Cringe-Worthy Music

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

I probably have the highest amount of praise for Taylor Swift of anyone in this thread, and I believe a large chunk of her sales is due to how she's marketed. She came from money, was modeling, and knew someone in the music scene before she was performing original songs. Had her teeny-bopper country songs been released on a small label, it still might have blown up, but only after her contract was sold to a larger label for more marketing.

You can't market to a broad audience if you don't appeal to a large audience.

Good post!

[nate]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

I probably have the highest amount of praise for Taylor Swift of anyone in this thread, and I believe a large chunk of her sales is due to how she's marketed. She came from money, was modeling, and knew someone in the music scene before she was performing original songs. Had her teeny-bopper country songs been released on a small label, it still might have blown up, but only after her contract was sold to a larger label for more marketing.

She came from modeling?

Really?

I've got to get that marketing book!

[Captain13]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

I don't like Metallica.

How is that possible? I mean, really?! Anybody who had long hair or a mullet in the 80's knows one thing: METALLICA RULEZ!!! They are the Led Zeppelin of the next generation. They had four multi-platinum ablums before they had any radio play, then they had five more each with its share of AOR hits. That said, it is all about test.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

You can't market to a broad audience if you don't appeal to a large audience.

Good post!

I'll put it like this: artists with a lot less talent than Taylor Swift have sold more albums to Taylor Swift's demographic. People will be anything if it's marketed well enough.

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by Captain13

How is that possible? I mean, really?! Anybody who had long hair or a mullet in the 80's knows one thing: METALLICA RULEZ!!! They are the Led Zeppelin of the next generation. They had four multi-platinum ablums before they had any radio play, then they had five more each with its share of AOR hits. That said, it is all about test.

I'll give you all that. I will.

Def Leppard is where it is for me.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

I don't think we are arguing that at all.

I showed you where Taylor Swift received critical success. You made fun of the sources.

So what you've boiled it down to is that you've decided that since a market consists of teenage girls and lame media likes her, it is therefore not good.

How convenient.

Music is about taste. You don't like her. But we can't be blinded by our own taste to say that something is bad.

I don't like Metallica. I would also tell you they are the best at what they do and are pioneers. I can make that observation by looking at the people who they appeal to and realizing that that group judges them to be very good.

And if we don't like something, it's not automatically because it's popular. If one is going against what you see as the general popular grain, one might actually have reasons for it.

dom, I feel like you should remember that I am a pop princess. I, like, dissect that stuff. I can defend Call Me Maybe as a piece of musical genius. The hooks are killer, the style of singing suits the song perfectly, the beats are both modern and timeless. The synth in the chorus is some of the best pop production ever. EVER. in terms of pop production, it is up there with the Beatles. I'm 100% serious.

And yes: I don't think Taylor Swift is very good. I think she sticks with a standard formula -- in her songwriting, in her singing, in her lyrics, in her execution (as a performer and in production). But she doesn't do anything especially interesting with it. I find it generic and vanilla and boring. I'm not saying she has to do anything NEW. I think The Strokes -- often miscategorized as a rock band -- are a stellar pop band, because they take a tried-and-true formula (chords, guitars, lyrics, everything), and they do absolutely nothing new with it. Except they do it incredibly well. I find Taylor Swift mediocre. I wouldn't feel any differently if she wasn't a mass success. She's boring and bland, but she has a niche, and she was packaged well and surrounded by money, so there you go. It doesn't mean she's good.

I'm also bugged by the fact that anyone ever refers to her music as country, as there's nothing remotely country about it. But that's probably not her fault.

Most of all, I find her message, the stories in her songs, and the general persona to be offensive, I really do. The fact that anyone could consider her a role model for young women is something I find borderline abhorrent.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

I'll put it like this: artists with a lot less talent than Taylor Swift have sold more albums to Taylor Swift's demographic. People will buy anything if it's marketed well enough.

fmp

[Revering4Blue]

I don't like the Beastie Boys. I would also tell you they are the best at what they do and are pioneers. I can make that observation by looking at the people who they appeal to and realizing that that group judges them to be very good.

Fixed that for me.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Most of all, I find her message, the stories in her songs, and the general persona to be offensive, I really do. The fact that anyone could consider her a role model for young women is something I find borderline abhorrent.

I've always enjoyed your perspective on things, so I'm asking out of genuine curiosity as the dad of a daughter. Obviously, being a 40something-year-old man instead of a tween girl, Swift's music does nothing for me. But I don't find it, or her, offensive in the slightest. Overly dramatic, maybe, but that's pretty much standard issue in a demographic that (to steal a line) emotes for a living. Who do you consider a role model for young women, musically speaking? And by that, I mean role models for normal teenage girls who are going to go through life at normal speed and can't skip straight to being 25. What is it about those artists that appeals to you? Did you like them when you were that age or is it a situation where they are the artists you wished you had listened to at that age?

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

All music is of a time, place and perspective. If it's not coming from YOUR time, place and perspective, you're less likely to like it. This is especially true when breaking down along gender lines; for the most part, men and women don't like exactly the same music or for the same reasons. That doesn't necessarily make either's music better or worse, it's just different.

Here's how to know something REALLY sucks: when the intended target audience doesn't like it. Otherwise, a little "each to our own" goes a long way.

Well stated.

[gilpdawg]

Originally Posted by Captain13

How is that possible? I mean, really?! Anybody who had long hair or a mullet in the 80's knows one thing: METALLICA RULEZ!!! They are the Led Zeppelin of the next generation. They had four multi-platinum ablums before they had any radio play, then they had five more each with its share of AOR hits. That said, it is all about test.

I understand where he's coming from and I'm most likely the biggest metal fan here. Metallica has been pedestrian since 1986 imo. Those first three records are unstoppable though. I'd argue that while their rival Dave didn't ever have as good an album as Master of Puppets, as a whole, Megadeth's body of work is more consistent. I know I'm going to get hammered for that, but whatever.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[camisadelgolf]

Everything is wrong with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=kn7jpINpqbQ#!

[Captain13]

Originally Posted by gilpdawg

I understand where he's coming from and I'm most likely the biggest metal fan here. Metallica has been pedestrian since 1986 imo. Those first three records are unstoppable though. I'd argue that while their rival Dave didn't ever have as good an album as Master of Puppets, as a whole, Megadeth's body of work is more consistent. I know I'm going to get hammered for that, but whatever.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Megadeth's body of work is more consistant, but I don't think it is better (I don't think it is nearly as good). Looking back and listening as an adult, and after the music landscape has changed I think Slayer holds up amazingly well. I think King's guitar work dwarfs that of any other thrash band. Also, I think Pantera took everything that was great about Metallica, Megadeth and Slayer combined it with their take on Sabbath and Purple and created some masterful music.

Metallica is still my favorite, and probably the most influential of the bunch, but I think the best heavy metal songs of the 80's and 90's were performed by Slayer and Pantera.

[gilpdawg]

I agree with that, but I prefer Hanneman over King if I'm ranking Slayer guitarists. All of King's solos sound alike to me.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[TeamSelig]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

I guess that could be said about posting in a thread you don't like lol...

lol that is true