All that ever happens is a new act is branded "the next big thing", then after about a year, or two albums, they disappear.
All they seem to be are glorified vocalists, people should only be allowed to release records if they are composed played and sung by the artist(s) on the cover, anyone else agree?
And nobody say these glorified vocalists are talented; if they are, how talented are those who compose, write and perform all their own work?
2006-08-26 05:05:11 · 14 answers · asked by hbakfam 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Stale like a crusty old hundred dollar bill.
The main inspiration for anything on MTV is money.
The "artists" are picked by the company big wigs to be promoted to a target consumer. Everything is packaged according to what is already known to sell. The "artists" just play a small part in their success, and the success of the industry.
Today's "artists" aren't making their own choices. They're bought and sold.
We need another BOWIE, breaking all the rules.
2006-08-26 11:31:48 · answer #1 · answered by Teaim 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know, I agree with you. There are several categories of musicians; it seems like you are narrowing in on the solo artist vs the band. What you are over looking is that these "glorified vocalists" are pretty necessary. Kenny G. composed and preformed all his music, but I wouldn't consider him more talented then Mick Jagger, who doesn't do those things. Aretha Franklin, the queen of soul, never played an instrument, oh well, her voice was strong enough to be the only talent she needed to display.
2006-08-26 05:18:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pop music is always reflective of the times we live in, So commercial, mass produced and unemotional it is. But i think it serves it's purpose as-well.. as you know the general public desires new new new,and record companies are continuing to sell us the same thing in different packaging. But with so much choice even for the non-connersoir you'd be hard pressed not to be worring about pop being stale.
2006-08-26 06:09:28 · answer #3 · answered by subway stu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course its stale. that's why it appeals to the masses. ignorant people who havent had the oppurtunity to hear good music. Im not saying that I dont like pop music, but at least I know the difference b/w it and the real stuff. I wish that computers wouldnt make it easier for crappy singers to sound better. Ugh.
2006-08-26 05:12:36 · answer #4 · answered by Czarkeri 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pop Rap Rock all of them needs a savior soon same loops over and over the tech. in the studio can make anyone sound good example Bobby Brown He can't hold a note in person period
2006-08-26 05:22:17 · answer #5 · answered by D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
music-business. those two words should have never met, music is not a business it is an art.
Also most people no longer have time to listen to proper music anymore, so instead we are bombarded with the aural candyfloss that passes for music now.
2006-08-26 07:04:39 · answer #6 · answered by andylefty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pop music was on top of the world in 1999-2000 then after that it steadily declined....
2006-08-26 05:12:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
pop music has lost the plot, its not worth listening to anything thats been produced for the last few years, I wait in anticipation for something to change, a revival is desperately needed of good musical techniques and vocals before I die of boredom.
2006-08-26 05:18:10 · answer #8 · answered by pps 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No on today is talented in the least.
Its either totally fake and made in the studio or guys screaming... I hate it.
2006-08-26 05:14:14 · answer #9 · answered by Kayte 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just like a bag of stale chips.....throw it out.
2006-08-26 05:12:54 · answer #10 · answered by Hairy Lime 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋