The pop music backlash: why?

[Deleted]

This is a burning question that seems to be present both on and off the board-- maybe one or two of you have run into this in meatspace, idk-- but something I've always wondered is why pop music is looked down on as an inferior genre of music. To be clear: the question I'm posing here isn't whether or not it is, but rather why people seem to think it is. There seems to be a certain stigma associated with the genre that prevents people from taking associated acts seriously as "real" artists, which often leads people to call into question what they offer to the industry. Additionally (and of no consequence to this thread, since it's another topic entirely), the targets also seem to be almost exclusively female. Common examples include:

Rihanna
Ke$ha
Britney Spears
Nicki Minaj*
Taylor Swift* 
Lady Gaga**
Katy Perry
Pitbull (a rare example of a male popstar)

*these acts received backlash for expanding their catalogue with pop material.

**prior to the album's release, she received backlash for working with EDM staples on pop radio. 

This list could be expanded on depending on the situation as well, and more often than not the backlash against a certain artist has more to do with their personality than their presumed genre of choice. That in mind, it does seem that simply being associated with the genre is an automatic write-off for many individuals as lacking artistry, selling out, or the like. Additionally, scrutiny of this level doesn't seem to exist within discussions of other genres. The idea that pop music is an inferior genre is nothing new, of course; but the mentality seems more exaggerated than ever as of late. Why is this, and in your opinion, why should(n't) pop artists be taken seriously? 

[when the pawn...]

There's a backlash against Rihanna and Katy Perry?

There may be against Taylor but her most recent album sold 4 million copies.

Britney made a horrible album, which is why it performed poorly.

Pitbull & Ke$ha had a #1 single last month.

[Deleted]

Feb 10, 2014 15:26:29 GMT -5 when the pawn... said:

There's a backlash against Rihanna and Katy Perry?

There may be against Taylor but her most recent album sold 4 million copies.

Britney made a horrible album, which is why it performed poorly.

Pitbull & Ke$ha had a #1 single last month.

I don't think you understand the question. This thread has less to do with numbers, and more to do with mentality. That's why I clarified that, in the case of Gaga-- in which backlash could refer to many things-- I cited her genre of choice. Nothing here really answers the question so much as highlights why the idea that pop music is inferior is such a strange concept.

[Deleted]

I think a lot of the times it has to do with the idea that pop music can be seen as faceless. You don't see a lot of hate for songs that are pop classics like Toxic or Like a Prayer because they have a kind of identity but a lot of pop music just doesn't feel genuine to a lot of people because a lot of pop stars either have minimal talent or make music that feels manufactured. Especially pop music today. And a lot of the times the people you mentioned get flak for different reasons, not just for being under the pop umbrella.

Nicki's transition was seen by a lot of people as selling out to a white audience. While this is probably in large part because she went from a genre which is seen as birthed from black culture to one which has long been seen as entirely controlled by rich white executives, it also had to do with the fact that she went from making cutting edge hip hop music to frothy, generic dance music. There was a clear cut-off in quality.

Rihanna and Katy Perry and Britney Spears all get criticized for making music that is meaningless. With Britney, I think it had to do with the idea that she was seen as such an industry puppet by the GP, so no one really took her music seriously. With Katy Perry (and Rihanna's Loud era), her music just seems soulless. It's masked in cliches and bubblegum fluff but at its core, it feels like it's made just to be a hit.

Pitbull makes bastardized rap music and that's why people hate him.

Kesha is just regarded as talentless. The Autotune, the basic party anthems, etc. I know she randomly has a lot of stans on this board but I really don't disagree with people who think she doesn't have any talent. Her lyrics (even that Harold song that everyone always brings up) come off as elementary and kind of trite to me and I don't think her voice is appealing, with or without Autotune.

There's also a lot of sexism involved. People just don't want to take female acts seriously.

I would say overall though, besides the sexism that gets hurled feel towards ALL female artists, people talk down pop artists for a lot of different reasons. Not just because they make pop music.

[onebuffalo]

Two words: Justin Bieber.

[Deleted]

Feb 10, 2014 15:26:29 GMT -5 when the pawn... said:

There's a backlash against Rihanna and Katy Perry?

There may be against Taylor but her most recent album sold 4 million copies.

Britney made a horrible album, which is why it performed poorly.

Pitbull & Ke$ha had a #1 single last month.

Success and sales does not mean talent or quality, you missed the whole point of this thread. You can be the worst singer in the world and still sell records. And to answer the OP's question, I think it gets a lot of backlash is because most people think pop music lacks originality, there's no real depth or talent, and most of these artists get a lot of backlash because of their imagage, in other words, they're successful because they sell an image, not because of their talent or that worked hard to get there. And if their lyrical content isn't of any depth or value, they'll dismiss them as just "untalented hacks". and even if they're aware that the artists deep down as talent, they'll be called "sell-outs" because either they changed their music style/dumb down their just for mainstream relevance or because what they put on the radio people say does not reflect their talent or true potential. That's the biggest part of the backlash against pop music.

[Deleted]

ugh I would see this when I don't really have time to get all up in the topic. Making a mental note to come back to it.

But briefly (lmao, 'briefly') - there are so many issues at play here, some do deal with pop snobbery while others are tangential. As soblu mentioned, Nicki was dealing with a 'sellout issue' which had less to do with pop itself and more to do with her core audience feeling deserted. (The same happened with Usher at about that time.) There is definitely some sexism at play but it's more complex, and I don't have time to dissect it.

I think if we were to trace it all the way back to the beginning of the rock 'n roll era a big part of it was that initially, popular artists were just the pretty faces singing the hits that other people had crafted for them and this was anything but a secret. It was not until classic rock groups came along that you started getting artists who wrote their own songs and played their own instruments. This gave rock a lot of credibility to the average consumer, while other mainstream artists remained puppets, at least in the public eye. This seems to be a mentality that has subconsciously or not so subconsciously stuck in people's minds.

In general, pop music's goal is to appeal to as many people as possible - it's the lowest common denominator thing - and it can come off as sort of paint by numbers factory way these hits are put together and how the 'art' of it is seemingly secondary if considered at all. So even if you have someone like Katy who writes her own stuff she doesn't get credit b/c they look down on the process as a whole. There's also the assumption that a pop artist is naturally inferior at writing, period, so there is this catch-22 of being judged for being pop only to have their efforts at stepping outside their normal pop boundaries get brushed off as well (My December for example). Then with someone like Rihanna, you hear about the writing camps that are put together for her and how they churn out essentially her entire album in two weeks or less, and you think, how much heart and soul can really be poured into those songs like that? And where is Rihanna during all of this?

It's kind of ironic b/c it is popular music, meaning it's what is consumed the most, but people have this weird way of simultaneously consuming while looking down on every facet of it. This is why the Grammys can never find a satisfactory balance, b/c too many people think pop music isn't deserving of acclaim but if you start rewarding what supposedly is worthy, no one would recognize any of the singers winning the awards.

[Libra]

Feb 10, 2014 15:59:42 GMT -5 @soblu said:

You don't see a lot of hate for songs that are pop classics like Toxic or Like a Prayer because they have a kind of identity but a lot of pop music just doesn't feel genuine to a lot of people because a lot of pop stars either have minimal talent or make music that feels manufactured.

And sometimes, it even is straight-up manufactured even down to the image. See: Milli Vanilli, C&C Music Factory in the early 90s.

As well, the "manufactured" bit can also come from many pop artists not making the music themselves outside of singing - not playing an instrument, not having a hand in producing, not even writing any of the words. Contrast that with other genres where any combination of the three are more commonplace for the singers/groups to do, and...there you go.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I think it comes down to the opinions of a bunch of self-perceived, self-superior music snobs. Pop music serves a specific purpose that no other genre really does. It happens to also be the genre that makes the most money and a lot of people look down upon anything that makes a lot of money when the work going doesn't amount to what comes out of it.

The biggest misconception that I see time and time again is when people apply the "rules" of other genres to pop music. The requirement that the singers must write their own songs or play their own instruments, for example, or that there's an emphasis put on image or the criticism of singers who also dance and sometimes sacrifice the singing aspect of it in favour of providing a visual performance.

Pop music isn't the only genre where the singers aren't expected to necessarily write their own songs. Nor is it the only genre where the singer doesn't have to play an accompanying instrument. It's also not the only genre that relies on computers for instruments. Other genres that have these qualities have their own subsets of fans who highly respect the artists that create within them. Then you have the image thing. Hate to break it to the music purists out there but EVERY performer has an image, and every image is created to suit the style of music they're creating in an attempt to appear credible to the audiences they're trying to win over. And I don't see a problem with singers who put on a high-energy stage show by focusing on the dancing elements over playing an instrument.

Why is a performer who appears on the stage singing with just a guitar seen as more talented than a performer who appears on stage dancing up a storm with a bunch of backup dancers and a highly elaborate stage setup and lights?

[Peaches. [Ch, r. is]]

Because you have to be drunk to enjoy most of it.

[Deleted]

Right, with Cynthia's last point. Regarding efrank mentioning 'Timber' was number one so there couldn't be any negativity associated with the artists-- which is utterly baffling because as a solo artist, Ke$ha can't get a hit and Pitbull himself is widely regarded as the scum of the earth (this of course being another set of issues entirely)-- the first thing that popped into my head is, although people will willingly admit to liking it, the majority are quick to call it a guilty pleasure instead of say, a good pop song. Or just a good song in general. Which, far as I'm concerned, it is.

I also like what soblu touched on as far as issues of sexism and lack of identity go, but I see it a bit differently. I think a lot of that has less to do with the fact that artists genuinely lack an identity so much as the fact that they're marketed that way. We're trained to see pop artists as hit makers, with the emphasis being chart success and sales instead of what they're actually bringing to the table. It's not that anyone really lacks talent or brings nothing to the industry, but that most people just don't know that they do. Another way of looking at it is that it's more about the end result than the process.

I think the misogyny present in the industry-- and this persists in other genres too, albeit in different forms-- also plays a factor, because women are so readily made into hit makers and objectified for it. Simply being a woman makes you a faceless entity on pop radio, whereas Justin Timberlake is hailed as a musical genius simply for having a dick and being able to make it on pop with one. Boy bands, however, suffer a similar fate. They're marketed less as real musicians, and more as hot commodities (in a similar fashion to females on pop). Theoretically, it's easier to establish a following this way, or at the very least rack up a collection of hits (see: Pitbull), but it also takes away from the artistry.

To answer the second part of the question, should pop music be taken seriously: yes. I don't think that being hit makers is he be all, end all of a pop star's career. In the case of Rihanna, she has an excellent ear and some vocal ability. Perry is a solid writer. Britney, like Rihanna, is known for her ear and being a solid performer (more so in her heyday, but that's neither here nor there). The amount of flack Ke$ha gets is the most baffling to me, because she has more vocal ability than she's readily credited and can write some of the best hooks on pop radio-- which is no easy feat. I personally think the perceptions and bias that persist with the genre are largely based on misconceptions, but that's just me. In short: no, I don't think it's an inferior genre whatsoever.

[Deleted]

I also think a big part of the disdain comes from the turnover. Pop music goes through artists a lot faster than other genres and also leaves them out to dry with very little lasting potential. Pop artists pretty much need to stay on top of their game at all times or they will be completely swept away. That's not the same for other genres.

For example, Ciara is 10 years into her career and well past her peak in terms of commercial output, instant hitmaking potential and probably even her ability to break even on each album. But while she might not be the most relevant or sought after name at Urban radio, she's still a force. She still gets attention from blogs and urban music outlets when she comes out, there's still a buzz.

Compare that to someone like Avril Lavigne who has been around about the same time and was on her A-game about as long as Ciara was (2.5 album eras). She's a complete non-factor. There is virtually no interest in her music from Pop fans and she's been completely abandoned by the bulk of her fans as a thing of the past.

It just seems that, in comparison to other genres where even commercially unsuccessful or culturally irrelevant artists can sustain a solid enough fanbase to guarantee a buzz around their releases, pop fans have a use them and lose them attitude about their artists. When you look at the most successful names at pop in recent years (Katy, Rihanna and I'd say Britney excluding her recent era), it always felt like they had a presence at pop radio. Even when Britney didn't have an album out it felt like she was there (ex. 3), Rihanna releases music constantly and Katy's eras are insanely long. There definitely is the idea that pop music is so fickle that once the artist is no longer popular, they have nothing left to offer.

[Deleted]

Feb 10, 2014 17:01:14 GMT -5 @soblu said:

I also think a big part of the disdain comes from the turnover. Pop music goes through artists a lot faster than other genres and also leaves them out to dry with very little lasting potential. Pop artists pretty much need to stay on top of their game at all times or they will be completely swept away. That's not the same for other genres.

For example, Ciara is 10 years into her career and well past her peak in terms of commercial output, instant hitmaking potential and probably even her ability to break even on each album. But while she might not be the most relevant or sought after name at Urban radio, she's still a force. She still gets attention from blogs and urban music outlets when she comes out, there's still a buzz.

Compare that to someone like Avril Lavigne who has been around about the same time and was on her A-game about as long as Ciara was (2.5 album eras). She's a complete non-factor. There is virtually no interest in her music from Pop fans and she's been completely abandoned by the bulk of her fans as a thing of the past.

It just seems that, in comparison to other genres where even commercially unsuccessful or culturally irrelevant artists can sustain a solid enough fanbase to guarantee a buzz around their releases, pop fans have a use them and lose them attitude about their artists. When you look at the most successful names at pop in recent years (Katy, Rihanna and I'd say Britney excluding her recent era), it always felt like they had a presence at pop radio. Even when Britney didn't have an album out it felt like she was there (ex. 3), Rihanna releases music constantly and Katy's eras are insanely long. There definitely is the idea that pop music is so fickle that once the artist is no longer popular, they have nothing left to offer.

I don't think this phenomenon is as shady as people make it out to be-- in part, because I don't think the genre is as one dimensional as people make it out to be. Pop as a genre is almost constantly evolving into something different, and so few artists are willing to evolve with it. Additionally, there are just as many (if not more) who, at any given moment, are ready and willing to fill whatever gaps are leftover. Which is why you see so many former staples struggle on the format. It's less to do with how fickle they are, so much as how competitive the genre is.

So yeah, Ciara and Avril aren't really comparable for two reasons. First, Ciara is able to keep up with her format much easier than Avril. Second, you don't see nearly as many people clammoring for a spot on Ciara's core format, whereas Avril's void was filled a long time ago. And even so, Avril's had a few minor hits littered throughout the latter parts of her career-- so she hasn't been totally abondened either, in her own right.

[Deleted]

Pop stands for Popular

This is why is it this way.

[Janhova's Witness]

Pop music will never be low-brow!

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Feb 10, 2014 17:00:03 GMT -5 @touch said:

I also like what soblu touched on as far as issues of sexism and lack of identity go, but I see it a bit differently. I think a lot of that has less to do with the fact that artists genuinely lack an identity so much as the fact that they're marketed that way. We're trained to see pop artists as hit makers, with the emphasis being chart success and sales instead of what they're actually bringing to the table. It's not that anyone really lacks talent or brings nothing to the industry, but that most people just don't know that they do. Another way of looking at it is that it's more about the end result than the process.

To extend on that, I don't think record companies do the genres any favours because they want their artists to be the "in" thing. They want to make or extend trends and be ahead of the curve. Doing that means they have to be instantaneous, and having any level of depth would act as a hindrance to that. Of course there are exceptions to that but for the most part, pop music prioritizes melody and image instead of anything that may result from some inwardly revelation.

[Deleted]

Feb 10, 2014 17:33:55 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Feb 10, 2014 17:00:03 GMT -5 @touch said:

I also like what soblu touched on as far as issues of sexism and lack of identity go, but I see it a bit differently. I think a lot of that has less to do with the fact that artists genuinely lack an identity so much as the fact that they're marketed that way. We're trained to see pop artists as hit makers, with the emphasis being chart success and sales instead of what they're actually bringing to the table. It's not that anyone really lacks talent or brings nothing to the industry, but that most people just don't know that they do. Another way of looking at it is that it's more about the end result than the process.

To extend on that, I don't think record companies do the genres any favours because they want their artists to be the "in" thing. They want to make or extend trends and be ahead of the curve. Doing that means they have to be instantaneous, and having any level of depth would act as a hindrance to that. Of course there are exceptions to that but for the most part, pop music prioritizes melody and image instead of anything that may result from some inwardly revelation.

I mean, I agree; but I don't think something should be written off simply because it is or is trying to be "in". Being able to take a craft, make it work in the context of what is the next big thing, and ultimately reaping the benefits for it should on paper be respectable, no? Or even just working yourself into the genre, like Nicki did-- even if it's not something extraordinary or next level. Something to that effect that I remember from a while ago was when James Holden remixed Britney's 'Breathe On Me'. The guy was hailed as one of the biggest electronic (read: not EDM) producers of that time-- so when he remixed Britney Spears, it was like "what"? But followers of the electronic genre were able to embrace it and appreciate it for what it was (which was damn good, if anyone's never heard it). Same thing happened when Untold remixed 'Tik Tok' (and sorta Switch with 'Animal', but he was already getting his feet wet in the pop market prior to this). So why doesn't that happen here? Presumably because of what you're saying: it's so common for people to go the aesthetic route, but it really doesn't make much of a difference all said and done.  from a substantial standpoint. Making your work for the purpose of being aesthetically pleasing-- as simple as that concept may be when compared to "deeper" music, whatever that actually is-- shouldn't automatically make it lesser. Another example of this is Jeff Koons working with Gaga on her ARTPOP cover, although that has nothing to do with music and more to do with visual arts. Same basic principle though.

Going back to the "deeper music" thing: I actually think when a pop artist actually tries to do that sort of thing, it is so often overlooked for reasons stated in one of the other posts I made. We just aren't made aware that it's there, because it's less about the artistry behind it within the genre itself. That-- the marketing-- is what I personally think is the root of the problem.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Feb 10, 2014 17:47:03 GMT -5 @touch said:

]I mean, I agree; but I don't think something should be written off simply because it is or is trying to be "in". Being able to take a craft, make it work in the context of what is the next big thing, and ultimately reaping the benefits for it should on paper be respectable, no?

I think it should. I think many people underestimate how difficult it is to make a melody, not even counting the lyrics, and make it work. Try to come up with a catchy earworm and then try to put lyrics to it that actually flow. That requires talent. Just trying to make something that fits within some context of something larger, like trends and what's "in". That stuff doesn't just happen.

[Ballroom Blitzed]

One question you could ask is "Who is the backlash coming from?" You could alternatively rephrase with more specificity as "Which demographic has the strongest adverse reaction to pop music?"

The stereotype that I've most frequently encountered is the classic rock fans, but pointedly not the classic rock fans who grew up with the music; they tend to dislike what's popular but it's generally a consequence of age rather than musical taste. No, the most hostile segment of this fandom, the people I'm talking about, are the kids who go on YouTube and spout off rubbish like "I'm only 13 and I love Generico and the Dadrockers!" or "I hate modern music, I wish I could have been born in 19XX!" and many other poorly-spelled variations thereof.

What they seem to believe is that pop music somehow pushed rock music out, but I dispute this. I believe that two decades worth of terrible, drab, uninspiring and largely talentless rock bands (the usual suspects running the gamut from the like of unremitting awfulness of Nickelback and Creed to the unremitting awfulness of Coldplay and Train) are responsible for that. I'd like to think that when there's a rock band that has the songs, then they'll become popular (granted, the homogenisation of the radio playlists in the past decade or so probably has an important impact on this prospect, but that's an issue that I'd say is pretty separate from the actual music side).

What's more, it's patently erroneous to act as though "manufactured, faceless pap" is any kind of new invention; it's always existed and it always will exist as long as there's people willing to pay for it, even if it will change its shape and sound to compensate for shifting trends and audiences.

I don't know.

That's my impression.

Maybe I need to get out more.

I have kind of a boring life.

[flo]

Pop music has always been considered beneath 'real' genres. It doesn't help that many pop artists don't have authentic talent.

[Deleted]

Feb 10, 2014 17:14:51 GMT -5 @touch said:

Feb 10, 2014 17:01:14 GMT -5 @soblu said:

I also think a big part of the disdain comes from the turnover. Pop music goes through artists a lot faster than other genres and also leaves them out to dry with very little lasting potential. Pop artists pretty much need to stay on top of their game at all times or they will be completely swept away. That's not the same for other genres.

For example, Ciara is 10 years into her career and well past her peak in terms of commercial output, instant hitmaking potential and probably even her ability to break even on each album. But while she might not be the most relevant or sought after name at Urban radio, she's still a force. She still gets attention from blogs and urban music outlets when she comes out, there's still a buzz.

Compare that to someone like Avril Lavigne who has been around about the same time and was on her A-game about as long as Ciara was (2.5 album eras). She's a complete non-factor. There is virtually no interest in her music from Pop fans and she's been completely abandoned by the bulk of her fans as a thing of the past.

It just seems that, in comparison to other genres where even commercially unsuccessful or culturally irrelevant artists can sustain a solid enough fanbase to guarantee a buzz around their releases, pop fans have a use them and lose them attitude about their artists. When you look at the most successful names at pop in recent years (Katy, Rihanna and I'd say Britney excluding her recent era), it always felt like they had a presence at pop radio. Even when Britney didn't have an album out it felt like she was there (ex. 3), Rihanna releases music constantly and Katy's eras are insanely long. There definitely is the idea that pop music is so fickle that once the artist is no longer popular, they have nothing left to offer.

I don't think this phenomenon is as shady as people make it out to be-- in part, because I don't think the genre is as one dimensional as people make it out to be. Pop as a genre is almost constantly evolving into something different, and so few artists are willing to evolve with it. Additionally, there are just as many (if not more) who, at any given moment, are ready and willing to fill whatever gaps are leftover. Which is why you see so many former staples struggle on the format. It's less to do with how fickle they are, so much as how competitive the genre is.

So yeah, Ciara and Avril aren't really comparable for two reasons. First, Ciara is able to keep up with her format much easier than Avril. Second, you don't see nearly as many people clammoring for a spot on Ciara's core format, whereas Avril's void was filled a long time ago. And even so, Avril's had a few minor hits littered throughout the latter parts of her career-- so she hasn't been totally abondened either, in her own rig but the interest in Avril has long since dissappeared

I think most of the reason why pop artists don't last as long is because they're all seen as "trend" artists, they're mostly part of a fad (most notably one or two-hit wonders), and once that fad is over, people move on to the next artist. The only way you can stay relevant it seems if you change your style, even if it means sacrificing your own dignity, or release as many singles as possible that sound like they were made for hit radio to stay relevant. Only few artists can actually be true to themselves and sustain and long and fruitful career, especially on pop music with a certain sound. Rap music is also somewhat like this, but not as much, especially when big-name staples like Eminem, Lil' Wayne and Jay-Z among other rappers can still manage to sustain a lot of success for this long, especially in their core audience. rock artists while not commercially successful still have longevity among their core audience that is hard for them to ever lose relevance, R&B is pretty much the same, which is why Ciara still has a career. Country is probably the genre with most longevity as far as their artists go, once you established yourself, is hard for anyone to knock you down, that's why many country artists even from the 80's and 90's are still selling a lot of records. And Latin Pop, which I've listened to is the same way, and it really isn't as impatient as U.S. pop, the difference is you can make any type of music, and you'll rarely get tossed aside, there's still several artists from the 80's, 90's and early 00's that are still selling a lot of records to this day. U.S. pop doesn't have that kind of patience, and that's why you see many artists come and go. As for Avril Lavigne, she just doesn't seem to fit today's pop scene, that's why she's hardly relevant anymore. That's the harsh reality of pop music, either get with the times, or you're out.

[kaykay]

I think its because anyone can be a pop artist. tbh it seems like everyone is anyways...

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Feb 10, 2014 19:38:16 GMT -5 flo said:

Pop music has always been considered beneath 'real' genres. It doesn't help that many pop artists don't have authentic talent.

..........

[Deleted]

Feb 10, 2014 19:38:16 GMT -5 flo said:

Pop music has always been considered beneath 'real' genres. It doesn't help that many pop artists don't have authentic talent.

is that Jennifer Lopez in your avatar?

[Rurry]

I think there's always been a level of animosity directed at pop music, since it's so blatantly commercial. The truth is that all music (and film and TV and literature and everything) is commercial since we live in a capitalist empire. But pop music is undeniably more upfront about it - its entire existence is to appeal to a broad amount of people and thus, make shitloads of money. "Indie" music is also meant to make money, but it typically makes money because of its art. Pop musics' art is making money. That doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

Personally, I think there's a craft to good pop music. Appealing to a broad audience is undeniably difficult, as is crafting an infectious hook. There's also something really special about a song that is universally known and loved. People who write off all pop music because it's meant to make money are selling the genre short and ignoring the art in it all. But there's also a lot of pop music that is pretty lazy in its attempts to achieve marketability, and it makes the entire genre look bad.

It's the same deal with film - blockbuster movies and franchises vs. smaller-scale art films. There's plenty of amazing blockbusters, but the formula also gives you a Michael Bay on occasion, so you're going to have the legions of people claiming that blockblusters ruin cinema.

[allow that]

Feb 10, 2014 15:59:42 GMT -5 @soblu said:

It's masked in cliches and bubblegum fluff but at its core, it feels like it's made just to be a hit.

I would say overall though, people talk down pop artists for a lot of different reasons. Not just because they make pop music.

I agree with everything soblu said but these two points particularly stand out.

I think many of the artists listed above (especially Katy, Ke$ha, and Pitbull) have backlash because they come off as manufactured and generic. They make catchy songs that blend in with the times and often feel like retreads. From the get go there is little priority placed on creating music as art or with a test of time in mind.

That's not to say that it can't happen. There are plenty of pop acts that create meaningful music, but their obscurities also tend to scare off pop radio (a radio format that targets teenagers and likes to play it safe). I could name plenty of pop acts that make meaningful music but many would be quick to cite rock, soul, R&B, folk, or electronic influences (even if it's slight) in an attempt to distance their music from Katy or Pitbull. I think a good example of a respectable artist that's undeniably pure pop is Robyn.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

There seems to be an obsession of a lot of people that music has to be art too. But then that begs the question: what is art? One man's art could be another man's trash.

[Deleted]

This is a great discussion.

It seems like pop has always been the scapegoat for the "everything I hate about music" bandwagon for many these days.
Unfortunately, I don't think the constant recycled releases by Rihanna, Katy, Gaga, Pitbull are helping matters either.
On the flipside, if these artists wanted to give up recycling the same songs in order to do their own thing musically, they have the power to walk away.
So, yes, pop music is exploitive, but in my mind the artists going along with the gimmicks are just as culpable as the record label and marketing executives.
I used to be a moderate fan of pop music, but as I got older, my tastes shifted elsewhere.
Honestly, I went through several years where I couldn't understand the appeal of pop music and why it made so much money.
It took a few chats with other people around me to open up my mind a little bit and realize what is valuable or important to one person when it comes to music can mean nothing to someone else, and vice versa.
Music is deeply personal for some people, while others maybe want to listen to mindless pop ditties because that's what they happen to like.
Pop music (especially nowadays), is stereotyped as mindless, commercial crap. If that's what people are buying, that will reflect on the entire genre. But it's also unfair to make blanket statements because something doesn't align with your personal tastes.
People are way too quick to say "my taste is better than yours," but in reality, anybody who loves music probably listens to great artists, and more that maybe are a little embarrassing.
I think it depends on many different factors; what are you looking for in music that you enjoy? If you love great pop songs it may be about the melody; if you gravitate towards Country maybe it's because you love story songs.
I love power ballad divas like Whitney and Celine; a friend of mine hates that "heavier" tone that's associated with those kinds of singers.
Music tastes are so incredibly specific and subjective, and I think pop fans take a beating sometimes because the genre is obviously the most up front about the commercial aspect, so therefore it's somehow lesser to like it.
You can find great artists in any genre, but pop is marketed as the throwaway genre, if you will, and that seems to have held true overtime.

[Ezekiel 23:20–21]

I don't think there is much of a backlash against Rihanna, but feel that her last era started off strong and then it got really sloppy and disjointed (especially with that vulgar and pornographic video for "Pour It Up" dropping months after the single had peaked). She needs to step it up the next time around or else it may not go so well.

I don't think there's a backlash against Ke$ha. It's more of a situation where her label picked the wrong singles and she flopped, but she was never overexposed nor did she have a very public scandal or something that led to people hating her. The right solo single at the right time can help her, and with her being in treatment right now for her eating disorder, she has an opportunity for a comeback.

I don't think we can call what is happening with Britney Spears a backlash. The current album was uninspired and served as merely a vehicle for her to have new material to perform during her Vegas show. But it also didn't help things that she did not promote or perform at all that's why the album underperformed. It doesn't make any sense that she and her seem didn't allow for her to perform anywhere when "Work Bitch" was a single. Unless that was a term in the contract that was nonnegotiable or something, but who would agree to such a thing? I think there is still interest amongst her fans and even the general public. She was doing fine for quite a while with little promotion. What worked before won't always work, but the material and promotion really makes a difference.

Regarding Nicki, others have already pointed out how she went Pop and Dance and that definitely alienated some of her core audience. But perhaps it was fluke that she had a crossover when she did. She definitely made some hot records however some of her recent work has been subpar and those fans who were turned off by her change in musical direction might be lost for good. Perhaps with the right single she might be able to have success again, but I think she is over as a Pop artist.

The issue with Taylor Swift is less about the music then being more about how she has reacted to some of her wins and losses in public. The whole "OHMIGAWD! I DIDN'T EXPECT THAT BECKY!" exclamation with her putting her hands in her mouth was cute about 100 awards ago. She needs to stop. Her personal life definitely is playing a role in it as the ways in which she conducted herself have come under scrutiny and she reacted a certain way that was odd. But the real issue is that if I were a Country artist have a problem with the fact that she received a Grammy nom for a non-country song in a Country category. But the issue I do see with her music is that if she continues to go more Pop, she may stop getting nominations at certain awards shows.

I think the issue with Lady Gaga is more about her image being too unusual and that perhaps does not connect well with the general public right now. I think that the lack of visibility this time around may have played a part in her album underperforming. Things have also been very messy with her social media presence and then the issues behind the scenes with her management and the video and remixes for DWUW not being released a timely matter although that is changing with the recent announcement made today. I think that she can make a full comeback, but needs to perhaps tone down her image a little bit to get back, then she can come back with the more outrageous and strange stuff later once she has come back into favor with the public. I don't want her to diminish herself so she can be successful again, but she may need to just for a short time. Not to bring Madonna into this, but after the public backlash over Erotica, the Sex book and the Body of Evidence movie, she did tone it down a bit with the Bedtime Stories album era after that and she got back into favor with the public and continued to be successful for a while again. Gaga is a great songwriter and lyricist, and she works really hard so she just needs to focus more on the music and then the image can be tailored accordingly and she will be fine.

I don't know why Katy Perry is mentioned in this category as the only remote issue I can see existing is that she is not as strong a live performer which is nothing new. People said the same thing about Paula Abdul im the 80s and she was fine although she hasn't had any musical success in almost 2 decades but she hasn't exactly released anything in that time either. Because she can't deliver consistent performances live every time doesn't necessarily make her any less of a success than she is. What should she do? Lip sync all her performances or should she not do any at all?

Pitbull definitely gets more hate online perhaps because of his recent releases have you been very generic and safe. Back in the day when he was more edgy to experimental but lately it's just like he's phoning it in and I guess he likes that money too much. His formula hasn't changed much from hopping on a current trend, like "Culo" being based on that "Coolie Dance Riddim" that was in the "Pull Up", "Jook Gal (Remix)", and "Move Ya Body" songs, or him hopping on a remix of "Ai Se Eu Te Pego" by Michel Teló in an effort to cross it over into the U.S. But it isn't that anything and everything he releases automatically does well. He has a fair share of solo and duet/collaboration flops as well so you can't really say that he's doing very well for no reason. And it's possible that those the combination of him plus a certain guest made for the perfect storm and resulted in a success versus a flop at that time.

[Deleted]

I read "backlash" not as a big public scandal but like if you brought up Kesha's name, most people would have bad things to say about her music. Same with Rihanna, Britney, etc.