Some are decent, some not.

 

Give me the ten years between 1964-1973, everyone else can have all the rest.:thumb:

 

You know it!

As well he should.

 

I'll admit his first 3 albums were his best and had he released them in reverse order he may not have been a household name but he is still one of the most popular ever.

I'll admit his first 3 albums were his best and had he released them in reverse order he may not have been a household name but he is still one of the most popular ever.

Popularity doesn't always equal good.

Popularity doesn't always equal good.

 

Maybe not in your opinion but millions of paying fans and cusotmers say otherwise.

Maybe not in your opinion but millions of paying fans and cusotmers say otherwise.

 

As I've noted in other threads, the mainstream has demonstrated time and time again its overwhelming lack of good taste. Garth Brooks is a past example of that, along with other best-sellers such as Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Milli Vanilli, Coldplay, Creed, etc.

As I've noted in other threads, the mainstream has demonstrated time and time again its overwhelming lack of good taste. Garth Brooks is a past example of that, along with other best-sellers such as Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Milli Vanilli, Coldplay, Creed, etc.

 

My take pretty much is if its mainstream, then it sucks.

 

Some bands can't help that they cross over into mainstream, but bands with mainstream intentions will never be good IMO.

My take pretty much is if its mainstream, then it sucks.

 

Some bands can't help that they cross over into mainstream, but bands with mainstream intentions will never be good IMO.

 

I have a hard time believing that all bands and artist don't want to be mainstream or at least popular. I mean are they playing "their" music and hoping that people do not like it?

I have a hard time believing that all bands and artist don't want to be mainstream or at least popular. I mean are they playing "their" music and hoping that people do not like it?

 

No its just that so many acts out there are so over fabricated its ridiculous. There's a difference in writing a good song and writing a good song for the radio. There's a difference in making good music and making music that will play on radio and be pop.

 

 

To have good music you have to be real to yourself and real to the music your making. Most choose to do anything for that one good hit opposed to just doing what they do and letting their careers go from there. I guess you could call it selling out. In the American Idol age of music when people can become platinum recording artists after rising to fame singing other artists' songs, record sales and the mainstream American view of popular doesn't always make the music good. Just because people know who you are doesn't mean your an outstanding artist, and with social networks/twitter/etc. basically controlling mass media, people rise to fame out of nowhere. Then when they do arrive all they worry about is doing something to get attention and make money instead of making good music. So they turn out a bunch of singles, have a billboard hit or two, then you never hear from them again, or they fade out like a fad. Really good music can stand the test of time, and most mainstream acts you hear on the radio today are artists who will be irrelevant in five years.

 

To me, 80% + of mainstream/commercial music is garbage.

I have a hard time believing that all bands and artist don't want to be mainstream or at least popular. I mean are they playing "their" music and hoping that people do not like it?

Counterpoint: Chris Knight

Counterpoint: Chris Knight

 

Or, for someone they've heard of, how about Kurt Cobain?

Or, for someone they've heard of, how about Kurt Cobain?

:lol: :lol:

 

Probably a better example.

Or, for someone they've heard of, how about Kurt Cobain?

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Probably a better example.

 

 

Yeah, I would think killing yourself would be an excellent example of someone not wanting to become mainstream.

And your point is?

 

...lack of creativity.

 

There are some very bad artists out that are as far away from country music as some of those in this top 50. On the other hand some of the guys that get hammered on here are pretty decent and some have potential tot be country legends. Garth Brooks just sold out 5 or 6 shows for Nashville and I know he takes a beating on here. As far as creativity that could be said about almost any band or artist.

 

I'd beg to differ. Most of the artists that I listen to couldn't be a whole lot less lyrically creative - or musically creative, for that matter. As a matter of fact there are a LOT of bands that I listen to that get knocked for being "weird" by those who restrict their tastes to the formulaic, corporate-sponsored, "mainstream" music they hear on the radio. ...the Flaming Lips come to mind as one of those "weird" bands.

 

I specifically seek out bands and artists who choose to make music that is anything BUT un-creative, and frankly, I don't really understand why more people don't do the same.

Bottom Line its all in what your preference is. I mainly listen to Country Music and while I agree much of the stuff labled country today is not country and I don't like it but it does sell.

Much of the music and many of the artists that are worshiped on this board, I cannot stand. The rock music from the 70's just depresses me and puts me in a bad mood. However I dont feel I have the right to tell others what is good or bad because in the end its all opinion.

Just out of curiosity for you music enthusiasts that listen to all types, what is your opinion on Jamey Johnson?