Nobody sees it that way though ... . (and loads more edited for space and because it's posted just above) ..... You're not going to find 18 year-olds in a band, since it's 2013, not 1976.
Good grief. You really have no idea how it all works at all, or how people think, do you :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:.
Nobody sees it that way though. Even children. Everybody sees it as just an entertainment show.
Don't be so sure about that. There's all the youngsters applying for the show for a start. The reason I made that point is because it's what I see a number of artists saying (no, not just rock artists). That it's the message it sends out about being an artist/singing/fame etc. that 's not very good. Of course there's always going to be 'manufactured' pop stars but promoting creativity would be a good thing too.
But really, the fact that Olly Murs is taking up air time is reason enough on it's own to see the shows as evil .
Or found a band of youngsters with fire in their bellies and a hunger in their eyes who aren't just hopelessly re-treading the old stuff (credit to them, but ...).
Yes, plenty, but most are under no illusions of chart success.
You could argue that the mere fact that the shows exist and are potentially influencing young kids as to what it means or takes to be a music artist is bad enough, regardless of how many acts from the show make it into the charts and have some success. You don't really want that model of karaoke singing and instant fame held up as a good or realistic way of making music/becoming an artist.
But really, I don't know how much (lasting) influence it would have on young people. You'd hope they would grow up to realise that being a musician means creating something yourself and working your way up rather than relying on other people to do it for you and having immediate success.
That's a fair point. It would appear that these talent shows have a detrimental effect on young people who are just getting into music and who think that the Simon Cowell talent show way is THE way to go about achieving a successful career.
But still, I think that it just appears that way due to what we see in the media, and that it's just an illusion which the media conjures to make us believe that everyone sees these talent shows as the be all and end all when it comes to achieving success.
In reality I think that most people starting out still do the traditional thing and set up their own bands in a garage and practice and intend to forge their way by playing gigs and doing it the NON-Simon Cowell way.
Nobody sees it that way though. Even children. Everybody sees it as just an entertainment show. I never made any connection between X Factor and music until I came on this forum and saw people complaining about it endlessly, and I know it's the same with most other people.
Put it this way, if X Factor, or the other reality shows before it never happened, the music industry would be EXACTLY THE SAME right now, just Leona Lewis and Olly Murs wouldn't exist.
Rock fans just blame X Factor because it's an easy target, but they don't realize they're putting the blame on something so irrelevent and insignificant in the music world. There's no connection. Blaming Simon Cowell for the decline in commercial success of rock music is like blaming MacDonalds for the increasing crime rate. It makes no sense at all.
I agree with all that.
It seems that on the surface that Simon Cowell styled singing talent shows have taken over the music industry.
But when you think about how long ago X Factor and Pop Idol which came just before it started, the musical landscape has hardly been changed by them. They have maybe one, two, and sometimes no acts at all that make a handful of records every year, and that's it. That's how its been since those shows started. It hasn't drastically changed since X Factor started, even if it seems to have due to the media going on about it. When you consider it Simon Cowell music simply doesn't dominate music and hasn't made much progress since the Pop Idol and X Factor shows came into being.
Every single decade since Tin Pan Alley the vast majority of Pop has been dominated by generic lightweight fluff, or even good lightweight fluff.
Now and again on BBC 4 they do documentaries about music history and time and again it is demonstrated that the top 5 selling singles of every decade have been very generic manufactured pop.
You think of the great bands and great records of the past few decades, and you tend to think that these edgy individualistic acts making great creative music made an entire scene which ruled their era. But generally speaking they didn't. They were more of a rarity than they were the norm.
If you think of the late seventies or early nineties you might think of Punk and Rave as dominating those respective eras. Now they may have made a great cultural impact but they didn't really dominate the charts. The vast majority of top selling singles which dominated the charts were very safe and formulaic pop tunes.
The type of music attributed to Simon Cowell is just another handful of records a year to add to the huge amount of drivel pop already out there. I think the late eighties saw Stock Aitken Waterman produced pop records sell a lot more records than anything from The X Factor.
Lightweight pop always dominates the charts, Simon Cowell hasn't changed that and neither does he dominate that area of the market.
The more innovative creative music still gets made, but it will be less mainstream and more in the minority, just as it always has been. But it's the underground stuff which will probably have a more lasting impact and will stand out more in the test of time.
For example I wouldn't be surprised in 15 years or so from now people in the future holding a misconception that Grime and Dubstep dominated the music scene in the era we're currently living in.
Genres like this will have an impact which will make cultural ripples and influence music, and will thus stand out and be remembered. But they don't dominate the charts.
Yet many very generic and disposable pop records which we hear now will sell a hell of a lot more, but be forgotten over time because they tend to not stand out as it's just more of the same.
I'm not saying that the biggest pop acts will be completely forgotten, I'm just saying that in a cultural context we look back in hindsight and see the more underground styled movements seen as having the stronger impact and influence on culture.
That's a fair point. It would appear that these talent shows have a detrimental effect on young people who are just getting into music and who think that the Simon Cowell talent show way is THE way to go about achieving a successful career.
But still, I think that it just appears that way due to what we see in the media, and that it's just an illusion which the media conjures to make us believe that everyone sees these talent shows as the be all and end all when it comes to achieving success.
In reality I think that most people starting out still do the traditional thing and set up their own bands in a garage and practice and intend to forge their way by playing gigs and doing it the NON-Simon Cowell way.
Yeah, there are a lot of people who watch the show but have no intention of buying the music that comes from it. I'm not saying it has a massive influence but it does add to the promotion of a more superficial/celebrity/manufactured image of music as opposed to celebrating or promoting creativity. It's a bit sad really that there are so few music TV shows or chances for artists to appear on TV but X Factor is this massive event every year that goes on for weeks.
This is going to sound really snobbish but....I think you could argue that it contributes to a lowering of the standard (of what it takes to become an artist and therefore music in general). If we take Olly Murs as an example , I'm convinced that in the past he would have got no further than Butlins and nowhere near a record contract. Today, he is seen as good enough to be nominated for Brit Awards :eek:.
Now, I'm totally not against manufacturing pop music (big Motown fan) but for Christ sake can they at least have a genuine talent when it comes to singing and not be totally average (or worse)....i.e. Leona Lewis = yeah OK....Olly Murs = you're having a laugh.
Comments
Good grief. You really have no idea how it all works at all, or how people think, do you :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:.
But really, the fact that Olly Murs is taking up air time is reason enough on it's own to see the shows as evil
No, thank God, but I've met many just trying to make decent music.
Yes, plenty, but most are under no illusions of chart success.
That's a fair point. It would appear that these talent shows have a detrimental effect on young people who are just getting into music and who think that the Simon Cowell talent show way is THE way to go about achieving a successful career.
But still, I think that it just appears that way due to what we see in the media, and that it's just an illusion which the media conjures to make us believe that everyone sees these talent shows as the be all and end all when it comes to achieving success.
In reality I think that most people starting out still do the traditional thing and set up their own bands in a garage and practice and intend to forge their way by playing gigs and doing it the NON-Simon Cowell way.
I agree with all that.
It seems that on the surface that Simon Cowell styled singing talent shows have taken over the music industry.
But when you think about how long ago X Factor and Pop Idol which came just before it started, the musical landscape has hardly been changed by them. They have maybe one, two, and sometimes no acts at all that make a handful of records every year, and that's it. That's how its been since those shows started. It hasn't drastically changed since X Factor started, even if it seems to have due to the media going on about it. When you consider it Simon Cowell music simply doesn't dominate music and hasn't made much progress since the Pop Idol and X Factor shows came into being.
Every single decade since Tin Pan Alley the vast majority of Pop has been dominated by generic lightweight fluff, or even good lightweight fluff.
Now and again on BBC 4 they do documentaries about music history and time and again it is demonstrated that the top 5 selling singles of every decade have been very generic manufactured pop.
You think of the great bands and great records of the past few decades, and you tend to think that these edgy individualistic acts making great creative music made an entire scene which ruled their era. But generally speaking they didn't. They were more of a rarity than they were the norm.
If you think of the late seventies or early nineties you might think of Punk and Rave as dominating those respective eras. Now they may have made a great cultural impact but they didn't really dominate the charts. The vast majority of top selling singles which dominated the charts were very safe and formulaic pop tunes.
The type of music attributed to Simon Cowell is just another handful of records a year to add to the huge amount of drivel pop already out there. I think the late eighties saw Stock Aitken Waterman produced pop records sell a lot more records than anything from The X Factor.
Lightweight pop always dominates the charts, Simon Cowell hasn't changed that and neither does he dominate that area of the market.
The more innovative creative music still gets made, but it will be less mainstream and more in the minority, just as it always has been. But it's the underground stuff which will probably have a more lasting impact and will stand out more in the test of time.
For example I wouldn't be surprised in 15 years or so from now people in the future holding a misconception that Grime and Dubstep dominated the music scene in the era we're currently living in.
Genres like this will have an impact which will make cultural ripples and influence music, and will thus stand out and be remembered. But they don't dominate the charts.
Yet many very generic and disposable pop records which we hear now will sell a hell of a lot more, but be forgotten over time because they tend to not stand out as it's just more of the same.
I'm not saying that the biggest pop acts will be completely forgotten, I'm just saying that in a cultural context we look back in hindsight and see the more underground styled movements seen as having the stronger impact and influence on culture.
Where do all the young and up and coming bands come from then?...
This is going to sound really snobbish but....I think you could argue that it contributes to a lowering of the standard (of what it takes to become an artist and therefore music in general). If we take Olly Murs as an example
Now, I'm totally not against manufacturing pop music (big Motown fan) but for Christ sake can they at least have a genuine talent when it comes to singing and not be totally average (or worse)....i.e. Leona Lewis = yeah OK....Olly Murs = you're having a laugh.