well they always did say I was kinda like forest gump...

And I should hope that musical producers would do tons more musically than I ever... (If you read my comment I basically affirmed this)

And you should look for the content of conversation, and common gound instead of quick argument... and getting caught in the details...

colt said...

But give credit to the men and women who take mere singers and icons and transform the talentless voids they call celebrity into instantly recognizable hit machines...To create pop music, to be a producer, you do need creativity, talent, and also be able to play an instrument.

The record labels today are signing the people who fit the formula for making hit records. And the producers involved in these projects are simply producing carbon copies of what worked on the last hit record. Where's the creativity in that? How much talent does it really take to look at what's playing on TRL's top ten and make an exact duplicate?

I find it ironic that many of the bands who truly create art become thoroughly arrogant towards pop singers (no, I want call them artists) because instead of trying to constantly be the next big thing, they just do what they know works consistently.


No doubt it is a bit fustrating for artists who have worked their butts off for years playing in hole in the walls, slowly developing a following and a sound, and recording a record only to have it land by the wayside on radio playlists(thanks Clear Channel)because of people like Paris. And it has been my experience that most of these groups aren't trying to be "the next big thing", but are simply motivated by a need to share their music with others. Don't get me wrong. I think most want to get paid. I just don't think money is at the center of their motivation. Otherwise wouldn't they be in the studio alongside Spears and Hilton remaking a Madonna hit or somethin?

Itzjerm said...

And there in lies what has always been strange to me... there are bands out there that have played for 15 years with all the talent and skills of anyone else. The fact they have played for 15 years without a lucrative career shows an amazing tenacity.

Why aren't they given credit... why aren't they given a radio station? Because most people are victims of being told what they must appreciate… Why? Companies like Clear Channel, like Gap, like Buena Vista, Paramount... and people are in need to be accepted... to not be "retarted" for using there brain. So Javann appreciate your generic type if that’s the qualities you shall embrace. And stop using big words because well that’s just not typical... its more unique... which apparently you are trying to get away from.

Javann said...

First, I'm not discrediting bands that struggle. I like indie bands. I'm discrediting music elitists who feel that pop shouldn't even be listened to. As was aforementioned, a band may spend 15 years, get signed produce an album maybe even several, and not get major radio play. Seriously, if you're a band which has spent years perfecting your art and you get signed, do you really care if you're not the next biggest thing? No. So what does a person like Paris Hilton do? Sell tons of records so that a record label(because, yes they do actually sign niche bands) can fund the niche you've created for yourself in your fifteen years of playing holes in the wall. So what if she gets recognition? You're still getting paid, and quite well, to do what you supposedly love. And if it is about the money, why don't they go join Paris or Christina or Kelly or Jessica? Ever seen an indie band? That in itself is why. They don't fit the two requirements I mentioned in my rebuttal. A) Carry a tune B)Look ridiculously good in as little clothing as possible. And Jeremy, seriously, even if you did have Paris' money, you'd never make it. I'll leave it to you to decide what I'm dissing.

Finally I'd like to say, yes, I spell things correctly from time to time, and yes I use big words. So yes, I'm different. Here's the catch. I don't try to be different at all costs. I'm willing to admit that there's millions of people out there just like me. I'm no better or worse than anyone else. So stop trying to be retarded and just accept that you're like everyone else.

And I like arguing. Its fun.

Javann said...

So what it boils down to is jealousy. Pure and simple. Music elitists are posers who secretly wish they were the one with the money and the looks and the fame, and they wish they got all the recognition for whatever music they make or feel should be made, regardless of how good or bad it is. All I'm saying, and I think Jeremy got the point, is pop music does take creativity.

Colt its not cookie cutter. As a musician you can understand that while basic elements are the same, most pop music has shifted and continues to shift and grow and CHANGE even though since it is a genre, somethings stay the same. Just because every rock song I've ever heard had an electric guitar in it somewhere, or a drummer on a drum set, doesn't mean that I immediately discredit it as uncreative. Within the bounds of pop music, producer's show extreme creativity in being able to pump out hit after hit without falling victim making the same song over and over again. So yes, the mid tempo songs with humorous or passion filled lyrics and a swelling chorus which 85% of the time tops the charts are somewhat the same in that sense. But that doesn't mean its a cookie cutter mold. There are bands who have used the same formula for years, maybe even 15 years playing some hole in the wall bar, working on making their sound the best it can be and I don't see anyone throwing the "lack of creativity" bomb around when they mention them. Why do the same thing? Because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Producers get paid for hits. If you know you can make hit after hit after hit a certain way, thereby making check after check after check, I'm sorry at the end of the night you're going to make your check. That's your job. I bet you don't come in to work and say, hey, I want to get creative today mix things up and try something new, even though what I've been doing has been working for me, and feeding my family, paying my bills and generally keeping me alive. And yes, your job is art. Ever heard of the fine art of hard work? But hey, jeopardize that wonderful thing you have and be creative. I'll bet things will go downhill for you financially.

Itzjerm said...

Javann you made no points... you aren't a good arguer because you breach the common gound and attack.. and make others attack...

sit in one board meeting with this attitude.. and you'll never make it

argueing in this way does not equal convincing... just makes people buckly against... why we get info on common ground...

I could say more.. but i walk away just like that guy at the door with his blinded views and lack of reason..

..and i know i'm like millions of other engineers out there... we are our own nation...

and truly we're ruling your world.. for engineers design it. (then the commercial people force it on ya)... so when your car isn't doing what ya want... or your upset that you can't get more songs on your hilton cd... think of the engineer clones.. ha... theres ya a new argument subject...

Itzjerm said...

oh and paris hilton was cookie cutter javann... think about it.. maybe for at least 10 seconds...

And fame... not everyone wants it..

Anytime you decide to group every thing into one title

"retard" = anyone who wants to be unique
"posers" = indie artist
"pop stars" = creative

thats when you're setting yourself up for the worst attacks.

thats why if you go to my first post I admit I like some pop too.. but in general i think its rubbish. With braod views... you recieve open minds...

Rome wasn't built in a day...
But Hiroshima was destroyed in one..

Oh I like that.. i'll quote myself on that...

Javann said...

Yeah, I know I blanket statement stuff. But I never said Paris Hilton wasn't cookie cutter. Yeah, you can plug in any attractive female who can carry a tone and you got the same stuff. Obviously. And you do realize that its not an argument if I don't toss some fuel on the fire. So I throw in a few personal affronts, i.e. the indie fanboy references and Paris Hilton being better than you. Then when you assault me instead of my argument, I continue throwing insults and saying the same thing instead of trying to build on my argument. Trust me this works.

Anyway, I don't think pop stars are creative. I don't even think they're talented. My entire argument has been for the producers. And that listening to the occasional pop song doesn't make me a unappreciative of good music. If anything it makes me appreciative of music in all its forms. That was my original statement. Somehow you managed to read into that a undying declaration of love for pop music. Maybe you missed a few paragraphs along the way. I don't know. But your entire argument has been stating that which is a given. Pop stars aren't talented. And the majority of pop itself is commercial in nature and therefore by default void of any creativity, since the need for money generally stifles creativity. Engineering is an applied science. If it promoted creativity, you'd be studying the laws and theories that make our world work instead of how to manipulate them for profit.

Long story short, I've agreed on many terms. I won't climb onto the high horse and say something along the lines of read the other person's argument better, since I don't know what you've read, but it would appear that you misread or misunderstood some if not all of what I've already said.

Javann said...

Oh and Jerm, saying I made no points is untrue. The proper statement would be, I made no points that you agree with.

Itzjerm said...

well at least you got more comments on here than a while... oh and I could be paris hilton... just need a few changes and less clothes... i'm pretty sure i'm as ugly as she is..

Javann said...

I don't know. Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but if I had to choose between the two of you, I'd probably go with Paris. Nothing personally, its just that I'm incredibly heterosexual.

colt said...

Hey I don't have a problem with pop music in particular. I just have a problem with bad music regardless of genre. And these days there is plenty to go around. And as a reformed musical elitist( yeah, musically speaking I was pretty close minded.Lana and I use to have some really long discussions on this very topic. She's helped me to see the error of my ways.I was on a 12 step program), i don't think it has anything to do with jealousy. I just can't comprehend people who enjoy music that has been "dumbed" down for their enjoyment. In the 60's teens would stand in long lines to see the Beatles. Today teens stand in long lines to see...Ashlee Simpson?
Also I'm curious as to what you consider pop? Personally for me it doesn't stop at the type of music Paris is creating, but also includes Lil John, Ciara, Rihanna, Carrie Underwood, Jake Owen, Christina Aguilera, Pharrell, etc.


No if you'll excuse me it's 6:45 and time for me to do the robot.

Javann said...

Yeah, I consider all those aforementioned to be pop, with the exception of Lil Jon and Ciara, who I think do hip hop, or basically rap "pop".

Jonathan said...

Gonna have to lean more towards Jerm's argument on this one... just one thing:

There are a few singers that were created for no other reason than money. Really, not too many. The music they put out is Pop music, the genre. But other than those certain moneymaking machines, the term "pop" is just short for the word "popular". It's not a genre so much as a category. There IS a diversity of bands are on the radio, albeit it's hard to find. Most is indeed generic, some isn't. The ones that aren't generic but still get some airplay (e.g., Tool) can technically be called "pop". They're popular. That's why they have that "Popular" section at the record store. Do those bands make Pop music? nah.

Gotta see the contrast. FYI, it's nearly 1am so if any of that doesn't make sense, you're a moron.

Also, Javann, you're arguments are just giant blobs of rhetoric. I mean jeez dude, you just talk and talk and talk and over whelm your listener with words but it never goes anywhere. Drives me NUTS, man. NUTS.

Javann said...

Exactly. True wisdom doesn't need a plethora of words. But then again, I'm defending the devil. I know what I know and I know pop's (the pop we're talking about) isn't worth the CD's its stamped on. But I gotta defend why I still listen to it somehow.

Jonathan said...

The Paris Hilton album is great, FYI.