Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your right. Then from there a station has a set list of maybe 20 songs they play over and over and over and over again. With all the hundreds of car commericals they throw in and all the gabbering one never realizes that only 20 songs have been played all day and sometimes multiple times.
The radio just ain't no fun anymore.
It's all business today. A specific set list = a specific advertisment directly targeted at that group of listeners.
Regarding lyrics, I think that one of the problems is that the "art" of subtlety has been lost. Everything is blatant, in-your-face, matter of fact these days. Song lyrics today require very little thought or imagination.
Yes, sex has always been used as currency, but these days there is indeed very little left to the imagination.
Quote:
I also think that the introduction of the music video was a turning point . Music became less about music and lyrics; now it is more, if not all, about image. A lot of the bands pre-MTV would never have made it because the artists were not photogenic/videogenic.
It sort of reminds me of how it might have been back in the 1920's when sound was introduced to cinema. Actors and actresses with funny-sounding voices faded away.
OTOH
Embracing music video can certainly be an element of a band's success, but I don't think it is mandatory. I barely even know what the Decemberists look like but I've been listening to them since 2003.
There are so many different ways to approach video. The band does not even have to appear in it--only the music does.
Of course, making a video requires an initial investment.
Still, there are many bands with which I am familiar that have found a listening audience without MTV.
If you are related to someone famous and you want to be a singer, even if you have no talent at all, you are likely to be signed to a contract rahter than someone who does have talent but isnt related to someone famous. Good examples are Ashlee Simpson, Sean Kingston( grandfather was a record producer), Lil Bow wow( related to Snoop Dogg appartently, or something), lil Romeo( master p's father), Miley Cyrus and I'm guessing Rihanna, T-Pain, Soulja boy, and Chris Brown are related or know someone famous in the biz, and im sure there are others.
I don't listen to the actual radio anymore. I talk to friends and friends of friends to find new stuff, or I turn on the sattelite radio. Sattelite usually has some good stuff on it, but then again, that all depends on your taste.
Other countries also have some great stuff, take Japan for example.
If you are related to someone famous and you want to be a singer, even if you have no talent at all, you are likely to be signed to a contract rahter than someone who does have talent but isnt related to someone famous. Good examples are Ashlee Simpson, Sean Kingston( grandfather was a record producer), Lil Bow wow( related to Snoop Dogg appartently, or something), lil Romeo( master p's father), Miley Cyrus and I'm guessing Rihanna, T-Pain, Soulja boy, and Chris Brown are related or know someone famous in the biz, and im sure there are others.
Or you just simply have to be an image. Doesn't matter if you can sing, you just do not fit that image they are looking for. Tamia would out sing the majority of the female R&B artists out right now but yet she is thrown to the garbage. The urban radio stations won't even play music like hers anymore. In 1999, Eric Benet and Tamia had spend my life with you which was a beautiful song. You think you hear those types of songs back to back on the radios now? Nope.
And so it goes. Musical evolution is not new. I'd like to think, though, that 18th century Classical evolved into 19th century Romantic for reasons other than titillation. In the 20th century music became accessible to the masses and, with the birth of the recording industry, more of a two way street. Listeners began to drive the market. Victrolas and iPods really aren't that different. They both cater to a personal selection.
Society, as a whole, is what has created this monster that so many of us complain about and nothing is going to stop that runaway train now. You like this - I like that. No problem. We can both find what we want. But then there is the mainstream delivery mechanism that actually caters to no one, or those that will accept anything. We can thank Madison Avenue for that. When bands in the 50s, 60s and 70s were just trying to get laid, it was at least honest.
It was going to change anyhow. The reflections of life vs. art have always been that way.
Im glad to see that you have not fell for the baby boomer propaganda mantra that has plagued the culture for years. There is a lot of great music out there. The popularity of it or accessibility is of little concern to me. I like it and if others want to focus on listening to Fleetwood Mac for the umpteenth thousandth time then, whatever.
"Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact."
Who said that? Any guesses?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Music became less about music and lyrics; now it is more, if not all, about image. A lot of the bands pre-MTV would never have made it because the artists were not photogenic/videogenic.
