I disagree with them being what is wrong with today's music scene. I can think of countless of bands that are screwing up the "scene" more than they are, lol. The emo/screamo bands come to mind. The Jonas Brothers cater to mostly young girls (no offense Minus Xero ). They are no different than Hanson, The Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys and Nsync. As long as there are girls in this world, there will always be boybands and teen idols and girls who idolize them. It's just the way it is.
True, but those groups you mention symbolise exactly the same thing. Greed. A group of dolls dressed up, produced, taught for the sole purpose to earn money. Real talent suffocates under the numerous groups like this (because for every "succesful" group there are dozens of others that only score singles, but they still get a chance). Hell, it's not just everything that's wrong with the music busines, it's everything that's wrong with our society. It's just a business. On the other hand, if I was teenager eager to perform and tour around the world, I couldn't be happier than joining a band like that. Too bad, that leads to shame when I'm too old and cast a side at 25, because my looks can't be sold anymore.
I don't know if I quite agree with that. Their music hits a chord with some audience, which is ultimately the goal of everyone that's ever recorded a song. And they play their own instruments, so more power to them. The real problem with today's music scene is pandering, self indulgent pop piece of shit shows like "American Idol". Seriously, think about it... the Jones Brothers, Miley Cyrus... all more credible than these never-were's and won't be's. I think that's saying something, when a show like this gets, what, 20 million votes a week or something? And people still drum up excuses not to vote in Presidential elections? We're essentially picking our next flavor of the week pop-star that we've only seen perform other people's songs. Sure, they'd be great for a karoke bar, but the AI winner selling out Madison Square Garden? Fuck off! It's only once they've broken away from what they've been type-casted as (Kelly Clarkson) or the ones that were voted off the theoretical island (Daughtry, Constantine). My parents are huge American Idol fans, so this is where all this shit stems from. Seriously, I have pictures to prove it. They went to one of those AI cast concerts or whatever.
I know that. It's never going to change though. It is what it is. Edit: And I agree with Casey on the American Idol thing.
I guess. But as far as I can tell it's hardly as if bands along those lines outnumber popular bands who've gotten where they are by more credible means, and that the former are more popular than the latter. It might seem like that's the case because there's a Beatlemania sort of effect with people like The Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus at the moment. Doesn't mean they're necessarily that much bigger than, say, Radiohead. In my view, in this decade music has actually started to get back to a point where a good deal of the most popular artists at least have some degree of talent. Like, in the '80s there were bands like The Police and The Cure who were very popular but at the same time they had musical chops too. Now you have bands like Radiohead, The Killers, Bloc Party, Green Day, Metallica and so on that I would say that is also the case with. Even if you don't like those bands I think the majority would generally agree that they're at least better than a good deal of what was at that level of popularity at the start of this decade or at the end of the last. Not to mention that it is actually getting easier for bands that wouldn't have had a cat's chance in hell of having commercial success in the past to have it now, what with the current economic climate, the declining influence of major labels and the rise of the internet among other things. Hardcore is getting pretty popular on an almost mainstream level. Would that have happened in 2000? Probably not. In tandem with that, I think what tends to be referred to most often as pop music has gotten better. I mean, personally I love Justin Timberlake's last album and have a big appreciation for Kanye West both as a persona and as a musician, and as far as the musicians being discussed in this thread are concerned at least they have the decency to make reasonable music, or at least it is in my view. Even if they are manufactured and even if they are part of a cynical marketing ploy, I'd pick them over Westlife and most other manufactured acts from the recent past that I can care to think of. Of course, that is mainly down to my personal taste. There's still popular music that I dislike but that tends to manifest itself either as the kind Casey was referring to, or as Nickelback and Hinder and stuff along those lines.
The formula for a successful boy band: Boy Member #1 * Drop dead gorgeous, but in a pretty way. * Can dance circles around professional dancers. * Sings like an angel. * Must be friendly with the media. Would be willing to do millions of interviews and not hold anything back. Boy Member #2 * Drop dead gorgeous, but in a rugged way. * Dances like a professional stripper. * Sings like one of his idols - could be Michael Jackson, could be Kurt Cobain...doesn't matter. * Must cooperate with the media. Doesn't offer everything but close. Boy Member #3 * Must be goofy looking. Think Jim Carrey or Seth Green. Added bonus points for dyed hair. * Dances to be funny. * Sings to be funny. * Talks with the media constantly but never utters a word of truth. It's all about the humor, right? Boy Member #4 * Plain looks - could be your boy next door * Dances like the boy next door, somewhat clunky but that's really only for show. When forced, can keep up with the rest of the boys. * Sings like someone in your high school choir. Not outstanding, but a supporting character. * Supports whatever Boy #1 and Boy #2 says to the media. Cooperative, but offer up no new insight. Boy Member #5 * Hot looking, but in a rough and tough way. Added bonus points for scars and/or tattoos. * Dances like he has sex. Enough said. * Sings like he has sex. Ditto above. * Ignores the media. Source: http://www.epinions.com/inst-review-7EEC-1F523E39-397B1F52-prod5 (really funny if you read the whole thing.) Shared this with Dean on msn, and this made me giggle: Deantron says: i'd be number 5 Scarlet is following her path says: haha do you dance like you have sex Deantron says: i'm not sure what that means Scarlet is following her path says: lots of pelvic thrusts probably Deantron says: yeah then again that might seem like you're trying too hard Scarlet is following her path says: hahaha i should post that link and then our conversation Deantron says: sure Scarlet is following her path says: haha do you have scars i know theres no tattoos yet Deantron says: i have a scar on one of my fingers, and a scar on my right cheek
Long post coming up Not speaking for you of course, but my parents are much prouder (in this aspect) that me and my older sister found our own music tastes, than my sister who listens to whatever's on disney channel or radio (she's 12) I would rather i never have to listen to it ever. But as i said before, I have a twelve year old sister. And there is plenty wrong with the music scene. I guess Jonas Brothers play their own instruments and write their own songs (according to my sister), but it's lame and cliched, and no one seems to realise it. Rites Of Spring/Orchid aren't even in today's music scene. (lol don't worry about this post, it's just my attempt at trying to make people realise that those bands with tight jeans and long fringes on the radio aren't emo or screamo) American Idol singers hardly ever get anywhere, anyway. But i think i prefer them to Miley Cyrus. At least they got here (almost) based on their singing ability, whereas Miley Cyrus just has some famous dad and connections with disney. And seems like the Jonas Brothers were just picked off the street by disney and turned into a mega band, they don't even have a drummer or bassist.
Lame and cliche is based entirely on opinion, and on one seems to realize it. What is lame and cliche to one person is not lame and cliche to another.
What i meant by that, is that it's entirely unoriginal and has been done to death before. The songs are just three chords and the vocal melody's are obvious and are in countless other songs.
That doesn't mean it isn't a good song. How many songs out there use the progression from Pachelbel's Canon and are still great songs?
Nothing comes to mind, actually. BUT I'm sure the good ones don't use the same melody as Pachelbel's Canon.
Yeah. There is music I'd probably rather my kids listened to over the Disney acts if there was a chance of it, but likewise there's worse stuff that they could be listening to, for me.
To name a few, Basket Case by Green Day, Graduation by Vitamin C, Machinehead by Bush, Let It Be by the Beatles, No Woman No Cry by Bob Marley, With or Without You by U2, Push by Matchbox 20...
None of them have the same melody as the original song, or from other good songs using that chord progression. There are tons of other songs using that chord progression that take melodies from other songs with that chord progression, and those aren't good songs (imo) because good songs are original and don't take melodies from other songs. It's hard to be original with a chord progression. Melodies are what really makes a good pop song.
I thought Kayce's question was if anyone else likes them, not if anyone would like to crap on them and point out all of their flaws which are all based entirely on your own opinion. I don't care much for them, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't respect them as musicians, at least they made it much further than lots of you. Don't be such cry babies and start spending your time on something else other than whining.
Yeah but... they hardly constitute musicians... And I don't mean any offence to anyone, I don't respect anyone any less if they listen to them, but yeaah.