|
To ensure this thread won't be closed, you must adhere to several a number of simple rules; - Please use spoilers when quoting a post with pictures and/or videos.
- When posting large quantities of media (pictures or videos), please begin spoilering after the first piece. Grouping related videos in the same spoilers & labeling is recommended.
- No reposting of old material unless justified
- Posting any material with little or no relevent discussion accompanying it
- No passion-induced flaming of each other because 'x said y sucked' etc.
- Keep the expression hate of music individuals/groups to a minimal level
- No 'pagetopping' in any form whatsoever, as it constitutes spam equal to posts similar to 'first'.
- No vulgar fan fics or wet dream stories. It is creepy, weird, and it dehumanizes the people who you are here to celebrate/discuss.
- Normal posting standards that you find throughout the rest of the site still apply and will be enforced more strictly from here forward (2012/03/11)
Due to the poor nature of this thread in the past, temporary two-day bans will occur more than often if people slip up. |
On July 12 2012 08:00 bofranx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 07:57 sc2superfan101 wrote: even the Beatles... they are good singers, and some of their melodies and harmonies are nice... but nothing they do is very creative or groundbreaking in any way ...wow their music was not groundbreaking, nor was it very influential (sorry but it's true). their popularity, their style, the way they ran their band and the way they marketed themselves and were marketed... those were all groundbreaking.
look, i'm not talking shit on the Beatles. i like their music, and in a way, it is really good pop (which makes it pretty damn good music). but let's be honest here... they didn't change the face of MUSIC. they changed the music industry, but not MUSIC itself.
@SC2 superfan101, Im sure that Let it Be by the Beatles was one of the greatest songs in history...
what if it was sung by another band, a less famous band at the time.... would it be on the list? I dont know, but i KNOW it would not be as high.. Let it Be is pretty tight. greatest songs in history? idk, it depends on how you're judging it. it is certainly an extremely popular song.
if it was sung by another, less famous band, then 99% of people would have never heard of it. or maybe they would have. a lot of times, a song can make a band famous. other times, the band doesn't get famous even though they have a really catchy and really rocking song that everyone would like if they heard.
i would bet on it being a hit, no matter what band did it, because it is a very catchy song. whether it would have been as big as it was.... idk. no one knows. no one can know. we can guess, but at the end of the day, it's just a guess. no real reason to think one way or the other.
|
On July 12 2012 08:03 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 07:58 firehand101 wrote:On July 12 2012 07:52 DystopiaX wrote: He doesn't need to wait since he's just reposting anyway. All he has to do is repost his folder or go on the internet or whatever to find the same pics we've all seen months or years ago.
AG needs to come back.
edit- Firehand you're just repeating yourself- 1. they're not focused on making more successful kpop groups, they're just focused on making more groups. Most of them suck.
2. Digital sales have been increasing every year. I already pointed this out to you. Revenue is actually up, music companies are just behind the times and want anti-piracy laws. If I hadn't started pirating korean music first I'd never have bought all the music that I did. And you just state random facts that aren't backed up by anything 1: how do you know they aren't putting 100% into each group, and trying to make them as successful as possible? Only a select few can make it anyways 2: Well have you ever thought that it's because the population is increasing also? Dont you think that without file sharing it would be higher? WTF do you mean revenue is up but companies are 'behind the times' that makes no sense... dude im still at that pirating phase, and im sure many others are as well. 1. my point wasn't that they're not trying, but that they are trying and it's not working. You seem to think that effort will bring them there alone but it won't. Them trying to grab money is irrelevant towards your "KPOP WILL RULE THE WORLD" argument because effort isn't all it takes, and 100 creepy men creating girl groups won't inherently bring more success than 3 creepy men doing so. 2. revenue is up. Companies are stupid and although they see that continue to try to restrict digital distribution of music (even legal means) because they think it'll hurt sales. Population increase doesn't matter, more money (even adjusted for inflation) is more money. No one looks at his increase and sales and says "well this money came in from all the new suckers being born every minute, I guess it's not worth it". That's fucking stupid. 3. you may be pirating but think about it this way- most of the shit that people pirate is shit that they wouldn't have bought if they weren't able to get it for free, so the companies are getting more listeners for free and not losing any revenue at all. Companies have been using the retarded logic that every copy downloaded is a copy not sold, but I'll tell you that if I hadn't downloaded any of the games, music, movies, etc. illegally I wouldn't have bought all of them, I just wouldn't have watched/played them and become a fan of the artist/franchise. edit- @your reply to superfan- the artist makes the pop music argument is dumb. We're not trying to argue about the popularity of a song but how good it is. If it was the exact same song I don't care if it was made by the Beatles or some dude in his basement, that doesn't change my enjoyment of the song at all.
So you think the digital age hasnt hurt music sales at all...
|
It hasn't. Look at the numbers. They support me. What do the music companies use?
Look at our RECORD SALES guess what's going down? sales of physical media. Guess what's going up? Sales of digital media.
|
I think calling the Beatles uncreative in a Kpop thread is quite hilarious.
|
On July 12 2012 08:05 DystopiaX wrote: It hasn't. Look at the numbers. They support me. What do the music companies use?
Look at our RECORD SALES guess what's going down? sales of physical media. Guess what's going up? Sales of digital media. Dude you cant really sit there and make claims on how multi-billion dollar corporations are stupid and dont know what they are doing....
File sharing did virtually kill physical media. Yes I agree that digital downloads are going up. The transition wasn't a full 100% conversion between the two. The music industry has had to change completely to compensate for the change...like ive been saying they have to market their idols so the masses will purchase their digital media
and @ your previous edit....well, sir , you are one of a kind.
Let me tell you now you are in the minority, not sure if you are aware. The group does impact how good the song is and how much it sells....give the song to two different artists and the effects through history will be very different
|
@DystopiaX, Correct me if im wrong but changing the artist behind a certain song, actually makes it sound different and because of that the level of enjoyment will inevitably change. If its not a case where it actually happens to sound EXACTLY the same which I dont think siamese twins could pull off.
lets say, remove Hyorin from SISTAR, would you still enjoy their actual songs just as much?
|
On July 12 2012 08:06 Vorgrim wrote: I think calling the Beatles uncreative in a Kpop thread is quite hilarious. possibly. but i'm not saying that Kpop is more creative than the Beatles. i'm not even necessarily trying to compare them, other than by the way that they are both heavily, heavily influenced by folk music, and neither is going to change the face of music. creativity doesn't always mean good or enjoyable either. lot of very creative music sounds like poop.
|
On July 12 2012 08:09 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:05 DystopiaX wrote: It hasn't. Look at the numbers. They support me. What do the music companies use?
Look at our RECORD SALES guess what's going down? sales of physical media. Guess what's going up? Sales of digital media. Dude you cant really sit there and make claims on how multi-billion dollar corporations are stupid and dont know what they are doing.... File sharing did virtually kill physical media. Yes I agree that digital downloads are going up. The transition wasn't a full 100% conversion between the two. The music industry has had to change completely to compensate for the change...like ive been saying they have to market their idols so the masses will purchase their digital media They are fucking stupid. Being successful in a business model that became irrelevant over 10 years ago doesn't mean that you can be successful in a new one.
I'd argue that more people are buying music digitally now than anyone ever bought music physically.
I do agree that they have to market their idols for personalities, cause that's all they have left. Otherwise they're just a bunch of middlemen whose only service WAS to bring acts to national attention. Now the internet does all that. More of the western music I listen to now is by independant artists than it is artists signed to a major record label. I can find their shit on the internet and (most of the time) legally download it for free cause artists in the past decade have found that revenue from music sales are tiny in comparison to revenue from selling merch and concert tickets. Middlemen have been edged out on the internet, where popularity is more found not by a large company trumpeting its wares but more by word-of-mouth, people telling other people about this hot musical act they found.
Artists no longer need the services of record companies so now they're scrambling to find a way to make themselves relevant. And I agree with you at least in this- they're riding on popularizing completely manufactured super-artists like Justin Bieber and, yes, SNSD.
|
On July 12 2012 08:12 hyszlan wrote: @DystopiaX, Correct me if im wrong but changing the artist behind a certain song, actually makes it sound different and because of that the level of enjoyment will inevitably change. If its not a case where it actually happens to sound EXACTLY the same which I dont think siamese twins could pull off.
lets say, remove Hyorin from SISTAR, would you still enjoy their actual songs just as much? Thats soort of what im saying but not really..
even if they sounded identical, like if you gave a song to Beyonce and Jennifer Hudson and just say they would be exactly the same song....
Im trying to say that in that hypothetical scenario of 2 parallel universes, the song with beyonce will do better on the charts and sell more, because of her larger popularity
|
On July 12 2012 08:12 hyszlan wrote: @DystopiaX, Correct me if im wrong but changing the artist behind a certain song, actually makes it sound different and because of that the level of enjoyment will inevitably change. If its not a case where it actually happens to sound EXACTLY the same which I dont think siamese twins could pull off.
lets say, remove Hyorin from SISTAR, would you still enjoy their actual songs just as much? The artist singing the song is absolutely vital.
Evidence: SNSD - Kissing You, awesome Wonder Girls - Kissing You cover, WTF
On July 12 2012 08:16 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:12 hyszlan wrote: @DystopiaX, Correct me if im wrong but changing the artist behind a certain song, actually makes it sound different and because of that the level of enjoyment will inevitably change. If its not a case where it actually happens to sound EXACTLY the same which I dont think siamese twins could pull off.
lets say, remove Hyorin from SISTAR, would you still enjoy their actual songs just as much? No, I agree with you in this. Firehand's argument was that if Let it be was from a completely different group and not the Beatles, but the music was exactly the same, Let It Be would be worse musically because it wouldn't have come from the Beatle's popularity. THAT I disagree with. @Moon- again that's not what I'm arguing. If you give the same song to 2 different singers of course they're gonna sound different. What Firehand is saying is not that they'll sound different, but that one will be better ONLY BECAUSE the artist is more popular.
Oh. Yeah, I don't know this whole thing is pretty dumb tbh.
|
On July 12 2012 08:12 hyszlan wrote: @DystopiaX, Correct me if im wrong but changing the artist behind a certain song, actually makes it sound different and because of that the level of enjoyment will inevitably change. If its not a case where it actually happens to sound EXACTLY the same which I dont think siamese twins could pull off.
lets say, remove Hyorin from SISTAR, would you still enjoy their actual songs just as much? No, I agree with you in this. Firehand's argument was that if Let it be was from a completely different group and not the Beatles, but the music was exactly the same, Let It Be would be worse musically because it wouldn't have come from the Beatle's popularity.
THAT I disagree with.
@Moon- again that's not what I'm arguing. If you give the same song to 2 different singers of course they're gonna sound different. What Firehand is saying is not that they'll sound different, but that one will be better ONLY BECAUSE the artist is more popular.
|
On July 12 2012 08:15 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:12 hyszlan wrote: @DystopiaX, Correct me if im wrong but changing the artist behind a certain song, actually makes it sound different and because of that the level of enjoyment will inevitably change. If its not a case where it actually happens to sound EXACTLY the same which I dont think siamese twins could pull off.
lets say, remove Hyorin from SISTAR, would you still enjoy their actual songs just as much? Thats soort of what im saying but not really.. even if they sounded identical, like if you gave a song to Beyonce and Jennifer Hudson and just say they would be exactly the same song.... Im trying to say that in that hypothetical scenario of 2 parallel universes, the song with beyonce will do better on the charts and sell more, because of her larger popularity well.... yeah that could be true. but let's take this alternate universe to an extreme:
all of Jennifer Hudson and Beyonce's music are now completely switched. it all sounds EXACTLY the same, but just switched. maybe Beyonce would still be more popular, maybe Jennifer Hudson wouldn't be as popular. (i tend to think that a big part of Beyonce's popularity is dat ass)
or maybe their popularity would just be switched... no way to know really so it's kind of useless to argue about.
(and of course the song would be just as "good" no matter who sang it. if it's the same exact sound then it's the same exact song. in that sense, perception doesn't matter. popular =/= good)
|
On July 12 2012 07:07 nohbrows wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 06:38 firehand101 wrote:On July 12 2012 06:33 DystopiaX wrote:^dude totally with the tongue out. If you want me to bring up a "kidol selcas of women sucking and or licking food objects" picspam, I can, but it's totally unnecessary cause it happens all the time. On July 12 2012 06:28 firehand101 wrote:On July 12 2012 06:25 DystopiaX wrote: I have. I don't give a fuck what he thinks, I still like the music more than I like artificially crafted personalities. And I'm saying there is absolutely no problem with that! But I just want you to know Korean Pop is built for the artists first, thats all  Sure. Monetarily, you craft an artist's image because that's what's gonna sell your albums, get your endorsement deals, whatever. But you focus on music quality because regardless of what you think a lot of Koreans just don't give much of a fuck about kpop, just like most americans don't give a fuck about western pop. So yes, having a clean image is what's making you the money, but saying music takes a backseat isn't really accurate at all. And what do you mean by most dont.....last time i checked 'Super Bass' had almost 270 million views..... No one genre of music is going to capture a whole nation, but wouldn't you say that pop influences the largest portion in our modern era as opposed to any other style? And, really if you paid attention to the video and not had such a negative attitude, you would know music quality comes second, because to survive they have to market the star + Show Spoiler +Okay I've been lurking around reading this argument back and forth for a while and I feel like I need to jump in.
First of all, 270 million views, although nothing to sneeze at, does not mean that the whole nation likes it. Also, the world is so freaking huge, that saying "pop influences our modern era as opposed to any other style" is a huge generalization to make, and as such is probably incorrect. Also, the term "pop" is a really broad. Pop music is a genre so expansive it encompasses everyone from Susan Boyle to The Turtles to Justin Beiber.
I think your mistaking influence for "national conscious." When something becomes big, it enters a nations collective thought, to the point of when you play a "first word that comes to your head when i say this" game, it's one of the most used words.
For example, I ask someone on the street, "First word in your head when I say President", it will most likely be, in the USA, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or Barak Obama.
The thing is, music quality will always trump marketing. Yes, Kpop is becoming more and more focused on making Stars, but that means jack squat when the first way you make the uninitiate get interested is through music. And if your music sucks ass, especially in a country as large as the United States, you are not going anywhere. Although several artists have avoided this problem through sex appeal and marketing (think, Justin Bieber), most of the time the quality of the music is what makes people go back to look for it. Especially on the Radio. Radio DJs must choose their songs carefully. A good, popular song will keep people on the station, which leads to more ad revenue. A good song, no matter what the genre, will seep into the national consciousness. A good example of this would be Queen's "We Will Rock You" and "We are the Champions", Michael Jackson's "Thriller," "Beat it", "Billie Jean,", Maroon 5's "She Will be Loved", the Beatles' "Yesterday," "Here Comes the Sun", "Let it Be". Those are timeless songs from various genres (Glam Rock, Pop, Alt. Rock, and...the Beatles) that got there because they are good. Elvis Presley is a good example of this. Who doesn't know at least one song from Elvis Presley? (Btw, Maroon 5 is questionable).
A bad song, if bad enough, will also seep into the national consciousness because of how BAD it is. But then that is usually not a good thing.
The problem with Kpop expanding into Western markets right now is that, in my opinion,and from my observation, it has done neither. It has not sunk in. It's not on the radio. It is not on Television everywhere, you mention it to a random stranger, most of the time they will give you a funny stare.
Perhaps marketing the star is working in Korea. Unfortunately, unless your music is good in the US, it will not take off. The United States, and much of the Western world, has a long history of songs, singers, bands and groups that were organically made. Music is an art form, and for many, the fact that giant megacorporations are making the music is a bit of a turn off.
You want a relevant modern day example? Take Gotye's "Somebody I used to Know." This guy as a total nobody before he made this song. IIRC, he was a indie electronic musician from Australia. Then that song got released, and he just took off like a star. In 2011. It's the middle of 2012 and he is still played on the Radios here, almost like, every hour. Why? Cuz that song is a good song. Although a little repetitive and barebones, the weird loping beat with that tribal ethnic feel behind it is really addicting. And the lyrics are simple enough for most people to remember.
Korean Pop has a long way to go before they even come close competing with Western pop. Don't get delusions of grandeur from Korean documentaries and Kpop newsites/fansites reports about Western success for K-Idols. If they want to compete with Justin Bieber, Nikki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Drake, etc, then they are going to have to make sure that their songs can compete with those artists. u
Having more groups is actually BAD for expansion into Western markets because it will just appear as one giant massive marketing wave from Korea. The US already got over it's group obsession back during the NSync/Backstreet Boys days. If you want Kpop to become a success, it's got to prove it, musically.
Edit: Oh fuck me, this thread moves way too fast.
Edit 2: Before Super Bass is used against, me, Super Bass is popular right now and Nicki Minja is also a rising star. But her songs are legitimately popular and pretty good. IMO, Starships is better than Super Bass.
That was i nice read and agree with some points, but i think you underastimate the quality of the top of kpop compared to the westen pop. I agree that a large part of the kpop songs are not good for the american audience, but i think that is more because of its style that its quality (and as earlier said the language is the biggest problem). I think the cute acting does not work as well for western audience. And yes a large part of the songs are to bad and only listen to because of the artist what would not work in the west.
But you dont have to have great songs as long as they have a idol who performs them, and are targeted to the young audience. (dance like music, easy to sing along/follow). There were/are a lot of idols who are really popular just because they have simple songs and have a certain image (and in my opinion pretty bad) like nicki minaj, justin bieber, britney spears, beyonce, usher, drake etc. I think if you give kpop artist simular songs like the american pop artist they wont be as popular just because of their image and not because of there songs.
A few days ago i saw a video of a 6 year old kid rapping about booties. And it got many dislikes and a lot of commenst how wrong it is (and it is). But i think if you gave the song a bit better beat and let a pop artist (example flo rida who scores with a single about blowjobs, although that song has pretty decent music) and a better video you would actually get a decent selling song. So yes i think the quality is not as important to get good selling songs.
As for kpop i see some 2ne1 songs pretty well (they have a more american style) if promoted well to the audience. And when i hear Big Bang or Beast (and in mine opinion miss A) the quality of those songs are definitely good enough for the western music. I think with full good pronounced english songs and with a good targeting they can be popular in the west. But i have to agree, it looks like the west is over the popgroups and that wont help. And i think that being asian also does not help you to get popular in the US.
EDIT:Oh man this thread is going so fast, much to read. Feel sorry for the people who have to get throught the last 10 pages. But as said earlier, promoting more groups, instead of focusing on a few groups is the wrong direction to get better quality and expand out of asia.
Edit2: afraid to go to sleep i think i will see like 15 extra pages on this thread tomorrow
|
On July 12 2012 08:15 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:09 firehand101 wrote:On July 12 2012 08:05 DystopiaX wrote: It hasn't. Look at the numbers. They support me. What do the music companies use?
Look at our RECORD SALES guess what's going down? sales of physical media. Guess what's going up? Sales of digital media. Dude you cant really sit there and make claims on how multi-billion dollar corporations are stupid and dont know what they are doing.... File sharing did virtually kill physical media. Yes I agree that digital downloads are going up. The transition wasn't a full 100% conversion between the two. The music industry has had to change completely to compensate for the change...like ive been saying they have to market their idols so the masses will purchase their digital media They are fucking stupid. Being successful in a business model that became irrelevant over 10 years ago doesn't mean that you can be successful in a new one. I'd argue that more people are buying music digitally now than anyone ever bought music physically. I do agree that they have to market their idols for personalities, cause that's all they have left. Otherwise they're just a bunch of middlemen whose only service WAS to bring acts to national attention. Now the internet does all that. More of the western music I listen to now is by independant artists than it is artists signed to a major record label. I can find their shit on the internet and (most of the time) legally download it for free cause artists in the past decade have found that revenue from music sales are tiny in comparison to revenue from selling merch and concert tickets. Middlemen have been edged out on the internet, where popularity is more found not by a large company trumpeting its wares but more by word-of-mouth, people telling other people about this hot musical act they found. Artists no longer need the services of record companies so now they're scrambling to find a way to make themselves relevant. And I agree with you at least in this- they're riding on popularizing completely manufactured super-artists like Justin Bieber and, yes, SNSD.
I think you're being a bit ignorant regarding the music industry as a whole....im pretty sure CD sales are a bit more than tiny....and if you actually look at the details of many concerts you will see that the cost to run the concert compared with revenue of ticket sales are very close...
But what you say about popularity not being found by large companies any more....they are. They have the most successful , by far. the big 3 Kpop companies have the most popular songs, most successful artists and as a result they are more successful on the whole. Sure there are others that, as you say, get spread around by word of mouth.
Im pretty sure you haven't bought that much merchandise from those artists you are talking about, and im sure many others havent as well. They can survive, but to make the big bucks you need a big company behind you, and that is the most successful model so far....
and please don't call them fucking stupid, they have more education and experience than you and I combined
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 12 2012 07:00 PatouPower wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 06:53 DystopiaX wrote:On July 12 2012 06:51 Tennet wrote:On July 12 2012 06:42 DystopiaX wrote:On July 12 2012 06:38 firehand101 wrote:On July 12 2012 06:33 DystopiaX wrote:^dude totally with the tongue out. If you want me to bring up a "kidol selcas of women sucking and or licking food objects" picspam, I can, but it's totally unnecessary cause it happens all the time. On July 12 2012 06:28 firehand101 wrote:On July 12 2012 06:25 DystopiaX wrote: I have. I don't give a fuck what he thinks, I still like the music more than I like artificially crafted personalities. And I'm saying there is absolutely no problem with that! But I just want you to know Korean Pop is built for the artists first, thats all  Sure. Monetarily, you craft an artist's image because that's what's gonna sell your albums, get your endorsement deals, whatever. But you focus on music quality because regardless of what you think a lot of Koreans just don't give much of a fuck about kpop, just like most americans don't give a fuck about western pop. So yes, having a clean image is what's making you the money, but saying music takes a backseat isn't really accurate at all. And what do you mean by most dont.....last time i checked 'Super Bass' had almost 270 million views..... No one genre of music is going to capture a whole nation, but wouldn't you say that pop influences the largest portion in our modern era as opposed to any other style? And, really if you paid attention to the video and not had such a negative attitude, you would know music quality comes second, because to survive they have to market the star + Show Spoiler +goddammit do you read my posts at all?
What part of "To get the money they craft personalities" does not sound like "to survive the have to market the star" to you? Really? Come on.
And I cannot emphasize this enough STOP FUCKING USING YOUTUBE VIEWS IN YOUR ARGUMENT. THEY DON'T MEAN SHIT.
270 million views DOES NOT mean 270 million people. It means significantly less than that, actually, because some people watch the videos again and again. Ever go to a kpop artists' mv? You know what the top comment usually is? No? It's "HEY GUYS KEEP THIS VIDEO ON LOOP SO SUPER JUNIOR OPPAS WILL BE NUMBER 1 IN VIEWS ON YOUTUBE! LIKE IF YOU AGREE <3 <3 <3"
And I wouldn't say most influential, unless most influential means that your music is always kind of in the background but only fully appreciated by a tiny group of people. <3 you. For the record, Ryu Ji Hye is my favorite. And now to cater to the Sone fanbase... + Show Spoiler + Ryu Ji Hye is so imba, I'm almost tempted to find the limbo gif for everyone here to enjoy. limbo gif best gif. also revealed no plastic...down there at least. FOUND IT + Show Spoiler + Oh, wow, when she falls. Must... not... stare... I fail 
Holy Shit Nosebleed O.o"
Who are the 2 car models in those pics btw?
|
On July 12 2012 08:16 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:12 hyszlan wrote: @DystopiaX, Correct me if im wrong but changing the artist behind a certain song, actually makes it sound different and because of that the level of enjoyment will inevitably change. If its not a case where it actually happens to sound EXACTLY the same which I dont think siamese twins could pull off.
lets say, remove Hyorin from SISTAR, would you still enjoy their actual songs just as much? No, I agree with you in this. Firehand's argument was that if Let it be was from a completely different group and not the Beatles, but the music was exactly the same, Let It Be would be worse musically because it wouldn't have come from the Beatle's popularity. THAT I disagree with. @Moon- again that's not what I'm arguing. If you give the same song to 2 different singers of course they're gonna sound different. What Firehand is saying is not that they'll sound different, but that one will be better ONLY BECAUSE the artist is more popular.
I can see many people do take DystopaX's stance on this point, and yes this is a very major point I am trying to argue...
the way the music industry is TODAY, effort goes into marketing the IDOL FIRST like ive said a bajillion times. So, if two groups could perform the song exactly the same, and in two different universes each one got their shot, in the one where the group was more popular the song will be more successful
EDIT: note i emphasise today, because in this modern era that is how the music industry works! stars promote the song, and people buy it partially for the song, partially for the personality
|
On July 12 2012 08:21 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:15 DystopiaX wrote:On July 12 2012 08:09 firehand101 wrote:On July 12 2012 08:05 DystopiaX wrote: It hasn't. Look at the numbers. They support me. What do the music companies use?
Look at our RECORD SALES guess what's going down? sales of physical media. Guess what's going up? Sales of digital media. Dude you cant really sit there and make claims on how multi-billion dollar corporations are stupid and dont know what they are doing.... File sharing did virtually kill physical media. Yes I agree that digital downloads are going up. The transition wasn't a full 100% conversion between the two. The music industry has had to change completely to compensate for the change...like ive been saying they have to market their idols so the masses will purchase their digital media They are fucking stupid. Being successful in a business model that became irrelevant over 10 years ago doesn't mean that you can be successful in a new one. I'd argue that more people are buying music digitally now than anyone ever bought music physically. I do agree that they have to market their idols for personalities, cause that's all they have left. Otherwise they're just a bunch of middlemen whose only service WAS to bring acts to national attention. Now the internet does all that. More of the western music I listen to now is by independant artists than it is artists signed to a major record label. I can find their shit on the internet and (most of the time) legally download it for free cause artists in the past decade have found that revenue from music sales are tiny in comparison to revenue from selling merch and concert tickets. Middlemen have been edged out on the internet, where popularity is more found not by a large company trumpeting its wares but more by word-of-mouth, people telling other people about this hot musical act they found. Artists no longer need the services of record companies so now they're scrambling to find a way to make themselves relevant. And I agree with you at least in this- they're riding on popularizing completely manufactured super-artists like Justin Bieber and, yes, SNSD. I think you're being a bit ignorant regarding the music industry as a whole....im pretty sure CD sales are a bit more than tiny....and if you actually look at the details of many concerts you will see that the cost to run the concert compared with revenue of ticket sales are very close... But what you say about popularity not being found by large companies any more....they are. They have the most successful , by far. the big 3 Kpop companies have the most popular songs, most successful artists and as a result they are more successful on the whole. Sure there are others that, as you say, get spread around by word of mouth. Im pretty sure you haven't bought that much merchandise from those artists you are talking about, and im sure many others havent as well. They can survive, but to make the big bucks you need a big company behind you, and that is the most successful model so far.... and please don't call them fucking stupid, they have more education and experience than you and I combined I'm saying artists make much more from concerts and merch than they do CD sales. Don't believe me, ask the artists who put up their albums for free and ask them why. Their reasoning is my reasoning, I'm just parroting them.
Not talking about the korean market, talking about Western. Also look up Busker Busker and look at their position on the charts.
I can call them stupid if their actions are stupid, I don't care what school you went to because that's not necessarily an indication of intelligence.
|
On July 12 2012 08:16 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:12 hyszlan wrote: @DystopiaX, Correct me if im wrong but changing the artist behind a certain song, actually makes it sound different and because of that the level of enjoyment will inevitably change. If its not a case where it actually happens to sound EXACTLY the same which I dont think siamese twins could pull off.
lets say, remove Hyorin from SISTAR, would you still enjoy their actual songs just as much? No, I agree with you in this. Firehand's argument was that if Let it be was from a completely different group and not the Beatles, but the music was exactly the same, Let It Be would be worse musically because it wouldn't have come from the Beatle's popularity. THAT I disagree with. @Moon- again that's not what I'm arguing. If you give the same song to 2 different singers of course they're gonna sound different. What Firehand is saying is not that they'll sound different, but that one will be better ONLY BECAUSE the artist is more popular. That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that the exposure of the song to the public (its popularity) probably would have been less popular if given to a less popular group. Whether it would be worse musically would depend on the less popular group's skill to perform the song and that's it. He still has a point with prestige and reputation carrying songs.
Also ITT: My idea of kpop are different than your idea of kpop. In the end, we all enjoy the same things for various reason.
|
On July 12 2012 08:22 YowDog2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 12 2012 07:00 PatouPower wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 06:53 DystopiaX wrote:On July 12 2012 06:51 Tennet wrote:On July 12 2012 06:42 DystopiaX wrote:On July 12 2012 06:38 firehand101 wrote:On July 12 2012 06:33 DystopiaX wrote:^dude totally with the tongue out. If you want me to bring up a "kidol selcas of women sucking and or licking food objects" picspam, I can, but it's totally unnecessary cause it happens all the time. On July 12 2012 06:28 firehand101 wrote:On July 12 2012 06:25 DystopiaX wrote: I have. I don't give a fuck what he thinks, I still like the music more than I like artificially crafted personalities. And I'm saying there is absolutely no problem with that! But I just want you to know Korean Pop is built for the artists first, thats all  Sure. Monetarily, you craft an artist's image because that's what's gonna sell your albums, get your endorsement deals, whatever. But you focus on music quality because regardless of what you think a lot of Koreans just don't give much of a fuck about kpop, just like most americans don't give a fuck about western pop. So yes, having a clean image is what's making you the money, but saying music takes a backseat isn't really accurate at all. And what do you mean by most dont.....last time i checked 'Super Bass' had almost 270 million views..... No one genre of music is going to capture a whole nation, but wouldn't you say that pop influences the largest portion in our modern era as opposed to any other style? And, really if you paid attention to the video and not had such a negative attitude, you would know music quality comes second, because to survive they have to market the star + Show Spoiler +goddammit do you read my posts at all?
What part of "To get the money they craft personalities" does not sound like "to survive the have to market the star" to you? Really? Come on.
And I cannot emphasize this enough STOP FUCKING USING YOUTUBE VIEWS IN YOUR ARGUMENT. THEY DON'T MEAN SHIT.
270 million views DOES NOT mean 270 million people. It means significantly less than that, actually, because some people watch the videos again and again. Ever go to a kpop artists' mv? You know what the top comment usually is? No? It's "HEY GUYS KEEP THIS VIDEO ON LOOP SO SUPER JUNIOR OPPAS WILL BE NUMBER 1 IN VIEWS ON YOUTUBE! LIKE IF YOU AGREE <3 <3 <3"
And I wouldn't say most influential, unless most influential means that your music is always kind of in the background but only fully appreciated by a tiny group of people. <3 you. For the record, Ryu Ji Hye is my favorite. And now to cater to the Sone fanbase... + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p8GGj3voXQ Ryu Ji Hye is so imba, I'm almost tempted to find the limbo gif for everyone here to enjoy. limbo gif best gif. also revealed no plastic...down there at least. FOUND IT + Show Spoiler + Oh, wow, when she falls. Must... not... stare... I fail  Holy Shit Nosebleed O.o" Who are the 2 car models in those pics btw? Both are Hwang Mi Hee, one of the most popular (if not the most) popular Korean racing models.
|
Companies are still largely responsible for what gets mainstream recognition. There are lot of good Idol groups that came and went in recent years because small companies couldn't get them to gain traction.
Companies also generally pay much of the production and overhead costs, as well as scheduling. Naturally you could hire someone to do this and pocket a greater portion of the revenue as the artists, but it will probably also take away from the idol appeal.
|
|
|
|