why do you all like pop music?
I mean i dont really get this , sometimes its cool, but most of the time it just sucks, the dry throats and so on...
what do you think of vanessa mae?

I think the majority of people here dislike pop music but they still post in this section to voice their opinion (mostly to ask the same qustion you asked, why do you like it).

I personally don't like pop music and haven't heard of Vanessa Mae.

Qwerty.

Pop music is usually pretty rubbish, and it does appear most people don't like it on these boards.

I dislike about 90% of the songs that come out, and don't mind listening to the other 10%. This figure seems to be improving lately actually. Of course, it is all manufactured and faceless blah de blah, but if it's good music, you can't say you don't like it...

I personally dislike most chart pop. It depends on what you class as pop really. Most of the manufactured pop has become so formulaic that it actually annoys me now. I mean, there must be enough genuine musicians out there, with a very real talent and urge to make music that the industry doesn't, in reality, actually need to create and promote these acts.

In fact, there must be literally millions of people able to make entertaining music - I personally don't think that every new song needs to be artistically or technically brilliant, there's room for a bit of everything - who are overlooked, simply because it's easier to make money through marketing and promotion than the actual songs. I know that's why certain people are in the industry, but it's quite frustrating that actual music plays second-fiddle to profits.

Vanessa Mae was okay, but not my cup of tea at all. I have one of her albums, a gift from a friend. you can just tell my friend doesn't understand me AT ALL.

I've spent a bit of time decoding why i found pop music (my definition of pop is generally 'manufactured' artists such as Britney Spears, Shakira, Avril Lavingnsjdga (I can never spell her name properly), Nsync, etc. you know what i'm talking about).
This is what i managed to decode:

What make's people like pop music is the music. Take away the music and the fans that'll be left will be a bunch of 13 yr old girls who have convinced themselves that the popstar is talented (and of course a bunch of 13 yr old boys who dont give a shit about the music anyway). So what's really making the song sound good is not the singer but the producer who writes the music. Take a Britney song and get Christina to sing it. There'll be no difference. The industry cheats the public. That pisses me off.

At concerts of these 'artists' they mime. People pay close to 100 dollars (here in aus anyway) to see their favorite star mime and dance. That pisses me off.

I'd like to see a popstar sing a song that they themselves, alone, without any co-writers (cough-Avril-cough) wrote, without a producers music (cough-[insert name here]-cough) and make it sound good. In other words, lets see a popstar make a number one by themselves.

All those RnB/Rap/Hip Hop fans, don't think your clean. My definition of RnB: Black people doing Pop. If Britney were Black, she'd be RnB. I do give Rap and Hip Hop more credit. Groups like Jurrasic 5, NERD, and a couple of the original rappers actually have some talent.

I think that producers of these degenerates themselves mark themselves as degenerates. To use your musical talents to exploit thousands upon millions of consumers just isn't right. I was thouroughly dissapointed when i learnt that The Neptunes (making two of the three members of NERD) had produced for the likes of Britney Spears. It seriously lowered my view of them.

To conclude:
Popstars corrupt music. That pisses me off.

and i disagree... on just about everything you just said papa magotchi

first off i don't think the reason people like pop music is because of the music... i think it's a way for a lot of people to have something in common with other people... it's a soundtrack to the routine events of a day... if someone hears someone else humming a song they would be able to get an idea of what kind of mood that person is in... it gives them some common theme to talk about if they need to... there are a lot more people that listen to pop besides 13 year olds... they may not buy the albums but they still like hearing the same songs on the radio all day everyday...

and is the industry really cheating the public? or is the public too indifferent to really pay attention to what's going on... the industry did try to cheat with a few popstars in the early 90s (anyone remember milli vanilli and their grammy?) they have become VERY open in showing how manufactured their pop stars are but the people still accept it...

i think the biggest pissoff you've got is the misuse of the term artist more than anything else... and this i COMPLETELY agree on... britney / christina / avril / shakira / eminem / nelly / 50 cents / kylie etc... are NOT artists... they are entertainers... just like elvis / sinatra / and the rest of the rat pack... our current pop stars are just as talented which is why they're as popular...

in terms of writing their own material without help or production... this could spark of the indie vs. the world of music debates... i don't see a problem with getting someone to help out when your goal is to be a success... if you're trying to make money from music then i'd say get a co-writer... and a good producer... john leckie isn't listed as a member of muse but he's listed as a producer...

your comments on hip hop can go both ways... there's some real pop music being created out there the same way there's hip hop being made without the intent of promoting a stupid lifestyle for suburban kids... blur was a great pop band... and so were the cardigans

call them degenerate producers if you want... i don't think they're the ones exploiting the people (*cough*MARKETING*cough*)... individuals have a choice... and believe it or not it does take serious talent to write music bland enough to appeal to a mass market the way pop songs do... and really which is worse? using your musical talent to produce a pop song that will be heard by millions and making some nice cash to boot... or keeping your joe job while you scrape for food and a show while only a handful of people hear your music? (if you're under 25 you're probably thinking the latter... where anyone over 25 is probably thinking the former)

pop music doesn't suck nearly as much if you keep thinking about it as a business...

popstars do NOT corrupt music... they deliver music for the masses of our society... they provide music that more people want to hear... WE are the ones who corrupt music... we are the ones who make music for specific groups... in styles that only appeal to certain people... we are the ones that make 'noise' to the ears of the people that choose to listen to popular styles...

and i for one kind of like that notoriety...

I disagree. Pop, as you describe it, was around then as much as it is today. There's just more money and better publicity. It would give the impression that there was more of it about probably because it's more succsessful.

It is merely your own opinion that a certain popstar is NOT talented.

Exploit? People are not strongarmed into buying a CD. They buy the song, usually, because they like it and not for any other reason.

Sorry to be such a dick but I detest one-sided arguments. I think panbient has some very good points here (in fact I agree with most things you say).

I agree with what panbient's saying too.
I can see how my arguments are a bit extreme, but being a muso myself, I see music as sacred.
And when i see popstars getting famous and being called 'talented' for being able to sing, I get frustrated. As many have said regarding a voice for singing, 'You're either born with it or your not.'

Fair enough, that doesn't really mean that theirs no work envolved in keeping that voice but seriously, how much 'musical' talent do these popstars have? Who would agree that to learn to play the harp requires more comitment than to sing? To become a star harpist would mean years upon years of solid practice and comitment. I don't really know the figure but I'm sure that the number of renown harpists wouldn't be extremely large. But look at the number of people acclaimed for their ability to sing. Just like walking, its nothing extraordinary to sing.

I agree with panbient, popstars are entertainers. That's exactly how i see them.

That gets back to my whole sacred music thing. I am against popstars being classified as music. They are not real musicians.

and just on that thing about muse being produced by john leckie. Can you really compare Muse and Britney?

absolutely... but they are still talented... but as ENTERTAINERS... but our society is made up of sheep that look up to a box to know how to think and what the box tells them goes...

and you're right you can't compare muse and britney... but a producer is a producer... they do the same type of work regardless of who they're working with... they help produce the best type of album for the people paying him/her... it's up to the producer to chose who he works with