Is pop music the best music?

[Bernkastel]

I've either been waiting on a thread like this one similar to it to be made, and I haven't seen anything like it, so I'll just make this one

Pop music, short for popular music or mainstream music. I'm not discussing the genre of Pop music, as that is something different. This thread will be focused on music that is geared towards the masses. Every single genre of music has there share of pop music, from techo to rap, from rock and metal, from punk and classical, to country to the genre of pop. While underground bands usually go unnoticed, and often times unappreciated.

Music is a very unique and diverse and colorful topic, it is not cut and dry, it is not black and white. A band or genre that may appeal to one person may not appeal to someone else, so how do measure how "great" an artist or group is compared to another? Do you look at the success at the artist or group? How many fans they've got, how many albums they've sold, how much money they make? Do you judge them based on how influential they are/ were? Do you judge them based on their musical abilities or techniques (or sometimes lack of ability and technique)? I think all boils down to personal choice really.....because.....

It can be said that bands in pop music win more awards and have more fans than underground bands in the same genre, but does that really make them better? MTV is the main media promoter of music in the US (not sure about the rest of the world) and MTV only promotes a certain type of music, it can be argued that there is a state of bias within MTV regarding there choice of music, and some controversy at times on the ways they choose to control the media and the population. MTV aren't the only ones guilty of this, take American Idol as an example. I don't think I've ever seen anything other than pop (mainstream) music promoted on their show. Watching shows like American Idol, you tend to forget that there is even an underground population of music out there.

Labels that promote pop music are often very demanding of their artists, and will only release a certain caliber of music. Often this music is very simple and watered down, very easy to follow, often catchy but repetitive. Most pop artists (especially in rap, r n b, and rock) have complained about the restraints put on their music and many of them wishing to pursue a more autonomous career simply drop out of the limelight (they don't stop making music, they just become less mainstream). IMO this separates the artists and bands that are just using their mainstream credit for more popularity and money and the ones that are either making music because they enjoy it or are trying to send a message to their fans.

In closing many underground music fans tend to complain about pop music because despite what many bands of pop music do accomplish, their music seems dull, repetitive, and juvenile by comparison to many bands in the underground. Some of the artists and bands of pop music come across as selfish and untalented, and some of the time they are painted that way by the media, but other times the assumptions paint a pretty accurate picture that these artists music seem to mirror.

My opinion on the matter is that although most pop bands have the fame and the fan base over bands in the underground, many pop artists and groups do conform to the labels and records that cater to (and often times control) the media. As a result, the music within pop music generally sounds inferior to that within the underground, because underground bands and artists make the music that they want to make, they aren't worried about impressing or catering to anyone, they play and make music for anyone that wants to hear it.

So no, I don't think that pop music is the best type of music

What are your guys/ gals thoughts on this?

 

[Tim]

I agree with you Ech. Pop music is not the best music, they are made to limit their music to what the media want, but it isn't what IMO the majority of the people want. I for one like underground music a lot more than pop music, but some of my friends don't even know them. I ask them what their favourite song is, and they'll usually say the latest chart topper. Usually some stupid novelty song. And I personally hate it.

That's another thing that's the problem wth pop music. I hate how they come up with stupid novelty songs, things like Axel F and I Kissed a Girl. These songs have no meaning, they are really annoying, and they are just boring and they sound crap. Everybody I ask hates them, but somehow they remain on the top of the charts. I don't get that.

The definition of an underground artist is any band that is not played on mainstream radio. The majority of artists are underground. This is because the want to play their own kind of music and not be influenced by the media. THis is why my favourite bands are underground. Bands like Sum 41, Dream Theater. They have their own style that's different to the generic stuff on the radio, and it's a welcome break from the mindless trash on the radio.

There are some bands that I like that are mainstream. Bands like Coldplay and Blink 182. Basically, it depends on your own musical taste. People can't force you to like something, and if you like the music on the radio, then listen to it. But there is a wider variety of music out there than just the stuff on the radio, some of it good, some of it bad. You just have to find the good music out there.

 

[Richard]

While underground bands usually go unnoticed, and often times unappreciated.

They don't go unnoticed, there are so many people who think they are different because they listen to underground stuff. Only problem is, there are a millions of other people who think they are different, yet listen to the same stuff.

If there are these underground bands like Tim says, such as Dream Theatre, while being a good band, are they not popular? Isn't that what you can define pop music as, popular music?

I can see why people don't like most of the mainsteam stuff, but my faveourite band is on a major record label, My Chemical Romance and Marilyn Manson aswell, but I don't care what people say about them, if I like them, then why should I care if people see them as popular bands?

Labels that promote pop music are often very demanding of their artists, and will only release a certain caliber of music. Often this music is very simple and watered down, very easy to follow, often catchy but repetitive. Most pop artists (especially in rap, r n b, and rock) have complained about the restraints put on their music and many of them wishing to pursue a more autonomous career simply drop out of the limelight (they don't stop making music, they just become less mainstream). IMO this separates the artists and bands that are just using their mainstream credit for more popularity and money and the ones that are either making music because they enjoy it or are trying to send a message to their fans.

While I can't speak on the behalf of all major record label signed artists, I have never read or seen an interview of My Chemical Romance or Marilyn Manson say that they were restricted by their labels, Warner Brothers for MCR and I can't remember who Manson is on. Also, because your band is on a major record label doesn't mean it's all about the money, Gerard Way (Lead of MCR) has said in so many interviews the choice to go to Warner Brothers was so that kids could get a hold of their CDs better because when they were small, there was no way that they could get their music to everyone because they wanted to share the music with kids everywhere.

So no, I don't think that pop music is the best type of music

What are your guys/ gals thoughts on this?

There is no definate answer for best type of music, comes down to personal preferance.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Of course pop music is the best. It's the muisc that's featured on mainstream radio the most, so how can it not be? You might not like it, but that's your personal preference. There are a million children and adults that could point out why pop is better. And like I just said, children are the main factor. They listen mostly to the same stuff, adults generally like their own thing. So while as an adult you might like Rap, then person next to you might like rock. But you don't get many children like those genres, up to a certain age that is.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

Yeah Pop Music really is the best. Everyone and their mothers always say stuff like Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Lil Wayne, RIhanna, ect are crap and "insert random no name band" kicks ass. The thing is it's the pop music that sells 10 million albums(not anymore) over 2 million digital downloads, and sell out huge arenas. The same thing can be said using Sly's wrestling analogy. John Cena/Hogan vs. HBK/Hart, some argue that HBK & Bret are the best, while Sly and others use the whole analogy that Cena/Hogan are the draw(make the money get the ratings)so since wrestling is a for profit buisness than Hogan/Cena are the best. Now in music you have Miley Cyrus/Jonas Brothers(Cena/Hogan) vs. insert two random indie bands(HBK/Hart), like it or not Miley/Joe brothers "draw" the most money from singles/radio/albums, ect so they are the best. Music is a for profit business also. People can play music in coffee shops and on the street corner and people can exclaim are the best(TNA/ROH) but they don't make the money so they are not the best. Wow, I rambled, but I'm tired.

 

[Dragonslayer]

I believe it comes down to to what an audience is used to - or more specifically, what the media makes an audience used to.

Now if I look back at say, 60ies and 70ies music (on a sidenote: I did not actually live in that day and age lol - not even close). Of course, back then, you had the same "easy to digest" cost; fluffy love songs and cheesy ballads, some more suitable for dancing and what not. But you also got bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin or Queen who managed to get big mainstream attention (or more precisely - who were given more mainstream attention), with video and radio airplays and what not. It was all a decision of TV and radio stations back then, as well as record labels, just as it is now. And back then, there just were not that many great artists and musicians. And once a band like Deep Purple or The Beatles, who could combine accomplished artistry and proficiency on their instruments with a talent to simply write good songs, you were thankful for that, and tried to market the most out of it. And if bands like that, even with "heavy" music like Deep Purple, were played frequently enough, the audience's ears were tweaked into that direction, and became used to it.

However, nowadays due to modern technologies and basically everyone being able to produce music, there is just such an abundance in every kind and genre, that you really do not need to be selective anymore. You just pick someone who looks nice, then give them some music to play (if you don't think their own stuff has that "mainstream" appeal), and produce it to make money. The problem with this development is, that with a shift of focus away from the music itself, towards pure marketability in terms of "pop culture", of course the quality of the music got watered down. If you don't need top class performers to make XYZ amounts of cash, but a mediocre performer is enough, you will use them instead of wait and sit until someone comes along who can deliver both outstanding music and STILL appeal to the masses. Instead, you opt to create your mediocre music with your mediocre star - but due to the fact that you have the promotion money to have every radio station and every TV station play that music basically 24/7, you create an image of that particular star being more than mediocre; firstly, because he or she gets played so damn often, "he/she must be good"; and secondly, because of the influx of many of such mediocre artists, there is no place left for those with a higher level of musicianship - simply because the "simpler", watered-down music is more easily accessible to the average listener.

For even if say, a band like Deep Purple used to get as much airplay as some random pop star today, the music of Deep Purple compared to that of some random pop singer would still be more difficult to access at certain points; and in a society that is conditioned to wanting things fast and right now, the average consumer who is not really that interested in music, will find it more appealing to his tastes if he can relate to an artist or a band quicker than to another. Just like in the old days, even though Deep Purple (as my example) got more airplay than a band of similar style gets today, there were still many more "easily accessible" artists there, who probably sold more records and had more "fans" for precisely the same reasons that matter today. The only difference is that nowadays (especially over the course of the 1990ies), focus has shifted so completely away from true musicianship towards that aforementioned marketability, that there truly at some point seemed no room anymore for anything other than that "most easily accessible" type of music - since anything else would simply not sell as much, even if more money was used to buy airplay and promotion, and no businessman will invest more money into something that gets him less revenue, if he can get more revenue for a product that costs him less (or at least the same).

So, what it comes down to at the end of the day is basically the fact that the big mainstream audience, in truth, does not care too much about music in and of itself. They are accustomed and attuned to perceiving "music stars" as apparently tremendously talented individuals - which may be true for some, and may be not true for others - simply because they are presented as such through the media. Thus, because they - apparently - are such talented individuals, their musical efforts must also be tremendously great. A simple deduction, but one that will only work unless someone is truly willing to get into or truly passionate about music for music's sake; and not for the sake of "stardom" or "glamour" or "pop culture". For once one develops an eye (and an ear) for quality of music, very very few "pop artists" can stand that test.

However, it still does not matter - since for every one person, who will not buy a particular product because they realize it is - simply put - "not good music", there are still a thousand or ten thousand out there who will yet follow that trend. Of course children play a big role in this respect, as naturally, few children have already such a developed taste for music that they will realize that "Spongebob's Greatest Hits" is NOT the be-all, end-all to musical accomplishment. But it does not stop there. It comes down to every person who is basically not genuinely interested in music, but consumes it as other consumables - for a short kick, so to speak.

And that is the reason why a band like Dream Theater will never be successful in the main stream. They are just way too difficult to comprehend and to access, and they cannot work as "background noise" for someone at work or driving a car, because they pose a challenge to the intellect that many people will not want to meet when they, in the first place, wish to use "music" for recreational purposes. Someone who is already accustomed to that kind of music and who listens to it frequently, of course, will find no trouble to find recreation also when listening to "complicated" music. But it is the process of getting there that the majority of "mainstream listeners" simply aren't willing to take; and for many, there is also no necessity there as they seemingly are content with what they are being fed. Maybe that would change if the customs of the respective media changed, too - but not even that is a certainty.

In any case, at least I'm glad to see some decent quality music resurfacing in the popular scene... I mean, even if they are not always to my personal liking, bands like System of a Down or Bullet For My Valentine, who have been getting (comparatively, for their style of music!) incredible promotion in the past couple of years, are still very capable musicians and bands. There might be many, many bands and artists out there in the "Underground" who are as good or better (which of course ultimately also is a very subjective matter), but who will never get that much attention. Since for every SOAD or BFMV, you will get 10 or 20 more pointless, watered-down, calculated "Pop" artists who are created only for the purpose of money, and not for the purpose of music, who still will get more airplay time and more promotion than anyone else. Sad, but true - as our friends from Metallica would say.

I for one am thankful for every single true "rock" or metal band that is allowed some airtime, as it is a chance for one of my favorite genres to get some recognition and not be billed as only "noise" anymore. But of course the same thing also applies to other types of music, and not only rock or metal.

As a closing comment to my rant (once again, I apologize lol) I wish to conclude with: No, "pop music" is not the "best" music. It is just the "most popular" music, as the name would suggest. But if a hundred thousand people jumped off a cliff, would I jump too? Would it be "best" to jump?

In that sense, I would like to end on a lyrics quote from a band named "Skyclad" (Folk Metal, for anyone interested), who had a song on their album "Folkémon", entitled "The Antibody Politic", which includes the part:

If there's anyone else out there,
disillusioned just like me;
It's time we tried to turn the tide,
with an overwhelming minority.
The masses are numb, their ethics awry.
Nothing's as dumb as the Vox Populi.
If there's anyone else out there,
aiming sawn-off philosophy;
Let's all unite and make things right,
with an overwhelming minority.

Thank you, and good night!