Better music = more limited audience?

[YaYo]

As music becomes better and better, is it bound to be to be liked more, but by less people?
why?



A Statement:
Commercial music is popular because they express basic emotions. A basic sadness that can be applied to any sad situation, a basic happiness, whatever. Hence everyone can connect in a basic way. As musicians become more skilled they can more accurately create the specific emotions they want. Like the sadness you get when someone close dies. Or the sadness from a failed friendship. And thus as they get better they limit their audience because not as many people can connect with the music. So the better and more skilled a musician becomes, the more accurately and specifically they write their music, and the less potential fans have for liking it. But the ones who do like it LOVE it, because it expresses exactly what they need.

Is the above statement true at all?
Are their examples that dont follow the above trend?
Is this why commercial music is popular, and why opeth arent?

If you agree in part of in whole with the statement then can it be said that someone with a few really really obsessed fans is most likely a genious?

Will really 'good' music (im talking whole genres, not specific bands) ever be really popular if it becomes the latest trend? Or is it an impossibility for it to become a trend because of its 'goodness' (ie its' specificness)?



(its about time i pointed out that when i bring up topics i dont nescasarily show my opinions in the questions i ask. Just because i made the statement and asked questions doesnt mean i believe it or dont have answers to the questions. And this little note doesnt mean i dont agree with the statement either. )

 

[Kushantaiidan]

People who listen to commercial music don't listen to it for any emotional value. They just hear it.. and simple think it's good.. or something. I don't understand how people can listen to Pop music, when it is so empty, there is no emotion in it, and no.. MUSIC in it.

Maybe people who like Pop music, Like my girlfriend, have a mental deficiaancy preventing them from hearing music properly. I think she just hears it as a whole, or something, and doesn't even listen to the song.

I've been with her for 3 years, I I still can't understand how she hears music, because she constantly puts up with my metal, jazz, classical, j-pop and what not, and doesn't even notice any difference, or anything.

I think people listen to Pop music because they simply can't understand anything more complex.

They are just dumb. =P

 

[blakmetalemp]

I think its because it isnt "cool" to be smart or emotional in the mainstream now unless you are bitching about your crappy life or how many Benz's you have. Therefor the bands that are really good dont get the attention they deserve (except for very few bands).

ps: I like the fine print. hehe

 

[YaYo]

I think its because it isnt "cool" to be smart or emotional in the mainstream now

This is my point. Is that just the current trend or is it in fact impossible for smart/emotional music to ever be the trend since by being smart/emotional it CANT appeal to everyone. So if it was the trend to listen to smart/emotional music there would be no standout bands because each would have a limited audience (.. ?). This doesnt seem like the way a 'trend' works.



The point is, even within intelligent/emotional genres (like metal) by being better you limit your audience, by writing more accurately and expressing emotions more specifically you limit your audience. But the people that do like your music like it even more.

 

[_Transparent_]

on a whole

COMMERCIAL MUSIC = you like it the first time you hear it, its instantly catchy and i know a lot of people that say ''I HATE THAT SONG'' and then you hear them singing it because it sticks in your head.

i didnt like opeth the first time i heard them, just because of the growls, but a month or so later i remembered i liked the ''music'' (guitars, drumming etc) and put it on again, then it clicked.

anyway maybe people dont think music a very important part of their life and want some background music, for me i need to listen to music all the time. on my way to college, at college, on the way back, and loads at home.

i think its a big loss that so many people will never hear some of the great bands i know, but then again im sure theres loads of albums i'd consider my favourite or greatest album ever, and its a shame i'll never find them all.

 

[Belial]

Actually, people do listen to popular music for basic emotional value. Just look at any Staind fan.

The fact is, people like trendy music not because it's based on emotion, but because it has "kick". It's more catchy than complex, and it almost immediately tries to get you with a "hook" in the sound. trendy music is one big commercial, as it's purpose is to grab your attention from the begining and snare you in the song's "hook". It works so well here in America because we Americans have notoriously short attention spans.

Take just about any mainstream band and you see the same basic formula. Very short intro, and an extremely tight verse/chorus structure with little or no room for solos or instrumentals. This is because if these artists sang for too long without using the hook (chorus) or if they played their instruments by themselves for too long, the fickle listener's attention may begin to stray. A successful song is tight and hooks you from start to finish. No plot, no complexity, little emotion, just hook, hook, and more hook.

Which is why bands like Opeth won't be mainstream. Their music is too complex, emotional, instrumental, and is created for the purpose of being beautiful in it's own way, rather than selling itself to a fickle audience by adding commercial hooks.

On another note, I think this is why In Flames are viewed as sell-outs. Because their album Clayman uses this same "hook" style. People recognize that, even if they don't realize it.

 

[Kushantaiidan]

very good point. Actually, you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[MetalManCPA]

Better Music = less popular : yes

Because the masses aren't into music just for the music - they want more. The masses feed on paparazzi, on news, on what happens to "famous" people. True musicians (who too would like a lot of money) don't make the spotlight a priority. They make music. If the spotlight comes to them - great. If not - they are still making their music - THEIR music - not designed by a culture or society, but designed by that bands musical talents.

This whole world is captivated by the visual - entranced by what is fed to them by the media. Your choices of eating, dressing, TV, movies, aren't your choices. These choices are limited by what is on the shelf - what is put on the TV or radio, etc. Most fall for this - and take life at face value. A shallow perspective of life.

It seems the better artists in this world become contraversial - because they are different then the masses. They're better then the masses, but the masses win out because of sheer numbers. Only those who don't follow and who have an open mind see true artisitic talent. It just shows that these type of people are in the minority.

WE are the minority - and damn proud of it.

 

[Demonspell]

Yes, Opeth and similarly inventive artists are cursed to be appreciated only by musical elitists...and I couldn't be more satsified. Up the prog snobs!

 

[Jannet]

As music becomes better and better, is it bound to be to be liked more, but by less people? why?

I think that as music becomes better, if the listener liked them in the first place, they will like them even more. But it depends on your definition of better - if you are the type that is technically based/or music based, you find that aspect of the music most important, and you'll notice, say, perhaps, mistakes, 8th notes, D-drop when appropriate, etc., and you tend to judge the music by this. But if someone is emotional based, they tend not to focus on those technical aspects of the music - they are only interested in how it makes them feel. Now, you can have mixtures of the two - a person who views them both equally, but usually, this is not the case.

A Statement:
Commercial music is popular because they express basic emotions. A basic sadness that can be applied to any sad situation, a basic happiness, whatever. Hence everyone can connect in a basic way. As musicians become more skilled they can more accurately create the specific emotions they want. Like the sadness you get when someone close dies. Or the sadness from a failed friendship. And thus as they get better they limit their audience because not as many people can connect with the music. So the better and more skilled a musician becomes, the more accurately and specifically they write their music, and the less potential fans have for liking it. But the ones who do like it LOVE it, because it expresses exactly what they need.

Is the above statement true at all?

I like some popular bands - not because I'm tormented or depressed, or only because I can relate to the basic emotion they're trying to express (but at times I do), but they also sound good to me.

What you think makes a band better boils down to your personal opinion of what "better" is. Is it creativity? Uniqueness? The use of a guitar? The dropped D note? The complexity? The lyrics? The poetry? The way it touches you?

If a musician more accurately and specifically write their music, I think this gives evidence to experience learning, and the fans notice, and that's why they'll like them more. But again, it depends on what you view as more accurate and specific, a very subjective opinion. Now when it comes to expressing different DEGREES of the same emotion (a very admirable trait in a musician, one that he is either gifted with or has practiced on), as you mentioned, it definitely takes a keen ear, and the ability to understand the tone of the music. All music has this - it depends on your ability to realize what it is. An artist uses his lyrics as the first basic step in communicating the tone. Then come the musical style as the backdrop of this. *Edit (Now that I think about this, this is not entirely true. Music can stand on its own without lyrics, and express a certain emotion). If people understand what the musician is trying to communicate, then he has succeeded in his goal. Some are cut and dry; others need a little reflective thinking.

I always see how fans appreciate/commend some kind of 'freshness' or experimentation with their favorite artists, and tend to bash them when they keep releasing the same old thing, keep producing the same stale sound.

When it comes to popular music, it is popular because it is what people are familiar with. Clear vocals can be understood, the topics spoken about (love, hate, sadness, happiness) are familiar with many people. But when music is based on growling or screaming vocals, talking about death, or satan, or bashing religion (atheists make up about 1% of this planet - so most people are spiritual to a certain extent), constantly speaking in poetic terms (metaphors), dressing up in gothy, black clothes and sporting spiked leather, it loses its appeal to the masses. And the people who LOVE this kind of music view themselves as "against the mainstream."

The image of Britney Spears is happy, focused on love, and her vocals are clearly understood - this is what the masses are comfortable with.

This is just my opinion on the subject.

 

[Jannet]

True musicians (who too would like a lot of money) don't make the spotlight a priority. They make music. If the spotlight comes to them - great.

Unfortunately, sometimes it's not so great. Take for instance Cradle of Filth. Many, MANY metal enthusiasts hate this band - they view Dani as an annoying smuck, the music sub-par and ridiculous. But there were many fans who loved them. But it's interesting to note how many people really started bashing and/or losing interest for them after they signed on to Sony. Also, what about Metallica? Most metal enthusiasts claim that anything from the black album forward was mainstream fodder. That's only because they got played on MTV a lot (Enter Sandman). I see it as they grew up, that's it. Their sound changed so drastically from their older albums because they matured, and decided not to focus on war and anger and the like. They cut their hair and started wearing button down shirts. (This is my opinion, most of you may not agree). This appeals to the "normal" people, as opposed to the "anti-trendy" metallers.

Not every single band in the mainstream is only out for the money. Not every mainstream "nu-metal" band is trying to be trendy. Some are true musicians - but are not viewed this way because the overwhelming opinion of the metal purists is that they're "appealing to the masses," when all they're doing is taking a new style of metal and experimenting with it.

And usually, once the spotlight is focused on a great band, people start losing respect for them, and call them "posers" and "trendy mainstream" scum. (Not always, but it is prevalent).

 

[MetalManCPA]

Everybody listens to music for different reasons.

Metallica: I think their music went downhill after the Black album - not because of their looks, but because of the sound. I personally think Black was their best - and I grew up with Metallica from their beginnings. I loved them along with other speed metallers of the time, like Slayer.

Spotlight = great : yes, when the band needs the money. No, when the public eye thinks less of them for it.

Are all mainstream bands in for the money? As I stated before, if a band becomes popular without trying - it can be great. Take Jewell, for example. She just played in bars in Alaska. Right person saw her, and boom, she's a lot richer than she probably ever imagined. (I love those VH1 specials about different bands and how they got to today). Some, though, are designed to make money. For instance, whether you like Linkin Park or not, my understanding is they had a lot of influences in how they developed as a band. It's like anything else, though, who cares how they got to where they are? If you like them, fine.

I think every musician has at least a shred of musical talent - even Brittany Spears. To some, that's all that is required for musical enjoyment. For others, like me - more is needed. I could care less about looks. When I pop the CD in the player, and close my eyes and listen, I want to be pulled into something (whatever that something is). That is MY music listening experience. Every individual has their own unique style of listening.

 

[D Mullholand]

"Commercial music" is more popular because it's not music - it's a simulation of music for people who aren't into music. The poop-masses use the commerically produced songs to get a sense of identification with "the crowd", or in other words, to make "friends". Commercial music is designed to be catchy and background at the same time, and so all commercial music fits everybody who is not interested in music. There are various degrees of commerciality, and possible cases when a musical artist inserts elements which can bring popularity, but usually true musicians fail to do this correctly when they're not embraced by the media from the very start.

It's also true that a poop-listener will like the occasional "ballad" by a metal band, but that's not because he actually likes it, but more because it's safe music and doesn't threaten his social security.

There are also bands which I call "anti-pop" - most of nu-metal and all the Marilyn Mansons fit into this category. I believe these bands would not exist when commercial music wouldn't exist - they are like a natural reaction, "pop for the fucked-up kids". It's an illusion of heaviness/diversity and this music was embraced by the media as the safe, legal opposition to mainstream poop. Together these two extremes eliminate each other like matter and anti-matter.

Simple emotions are not limited to commercialism - if you take a metal genre for example (doom, black, etc) without pointing to specific bands, its expression is basically limited to a simple emotion - sadness, rage, whatever. But elaborate emotionality is limited to real music.

So my version is as follows:

1. Real music is going to be liked by people who are into music, and there will be severe variations in taste between them, which is why there will never be a "music-listener" social category along the lines of "gangsta" or "raver" or "meathead".
2. Some specimens of real music will be liked by the poop-crowd because they're "safe".

I'm not sure whether "better" real music will be liked by fewer people - as soon as you get into music, there are no divisions anymore.

This post was not the most coherent probably, so in case something needs clarification, I will explain my point in detail.

D Mullholand