Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
However, I think it's kind of funny when people refer to music like this.
If I sell 40 million albums, I can pretty much guarantee that everyone is going to say that it's crappy music and that is why I sold so many albums.
Does this seem like a bit of a contradiction to anyone?
If a video game sells a million copies, it's gotta be awesome.
If a designer sells a million dresses, it must have been a good dress.
If a car company sells a million cars, it must be a good car.
But for some reason, as soon as you sell a lot of albums, it must be because it sucks.
Weird.
|
The reason it sucks is because its watered down, over polished, bland, doesn't move music forward or take any risks, and above all else it isn't art. Pop music and top 40 tunes are terrible because they are specifically designed to be simple; to target average folk who like to dress in the latest brand name clothes, drive the newest and most popular car, and have have an xbox "cuz my neighbor has one and its cool."
I'm not saying ALL music with commercial success isn't well done, artistic, or groundbreaking, but in these specific cases (Linkin Park, Nickelback, ect..) there are none of those qualities. They may be "cool" now but they have no staying power. The same people who buy those albums now will move on to the "next big thing" when it comes along, akin to having the new car, dress...
Anyone remember Limp Bizkit?