• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

WE MIGHT HAVE LOST ONE, BUT WE'VE JUST GAINED SOME!!!

Tonight, I took some time to search and listen to a few chr rhythmics and top 40, and I must admit that I am VERY IMPRESSED by what many of them are doing! I remember last year at this time when I was excited about every small dose of whatever I could get and if Rihanna made a hit like "disturbia" and it resembled dance, I presented a novel to you. Well, I also told you last year that this year would put last year to shame, and geezus, I didn't imagine I'd be searching around the U.S. and hearing so much dance on so many stations! It may be all mostly limited to mix shows, but still, that's one large step for dancekind! We might have some ways to go on at least occupying 35 - 40 % of the regular playlists on top 40's and rhythmics nationwide, but as long as we have the weekends on lock down (the most important part of the week for most folks and also when most people actually listen to music to party and feel good, not just to get through a mundane work day), that is an achievement to be proud of!

We also must look at the fact that many stations have not only picked up or considered featuring an electro-hiphop and house program, but there are dj's out there who have those types of shows now in syndication! Maybe we've lost quite a few traditional dance stations across the U.S. in the past year, but when you think about how many people are not only making use of and embracing our sound in addition to the amount of rhythmics and top 40's that are now thriving as a result of this new generation sound, we really have more to be proud of than we do to be ashamed of, regardless of who is singing over the beats and despite the fact that many don't realize or want to deny that they are playing/listening to a form of dance or electronic influenced material.

Maybe, this entire generation of sound may just be a trend, but KEEP IN MIND that we are not trying to forever "take over the game"! We just want enough to be done to bring dance back up to an acceptable level in mainstream so at least the mainstream hits can continue to coexist on the charts with whatever the future generation sounds and trends should be! That is all we need! Notice how after Rock-n-roll era, rock didn't die, it just faded out of chart domination, but continued to exist with the next big thing. The same thing with hip hop now. Just because that era has ended, that doesn't mean hip hop died, it just means it's no longer the next big thing. However, it managed to be big enough to maintain it's coexistence with future generation sounds to come.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE WE NEED DANCE TO ADVANCE TO!

We need to get to the point where we manage to survive this time without being almost completely blocked out and vanished due to another sound. Yes, maybe hip hop did push an incredible amount of other things out of the way during the 00's, even reggaeton that popped up and died ALL WHILE HIP HOP continued to live on, but if anything shall happen like this, then I want dance to be strong enough like alternative and pop rock, which managed to maintain a few hits on rhythmic top 40 during the "hip hop takeover". We don't need to forever dominate, but to co-exist.

We are pretty much back in "the game". Now it's only a matter of time before time passes and NEW ARTISTS have to start popping up (just like in all other genres of music). THIS MEANS THE VERY HIGH POSSIBILITY OF NEW DANCE ARTISTS BREAKING IN AS DANCE ARTISTS FIRST, AND EVERYTHING ELSE SECOND instead of vice versa. I'm so glad we've gotten this far, even though we are not completely there yet. Now, I look back to how I was feeling last year and almost laugh at how puny many of the things I was excited about are today. It's also nice to see how we've nearly doubled the amount of uptempo hits on the radio within the past year alone, and when I say this, I mean everything from the house beat style to electro-pop to breakbeat pattern styles. I think Katy Perry's new "california gurls" is weak lyrically, but has a decent instrumental production (even though I think it needs a little Jody Den Broeder or Dave Aude help). Look at the recognition that song is getting! It's like the Tupac "california love" of the new electro-pop / dance generation and people seem to be accepting that! Anyway, we are in a good spot right now. We are currently inside A WHOLE NEW GENERATION OF SOUND! Well.... maybe since we're in it, it's not so new anymore... or is it? The younger generation teenagers of the mid to near end of hip hop generation surely thinks so.
 
I think Katy Perry's new "california gurls" is weak lyrically, but has a decent instrumental production

Weak? Decent? Are these the standards that “dance” music fans now aspire to? Sometimes people get excited when anything deemed electronica gets pop radio airplay regardless of whether the music is blah at best or sucks at worst.

What happened to wanting to hear good rhythmic music, regardless of what marketing labels are slapped on? Dance music, ie American rhythmic music, used to mean something prior to the early 90s. Since then, people have tried to redefine and rebrand it with no results to show for all the effort.

Instead of enjoying music for its artistic quality and value, “dance” fans nowadays treat the music as a quasi-cultural/group identifier. That is, people seem to want to be part of a “music community” that is not rap, R&B, rock, or country, and they (fans) each try to choose who is or is not part of that community.

Problem is, you can’t start laying exclusive claim to musical forms you didn’t create. You can’t say who can or can’t record certain music, with whatever instrumentation, in whatever style. You can’t retroactively revise history in an effort to re-appropriate musical forms. You can’t ignore the basics of music theory and musical history when attempting to accurately label music. “Dance” music fans have been trying to do all these things for the past 20 years. It ain’t working, and from the outside looking in, it looks silly.
 
It's weak lyrically, in the same way much of the hip hop that came out after 2005 is. The only difference is that at least that song talks about something, but has a poor arrangement of words and poor choice of words to fill up the instrumental. We're still trying to recover from the lyrical stupidity that started developing during the mid 00's and kind of followed it's way from hip hop into the new dance trend as well. I admit it's not as bad as "teach me how to dougie", but I think she could've used better words in her song. The arrangement and choice of words can improve or hurt a song, although most of the general public these days may not care. I've lowered my standards a lot over the past few years, but still can't stand to hear "melt your popsicle" and certain other aspects of that song, lyrically. I'm just glad we're past the "oh I think they like me" and "laffy taffy" and "ay bay bay" and "rock yo hips then shake then dip" days though.
 
So why is the popularity of a lyrically-weak song by Katy Perry cause for celebration, but from a Southern rapper it's cause for frustration or condemnation?

Plus you and I should know that Southern rappers don't have a monopoly on weak lyrics, and weak lyrics didn't pop onto radio starting in 2005:

"Push, push in the bush ..."
"I'm too sexy for my shirt ..."
"I'm a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world..."
"Around the world, around the world...(repeat to end)"

Those are just examples from dance music. Thing is, most dance music is not very strong on lyrics. The focus is on beats, rhythm, and dancing, and those Southern raps you just referenced are about a dance or dancing.
 
Weak, good, bad, crap, etc when speaking about music are all subjective terms. They only mean something to the person speaking it. There is no test to find out where a lyric or music, in any genre, is better than another.

Just sayin'

jp
 
andone said:
So why is the popularity of a lyrically-weak song by Katy Perry cause for celebration, but from a Southern rapper it's cause for frustration or condemnation?

Plus you and I should know that Southern rappers don't have a monopoly on weak lyrics, and weak lyrics didn't pop onto radio starting in 2005:

"Push, push in the bush ..."
"I'm too sexy for my shirt ..."
"I'm a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world..."
"Around the world, around the world...(repeat to end)"

Those are just examples from dance music. Thing is, most dance music is not very strong on lyrics. The focus is on beats, rhythm, and dancing, and those Southern raps you just referenced are about a dance or dancing.

I think you're completely missing my point. The point is there is a lot less effort put into true quality these days than there was in past generations in mainstream as a whole. Ask many people, and you'll notice that a majority of people from this generation as well would even agree. The 2005 thing was regarding hip hop, but mainstream as a whole has gone downhill in creativity. Well, American stuff I mean (although a bunch of people in London claim to say it happened there as well). I do agree with them though when they say they are tired of American hits.

Speaking of hip hop, ask anybody (or 10 people) what they think is better. Old School (1985-2003) or today's hip hop. Or ask random people in general. Today's hits or pre 2000 hits. See what they say, then follow up with "why?".

This doesn't mean there is nothing good coming out today. It simply means that today, true talent is no longer a requirement to be popular in music. Tik tok.
 
Actually, after some thought,I take back what I said about quality because depending on how you look at it, anything can be "creative" if you really think about it. For example; the obvious hits of the past from artists like Naked Eyes, Genesis, New Order, Simple Minds, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, and even Pebbles, Janet Jackson, Bone Thugs & Harmony and Paula Abdul...etc. If you really think about it, it could be just as lyrically prolific as "i got money in the bank. tell me what you drank. i got money in the bank, show me what you drank." or even "teach me how to dougie teach me teach me how to dougie. Everybody love me every every body love me. Everybody love me you ain't messin wit my dougie".

When you really think about it, there is some creativity in that, and it's almost like arithmetic in certain ways.
"I got money in the bank, tell me what you drank" is implying:

If I work hard, then I have money in the bank, so therefore I can afford to buy you the drink you want if you tell me which one you like.

So lets say he has money and assume that he has it in at least 1 bank;
I got money in the bank = MB.1

and
tell me what you drank = D.1

and you don't know what circumstances enabled him to have money in the bank, so we call that "x"

X = D.1, if and only if MB.1

If D.1 is true, then X = MB.1

In Linear Form, that would be

"I can buy you a drank, if and only if I have money in the bank".

So instead of going through an entire explanation behind why he had money in the bank to make it possible to afford the drink, he simply just said "I got money in the bank, tell me what you drank" and it is up to you to connect the dots and figure out the rest, based on the information given. You have to figure out the cubic equation and determine what X is. You do not know how much money is in the bank, but you do know enough to conclude that it's enough to (possibly) afford whatever drink is requested.

It's just a modernized version of poetry with somewhat of a slick metaphorical and mathematical twist.

D.1 = X, if and only if MB.1

While "teach me how to dougie" may be harder to explain, it's basically the same thing. Not sure about "shake that laffy taffy" or "oh I think they like me", but it all sure beats "around the world" by daft Punk when it comes to lyrical quality.

"(A) If I know how to dougie, then (B) I can teach others how to dougie. If I teach others to dougie, then (C) everybody will love me."

In other words, If A is true, then B is also true. If B is true, then C is true as well.
A = C if and only if B is true.


So in the song, the girl says "teach me how to dougie teach me teach me how to dougie"
and the guy says "everybody love me every everybody love me"

Therefore, you can conclude based on the information given that he knows he's capable of teaching her how to dougie and she will love him for it. "She" in this case represents a larger population of people who would also love him for teaching them how to dougie.

C(x) = A + B and X = % of General Public who will learn the dougie from California Swag District.  ;D

In many ways, that's even deeper and more difficult to dissect than

Baby, I compare you to a kiss from a rose on the grave
Ooh, the more I get of you, stranger it feels, yeah
Now that your rose is in bloom
A light hits the gloom on the gray
But did you know
That when it snows
My eyes become large and
The light that you shine can be seen


or

I'll get over you.. I know I will
I'll pretend my ship's not sinking
And I'll tell myself I'm over you
'cause I'm the king of wishful thinking
I am the king of wishful thinking


or even

I'm never gonna dance again
Guilty feet have got no rhythm
Though it's easy to pretend
I know you're not a fool
I should have known better than to cheat a friend
And waste a chance that i've been given
So i'm never gonna dance again
The way i danced with you


AND
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/daft+punk/around+the+world_10076007.html

+

http://www.metrolyrics.com/get-down-with-the-neptunes-lyrics-clipse.html
 
So I have a different version of the topic this thread evolved into in the Phoenix section, and while many think there has been no change in musical quality over the years, here is what someone else had to say;

TheBigA said:
This is an entertaining subject to me. I've been to seminars comparing Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y. We are now living with music from Gen X and Y. These are the generations where everyone got a trophy. Even if you lost, you'd win. There's no such thing as losing, as long as you tried. Apply that logic to art. The result is millions of artists making their form of music and no one telling them it sucks. Until they deliver the music to the local radio station.

Everyday my inbox is filled with press releases and mp3s of artists seeking airplay, and each one of them indistinguishable from the next. And they wonder why CD sales are in the dumpster. It's all McMusic. And they feel they're entitled to airplay.

Everyone has their theory of why radio is struggling, but mine is simple: The music sucks. If you work at a currents-based station, especially rock, what do you play? There's a bunch of no-name artists strumming the same three chords Johnny Rotton played 30 years ago. How do you distinguish between the good and the bad when it's all bad?

You want to know what the people REALLY want to hear. When someone drives past you with his windows all rolled down in the middle of winter, and his speakers are all distorted, try to listen to what he's playing. None of it can be played on the radio, because it's all obscene.

The music industry wants to charge radio a performance royalty for the opportunity to play this stuff. The same stuff the public won't buy. The same stuff the public calls our stations to complain about. Made by artists who use obscene language and never studied. The public is right when they won't pay for music. It's not worth anything. And radio shouldn't pay for it either.

Now some very interesting points in here that I didn't even think of. I hear about it on talk radio all the time - about how everyone wants a prize nowadays just for PARTICIPATION AND EFFORT, just for trying. No more losing (Unless you're in the World Cup and people cheat and no one says anything... but that's another story). I also agree with the fact that many people are making music and no one is telling them it sucks! WOW! This is bringing AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT of stuff to mind right now. I'm thinking of all the crap I've heard on MySpace where people had horrible vocals, but thousands and thousands of friends.

Well... I guess there's always auto tune. A lot of people have passed these days, even on hit music radio, even with severe over usage of auto tune... and I'll just leave it at that.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom