Not as long as people buy into fabricated shit like Justin Timberlake or Busted, believing that their cutting edge talent.. Because their too lazy to search for the real thing

or perhaps (dear god let it not be so!!!!!1 sa&5h jd ha$#yuwd jaskh) they actually LIKE it.

eh. i'm not really too into this argument. there will always be opposite sides of the spectrum, so there will always be people who think that this decade of pop is pure brilliance and puke at anything else, and vice versa. when one thinks about it, there's not really a reason beyond subjectivity or the age you were brought up in to answer this. and if you can give me one, i will give you a dollar.

i should probably go and read the rest of this thread but it's so damn much writing.

I hope I am thinking beyond my era. Irving Berlin,Rogers & Hart, Cole Porter, Jimmy Van Heusen are a few creators of popular song whom I admire , but not of my generation. There's no disputing that every generation has their own popular music...the question is will the songs transcend the time? Which particular ones do you believe will stand the test of time?

i think i said subjectivity OR time blah blah blah, to be honest i can't be arsed scrolling down to check. anyway, i think we can all agree that music has evolved/mutated through the generations so in the end it all really does fall back to subjectivity. some people like carrots and some people don't, you know? i hope you guys can understand this, i'm way tired and not sure i can even understand myself.

yep agreed, but wasnt just talking about the quality of the music, but rather that the manufacturing of this music almost makes it not music. I'll touch on the "idol" shows again, they proudly promote that they are looking for someone to apply a cliched formula to. combined with the decline in singer/songwriters (in the mainstream world) , future pop will serve no musical purpose, only marketing purposes.

well yeah, but some people like this "manufactured" business, as it's put. which is obvious, because it sells. the band/artist may not like what it's doing/grow tired of it and quit after a few months, but for a while the CDs still sell. of course it's because they've been publicised but i guess folk enjoy that. it's fun to have something in common with other people to talk about, whether we're talking clay aiken or bardot.

i know what you're talking about, but music is still music, manufactured/heavily produced or whatever. integrity doesn't change the fact that it's a lot of noise others enjoy. the state of popular music will always be reliant to the state of the popular world at that time. and at this time, it's cool to fit in. so a lot of bands/artists/people wanting a break will try and fit in by utilising these sorts of shows.

it's a given. a fair debate but when i talk about things like this i generally feel like i'm hitting my head against a brick wall, which is why i stay far away from the rock integrity debates. the folk in the pop forums are a lot more accepting of other people's views.

clichés are accepted. people who want to find something different will find it. popular music is just that because it's clichéd and therefore accepted, right? maybe not clichéd in previous generations but still widely accepted.

Ok I'll get off my soap box, fortunately I also believe in the cycle of life, and in 2 years i'll have some other crap music to whine about

Well, I think someone has said that the public will buy virtually anything that's marketed to them. It's all about marketing as far as what's popular. There was a time in popular music when the best stuff could manage to get marketed. That changed somehow. Now the best stuff is precisely what the marketing experts won't market. That's why most of the best artists are actually self-marketed or on small indie labels.

I think the problem now is that the music itself has taken a back seat in the music industry. I don't have a problem with people making music to make money, or catering to a particular market in order to sell more records, but the music still needs to come first. It's fine to have a certain image or whatnot, but your priority still needs to be writing good music. As the Reverend has stated, the stuff that was getting played and marketed was being played and marketed because it was the best music available. The Beatles (and this could be said for numerous other acts) got all the publicity because they were making the best music at the time. There will always be niche groups who only appeal to a small audience, but until the past decade or so, the best music was in the forefront because it was the best music available at the time. It seems like currently, when the record label is getting ready to promote a new act, it goes like this: "let's see, we've got the pretty face, and the image, and the millions of advertising dollars, we're set to go, oh wait, don't we have to write a couple songs too? We can take care of that later, we need to get this person on MTV ASAP." Anyone see what I'm getting at?

I think the main thing here is that record companies do have songwriters, so all they need to find is the right face to sell it. A couple of years ago, some swedish guy was making millions writing tunes for Britney and NSync and the Backstreet Boys (I think). Commercial music hasn't been about talent or creativity for a long time now, but the paying public don't seem to care, as long as there's a nice poster and "auto"biography for them to buy. And who have we got trying to do something about that? (If anyone says Jo Whiley, I'll kick them........)