"Good lord, Internet! Cut it out!" On Excessive Beiber Hate

[Witchyjoshy]

I would like to point out something.

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.

[Her3tiK]

I would like to point out something.

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.

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).

[chitoryu12]

If you watch Star Wars objectively, it can actually be pretty campy. If the original movies were released today with the budget appropriately scaled to inflation (Episode IV wasn't exactly a super expensive movie; it had a budget of $11 million, which is equivalent to $41 million, or the budget of The Host), it would probably have a mediocre reception at best. The dialogue is often corny and the plot is predictable. The films are regarded as classics because they were really good sci-fi for the 1970s and they've basically been coasting on their popularity rather than their own merits.

One of the reasons people are pissed about the new films is because Disney wants to disregard the Expanded Universe for their own continuity, when (unlike pretty much all other works) the Expanded Universe is essentially what's kept the Star Wars brand going for so long. Because of how Star Wars canon is structured, the books and video games are legitimate parts of the universe, rather than cheap ways of making more cash off a movie. Most people think the novelization of Episode III is better than the movie itself! Disregarding the existing canon is essentially telling all of the fans "You know all that stuff that actually keeps Star Wars relevant today and has an unfathomable number of characters, plots, and works that would take years to actually get through? Fuck all that!"

[Barbarella]

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 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).

[Witchyjoshy]

I would like to point out something.

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.

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).

Sir, I find your opinion fresh and invigorating in this age of nostalgia addicts.

[chitoryu12]

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).

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.

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.

[PosthumanHeresy]

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Except Seltzer & Friedburg. Those two can fuck right the fuck off out of the industry.

That's true.

[chitoryu12]

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.

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. 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.

[PosthumanHeresy]

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.

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. 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.

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.

[chitoryu12]

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.

Since I didn't have time to address the rest of your post before leaving today, I'll do that here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[PosthumanHeresy]

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.

Since I didn't have time to address the rest of your post before leaving today, I'll do that here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

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.

Since I didn't have time to address the rest of your post before leaving today, I'll do that here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think the issue is that for a lot of people (like me) skill isn't really a factor when it comes to liking music.

It's like food, in that it's the taste that's important and the level of skill it takes to make is irrelevant.

Simple dishes can taste just as good as more complex recipes.

Anyone can make a cheese sandwich, but if that's what i'm in the mood for that's what I eat.

[nickiknack]

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.

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

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?

[chitoryu12]

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.