An example of what's wrong with today's music and the industry as a whole

[DR DOOM]

I courted my late wife, Gladys, to this song back in '35.

Of course, no one could afford to go on dates at the time, so we stayed at home and listened to it on my gramophone. That was before Elvis came along and ruined everything.

On the flip side, this is fucking gold.

[bacardimayne]

[The Glow Inc.]

Even if radios suddenly started to play Robert Plant's single 24/7, I really, reaaaally doubt Iggy Azalea's audience would suddenly be interested.

Some people listen to music because it energizes them. They like to dance, have fun and fuck to it.

I don't think they would want to dance, have fun and fuck to Robert Plant's "Rainbow"...

[Bono]

Its actually sad that I have to explain this but I'm not saying todays generation should be lined up to listen to Robert Plant. I'm not saying if the radio statiosn started shoving Plant down everyone's throat the Iggy Azalea crowd would switch over. I don't even know how anyone could actually take that from my original post. I used Robert Plant to define a generation gap. He's from an era where genuine talent and artistic merit mattered. He's the lead singer of arguably a top 5 most popular band of all time and he's still making music yet it's all but ignored by the industry and the public. I'm fully aware times change and an artist's appeal comes and goes with the mainstream BUT what I'm getting at here is a major shift in the industry where they have no interest in promoting real artists anymore.

If people can't draw the distinction between how things were and how they are. I don't know what to say. If you don't see there's a big problem with how and what the industry promotes then I'm sorry you're a part of the problem.

It's YouTube. It's another audience. I don't think Robert Plant's audience watches many YT videos. I feel like shitty music has always gotten more attention than music I'd consider 'better'. You say there used to be more genuine artists in the top 40, but as far as I can remember, we never listened to the top 40 because most music was shit anyway. So I don't think it really changed that much in that regard.

No it's changed trust me. I grew up in an era where Metallica, Guns N' Roses, Michael Jackson, U2, Nirvana, Pearl Jam. Radiohead, Soundgarden, Tom Petty, Oasis etc etc etc were all top 40. Trust me top 40 and mainstream music has changed big time. Top 40, mainstream music wasn't always exclusively for meaningless crap. Classci bands and artists that mattered used to be welcome among the charts. Not anymore.

To be honest Bono, you've made a distinction here without actually making a distinction. You haven't explained why you feel that one is of value and the other isn't. I'm presuming you consider the song about booty to be vaccuous and without profound intent but at the same time, ones a song thats for people dancing in the club, it's not really the place for profundity, is it? Then you cite Robert Plants more poetic thing. But, I mean, OK, you got one club dance song that does it's job really well i.e. making peoples arses shake...and then you've got some lyrics by Robert Plant that reach for some kinda poetic quality but then, in the field of poetry, how well does Plants lyrics even stand up? I mean it's hardly Wordsworth, is it?

Popular music was not created as a platform for poetry, it's club music, it's sock hop ball music, it's 'Saturday night and i just got paid' music. The fact that a few good women and men expanded on that and managed to integrate poetic aspects into it is admirable but it is not it's primary function and, also, to my mind, not something that rock n roll has ever done well.

Put simply, the best rock poets out there, your Dylans, your Lennons, your Morrisons, your Cohens...their work does not stand up well against those of the titans of the field of poetry...or even the slightly above average ones.

I mean, without being cruel or harsh, you read those lyrics by Plant and see something...i dunno, something good, something of high quality...i don't, i just see crap poetry basically, just like most rock lyrics come across when taken just written down, in and of themselves. Honestly, i don't see anything of value in the Plant lyrics than in the booty song, i really don't, other than effort.

And y'know, music that is made to make you move, there's something profoundly existentialist about it, it functions in the moment, it's affirmative, it's expressive...I'm not saying that the booty lyrics are some kind high end poetry but then they're not intended to be and in not intending to be, conceptually, there's something beautiful about that. The feeling you get in a club, where people are dancing, just lost in the hypnotic qualities of the rhythms, the poetic aspect of what dance music is lies in what it does, what it creates among a mass of people, that feeling it evokes, I mean was Jackson Pollock any less an artist because what he was doing was kinda left field and breaking away from tradition?

Profundity is an active component of life, it's everywhere, it all boils down to you and where you are at today, thats what makes a song speak to you, not whether or not is aspires to be Shakespeare. I'm always of the opinion that if i don't get something it's because there is something lacking in me, i am short of whatever that component is that makes me understand 'x' whereas the people who do dig it are not. I feel like I'd get round to understanding and appreciating every field of creative endeavour out there, on a long enough time line.

As far as there being something wrong with the industry I agree...and that something is the notion that you can industrialise artistic endeavour, it simply doesn't work that way...as evidenced by the way it always lapses into commercialisation and kowtowing, if art is your primary interest beyond making your arse shake, you're really looking in the wrong place for it.

Talk about reverse hipsterism. There's nothing worth defending here let alone defending it with an overly pseudo intellect approach. The fact you're defending the lyrics of that song "Booty" to any degree and even remotely suggest there's anything beautiful or artistic about it is hilarious. The fact you've all but ignore the shamefull video is also hilarious. Music that evokes something whether it's club music, soul music, folk music or whatever can be made without trying to pander to the lowest common denominator in exhange for money. That's all the "Booty" song is. To even try and say otherwise is laughable. Music is ART and the point in all this when and why did the masses and the industry alike decide to turn their backs on the artistic side of it.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Bono

[Padme]

I get the point Bono makes and I agree. Only pop divas shaking their butts or boys bands is the only thing the industry cares about. We´ve always had pop music. But I think there is a difference between Madonna, Duran Duran and people like Iggy Azalea or Justin Beaver. I think there are artists performing good music. But there is no equal opportunity. Slash himself said that rock bands have it a lot harder today than GN´R and other bands from the 80s or the 70s had it back then.

[Lithium]

When my grandkids listen to music on their iPhones around my house, I try to hit them with my walking stick.

[Len Cnut]

Its actually sad that I have to explain this but I'm not saying todays generation should be lined up to listen to Robert Plant. I'm not saying if the radio statiosn started shoving Plant down everyone's throat the Iggy Azalea crowd would switch over. I don't even know how anyone could actually take that from my original post. I used Robert Plant to define a generation gap. He's from an era where genuine talent and artistic merit mattered. He's the lead singer of arguably a top 5 most popular band of all time and he's still making music yet it's all but ignored by the industry and the public. I'm fully aware times change and an artist's appeal comes and goes with the mainstream BUT what I'm getting at here is a major shift in the industry where they have no interest in promoting real artists anymore.

If people can't draw the distinction between how things were and how they are. I don't know what to say. If you don't see there's a big problem with how and what the industry promotes then I'm sorry you're a part of the problem.

It's YouTube. It's another audience. I don't think Robert Plant's audience watches many YT videos. I feel like shitty music has always gotten more attention than music I'd consider 'better'. You say there used to be more genuine artists in the top 40, but as far as I can remember, we never listened to the top 40 because most music was shit anyway. So I don't think it really changed that much in that regard.

No it's changed trust me. I grew up in an era where Metallica, Guns N' Roses, Michael Jackson, U2, Nirvana, Pearl Jam. Radiohead, Soundgarden, Tom Petty, Oasis etc etc etc were all top 40. Trust me top 40 and mainstream music has changed big time.

To be honest Bono, you've made a distinction here without actually making a distinction. You haven't explained why you feel that one is of value and the other isn't. I'm presuming you consider the song about booty to be vaccuous and without profound intent but at the same time, ones a song thats for people dancing in the club, it's not really the place for profundity, is it? Then you cite Robert Plants more poetic thing. But, I mean, OK, you got one club dance song that does it's job really well i.e. making peoples arses shake...and then you've got some lyrics by Robert Plant that reach for some kinda poetic quality but then, in the field of poetry, how well does Plants lyrics even stand up? I mean it's hardly Wordsworth, is it?

Popular music was not created as a platform for poetry, it's club music, it's sock hop ball music, it's 'Saturday night and i just got paid' music. The fact that a few good women and men expanded on that and managed to integrate poetic aspects into it is admirable but it is not it's primary function and, also, to my mind, not something that rock n roll has ever done well.

Put simply, the best rock poets out there, your Dylans, your Lennons, your Morrisons, your Cohens...their work does not stand up well against those of the titans of the field of poetry...or even the slightly above average ones.

I mean, without being cruel or harsh, you read those lyrics by Plant and see something...i dunno, something good, something of high quality...i don't, i just see crap poetry basically, just like most rock lyrics come across when taken just written down, in and of themselves. Honestly, i don't see anything of value in the Plant lyrics than in the booty song, i really don't, other than effort.

And y'know, music that is made to make you move, there's something profoundly existentialist about it, it functions in the moment, it's affirmative, it's expressive...I'm not saying that the booty lyrics are some kind high end poetry but then they're not intended to be and in not intending to be, conceptually, there's something beautiful about that. The feeling you get in a club, where people are dancing, just lost in the hypnotic qualities of the rhythms, the poetic aspect of what dance music is lies in what it does, what it creates among a mass of people, that feeling it evokes, I mean was Jackson Pollock any less an artist because what he was doing was kinda left field and breaking away from tradition?

Profundity is an active component of life, it's everywhere, it all boils down to you and where you are at today, thats what makes a song speak to you, not whether or not is aspires to be Shakespeare. I'm always of the opinion that if i don't get something it's because there is something lacking in me, i am short of whatever that component is that makes me understand 'x' whereas the people who do dig it are not. I feel like I'd get round to understanding and appreciating every field of creative endeavour out there, on a long enough time line.

As far as there being something wrong with the industry I agree...and that something is the notion that you can industrialise artistic endeavour, it simply doesn't work that way...as evidenced by the way it always lapses into commercialisation and kowtowing, if art is your primary interest beyond making your arse shake, you're really looking in the wrong place for it.

Talk about reverse hipsterism. There's nothing worth defending here let alone defending it with an overly pseudo intellect approach. The fact you're defending the lyrics of that song "Booty" to any degree and even remotely suggest there's anything beautiful or artistic about it is hilarious. The fact you've all but ignore the shamefull video is also hilarious. Music that evokes something whether it's club music, soul music, folk music or whatever can be made without trying to pander to the lowest common denominator in exhange for money. That's all the "Booty" song is. To even try and say otherwise is laughable. Music is ART and the point in all this when and why did the masses and the industry alike decide to turn their backs on the artistic side of it.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to offend you and i hope i haven't but honestly i think you have some pretty strange ideas about things. First of all when was this industry geared towards 'the artistic side'? The answer is it wasn't...ever. What just cuz in the 60s there was an attention to like, i dunno, perhaps some more kinda poetic stuff? Well the reason for that was that that was the shit that sold, which is why after Dylan you had a million Dylan clones, after The Beatles you had a million Beatles clones, when exactly was this era where the music industry was a commune for artists? What, when the pay to play shit was going on maybe? When they were busy fleecing millions of dollars out of inept young boys who talents lay in the field of composition and not in business? The few 'artists' that escaped and made it were the exception to the rule and they had to fight the industry for every stick of the artistry involved.

Why can't you just explain your position? And what gives you the right to say whoose efforts are of artistic merit and whoose are not? Explain it to me, i want to know why Robert Plants song is of greater artistic merit than the one you're citing, it should be a pretty simple question to answer, i mean it the basis of your entire thread. Is the person, the producer who constructed the song not an artist? And if not, why not? And the lyrics, why are they not of artistic merit?

Art is a manifestation of human creative endeavour...and thats it. The fact that you don't like one for whatever reason doesn't make it any less art. And I can easily defend the lyrics of booty over Plants offering here, easily. They are clear, they are pointed, they say what they wanna say, they're direct and they communicate what they are designed to, Plants one, honestly, read like Hallmark card poetry.

And I'm sorry but the masses never look at pop music and went for art over entertainment, never. The charts, popular music, has always just been about the broad common denominator can it make your toe tap (or in this era your arse shake). You've gotta remember that for every Beatles offering in the charts there was a thousand Mrs Brown You've Got A Lovely Daughters or Do Wa Diddy Diddy Dum Diddy Do.

I'm reading and re-reading your post to try and fathom your objection but I'm getting nowhere. I see the word 'shameful' i see the phrase 'pandering to the lowest common denominator' and i see mention of it lacking beauty. Now, trying to piece those together, since you won't tell me, am i to believe it's the sexual aspect, that part of the content of the song you object to? If so, why? Or is it the fact that it's direct and just plain statement as opposed to tactfully shrouding it's sexuality in artistic metaphor?

Or is it that you just have preconceived ideas about the vacuousness of pop music today and a deluded reverence for the levels of artistic merit coming from days gone by? All I'm asking is that you explain yourself man, you seem passionate enough about it, why is that a problem?

The industry is a business, it is commerce, it is about getting your returns, these great artists of the past, the ones in the mainstream, the ones that made it to the charts, every last bastard among em changed lyrics, changed tunes, changed the way they dressed, changed anything you can damn well think of to be palletable and to be out there and to get heard and to make money, The Beatles wrote songs specifically geared to get a response from their audience, which was teen girls. Hence the she loves you, i love her, from me to you, i wanna hold your hand and on and on and on and on, what, did you think that was a coincidence? Do you think that was because Paul McCartney and John Lennons governing personality trait was the desire to hold girls hands?

And as far as reverse hipsterism, Christ you got a nerve citing me for a form of snobbery whilst going on about 'lowest common denominator'. What you mean by that is the average person, don't you? The common peon on the street that goes into clubs and drinks and gets laid and eats crisps and watches the telly etc etc, these people that you're so above because you listen to Robert Plant.

You know why 'the lowest common denominator' ain't into 'art' as music? Because it leads to attitudes like your one. They perceive a greater value in going out and living amongst the living, enjoying themselves in clubs, dancing and having fun as opposed to sitting inside and feeling a sense of superiority over a bunch of phoney crap.

And y'know what the funniest bit of all is? For all your snobbery, there are a few layers of 'art' appreciators above you that look down on rock n roll and it's desire to be considered art. The Tate Gallery brigade, the Piccasso and carrot cake boys, they look down on the artistic merit of your Led Zeppelins and your Who's, imagine that. There are those who look at the 'poetry' of Robert Plants lyrics and consider it laughable. Among the heavyweights of true poetry, rock n roll is a joke and the poetry of rock lyrics are a bigger joke.

Whats ridiculous is that the very genre that you're defending had to fight tooth and nail to even get to a position where a few (a few who, by the way, were considered the lowest common denominator by the gatekeepers to the kingdom of artistic merit) to consider it art...only for that few to grow and develop their own kinda snobbery...and now you're doing the exact same with whats coming up.

Hip Hops up next, just you watch, the same genre that had to fight for the right to be called art (where a few still won't) is developing it's own snobbery, it begins with editorialisation and attempts to contextualise shit in the chronology of the evolution of popular music...and once it's found that spot all the kings horses gather and nothing gets done until someone comes to burn the palace down, just like rock n roll was burnt down, cuz it lost it's head up it's own arse.

You think people don't listen to things like Zep because they're beyond their comprehension, it's like too deep or profound for them? Did it ever occur to you that today, in the here and now, a lot of it just seems really really really corny to them, just as The Beatles do, in case you think I'm keeping my personal favourites out of it?

Without a point of reference, a context and some kind of understanding of where and when The Beatles were speaking, a lot of their song lyrics are massively corny to a great many people...but I would never sit here and say it's because they're the lowest common denominator, just cuz they don't like the same pop music as me. So, y'know, when taking these comparative pot-shots it might be worth taking into account the stifling limitations of that which you're singing up.

To summarise though, this era of artistic greatness you talk about only ever existed because the dominant youth culture things at the time were centred around art and poetry and all this kinda shit, Beatniks/Hippies etc, you could market poetry to those fuckin' guys and girls, half of whom were a bunch of clueless spotty drop-outs that smoked a spliff and sat around wowing at some kinda bullshit poetry like:

Here i am

beneath the sky

am i me

or am i

Them? Today is now

Tommorow lost

To the ghosts beneath

Our footprints.

WOW MAN, HEAAVYYYY And thats all it was, marketing third rate poetry through rock music for as long as the going was good and that shit sold to kids...and then punk came along and the opposite became profitable to market. There are no golden ages. Listening to some guy onstage running through his scales for 20 minutes and thinking like it's fuckin' Beethoven or something.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[magisme]

I don't know. Trash has always been popular. Arcade Fire just sold out three nights in a row at an arena in Brooklyn. I saw Neutral Milk Hotel and Beck headline a huge festival this summer. I know no one wants to hear it but Kanye is huge and he's widely considered to be high quality. I don't think much has changed. It's just that all the shit is in your face more because it's not just mtv and radio anymore.

[The Glow Inc.]

Well, maybe I am a part of the problem, yeah.

I used to think that it's tragic that very gifted musicians, prodigies, incredible songwriters would remain obscure acts while presumably talentless people would get amazing exposure.

Then I started to realize that people get what they want, no matter how you look at it.

There is no "problem" with the music industry. There is only people living in the present, and people wishing the present was more like the past.

Truly passionate musicians will still continue to make the kind of music they want to make, regardless of how many people care because they first and foremost make their music for themselves.

The end.

[Len Cnut]

I don't know. Trash has always been popular. Arcade Fire just sold out three nights in a row at an arena in Brooklyn. I saw Neutral Milk Hotel and Beck headline a huge festival this summer. I know no one wants to hear it but Kanye is huge and he's widely considered to be high quality. I don't think much has changed. It's just that all the shit is in your face more because it's not just mtv and radio anymore.

It's kinda the platform for trash though isn't it, as everything designed for 'the lowest common denominator' (which basically means regular blue collar folk), this is why popular music over and above any other form of art suffers from these kinda assaults, every form of popular music was once considered trash, it's to do with the people that give birth to it and who they are. There's a message in that somewhere.

[bacardimayne]

Tell me more about how I'm supposed to enjoy 90 year old Bob Plant's old man shit just because the lyrics are at a junior high school level.

Edited September 20, 2014 by bacardimayne

[estrangedtwat]

Oh no, kids today don't realize that music hit its peak in 1994 with Oasis and Metallica and Pearl Jam and U2?

Well guess what...that's all Classic Rock now.

Just think...it's been 20 years since Homer complained about how the bands he loved from 1974 were considered Dinosaur Rock by his kids, and now all the bands he toured with on Hullabalooza are all in the oldies section. Smashing Pumpkins is a nostalgia act now. Fucked up.

[gunsfanoldie]

Its too much to get into the whole problem with the music industry. I haven't read all of Bono's posts (sorry, they are kind of long. Not your fault, my posts usually are as well) but I do agree with at least the basic gist of his point.

I don't have a problem with people like J Lo or Nicki Minaj putting out the songs they do about butts. I don't particularly like it and think its stupid, but I don't particularly have a problem with it. Thing is, IMO, if they put out songs like this, they shouldn't ever be allowed to talk about feminism and how hard it is for a woman in the music industry because they are only making it worse.

Yes, sex is definitely a component of mainstream music, or at least it is now, but there are ways to do it without going overboard. I hate her, but Taylor Swift is an example of that. I completely agree that its pretty insane people aren't more offended by this music. I'm not, but you have people everyday talking about equality and how its so much harder for some than others, and I'm shocked these aren't used as examples, because if anything this would lower my thoughts about women because it really shows that all they have going for them is being hot.

In terms of finding other music these days, I can't anger myself having that discussion again. I have it pretty frequently and I hear that good music is there just harder to find and I'm just sick of that. I've looked and despite what many say, I think its few and far between. There are hints of good people, but it isn't consistent. Its either one great album or a few great songs while the rest pales in comparison. And the mainstream people examples like Black Keys, Rival Sons are the same way. A few really great tracks with pretty ok albums and a specific sound that gets old after awhile. Honestly, I think thats the reason I like people like Slash and Ace Frehley's new music so much, because despite all odds, they are still the only ones putting out great music these days. I'd welcome new rock to listen to, but I get the same suggestions everytime and they really aren't that great.

[GivenToFly]

I think my main issue with today's music is how it all sounds like a race to see who care the least about everything. Where the overblown drama? That's what I like! Where are the songs that fucking explode! and take molehills and make them into mountains? That's what I wanna know! Where are today's Purple Rains and Bats Out Of Hell? I demand more epics and power ballads and I want them now!!!

[MEXzilla]

I just feel most of us have made our taste concrete, hence why so many artist are either good or ok, or bad. Many what we consider great(U2 or GnR or Zep, etc.) we won't ever consider new bands at the same level.

For instance, I'm a huge U2 and Depeche Mode fan and I find myself liking Coldplay and The Killers, but I just never consider their talent at the level of U2/DM. While people who hear Coldplay/Killers tend to feel the other way around, it's just we all have our taste set. I grew up with 90s music and now that's not being made anymore(or it's not mainstream) and now I feel the need to say that music nowadays suck.

[Broskirose]

Who cares about what's on the charts? Just don't listen to it.

The good music is easily accessible. Albums are free. Tracks get put online shortly after finished. I'd say things are better than ever.

[Lithium]

Who cares about what's on the charts? Just don't listen to it.

The good music is easily accessible. Albums are free. Tracks get put online shortly after finished. I'd say things are better than ever.

Exactly. Just look at the 80s - the stuff on the charts was mostly shit, but if you looked under the surface, there was plenty of great music around. The charts are what most people listen to, and most people are usually idiots. It's been like that since the birth of popular music.

[gunsfanoldie]

I just feel most of us have made our taste concrete, hence why so many artist are either good or ok, or bad. Many what we consider great(U2 or GnR or Zep, etc.) we won't ever consider new bands at the same level.

For instance, I'm a huge U2 and Depeche Mode fan and I find myself liking Coldplay and The Killers, but I just never consider their talent at the level of U2/DM. While people who hear Coldplay/Killers tend to feel the other way around, it's just we all have our taste set. I grew up with 90s music and now that's not being made anymore(or it's not mainstream) and now I feel the need to say that music nowadays suck.

That is probably it on some level. But I do think that there were bands in the 90s that were at least consistent. You (not you, but the general public) may have lost touch with Pearl Jam after their huge debut, but their second and third are just as good to many. They at least had a good run there, and for me thats a huge fan it continued for another two or three albums. My point is no one is making music at a high enough quality for a long enough time. There are a ton of bands that are pretty good, but they'll make one really good album then the second will end up sucking and being totally different. OR those bands then take YEARS to record another album and they lose all momentum.

It seems no one has the urgency anymore. Or at least not 2 or 3 albums worth.

[Sixes]

I just feel most of us have made our taste concrete, hence why so many artist are either good or ok, or bad. Many what we consider great(U2 or GnR or Zep, etc.) we won't ever consider new bands at the same level.

For instance, I'm a huge U2 and Depeche Mode fan and I find myself liking Coldplay and The Killers, but I just never consider their talent at the level of U2/DM. While people who hear Coldplay/Killers tend to feel the other way around, it's just we all have our taste set. I grew up with 90s music and now that's not being made anymore(or it's not mainstream) and now I feel the need to say that music nowadays suck.

That is probably it on some level. But I do think that there were bands in the 90s that were at least consistent. You (not you, but the general public) may have lost touch with Pearl Jam after their huge debut, but their second and third are just as good to many. They at least had a good run there, and for me thats a huge fan it continued for another two or three albums. My point is no one is making music at a high enough quality for a long enough time. There are a ton of bands that are pretty good, but they'll make one really good album then the second will end up sucking and being totally different. OR those bands then take YEARS to record another album and they lose all momentum.

It seems no one has the urgency anymore. Or at least not 2 or 3 albums worth.

Pearl Jam are still making great albums

[Len Cnut]

Who cares about what's on the charts? Just don't listen to it.

I guess cuz when some folks like something because you think it's of high artistic merit then it kinda validates it if it's the dominant cultural thing at the time, it helps some people in their mind to feel like they are more a part of this imaginary thing called 'society'. And I suppose I can see the merit in that but generally I agree with your position, if you don't like it why inflict it on yourself, this is the age of convenience where basically everything in music is a click of the finger away, it's not like the old days where your range was limited to your radio stations and whatever albums your local store was goodly enough to sell, you can find any fuckin' thing really so yeah, like you say, who gives a fuck whats in the charts, you're really not limited like that anymore.

[Rovim]

Who cares about what's on the charts? Just don't listen to it.

I guess cuz when some folks like something because you think it's of high artistic merit then it kinda validates it if it's the dominant cultural thing at the time, it helps some people in their mind to feel like they are more a part of this imaginary thing called 'society'. And I suppose I can see the merit in that but generally I agree with your position, if you don't like it why inflict it on yourself, this is the age of convenience where basically everything in music is a click of the finger away, it's not like the old days where your range was limited to your radio stations and whatever albums your local store was goodly enough to sell, you can find any fuckin' thing really so yeah, like you say, who gives a fuck whats in the charts, you're really not limited like that anymore.

If you have a choice, it's best to not give a fuck about negative shit or shit you don't like. I guess. Give a shit about things and people you do like.

This is on the condition of course that you accept who you are and you don't look for others to validate you in any way. Not even people you love, cause in theory, you don't need an external factor to validate shit or depend on in that way.

That connects to another thing: I think some people get too caught up with "love" that they sacrifice the conditions they need in order to stay who they really are. The goal is to be content, to share yourself with another person if we're talking romantic "love", to not be alone. But how can you be content if you're not accepted by someone else?

This brings me back to my previous point: when on your own, it's easier to live and respect yourself and still be able to be a part of...whatever. If you're in a relationship, it's hard to not live inside a bubble that is not your own, conditions of someone you really care about.

I think any connection between two people, no matter who they are is problematic by nature. We're too complicated/basic/self centered for it to work well for more then a specific amount of time. This is why I always hear a lot of people say it's natural for every couple to argue, and even best friends can you know...swing a few punches at one another.

I agree it's natural, but why is that? is it because we're too fuckin' selfish? really deep inside. What are we? animals that know they're gonna die someday. That's all we are.

But we dress life as something more cause we gotta have meaning. But is there, really, a true meaning? I don't think so. We give shit meaning: "this person means so much to me", "this piece of art is brilliant", "do you know what hell I went through to be here? learned so much got a new lease on life" lol. Doesn't mean anything.

It's our instinct to organize everything. It's easier to swallow that way I guess. Even shit that doesn't make sense, or doesn't quite fit...stick it in there! better then nothing.

Most people don't have the time, patience, balls, or will to stick to what can be proven, measured, or usable in a practical way.

So you get religion, shallow happy shit, and idolization of anything that acts as a drug cause it's easier to forget negative shit when you have cable tv, food with a lot of fat, salt, and sugar, and good sex. Denial saves people every fuckin' day from discovering shit their brain can't really handle "right now".

Evolution was probably just a mistake, and this is why humanity is so fuckin' weird and often useless and goes in circles. I'm not really complaining, I just can't handle my coffee right now.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Rovim

[gunsfanoldie]

I just feel most of us have made our taste concrete, hence why so many artist are either good or ok, or bad. Many what we consider great(U2 or GnR or Zep, etc.) we won't ever consider new bands at the same level.

For instance, I'm a huge U2 and Depeche Mode fan and I find myself liking Coldplay and The Killers, but I just never consider their talent at the level of U2/DM. While people who hear Coldplay/Killers tend to feel the other way around, it's just we all have our taste set. I grew up with 90s music and now that's not being made anymore(or it's not mainstream) and now I feel the need to say that music nowadays suck.

That is probably it on some level. But I do think that there were bands in the 90s that were at least consistent. You (not you, but the general public) may have lost touch with Pearl Jam after their huge debut, but their second and third are just as good to many. They at least had a good run there, and for me thats a huge fan it continued for another two or three albums. My point is no one is making music at a high enough quality for a long enough time. There are a ton of bands that are pretty good, but they'll make one really good album then the second will end up sucking and being totally different. OR those bands then take YEARS to record another album and they lose all momentum.

It seems no one has the urgency anymore. Or at least not 2 or 3 albums worth.

Pearl Jam are still making great albums

I don't disagree. In fact Backspacer was my favorite in a long time. I'm just saying I can understand how they lost people with Riot Act and what followed. The first three get pretty universal praise, but No Code after a few listens is just as good and Yield is a tremendous album, as is Binaural.

[Roush]

I read an article about the artist who writes most of the songs on the radio. It's one, overweight, black chick named Ester Dean. They churn these hits out in militaristic form. They (the production company) throw Ester, and maybe two producers into a studio for 10 hours. She sits in the booth, and sings melodies until she has something. They demo maybe 200 songs, then of those 200 songs -- maybe 10 are outstanding. Then they take those 10 songs, and auction them off to various record labels. Then those record labels "give" those songs to Rihanna, Britney, Iggy, or whoever is the flavor of the month. Lady Gaga used to have that job before she threw on lotsa makeup, and armadillo shoes.

In all fairness, the video editing on the J-Lo video is solid, and the music production end is interesting. There's that weird, sitaresque synthesizer that is pretty cool.

It used to be the drugs complimented the music. Then the music complimented the drugs. Now music is a soundtrack to people's antidepressants.

Damn, dude.

[Sixes]

I read an article about the artist who writes most of the songs on the radio. It's one, overweight, black chick named Ester Dean. They churn these hits out in militaristic form. They (the production company) throw Ester, and maybe two producers into a studio for 10 hours. She sits in the booth, and sings melodies until she has something. They demo maybe 200 songs, then of those 200 songs -- maybe 10 are outstanding. Then they take those 10 songs, and auction them off to various record labels. Then those record labels "give" those songs to Rihanna, Britney, Iggy, or whoever is the flavor of the month. Lady Gaga used to have that job before she threw on lotsa makeup, and armadillo shoes.

In all fairness, the video editing on the J-Lo video is solid, and the music production end is interesting. There's that weird, sitaresque synthesizer that is pretty cool.

It used to be the drugs complimented the music. Then the music complimented the drugs. Now music is a soundtrack to people's antidepressants.

Damn, dude.

That used to be done in the 60's as well in the famed Brill Building. Neil Diamond, Neil Sedaka, Carole King, Burt Bacharach, Gerry Goffin, Johnny Mercer, Leiber and Stoller, Hal David, Cynthia Weil, Sonny Bono, Laura Nyro, Paul Simon were among the names that worked there. It was a regular 9-5 job as writers would write songs all day long, everyday. They churned out hundreds of songs, many of which became hits

[Len Cnut]

I read an article about the artist who writes most of the songs on the radio. It's one, overweight, black chick named Ester Dean. They churn these hits out in militaristic form. They (the production company) throw Ester, and maybe two producers into a studio for 10 hours. She sits in the booth, and sings melodies until she has something. They demo maybe 200 songs, then of those 200 songs -- maybe 10 are outstanding. Then they take those 10 songs, and auction them off to various record labels. Then those record labels "give" those songs to Rihanna, Britney, Iggy, or whoever is the flavor of the month. Lady Gaga used to have that job before she threw on lotsa makeup, and armadillo shoes.

In all fairness, the video editing on the J-Lo video is solid, and the music production end is interesting. There's that weird, sitaresque synthesizer that is pretty cool.

It used to be the drugs complimented the music. Then the music complimented the drugs. Now music is a soundtrack to people's antidepressants.

Damn, dude.

That used to be done in the 60's as well in the famed Brill Building. Neil Diamond, Neil Sedaka, Carole King, Burt Bacharach, Gerry Goffin, Johnny Mercer, Leiber and Stoller, Hal David, Cynthia Weil, Sonny Bono, Laura Nyro, Paul Simon were among the names that worked there. It was a regular 9-5 job as writers would write songs all day long, everyday. They churned out hundreds of songs, many of which became hits

There's something quite admirable about that y'know. I've always liked that idea, churning out hits, like The Beatles, like Motown...I suppose cuz it's indicative of a prodigious talent somewhere. Wasn't Nilsson doing shit like that early on? I know he wrote Cuddley Toy and Daddys Song for The Monkees.