K-Pop? J-Pop? Something else?

[euklyd]

Hm.

I count four voters in need of broadening of their musical horizons.

e: actually imo anyone who only listens to one type of music could probably use more variety

Edited June 7, 2014 by Euklyd

[Soledai]

I hadn't voted yet, to see if I could remember something else, but no.

I might be one of those VGM only guys... not because I didn't try, it's the reverse for me, it's because I tried the other types of music that made me realise 'VGM for me or bust' I know what I said about K-pop in my first post, but still

[Freohr Datia]

Huh~ When I saw the poll results I just thought it was funny ^o^ But also thought "video game forum~"

I don't find it very surprising if people only listen to video game music.

And culture isn't dead, there are so few people who listen to video game music and nothing else =D

Edited June 7, 2014 by Freohr Datia

[peener weener]

Not really. I don't see how placing on the "hottest songs" itself is an indication of who was (or is) the most popular at the time. You can't honestly be arguing that Toni Basil charting put her on the same level as The Beatles, or that anyone is more of an icon than Bob Dylan because he never topped the charts. I don't personally think music is worse today, but I do think that what is popular has changed, and that the "shitty music" that used to make one-hit wonders is now making stars instead. Also, I think one of the major factors in their division is the emphasis put on "entertainment" and who can look or act the craziest as time passed.

That type of music has a place as well. Even the best artists from back then used to produce songs like that (Twist and Shout anyone? lol), but they didn't build a career out of them or become known for them. I can't say I blame the more vocal people when they say they dislike that that's what is at the forefront of the industry now, because I'm not a fan myself.

So my opinion essentially is that music is still good, but you aren't going to find the same substance as you would from the 60s for example if all you do is look at who the most popular (aka mainstream) artists are. You have to dig to find the same or similar appeal a lot of the time, and the people who think music today sucks just can't be bothered to look past what they see in front of them.

Except there are tonnes of artists that are widely popular and have also received enormous amounts of critical acclaim today. People Kendrick Lamar and Kanye West, and bands like Radiohead, Vampire Weekend, etc. who have millions and millions of fans, and will 100% become a pop culture icon in the future.

It's funny that you should mention The Beatles as a counterpoint. You're conveniently ignoring the fact that for half of their career they thrived on making mediocre ephemeral pop music. It was pretty much all they did. And Beatles fans during that time were famously fanatical to a fault. People who didn't really give a shit about the artistic integrity of the music they listened to, lol. It was only after becoming huge that they sort of tried. One-hit wonders are by definition transient. If they've become "stars," it is because they are doing something right. Marketing, pandering, knowing their demo, whatever it is. I'd argue that the only reason this is barely more prevalent is because of mass media and globalisation.

I assure you that in twenty years, people will be saying the exact same bullshit about music today. When all the shit has settled and only "the greats" are remembered (and idolised: they were the best and this is unquestionable) people will look at pop music and say "why isn't everything I see GKMC? Why has hip-hop died in favour of new wave EDM? I wish I had been born in 2001, so that I could hear Chance at the peak of his career."

Edited June 7, 2014 by fuccboi

[Icon of Sin]

yall non believers

doom is my senpai

[Tangerine]

Except there are tonnes of artists that are widely popular and have also received enormous amounts of critical acclaim today. People Kendrick Lamar and Kanye West, and bands like Radiohead, Vampire Weekend, etc. who have millions and millions of fans, and will 100% become a pop culture icon in the future.

It's funny that you should mention The Beatles as a counterpoint. You're conveniently ignoring the fact that for half of their career they thrived on making mediocre ephemeral pop music. It was pretty much all they did. And Beatles fans during that time were famously fanatical to a fault. People who didn't really give a shit about the artistic integrity of the music they listened to, lol. It was only after becoming huge that they sort of tried. One-hit wonders are by definition transient. If they've become "stars," it is because they are doing something right. Marketing, pandering, knowing their demo, whatever it is. I'd argue that the only reason this is barely more prevalent is because of mass media and globalisation.

I assure you that in twenty years, people will be saying the exact same bullshit about music today. When all the shit has settled and only "the greats" are remembered (and idolised: they were the best and this is unquestionable) people will look at pop music and say "why isn't everything I see GKMC? Why has hip-hop died in favour of new wave EDM? I wish I had been born in 2001, so that I could hear Chance at the peak of his career."

I don't really know what to say to this. You're arguing with things I didn't say, what's the purpose? I didn't say good artists don't get popular, I said that the most popular musicians today are what people are looking at when they say those things, and it is most certainly true that what could be considered weak or shallow music has more representation among top stars today. A lot of the artists you mentioned are also a part of a relatively young genre in its current form, there's nothing to compare them to besides their peers.

Uhh, except I mentioned The Beatles' time releasing music like that specifically, as Twist and Shout was among their most popular (as well as the most popular version of that song), and the only thing you could really give it credit for was the vocals. It was also released very close to what is considered the peak of their career (when they were producing the music people remember them for), which made it particularly effective for the purpose of that point. Did you read my post lol? They made that music, but it's not what they're known for, and they hit their peak when they wrote what we know them for today. They certainly did not "sort of try", as they wrote and performed some of the greatest songs of their generation.

I disagree. I don't believe that many of the most popular artists today will be remembered the same way. But that's a pointless discussion to begin with.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Tangerine

[peener weener]

I don't really know what to say to this. You're arguing with things I didn't say, what's the purpose? I didn't say good artists don't get popular, I said that the most popular musicians today are what people are looking at when they say those things, and it is most certainly true that what could be considered weak or shallow music has more representation among top stars today. A lot of the artists you mentioned are also a part of a relatively young genre in its current form, there's nothing to compare them to besides their peers.

Uhh, except I mentioned The Beatles' time releasing music like that specifically, as Twist and Shout was among their most popular (as well as the most popular version of that song), and the only thing you could really give it credit for was the vocals. It was also released very close to what is considered the peak of their career (when they were producing the music people remember them for), which made it particularly effective for the purpose of that point. Did you read my post lol? They made that music, but it's not what they're known for, and they hit their peak when they wrote what we know them for today. They certainly did not "sort of try", as they wrote and performed some of the greatest songs of their generation.

I disagree. I don't believe that many of the most popular artists today will be remembered the same way. But that's a pointless discussion to begin with.

Then I don't really understand what your point is. What I understood from what you said is that mainstream artists back then were generally better than mainstream artists today, to which I said there were loads of bad mainstream artists then, and that there are many great ones today. It's fairly simple, lol. Among the 60's most popular acts are included such amazing performers as: The Monkees, The Shadows, The Mamas & The Papas, and loads of other groups that nobody gives a flying fuck about now, but who were pretty big back then.

Also, what do you gauge popoularity by, if not charts? The amount of exposure they get in the media?

I did read your post. The Beatles did get to be as big as they were because of songs like Twist and Shout. That is the point I was trying to make. They are not known for those songs now (although I would argue they are, most of the people I know who listen to the Beatles know only their biggest, poppiest hits) because they parted from it. Their legend has snowballed from there and today they are glorified.

edit: i feel like we've had this conversation before

Edited June 7, 2014 by fuccboi

[Thor Odinson]

where's the fuckin' metal option

this

I listen to mainly metal, preferably clean vocals though I don't mind growls sometimes, it depends

But generally I like melodic stuff regardless of genre, fast guitar solos, and violins. Doesn't have to be together, but can be.

Not much of a fan of more upbeat and cutesy songs, but there's exceptions. I generally don't write off entire genres. Rather, I listen to whatever I think sounds good which could be a wide range of things. If I think it sounds good and if the lyrics aren't misogynistic then I'm open to it. Melodic metal subgenres are my favorite, but I listen to a lot of other things too.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Thor Odinson

[Tangerine]

Then I don't really understand what your point is. What I understood from what you said is that mainstream artists back then were generally better than mainstream artists today, to which I said there were loads of bad mainstream artists then, and that there are many great ones today. It's fairly simple, lol. Among the 60's most popular acts are included such amazing performers as: The Monkees, The Shadows, The Mamas & The Papas, and loads of other groups that nobody gives a flying fuck about now, but who were pretty big back then.

Also, what do you gauge popoularity by, if not charts? The amount of exposure they get in the media?

I did read your post. The Beatles did get to be as big as they were because of songs like Twist and Shout. That is the point I was trying to make. They are not known for those songs now (although I would argue they are, most of the people I know who listen to the Beatles know only their biggest, poppiest hits) because they parted from it. Their legend has snowballed from there and today they are glorified.

edit: i feel like we've had this conversation before

None of those groups you listed were bigger than the people we consider to be "great". Justin Bieber, although I hate to use him as an example, has a legitimate claim to the title of most "popular" artist currently active, and he makes more money yearly than any of the current greats you listed as a result of his performances even despite the fact that he rarely actually releases anything new. A lot of of the top money makers and most popular artists aren't the people one would consider to be future icons.

You also seem to be suggesting that good artists and performers aren't forgotten, so the people you're talking about all suck just because the masses don't remember them? That's what you seem to be implying with your sarcasm.

What do you gauge popularity by? Would you ever suggest that some of the artists who charted highly were more popular than Bob for example? He was more popular and famous than even the biggest sellers at one point, despite his apparent inability to sell albums (probably because he released them sporadically and often, and his management was quite poor. There is a lot to take into account.). The faces of the industry aren't always who sells the most albums, exposure and public knowledge is absolutely a factor in fame and popularity. This is obvious even today.

If you really want to make a chart argument, it would not be hard to suggest the 60s had some poor-but-popular artists, but it would be very hard to suggest that they didn't have more great ones at the top. I don't believe there are more great ones overall, I think a lot of the best artists today are not as popular as they should be because they don't adhere to the standard that the masses have come to expect. It's not just about talent anymore, that often is not enough to get you to the top, while having a certain "X factor" has proven to be more capable of doing that now than ever.

You seem to be taking a stance as though I am saying that artists from before are on average better than the ones we have now, which was never the case. The only part of that argument that I agree with is that mainstream music has shifted in a different direction (further towards the type of music we're discussing), and that I agree it has shifted for the worse in terms of substance.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Tangerine

[Prims]

literally just listen to gay bar on infinite loop every day

PS: dubstep cliches such as wubbing, bass drops etc. rule. not trolling (i dont listen to actual dubstep though)

[Cowboy Karimov]

Kazakh pop.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_UVCvkS9LoE

[Roxas]

literally just listen to gay bar on infinite loop every day

PS: dubstep cliches such as wubbing, bass drops etc. rule. not trolling (i dont listen to actual dubstep though)

Hell fucking yeah.

[Knight]

I listen to a lot of classical, video game OST's and rock mostly.

[peener weener]

None of those groups you listed were bigger than the people we consider to be "great". Justin Bieber, although I hate to use him as an example, has a legitimate claim to the title of most "popular" artist currently active, and he makes more money yearly than any of the current greats you listed as a result of his performances even despite the fact that he rarely actually releases anything new. A lot of of the top money makers and most popular artists aren't the people one would consider to be future icons.

You also seem to be suggesting that good artists and performers aren't forgotten, so the people you're talking about all suck just because the masses don't remember them? That's what you seem to be implying with your sarcasm.

What do you gauge popularity by? Would you ever suggest that some of the artists who charted highly were more popular than Bob for example? He was more popular and famous than even the biggest sellers at one point, despite his apparent inability to sell albums (probably because he released them sporadically and often, and his management was quite poor. There is a lot to take into account.). The faces of the industry aren't always who sells the most albums, exposure and public knowledge is absolutely a factor in fame and popularity. This is obvious even today.

If you really want to make a chart argument, it would not be hard to suggest the 60s had some poor-but-popular artists, but it would be very hard to suggest that they didn't have more great ones at the top. I don't believe there are more great ones overall, I think a lot of the best artists today are not as popular as they should be because they don't adhere to the standard that the masses have come to expect. It's not just about talent anymore, that often is not enough to get you to the top, while having a certain "X factor" has proven to be more capable of doing that now than ever.

You seem to be taking a stance as though I am saying that artists from before are on average better than the ones we have now, which was never the case. The only part of that argument that I agree with is that mainstream music has shifted in a different direction (further towards the type of music we're discussing), and that I agree it has shifted for the worse in terms of substance.

Justin Bieber is a bad example. He is well-known, but I do not think this means he is popular as an artist. It simply means he has celebrity status. It's entirely different. And if the top money-makers being people like Justin Bieber signifies mainstream music is "worse," why use Bob Dylan as another example? You said yourself that he never made much of a profit.

I didn't even imply that, but they do suck. What I was trying to say is that only artists that made a considerable cultural impact are not forgotten. For better or worse: AC/DC and Bon Jovi seem to be remembered by everyone but they suck dick.

Popularity is, I guess, not as simple as "number of hits" or "number of fans." Consistently charting singles do mean something, though. It's not the only factor, but it is one of them.

For example, I would say Kanye West is far more popular than Justin Bieber is. He has been active as an artist for far longer, has sold more records (total), and in terms of influence Kanye West is huge while Justin Bieber is null.

I was under that impression, yeah. Sorry lol

In any case this is purely a matter of opinion, isn't it? I could say there were plenty of jazz artists whose music has far more "substance" than The Beatles or the Rolling Stones who weren't a quarter as popular, and many music journalists at the time seemed to think so too.

Edited June 8, 2014 by fuccboi

[Nightmare]

Music waifus? Well...

[mewyeon]

So I actually picked both K-pop and music of my own country lol, because...I listen to both haha. I guess you could consider K-pop as being music of my own country since I have some of the heritage, though. I feel like I have very specific tastes in music and high standards for the musicians, so it's a struggle for me to find gems no matter what country the music is from. Although I think there are really some talented members of a few Kpop groups (I say 'members' not the whole group, because there are so many people in those groups that are only there for purposes OTHER than the actual music)....

Okay, I hope you don't mind indulging me a slight rant, but I do think Super Junior-M is like...where all the talent in the mainstream Super Junior group went, minus Yesung. I also think SHINee is lovely, Jonghyun especially! But girl groups....I'd say Tiffany from SNSD, Hyorin from Sistar, maybe a couple others. Y'all should check out Ailee though, she's legit. Sorry for all non kpop people who don't know what I'm talking about.

[Integrity]

super junior is in a whole league better than shinee and i will fight anybody who says otherwise

contrarily super junior m creates less good music with the exception of One song which is incredible (it's a-oh)

[Integrity]

also tangerine, necktie: stop fighting and answer the pertinent question: who is your rammstein oppa

[Parrhesia]

today i listened to like twenty fatboy slim videos

before that i listened to like twenty neil diamond songs

my music taste might be slightly dysfunctional