TheXRatedDodo said:
Hilariously enough, they started to make art after Bob Dylan introduced them to ganja.
Art in the form of an il-legalized green little plant. Not that I partake, but those who do in a creative field are usually a lot better than others that don't. And that Nepal soul-search I mention in my post? You thought that
wouldn't involve some kind of mind-alter-er?
Azrael the Cat said:
Some big differences, though. The Beatles wrote their own music, and the absence of self-songwriting (writing your own godawful lyrics on a couple of tracks doesn't count) is enough by itself to prevent the current teen idols from being taken seriously.
This was something that crossed my mind that I forgot to say something about. He doesn't have much songwriting skill or musical skill, and that was something I thought would very much prevent him from getting to Beatles level as an ARTIST and not a POP SINGER. And now that you've reminded me of that, shit, I have no more faith in Bieber.
Gaga, maybe, as she can sing and play piano. Bieber, no.
Thirdly - and VERY importantly - the British pop market always been a very very different beast to American pop. British pop has included numerous bands than in the American market would be classified as indie or alternative: Blur, The Cure (who invented the term Britpop), The Church, Queen, Oasis, Pulp amongst many others. The Beatles are squarely a part of that pop tradition - where pop music means songs that are short and catchy, but are also self-written and creative.
Alternative, in Americo-speak, is possibly the only genre with stations devoted to it that is still tolerable to me. I can't stand our pop, mostly because it leads me to believe music is dead.
If the pop station I often listen to (Hating modern music doesn't mean I should stay a recluse and listen only to records. Besides, I can keep an eye out for a new pop ARTIST this way) were to somehow go off the air and be replaced with anything that played The Gorillaz, The Cure, and Oasis, trust me, I'd be incredibly glad.
Pop, in the British market, differentiates it from from the long guitar-solo-heavy music of bands in the Led Zepellin/Rolling Stones tradition. The Brits have their teen idols as well, but they don't own the pop market in the way that the US teen idols do. Part of that is that pop just has bad connotations in the US, causing talented artists who write their own work to avoid the genre/title, instead calling themselves 'indie'.
Anything considered "Indie" here (Beck, The Raconteurs, etc.) would get at least moderately popular in Britain, I assume. Due in part to people there being used to actual instruments that aren't just guitars and drums (Horns and non-synthesized strings are mostly what I mean) being used in pop songs. That's what I hate about genre-lovers in the US.
Look at all of these with the prefix "mainstream."
Pop lovers are used to auto-tune, synthesizers, and shitty lyrics.
Hip-hop lovers are used to all of that same stuff, only now the lyrics are even worse (at times). And usually talk about how "underground" the "hood" is and how "rags to riches" the singer is. Also, they wouldn't talk to me again if I implied Atmosphere was way more "fuckin' hood" than Lil Wayne (with half the effort).
Rock lovers have never heard a proper rock song.
But don't confuse the pop tradition of the Beatles/Cure/Smiths/Blur/Oasis/Pulp with the pop tradition of New Kids on the Block/Boyzone/Boys2Men/Sclub7/Britney Spears/Agueillera/Beiber tradition and assume that they're part of the same genre. Same word, both talking about short songs of 3-4 minutes with emphasised choruses, but very very different musical traditions.
That last bit about musical traditions is the largest problem. The American youth is so used to pop being repetitive, auto-tuned and about nothing except parties that they close themselves off to genuinely meaningful songs that take effort to listen to. I have never once listened to "The Woman with the Tattooed Hands" without actually having to LISTEN to the lyrics. Why? Because lyrics are now a secondary product, and Atmosphere is too. Even if their sound quality and lyrical cleverness/meaningfulness is above most other bands I've heard. Have you heard a popular song tell a story that wasn't about love? A song that was about poverty, and hopelessness, or suicide, or the screwed up childhood of one Sean "Slug" Daley?
No. Because songs like that take effort to listen to.
You've got me ranting about something totally different than Bieber now, so I'll leave on this note:
What will be will be. A shining star may appear out of nowhere someday, and I might catch the tail end of this star's song on a pop station, and I will cry tears of joy at taste in and skill creating music becoming a common trait again.
Or maybe I'll stay bitter and listen to "American Indie/Alternative" music for the rest of my life.
And you know what? I might be happy with that.
