what the hell is wrong with magazines

[Anderton]

Hey, I just read the pop music story in EQ...gotta say it offers a unique take on the subject. It deals mostly with the producers, and makes a connection back to the Phil Spector mode of working and producing. Don't be put off by the title -- read the piece, there's much cool stuff in there.

[alphajerk]

i DID read it. and it make me wanna puke. everything they talk about, like i said before, is what is wrong with music today. its really disgusting. music used to be such a cerebral artform and since its commercialization over the past 30 years, its been wholly reduced to fodder equivilant to soap operas and talk shows that occupy the tv. no wonder its the bastard child. not that arnold schwartzenegar[sp?] or van damme films have any sort of intellectual content either. just part of the homogenization of amerika i guess. nobody likes to think too hard or open their eyes.

[Philip OKeefe]

I just got the new EQ in the mail today and have only had time to skim it, but I did see the Phil Spector comments Craig referred to, and mention about how nowdays the "producers are the star attraction".

 

I know that's true, but I personally disagree with the "Phil Spector" record production philosophy - you know, where you have your own "signature sound" on each record, and the artist on those records is incidental.

 

I personally prefer the Sir George Martin approach: A objective "third party" who shares the artist's vision, inspires them to do better than they thought they could and who is a facilitator. I don't believe in the concept of producer as "music Nazi" or Napoleon dictator type.

 

I feel the SONG comes first, and the artist. In that issue on page 68, Thom Panunzio said he's got two rules: His first rule is, at the end of the day he never does anything the artist doesn't want to do, and the second rule is that "you always do what's best for the record. That rule is second because sometimes it contradicts the first rule". Hey, it's the ARTIST'S record, not mine. I think Thom expressed my opinions on the matter better than I could have done so myself.

 

In fairness to Phil Spector though, I CAN relate to him pulling out a Colt M1911A1 .45 ACP pistol and putting a round right through the center of the speaker because he didn't like what he was hearing... I've been tempted once or twice myself! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[alphajerk]

"I personally prefer the Sir George Martin approach: A objective "third party" who shares the artist's vision, inspires them to do better than they thought they could and who is a facilitator. I don't believe in the concept of producer as "music Nazi" or Napoleon dictator type.

 

I feel the SONG comes first, and the artist. In that issue on page 68, Thom Panunzio said he's got two rules: His first rule is, at the end of the day he never does anything the artist doesn't want to do, and the second rule is that "you always do what's best for the record. That rule is second because sometimes it contradicts the first rule". Hey, it's the ARTIST'S record, not mine. I think Thom expressed my opinions on the matter better than I could have done so myself. "

 

i second that notion. and its exactly the approach i take with my artists. there is just something about [hell everything] about these prefabricated artists that make me sick. and most of the "sound" those producers have are as prefabricated as the entertainers they produce. they are not innovative or creative.

[Punchmo]

AJ, In the January 2001 issue of "Recording", there is an article about MOTU's Digital Performer, version 2.72. Are you running DP w/ the upgrade? Also, which Mac are you using and how much ram? Your comments please. Thanks, sp

[Ex]

I, for one, enjoy reading EQ every month. Apart from my Keyboard subscription (for obvious reasons), I look forward to my copy of EQ each month. I do second Alphajerk's comment about the pictures. I support a more active attempt on EQ's part to do more picture taking of the GEAR (preferably pics that are unobstructed by people). I thought I was the only one who tried to peep around the engineer to find out what was in the stash. In that regard the "Room with a VU" column is a hit!

 

I think that the editorial direction is appropriate. EQ fills a place that Mix and Recording won't cover. The reason that I read EQ over Recording is BEcause they pander to the non-hobbyist project studio owner. I want to hear about how other professionals operate their project studio. I want to hear about how they make money from modest setups that are achievable with a reasonable amount of cash and some ingenuity. Sure, I want to see stuff that I could reasonably afford, but it's important to show stuff that makes my mind and budget reach a little. So keep up the balancing act!

 

BTW, Brian McKnight has a killer project studio that was shown in a TV program about the houses of the stars. Just a heads up in case EQ wasn't aware or needed another article lead.

 

Rev E

[Guest]

Gotta say you are wrong on this Alpha...why did folks stop listening to Charlie Parker and turn to Louis Jordan? Why did music to dance to get popular when folks started making 3 record sets of music inspired by the Lord of the Rings or whatever?

because folks like to dance and have fun with music...it's been like that since forever i think.

i think everyone who makes music can learn stuff from these pop groups...stuff about hooks, vocal production and so on. I don't know how many times i've heard folks say "why are there no songs you can hum any more?" and then there are songs like I Want it that Way--not saying it's Gershwin--but it's good pop music.

[Anderton]

>>I know that's true, but I personally disagree with the "Phil Spector" record production philosophy - you know, where you have your own "signature sound" on each record, and the artist on those records is incidental.<<

 

Wait a minute...can't PRODUCERS be artists too? Just because they have a musical vision, does that mean they're not entitled to express it because they can't play an instrument or have a killer voice?

 

Musicians have used studio musicians as long as there have been studios -- yes, even the Beatles (that was not Paul playing the cellos and violins). What's different about a producer using studio musicians, except that all the musicians are "studio musicians"? Do you guys object to, say, the Alan Parsons project just because he had to implement his vision through other people?

 

Point is, there are lots of different ways to make music, and lots of different audiences. My 5-year-old is simply not into John Coltrane, but she loves music and liked listening to the Spice Girls. From there she moved on to Sheryl Crow. There are a lot of people who simply don't have sophisticated musical tastes. Should they be forbidden from having music made for them?

 

Does Richard Petty think that anyone who drives a Ford or a Chevy is an idiot because they don't have a high-performance race car? ("All these Sunday drivers make me puke," says Petty. "The only cars worth owning have overhead dual cam injection veeblefetzers.")

 

All I'm saying is, like, lighten up! If indeed the song comes first, check out "I Want it That Way" by the Backstreet Boys. I would be proud to be able to write a song like that, although yes, I would have preferred a somewhat more raw sound in the production...but credit where credit is due.

 

Just 'cause I like the occasional pop tune doesn't mean I'm going to turn my back on jazz, classical, etc. Sure, "Dancing Queen" has truly inane lyrics, but the voices on the choruses are pretty damn amazing. I'd love to get that kind of sheen on my vocals, and any article that tells me how is okay with me.

 

To return to the concept of this thread...a magazine should, indeed must, cover what's happening. If there are groups selling gazillions of CDs, then there's a story there, and magazines like EQ would be severely remiss not to cover them.

[alphajerk]

"...a magazine should, indeed must, cover what's happening. If there are groups selling gazillions of CDs, then there's a story there, and magazines like EQ would be severely remiss not to cover them."

 

nope, there are enough magazines covering this type of "musick", EQ shouldnt jump on the bandwagon with the train to HELL. besides the article was as shallow os those bands they produce.

 

and no, none of those songs have inherent value other than providing mindless entertainment. backstreet boys, PUH-leez.

 

i stick by my statements. DISCO SUCKS! it always has and always will no matter how different they package it.

 

This message has been edited by alphajerk on 12-19-2000 at 01:53 PM

[Mr. G]

I may be just a LITTLE bit biased, but I found the Pop Producer article fascinating. The idea of examining a trend from the perspective of the craftsmen behind it was, I think, kinda cool.

 

Plus, Howard Massey pulled off the near-impossible getting that cast of producers involved -- we'd tried twice in the past with no luck. And for them to speak so candidly about what they do (check out Walter A's comments on Janet J) was very interesting.

 

Regardless, the main point of the article was to get readers to think and discuss the trend. Based on what I've seen here, I'll call it a success. Maybe I AM a bit biased... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

------------------

Mitch Gallagher

Editor

EQ magazine

[Ex]

Alpha,

 

It's obvious that no one will change your opinion on this one. I liked the article, and, without shame, I like good pop music. I don't need to be jabbed by a 57-amped Marshall stack or insulted by the latest greatest rap star to find happiness in the music. I'm not sure where pop music got it's bad name among "real musicians" from, but I find the productions of Max Martin, Rodney Jerkins, Walter Afanasieff (and the whole lot mentioned in the article) to be among the best in hook-based music and overall "sheen" categories. I believe that this has a whole lot of musical value.

 

If truth really be told, many traditional jazz musicians and classical musicians, each believe that they are the only true musicians. And from their perspective, all of this pop/rock stuff falls in the same category (low-end musicianship), making all of our exchanges verbal drivel. I still can't understand why musicians can't simply accept the fact that a lot of people LIKe pop music and that the ease and simplicity that pop writers/producers GET to the POint is worth a whole lot musically.

 

-E

[saplingmusic.com]

I'm in the middle on this one.

 

I share a distaste for pop music with Alpha and others here. I think the road we're on will lead us to 1 minute songs that are a long, hook filled chorus, with no soul. Many people listen to that drivel because that is what is forced down their throat at every turn. They simply are not exposed to other forms of music by mainstream radio/TV/magazines.

 

It would be ludicrous for mags like Mix/EQ etc to not cover these huge pop stars and the producers/engineers that record and write their music. But I find it equally ludicrous that these publications cannot focus to some extent on the other forms of music out there.

 

Especially among consumers like us, there is a desire to learn about new things. I honestly enjoy reading about how the latest pop act got that shimmery vocal. It can teach me something about gear application. But I don't want or need a whole magazine focused on pop music. There is an amazing amount of innovative music being created, both from a production and musical standpoint, and to ignore it because it isn't on MTV every 5 minutes is arrogant and shortsighted.

 

There is much to learn from ALL the styles of playing and recording, and I would kill to be able to actually read about the techniques of some lesser known bands/engineers/producers.

 

To put it in financial terms - the market is there, and NOBODY is adequately filling it.

 

I would subscribe today if there was more variety and balance. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Philip OKeefe]

Craig Anderton wrote:

 

(quoting my earlier post) >>I know that's true, but I personally disagree with the "Phil Spector" record production philosophy - you know, where you have your own "signature sound" on each record, and the artist on those records is incidental.<<

 

 

>>Wait a minute...can't PRODUCERS be artists too? Just because they have a musical vision, does that mean they're not entitled to express it because they can't play an instrument or have a killer voice?<<

 

Whoa there Craig, I think you misunderstood my point here. I was coming from the perspective of a producer who is working with a band or artist on THEIR project, and I feel that in that respect the "George Martin" approach is usually better. Not all artists NEED to be grabbed by the neck and forced to comply with every whim and dictate of the producer. Some do, but I feel that when working in the context of the "artist's record" their vision and views should be given a lot of consideration. I was merely expressing what my PERSONAL preferred approach is, not what everyone else SHOULD do! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

>>Musicians have used studio musicians as long as there have been studios -- yes, even the Beatles (that was not Paul playing the cellos and violins). What's different about a producer using studio musicians, except that all the musicians are "studio musicians"? Do you guys object to, say, the Alan Parsons project just because he had to implement his vision through other people?<<

 

No, not at all. I have NO problem with studio cats playing on records, nor do I have a problem with the concept of "producer as artist". One of my all time favorite records is Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys. The "wrecking crew" (famous collection of LA session cats from the '60's) is all over that album. Yet it's still the musical vision of one man - Brian Wilson.

 

Wilson's records were the perfect example of "producer as artist" IMHO. Yet he didn't really produce other artists and try to cookie cutter his own "sound" on their records. Alan Parsons Project is a great case in point. I love his work, but the Project stuff is his own unique statement as "producer as artist" and his approach (or at least the SOUND) of records he's done with other artists remains individual and unique. I think that's an important point. Make your own "producer as artist" records when and where you want to, but there's also a place in the world for producers who work with the artist on realizing a shared vision. Both are viable approaches, and a producer who takes one approach on one project isn't required to forgo the opposite approach on the next project if it's called for. We producers don't have to exclude ourselves from either approach.

 

>>Point is, there are lots of different ways to make music, and lots of different audiences.<<

 

Absolutely!

 

>>My 5-year-old is simply not into John Coltrane, but she loves music and liked listening to the Spice Girls. From there she moved on to Sheryl Crow. There are a lot of people who simply don't have sophisticated musical tastes. Should they be forbidden from having music made for them?<<

 

Absolutely not! And give her time. I hated jazz as a kid when my parents played it for me, but now I love it. Coltrane might grow on her yet. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

>>Does Richard Petty think that anyone who drives a Ford or a Chevy is an idiot because they don't have a high-performance race car? ("All these Sunday drivers make me puke," says Petty. "The only cars worth owning have overhead dual cam injection veeblefetzers.")<<

 

Unfortunately, there's a lot of musical bigotry out there, and I find that misguided and sad. There's a lot to be learned from the musicians who play different styles, and from other producers and engineers who use different techniques and approaches. For example, Rock guitarists could learn a lot from a Danny Gatton or Albert Lee. That's just one example - the examples I could suggest are endless. That's why I read each issue of EQ from cover to cover - you never know WHAT you might learn, and from WHO. Sometimes you'll be surprised...

 

>>All I'm saying is, like, lighten up! If indeed the song comes first, check out "I Want it That Way" by the Backstreet Boys. I would be proud to be able to write a song like that, although yes, I would have preferred a somewhat more raw sound in the production...but credit where credit is due.<<

 

I never said that there was a lack of good songs in contemp. pop music, or that I dismiss all of it out of hand. I feel that there's much to be learned from just about ANY style or genre, not just one's own "personal favorite". For example, I'm not a big Rap music fan, but I have to admit that it does have its market and has been very innovative in terms of approach, engineering, production and sound.

 

>>Just 'cause I like the occasional pop tune doesn't mean I'm going to turn my back on jazz, classical, etc. Sure, "Dancing Queen" has truly inane lyrics, but the voices on the choruses are pretty damn amazing. I'd love to get that kind of sheen on my vocals, and any article that tells me how is okay with me.<<

 

I WANT those "how to" articles, and I think EQ strikes the best overall editoral balance. And Craig, I LOVE pop music. Sanatra was pop. So were the Beatles. So was Abba. Heck, even Brubeck had pop success with "Take 5". "Pop music" covers a lot of ground. I don't think that making a comment regarding "sound alike" artists or records is necessarily the same thing as critisizing pop music in general.

 

>>To return to the concept of this thread...a magazine should, indeed must, cover what's happening. If there are groups selling gazillions of CDs, then there's a story there, and magazines like EQ would be severely remiss not to cover them.<<

 

I agree 100%. While I'm not a Marilyn Manson fan, I enjoyed reading the article a couple issues back. He has some interesting things to say, and I feel we can all learn from each other, regardless of our differences. Diversity is important, and I for one am glad tha EQ, Keyboard and GP offer such a dirverse array of artists and coverage.

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[alphajerk]

there is a HUGE difference between somebody like BECK [who does pop music which i like] and the backstreet boys or nsync.

 

there are only two kinds of music, good music and bad music. all the music that the pop article was about falls in the latter of the two kinds.

[Jim Aikin]

Originally posted by dr destructo:

Yeah, don't be using any stupid asterisks!!! What is the point of those, anyway? You still hear the word in your head when you read it.

 

Speaking as a reader, I hate those prissy asterisks at least as much as the next guy. But I'll tell ya, we have received numerous letters at Keyboard over the years from folks who say essentially this: "I love your magazine, and I'd like to pass it on to my young students, but I won't do so because of the bad language." So what are you gonna do?

 

--Jim Aikin

[Anderton]

>>Especially among consumers like us, there is a desire to learn about new things. I honestly enjoy reading about how the latest pop act got that shimmery vocal. It can teach me something about gear application. But I don't want or need a whole magazine focused on pop music.<<

 

1 major, feature article on pop music in 10 years is a focus? Wow...tough standards!

[Jim Aikin]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

music used to be such a cerebral artform and since its commercialization over the past 30 years, its been wholly reduced to fodder equivilant to soap operas and talk shows that occupy the tv.

 

I will restrain myself from commenting on most of alfie jurk's bizarre and inflammatory remarks, but this one really does deserve a rebuttal. Ever heard of Paul Whiteman, alfie? How about Sigmund Romberg? Commercial pablum was common in the music industry when your parents were still in didies.

 

And plus -- cerebral? Assuming you're a fan of the music from the pre-1970s era, were the early Stones hits cerebral? Was Louis Armstrong cerebral? If you're going to rant, keep a dictionary at hand, that's my advice.

 

Granted, most of the stuff put out by the mass media sucks. That's why I don't own a TV. But if you think magazines like EQ and Mix are playing in the same league with NBC, you really haven't a blessed clue. I could explain at length the constraints magazines operate under, but I'm sure alfie would insist on misconstruing everything I said in order to continue his or her little foam-at-the-mouth act, so I won't bother.

 

--Jim Aikin

[Anderton]

>> I'm not a big Rap music fan, but I have to admit that it does have its market and has been very innovative in terms of approach, engineering, production and sound.<<

 

Check out the Roots, "Things Fall Apart." Very innovative stuff...even people who don't like rap like it!

 

<< I don't think that making a comment regarding "sound alike" artists or records is necessarily the same thing as critisizing pop music in general.>>

 

FYI, when I make comments, even though I may quote part of someone's response, the responses are usually addressed to any and all comments addressed in the thread, not necessarily just that one post. I know where you're coming from, no problem there.

 

Sometimes I'll post several messages in a row that address specific topics in specific letters to avoid confusion, but usually, I just shoot from the hip on whatever seems worth commenting on...

[Jim Aikin]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

there is a HUGE difference between somebody like BECK [who does pop music which i like] and the backstreet boys or nsync..

 

Yeah, the difference is, you like one and you don't like the other. So magazine editors are all supposed to be able to read your mind in order to put out a magazine that you approve of. Did I miss anything?

 

there are only two kinds of music, good music and bad music.

 

Right. And you're the ultimate arbiter of which is which, and anybody who disagrees with you has their head up their butt, and why are they so stupid they don't understand this?

 

You may give me a break now.

 

--Jim Aikin

[Alon]

Mmmm...

 

I have to say that I also disagree with AlphaJerk regarding Pop Music...

 

The article in EQ was an entertaining read for me.

 

There's good music being made in every genre, including pop. While I don't find myself running to the store to buy the latest Backstreet Boys CD, I do find that their songs are well crafted, and quite catchy.

 

People used to slam Abba back in the seventies. But if anyone were to analyze their recordings, you'd find that there were 2 very competent songwriters behind it.

 

I'm pretty sure that Alphajerk would also hate most of the stuff that I do, cause it tends to be "Pop" sounding, but that's what I like to do. I also work on stuff that is not "Pop", cause I like that too.

 

It's not an easy task trying to write the "perfect" 3 1/2 minute Pop song.

 

To me the Beatles were definitely Pop. Many of their songs even started with the chorus. You can't get much more Pop than that.

 

R U saying that the Beatles suck ?

[Philip OKeefe]

Anyone who would say that The Beatles suck is in severe need of a reality check. As Jim alluded to, good music is in the ear of the beholder, and it is a freedom of each individual to decide what moves her or him. Having said that, the impact of the Beatles on pop music (like 'em or hate 'em) is impossible for the objective listener to deny.

 

I am glad EQ covers pop music once in a while - even those styles that might not be listed among my personal favorites. SOMEBODY is sure buying those records, and even if it is primarily the 12-18 year old market bracket, shouldn't we at least see what's going on in the world and remain informed? Isn't the dissemination of information regarding current events in our field something EQ has a journalistic responsibility to report on? I certainly want to stay informed, and I'm glad that EQ helps me to do so.

 

Art is a commentary on the times in which it develops and the audience it serves and who patronize the artists who create it; be they slick producers or your favorite "underground" band(and thus being unknown, they MUST be better, right?). If you feel that the largest selling segment of the current musical artistic landscape is too inconsequential or lacking in substance and "edge" why not come up with an alternative? Maybe you'll be the "next big thing" and will be able to set your anger at the current state of pop music aside and mellow with age into a sad parody of your former hostile and closed minded self. You can't do so however, unless you're aware of the current artistic trends in the world around you, and that's why I believe that EQ has a responsibility to report on it, as well as for the benefit of those who love it and those who might not like it but are willing to learn from it and glean any morsels of beauty and value it may contain for them. I think it's better to remain open minded.

 

Punk was nothing if not a rebellion from the overindulgences that had materialized in some segments of pop music by the early to mid 1970's. But some would say punk wasn't "pop" music. I disagree, but it probably depends upon what your individual definition of "pop music" is. If you define pop music as something that reaches a wide audience and has populist acceptance, then The Clash and the Sex Pistols, and even X all qualify. If your definition is more along the lines of "catchy, commercialized, easily sung, hook laden chorus filled pop of under 4 minutes duration" then The Ramones "I Wanna Be Sedated" seems to qualify.

 

Are those songs and productions without merit? Not to some people, and let's remember that EQ has a broad range of preferences and tastes represented in their readership.I think they do a pretty damn good job, all things considered.

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

 

 

 

This message has been edited by pokeefe777@msn.com on 12-19-2000 at 07:54 PM

[saplingmusic.com]

The point a lot of people are trying to make is not that pop music sucks, but merely that these publications could use some other interviews and profiles on less "mainstream" artists/producers/engineers.

 

I want to read about all the facets of music production today - not JUST the Top40. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[alphajerk]

jim,

 

there is a major difference between somebody like beck and the backstreet boys. if you cant see that, then you are the one that is blind my friend. i wont even bother to expound on it. and the stones are IMO one of the more overrated bands historically. i certainly wouldnt call them cerebral all the time although they snuck a song or two in there.

 

cerebral:

1 a : of or relating to the brain or the intellect b : of, relating to, or being the cerebrum

2 a : appealing to intellectual appreciation b : primarily intellectual in nature

 

the beatles early stuff is about my least favorite stuff released, it wasnt until their last couple albums that they transcended the pop phenomena of adoration by screaming girls. maybe one of these prefab bands will prove me wrong and move on to more engaging music, but i doubt it.

 

current commercial pop music written about in the lastest EQ relates to none of the above definition. it certainly wont grow the synapses in ones brain. it is fodder for the mind, background noise if you will.

 

sure there is "pop" music i enjoy but its a little more creative than a marketing ploy to get 13 year olds to spend their parents money. and writing that kind of music isnt that hard if you care to waste your time to do it [hey, maybe you'll get rich in your 15 minutes of fame with it]

 

and i CAN decide what is ultimately good and bad music considering i AM god of my universe. of course you can decide what is good and bad for yourself. but being a free country and having the 1st amendment, i certainly have a right to express my views as do you. i just thought the article was a little pointless even in its content and a little below what i have typically read from EQ.

 

now do i make fun of your name? i think not. thats just a feeble attempt on your part to try and steal my energy that i would freely give you. it is just so grade schoolish and would of expected more from someone with your years of experience.

[earfatigue]

i'm literally not allowed to say too much due to annoying non-circumvent/non-disclosure agreements, but all i can say about the wash of retro-nkotb acts is you have to hear the vocals solod out before you can fully appreciate what machinery they've turned actual human beings into.

 

marvel at the crossfades, cuts, crops, pastes, deliberate insertion of breaths from other sections, auto-tune chipmunking, blah blah blah. you can hear it over the "song" sure, but you HAVE to hear it solo'd.

 

i'm about to start making up bullshit about our protools rig being broken on certain days for the "artists" who know full well that they don't have to do anything right. just use auto tune. just comp it. SCREW YOU, KIDDO. get back in there and sing, canary!

 

i enjoyed the eq article. there was enough latent cynicism in there for me to realize it was more or less an expose on a style of music that 90% of the readership despised or dismissed. honestly, the boy/girl bands mentioned are really just 4 minute mountain dew commercials, except that the product is the singers. BUY US. BUY LOTS AND LOTS OF US.

 

and in a sick way, i think it'd be fun to produce just one of those songs from start to finish. only problem is i stopped using my jv1080 years ago and there's a laundry list of those presets you can't produce one of those dumb assed creatively bankrupt records without.

 

did you ever read their lyrics? wow, talk about soul searching. i've stepped in deeper puddles.

 

judson snell

slang music group

[the stranger]

I think the big problem with pop music, is that it's a formula.

This is the major problem with the every genre that gets popular.

Once a form of music is easily reproduced, every jackass that can pull it off, does.

Why? Because they know it works.

 

I mean come on, the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync???

Isn't this really just New Kids On The Block for a new generation?

What about all the 72,362,427 Pearl Jam clones annoying the shit out of me?

Somewhere along the line, somebody figured out todays kids just love a singer that can really WHINE. It's been a major headache ever since.

Alternative???? How so? It's on every station on the damn radio!!!

 

Napalm Death is alternative.

 

Remember the days of big hair? All it took was a few good bands to hit and bam the next thing you know, heavy metal had been reduced to "Waait, waaaaait, I never had a chance to love you". WTF is that?! White Lion heavy metal?!!

 

And what about this new punk? How in the hell can The Offspring be punk when little 6 year olds are singing it in K-mart?

"Keep 'em seperated"? How about Keep 'em out of the studio!!

 

Dead Kennedys, GBH, Exploited, Discharge. That's punk.

 

If you ask me, people have been conditioned and brainwashed to accept this shit. 98% of people wouldn't know a good song if it ran 'em over.

 

I really don't have a problem with pop. As long as it isn't some prepackaged, prefab, extra sweetened, spoon fed to the masses, garbage.

 

Pop is great, as long as it has integrity.

Like say, Elton John, or Billy Joel (one of my all time favorites).

 

Modern English. Now they could write a pop song.

[rstroope]

My 2 cents worth. I read Recording, Mix, EQ and anything about recording that I can get my hands on because I want to learn all I can. EQ offers a level of expertise that I understand. It's not too far over my head that I can't figure something out. I wish it were a bit more about producers and engineers and less about artists but I understand that without artist we don't have a job. EQ has all these online forums that allow me to ask stupid questions and get help from readers, writers, engineers and producers that I would not have the chance to question otherwise. No one has ever treated me like I was stupid just because I didn't know something. This magazine is really not about recording, it's about people. People who record and their thoughts, opinions and knowledge about recording. Some happen to be engineers, artists, writers and producers that enjoy sharing what they know to help beginners as well as professionals. I don't think any other recording magazine can compete with that. Way to go EQ. Way to go readers, writers, engineers and producers. Oh yeah, way to go artists too! Merry Christmas to everyone.

[Chip McDonald]

I didn't care particularly for the pop music article. There wasn't anything there that was surprising - quite nauseatingly predictable.

 

All of those guys are great at what they do, and there's nothing "wrong" with the music (just as someone just critique my own in another thread music), but it's empty of any vibe other than "Safe and Shiny". It's all just Perfectly Perfect.

 

I would occasionally listen to a Madonna track to admire the production; at least she put some of her own brand of edgy-ness to things. But now, it's just too sexily wholesome? "Wow, listen to how silky the top end sounds on the voice".. I think.. "man, that vocal is wedged right in the mixed *just so*", "listen to how slinky the bass is copmressed relative to the drums"... and the music matters not one iota. What does Britny sound like on acoustic guitar?

 

I'd rather read more detail about any tricks those guys may have, or their mixing philosophy... I don't think it's any surprise to anyone the producer has more of a role as arranger/writer these days with these "acts", is it? Wal-Mart seems to be the most pervasive arbiter of taste it would seem.

 

 

"Pop Music" - Britny, N-Sync, Boys To Men, Aguilera and so forth are now in the same category as Sting, Sarah McLachlan, Dave Matthews... Tom Petty, Eagles, REM, Rolling Stones and (for crying out loud) the Beatles? Didn't that used to be called "Bubblegum" music?

 

Would Britny sell even one record if she looked like k.d. lang, hmm?

 

I predict less than 10 years from now "pop music" will resemble the porn industry and pop music "divas" will suddenly start spring boarding out of the X-rated film business. All it will take is one "Jenna Jameson" that can sing at least 3 notes and the "packaging" and video will take care of the rest.... at which point things will be against a wall finally for pop promoting/marketing, at which point maybe we can have a musical renaissance.

 

Or if not, at least MTV will be more "entertaining" as we plunge into a musical dark ages. Sorry about another long diatribe...

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[alphajerk]

"I predict less than 10 years from now "pop music" will resemble the porn industry "

 

it already does resemble the porn industry. in fact a lot of the entertainers SHOULD be porn stars and not music stars.

[Marvster]

Off-topic, but given the last few posts I can't resist pulling this fantastic quote from a Matthew Ryan interview on Harmony Central (by Bob Doerschuk, now keys editor for MP):

 

HC: Who can forget Ronald Reagan quoting Bruce Springsteen?

 

Ryan: Well, that's unfortunate. There's just no difference today between politicians and pop stars. There's no difference between George W. Bush and Christina Aguilera. They've both got a team of people who are trying to show you how great they are. They know this pop shit is on the way out, so the people behind Christina Aguilera are trying to get her to talk about Bessie Smith. You think she's ever listened to a Bessie Smith record? I highly doubt it. But she's talking about Billie Holiday in interviews now. Initially, my ears perked; I'm like, "Really?" Well, wait a minute. Six months ago, all she could talk about was how Mariah Carey was her sole inspiration and influence.

 

Complete interview here:

Matthew Ryan & the Problem with Pop http://www.harmony-central.com/Features/MatthewRyan/

[dansouth]

I finally got around to reading the Pop Producers article in EQ, and I have to admit that I found it disturbing. First, these self-important moron producers admit point blank that their clients are totally inept, that they have no idea how to make a record or even what their record might be about, and that the producers have to do everything up to and including wiping their pimple free noses. Is it just me, or has the presitge of making a hit record just dropped by about a million percent? Furthermore, isn't this a crappy way to treat you paying customers, mouthing off in the press that they're worth nothing to the project except a pretty face? Hopefully, these teeny-bopper artists will never read a music publication (ewww! boring!) so they won't know what their precious producers are saying about them.

 

I felt a little panic-striken when I finished the article. Is this the future of the music industry, manipulative marketers and powerful producers exploiting the artist AND the public in order to line their pockets? But I began to see things in a new light when I thought about my fifteen year old son. He and his friends would jump out of moving vehicles to avoid listening to NSync of Britney Spears. They HATE this stuff, far more vehemently than do the contributers to this forum. These kids don't want to listen to this bubblegum crap, and Walter Afanasieff will never see one red cent of their CD buying dollars.

 

These kids want the next Nirvana, the next Smashing Pumpkins, the next Nine Inch Nails. Producers like Butch Vig, who works with REAL songwriters and musicians, may profit, but the real forum for exposure to new and INTERESTING music will be the Napster and MP3-style sites. Radio is dead; long live the internet!

 

So who listens to Britney and NSync, anyway? Two groups - (a) the most unsophisticated of all listeners, and (b) young ladies who are more into the persona of the artists than the music itself. And that's okay. There will always be teeny-boppers, and there will always be people who want to listen to something pleasant that requires no thought. Given that target audience, would you trade places with Mr. Afanasieff? Would you want the task of working day in and day out to make stars of immature, inept, photogenic prima donnas by churning our album after album of lifeless, feel-good arrangements? I'll give these producers credit; they earn their money. I'd be in a padded cell after three days.