Haters spread his name around more than his fans. On youtube videos that have nothing to do with him, the comments are filled wih hateful references. Also to "Twilight". The Kardashians are famous for everyone making a big deal out of a sextape, and now they are for everyone not shutting up about them. The most I hear about them is when someone is complaining about them. How are they supposed to not be famous if no one ignores them?
I agree, too. I think much of Bieber's present-day jerkassery may be due to this in fact. At least that could be one of the reasons. The Selina Gomez breakup can only explain so much.I agree, but on the other hand, I have no pity for Bieber or Twilight. So, yeah. I find it really funny to watch him be hated, because I can only imagine how much that fucks up his head even more, and I lack pity for anyone who gets famous based on executives rather than their talent. More people know who Justin Bieber is than know who Trent Reznor is. The list of instruments Trent doesn't play is extremely fucking short, considering he plays all the music for NIN in studio, with the rest of the band existing because Trent Reznor only has two arms and therefore can't do it all live. So yeah, seeing talentless hacks like Beiber get famous pisses me off.
I prefer that he was the cute, mop-haired girlish prettyboy than the thug wannabee he's trying to be now. Even though all his musical output is pure plastic bubblegum, I never had any real hate for the guy. I hate what he became, though. I'd rather Bieber be a cute, mop-top, smiling, down-to-earth, playful prettyboy that folks made fun of than the young slug in stupid "ghetto" clothes with the Vanilla Ice hair, dorky owl tattoo & peeing/spitting on everything habit (that makes everyone barf). He wants so hard to be "a maaaaan" that he's acting like a rabid baboon.
This is what the "Macho Masculine Kyriarchal Ideal" does to ya, kids....especially if you happen to be slow-developing, baby-faced 18-19 year old men who have barely left puberty.
The pressures of fame could be a factor, too....or perhaps he was always a brat, who knows?
Frankly, it's apparently considered "cool" to have a rabid hatedom for certain groups, musicians, shows, etc. and the people who like them. Look, some folks dig Green Day, Skrillex, Boston, Britney Spears, Bjork, Motorhead, Gilligan's Island, The Brady Bunch, Twilight, Justin Bieber, or whatever...they should GET OVER IT! Just because they loathe it doesn't mean they have to loudly broadcast it to the point of being a bullying idiot. The hater looks even more ridiculous than the stuff/fans they decry.
Same goes for haters of Furries & LARPers. Who cares? Some folks dig anthropomorphic critter-people, some like live-action role-playing. They're not hurting anyone. Let them be. People who hate those guys are like the Jocks & Cheerleaders ('OOOOhhhh! NEEEEERDS!'). Screw them! Noone's putting a gun to their head and forcing them to don a wizard gettup or goofy animal suit! Let's the dorks be dorks! Dorkiness can be neat! Weirdness results in creativity! I'd rather see a guy with a hard-on for the voluptuous delights of Minerva Mink than, say, an actual mink...or a 4 year old!
I occasionally like to poke fun at Bieber and Twilight, but the degree of hatred present for both on the internet is more than a little extreme.
The "hurr he's a girl" thing (regarding either Bieber or the main vampire in Twilight) is also mildly sexist, as it's based upon and perpetuates BS gender roles, even if it's a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Same with the "hurr he's gay" stuff, swapping out "sexist" for "homophobic".
That sounds amazingly awesome.I occasionally like to poke fun at Bieber and Twilight, but the degree of hatred present for both on the internet is more than a little extreme.
The "hurr he's a girl" thing (regarding either Bieber or the main vampire in Twilight) is also mildly sexist, as it's based upon and perpetuates BS gender roles, even if it's a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Same with the "hurr he's gay" stuff, swapping out "sexist" for "homophobic".
Last March, I heard an elderly transwoman make jokes about Justin Bieber being overly effeminate... That threw me through a loop.
Also as to the Twilight hate, Vampires don't sparkle just saying...
Beiber is just another celebrity trainwreck in the making, I frankly don't care that much about him except to be mildly amused by his bizarre antics.
Also as to the Twilight hate, Vampires don't sparkle just saying...
OK, here's the thing. I don't like Twilight, I think the plot is clichéd and uninteresting and it has fucked up aspects like the "stalking is love" thing and the whatever the fuck with the werewolf's true love being a newborn child. And the fact I even know that is worrying in itself.
All that being said, I'm tired of the whole "Real vampires don't sparkle!" deal. There's no such thing as real vampires. Pretty much every fictional universe's version of vampires is different from every other's. Bram Stoker's Dracula didn't burn up in the sun, had a dozen different weaknesses with different kinds of plants (garlic being the only one that made it into mainstream vampire lore), wasn't killed by a wooden stake but by cutting off his throat and stabbing him with a knife through the heart. Plenty of vampire stories decide to drop the "ask for permission before entering a house" thing, or the "can be distracted by dropping lots of tiny objects" thing, or the weakness to religious icons, or change the way turning works, and so on and so forth. Twilight is not exceptional in this regard. Twilight vampires are undead humans that sustain themselves through drinking blood and can turn other humans into vampire; that's more or less the basic core of vampirism. Is sparkling silly? Yeah. So is not being able to cross running water.
Please carry on hating or not hating Bieber and Twilight.
That sounds pretty interesting. I'd like to see underground "Vampire bars" where people are willingly giving blood, since if you have enough people to donate it wouldn't have to kill them, and they could be getting paid top dollar.
Also as to the Twilight hate, Vampires don't sparkle just saying...
OK, here's the thing. I don't like Twilight, I think the plot is clichéd and uninteresting and it has fucked up aspects like the "stalking is love" thing and the whatever the fuck with the werewolf's true love being a newborn child. And the fact I even know that is worrying in itself.
All that being said, I'm tired of the whole "Real vampires don't sparkle!" deal. There's no such thing as real vampires. Pretty much every fictional universe's version of vampires is different from every other's. Bram Stoker's Dracula didn't burn up in the sun, had a dozen different weaknesses with different kinds of plants (garlic being the only one that made it into mainstream vampire lore), wasn't killed by a wooden stake but by cutting off his throat and stabbing him with a knife through the heart. Plenty of vampire stories decide to drop the "ask for permission before entering a house" thing, or the "can be distracted by dropping lots of tiny objects" thing, or the weakness to religious icons, or change the way turning works, and so on and so forth. Twilight is not exceptional in this regard. Twilight vampires are undead humans that sustain themselves through drinking blood and can turn other humans into vampire; that's more or less the basic core of vampirism. Is sparkling silly? Yeah. So is not being able to cross running water.
Please carry on hating or not hating Bieber and Twilight.
That leads me to another topic. Hyper-cynical, miserable, tragic movies/TV/music is popular when times are dark while happy/positive/non-tragic stuff is big when times are good. It makes no sense to me. If the world's in the toilet, why have that fact drilled in your head for entertainment? If I'm miserable, I wanna escapism, dammitt!
Ahh. Still, vampire bars would be interesting, since it would be cool to see a segment of humanity that gains from the vampire society, making money and living well for some of their blood.That sounds pretty interesting. I'd like to see underground "Vampire bars" where people are willingly giving blood, since if you have enough people to donate it wouldn't have to kill them, and they could be getting paid top dollar.
Actually, my vampires generally don't take enough blood to kill someone unless they're really being greedy or malicious. Namely because deaths attract attention which attracts trouble. I forgot to clarify.
The worse thing about Twilight are the movies with Kristen "I have the same facial expression for everything" Stewart.
The worse thing about Twilight are the movies with Kristen "I have the same facial expression for everything" Stewart.
The sad thing is, she IS capable of making facial expressions.
The people hiring her just don't want her to make them.
The worse thing about Twilight are the movies with Kristen "I have the same facial expression for everything" Stewart.
QUESTION: About that stupid 50 Shades Of Grey silliness. Forgive me for being an idiot but how is this a Twilight fanfic? I've read neither but what does a 3rd-rate ripoff of The Story of O involving an executive & his female employee have to do with teenagers, sparkly vampires & hunky Indigenous American werewolves?Not quite, it was originally a fanfic of Bella and Edward having rather graphic BDSM sex, but for obvious reasons they changed the characters and setting a bit (most notably making the female lead not be a school kid) for the commercial release.
All I can guess is that the main characters are Ed & Bella expys with different names & working in an office. The magical monster stuff removed & the BDSM stuff added. Other than that, I don't get it.
I like the excessive beiber hate, its nice and blatantly universalI could probably tolerate it a lot more if it were aimed at Skrillex instead. At least what Beiber shits out are actual songs rather than what I can only describe as white noise. Not to mention, Skrillex's fans are people who for the most part should really know better.
QUESTION: About that stupid 50 Shades Of Grey silliness. Forgive me for being an idiot but how is this a Twilight fanfic? I've read neither but what does a 3rd-rate ripoff of The Story of O involving an executive & his female employee have to do with teenagers, sparkly vampires & hunky Indigenous American werewolves?Not quite, it was originally a fanfic of Bella and Edward having rather graphic BDSM sex, but for obvious reasons they changed the characters and setting a bit (most notably making the female lead not be a school kid) for the commercial release.
All I can guess is that the main characters are Ed & Bella expys with different names & working in an office. The magical monster stuff removed & the BDSM stuff added. Other than that, I don't get it.
My problem with Bieber is the market failure he symbolises. He isn't a very good singer, but is paid well to do it. Why?Girls want to fuck him. Or it's an example of what the lowest common denominator can achieve, therefore giving hope to people who want to be rich and famous performers, but lack the skills to do so.
The worse thing about Twilight are the movies with Kristen "I have the same facial expression for everything" Stewart.
The sad thing is, she IS capable of making facial expressions.
The people hiring her just don't want her to make them.
Most people in Twilight, especially the leads, are like that because Stephanie Meyer is a hack. That's how she wants these characters to act.
"You damn kids today with yourI like the excessive beiber hate, its nice and blatantly universalI could probably tolerate it a lot more if it were aimed at Skrillex instead. At least what Beiber shits out are actual songs rather than what I can only describe as white noise. Not to mention, Skrillex's fans are people who for the most part should really know better.
Good on him. ~virtual high five~ Now, do something amazing so can forgettaboutit.He did play Cedric Diggory.
Before Twilight. He needs to do something new.Good on him. ~virtual high five~ Now, do something amazing so can forgettaboutit.He did play Cedric Diggory.
My problem with Bieber is the market failure he symbolises. He isn't a very good singer, but is paid well to do it. Why?Girls want to fuck him.
I agree, you'd think he was a child molester the way some people go on about him.Baby's music video does make him a bit like my least favorite vampire character in the history of fiction....
She'sThe worse thing about Twilight are the movies with Kristen "I have the same facial expression for everything" Stewart.
The sad thing is, she IS capable of making facial expressions.
The people hiring her just don't want her to make them.
Most people in Twilight, especially the leads, are like that because Stephanie Meyer is a hack. That's how she wants these characters to act.
The thing is with Kristen Stewart has the same facial expression in the other movies she's in. Snow White and the Huntsman would've been better if she wasn't the lead. Seriously, I spent the whole movie wishing for Chris Hemsworth to kill her.
Why on Earth would any director ever ask an actor to act badly?
Why on Earth would any director ever ask an actor to act badly?
I refuse to leave that as a rhetorical question. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StylisticSuck)
Why on Earth would any director ever ask an actor to act badly?
Why on Earth would any director ever ask an actor to act badly?
Quality is not the determining factor. Success is.
Look at how successful the Twilight movies are.
Typecasting sucks.
Typecasting sucks.
Not necesarily, if you can crave out your own niche, and have fun doing so. It doesn't have to be all bad.
Why on Earth would any director ever ask an actor to act badly?
Quality is not the determining factor. Success is.
Look at how successful the Twilight movies are.
As clear an example of market failure as there ever was.
We need heavy don't-be-shit regulation of the arts sector.
Why on Earth would any director ever ask an actor to act badly?
Quality is not the determining factor. Success is.
Look at how successful the Twilight movies are.
As clear an example of market failure as there ever was.
The solution to art you don't like is to, surprise surprise, avoid it
QuoteThe solution to art you don't like is to, surprise surprise, avoid it
This really oversimplifies things, as art shapes other art, & art I like can become art that I hate.
I don't think that we should control the media & ban certain ideas from publication, but I also wouldn't mind a bit of quality assurance sometimes.
"Quality control" could mean that only experienced/famous artists/producers/actors/whatev get their work published while the newcomers are censored or at least have to work their way up the ladder under the patronage of the more established artists. Or it could just mean that stuff that some board of censors does not like will not be published. And that's not totalitarian at all.
And the biggest problem still is that no one can agree on what is "good" art.
And even though Twilight has such a huge hatedom it also has a huge amount of die-hard fans so if we go by popularity then Twilight would be more likely to be seen as "quality art" than Star trek, My little pony or Red dwarf.
Eh. Bieber ain't any worse than the shit that was marketed to tweens in the 90's. Or the 80's. Or, for that matter, the 60's.
*what* objective standard? There is no objective standard to measure art by.Sure there is. That standard being what I say is good is good and what I say is shite is shite. If you disagree, then you're clearly an uncultured mouth-breather who wouldn't recognise good art if it sodomised you with a live hippo.
*what* objective standard? There is no objective standard to measure art by.
*what* objective standard? There is no objective standard to measure art by.Sure there is. That standard being what I say is good is good and what I say is shite is shite. If you disagree, then you're clearly an uncultured mouth-breather who wouldn't recognise good art if it sodomised you with a live hippo.
*what* objective standard? There is no objective standard to measure art by.
What the Hell were we even talking about? Oh yes, actors.
If your acting is devoid of emotional delivery, unless you are specifically portraying an emotionless character, then your acting is bad.
If this was a directing decision, then the directing is bad, & your acting is fine. Etc.
In any case, if someone says this is not a flaw, that does not mean that it is a subjective standard--it just means that person is an idiot.
Why on Earth would any director ever ask an actor to act badly?
Quality is not the determining factor. Success is.
Look at how successful the Twilight movies are.
As clear an example of market failure as there ever was.
We need heavy don't-be-shit regulation of the arts sector.
What has the market failed to do, exactly? Create a movie you like?
Quality is not the determining factor. Success is.
A market's price structure is supposed to lead to efficient outcomes (in the case of arts, that would be quality).
good artists have a better conception of what it is than people who are not.
Yeah, that sidesteps the vast majority of what I said. Besides, if all opinions on art are subjective, then this is inherently pointless. We can't prove or disprove our opinions in any meaningful sense, which means that they will always be valid, & there is no reason to reconsider them.Close.
Completely true, but you still lack a starting point.
A market's price structure is supposed to lead to efficient outcomes (in the case of arts, that would be quality). It does not do so. That is a market failure. How do you fix it? My first thought would be to get it out of the hands of "the market" (ie, corpoate executives) and back into the hands of people who actually love art, ie people who make it: film makers and so on. Why is this my first thought? How many times have you seen an awesome, innovative film proposal shot down or totally ruined by executive meddling justified on the grounds of market forces?I can't believe I'm about to defend Twilight's existence, but here we go. First off, and I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet (myself included), but Twilight is not art. It is, in fact, entertainment, nothing more than that. Its only purpose is to keep the target audience entertained for the duration of the film (that audience being teenage girls). Unlike art, it's not trying to open anyone's mind to new ideas and concepts or anything art tend to try to do. It's just a typical fantasy of stupid teenage girls, and as we saw, that's exactly what its target audience wanted. Now, if not only were the Twilight films but the majority of Hollywood's movies trying to be anything more than that and consistently failing to do so, then yes, that would be market failure. As it stands though, the Twilight movies were pretty much exactly what the target market demanded, ergo, it's not a market failure.
Obviously art is largely- not totally- subjective. Equally obviously, good artists have a better conception of what it is than people who are not.
Market failure is a concept within economic theory describing when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.In light of this, what would be your solution? Make the Twilight movies cheaper so there's more resources within the film industry left over to satisfy other demand? Do you have some other movie in mind that would appease not only to stupid teenage girls just as much as Twilight, but also appeal to some more discerning demographics in the process?
I don't know what you mean.
but Twilight is not art.
You were complaining about bad actors.
Sometimes those bad actors do have fans who like them. Arnold Schwarzenegger and The Rock started out as pretty bad actors. In my opinion they have improved over the years. Does this mean that they've earned their fame or should they have been replaced with other more talented actors when they first showed up for a role?
In fact, if we start banning art
My opinion is that rather than try to curb "bad" art we should just focus on finding that which interests us.
QuoteMarket failure is a concept within economic theory describing when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.In light of this, what would be your solution?
My first thought would be to get it out of the hands of "the market" (ie, corpoate executives) and back into the hands of people who actually love art, ie people who make it: film makers and so on.
Vampire teen romance is new? Is it because of the sparkles? It's because of the sparkles, isn't it?
I dunno how to do this best. Ultimately I would like a situation where the artistic community largely decides what they want to make, amongst themselves. Then they get the money to make it. One (imperfect) way of doing that is a government grants process, like the Australia council. That's how most serious art is funded, why not middlebrow stuff*? Another way might be a permanent endowment, a fund that provides money but does not have any control over content; a bit like the New York Times proprietor, or HBO. Yet another way might be a voucher system, where all citizens get a voucher representing government funding that can be cashed in to any registered whatever. All of these have problems, but they'd be I think better than the current system, the system that actually encourages shittiness.As I said though, stuff like Twilight is not art. As I said already, it's very low brow entertainment. There's a difference between the two. In all honesty, your argument just boils down to "I don't like stupid entertainment, therefore it should be eradicated". As I say to any pro-censorship knob-end, if you don't like it, then don't watch it. There's plenty of films in existence that are sure to please your oh-so refined and cultured tastes. Just go watch those and ignore the likes of Twilight and Epic Movie and whatnot. Just don't try to claim that the economy as a whole has failed and requires government intervention just because films that you don't like exist.
This also has the benefit of making art free, and ending bullshit copywrite complaints.
* I don't even hate Twilight that much. At least, for all its annoying technical flaws, it is a somewhat new story- kinda. The trend I hate most of all in the entertainment industry is towards total emphasis on style with no resources put into plots, which are usually pre-fabricated.
In the same way, you are also advocating censorship. In fact, everyone who thinks that a movie should or should not be made advocates censorship, according to your busted definition.
There's a difference between saying "I don't care for X" and "The government should do Y specifically to prevent X from existing".
I'm absolutely not advocating censorship. In fact, I want to remove market censorship, if by censorship we mean restrictions on the type of speech that is likely to be expressed. I think that movie directors should have more role in deciding what movies get made, not incompetent executives.You know that Hollywood is not the beginning and end of the global film industry, right? You want something a bit more high brow or that pushes the envelope beyond what some executive or investor thinks is acceptable, look elsewhere. You're sure to find something that suits your tastes.
In a way, that is a kind of censorship. I don't want X to happen, I want Y to happen. But that's very, very common.
There's a difference between saying "I don't care for X" and "The government should do Y specifically to prevent X from existing".
I'm absolutely not advocating censorship. In fact, I want to remove market censorship, if by censorship we mean restrictions on the type of speech that is likely to be expressed. I think that movie directors should have more role in deciding what movies get made, not incompetent executives.
In a way, that is a kind of censorship. I don't want X to happen, I want Y to happen. But that's very, very common.
I would like to point out something.Honestly, I'm not impressed with any of the movies, having watched them as an adult, and analyzing them as I go. I am convinced at this point that the original trilogy was successful for the same reason as the prequels, being their state-of-the-art effects, and are largely considered better for nostalgic reasons. That said, I still love the creativity that's been spawned from the Star Wars franchise. I would love to have a shelf full of the books alone, though I'm honestly not all that concerned about getting the movies themselves (though that could be little more than I'm not really a movie person).
Star Wars 4, 5, and 6 were what happened when George Lucas was kept responsible by having people above him.
Star Wars 1, 2, and 3 were what happened when George Lucas was given full control of the franchise.
Surprisingly, artists can get high off of their own ego and release their shit because they think it doesn't stink.
And I say this as someone who enjoyed the prequel trilogy more than most people did.
There's a difference between saying "I don't care for X" and "The government should do Y specifically to prevent X from existing".
I'm absolutely not advocating censorship. In fact, I want to remove market censorship, if by censorship we mean restrictions on the type of speech that is likely to be expressed. I think that movie directors should have more role in deciding what movies get made, not incompetent executives.
In a way, that is a kind of censorship. I don't want X to happen, I want Y to happen. But that's very, very common.
Ever hear of New Hollywood?
It was big around the 1970s, though it started in the 60s. It's the movement that gave us people like Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Polanski, Stanley Kubrick, and Martin Scorsese. Some of the biggest names in directing, especially when it comes to True Art. The whole point behind this era of Hollywood was abandoning the Golden Age and the studio system, which was based around executives making what earned the studios the most money. Directors held much more creative control than before, actors were coming from all sorts of nationalities and backgrounds (rather than the Golden Age's consistent white bread image), and taboos were being broken down. You got sex, violence, and True Art.
For a while, it was good. The Godfather and Apocalypse Now are two big names to come out of this time period. Same with stuff like Taxi Driver and Easy Rider. Everyone's seen films from the New Hollywood period. The major studios failed at the time (as they were trying to copy the success of The Sound of Music with big budget musicals that never profited), so they handed a ton of creative control to these directors.
The problem is that handing over total creative control to the artists isn't the way to go. And that was proven when the New Hollywood directors started making flops. They had gotten so much power that they were essentially protected from anyone who could reign in their egos or tell them that they were making mistakes or overstepping their boundaries. Heaven's Gate is the most infamous, being a gigantic, big budget Western with a ridiculously troubled production that flopped at the box office and lost everyone a lot of money, but it was a similar story across the board. Francis Ford Coppola has remained under the radar for ages despite being literally one of the most famous directors period. Michael Cimino made The Deer Hunter, but the aforementioned Western means that he's directed only 5 things since then, and only one was in the 2000s.
Giving total creative control to the creators seems like a good idea to someone who hasn't actually tried to work with them. Artists in all venues are flawed. Quite a few of them don't understand business as well as they do their art, which can turn a brilliant project into a travesty when they realize that they can't budget properly, or their magnum opus has essentially no appeal to anyone outside of a very specific demographic. Full artist control works on a small scale, like cheap indie films and small local art galleries. But as soon as you hit the big leagues, those nasty executives can actually tell you how to make enough money for your next work without alienating a lot of people. At the very least, you need people who are grounded enough to identify your mistakes and have the balls to tell you that you're fucking up.
tl;dr We tried your idea already, Fred. It worked for less than 20 years before it imploded.
I would like to point out something.Honestly, I'm not impressed with any of the movies, having watched them as an adult, and analyzing them as I go. I am convinced at this point that the original trilogy was successful for the same reason as the prequels, being their state-of-the-art effects, and are largely considered better for nostalgic reasons. That said, I still love the creativity that's been spawned from the Star Wars franchise. I would love to have a shelf full of the books alone, though I'm honestly not all that concerned about getting the movies themselves (though that could be little more than I'm not really a movie person).
Star Wars 4, 5, and 6 were what happened when George Lucas was kept responsible by having people above him.
Star Wars 1, 2, and 3 were what happened when George Lucas was given full control of the franchise.
Surprisingly, artists can get high off of their own ego and release their shit because they think it doesn't stink.
And I say this as someone who enjoyed the prequel trilogy more than most people did.
I think the answer is something between the present system of "Big Clueless Executive Meddling Over EVERYTHING" & The New Hollywood System of "Give The Moviemakers So Much Creative Control That Their Egos Get So Big That Their Work Becomes Crap". I feel the same about the music industry. Both sides should work together & compromise. Executives should respect the artist's vision but still be there to streamline the technical stuff & certain plot points/musical elements that wont work.
Also, Executives need to embrace variety. Embrace both intelligent music alongside the Bieberesque bubblegum. The social-conscious Rap along with the "Booty Bling" crap. Intelligent, thought provoking cinema alongside explosions-superheroes-and-sequels schlockfests.
Likewise, Network Decay needs to be curbed a bit. Discovery, TLC & Animal Planet should be strictly based in science & facts. History Channel should be about real history. The "Ancient Astronaut", paranormal, cryptozoology, UFO, In Search Of/Ghost Adventures-type stuff should be put into it's own "Paranormal Channel" (as do the mockumentaries about modern-day megaladons & those mermaids). MTV & VH1 should stick to stuff involving music, be they videos, dance shows, documentaries. Reality shows should have their own network.
Much Executive Meddling these days seems malevolent with the purpose of making the masses brain-dead. Until this trend is dealt with, the Indie Movie/TV/News/Music industry is what we need for "something completely different).
Not always. Sometimes, the biggest successes have come out of telling the artist to do what they want. I'll use the Interscope/Nothing saga as an example. Interscope knew that they would screw up if they tried to meddle too much in Trent Reznor's (NIN) affairs. Because of that, they gave him Nothing Records, and proceeded to let him do things his way, with NIN releasing albums rather slowly. They quickly learned not to fight him after he won by threatening to leave if they didn't let him sign his first band to Nothing. Luckily for Interscope, that was Marilyn Manson. While they were meddling at times, Manson, Reznor and the rest of Nothing were mainly left alone. However, after Nothing folded, Manson stayed on Interscope, but left after his 2009 album because they wouldn't leave him the hell alone, and started "Hell, Etc." at Cooking Vinyl. So, how'd that turn out?QuoteI think the answer is something between the present system of "Big Clueless Executive Meddling Over EVERYTHING" & The New Hollywood System of "Give The Moviemakers So Much Creative Control That Their Egos Get So Big That Their Work Becomes Crap". I feel the same about the music industry. Both sides should work together & compromise. Executives should respect the artist's vision but still be there to streamline the technical stuff & certain plot points/musical elements that wont work.
Also, Executives need to embrace variety. Embrace both intelligent music alongside the Bieberesque bubblegum. The social-conscious Rap along with the "Booty Bling" crap. Intelligent, thought provoking cinema alongside explosions-superheroes-and-sequels schlockfests.
Likewise, Network Decay needs to be curbed a bit. Discovery, TLC & Animal Planet should be strictly based in science & facts. History Channel should be about real history. The "Ancient Astronaut", paranormal, cryptozoology, UFO, In Search Of/Ghost Adventures-type stuff should be put into it's own "Paranormal Channel" (as do the mockumentaries about modern-day megaladons & those mermaids). MTV & VH1 should stick to stuff involving music, be they videos, dance shows, documentaries. Reality shows should have their own network.
Much Executive Meddling these days seems malevolent with the purpose of making the masses brain-dead. Until this trend is dealt with, the Indie Movie/TV/News/Music industry is what we need for "something completely different).
The problem is that what you ask for is impossible. Artists and executives are two very different people, even when they have overlap in their knowledge and interests. They need to work together, but both of them are going to be talking from different points: executives need to actually make money, while artists need their vision out there. You can be artistic and rant about "integrity" all you want, but it's a pipe dream if you don't have cash. Sometimes you NEED to violate the artist's vision, up to an including dropping his work altogether if he won't acknowledge it, because it would alienate too many people and lead to a loss of money. If you lose money, you don't get to make anything. Period. And sometimes, the artist's vision is really fucking shitty.
In its first week on sale, Born Villain broke iTunes Top 10 album charts in 22 countries, placing eighth in Poland; seventh in Ireland; sixth in the Czech Republic; fourth in Japan and Canada; third in Germany, Denmark and Spain; second in the United Kingdom, Austria, Finland, Italy, Norway, Spain and Japan; and first in Belgium, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland,[34] Luxembourg,[35] France and the United States; in the United States, the album peaked at number three on the iTunes chart for all genres.[36] By May 3, Born Villain claimed the top position of Loudwire's Top Rock Albums of 2012 (So Far) list.[37] The album made it's debut at number 10 on the Billboard 200, number 3 on the Billboard Rock Albums, number 1 on the Billboard Hard Rock Albums Chart, number 1 on the Billboard Independent Albums Chart, number 2 on the Billboard Alternative Album Chart, number 5 on the Billboard German Album Chart, number 8 on Billboard Canadian Album Chart, number 10 on the Billboard Digital Albums Chart, and number 4 on the Billboard Tastemaker Albums Chart.
We always talk about the bad executive meddling. But what about the good kind? In the infamous Spider-Man "I was molested by Skip" story, the original molester was Uncle Ben. Executives put a kibosh on that because it was horrible. In Star Trek: Insurrection, executives pointed out a lot of the plot holes and Fridge Logic and were promptly ignored. Kevin Smith couldn't sell Clerks until he removed the downer ending with Dante being killed in a robbery, which would have basically killed any future work with the setting and characters. One of the best examples is replacing Edward Norton with Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner, a change that pretty much everyone agrees was for the better (and inspired by Norton being a bitch to work with).
On the subject of pop music and braindead culture......you think it's any different? Entertainment has ALWAYS been in that realm! People want entertainment, and not everyone wants to think or watch and listen to a lot of high art. Sometimes you just need a decent tune to play in the background, or a movie that lets you turn off your brain for a while. People have always and will always demand simple, mass produced crap because you don't WANT to be thinking or be introspective all the time. A lot of the "classics" in music, film, and art were that same mass produced crap. A lot of the popular classic rock that people are still playing were essentially identical to modern day "Fuck bitches, get money" hip-hop. They just had guitar solos instead of a guy making stupid faces in front of a camera and throwing play money everywhere. Leather pants and makeup were replaced with clothing five sizes too big and covered in labels. Motley Crue's early albums (and quite a bit of their later stuff) are just as braindead and shallow as the stuff their fans criticize today.
And again, it makes money. You can't make your intelligent, Thinking Man's Films without money. Big action movies, sequels, and remakes actually get money for people to make what they want. Many directors and actors have done stuff that they didn't personally enjoy (or stuff that they DID enjoy for purely shallow reasons, like "I just wanted to be a vampire and ham it up") because it gave them the cash to do the good, introspective stuff. Bieber, Lil Wayne, and Michael Bay all serve an important purpose that you tend to forget. The concept of a perfect world where executives always make the right decisions and artists always understand what they need to cut or change is absolutely blind optimism.
Except Seltzer & Friedburg. Those two can fuck right the fuck off out of the industry.That's true.
I have no issue with that. I get they need money. I just know that there a million skilled, awesome bands that would make just as much money for the executives if they told told the public to like that instead.
Almost all music has patterns. There's only so many ways a song can go. Admittedly, there is songs in other genres that are unpredictable and genres that are unpredictable, but at the same time, if the executives push something, that is what becomes popular. So long as it has a pattern, which most music has, that will still happen. In the end, it's what the executives pushed.QuoteI have no issue with that. I get they need money. I just know that there a million skilled, awesome bands that would make just as much money for the executives if they told told the public to like that instead.
The problem is that you're assuming that the public is "told to like it." They're not. Our brain responds well to patterns, including in music (http://science.time.com/2013/04/15/music/). Everyone knows how a pop song will go, and our brains are outright demanding predictability so it can reward itself with figuring out the pattern. That's why this stuff is popular: the public is demanding it from the executives, not vice versa.
Not always. Sometimes, the biggest successes have come out of telling the artist to do what they want. I'll use the Interscope/Nothing saga as an example. Interscope knew that they would screw up if they tried to meddle too much in Trent Reznor's (NIN) affairs. Because of that, they gave him Nothing Records, and proceeded to let him do things his way, with NIN releasing albums rather slowly. They quickly learned not to fight him after he won by threatening to leave if they didn't let him sign his first band to Nothing. Luckily for Interscope, that was Marilyn Manson. While they were meddling at times, Manson, Reznor and the rest of Nothing were mainly left alone. However, after Nothing folded, Manson stayed on Interscope, but left after his 2009 album because they wouldn't leave him the hell alone, and started "Hell, Etc." at Cooking Vinyl. So, how'd that turn out?
Or, in other words, you pissed off a cash cow, and he left. In fact, Reznor went completely unsigned a bit before Manson left. Interscope didn't know to stop meddling. Their best times came from when they knew to back off and let the artist do his vision. Basically, meddle in the new guy if you must. After he proves himself, back the fuck off, unless he's going to do something insane.
I'll admit, those are good. I'm not saying to not meddle. The "Sweet Dreams" single was forced by Interscope. However, that said, those were either massive, horrible backstory changes, the job of an editor, and in that one, I don't know if I like messing with his artistic vision, even if it was good for the franchise. However, an actor change like that is pretty normal.
You had to have skill. It was braindead, but it was skillfully made. It took talent to do a guitar solo. It does not take talent to do an autotuned song with computer-music. Rap, I will admit, takes skill. Autotune does not. Motley Crue had (and have, saw them and KISS in 2012) skill. Singing and instrument playing took skill.
It gets pushed because that's exactly what works. People aren't just drones. They eat up crappy pop music because their brains respond well to it and they buy it when it gets put up for sale.Pretty much, I understand what you're saying. My major issue is not the content, but the skill, and true on Trent. Regarding Manson, he broke up with Evan Rachel-Wood (the 19 year old) in 2009 (they were engaged), and he's with a photographer named Lindsay and has been for a while. Born Villain, the one from last year, is the first Post-Interscope album, and Eat Me, Drink Me and The High End of Low were... controversial with fans. That said, Born Villain has been less so, and has also, as I said, sold like hotcakes. Which is funny, because hotcakes? Not selling too well these days. I respect rap, even if I'm not a big fan. And, hair metal worked just as well as pop. It was braindead, but it took skill and was fun. Plus, the dudes were attractive, so there's that.
Since I didn't have time to address the rest of your post before leaving today, I'll do that here.QuoteNot always. Sometimes, the biggest successes have come out of telling the artist to do what they want. I'll use the Interscope/Nothing saga as an example. Interscope knew that they would screw up if they tried to meddle too much in Trent Reznor's (NIN) affairs. Because of that, they gave him Nothing Records, and proceeded to let him do things his way, with NIN releasing albums rather slowly. They quickly learned not to fight him after he won by threatening to leave if they didn't let him sign his first band to Nothing. Luckily for Interscope, that was Marilyn Manson. While they were meddling at times, Manson, Reznor and the rest of Nothing were mainly left alone. However, after Nothing folded, Manson stayed on Interscope, but left after his 2009 album because they wouldn't leave him the hell alone, and started "Hell, Etc." at Cooking Vinyl. So, how'd that turn out?
Or, in other words, you pissed off a cash cow, and he left. In fact, Reznor went completely unsigned a bit before Manson left. Interscope didn't know to stop meddling. Their best times came from when they knew to back off and let the artist do his vision. Basically, meddle in the new guy if you must. After he proves himself, back the fuck off, unless he's going to do something insane.
Well, some people still don't really like Manson's latest albums. I've actually heard more criticism than positive reviews in spite of the sale numbers (I was still tracking his work back when he was with Dita Von Teese, then that one girl who was way younger than him; yes, I do acknowledge current Manson by which chick he was dating). So the quality of his post-Interscope stuff (and even his late Interscope) is up for debate. It's not an either-or thing.
That said, Reznor is a minority; he's done plenty of Nine Inch Nails stuff, but he also collaborates with tons of musicians and singers, films, video games, and other ventures. He came onto the scene as industrial was starting to become popular, which let him hit it big. The fact that he can be a downright industrial virtuoso at times makes him a very good person to make music for works that require that kind of tone. He had already earned clout through being a major part of a relatively popular genre.QuoteI'll admit, those are good. I'm not saying to not meddle. The "Sweet Dreams" single was forced by Interscope. However, that said, those were either massive, horrible backstory changes, the job of an editor, and in that one, I don't know if I like messing with his artistic vision, even if it was good for the franchise. However, an actor change like that is pretty normal.
The job of an editor, but it was an executive who noticed the problems. When something or someone is a cash cow, especially if their vision is successful a few times, they tend to get protection from the editors. At that point, it really does take someone higher up the chain to come in and stop them if they're making a mistake, as they often don't want to listen to anyone else regardless of their position. That's the danger with trying to take the accountants and marketers out of the equation too much. Sometimes they're wrong, but sometimes they're really, really right.QuoteYou had to have skill. It was braindead, but it was skillfully made. It took talent to do a guitar solo. It does not take talent to do an autotuned song with computer-music. Rap, I will admit, takes skill. Autotune does not. Motley Crue had (and have, saw them and KISS in 2012) skill. Singing and instrument playing took skill.
Skill, but it was still the same content. They may have performed with more talent, but their message was exactly the same. They sounded good, but it was essentially pop music for rock and metal fans. Even Guns n' Roses (who made quite a few songs about the dirty life and the danger of drugs) had a few songs not for the thinking man, like "Paradise City". Rock and metal bands, talent or not, could still be just as brainless, misogynistic, and "party hard" as contemporary pop and rap stars.
That said, I hate rap even though I understand the difficulty of it. I can't rap on command and one of my friends is downright genius with how he does it. I just despise it as an art form.
It gets pushed because that's exactly what works. People aren't just drones. They eat up crappy pop music because their brains respond well to it and they buy it when it gets put up for sale.Pretty much, I understand what you're saying. My major issue is not the content, but the skill, and true on Trent. Regarding Manson, he broke up with Evan Rachel-Wood (the 19 year old) in 2009 (they were engaged), and he's with a photographer named Lindsay and has been for a while. Born Villain, the one from last year, is the first Post-Interscope album, and Eat Me, Drink Me and The High End of Low were... controversial with fans. That said, Born Villain has been less so, and has also, as I said, sold like hotcakes. Which is funny, because hotcakes? Not selling too well these days. I respect rap, even if I'm not a big fan. And, hair metal worked just as well as pop. It was braindead, but it took skill and was fun. Plus, the dudes were attractive, so there's that.
Since I didn't have time to address the rest of your post before leaving today, I'll do that here.QuoteNot always. Sometimes, the biggest successes have come out of telling the artist to do what they want. I'll use the Interscope/Nothing saga as an example. Interscope knew that they would screw up if they tried to meddle too much in Trent Reznor's (NIN) affairs. Because of that, they gave him Nothing Records, and proceeded to let him do things his way, with NIN releasing albums rather slowly. They quickly learned not to fight him after he won by threatening to leave if they didn't let him sign his first band to Nothing. Luckily for Interscope, that was Marilyn Manson. While they were meddling at times, Manson, Reznor and the rest of Nothing were mainly left alone. However, after Nothing folded, Manson stayed on Interscope, but left after his 2009 album because they wouldn't leave him the hell alone, and started "Hell, Etc." at Cooking Vinyl. So, how'd that turn out?
Or, in other words, you pissed off a cash cow, and he left. In fact, Reznor went completely unsigned a bit before Manson left. Interscope didn't know to stop meddling. Their best times came from when they knew to back off and let the artist do his vision. Basically, meddle in the new guy if you must. After he proves himself, back the fuck off, unless he's going to do something insane.
Well, some people still don't really like Manson's latest albums. I've actually heard more criticism than positive reviews in spite of the sale numbers (I was still tracking his work back when he was with Dita Von Teese, then that one girl who was way younger than him; yes, I do acknowledge current Manson by which chick he was dating). So the quality of his post-Interscope stuff (and even his late Interscope) is up for debate. It's not an either-or thing.
That said, Reznor is a minority; he's done plenty of Nine Inch Nails stuff, but he also collaborates with tons of musicians and singers, films, video games, and other ventures. He came onto the scene as industrial was starting to become popular, which let him hit it big. The fact that he can be a downright industrial virtuoso at times makes him a very good person to make music for works that require that kind of tone. He had already earned clout through being a major part of a relatively popular genre.QuoteI'll admit, those are good. I'm not saying to not meddle. The "Sweet Dreams" single was forced by Interscope. However, that said, those were either massive, horrible backstory changes, the job of an editor, and in that one, I don't know if I like messing with his artistic vision, even if it was good for the franchise. However, an actor change like that is pretty normal.
The job of an editor, but it was an executive who noticed the problems. When something or someone is a cash cow, especially if their vision is successful a few times, they tend to get protection from the editors. At that point, it really does take someone higher up the chain to come in and stop them if they're making a mistake, as they often don't want to listen to anyone else regardless of their position. That's the danger with trying to take the accountants and marketers out of the equation too much. Sometimes they're wrong, but sometimes they're really, really right.QuoteYou had to have skill. It was braindead, but it was skillfully made. It took talent to do a guitar solo. It does not take talent to do an autotuned song with computer-music. Rap, I will admit, takes skill. Autotune does not. Motley Crue had (and have, saw them and KISS in 2012) skill. Singing and instrument playing took skill.
Skill, but it was still the same content. They may have performed with more talent, but their message was exactly the same. They sounded good, but it was essentially pop music for rock and metal fans. Even Guns n' Roses (who made quite a few songs about the dirty life and the danger of drugs) had a few songs not for the thinking man, like "Paradise City". Rock and metal bands, talent or not, could still be just as brainless, misogynistic, and "party hard" as contemporary pop and rap stars.
That said, I hate rap even though I understand the difficulty of it. I can't rap on command and one of my friends is downright genius with how he does it. I just despise it as an art form.
On the subject of Star Wars, I really hope the majority of the EU isn't thrown by the way side, I've invested way too much time into it.
That being said:
1. I never understood Lucas's hatred of Mara Jade.
2. *pulls out DL-44 heavy blaster pistol* I demand there be a movie made off of the Darth Plagueis novel, and I demand one of the most perfect British bastards alive be cast as a young Palpatine. I'm willing to do ANYTHING for this to happen.
On the subject of Star Wars, I really hope the majority of the EU isn't thrown by the way side, I've invested way too much time into it.
On the subject of Star Wars, I really hope the majority of the EU isn't thrown by the way side, I've invested way too much time into it.
That being said:
1. I never understood Lucas's hatred of Mara Jade.
2. *pulls out DL-44 heavy blaster pistol* I demand there be a movie made off of the Darth Plagueis novel, and I demand one of the most perfect British bastards alive be cast as a young Palpatine. I'm willing to do ANYTHING for this to happen.
Any particular British bastards in mind?
On the subject of Star Wars, I really hope the majority of the EU isn't thrown by the way side, I've invested way too much time into it.
As far as we know, that's what's going to happen. The new movies are going to be sequels not based on any of the novels, comics, video games, etc.
For those who don't know, canon in Star Wars is set up like a pyramid: movies at the top, then novelizations of the movies, then EU novels, then comics, then video games, etc. Anything that contradicts a level above it is non-canon, though often only that particular contradiction is removed. So all of the battles and missions that are exclusive to the video games are canon as long as no novels, comics, or films specifically state that they could not have happened. And any specific details in said battles are removed from the equation if a higher authority contradicts them, but the rest of it is there. It's a relatively easy way to handle fights about canon and ensures that the universe can actually continue expanding.
Currently, Episodes VII, VIII, and XI are going to be original stories. Timothy Zahn said that years ago, Lucas said that he'd do it as "three generations", so the third trilogy would likely deal with Luke's children. He also confirmed that it won't be dealing with the Thrawn Trilogy.
The problem is that because the movies are the highest canon, anything that they contradict will be made invalid unless they change the canon hierarchy. It would completely wreck the current understanding of the fictional universe. Imagine the results of J.K. Rowling creating a Harry Potter prequel series that completely changes how magic works, replaces Voldemort's backstory, and changes Harry's birth date at the end of the last book. That's the kind of shakeup this would be.
I think it's doable to create an original story that could take place at the same time without fucking up the EU storyline too much.
And they're always adding on to it, adding new story lines and whatnot. I personally feel they're not going to fuck things up too much, maybe a small change here and there, but nothing major.
Apparently, they're doing the Emperor's clone thing (http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/08/12/star-wars-episode-vii-will-reportedly-bring-back-emperor-palpatine/). So, they're using some book stuff.
True, but they're not saying "for a cameo". Normally they specify cameos.Apparently, they're doing the Emperor's clone thing (http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/08/12/star-wars-episode-vii-will-reportedly-bring-back-emperor-palpatine/). So, they're using some book stuff.
Well, "maybe." That article only confirms that Episode VII will have Ian McDiarmid coming back as Palpatine. It could be the Emperor's clone. Or it could be a Force ghost. Or a flashback. Or an android. Or a dream. Or hallucination. Or....
QuoteI have no issue with that. I get they need money. I just know that there a million skilled, awesome bands that would make just as much money for the executives if they told told the public to like that instead.
The problem is that you're assuming that the public is "told to like it." They're not. Our brain responds well to patterns, including in music (http://science.time.com/2013/04/15/music/). Everyone knows how a pop song will go, and our brains are outright demanding predictability so it can reward itself with figuring out the pattern. That's why this stuff is popular: the public is demanding it from the executives, not vice versa.
QuoteI have no issue with that. I get they need money. I just know that there a million skilled, awesome bands that would make just as much money for the executives if they told told the public to like that instead.
The problem is that you're assuming that the public is "told to like it." They're not. Our brain responds well to patterns, including in music (http://science.time.com/2013/04/15/music/). Everyone knows how a pop song will go, and our brains are outright demanding predictability so it can reward itself with figuring out the pattern. That's why this stuff is popular: the public is demanding it from the executives, not vice versa.
Be careful about universalising Western music. Guess where Western tonality isn't the norm? Most of the world.
QuoteI have no issue with that. I get they need money. I just know that there a million skilled, awesome bands that would make just as much money for the executives if they told told the public to like that instead.
The problem is that you're assuming that the public is "told to like it." They're not. Our brain responds well to patterns, including in music (http://science.time.com/2013/04/15/music/). Everyone knows how a pop song will go, and our brains are outright demanding predictability so it can reward itself with figuring out the pattern. That's why this stuff is popular: the public is demanding it from the executives, not vice versa.
Be careful about universalising Western music. Guess where Western tonality isn't the norm? Most of the world.
Read the article I posted, and you'll see that they covered that exact same thing. Pop music is different in different countries, but pop is still pop: they all follow similar patterns that are popular in that culture.
Pop is a little over fifty. It simply is not universal. It just isn't. Our modern preference for very simple music is not hardwired into our brains.
Fred, you're actually kinda wrong. There was a song about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yydlX7c8HbY). America's culture displaces everyone else's. As the song says, "we're all living in America".QuoteI have no issue with that. I get they need money. I just know that there a million skilled, awesome bands that would make just as much money for the executives if they told told the public to like that instead.
The problem is that you're assuming that the public is "told to like it." They're not. Our brain responds well to patterns, including in music (http://science.time.com/2013/04/15/music/). Everyone knows how a pop song will go, and our brains are outright demanding predictability so it can reward itself with figuring out the pattern. That's why this stuff is popular: the public is demanding it from the executives, not vice versa.
Be careful about universalising Western music. Guess where Western tonality isn't the norm? Most of the world.
Modern pop music is what some of us were raised on. I went to bed in elementary school with Powerman 5000, Disturbed and Kiss.QuotePop is a little over fifty. It simply is not universal. It just isn't. Our modern preference for very simple music is not hardwired into our brains.
No, the music that Western audiences perceive as "pop" is a little over 50. The article I linked specifically mentions how someone raised on Western music won't be able to predict patterns in Indian raga. However, the article's main point is how music's evolutionary purpose is likely linked to predicting patterns. Our brains respond well to being able to identify patterns. Different cultures have different ideas of common music, but what's consistent is that our brains are wired to respond positively to something predictable. It just so happens that modern pop music is what we're raised on, and thus what we can most easily predict.
QuoteI have no issue with that. I get they need money. I just know that there a million skilled, awesome bands that would make just as much money for the executives if they told told the public to like that instead.
The problem is that you're assuming that the public is "told to like it." They're not. Our brain responds well to patterns, including in music (http://science.time.com/2013/04/15/music/). Everyone knows how a pop song will go, and our brains are outright demanding predictability so it can reward itself with figuring out the pattern. That's why this stuff is popular: the public is demanding it from the executives, not vice versa.
Be careful about universalising Western music. Guess where Western tonality isn't the norm? Most of the world.
QuoteI have no issue with that. I get they need money. I just know that there a million skilled, awesome bands that would make just as much money for the executives if they told told the public to like that instead.
The problem is that you're assuming that the public is "told to like it." They're not. Our brain responds well to patterns, including in music (http://science.time.com/2013/04/15/music/). Everyone knows how a pop song will go, and our brains are outright demanding predictability so it can reward itself with figuring out the pattern. That's why this stuff is popular: the public is demanding it from the executives, not vice versa.
Be careful about universalising Western music. Guess where Western tonality isn't the norm? Most of the world.
My trips to England, Germany, and Belgium would prove you a little wrong there... It's just in a different language in some countries. There are even dance clubs and such who are very into American-made music.
Germany may be stuck two decades previous than this one when it comes to American music but it's there.
European pop culture is actually a few years behind American. When we did Game On!, it was made specifically for European cultural sensibilities. What this means is that if an American watches it, it seems hopelessly out of date. As in "Hannah Montana is relevant" out of date.
European pop culture is actually a few years behind American. When we did Game On!, it was made specifically for European cultural sensibilities. What this means is that if an American watches it, it seems hopelessly out of date. As in "Hannah Montana is relevant" out of date.
I don't think that pop culture is something that advances linearly. Like you could look at some song and say that this is 50 years behind another song. Pop culture changes as time goes on, that is true and the differences between Europe and North America are caused by the differences in the countries and their cultures and the local musicians do affect each other which causes variations in their circles as styles become popular or other influences are taken from others.
But saying that Europe is behind America sounds like we are using steam engines while you guys have nuclear power. Which is frankly insulting because I don't think that wether the kids listen to Scooter or Hannah Montana makes either group more or less advanced.
(And for the record, maybe Miss Montana hadn't gained pupolarity in Europe as quickly as she had in USA? Maybe some artists gain popularity in other countries later and if they seem "old news" in their homeland that is irrevelant since the music might be "new" to the people in other countries.)
European pop culture is actually a few years behind American. When we did Game On!, it was made specifically for European cultural sensibilities. What this means is that if an American watches it, it seems hopelessly out of date. As in "Hannah Montana is relevant" out of date.
I don't think that pop culture is something that advances linearly. Like you could look at some song and say that this is 50 years behind another song. Pop culture changes as time goes on, that is true and the differences between Europe and North America are caused by the differences in the countries and their cultures and the local musicians do affect each other which causes variations in their circles as styles become popular or other influences are taken from others.
But saying that Europe is behind America sounds like we are using steam engines while you guys have nuclear power. Which is frankly insulting because I don't think that wether the kids listen to Scooter or Hannah Montana makes either group more or less advanced.
(And for the record, maybe Miss Montana hadn't gained pupolarity in Europe as quickly as she had in USA? Maybe some artists gain popularity in other countries later and if they seem "old news" in their homeland that is irrevelant since the music might be "new" to the people in other countries.)
I agree, also you have to consider that stuff from America isn't even released in Europe at the same time it is there.
I'm spontaneously wondering how Eiffel 65 is doing today.
I'm spontaneously wondering how Eiffel 65 is doing today.
According to what I can find, still operating after officially reuniting in 2010. They're still touring (like a "mini-tour" in Australia) and are making slow progress on another album.
When I played Euro Truck Simulator 2, my trucker was based out of Germany. And it's game that lets you listen to any web radio it can access, especially ones based in the European countries. So, of course, I had him listen to Antenne Niedersachsen (http://www.antenne.com/musik-stars/webradio/).Apparently Diesel.og is an extremely popular trucking song over in Germany.
It can be a bit surreal listening to it. You can go from P!nk to HIM to Gavin DeGraw within literally seconds.
QuoteBe careful about universalising Western music. Guess where Western tonality isn't the norm? Most of the world.
My trips to England, Germany, and Belgium would prove you a little wrong there... It's just in a different language in some countries. There are even dance clubs and such who are very into American-made music.
Fred, you're actually kinda wrong. There was a song about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yydlX7c8HbY). America's culture displaces everyone else's. As the song says, "we're all living in America".QuoteI have no issue with that. I get they need money. I just know that there a million skilled, awesome bands that would make just as much money for the executives if they told told the public to like that instead.
The problem is that you're assuming that the public is "told to like it." They're not. Our brain responds well to patterns, including in music (http://science.time.com/2013/04/15/music/). Everyone knows how a pop song will go, and our brains are outright demanding predictability so it can reward itself with figuring out the pattern. That's why this stuff is popular: the public is demanding it from the executives, not vice versa.
Be careful about universalising Western music. Guess where Western tonality isn't the norm? Most of the world.
QuotePop is a little over fifty. It simply is not universal. It just isn't. Our modern preference for very simple music is not hardwired into our brains.
No, the music that Western audiences perceive as "pop" is a little over 50. The article I linked specifically mentions how someone raised on Western music won't be able to predict patterns in Indian raga. However, the article's main point is how music's evolutionary purpose is likely linked to predicting patterns. Our brains respond well to being able to identify patterns. Different cultures have different ideas of common music, but what's consistent is that our brains are wired to respond positively to something predictable. It just so happens that modern pop music is what we're raised on, and thus what we can most easily predict.
Ever hear of New Hollywood?
It was big around the 1970s, though it started in the 60s. It's the movement that gave us people like Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Polanski, Stanley Kubrick, and Martin Scorsese. Some of the biggest names in directing, especially when it comes to True Art. The whole point behind this era of Hollywood was abandoning the Golden Age and the studio system, which was based around executives making what earned the studios the most money. Directors held much more creative control than before, actors were coming from all sorts of nationalities and backgrounds (rather than the Golden Age's consistent white bread image), and taboos were being broken down. You got sex, violence, and True Art.
For a while, it was good. The Godfather and Apocalypse Now are two big names to come out of this time period. Same with stuff like Taxi Driver and Easy Rider. Everyone's seen films from the New Hollywood period. The major studios failed at the time (as they were trying to copy the success of The Sound of Music with big budget musicals that never profited), so they handed a ton of creative control to these directors.
The problem is that handing over total creative control to the artists isn't the way to go. And that was proven when the New Hollywood directors started making flops. They had gotten so much power that they were essentially protected from anyone who could reign in their egos or tell them that they were making mistakes or overstepping their boundaries. Heaven's Gate is the most infamous, being a gigantic, big budget Western with a ridiculously troubled production that flopped at the box office and lost everyone a lot of money, but it was a similar story across the board. Francis Ford Coppola has remained under the radar for ages despite being literally one of the most famous directors period. Michael Cimino made The Deer Hunter, but the aforementioned Western means that he's directed only 5 things since then, and only one was in the 2000s.
Giving total creative control to the creators seems like a good idea to someone who hasn't actually tried to work with them. Artists in all venues are flawed. Quite a few of them don't understand business as well as they do their art, which can turn a brilliant project into a travesty when they realize that they can't budget properly, or their magnum opus has essentially no appeal to anyone outside of a very specific demographic. Full artist control works on a small scale, like cheap indie films and small local art galleries. But as soon as you hit the big leagues, those nasty executives can actually tell you how to make enough money for your next work without alienating a lot of people. At the very least, you need people who are grounded enough to identify your mistakes and have the balls to tell you that you're fucking up.
tl;dr We tried your idea already, Fred. It worked for less than 20 years before it imploded.
Quality is not the determining factor. Success is.
Ever hear of New Hollywood?
It was big around the 1970s, though it started in the 60s. It's the movement that gave us people like Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Polanski, Stanley Kubrick, and Martin Scorsese. Some of the biggest names in directing, especially when it comes to True Art. The whole point behind this era of Hollywood was abandoning the Golden Age and the studio system, which was based around executives making what earned the studios the most money. Directors held much more creative control than before, actors were coming from all sorts of nationalities and backgrounds (rather than the Golden Age's consistent white bread image), and taboos were being broken down. You got sex, violence, and True Art.
For a while, it was good. The Godfather and Apocalypse Now are two big names to come out of this time period. Same with stuff like Taxi Driver and Easy Rider. Everyone's seen films from the New Hollywood period. The major studios failed at the time (as they were trying to copy the success of The Sound of Music with big budget musicals that never profited), so they handed a ton of creative control to these directors.
The problem is that handing over total creative control to the artists isn't the way to go. And that was proven when the New Hollywood directors started making flops. They had gotten so much power that they were essentially protected from anyone who could reign in their egos or tell them that they were making mistakes or overstepping their boundaries. Heaven's Gate is the most infamous, being a gigantic, big budget Western with a ridiculously troubled production that flopped at the box office and lost everyone a lot of money, but it was a similar story across the board. Francis Ford Coppola has remained under the radar for ages despite being literally one of the most famous directors period. Michael Cimino made The Deer Hunter, but the aforementioned Western means that he's directed only 5 things since then, and only one was in the 2000s.
Giving total creative control to the creators seems like a good idea to someone who hasn't actually tried to work with them. Artists in all venues are flawed. Quite a few of them don't understand business as well as they do their art, which can turn a brilliant project into a travesty when they realize that they can't budget properly, or their magnum opus has essentially no appeal to anyone outside of a very specific demographic. Full artist control works on a small scale, like cheap indie films and small local art galleries. But as soon as you hit the big leagues, those nasty executives can actually tell you how to make enough money for your next work without alienating a lot of people. At the very least, you need people who are grounded enough to identify your mistakes and have the balls to tell you that you're fucking up.
tl;dr We tried your idea already, Fred. It worked for less than 20 years before it imploded.
Quality is not the determining factor. Success is.
There is a disincentive to create quality. A disincentive. People don't just fuck up and make shit, they're actually told to do a bad job. Or required to do a bad job. It's been said before: corporations hate risk, they hate change, they hate innovation. So they squash it, so they make the same film a million times, so they hire Justin Bieber instead of someone with an actual talent. People who try to make stuff that is actually worth making face a huge number of hurdles. What? That's backwards!Two things.
Now, maybe if we went back to trying to make things of quality, we're going to face problems. People fuck up! You get stupid ideologies infecting the place, and poisonous personalities dominating culture. Yes, that happens. Is it the case that in order to prevent fuck ups we need to abandon even the attempt at creating things worth making? Nope. There has to be some way other than "just give up".
There is a disincentive to create quality. A disincentive. People don't just fuck up and make shit, they're actually told to do a bad job. Or required to do a bad job. It's been said before: corporations hate risk, they hate change, they hate innovation. So they squash it, so they make the same film a million times, so they hire Justin Bieber instead of someone with an actual talent. People who try to make stuff that is actually worth making face a huge number of hurdles. What? That's backwards!Two things.
Now, maybe if we went back to trying to make things of quality, we're going to face problems. People fuck up! You get stupid ideologies infecting the place, and poisonous personalities dominating culture. Yes, that happens. Is it the case that in order to prevent fuck ups we need to abandon even the attempt at creating things worth making? Nope. There has to be some way other than "just give up".
Firstly, said disincentive is there not because of executives, but because of audiences. Not everyone, least of all teens, appreciates or demands complex and skillful music. They want the likes of Beiber, Simple Plan and One Direction because they're young, kind of stupid and have very simple tastes. Unless you have a way to instantly induce a decade or two's worth of development and refinement of their tastes in music, that's not going to change.
Second, Beiber and Co aren't the beginning and end of all music in the world. Quality music does exist. If you look elsewhere from record labels who're specifically targeting teens with tightly controlled content, you may just have an easier time finding it.
In all honestly, this is like complaining that McDonalds doesn't sell fine Italian cuisine, all while ignoring the Italian restaurant down the street.
Y'know. Sometimes even I enjoy a bit of cheese & pablum in my entertainment. It's fun & gets your mind off things. There's many outlets for music, shows, movies, etc. these days, why is this an issue? Don't like reality shows? Don't watch them! Choice, my friends.That is certainly true as well. I do enjoy high art and intelligent entertainment that makes me think, but sometimes I just feel like switching my brain off and just getting some cheap laughs. I believe it's called abnegation, and it's hardly a unique phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm spontaneously wondering how Eiffel 65 is doing today.
According to what I can find, still operating after officially reuniting in 2010. They're still touring (like a "mini-tour" in Australia) and are making slow progress on another album.
Okay, sure. What relevance does that have to your argument that we cannot have a middle-brow culture, because low-brow shit is just hardwired in? Classical music has patterns as well- more complicated patterns, but they're no less recognisable.
QuoteOkay, sure. What relevance does that have to your argument that we cannot have a middle-brow culture, because low-brow shit is just hardwired in? Classical music has patterns as well- more complicated patterns, but they're no less recognisable.
Why is it that every time I try to debate you, Fred, I start to think that you're intentionally ignoring stuff that other people say so you don't need to acknowledge it?
Quality is not the determining factor. Success is.
There is a disincentive to create quality. A disincentive. People don't just fuck up and make shit, they're actually told to do a bad job. Or required to do a bad job. It's been said before: corporations hate risk, they hate change, they hate innovation. So they squash it, so they make the same film a million times, so they hire Justin Bieber instead of someone with an actual talent. People who try to make stuff that is actually worth making face a huge number of hurdles. What? That's backwards!
There is a disincentive to create quality. A disincentive. People don't just fuck up and make shit, they're actually told to do a bad job. Or required to do a bad job. It's been said before: corporations hate risk, they hate change, they hate innovation. So they squash it, so they make the same film a million times, so they hire Justin Bieber instead of someone with an actual talent. People who try to make stuff that is actually worth making face a huge number of hurdles. What? That's backwards!Two things.
Now, maybe if we went back to trying to make things of quality, we're going to face problems. People fuck up! You get stupid ideologies infecting the place, and poisonous personalities dominating culture. Yes, that happens. Is it the case that in order to prevent fuck ups we need to abandon even the attempt at creating things worth making? Nope. There has to be some way other than "just give up".
Firstly, said disincentive is there not because of executives, but because of audiences.
Second, Beiber and Co aren't the beginning and end of all music in the world. Quality music does exist. If you look elsewhere from record labels who're specifically targeting teens with tightly controlled content, you may just have an easier time finding it.
QuoteOkay, sure. What relevance does that have to your argument that we cannot have a middle-brow culture, because low-brow shit is just hardwired in? Classical music has patterns as well- more complicated patterns, but they're no less recognisable.
What we in the Western world know as "pop music" gradually evolved from pre-existing music types until it became commonplace.
Also, it's nice to talk about classical music and all. But even when it was being made, the average person didn't listen to a lick of it.
There is low-brow shit. Okay, fine. That exists. I don't think there needs to be as much, but it does. Low brow emphasises style over substance. But modern low-brow stuff doesn't even do that! You could fire Bieber tomorrow, hire some new 18 year old kid who actually is capable of singing, and knock out the same teeny-bopper tunes a million times a week, without any reduction in sales. Instead of using auto-tune, you could hire someone who is capable of singing. Why don't they? Corporate structure.Well, not quite. Replacing Beiber would mean re-building the fanbase around the new guy. Not too difficult, but it would mean the first album at least wouldn't sell half as well as whatever follows it. As for why they don't care about talent, at least as a singer, well, they don't need to. The songs are pre-written and autotune is used quite liberally, so talent really doesn't effect the final product. Audiences (at least the dumber pre-teens and teens) will eat it up regardless, so what is there to be gained by seeking out singing talent? Their target demographic simply doesn't care, so all it would do is make finding their new singer(s) slightly harder.
I'm not, at this point lamenting the lack of actual substance, just the awfulness of substanceless crap today.Oh Fred. Substanceless crap was always awful. The whole "back in the good old days..." line of thinking is total bullshit. Just because the dreck fades into obscurity over time doesn't mean it never existed.
Nope. Early 20th century classical music was mass-marketed, to a certain degree. Late 19th century opera was mass-marketed. Maybe not as much in the US- and I stress as much, because it still was mass-marketed - but Albanoni, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Gershwin, Britten, Elgar et al were all very firmly middle-brow. Even Bruckner was listened to by actual people. Opera was often televised, and watched.
Now, I think it is the case that the reason middle-brow music has died is partly because musicians committed suicide- very much due to Arnold Schoenberg. I think there are other reasons, also. This can be fixed, and it should be.
Awful crap existed, but not like now. Even the worst of the past is better than the worst of now, because the worst of the past was people trying. The worst of now is people not trying, cheating and succeeding.I'm not, at this point lamenting the lack of actual substance, just the awfulness of substanceless crap today.Oh Fred. Substanceless crap was always awful. The whole "back in the good old days..." line of thinking is total bullshit. Just because the dreck fades into obscurity over time doesn't mean it never existed.
Awful crap existed, but not like now. Even the worst of the past is better than the worst of now, because the worst of the past was people trying. The worst of now is people not trying, cheating and succeeding.I'd take the opposite view, personally. At least autotune can somewhat compensate for a shitty performer. Back then, there was no such thing, you were hit with the full force of their shittiness.
But that's the problem. You don't sink or swim on your talent. They can hide behind machines. Nobody would say a remote drone pilot is more badass than a WW2 bomber pilot. They have removed the threat to themselves, which makes their success less impressive and all around not as good. Now, without talent you can do better than someone with talent. Before, people heard the real you.Awful crap existed, but not like now. Even the worst of the past is better than the worst of now, because the worst of the past was people trying. The worst of now is people not trying, cheating and succeeding.I'd take the opposite view, personally. At least autotune can somewhat compensate for a shitty performer. Back then, there was no such thing, you were hit with the full force of their shittiness.
...That's not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination. Any talentless hack could be popular with the right crowd, as long as they have a big record label and its marketing power behind them. It's always been like that since producers first became a thing.But that's the problem. You don't sink or swim on your talent. They can hide behind machines. Nobody would say a remote drone pilot is more badass than a WW2 bomber pilot. They have removed the threat to themselves, which makes their success less impressive and all around not as good. Now, without talent you can do better than someone with talent. Before, people heard the real you.Awful crap existed, but not like now. Even the worst of the past is better than the worst of now, because the worst of the past was people trying. The worst of now is people not trying, cheating and succeeding.I'd take the opposite view, personally. At least autotune can somewhat compensate for a shitty performer. Back then, there was no such thing, you were hit with the full force of their shittiness.
I completely agree. I'd still give them a high five for being popular without faking it. To us, they might sound like shit, but another crowd thinks they sound good, and that was hearing their real singing. Think of it like this: what's more impressive, someone running at 15 MPH naturally or someone running at 30 MPH with shoes that double their running speed? Sure, one did better than the other, but they had much more help. They'd be on the same level as the other guy if they were doing things the same way as the other guy....That's not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination. Any talentless hack could be popular with the right crowd, as long as they have a big record label and its marketing power behind them. It's always been like that since producers first became a thing.But that's the problem. You don't sink or swim on your talent. They can hide behind machines. Nobody would say a remote drone pilot is more badass than a WW2 bomber pilot. They have removed the threat to themselves, which makes their success less impressive and all around not as good. Now, without talent you can do better than someone with talent. Before, people heard the real you.Awful crap existed, but not like now. Even the worst of the past is better than the worst of now, because the worst of the past was people trying. The worst of now is people not trying, cheating and succeeding.I'd take the opposite view, personally. At least autotune can somewhat compensate for a shitty performer. Back then, there was no such thing, you were hit with the full force of their shittiness.
So are you against singers using microphones at live concerts because they're not using their actual voice to project, they're using technology to artificially amplify their voice?I highly disagree with arbitrary. Microphones amplify only. I have no idea how people who enjoy music can argue that those who are using autotune deserve any sort of respect or praise. Any singer who actually sings with their real voice on their albums would likely facepalm so hard their head would end up reenacting the Kennedy assassination.
Or are you using an arbitrary definition of "genuine voice"?
"Microphones amplify only" and autotune "modifies tone only"As Chitoryu said, microphones are essensial for most venues. Unless you have superpowers, you are not going to be heard that far. Also, no. But if someone takes a shitty picture and touches it up in photoshop, that is less authentic than a picture as good or better naturally.
It is still modifying a singer's voice to account for lack of skill in projecting his or her voice.
If a singer tried to sing with their real volume, yada yada. Just saying that microphones still modify the voice. Not defending the use of autotune used as an aide for singing, but mostly saying that the same logic you're using can be applied to things like microphones and amplifiers and such as that. Artists naturally use the technology available to improve the quality of their music. And other than arbitrary qualifications of "authenticity", I fail to see any real arguments against that notion.
Out of curiosity, do you think digital pictures are less authentic than pictures made with oils?
I have to say, with a lot of live music it's almost impossible for the singer to project above the background music. Especially when it comes to rock and metal, the music is simply so loud that almost nobody would even be vaguely audible, let alone understandable. And as soon as you get into large arenas, forget it. There are some outdoor shows where even if it was completely silent, you'd be lucky to project all the way to the back row.
"Microphones amplify only" and autotune "modifies tone only"
It is still modifying a singer's voice to account for lack of skill in projecting his or her voice.
If a singer tried to sing with their real volume, yada yada. Just saying that microphones still modify the voice. Not defending the use of autotune used as an aide for singing, but mostly saying that the same logic you're using can be applied to things like microphones and amplifiers and such as that. Artists naturally use the technology available to improve the quality of their music. And other than arbitrary qualifications of "authenticity", I fail to see any real arguments against that notion.
Out of curiosity, do you think digital pictures are less authentic than pictures made with oils?
Problem is, you didn't present it in terms of insulting talent or sounding worse, you presented it in terms of "authentic". What's authentic is a matter of perception, because everyone considers their old-fangled technology to be more authentic than the new thing, and it's just a spiral of hipster pretentiousness from there on.Wrong. Here's the thing: opinions can be wrong. That's one of the problems with people. "Oh, I can't be wrong, because it's my opinion!" No. Wrong. You. Are. Wrong. If someone said, say, a 3 year old's finger painting and Van Gogh were of the same quality, they would be wrong. If someone said a five star restaurants burger and McDonalds' were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Batman and Robin and The Dark Knight are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Too Human and Batman: Arkham City were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Twilight and Frankenstein are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Justin Bieber and The Beetles or Nine Inch Nails or Adele or Rammstein or anyone else that is not autotuned is of the same quality, they are wrong. People who know more about a subject are more correct than those who know less. You know more than them. It is your place to tell them their tastes suck and explain why, based on effort, skill, the revolting revolving cycle of pop stars, his complete non-personality, no meaning at all outside of making money off them and his ego (autobiographies should be illegal before 30).
Also, autotune can be used for things other than correcting tone, it can be used as an instrument in and of itself. Whether it's good is up to debate, but that's a good thing -- it enters the realm of taste at that point. A skilled artist could use it well for that purpose. Just like a skilled artist can use photoshop for things other than touching up bad artwork.
However, I would like to point out one thing about people as a whole. They don't bother to pay attention to things like the progress of how a song is made. They only care about the end result. They don't care if a picture is touched up with photoshop. They don't care if a musician is touched up with autotune. They just care that what they listen to sounds good to them.
I don't like it, either, but it's not exactly my place to tell the majority of a population that they should value my opinion over theirs, regardless of how educated my opinion is, right?
Wrong. Here's the thing: opinions can be wrong. That's one of the problems with people. "Oh, I can't be wrong, because it's my opinion!" No. Wrong. You. Are. Wrong. If someone said, say, a 3 year old's finger painting and Van Gogh were of the same quality, they would be wrong. If someone said a five star restaurants burger and McDonalds' were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Batman and Robin and The Dark Knight are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Too Human and Batman: Arkham City were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Twilight and Frankenstein are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Justin Bieber and The Beetles or Nine Inch Nails or Adele or Rammstein or anyone else that is not autotuned is of the same quality, they are wrong. People who know more about a subject are more correct than those who know less. You know more than them. It is your place to tell them their tastes suck and explain why, based on effort, skill, the revolting revolving cycle of pop stars, his complete non-personality, no meaning at all outside of making money off them and his ego (autobiographies should be illegal before 30).Not quite. Objective opinions can be wrong. Stuff like "Obama's not an American" or "occupying the entire Middle East is a good idea" are both wrong, because they make objective claims that can be definitively proven to be false. Subjective opinions, not so much. If someone says they like a Big Mac better than a five star burger, well, there's no objective claim in there to prove wrong, it's all just personal tastes. This applies to musical tastes just as much as culinary tastes. You want to compare the quality (which ultimately boils down to how enjoyable it is to the listener) of Beiber to anyone else, it's simply a matter of personal tastes. The details of how his music was created or the motivations behind it are irrelevant. Simply, if someone gets greater enjoyment listening to Beiber than they would any of your favourite musicians, then from their perspective, Beiber's music is better. End of story. Whine about it all you want, but the only opinion you'll end up changing is "Posthumanheresy is not an pretentious, annoying, elitist hipster" or "Posthumanheresy doesn't sorely need to get a life".
Stuff like "Obama's not an American" or "occupying the entire Middle East is a good idea" are both wrong
Uh, no. It's no one's place to demand that a person stop listening to a certain genre of music, eating certain foods, or watching certain films simply because they don't align with your own view of what makes something good.Not demand they stop, but acknowledge that they might find enjoyment in them, but they're still turn-off-your-brain stuff.
I aim to please.Stuff like "Obama's not an American" or "occupying the entire Middle East is a good idea" are both wrongI really miss the "fuck yeah" button right now.
I'll gladly accept the labels of pretentious and elitist, but hipster? Hardly. Sure, I dislike mainstream pop. That said, my favorites in other genres I like are often extremely mainstream. Manson seems to have a guest appearance (both in song and TV) fetish, Nine Inch Nails is one of the biggest names in industrial metal, Rammstein is pretty damn big everywhere, Lordi might be little known in America, but in Europe they're much bigger, and Kiss? They're fucking Kiss. I love it when my favorite artists get accepted into the mainstream, and the wording is important. If they change themselves to become mainstream, that's bad. If they're accepted into the mainstream, like Manson, that's good, because they just altered what is mainstream. A man who rips apart Bibles on stage is considered mainstream. How cool is that?Wrong. Here's the thing: opinions can be wrong. That's one of the problems with people. "Oh, I can't be wrong, because it's my opinion!" No. Wrong. You. Are. Wrong. If someone said, say, a 3 year old's finger painting and Van Gogh were of the same quality, they would be wrong. If someone said a five star restaurants burger and McDonalds' were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Batman and Robin and The Dark Knight are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Too Human and Batman: Arkham City were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Twilight and Frankenstein are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Justin Bieber and The Beetles or Nine Inch Nails or Adele or Rammstein or anyone else that is not autotuned is of the same quality, they are wrong. People who know more about a subject are more correct than those who know less. You know more than them. It is your place to tell them their tastes suck and explain why, based on effort, skill, the revolting revolving cycle of pop stars, his complete non-personality, no meaning at all outside of making money off them and his ego (autobiographies should be illegal before 30).Not quite. Objective opinions can be wrong. Stuff like "Obama's not an American" or "occupying the entire Middle East is a good idea" are both wrong, because they make objective claims that can be definitively proven to be false. Subjective opinions, not so much. If someone says they like a Big Mac better than a five star burger, well, there's no objective claim in there to prove wrong, it's all just personal tastes. This applies to musical tastes just as much as culinary tastes. You want to compare the quality (which ultimately boils down to how enjoyable it is to the listener) of Beiber to anyone else, it's simply a matter of personal tastes. The details of how his music was created or the motivations behind it are irrelevant. Simply, if someone gets greater enjoyment listening to Beiber than they would any of your favourite musicians, then from their perspective, Beiber's music is better. End of story. Whine about it all you want, but the only opinion you'll end up changing is "Posthumanheresy is not an pretentious, annoying, elitist hipster" or "Posthumanheresy doesn't sorely need to get a life".
You can't force people to enjoy a particular type of music (or food, or game, etc.) because it's all about personal taste. You may think Manson sounds great, but others may dislike his music because it doesn't suit their tastes. I don't really listen to his stuff. Why? Because it's not pleasing to my ears. Am I wrong for that? What about people who don't listen to The Beatles (which I don't, minus a couple songs) but do enjoy folks like Lady Gaga and Rihanna? If someone likes a particular type of music more, then how are they supposed to admit that it's low quality when quality is measured by their enjoyment?Hopefully my above post explains well enough. I don't listen to the Beatles. I respect them, though. I don't listen to a lot of bands that I respect. You may not enjoy Manson, but how he got to fame, by spending thousands in his own money to promote the band, building his own army of fans complete with a signature look all before a record deal, by fighting his way to the top with his money and his time and his efforts, is something to respect. And, afterwards, what he did also gains him respect. The band had constant death threats. Twiggy described it by saying you didn't even bat an eye at bomb threats, because they were so common. They believe in what they are doing, and feel it has meaning. Would any of these computer altered pop stars ever believe in what they have to say like that?
<snip>And all that massive wall of sanctimonious wharrgarbl boils down to is "Beiber's an asshole, therefore I have a right to police his fans' taste in music". Hate Beiber all you want. That I can get behind, and for what it's worth, he's pretty much guaranteed to go the way of Amanda Bynes and Lindsey Lohan in a few months. These teeny pop stars always do when their fifteen minutes of fame are up. However, that has no bearing whatsoever on his music itself. Remember how I said "quality" is simply a person's enjoyment, and it applies regardless of how or why the product was made? Yeah, that still holds true, no matter how much of a fuckwit Beiber himself happens to be. His fans still have just as much right to enjoy and think highly of his music, just as you do to your rather creepy hard-on for Manson.
your rather creepy hard-on for Manson.
Just gonna butt in for a sec and say this: No. You are not justified in telling someone else what they can and cannot like or listen to or watch or anything else. You can disagree with their tastes all you want, but you can't tell someone their tastes are invalid just because you disagree. People are allowed to like what they want to, and nobody has the right to tell them otherwise. This is kind of reminding me of the kinds of people who tell me I can't like other guys because *they* think it's wrong, and they think I'm wrong.
Oh, and this:
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/fce689f230d2e19235abaf0506e3fad6/tumblr_mm5y52Iu8w1r5xzspo1_400.png)
I think Autotune depends on how it's used. It can be used badly (to give a hack singer fake talent) or for good (as a legitimate sound effect that adds to the atmosphere of the song).
I think Autotune depends on how it's used. It can be used badly (to give a hack singer fake talent) or for good (as a legitimate sound effect that adds to the atmosphere of the song).
Agreed. There's no way to use it to sound good. And, I'd like to bring up, a study was done that found that Lil Wayne listeners scored the lowest on the SATs. Whether that means something is up to people to decide for themselves.I think Autotune depends on how it's used. It can be used badly (to give a hack singer fake talent) or for good (as a legitimate sound effect that adds to the atmosphere of the song).
It can be used a joke, or inappropriately.
No competent performance has ever been improved by auto-tune*.Agreed. I agree, the Symphonies of Science are awesome, but they had to deal with talking, and the amazing part is the lines and videos, I think. Also, any incompetent performance does not deserve respect. Someone appearing to do something well by faking it shouldn't be respected. Hopefully everyone can agree on that. If someone can feel that fake talent deserves respect, then someone screwed up when raising them. At this point, we need an Oompa Loompa song about the pitfalls of teaching that everyone is an amazing, talented, skilled winner who can do no wrong.
* With some exceptions, funny noises, jokes, ect.
I think you fail to appreciate that faking it well is a talent in and of itself.Bow chicka bow wow! Really, for the sake of my remaining sanity, I have to hope it's a sex joke. I can't imagine someone actually considering autotuning a talent. None of them "fake it well". They're all obviously shallow, autotuned and fame-obsessed.
I think you fail to appreciate that faking it well is a talent in and of itself.Bow chicka bow wow! Really, for the sake of my remaining sanity, I have to hope it's a sex joke. I can't imagine someone actually considering autotuning a talent. None of them "fake it well". They're all obviously shallow, autotuned and fame-obsessed.
There is a channel on Youtube called bliix (http://www.youtube.com/user/bliix). They turn pop songs into rock songs. Same lyrics, same voice, and yet, people are saying they aren't shit anymore simply because the instrumentals were changed. If those were the original versions, they would likely be claiming they were ruining the genre.With the video you actually posted, I imagine it's related to a real human being playing the instruments, and a real human being singing. Not all the music I listen to has meaning. Lordi is absurd as possible, but fun as shit because it's good music and talent. Sure, the lyrics are about schizophrenic dolls or monster attacks or Mr. Lordi wanting to be a woman so he can fuck Gene Simmons, but they're awesome.
I can enjoy both versions.
Also this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc9uWnkToE0
Sorry, let me rephrase that. I can't imagine someone who is not an idiot, which is how I view you (as in, you are not an idiot), calling it a talent.I think you fail to appreciate that faking it well is a talent in and of itself.Bow chicka bow wow! Really, for the sake of my remaining sanity, I have to hope it's a sex joke. I can't imagine someone actually considering autotuning a talent. None of them "fake it well". They're all obviously shallow, autotuned and fame-obsessed.
Oh my, but the does the world have some hard lessons in store for you my son for you my son.
If you can understand why Gordon Ramsey doesn't work in McDonalds then you should understand why real (voice) talent isn't needed for bubblegum pop.