Huh huh. You said meme. You're already overqualified to write a book for the right wing fundamentalists. They would immediately see you as an intellectual elitist from fake America.
There's a huge difference. Saying that the Republicans are going to kill PBS and NPR is a far cry from saying that death panels are going to kill your grandmother and that the Islamic Brotherhood and "european communists" are working together to sew chaos in the middle east in order to destroy Israel.
The level of hyperbole is far more extreme on the whole on the right than on the left. Sure, there are leftist extremists, but there's no money in it, so no one really pays attention (Air America). Scaring religious fundamentalists and older conservatives is actually lucrative, absurdly so. Enter Fox News and Rupert Murdoch.
MSNBC and CNN pale in comparison when it comes to raw hyperbole.
I would love to see a citation of the program currently in place that pays people to not grow grain. The Farm Subsidies Act of 1973 pretty much eliminated the act of paying farmers to underproduce or not produce crops. Subsidies since then have favored over-production, particularly beneficial to very large companies and very damaging to small, family farms.
Any fiction writer, playwright or screenwriter will tell you that you have that backward. The king died and the queen died is a plot. It's a series of events. When you get into why it happened it becomes a story. But ultimately, you're right... story is more interesting than plot, but you can't have a good story without a plot. Story is dependent upon plot. You can have a plot without a story though.
Romeo and Juliet is a story. Boy meets girl from a rival family. They fall in love. They die tragically and kinda stupidly. That is a plot.
Star Wars. Small town boy fights an evil galactic empire with the help of a ragtag band of helpers. That's a plot. Small town boy discovers he's one of the last of a long line of mystical warriors. He fights an evil empire with the help of a mercenary in search of personal redemption, an embattled princess who is actually the small town boy's long lost sister, a couple of robots who serve as comic foils... blah blah blah. That's a story.
People like listening to, reading and watching a story unfold. Reading, listening to or watching a plot unfold is well, a lot like experiencing a powerPoint presentation filled with nothing but bullet points. This happens at this point. Then this happens. Then this happens. And this. And this. The end.
Actually, you have that backward. Video games have plots, a series of things that happen. Story involves "story arcs", character development, internal conflict, external conflict, etc. Creating a plot where you care about the protagonist and his journey, then you have a story.
I'll use Dog Soldiers as an example again. Light on story. Heavy on plot, but a lot of fun. Most genre films tend to be light on story, but if you play to the strengths of the genre, watching the plot unfold can be a lot of fun.
You can have a plot without a story, but you can't have a story without a plot.
Ever see Dog Soldiers? Not high art by any stretch of the imagination, but a fun movie nonetheless. Reservists go into the wild for exercises. Oh crap! Werewolves! Find refuge. Survive the siege during the night. People die. Make jokes. Fist fight werewolves. Oh no! Someone's with them on the inside! Morning comes and the survivor moves on... Total genre flick. Entertaining, but not high art. Given the modest production budget, they made the most of it and made a lot of money in DVD sales and rentals.
Trying to make profitable summer blockbusters out of what are essentially cheesy genre flicks is an exercise in bad economics.
Really, the only way they can make these work is to go all out as genre flicks where character development and story arc isn't all that important. Most video games map almost directly to some cult genre. LIke a poster above said, shoot 'em up, throw in some cleavage, maybe a boob or two, some cool explosions, some blood and guts, off color humor and bang! You have a direct to DVD movie that stands a chance of actually making a good return on investment. Trying to cram these into theaters is a lousy idea given the amount of money needed to market and distribute them. Cut through all that, print up a bunch of DVD's and sell them in the bargain racks at major retailers.... profit! Cult classics.
Add to the fact that most video games just don't offer the kind of human connection most people expect out of a movie. They simply don't gel structurally. Doom? Lone man shoots monsters... not much to it. The moment you add character motivation, attempt to create a story arc and internal conflicts for the protagonist, you've already gone far beyond what the video game itself has to offer a good story. Like someone said, "Add a little Alien to 'insert another action/sci-fi movie here' and you have an instant hit." That's the ultimate problem with the conversion. What is fun in a video game isn't necessarily fun in a movie. Adding what makes for a good movie to a usually VERY simplistic storyline ruins both what makes a movie good and what makes a video game good.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Now that's I call a BIIIIIIIG McGuffin.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I would assume it was on the plane in the first place.
I did a cross country video blog comparing a 2009 Jetta TDI to a Prius. You would have NO IDEA you were driving a diesel while sitting in the Jetta. Quiet. Powerful. Clean.
We put a coffee filter over the exhaust pipe and ran the Jetta for 10 minutes and then made a pot of coffee and drank it. Very impressive.
Combine it with a battery and you basically have what the Prius should have been from the beginning.
I was working on a project comparing a Prius to a 2009 Jetta TDI. We drove both from Portland, ME to Portland, OR and you would never know the Jetta was a diesel. AND... on highway driving it destroyed the Prius on gas mileage.
Newer diesel technology is amazingly clean, efficient and powerful.
This doesn't hold water. If they were really a hardware company, then, like every hardware company in existence, they would put the focus on their hardware. But the reality is that they are pushing their software, not their hardware. Their actions speak louder than their words: they're a software company who is trying to abuse copyright law to force you to do what they want with their product.
Actually, this totally holds water. Other than it being your opinion that they are pushing their software over the hardware, your so called argument has no weight.
You can see a breakdown of their most recent quarter here.
The numbers bear out the assertion that they are a hardware company. Software sales account for ~10% of their total revenue in a quarter.
So, if a software company makes ~90% of their revenue from hardware sales...
You have a fundamental problem with the way they do business. Fine. Don't buy their product. They aren't forcing you to. If the terms of use of their product is so odious to, don't use it. They don't want someone reselling generic OS X boxes. Fine. You can install it on a generic PC yourself. No one is stopping you and they won't litigate against you if you do. They could care less. This is a case of two companies battling it out over business issues not whether or not an individual can put OS X on a generic PC.
And pull your head out and don't call them a software company when the vast majority of their sales and profits come from the manufacture and sales of hardware.
You can see a breakdown of their most recent quarter here.
Almost $7 billion in hardware sales, 2.5b from laptops and 3.5b from iPod sales. Total software sales clocked in at just over $600 million.
I think they're a hardware company. If they're not and are actually a software company, they should really think about taking the hardware side of things seriously since it outpaces their software sales 10 to 1.
Apple's profits come from the sales of their hardware. OS X is a loss leader. They don't make squat from the sales of Final Cut Studio compared to what they make off of sales of iPods and laptops.
The vast bulk of Apple's revenue and profits come from the hardware side. Software is barely a blip on their financial results.
I have never disputed that commercialism existed in pop music in the 50's or 60's or 70's. What you just haven't managed to grasp is that it's far worse now. The methods for creating and exploiting pop stars for financial gain have been improved upon decade after decade. It's a freaking science now. Compare the Beatles (a manufactured band) to say... oh 'N Sync or the Backstreet Boys. Who do you think retains more control over their careers? Lance Bass or Paul McCartney? You think Lance Bass is going to have a 50 year career in music? Whichever of the boy bands he was in was created for short term profit, not long term sustainability.
Fame and fortune can come with great talent and passion. Yes. I never disputed that. I'm sure Slayer isn't upset that they've been successful and wealthy for over 20 years. I'm sure they're more proud of the fact that they never, ever compromised. Success was a side effect of hard work and passion, not the goal itself. What I am trying to get across to you is that seeking fame and fortune for it's own sake is a shallow goal. More often than not, fame and fortune ruin good music. Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Phil Collins, Eric Clapton, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Sting etc. What once gave them an edge, being young, hungry and (sometimes) angry is what gave their music fire, heart. When they accumulated mass quantities of wealth and fame, they lost their edge, their spark. In essence, they became hit making machines for the masses. I'm sure they still love music, but once the comfort sets in... it's all over. Very few artists can survive this. Peter Gabriel, U2, Pearl Jam, Jane's Addiction being some that come to mind that never completely lost the fire. Sure, I like their earlier stuff, but these performers have managed to somehow keep their creative spark and originality.
You're missing that you can seek fame and fortune and also love the music side as well. You don't become a great talent without having some passion about music. You're mixing up the points here. Yes, you don't become a great talent without a passion for the music. What I am saying is, if fame and fortune is the goal, you will sell yourself short creatively to make music for the lowest common denominator. I don't respect that. Since 1991, The Red Hot Chili Peppers have milked the "Under The Bridge" style for all it's worth. In 1991, Metallica released the Black album which featured radio friendly rock songs in order to reach a much wider audience, alienating the core audience that got them to where they were in the first place. Though, to Metallica's credit, they did tour relentlessly during the 1990's and were the top grossing concert act of that decade. I respect hard work like that.
I'd much rather see a band break up and move on than to create commercial tripe just to cash in. Soundgarden did the right thing in 1997.
The Melvins have never had a hit. Never had a platinum selling album despite their massive critical acclaim and accolades from artists like Tool and Nirvana. They release albums constantly and tour to support them. They never cave creatively and they just keep on plugging. They will never have the same level of fame and fortune that the bands who admire them will have, but they just keep doing it. Bravo! Ditto for the Ramones to a certain extent though they were far more financially successful than the Melvins.
My opinion here is that creating music for the audience first undermines the power of music. Creating it for yourself and finding an audience that relates to it results in much higher quality music. Maybe not as profitable as writing radio friendly pop music or performing music written by others that was crafted to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but there you go. At least it's personal, honest and from the heart.
Les Claypool is never going to hit the mainstream. Ever. Sure Primus had some freak hits, but those were oddities and they never tried to actively sustain chart position. Sure, their last two full length albums were lemons, but at
Look, I tried to give you a graceful way to end this by essentially saying that MY OPINION is that pop music has gotten worse over the decades. That people who seek fame and fortune for the sake of fame and fortune, well... I just don't respect that.
There is no right or wrong in this. This is flat out OPINION. You and I disagree on a very fundamental level and nothing is going to change that. There is nothing to "dispute". I think early Beatles is better than Kelly Clarkson. That is my opinion. There is no chart you can consult to prove who is better than who. Is Kelly Clarkson a more skilled vocalist than Paul McCartney? Sure. Was John Lennon a better song writer than Kelly Clarkson? I sure as hell think so.
If given the choice between listening to Kelly Clarkson or Mike Patton. Mike Patton will always win in my book. He releases multiple albums per year with multiple projects, runs a record label and tours non-stop. I respect his ability AND his work ethic. Kelly Clarkson has an album written for her, what? Every 2-3 years? Then she tours for 3 months? Life's hard.
Hell, Buckethead released 27 albums in one year a couple years back. THAT I respect. THAT is what I care about.
Sure, it's a talent contest. yes. They tend to find good singers. They then give them a million dollar contract and then market the crap out of them. Like most pop stars, they will only ever see a fraction of the revenue that they generate.
Yes, they are exploited when they know the terms up front. They exploit the naivete of the contestants who just want to be famous. They find someone who probably didn't have the drive to make it the way most other musicians do, by playing in bars and clubs and touring in a rickety old van and paying their dues.
This is pure unadulterated bias on my part. What they produce on American Idol is candy, bubblegum, tripe. The guy who won last year is actually a good rock vocalist, but the music he has released is watered down, boring crap. Whatever he would have done with his band "back home" I'm sure would be far more interesting.
We disagree on a very fundamental level. I tend not to be a fan of most pop music from my generation or earlier. Not saying I don't like some pop music, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
I don't like how pop stars are created and marketed. They're not doing it for the music, but for the almighty dollar and I am fundamentally opposed to that. I would much rather listen to some technically inept, pissed off punk band than just about any American Idol contestant. I would rather listen to virtuoso musicians who play music that is near and dear to them that has a limited potential audience. This kind of stuff has heart and you can hear it.
If more pop stars were given an opportunity to write their own music, things might be different, but that kind of thing can't be predicted.
Actually, I think the pop music from the generation before me was better than my generations. I was a teen in the 80's and I far preferred the pop music of the 60's. Jefferson Airplane or Jefferson Starship? Hmmmm.
I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm trying to say is that over the last 4 decades, the music industries machinations have evolved and matured from where they were back in the 60's and they are better able to create and exploit pop stars now.
And I'm just talking about pop bands here. I find new music I like in ever decade. I'm not complaining about a lack of good music. I'm complaining about how the industry manufactures and exploits pop stars these days. American Idol. 'Nuff said.
You're right. However, pop music used to be a radically different beast and not commercialized to the extent that it is today... or rather created for the sake of commercialism like it is today.
But if you think about it, the quality of pop music is greater when the biggest name in pop music is The Beatles and not Britney Spears. There has been a fundamental shift in the approach to pop music since the 1970's.
There will always be gems and genuinely talented people in the field of pop music, sure. But for every one of them you have 5 Britneys, 5 'N Syncs, etc. Back in the 60's the alternative to the Beatles was The Byrds and Janis Joplin, etc. Fundamentally more mature pop music.
There will always be a Tom Waits, Neil Young, Les Claypool, etc. People with less than perfect voices, but write amazing music. Pop music is a business. Period. The suits are going to find the faces that will sell albums and worry about talent and ability to sing after the fact.
Though these technologies will primarily be used for the sake of making hacks sound passable to the mass audience, there will always be artists out there who will also put it to creative use. Bands like the Residents, Fantomas, Devo, Mr. Bungle, John Zorn, etc. will be drawn to the new toys and use them in unexpected ways.
People need to stop bitching about the quality of pop music. It's been crap since the 70's and only gets worse. There will always be great music if you bother to look for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh huh. You said meme. You're already overqualified to write a book for the right wing fundamentalists. They would immediately see you as an intellectual elitist from fake America.
There's a huge difference. Saying that the Republicans are going to kill PBS and NPR is a far cry from saying that death panels are going to kill your grandmother and that the Islamic Brotherhood and "european communists" are working together to sew chaos in the middle east in order to destroy Israel.
The level of hyperbole is far more extreme on the whole on the right than on the left. Sure, there are leftist extremists, but there's no money in it, so no one really pays attention (Air America). Scaring religious fundamentalists and older conservatives is actually lucrative, absurdly so. Enter Fox News and Rupert Murdoch.
MSNBC and CNN pale in comparison when it comes to raw hyperbole.
"I think /. regularly shows the young, "highly educated" market is plenty susceptible to fear & paranoia."
And yes, we call them Larouche Libertarians.
I would love to see a citation of the program currently in place that pays people to not grow grain. The Farm Subsidies Act of 1973 pretty much eliminated the act of paying farmers to underproduce or not produce crops. Subsidies since then have favored over-production, particularly beneficial to very large companies and very damaging to small, family farms.
Total genre flick and they know it. No pretense. Just a good "Oh crap! Werewolves!" movie.
Any fiction writer, playwright or screenwriter will tell you that you have that backward. The king died and the queen died is a plot. It's a series of events. When you get into why it happened it becomes a story. But ultimately, you're right... story is more interesting than plot, but you can't have a good story without a plot. Story is dependent upon plot. You can have a plot without a story though.
Romeo and Juliet is a story. Boy meets girl from a rival family. They fall in love. They die tragically and kinda stupidly. That is a plot.
Star Wars. Small town boy fights an evil galactic empire with the help of a ragtag band of helpers. That's a plot. Small town boy discovers he's one of the last of a long line of mystical warriors. He fights an evil empire with the help of a mercenary in search of personal redemption, an embattled princess who is actually the small town boy's long lost sister, a couple of robots who serve as comic foils... blah blah blah. That's a story.
People like listening to, reading and watching a story unfold. Reading, listening to or watching a plot unfold is well, a lot like experiencing a powerPoint presentation filled with nothing but bullet points. This happens at this point. Then this happens. Then this happens. And this. And this. The end.
Actually, you have that backward. Video games have plots, a series of things that happen. Story involves "story arcs", character development, internal conflict, external conflict, etc. Creating a plot where you care about the protagonist and his journey, then you have a story.
I'll use Dog Soldiers as an example again. Light on story. Heavy on plot, but a lot of fun. Most genre films tend to be light on story, but if you play to the strengths of the genre, watching the plot unfold can be a lot of fun.
You can have a plot without a story, but you can't have a story without a plot.
Ever see Dog Soldiers? Not high art by any stretch of the imagination, but a fun movie nonetheless. Reservists go into the wild for exercises. Oh crap! Werewolves! Find refuge. Survive the siege during the night. People die. Make jokes. Fist fight werewolves. Oh no! Someone's with them on the inside! Morning comes and the survivor moves on... Total genre flick. Entertaining, but not high art. Given the modest production budget, they made the most of it and made a lot of money in DVD sales and rentals.
Trying to make profitable summer blockbusters out of what are essentially cheesy genre flicks is an exercise in bad economics.
Really, the only way they can make these work is to go all out as genre flicks where character development and story arc isn't all that important. Most video games map almost directly to some cult genre. LIke a poster above said, shoot 'em up, throw in some cleavage, maybe a boob or two, some cool explosions, some blood and guts, off color humor and bang! You have a direct to DVD movie that stands a chance of actually making a good return on investment. Trying to cram these into theaters is a lousy idea given the amount of money needed to market and distribute them. Cut through all that, print up a bunch of DVD's and sell them in the bargain racks at major retailers.... profit! Cult classics.
Add to the fact that most video games just don't offer the kind of human connection most people expect out of a movie. They simply don't gel structurally. Doom? Lone man shoots monsters... not much to it. The moment you add character motivation, attempt to create a story arc and internal conflicts for the protagonist, you've already gone far beyond what the video game itself has to offer a good story. Like someone said, "Add a little Alien to 'insert another action/sci-fi movie here' and you have an instant hit." That's the ultimate problem with the conversion. What is fun in a video game isn't necessarily fun in a movie. Adding what makes for a good movie to a usually VERY simplistic storyline ruins both what makes a movie good and what makes a video game good.
Now that's I call a BIIIIIIIG McGuffin.
I would assume it was on the plane in the first place.
I did a cross country video blog comparing a 2009 Jetta TDI to a Prius. You would have NO IDEA you were driving a diesel while sitting in the Jetta. Quiet. Powerful. Clean.
We put a coffee filter over the exhaust pipe and ran the Jetta for 10 minutes and then made a pot of coffee and drank it. Very impressive.
Combine it with a battery and you basically have what the Prius should have been from the beginning.
I was working on a project comparing a Prius to a 2009 Jetta TDI. We drove both from Portland, ME to Portland, OR and you would never know the Jetta was a diesel. AND... on highway driving it destroyed the Prius on gas mileage.
Newer diesel technology is amazingly clean, efficient and powerful.
This doesn't hold water. If they were really a hardware company, then, like every hardware company in existence, they would put the focus on their hardware. But the reality is that they are pushing their software, not their hardware. Their actions speak louder than their words: they're a software company who is trying to abuse copyright law to force you to do what they want with their product.
Actually, this totally holds water. Other than it being your opinion that they are pushing their software over the hardware, your so called argument has no weight.
You can see a breakdown of their most recent quarter here.
The numbers bear out the assertion that they are a hardware company. Software sales account for ~10% of their total revenue in a quarter.
So, if a software company makes ~90% of their revenue from hardware sales...
You have a fundamental problem with the way they do business. Fine. Don't buy their product. They aren't forcing you to. If the terms of use of their product is so odious to, don't use it. They don't want someone reselling generic OS X boxes. Fine. You can install it on a generic PC yourself. No one is stopping you and they won't litigate against you if you do. They could care less. This is a case of two companies battling it out over business issues not whether or not an individual can put OS X on a generic PC.
And pull your head out and don't call them a software company when the vast majority of their sales and profits come from the manufacture and sales of hardware.
You can see a breakdown of their most recent quarter here.
Almost $7 billion in hardware sales, 2.5b from laptops and 3.5b from iPod sales. Total software sales clocked in at just over $600 million.
I think they're a hardware company. If they're not and are actually a software company, they should really think about taking the hardware side of things seriously since it outpaces their software sales 10 to 1.
Insightful? Really?
Apple's profits come from the sales of their hardware. OS X is a loss leader. They don't make squat from the sales of Final Cut Studio compared to what they make off of sales of iPods and laptops.
The vast bulk of Apple's revenue and profits come from the hardware side. Software is barely a blip on their financial results.
The bulk of their profits come from the sales of MacBooks and MacBook Pro's.
I have one question to ask. What is your take on socialism?
I have never disputed that commercialism existed in pop music in the 50's or 60's or 70's. What you just haven't managed to grasp is that it's far worse now. The methods for creating and exploiting pop stars for financial gain have been improved upon decade after decade. It's a freaking science now. Compare the Beatles (a manufactured band) to say... oh 'N Sync or the Backstreet Boys. Who do you think retains more control over their careers? Lance Bass or Paul McCartney? You think Lance Bass is going to have a 50 year career in music? Whichever of the boy bands he was in was created for short term profit, not long term sustainability.
Fame and fortune can come with great talent and passion. Yes. I never disputed that. I'm sure Slayer isn't upset that they've been successful and wealthy for over 20 years. I'm sure they're more proud of the fact that they never, ever compromised. Success was a side effect of hard work and passion, not the goal itself. What I am trying to get across to you is that seeking fame and fortune for it's own sake is a shallow goal. More often than not, fame and fortune ruin good music. Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Phil Collins, Eric Clapton, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Sting etc. What once gave them an edge, being young, hungry and (sometimes) angry is what gave their music fire, heart. When they accumulated mass quantities of wealth and fame, they lost their edge, their spark. In essence, they became hit making machines for the masses. I'm sure they still love music, but once the comfort sets in... it's all over. Very few artists can survive this. Peter Gabriel, U2, Pearl Jam, Jane's Addiction being some that come to mind that never completely lost the fire. Sure, I like their earlier stuff, but these performers have managed to somehow keep their creative spark and originality.
You're missing that you can seek fame and fortune and also love the music side as well. You don't become a great talent without having some passion about music.
You're mixing up the points here. Yes, you don't become a great talent without a passion for the music. What I am saying is, if fame and fortune is the goal, you will sell yourself short creatively to make music for the lowest common denominator. I don't respect that. Since 1991, The Red Hot Chili Peppers have milked the "Under The Bridge" style for all it's worth. In 1991, Metallica released the Black album which featured radio friendly rock songs in order to reach a much wider audience, alienating the core audience that got them to where they were in the first place. Though, to Metallica's credit, they did tour relentlessly during the 1990's and were the top grossing concert act of that decade. I respect hard work like that.
I'd much rather see a band break up and move on than to create commercial tripe just to cash in. Soundgarden did the right thing in 1997.
The Melvins have never had a hit. Never had a platinum selling album despite their massive critical acclaim and accolades from artists like Tool and Nirvana. They release albums constantly and tour to support them. They never cave creatively and they just keep on plugging. They will never have the same level of fame and fortune that the bands who admire them will have, but they just keep doing it. Bravo! Ditto for the Ramones to a certain extent though they were far more financially successful than the Melvins.
My opinion here is that creating music for the audience first undermines the power of music. Creating it for yourself and finding an audience that relates to it results in much higher quality music. Maybe not as profitable as writing radio friendly pop music or performing music written by others that was crafted to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but there you go. At least it's personal, honest and from the heart.
Les Claypool is never going to hit the mainstream. Ever. Sure Primus had some freak hits, but those were oddities and they never tried to actively sustain chart position. Sure, their last two full length albums were lemons, but at
Look, I tried to give you a graceful way to end this by essentially saying that MY OPINION is that pop music has gotten worse over the decades. That people who seek fame and fortune for the sake of fame and fortune, well... I just don't respect that.
There is no right or wrong in this. This is flat out OPINION. You and I disagree on a very fundamental level and nothing is going to change that. There is nothing to "dispute". I think early Beatles is better than Kelly Clarkson. That is my opinion. There is no chart you can consult to prove who is better than who. Is Kelly Clarkson a more skilled vocalist than Paul McCartney? Sure. Was John Lennon a better song writer than Kelly Clarkson? I sure as hell think so.
If given the choice between listening to Kelly Clarkson or Mike Patton. Mike Patton will always win in my book. He releases multiple albums per year with multiple projects, runs a record label and tours non-stop. I respect his ability AND his work ethic. Kelly Clarkson has an album written for her, what? Every 2-3 years? Then she tours for 3 months? Life's hard.
Hell, Buckethead released 27 albums in one year a couple years back. THAT I respect. THAT is what I care about.
Sure, it's a talent contest. yes. They tend to find good singers. They then give them a million dollar contract and then market the crap out of them. Like most pop stars, they will only ever see a fraction of the revenue that they generate.
Yes, they are exploited when they know the terms up front. They exploit the naivete of the contestants who just want to be famous. They find someone who probably didn't have the drive to make it the way most other musicians do, by playing in bars and clubs and touring in a rickety old van and paying their dues.
This is pure unadulterated bias on my part. What they produce on American Idol is candy, bubblegum, tripe. The guy who won last year is actually a good rock vocalist, but the music he has released is watered down, boring crap. Whatever he would have done with his band "back home" I'm sure would be far more interesting.
We disagree on a very fundamental level. I tend not to be a fan of most pop music from my generation or earlier. Not saying I don't like some pop music, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
I don't like how pop stars are created and marketed. They're not doing it for the music, but for the almighty dollar and I am fundamentally opposed to that. I would much rather listen to some technically inept, pissed off punk band than just about any American Idol contestant. I would rather listen to virtuoso musicians who play music that is near and dear to them that has a limited potential audience. This kind of stuff has heart and you can hear it.
If more pop stars were given an opportunity to write their own music, things might be different, but that kind of thing can't be predicted.
Actually, I think the pop music from the generation before me was better than my generations. I was a teen in the 80's and I far preferred the pop music of the 60's. Jefferson Airplane or Jefferson Starship? Hmmmm.
I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm trying to say is that over the last 4 decades, the music industries machinations have evolved and matured from where they were back in the 60's and they are better able to create and exploit pop stars now.
And I'm just talking about pop bands here. I find new music I like in ever decade. I'm not complaining about a lack of good music. I'm complaining about how the industry manufactures and exploits pop stars these days. American Idol. 'Nuff said.
You're right. However, pop music used to be a radically different beast and not commercialized to the extent that it is today... or rather created for the sake of commercialism like it is today.
But if you think about it, the quality of pop music is greater when the biggest name in pop music is The Beatles and not Britney Spears. There has been a fundamental shift in the approach to pop music since the 1970's.
There will always be gems and genuinely talented people in the field of pop music, sure. But for every one of them you have 5 Britneys, 5 'N Syncs, etc. Back in the 60's the alternative to the Beatles was The Byrds and Janis Joplin, etc. Fundamentally more mature pop music.
There will always be a Tom Waits, Neil Young, Les Claypool, etc. People with less than perfect voices, but write amazing music. Pop music is a business. Period. The suits are going to find the faces that will sell albums and worry about talent and ability to sing after the fact.
Though these technologies will primarily be used for the sake of making hacks sound passable to the mass audience, there will always be artists out there who will also put it to creative use. Bands like the Residents, Fantomas, Devo, Mr. Bungle, John Zorn, etc. will be drawn to the new toys and use them in unexpected ways.
People need to stop bitching about the quality of pop music. It's been crap since the 70's and only gets worse. There will always be great music if you bother to look for it.