Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,742
|
Post by Gary on Dec 17, 2017 12:12:52 GMT -5
So, the Dixie Chicks should have never spoken out against George Bush, right? I do wonder if the same people who say they don't care about what an artist has done (ie, assault, beat a woman, etc, etc) also felt the same when the Dixie Chicks were being trashed for speaking against Bush? I've tried asking a few and the answer is always conveniently "I never liked the Dixie Chicks music in the first place." Huh I always loved the Dixie Chicks - still do.
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Dec 17, 2017 12:33:43 GMT -5
So, the Dixie Chicks should have never spoken out against George Bush, right? I do wonder if the same people who say they don't care about what an artist has done (ie, assault, beat a woman, etc, etc) also felt the same when the Dixie Chicks were being trashed for speaking against Bush? I've tried asking a few and the answer is always conveniently "I never liked the Dixie Chicks music in the first place." Huh Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left, but they only speak out when they think it's convenient. These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton. I don't care what musicians think, but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world. However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle and maybe be a bit more judicious about how to frame issues. The NFL is learning that lesson this year. Em's situation is probably combo of no hit single and just an old legacy act - see his SNL appearance and how he was trashed on Social Media as a tired old man. Oh and even diminished Em can still bring of the best opening weeks of the year. I bet if River instead of WoW had been released first, those numbers would be better. Perhaps he'll have staying power if the feedback is positive.
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Dec 17, 2017 12:54:00 GMT -5
Then alienate your fanbase, deal with sales decline, and have worse reviews than your last couple albums. See what happens to your career in the long-run. So, the Dixie Chicks should have never spoken out against George Bush, right? They have released one album since 2003. Imagine all the music they could have released in that time. Instead...
|
|
DJ General
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 5,932
|
Post by DJ General on Dec 17, 2017 14:27:42 GMT -5
The Eminem roll out was very bizarre.
He had a lot of buzz in November but the album kept getting delayed There is no music video out And the Beyoncรฉ song wasnโt a radio song
Iโm not worried about sales. river will be a hit and the album will still. Be #1 and platinum and river could potentially be 1 on hot 100
|
|
|
Post by Love Plastic Love on Dec 17, 2017 14:47:30 GMT -5
I am trying to decide if these are really disappointing numbers or not. I mean, it is 4 years after his last album, he has nowhere near a Monster-sized hit, the last album was also touted as the sequel to MMLP which I think gave it at least a "hook" for an audience into it, he is also 20-21 years into his career by now and nothing lasts forever. Sales are also really, really crappy right now and as much as people are classifying Taylor as a huge disappointment, she seems to be the only one easily sailing past platinum right now. Even Ed is just getting there now after a year and multiple hits with sustained promo. There are a LOT of reasons why 200K sales and 300K SPS isn't that bad for him. In fact, compared to most it is pretty great and extraordinarily rare to maintain this sales presence this far into a career.
However, I guess it is because the last album was huge so he seemed untouchable even with those outside factors that these feel like a disappointment to us.
It will be interesting to see if River catches on after no one seemed to like the Beyonce song that much.
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,086
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Dec 17, 2017 17:53:31 GMT -5
Not terrible numbers for an album released on December, 2017. That said...
Big LOL @ those 1m debut predictions though. Try to blame it on the roll-out all you want but I think the material is just not there this time. I haven't heard River yet but is it the Ed Sheeran feature? Pop fans don't buy albums anymore, so even if it becomes a pop hit I can't see it improving the numbers that much.
OK SPS bump but nothing groundbreaking like some people were predicting.
|
|
Nick
8x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2004
Posts: 8,684
|
Post by Nick on Dec 17, 2017 19:44:28 GMT -5
Considering an album release in mid December with a bland lead single, I'd say these numbers are not bad.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 3:35:40 GMT -5
Yeah, in a year with many hyped acts hitting around the 100k mark, 300k is not bad at all. Weโre just used to the majority of Eminem albums hitting 5x platinum with a couple Diamonds thrown in, which would be downright obscene in todayโs climate. Eminem might even get one last hit out of this album with River, so it wonโt be a huge flop.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 9:15:06 GMT -5
Given the rollout and the Beyonce collab that fell flat, and an overall low-key/odd rollout in general, I think these numbers are decent. I also think time will tell - at this stage in his career big sales require some kind of connection. River may end up giving this some longevity, as well subsequent singles if they connect.
I look at it like he was able to do these numbers (better than most) without much effort or an established big hit. That's saying something in an increasingly youthful streaming world with relatively dire sales. He's an old school rapper at this point, imo, his daughter is the same age as the streaming crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Dec 18, 2017 9:33:22 GMT -5
I'd personally say the most disappointing release this year performance-wise on its first week by an established artist was Miley Cyrus' new album. In that context, you have to consider reputation's first week numbers as quite an achievement and go down from there.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,575
|
Post by jenglisbe on Dec 18, 2017 9:35:06 GMT -5
I don't care what musicians think, but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world. However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle and maybe be a bit more judicious about how to frame issues. The NFL is learning that lesson this year. But that's working on an assumption that they care more about business than politics. Some people feel strongly enough about their politic that they don't care if it hurts their business. It's funny that those people get criticized for not having business savvy, yet when Chris Brown beats women or throws chairs through a window we don't hear the same criticism.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 9:41:42 GMT -5
The minute artists - specifically rappers - care more about sales and likability than the social subject matter and issues that they are rapping about.... is the day the music dies for me. It's already sorely lacking in the "fight the power" department.
Eminem is in a place where he can do and say what he wants as an artist. I don't see Kendrick suffering for his often politically and socially-charged music. For Em, he's just not today's "it" rapper anymore. I'm still in awe of what he was able to achieve doing things his way, especially as a racial minority in the genre.
|
|
renfield75
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 1,627
|
Post by renfield75 on Dec 18, 2017 10:38:13 GMT -5
It works both ways, politically. Did Toby Keith or Kid Rock or Ted Nugent worry about losing liberal fans? Should they? It's totally their right to say whatever they want, and it never seemed to directly affect them (any sales declines were most likely attributable to age). I don't understand how any hardcore Trump supporters who were also Eminem fans could be shocked at his political stance. That cypher didn't reveal any opinion I didn't expect from him. If he did lose any fans over that I imagine he also cemented his standing with others.
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Dec 18, 2017 12:30:18 GMT -5
^Expressing political views in this day & age of polarization will no doubt somewhat reduce their artist's potential audience for their music. This is unfortunate. Ideally, it should be based on music quality, but realistically, that's not how the world works.
|
|
dbhmr
Diamond Member
>
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 23,332
|
Post by dbhmr on Dec 18, 2017 12:59:03 GMT -5
I do wonder if the same people who say they don't care about what an artist has done (ie, assault, beat a woman, etc, etc) also felt the same when the Dixie Chicks were being trashed for speaking against Bush? I've tried asking a few and the answer is always conveniently "I never liked the Dixie Chicks music in the first place." Huh Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left, but they only speak out when they think it's convenient. These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton. I don't care what musicians think, but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world. However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle and maybe be a bit more judicious about how to frame issues. The NFL is learning that lesson this year. Good lord. Let's try and unpack this Tomi Lahren mess a bit. 1) "Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left." Two things: 1) How much mainstream music is actually tilted "so far left"? I mean, how much mainstream music is political at all? There were a handful of articles about politics in pop music this year, and even in a year like 2017, there wasn't a lot of meat to these pieces. When you're including something as opaque as "Chained to the Rhythm" and unknown as "Go High," how political could pop music really have been? Also, I think what you really mean is entertainers tend to be liberal/democrats, and to this I say...so? Democrats are basically half the political spectrum, so to say music and politics don't mix doesn't make any sense. 2) "...but they only speak out when they think it's convenient." For a really, really long time, most entertainers lived by the same dumbass American credo that a lot of Americans held dear: "Don't discuss religion and politics in public." That's why you still have people foaming at the mouths when entertainers began to use their platform politically and started facing less Dixie Chicks-esque backlash. Social media obviously played a big role in this as people, in general, are far more open about their political views. And musicians/entertainers, you know...being people themselves...followed suit. 3) "These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton." Which musicians are you referring to? Nearly all of today's biggest names weren't making music when Bill Clinton was president (some weren't even born). Beyond the fact that this is a strawman argument, it's also just an absurd statement, and echoes a familiarly hollow argument a number of conservatives have used: you made a mistake before, so how dare you try and correct it now. 4) "I don't care what musicians think" So why the f**k do you listen to music? 5) "but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world." mmmmm yeah, f**k this. I hate this so much. You are not more real than me, or anyone else, because of where you live or how much money you make. Besides, throw a rock at any major mainstream music act and you're likely to hit an artist who has lived out of their car, had a family on food stamps, worked one minimum wage job after the next, before they found their break. Many of them have experienced a level of poverty a lot of Americans never have, but now they're rich and famous because they worked hard and achieved "the American dream" and are now deemed not real Americans by poor white trash who resent the fact that someone who made music or movies they loved won't coddle their racist/classist/homophobic/sexist bulls**t on Twitter. 6) "However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle" Tell us more! Tell us about how you can hate on musicians for speaking up on their personal beliefs--ones that do align with millions of the fans who "fund their .001% lifestyle"--while wondering why they don't change the way they think to suit you? And I'll tell you something else: I'm not sure any celebrity you can think of comes close to the .001%. Think of it this way: those designer dresses entertainers strut down every award show red carpet? They get to wear them for free. And you know why? Because those designers want people with the real wealth to see it, and spend the $40k on that dress, while most of those same celebrities just give that ensemble right back to the designer when the shows over. The idea that celebrities are the richest people in America highlights your ignorance on the issue of income inequality and how wealth is really distributed in this country. And just a general reminder: Musicians are artists, and their work is their own creative expression (or it should be). If it doesn't speak to you, do not buy it. But they do not work for you, are not employed by you, and should not adjust their artistic point of view for you. And hot tip: they won't.
|
|
djkhaled
New Member
Dupe
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 71
|
Post by djkhaled on Dec 18, 2017 13:07:55 GMT -5
I do wonder if the same people who say they don't care about what an artist has done (ie, assault, beat a woman, etc, etc) also felt the same when the Dixie Chicks were being trashed for speaking against Bush? I've tried asking a few and the answer is always conveniently "I never liked the Dixie Chicks music in the first place." Huh Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left, but they only speak out when they think it's convenient. These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton. I don't care what musicians think, but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world. However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle and maybe be a bit more judicious about how to frame issues. The NFL is learning that lesson this year. Em's situation is probably combo of no hit single and just an old legacy act - see his SNL appearance and how he was trashed on Social Media as a tired old man. Oh and even diminished Em can still bring of the best opening weeks of the year. I bet if River instead of WoW had been released first, those numbers would be better. Perhaps he'll have staying power if the feedback is positive. Eminem attacked Clinton relentlessly for getting his dick sucked in the Oval Office
|
|
djkhaled
New Member
Dupe
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 71
|
Post by djkhaled on Dec 18, 2017 13:09:49 GMT -5
Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left, but they only speak out when they think it's convenient. These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton. I don't care what musicians think, but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world. However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle and maybe be a bit more judicious about how to frame issues. The NFL is learning that lesson this year. Good lord. Let's try and unpack this Tomi Lahren mess a bit. 1) "Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left." Two things: 1) How much mainstream music is actually tilted "so far left"? I mean, how much mainstream music is political at all? There were a handful of articles about politics in pop music this year, and even in a year like 2017, there wasn't a lot of meat to these pieces. When you're including something as opaque as "Chained to the Rhythm" and unknown as "Go High," how political could pop music really have been? Also, I think what you really mean is entertainers tend to be liberal/democrats, and to this I say...so? Democrats are basically half the political spectrum, so to say music and politics don't mix doesn't make any sense. 2) "...but they only speak out when they think it's convenient." For a really, really long time, most entertainers lived by the same dumbass American credo that a lot of Americans held dear: "Don't discuss religion and politics in public." That's why you still have people foaming at the mouths when entertainers began to use their platform politically and started facing less Dixie Chicks-esque backlash. Social media obviously played a big role in this as people, in general, are far more open about their political views. And musicians/entertainers, you know...being people themselves...followed suit. 3) "These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton." Which musicians are you referring to? Nearly all of today's biggest names weren't making music when Bill Clinton was president (some weren't even born). Beyond the fact that this is a strawman argument, it's also just an absurd statement, and echoes a familiarly hollow argument a number of conservatives have used: you made a mistake before, so how dare you try and correct it now. 4) "I don't care what musicians think" So why the f**k do you listen to music? 5) "but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world." mmmmm yeah, f**k this. I hate this so much. You are not more real than me, or anyone else, because of where you live or how much money you make. Besides, throw a rock at any major mainstream music act and you're likely to hit an artist who has lived out of their car, had a family on food stamps, worked one minimum wage job after the next, before they found their break. Many of them have experienced a level of poverty a lot of Americans never had, but now they're rich and famous because they worked hard and achieved "the American dream" and are now deemed not real Americans by poor white trash who resent the fact that someone who made music or movies they loved won't coddle their racist/classist/homophobic/sexist bulls**t on Twitter. 6) "However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle" Tell us more! Tell us about how you can hate on musicians for speaking up on their personal beliefs--ones that do align with millions of the fans who "fund their .001% lifestyle"--while wondering why they don't change the way they think to suit you? And I'll tell you something else: I'm not sure any celebrity you can think of comes close to the .001%. Think of it this way: those designer dresses entertainers strut down every award show red carpet? They get to wear them for free. And you know why? Because those designers want people with the real wealth to see it, and spend the $40k on that dress, while most of those same celebrities just give that ensemble right back to the designer when the shows over. The idea that celebrities are the richest people in America highlights your ignorance on the issue of income inequality and how wealth is really distributed in this country. And just a general reminder: Musicians are artists, and their work is their own creative expression (or it should be). If it doesn't speak to you, do not buy it. But they do not work for you, are not employed by you, and should not adjust their artistic point of view for you. And hot tip: they won't. He has a very legitimate point that music culture is tilted extremely left. Anyone who comes out as a conservative is relentlessly attacked in the music industry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 13:18:39 GMT -5
Music is art. Art is freedom. Artists generally lean left, because, well.... artists. Conservatism generally likes to keep things in a box and encourages boundaries between right and wrong - which goes against the very foundation of artistic expression.
|
|
dbhmr
Diamond Member
>
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 23,332
|
Post by dbhmr on Dec 18, 2017 13:25:21 GMT -5
Good lord. Let's try and unpack this Tomi Lahren mess a bit. 1) "Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left." Two things: 1) How much mainstream music is actually tilted "so far left"? I mean, how much mainstream music is political at all? There were a handful of articles about politics in pop music this year, and even in a year like 2017, there wasn't a lot of meat to these pieces. When you're including something as opaque as "Chained to the Rhythm" and unknown as "Go High," how political could pop music really have been? Also, I think what you really mean is entertainers tend to be liberal/democrats, and to this I say...so? Democrats are basically half the political spectrum, so to say music and politics don't mix doesn't make any sense. 2) "...but they only speak out when they think it's convenient." For a really, really long time, most entertainers lived by the same dumbass American credo that a lot of Americans held dear: "Don't discuss religion and politics in public." That's why you still have people foaming at the mouths when entertainers began to use their platform politically and started facing less Dixie Chicks-esque backlash. Social media obviously played a big role in this as people, in general, are far more open about their political views. And musicians/entertainers, you know...being people themselves...followed suit. 3) "These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton." Which musicians are you referring to? Nearly all of today's biggest names weren't making music when Bill Clinton was president (some weren't even born). Beyond the fact that this is a strawman argument, it's also just an absurd statement, and echoes a familiarly hollow argument a number of conservatives have used: you made a mistake before, so how dare you try and correct it now. 4) "I don't care what musicians think" So why the f**k do you listen to music? 5) "but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world." mmmmm yeah, f**k this. I hate this so much. You are not more real than me, or anyone else, because of where you live or how much money you make. Besides, throw a rock at any major mainstream music act and you're likely to hit an artist who has lived out of their car, had a family on food stamps, worked one minimum wage job after the next, before they found their break. Many of them have experienced a level of poverty a lot of Americans never had, but now they're rich and famous because they worked hard and achieved "the American dream" and are now deemed not real Americans by poor white trash who resent the fact that someone who made music or movies they loved won't coddle their racist/classist/homophobic/sexist bulls**t on Twitter. 6) "However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle" Tell us more! Tell us about how you can hate on musicians for speaking up on their personal beliefs--ones that do align with millions of the fans who "fund their .001% lifestyle"--while wondering why they don't change the way they think to suit you? And I'll tell you something else: I'm not sure any celebrity you can think of comes close to the .001%. Think of it this way: those designer dresses entertainers strut down every award show red carpet? They get to wear them for free. And you know why? Because those designers want people with the real wealth to see it, and spend the $40k on that dress, while most of those same celebrities just give that ensemble right back to the designer when the shows over. The idea that celebrities are the richest people in America highlights your ignorance on the issue of income inequality and how wealth is really distributed in this country. And just a general reminder: Musicians are artists, and their work is their own creative expression (or it should be). If it doesn't speak to you, do not buy it. But they do not work for you, are not employed by you, and should not adjust their artistic point of view for you. And hot tip: they won't. He has a very legitimate point that music culture is tilted extremely left. Anyone who comes out as a conservative is relentlessly attacked in the music industry. When did Country music cease to exist? I'm not mad about it, just wondering why it didn't pop up in my News Alerts.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Dec 18, 2017 13:41:22 GMT -5
If music leaned heavily to the right weโd still be listening to classical as the dominant genre.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,575
|
Post by jenglisbe on Dec 18, 2017 13:49:02 GMT -5
Music is art. Art is freedom. Artists generally lean left, because, well.... artists. Conservatism generally likes to keep things in a box and encourages boundaries between right and wrong - which goes against the very foundation of artistic expression. Well, yes, when conservatives want to cuts arts funding across the land, it's no wonder the music industry - and "Hollywood" - lean left. That doesn't change that they do lean left, though, which was the point made. Of course, within "music" there are certainly genres that lean right (i.e. country, bluegrass, Christian, maybe gospel). The biggest example of a musician being targeted for their politics is the Dixie Chicks, and they were punished for leaning left so...
|
|
TakeMe
New Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 350
|
Post by TakeMe on Dec 18, 2017 13:54:38 GMT -5
LMAO those numbers arenโt a shock, although I am surprised Ems album sold THAT much! He alienated his fans and this is what happens, not to mention he doesnโt have a hit song, he should have produced and released something with Rihanna, bonafide chart topper!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 13:59:04 GMT -5
Music is art. Art is freedom. Artists generally lean left, because, well.... artists. Conservatism generally likes to keep things in a box and encourages boundaries between right and wrong - which goes against the very foundation of artistic expression. Well, yes, when conservatives want to cuts arts funding across the land, it's no wonder the music industry - and "Hollywood" - lean left. That doesn't change that they do lean left, though, which was the point made. Of course, within "music" there are certainly genres that lean right (i.e. country, bluegrass, Christian, maybe gospel). The biggest example of a musician being targeted for their politics is the Dixie Chicks, and they were punished for leaning left so... Yep, yep and yep. My post was an attempt at explaining why they lean left on a fundamental level, and you bringing up arts funding is a great example of this.
|
|
djkhaled
New Member
Dupe
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 71
|
Post by djkhaled on Dec 18, 2017 15:36:53 GMT -5
LMAO those numbers arenโt a shock, although I am surprised Ems album sold THAT much! He alienated his fans and this is what happens, not to mention he doesnโt have a hit song, he should have produced and released something with Rihanna, bonafide chart topper! River is gonna be a hit
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading เผบเผเผป Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,483
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Dec 18, 2017 18:47:16 GMT -5
Updated predictions:
Eminem (Shady/Aftermath/Interscope) 250-260k SPS, 180-190k album G-Eazy (BPG/Revels Group/RCA) 130-140k, 80-90k Jeezy (Def Jam) 55-65k, 35-40k Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Walt Disney) 40-44k, 37-40k N.E.R.D. (N.E.R.D./Columbia) 19-23k, 11-13k
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Dec 18, 2017 20:20:45 GMT -5
^Ouch, the 100k SEAs + TEAs for Revival got reduced by about a third.
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Dec 18, 2017 23:00:17 GMT -5
Good lord. Let's try and unpack this Tomi Lahren mess a bit. 1) "Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left." Two things: 1) How much mainstream music is actually tilted "so far left"? I mean, how much mainstream music is political at all? There were a handful of articles about politics in pop music this year, and even in a year like 2017, there wasn't a lot of meat to these pieces. When you're including something as opaque as "Chained to the Rhythm" and unknown as "Go High," how political could pop music really have been? Also, I think what you really mean is entertainers tend to be liberal/democrats, and to this I say...so? Democrats are basically half the political spectrum, so to say music and politics don't mix doesn't make any sense. 2) "...but they only speak out when they think it's convenient." For a really, really long time, most entertainers lived by the same dumbass American credo that a lot of Americans held dear: "Don't discuss religion and politics in public." That's why you still have people foaming at the mouths when entertainers began to use their platform politically and started facing less Dixie Chicks-esque backlash. Social media obviously played a big role in this as people, in general, are far more open about their political views. And musicians/entertainers, you know...being people themselves...followed suit. 3) "These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton." Which musicians are you referring to? Nearly all of today's biggest names weren't making music when Bill Clinton was president (some weren't even born). Beyond the fact that this is a strawman argument, it's also just an absurd statement, and echoes a familiarly hollow argument a number of conservatives have used: you made a mistake before, so how dare you try and correct it now. 4) "I don't care what musicians think" So why the f**k do you listen to music? 5) "but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world." mmmmm yeah, f**k this. I hate this so much. You are not more real than me, or anyone else, because of where you live or how much money you make. Besides, throw a rock at any major mainstream music act and you're likely to hit an artist who has lived out of their car, had a family on food stamps, worked one minimum wage job after the next, before they found their break. Many of them have experienced a level of poverty a lot of Americans never had, but now they're rich and famous because they worked hard and achieved "the American dream" and are now deemed not real Americans by poor white trash who resent the fact that someone who made music or movies they loved won't coddle their racist/classist/homophobic/sexist bulls**t on Twitter. 6) "However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle" Tell us more! Tell us about how you can hate on musicians for speaking up on their personal beliefs--ones that do align with millions of the fans who "fund their .001% lifestyle"--while wondering why they don't change the way they think to suit you? And I'll tell you something else: I'm not sure any celebrity you can think of comes close to the .001%. Think of it this way: those designer dresses entertainers strut down every award show red carpet? They get to wear them for free. And you know why? Because those designers want people with the real wealth to see it, and spend the $40k on that dress, while most of those same celebrities just give that ensemble right back to the designer when the shows over. The idea that celebrities are the richest people in America highlights your ignorance on the issue of income inequality and how wealth is really distributed in this country. And just a general reminder: Musicians are artists, and their work is their own creative expression (or it should be). If it doesn't speak to you, do not buy it. But they do not work for you, are not employed by you, and should not adjust their artistic point of view for you. And hot tip: they won't. He has a very legitimate point that music culture is tilted extremely left. Anyone who comes out as a conservative is relentlessly attacked in the music industry. Taylor Swift is attacked daily by the Left for not being political enough. Itโs insane.
|
|
$uperb@tDuDe
2x Platinum Member
Drunk On Love!
Joined: February 2010
Posts: 2,172
|
Post by $uperb@tDuDe on Dec 18, 2017 23:03:29 GMT -5
Wow crazy low numbers for Eminem
|
|
Oprah
9x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 9,064
|
Post by Oprah on Dec 18, 2017 23:17:17 GMT -5
Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left, but they only speak out when they think it's convenient. These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton. I don't care what musicians think, but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world. However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle and maybe be a bit more judicious about how to frame issues. The NFL is learning that lesson this year. Good lord. Let's try and unpack this Tomi Lahren mess a bit. 1) "Music and politics don't mix because it's tilted so far left." Two things: 1) How much mainstream music is actually tilted "so far left"? I mean, how much mainstream music is political at all? There were a handful of articles about politics in pop music this year, and even in a year like 2017, there wasn't a lot of meat to these pieces. When you're including something as opaque as "Chained to the Rhythm" and unknown as "Go High," how political could pop music really have been? Also, I think what you really mean is entertainers tend to be liberal/democrats, and to this I say...so? Democrats are basically half the political spectrum, so to say music and politics don't mix doesn't make any sense. 2) "...but they only speak out when they think it's convenient." For a really, really long time, most entertainers lived by the same dumbass American credo that a lot of Americans held dear: "Don't discuss religion and politics in public." That's why you still have people foaming at the mouths when entertainers began to use their platform politically and started facing less Dixie Chicks-esque backlash. Social media obviously played a big role in this as people, in general, are far more open about their political views. And musicians/entertainers, you know...being people themselves...followed suit. 3) "These same musicians that never spoke up when a CEO sexually harassed a 22 yo intern aka President Clinton." Which musicians are you referring to? Nearly all of today's biggest names weren't making music when Bill Clinton was president (some weren't even born). Beyond the fact that this is a strawman argument, it's also just an absurd statement, and echoes a familiarly hollow argument a number of conservatives have used: you made a mistake before, so how dare you try and correct it now. 4) "I don't care what musicians think" So why the f**k do you listen to music? 5) "but they are entitled to their opinion even if they don't live in real world." mmmmm yeah, f**k this. I hate this so much. You are not more real than me, or anyone else, because of where you live or how much money you make. Besides, throw a rock at any major mainstream music act and you're likely to hit an artist who has lived out of their car, had a family on food stamps, worked one minimum wage job after the next, before they found their break. Many of them have experienced a level of poverty a lot of Americans never have, but now they're rich and famous because they worked hard and achieved "the American dream" and are now deemed not real Americans by poor white trash who resent the fact that someone who made music or movies they loved won't coddle their racist/classist/homophobic/sexist bulls**t on Twitter. 6) "However, you'd also think from a business perspective they'd be a little more aware of their fans aka who's funding their .001% lifestyle" Tell us more! Tell us about how you can hate on musicians for speaking up on their personal beliefs--ones that do align with millions of the fans who "fund their .001% lifestyle"--while wondering why they don't change the way they think to suit you? And I'll tell you something else: I'm not sure any celebrity you can think of comes close to the .001%. Think of it this way: those designer dresses entertainers strut down every award show red carpet? They get to wear them for free. And you know why? Because those designers want people with the real wealth to see it, and spend the $40k on that dress, while most of those same celebrities just give that ensemble right back to the designer when the shows over. The idea that celebrities are the richest people in America highlights your ignorance on the issue of income inequality and how wealth is really distributed in this country. And just a general reminder: Musicians are artists, and their work is their own creative expression (or it should be). If it doesn't speak to you, do not buy it. But they do not work for you, are not employed by you, and should not adjust their artistic point of view for you. And hot tip: they won't.
|
|
thewp
Gold Member
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 648
|
Post by thewp on Dec 19, 2017 6:40:29 GMT -5
He has a very legitimate point that music culture is tilted extremely left. Anyone who comes out as a conservative is relentlessly attacked in the music industry. Taylor Swift is attacked daily by the Left for not being political enough. Itโs insane. Iโm not sure attacked is the right word. I bet mainstream music listeners arenโt even aware of this. But, sheโs being called out for not disassociating herself with the Nazis who take her lack of commentary as approval. Never thought โsaying Nazis are badโ was a tough call, but here Trump are.
|
|