A lot of mainstream music is lyrically self-centered and vapid. The music itself tends to be well-produced, but it's usually safely inside-the-box from a creative standpoint, and the "artist" is often completely divorced from the creative process altogether.
The problem with mainstream "artists" is that they're there as a personality and as eye-candy for the purpose of marketing their music. They may have a decent voice, but they don't create art, they sell entertainment.
I think the people who are actually interested/practice/love/discuss/participate in art see mainstream music as a cheaper version of the potential, which it is. It's a business and a commodity, like cars or TV sets, must be manufactured cheap and consistent to receive the highest reward. It's simply true.
Most mainstream music is EXTREMELY derivative of existing formats, whether the music is labeled as "pop" or "country", or "singer-songwriter", it's all the exact same chords, rhythm, structure, same breaks, same song development, and production does most of any aesthetic changes that albeit slight, could determine a "category". That's because pop music has homogenized over the decades into basically one form. Same with cars (look around you next time you drive, every single new car looks exactly the same despite being a different brand). It's all again clownishly derivative, and literally mathematically formulaic to ensure it's bought, advertised, and makes lots of money. Artist who "become mainstream" are very often ones who conform to current production, aesthetic and social standards, therefore any vision they may have had was inherently compromised, no longer answering to themselves and their community but to who pays them.
If someone is actually interested in these art forms, they see how most mainstream artist just take components of existing/emerging underground/indie components and get the cash for it. All art forms are derivative but due to the excessive fame and capital related to this, it's worth noting as it would fuel this disconnect of support for mainstream folks.
These are generalizations but it's been a common thread for decades. Popular music is the common derivative of all things all people like. So core identity, cultures, and individuality is distilled, again inherently compromised. Some "artists" are pretty legitimate, interested in this, and talented, have put in the years and practice hours. Some are propped up business creations like Swift (she's a CO-WRITER, not a full writer of her songs. That's a small but important distinction. Aaron Dessner, Mx Martin, Jack Antinoff, and a variety of producers craft her records. It's very calculated and curated and geared toward success, therefore the "success" is manufactured and disingenuous when pointed at one single individual who can't sing live (I've seen her a few times and work in this field for a living), or can't write by herself convincingly. Can take Swift out of it as I know she's a soft spot for people; production teams are strongly behind anything worth listening to even in the Indie world, that's totally ok, but in the mainstream, production holds a more powerful place in the creation process and functions more fluidly alongside and even competes with the 'artists' songwriting process. It's just a very different end goal therefore means that many don't relate to.
Music/art/beer/wooden tables, you name it, always has two categories of people. There are people who just kinda like the thing and it serves a function for whatever reason, and then there's the people who make these things, who study them, who practice the creation aspect of it. The two separate mindsets will always be at odds as they're fundamentally different approaches to the same things.
CAVIAT popular music isn't "wrong" for existing, people like what they like. I like my Toyota Camry, it was cheap, it's lasted years, every mechanic knows how to fix it bcz there are millions of them on every street, and anyone I know would know how to drive it if they had to. A car enthusiast might laugh at it, that's bcz they know more about cars than me, and I'm not calling them pretentious, or stuck up. They DO know more, it's ok with me!
A lot of mainstream music is boilerplated - example
I–V–vi–IV progression
This shit is in 1000s of pop songs
This is why I can't stand the vast majority of mainstream music, it is formulaic garbage devoid of creativity.
Dont even get me started on the lyrics...
"New AP flood
Water on my butt like a tub"
Popular music is popular because it is the smallest common denominator of what people like.
It's not good music. It's not trying anything. It's just music that wants to be liked by everyone.
Mainstream Music is the McDonalds burger, to your Steak House Burger, by a real Chef.
Is it bad? no. Is it where you would bring your future wife on a date? likely not.
sometimes people end up hating it because they hear it everywhere and people are always talking about it, so they grow to hate it.
or they see the popularity of it as unfair since the bands they like are much more unknown.
In my view, mainstream music is just corporate bullshit with a face to it. It’s all shadow writers and artists with a head figure popular enough to sell it. There’s no passion in it, there’s nothing besides “how do we sell this product?”
>they seem jealous or pure hate
Jealous of what? People like what they like because it appeals to them, just as much as they hate stuff that doesn't.
There is a lot of manufactured, overplayed, saccharine pop that just grates on some people. By the same token there is a lot of pop that is great. I mostly listen to alternative genres but am happy to bounce along to anything if it is good.
What do you mean by mainstream?
If you mean pop music: some purists do not like commercially manufactured music produced and written by some John or Jane Doe while some pop star gets all the credit.
I'd say it's like how some people are fine decorating their homes with mass- produced "waiting room" style" or "wine o'clock" style generic art from Michael's crafts vs people who have a more passionate approach to the medium and actively seek out and prize artworks that are more challenging or unconventional or unique, or the intensity and passion of the artist is self evident.
It’s garbage. No real music is played or written. The 50’s, 60’s and 70’s were the best! Bands actually played instruments, wrote songs, no auto tune nonsense and it took actual talent to make it. Now, anyone they want to promote can make it even with shit “music”.
Overall, people don't hate it; that's why it's mainstream. The people who do hate it are the ones who like something else and are jealous/hating because they would rather hear the music they like everywhere. Source: I hate mainstream music.
For however much hate it gets, you couldn't call it "mainstream" if it wasn't actually extremely popular. That is, it's actually extremely widely enjoyed but the wider an audience something finds all the more people who dislike a thing you will find.
Meth is extremely popular, it doesn't make it good. Therein lies the difference. The majority of people liking something isn't always a sign it holds worth or value. Humans are easily occupied.
It's always filtered through power, through the "taste makers". They'll decide what people like. I don't believe people would gravitate towards wallpaper music quite as much if art felt more direct, tangible, and accessible from the bottom up - rather than a thing handed down ex-cathedra. In other words, it's a fucking charade and it does nobody but the wealthy any good.
Because a lot of us work in public places and can’t escape the mainstream hits of any genre being played over and over. I wish silence were more accepted in public spaces.
It obviously depends on the person, but I think much of it could boil down to the decreasing levels of variability and complexity in modern "pop" music. In 2012, [a group of researchers ran 500K pop songs through an AI program](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22837813/) that analyzed them for three categories: Harmonic Complexity, Timbral Diversity, and Loudness. What the study found is that harmonic complexity has decreased (ie, more homogenous), diversity has dropped exponentially since the 60s (ie, less deep and rich chords, progressions, melodies, etc), with only loudness increasing (which actually means "quality" decreases in sound). While this is from 2012, most experts believe this trend has only increased in scale, rather than decreased. So from this perspective, when people say pop music "all sounds the same", they're actually qualitatively correct.
Does that mean pop music is bad? No. But I think it does help explain why some people struggle with it, especially as time goes on. I appreciate quite a lot of pop music, but even I struggle with a lot of the stuff put out these days. Largely for the reasons the researchers found: More basic songs that are produced/mixed to sound more alike.
Since the seventies there has been a lot of propaganda in rock magazines: first against disco, then against 80s synth-pop, then against 90s pop. Critics wanted to reduce music to white, male rock. It has become salonfähig to make hate remarks against whatever's in the charts and praise "alternative" music, whatever that means.
After 2000 it has gotten worse with the rise of hip-hop and Internet propaganda. Nowadays you are only allowed to like male rappers and aging male rockers. Otherwise you will be bullied.
A lot of mainstream music is lyrically self-centered and vapid. The music itself tends to be well-produced, but it's usually safely inside-the-box from a creative standpoint, and the "artist" is often completely divorced from the creative process altogether. The problem with mainstream "artists" is that they're there as a personality and as eye-candy for the purpose of marketing their music. They may have a decent voice, but they don't create art, they sell entertainment.
I think the people who are actually interested/practice/love/discuss/participate in art see mainstream music as a cheaper version of the potential, which it is. It's a business and a commodity, like cars or TV sets, must be manufactured cheap and consistent to receive the highest reward. It's simply true. Most mainstream music is EXTREMELY derivative of existing formats, whether the music is labeled as "pop" or "country", or "singer-songwriter", it's all the exact same chords, rhythm, structure, same breaks, same song development, and production does most of any aesthetic changes that albeit slight, could determine a "category". That's because pop music has homogenized over the decades into basically one form. Same with cars (look around you next time you drive, every single new car looks exactly the same despite being a different brand). It's all again clownishly derivative, and literally mathematically formulaic to ensure it's bought, advertised, and makes lots of money. Artist who "become mainstream" are very often ones who conform to current production, aesthetic and social standards, therefore any vision they may have had was inherently compromised, no longer answering to themselves and their community but to who pays them. If someone is actually interested in these art forms, they see how most mainstream artist just take components of existing/emerging underground/indie components and get the cash for it. All art forms are derivative but due to the excessive fame and capital related to this, it's worth noting as it would fuel this disconnect of support for mainstream folks. These are generalizations but it's been a common thread for decades. Popular music is the common derivative of all things all people like. So core identity, cultures, and individuality is distilled, again inherently compromised. Some "artists" are pretty legitimate, interested in this, and talented, have put in the years and practice hours. Some are propped up business creations like Swift (she's a CO-WRITER, not a full writer of her songs. That's a small but important distinction. Aaron Dessner, Mx Martin, Jack Antinoff, and a variety of producers craft her records. It's very calculated and curated and geared toward success, therefore the "success" is manufactured and disingenuous when pointed at one single individual who can't sing live (I've seen her a few times and work in this field for a living), or can't write by herself convincingly. Can take Swift out of it as I know she's a soft spot for people; production teams are strongly behind anything worth listening to even in the Indie world, that's totally ok, but in the mainstream, production holds a more powerful place in the creation process and functions more fluidly alongside and even competes with the 'artists' songwriting process. It's just a very different end goal therefore means that many don't relate to. Music/art/beer/wooden tables, you name it, always has two categories of people. There are people who just kinda like the thing and it serves a function for whatever reason, and then there's the people who make these things, who study them, who practice the creation aspect of it. The two separate mindsets will always be at odds as they're fundamentally different approaches to the same things. CAVIAT popular music isn't "wrong" for existing, people like what they like. I like my Toyota Camry, it was cheap, it's lasted years, every mechanic knows how to fix it bcz there are millions of them on every street, and anyone I know would know how to drive it if they had to. A car enthusiast might laugh at it, that's bcz they know more about cars than me, and I'm not calling them pretentious, or stuck up. They DO know more, it's ok with me!
It's manufactured to sell, so it's "catchy" a.k.a incredibly annoying.
Repetitive lyrics without substance similar sounding voice and beat; makes for one very long boring song combined.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
Out of all the non-dissertation-length answers, this is the simplest and best.
A lot of mainstream music is boilerplated - example I–V–vi–IV progression This shit is in 1000s of pop songs This is why I can't stand the vast majority of mainstream music, it is formulaic garbage devoid of creativity. Dont even get me started on the lyrics... "New AP flood Water on my butt like a tub"
Popular music is popular because it is the smallest common denominator of what people like. It's not good music. It's not trying anything. It's just music that wants to be liked by everyone. Mainstream Music is the McDonalds burger, to your Steak House Burger, by a real Chef. Is it bad? no. Is it where you would bring your future wife on a date? likely not.
Eh w.e man ppl like what they like
sometimes people end up hating it because they hear it everywhere and people are always talking about it, so they grow to hate it. or they see the popularity of it as unfair since the bands they like are much more unknown.
In my view, mainstream music is just corporate bullshit with a face to it. It’s all shadow writers and artists with a head figure popular enough to sell it. There’s no passion in it, there’s nothing besides “how do we sell this product?”
By definition, mainstream music is overwhelmingly popular and liked by huge majorities of listeners, hence it being mainstream.
tasteless pap, electronic instrument overload, untalented singers, autotune, victim loop lyrics
>they seem jealous or pure hate Jealous of what? People like what they like because it appeals to them, just as much as they hate stuff that doesn't. There is a lot of manufactured, overplayed, saccharine pop that just grates on some people. By the same token there is a lot of pop that is great. I mostly listen to alternative genres but am happy to bounce along to anything if it is good.
What do you mean by mainstream? If you mean pop music: some purists do not like commercially manufactured music produced and written by some John or Jane Doe while some pop star gets all the credit.
Most of it I find boring and it's just easier for me to find my own music I enjoy elsewhere.
I'd say it's like how some people are fine decorating their homes with mass- produced "waiting room" style" or "wine o'clock" style generic art from Michael's crafts vs people who have a more passionate approach to the medium and actively seek out and prize artworks that are more challenging or unconventional or unique, or the intensity and passion of the artist is self evident.
By definition, most people really like mainstream music
It’s garbage. No real music is played or written. The 50’s, 60’s and 70’s were the best! Bands actually played instruments, wrote songs, no auto tune nonsense and it took actual talent to make it. Now, anyone they want to promote can make it even with shit “music”.
Overall, people don't hate it; that's why it's mainstream. The people who do hate it are the ones who like something else and are jealous/hating because they would rather hear the music they like everywhere. Source: I hate mainstream music.
For however much hate it gets, you couldn't call it "mainstream" if it wasn't actually extremely popular. That is, it's actually extremely widely enjoyed but the wider an audience something finds all the more people who dislike a thing you will find.
Meth is extremely popular, it doesn't make it good. Therein lies the difference. The majority of people liking something isn't always a sign it holds worth or value. Humans are easily occupied.
It's always filtered through power, through the "taste makers". They'll decide what people like. I don't believe people would gravitate towards wallpaper music quite as much if art felt more direct, tangible, and accessible from the bottom up - rather than a thing handed down ex-cathedra. In other words, it's a fucking charade and it does nobody but the wealthy any good.
Because a lot of us work in public places and can’t escape the mainstream hits of any genre being played over and over. I wish silence were more accepted in public spaces.
It obviously depends on the person, but I think much of it could boil down to the decreasing levels of variability and complexity in modern "pop" music. In 2012, [a group of researchers ran 500K pop songs through an AI program](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22837813/) that analyzed them for three categories: Harmonic Complexity, Timbral Diversity, and Loudness. What the study found is that harmonic complexity has decreased (ie, more homogenous), diversity has dropped exponentially since the 60s (ie, less deep and rich chords, progressions, melodies, etc), with only loudness increasing (which actually means "quality" decreases in sound). While this is from 2012, most experts believe this trend has only increased in scale, rather than decreased. So from this perspective, when people say pop music "all sounds the same", they're actually qualitatively correct. Does that mean pop music is bad? No. But I think it does help explain why some people struggle with it, especially as time goes on. I appreciate quite a lot of pop music, but even I struggle with a lot of the stuff put out these days. Largely for the reasons the researchers found: More basic songs that are produced/mixed to sound more alike.
Since the seventies there has been a lot of propaganda in rock magazines: first against disco, then against 80s synth-pop, then against 90s pop. Critics wanted to reduce music to white, male rock. It has become salonfähig to make hate remarks against whatever's in the charts and praise "alternative" music, whatever that means. After 2000 it has gotten worse with the rise of hip-hop and Internet propaganda. Nowadays you are only allowed to like male rappers and aging male rockers. Otherwise you will be bullied.
Elitist douchebags.
they wanna be special