It is catchy. The synth sounds almost like a great '70s ABBA riff. If it only it were...

But on topic, there has been opposition to "popular" music by the older generations since modern popular music. In the '50s, fans of jazz and the blues honestly couldn't stand Elvis's guts and thought all of his followers didn't know real music from 'communist nonsense.'
In the '60s, again fans of '20s and '30s jazz hated the rock music of the day. And during the '60s and '70s, music from the 1930s and '40s were seen as "legendary" songs from a "better musical generation." Led Zeppelin was just the better than usual hard rock band, but had nothing on Woodie Guthrie or Bing Cosby or the like, and The Beatles were the Justin Bieber of their generation- moms and their daughters and maybe some of their sons loved them- it's only when The Beatles began experimenting were they really kicking it off with music aficionados of the era.

Beauty is alsoin the eye of the beholder. In the 2030s, I wouldn't be surprised if Lady Gaga is seen as this generation's Madonna, or Green Day is up there with Led Zeppelin and The Who. We can't know today and it's pointless to try to argue for or against in those terms. In preferences, I have mine, and they don't include Lady Gaga and just barely scrap any for Green Day.

What's wrong with relying on the charts? Unless we can say that the people who bought particular albums were are wrong to do so (which we can't) relying on the charts is legitimate method of studying opinions historically. Being popular and selling well may not be the only way of saying a band is good, but it is a way of saying it.

On the other hand, selling badly isn't an indication that an album wasn't highly thought of. But if it wasn't highly thought of or popular, in which case it wouldn't have received much publicity, then it wasn't 'good' (emphasis on wasn't), even if it is considered good today.

But country music is disproportionately popular in the US. We don't bother with it much in the rest of the world.
And from what I understand, even within the US it exists in its own little bubble (as does christian music of all forms)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXn4EP8dkbk

I have to agree with the pop music was better 40 years ago sentiment. Even though there were still put together pop bands, it tended to be a lot more honest. No autotuned vocals, more emphasis on interesting songs. Generally, people got big because of their output, not their image and what crazy antics they get up to.

Because sales =/= critical praise. Otherwise, the Macarena is one of the finest songs of the 1990s. It tells us trends in listening, certainly. But that's all it does.



Pet Sounds sold disappointingly in the US, but then again, it got no label push from Capitol. Its not like record companies weren't operating as ugly capitalist businesses in the good ol' days. Tom Hanks made a movie about it.



You're right, there was no tabloid culture back then. Except that the term dates to the very beginning of the 20th century. "Crazy antics" weren't at all anything was interested in, so no one cared about the images, except when they did, like with Elvis, the Rat Pack, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, and all the stars of the era. No offense, but I think you're imagining a world that didn't exist.

So 'critical praise' can tell us what was good but popular praise can't? Sorry, but that's nonsense. As far as I'm concerned there can be 50 glowing reviews from music journals and underground zines of an album, but if it wasn't listened to by the public, wasn't enjoyed, then it doesn't mean a thing. The standards of a music critic are no more valid than those of the general public, in fact they are less valid because critics aren't the intended audience of popular music.

@ godsonsafari

Thing is, some of those guys you mentioned actually had good musical output (I can't judge Jerry Lee Lewis because I've heard so little of him). I guess that's subjective, but there is a big difference in the pop stars today. I'm okay with people being splashed over the tabloids, as long as they have done something good to get there.

Sales aren't praise. They are sales. Things sell that are horrible. People bought Chevy Vegas for a number of reasons: attachment to the Chevy brand, smaller car during fuel crisis, pricing, initial praise from the motoring press because of its innovations. The car rusted quickly and the engine grenaded with regularity. It is a dud of a car, one of the worst built in the US ever.

Moreover, as it relates to this thread, what would the "popularity = quality" thesis mean for any era of music, much less this one? Obviously we'd have to assume that pop music is plainly "good" as it sells records. That's an interesting conclusion for a lot of people. In the present day though, physical media is on the way out and has a significantly reduced role in music listening habits. What does that mean for something like Gangnam Style then?



Then heavy metal is generally irrelevant. Why are we all here discussing these records?



That's nonsense. That's as if to say that criticism on this site of generic metalcore or, hell, Metallica's output over the last 20 years is irrelevant because people on M-A aren't the intended audience.



There isn't a big difference. Look up Jerry Lee Lewis' wiki and see what torpedoed his career. It wasn't a bad single or two.

According to Sam Dunn's Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, in the early 80's metal was the most popular form of music in the world. Bands like Maiden and Metallica dominated. Then Glam Metal came and pretty much destroyed it... It's my personal belief that we have glam metal bands to thank for the trash that's being put out these days. A slow, gradual evolution. I've also noticed that pop is slowly evolving towards electronic music. Techno, drum and bass, Dubstep (I said a naughty word, I'm sorry!) and the like.

I'm only 19, so I can't say this for certain, but I do believe that at one point in time popular music was actually good. Unfortunately, I was born far too late to have ever seen it for myself.

[EDIT] Also, something quite a few people seem to forget is that the term 'pop' isn't actually a genre. It's a label. Back to what I previously said, I believe that there was a time that Maiden would be considered 'pop'. It's not as much of a blasphemous term as one might think. Well, these days it is, but that's just because people are stupid, simple, and easily amused for the most part.

I have anything to say, except that my city's radio statios Actualy sucks! They don't play Metal. And today most of people don't have that headbanger spirit. They only listen to shit like Justin Bieber, Flo rida and One Direction. I really don't understand them lol

The University of Calgary has a student-run radio station that plays metal every now and again. I've heard Venom, Dissection, Dying Fetus, Rotting Christ... Actually, I heard from a friend that they once played Anal Cunt.

Haven't been able to listen to them lately for some reason...

Glam metal kicked ass for most of the 80's. It got shitty in the late 80's. Dee Snider (from Twisted Sister) tells it best.

Anyway, early Motley Crue and Def Leppard were raw and powerful as fuck.

Have you forgotten what this thread is about? You are claiming that critically acclaimed but poorly sold music is better than popular music, with absolutely no basis. I'm not saying all criticism is irrelevant, only that it's no more relevant than popular opinion when it comes to telling us what was "good" from an historical perspective.

There's another factor that made 'objectively' better to older artists: generally speaking you needed some talent to get some attention from a label and/or a producer.

Most of older pop singers actually could sing well (being, in tune and live) and also were more involved into the writing of the songs than today. Do you think we'll have another Freddy Mercury, Michael Jackson, Elton John or a George Michael again? all of them write/wrote their songs, have/had great talents as singers and also played instruments (can you believe that George recorded most of the instruments for his first solo album? There's no chance in hell that Rihanna, Beyonce or the horde of reggeaton boys can do it!, he even wrote Careless Whispers at the age of 13!). Michael Jackson actually sang the guitars, bass and beats to his musicians for them to write/perform the compositions.

I saw a recent live video of Rick Astley; damn, the guy can sing just well!

The problem with that Dunn idiot is that he's far too much of a rabid metal fan to be a reliable source. He has no perspective - metal was never the most popular form of music, but Dunn wouldn't know that because he's been eating/breathing/shitting metal for 20 years.

I'm actually not, but OK, I guess that would be an easier thing to rail against. You might have to read the entire thread. Sorry, no recaps.



Oh, I'm sure you aren't. That would remove your own ability to have a reasonable opinion about anything on the internet, right? Informed and well argued criticism at any point has more value than placement on the Billboard Top 100 for a vast array of reasons, some of which were already noted.



It isn't more relevant. Sales =/= popular praise. Chart position or radio plays aren't either.

Reggaeton, like dancehall/dub/most reggae is dependent heavily on production. This is no different than any era preceding it. It is much like hip hop. Singers singing someone else's songs isn't new. Frank Sinatra's name appears on the credits for a whopping seven songs out of the hundreds/thousands he sang. Compared to Lada Gaga or Ke$ha he wasn't much of a song writer. Doesn't seem to hurt him in historical rankings.

Yeah man, those guys in the 40s all sang different peoples songs....it was the glory age of "songwriters", with amazing duos and single songwriters who finally found people to sing their stuff. Thought that was common knowledge.

Well, they kind of are. People buy tunes because they like them, and since you can easily listen to a song in advance now, you're buying something because you know you like it. Your car example earlier is crap - we can objectively say the car was bad. People bought it not knowing it was going to be poor after purchase. Music is subjective, people buy what they like therefore sales = popular praise. Pretty simple really.

There's a much better argument for that now than in an era where the 4th major broadcaster was RKO. There's no practical argument for that period of time. There's lots to be said about the inability of record companies to adjust to the era we're in right now.



Taste also changes over the years. People know what they wore in the 1970s is ridiculous now, for example. and people didn't really know what they were buying back then on EPs or LPs. They could only hear the lead single. There was no outlet to hear anything but. And their ability to hear the single was based largely on the willingness of radio broadcasters to play it, which in turn was (and is today) related to the amount of money being paid by the record company, AKA "push". The difference is that today there's a million outlets for music to be played. Then there were very, very few. Jukeboxes were enormously important and had their own chart in Billboard up until the Top 100 was created.

American pop music varies so wildly in quality that it's ridiculous.

That's why I stick to J-Pop. It's consistent and there's always someone to check out.

Stop being such a snarky asshole. If you can't be bothered writing anything aside from "I'm right and you're not", better not post a reply at all.

I'm not so big anymore on writing essays for responses on message boards, so my suggestion stays the same - if you want to argue about what I've actually said, great. If you want to argue a strawman, you'll get a fitting response.

How is he being a snarky asshole? I got your back, godsonsafari. You're pretty much on the money here.

This.

J-Pop is excruciating.

Scandi pop is where it's at. This new Icona Pop album is a masterpiece of production and hook-filled songwriting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5UezkwSxM

EAT. YOUR. WORDS.

Actually, that wasn't half bad. Lose the wayyyyyy overdone vibrato and underdone instrumentation and it might actually be great. Sounds like an outtake from the golden age of Disney music, which I mostly enjoy.

To be fair, though, I thought we were discussing heavily processed present-day pop music.

I was big into Jpop for a long time, but lately there seems to be lull in quality concerning new stuff. The whole idol scene generally sucks with this Johnny's crap and the whole AKB48 thing which musically sounds like weak 'Hello! Project' ripoffs, at least what I bothered to check out.

Still, I can't help but dig Perfume (that short haired girl's got the best legs I've ever seen) and their killer produced techno stuff to go with their weird but difficult synchronized dancing, and the all girl pop rock bands I sort of like to varying degrees. Namie Amuro is ok but I like her early stuff more. Ayumi was great..'I Am' was a hell of an album...until after 'Next Level'. She needs to revamp herself.

I do consider the late 90's through mid 00's scene in Japan to be good popular music...lots of artists I liked that aren't doing much any more (like Hitomi Shimatani, whose 'Heart & Symphony' is one of my favs). Any other straight up Jpop released recently I should check out? Haven't been following the scene outside of Perfume lately.

Devo correctly predicted the future of mankind and music partly by creation of it.

Awesome troll, Chris Brown.

http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Chris+Brow ... U96nh1pMNj

Hey, I like this! Anything else like it?

LOL that is an amazing picture of Chris Brown. Million billion stars.

Charli XCX seems the most obvious comparison, given her heavy involvement with the songwriting on that album. Great mix of lo-fi, gothrock and electropop. If you enjoy this, check out Purity Ring, which crafted one of my favorite gothish electropop albums of the year.

Anyway, Robyn's latest two full-lengths essentially put this style of electropop on the public radar. Check out Robyn and Body Talk for the same layered, vocoder-heavy approach to bleepy-and-bloopy europop.

Good but unspectacular electropop artists in a similar (albeit softer) vein would include Sky Ferreira, Annie and Veronica Maggio.

However, the best electropop album I've ever come across is Margaret Berger's Pretty Scary Silver Fairy. One of the densest, weirdest yet utterly infectious and memorable pop albums I've ever heard. Every track sounds completely independent of the others, yet somehow each song manages to generate the same frigid, terrifyingly gorgeous atmosphere. It's stunning, and absolutely worth listening to in its entirety at least once.

I am incredibly tired/medicated right now. I'm sure I'll be able to come up with more later.

N.B. Despite the fact most of the featured artists on these albums come from separate countries (albeit mostly from somewhere in Scandinavia), there are many, many overlaps in producers and contributing songwriters.

Here are my thoughts. I find complaining about how terrible popular music is, and trying to claim that your music is so much superior, is kind of pretentious. I used to be that way, I'm not trying to knock people who do, but I get it.

First of all, I think the idea that older music was all good stuff is untrue. Look at the top 100 hits of any given year, and I doubt you'll recognize most of the bands and musicians. The truly good stuff is remembered, but sometimes even things that were chart toppers back in the day is mostly forgotten.

Second, I try and have an attitude that my music taste isn't better, simply different. A melody is a melody, and a rhythm is a rhythm. Just enjoy them when you hear them. Sure, metal may be more musically complex a lot of the time, but they're all melodies, they're all rhythms. To be honest, I kind of got burnt out on metal, and have been branching out, but I haven't bought much music lately. I still listen to it occasionally, but anyway, that's my point.

It's true that a lot of music you hear on the radio is very formulaic, and for me, it's very hit or miss. The reason for that is that the radio isn't most people's source of music anymore, it's the internet. FM radio is mostly used by people driving in cars where music doesn't have to be deep. It had to adapt to survive.

If we're talking about rock music, for some reason it isn't near as popular as it used to be. I don't hear many new bands, and most young people don't seem to listen to it. I have a theory about this that rock music in previous decades was meant to cruise and drive around to on the open road. it just seems made for that. Now with gas prices, young people don't do that anymore. Rap seems to have taken the position rock used to hold.

To make a long post short, a lot of music now is what I call "junk food music". There's nothing wrong with it, and there's nothing wrong with liking it. You like what you like. I don't mind junk food every now and then, but it doesn't make up the majority of my diet.

The same goes for music. For example, I don't like bands like Nickelback and Creed. But I like a good number of Staind songs. Honestly. If I hear one on the radio in the car, I'll turn it up, and if I'm alone, I might even sing along. I've always been that way. It might be nostalgia, because they're some of the first songs I remember hearing, but yes, they're contemporaries of those bands, but I consider them to be in a different league. I just like what I like. Yes, I said Staind.

This was a good song. Thanks!

Speaking of Japan, anyone know the glam metal band X-Japan? Metal is fairly big in Japan compared to U.S. Check out Tears by X-Japan. Great vocals, great sound.

It seems like metal is kind of making an appearance on the charts here as of late, we had a massive Cannibal Corpse special on one of our late night music TV shows here and I noticed that a radio station here that usually plays family friendly rock like Nickleback has started playing stuff like old school Metallica, Nine Inch Nails and Slayer.
It isn't much but in a country that spews this kind of crap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVNT4wvIGY) in the charts, it's at least something.
Mainstream popular music here has never been good, even in the '80s.

Pop music is still good. I know this because we have Yeasayer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdQQXpo2nM8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo4rbhR_vsk (the bridge to the second half never fails to give me chills)

Yeasayer is indeed marvelous. Much of their stuff reminds me of some of the better works of the Swedish band glampop band The Ark, who can also be really really good... except when they're not (In Full Regalia, I'm looking at you).