Why are modern movies still good but modern pop music not?

it's also best not to use evidence from noted arrogant a$$hole gene simmons.

I don't hate the entirety of modern pop music, just the trend I see it going in (Cee Lo Green, and J Cole are a couple fairly recent pop artists that I like for example).

I mean, hypothetically what if the film industry did away with actors entirely and made films only in CGI - would you be okay with that?

Basically I see the modern music industry going too capitalist - even Award shows like the Grammys seem to care more about how much the artist sells more than anything thing else (how else would "Crank That" by Souljia Boy have been a Grammy nominee - especially when you compare that to rappers like Tupac or Biggie).

Just curious, is there any link between modern movies and modern pop music here? Or is this just an argument about music?

Uh oh, the PC Police are coming for me.

Plus you're not saying she actually is a tranny are you? I was joking at how little sense the lyrics made and basically implied herself that she's a tranny. It'd be the equivalent of a male rapper saying "eat my p$ssy". Even a figure of speech is supposed to make a little bit of sense.

That's suprisingly decent. Guess which one has about 10X the views of the other though.

Plus if I wasn't fortunate for you to share that with me, there would've been no way in hell I'd have bought the album based off of "Stupid Hoe" or "Anaconda" alone.

So a legitimate point is still being made, since I'd bet the majority of people who've downloaded "Stupid Hoe" on Itunes have never bothered to listen to her full length album. Back in the day before digital downloads you had to buy the entire album; nowadays this isn't the case, so this could play an interesting role on the industry's future.

I was just comparing the two industries and theorizing why in my humble opinion, the music industry is becoming more medicore while the film and TV industry are still remaining decent - hell maybe even becoming more innovative in a lot of ways with shows like Mad Men, the Sopranos, etc

the music industry has always been like this though. journey didn't become popular because they're such talented musicians or whatever, it was because they wrote catchy songs that people could sing along to. same thing with dozens of popular artists from the past. just look at what some of the most popular songs of the 80s were that played on the radio and tell me they had "depth." then of course there was disco, which i've never cared for, but there's hardly any more artistry in that then there is in lady gaga. there was never a time when the music industry wasn't going to go with the thing that would sell the best. besides, with the internet you can get whatever you want so there is always going to be good stuff out there no matter how capitalist the music industry gets.

also, beck won album of the year at the grammys last year for a slow and contemplative and decidedly non-commercial album, and the grammys have never been relevant anyway and get less relevant every year.

Even at the absolute lowest quality of both mediums, at the end of the day it'd still be easier to pick up a camera and aim it at real people rather than go through the effort needed to render an entire film in CGI.

Whether she is or not is irrelevant. Granted, Minaj herself is at fault. A lot of her work features thematic content derived from her becoming a breakout female star in a male-dominated genre like rap (that's the whole point of "Anaconda", where she basically appropriates "Baby Got Back" in order to make a point about objectification, but with lines like that in "Stupid Hoe" she does kind of shoot herself in the foot.

Well, you did just ask me to find a song of a similar level of profundity and artistic merit. The question didn't say it had to be a hit, but I guess that's on the powers that be who decided not to make it a single.

It's fundamentally far too difficult to accurately compare both industries since TV is dedicated to playing a long game over the course of many episodes and seasons whereas music is much more ephemeral and omnipresent. Also, if we're talking about popular music in particular then it'd make more sense to compare it to shows that are also fundamentally lightweight and wide-aiming such as The Big Bang Theory or The X-Factor.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

also, the movie equivalent of modern pop music would have to be the huge cgi blockbusters that you seem to have a problem with anyway. someone like paul thomas anderson or quentin tarantino or whoever your idea of a good modern director is (and i have no idea what your film taste is) would be the equivalent of arcade fire or radiohead, who aren't really top 40 artists.

Obvious rip-off of South Park:

I don't see what my music has to do with anything. And if your second post in the thread explained what you were talking about more clearly, it obviously wasn't clearly enough to avoid a stream of pointless arguments based on misunderstandings.

Record labels aren't investing as much time and energy in musicians who play instruments and are really "in it for the art"

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/sla...s-dead-remark/

Okay, well you confused me by bringing my music into it. I thought you were trying to make some point about my music specifically, and I couldn't wrap my mind around why you'd want to do that.

i don't see why the ability to play instruments should be where the line is drawn on who has 'real' talent - what about Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey to name a few? these are all huge examples of huge talents who have had enormous influence on pop music. none of them play any instruments, but they were performers with huge sets and dance routines, much like Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Katy Perry, or Taylor Swift, really. and regardless of whether or not auto tunes was used in older music, i think basically everyone knows that studio albums are often smoothed over and edited when need be. which is why sometimes people complain about seeing a live performance vs. listening to the album at home. how is that really any different?

listening to a song you like on YouTube is kinda similar to when people used to mainly listen to all the popular songs that came on the radio - it was a jumping off point to hear the most popular songs that were being played over and over again. do you really think that if someone is a fan of Nicki Minaj and Anaconda, they really never will bother to check out her other music? that's just silly. kids today are just as into listening to music and exploring their favorite artists as they were back in the 60s or whatever. i don't see why technology would change that. i know that when i find a song i really like by someone, one of the first things i do is check out their other stuff. i don't think you're giving people enough credit here.

__________________
letterboxd

J cole is a pop artist?

__________________

I've not read all the thread, but I think what you are criticing is more society than music since you refer to pop as the music that tops the charts. Why do you think Lady Gaga, Nicki Minaj, One Direction, etc. tops the charts it's because people listen to them, the popular singers are the products of their environment of their society, they produce what they think will be liked by the fans. In the 60's people loved The Beatles, it was the time, it was what the Young people, the ''hip'' ones used to listen to. As for films, it is the same you are just more knowledgeable of it. The movies that are more mainstream, that make more money are total ****, if you search I'm sure you'll find some Fincher, Wong Kar Wai, Woody Allen or Christopher Nolan of music, but they aren't pop.

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

I think technology took a lot of the humanity out. It's not really art when you have a bunch of automated machines to do all the work. If you need "auto-tune" because you can't hit the correct note, well, you know where we're at.

As for film, it's become so formulaic. Put this star, with a star from another industry, and you get x amount of dollars. Special effects instead of great writing; car chases, softcore porn, blood and guts, very silly and redundant.

I guess it doesn't surprise me that the movies from 40+ years still resonate with people, they still top every "Greatest Movies" lists, and they had such little technology... I think part of this is the culture, blind compulsive greed.. I think the 80's had the biggest drop-off in all forms of arts, entertainment, politics, etc etc...

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

He has charted singles on pop radio. That by definition makes him one in my book. The "genre" isn't imporant

I think it's being marketed to a young demographic today.

Back before the internet a kid would have to actually get his parents to take him to the store and buy the CD/Casette - so I think they were more concerned with making it both appealing to adults.

Today the "middleman" has been eliminated and they can market directly to kids. who can just download anything the want on Itunes or stream it on Youtube or Spotify.