CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Joshua Williams82 › Posts

Posts by Joshua Williams82

75 posts shown.

Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
I have to wonder, why bother chimating in on a topic if you don't actually have an original opinion or a point to make? Maybe if people spoke up a little less often, we’d all get along a bit better.

I honestly wouldn't say that songs stay on the charts longer nowadays than they used to... even back in the day, legends like Elvis Presley, The Beatles, and Michael Jackson were setting massive records, and now every once in a while, someone manages to hang around for five or six weeks—which is actually quite a stretch. I think 50 Cent pulled that off, and usually, it's just the hip-hop crowd or maybe some hard rock/metal acts like System of a Down or P.O.D., though they typically don't stick around nearly as long.
Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
granitecrane said:Well, alright... everyone has different tastes and everyone loves different music. Nobody should label you just because of what you enjoy. Who’s doing the labeling? And why does it even matter? Because they're being an idiot. You can only really be labeled if you let trends brainwash you and convince yourself that nothing else exists or has value. Loving something simply because you love it is a different story entirely, whether it's Britney or Nick Cave. I don't care for Justin for his music, Robbie is okay for the sake of the music—his Escapology album is the only standout for me, the rest are just fine—and I listen to Nick Cave occasionally, though I'm not a huge fan... he tends to drone on about the same things and he's become a bit tedious.
It isn't "uncool" or snobbish to love Elton John. I've loved him forever, I always will, and I'll happily maintain that he's better than Cave, Waits, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, and so on. But that's just my take, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I also dig Billy Joel, Ennio Morricone, Vangelis, Yanni, Phil Collins, Coldplay, Loreena McKennitt, and lately, I've been absolutely obsessed with Mark Knopfler's solo work. Then there's Angela Badalamentija, Julee Cruise, Shelby Lynne, Chris Reau, a little bit of Massive Attack, quite a few albums from Waits (especially The Heart of Saturday Night), Sarah Brightman, Beth Gibbons, ABBA, Ella Fitzgerald, classical, film scores, pop, rock, country, blues, jazz, and pretty much everything else I can think of. It all depends on the artist, of course, but that's my taste. Honestly, I couldn't care less what anyone thinks about it. At least I know I'm actually listening to this music because I genuinely enjoy it, rather than following whatever some windbag decides is "high quality." Some people have no lives of their own, so they spend their time acting like critics or amateur listeners, telling me that what I like is kitsch or shallow. They can honestly go jump in a lake with a lemon wedge for all I care about their opinions.
Everyone likes different things, which is why the whole point of TV and various music programs is to introduce you to all sorts of artists and bands, not just the ones churned out by the trend machine.
And yeah, VH1 is actually excellent compared to other music channels.

When I talk about labeling, I don't mean you. If everyone were this open-minded, the world would be a better place...🙂
Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
Look, analogharbor442, I have to disagree with you there... I know you aren't necessarily talking to me, but I also have this inherent desire and need to talk about music, current trends, bands, and all that sort of thing... mostly because I’m genuinely interested and I just enjoy music. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm looking to "produce" anything...🙂
Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
granitecrane, hold on a second. I don't think it's fair to say there's just one version of MTV. I was actually watching David Gray on MTV just five minutes ago—well, maybe six years ago, if we're being honest... but anyway, if you look at channels like Pop, New, Center, Europa, or Europe, you'll see it isn't just 'commercial garbage' playing on MTV (though this specific version of MTV we watch barely plays any music videos at all).

Thank God for VH1.

It’s true that the higher-quality artists—the ones you actually prefer—don't show up as often as they used to, but they are still out there. For me, that might be Paolo Nutini, while for you, it’s someone else entirely. Regardless, I’d much rather listen to Justin than Tom Waits. What I can't stand is how people immediately label you just because of your taste. I can appreciate Otis Redding just as much as I enjoy Justin Timberlake. Obviously, you can't compare them directly, but I honestly find it exhausting dealing with posers who feel they 'must' listen to Nick Cave just to prove they have good taste. If you like him, listen to him; don't do it just to make a point.

You mentioned Robbie... if he were some young kid, nobody would bother with his ballads; they'd just write him off as pure pop. But since he's known for being absolutely wild, everyone just accepts his music. It's clever marketing, I suppose. Plus, Robbie has that charisma, so everything just fell into place. His music is fine by me, but I can't help wondering what would have happened if he wore glasses, acted like a total geek, and only sang about love... they probably would have spat on him like they did with James Blunt (who, despite everything, critics seem to adore).

For instance, I never really liked Green Day, but their new album is actually excellent. I wouldn't go so far as to put it in my top ten favorites, but it's solid.

Now Ayo has surfaced, and they're marketing her as the next Tracy Chapman... but to me, she's nowhere near that level. Some people will think Ayo is better than Tracy, and others won't. It's just a matter of taste, and you can't fight that. Still, if you actually care about music, I think you'll eventually stumble upon something that resonates with you.
Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
granitecrane said:The issue isn't that something is commercial; it's that it's garbage. And honestly, at least 90% of what plays on MTV is just commercial garbage.
Commercialism has always been around, but it turned into actual trash the moment MTV blew up in the 90s and fueled this massive, heavy-duty commercial machine. MTV basically acted as the gatekeeper, deciding what became a hit and what didn't just by choosing what to air. They’d play the worst music imaginable, lacking any real taste, and eventually, every record label started tailoring their output to suit them. Artists were forced to churn out whatever was easiest for the mindless masses to digest, and MTV leaned heavily into the teenage demographic—mostly because they're the loudest and the quickest to chase trends.
Yeah, that's pretty much how music history has been a disaster—almost. Fortunately, over the last few years, MTV has been slowly losing its grip on credibility, and better music is finally starting to crawl back onto the scene.
Do you really think we had those millions of pathetic boy bands in the 90s because all those kids suddenly felt this overwhelming surge of artistic inspiration? Where are they now? They vanished because they didn't create themselves; they were manufactured by people looking to make a quick buck. And where is all that lousy 90s dance-techno-trance stuff? Even if it still exists, nobody plays it, and nobody listens to it. Nowadays, the commercial focus is R&B, but I doubt R&B, Beyoncé, and similar nonsense will even exist in fifteen years. No one will remember them, let alone listen to them. Why? Because it all boils down to instant celebrities who have to be quantitatively "in," rather than contributing quality to music itself or satisfying a more discerning listener. You might find someone tolerable here or there, like Alicia Keys or Macy Gray, but who’s going to have the patience to sift through wheat from the chaff fifteen years from now? Nobody, I guess. People will likely prefer listening to Boney M, ABBA, or the Bee Gees—who were considered commercial in the 70s—over the commercialism of the 90s like Scooter and DJ Bobo, or today's fluff, simply because the former was actually good music, while the latter mostly isn't.
So, it isn't really MTV's fault; it's the audience that allowed MTV to brainwash them.


Some points are valid, but again, I have to say that's just your own opinion and taste. Who are you to decide whether something is garbage or not? If it's trash to you, maybe it isn't to someone else....
It's true that MTV turned into a machine, but why is that even surprising? It's a totally normal phenomenon in the music industry, in show business, and things like that....
Just because the stuff that defined the 90s isn't on TV today doesn't mean it was all crap and failed to leave a mark. They defined that era, and that's that. That was the period when the world saw the first real boy band (New Kids on the Block)....of course producers smelled a profit by targeting young girls, so that's exactly what they did. But, whether you like the music or not, you can't really argue that the guys in those bands weren't doing their jobs well (singing and dancing)....it wasn't exactly amateur hour. Their music was pure mainstream, sure, but it was solidly produced. That era passed, just like the era of certain 80s bands passed. We see who survived today... Robbie Williams, one of the biggest British stars (coming from a boy band), and Justin Timberlake, one of the biggest American stars (also from a boy band). I can't, like you, dismiss the success of someone like Beyoncé, who has been in the industry since she was five, possesses an incredible vocal range, great production, and even better choreography, or someone like Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, and the rest....you can't just spit on something just because you don't like their sound. Those women worked incredibly hard to get where they are, and I wouldn't call them "instant" stars, considering they've been at this for 15 years by the time they were 23.
That’s just the current state of the music charts... you can't really ignore it.
Besides, everything is manufactured these days—the image, the public appearances, the carefully crafted statements... and it isn't just limited to mainstream pop, either. Metal bands and hard rock groups do the exact same thing. At the end of the day, it’s all just business.

Regarding that 90s dance scene, of course it evaporated. Dr. Alban isn't exactly trending right now, but believe me, dance music is still at the top of the food chain. At its core, dance will always exist. You'll have guys like DJ Boba, sure, but there will also be much better offerings, similar to how we have the house, dance, and groove styles today (which, let's face it, evolved from dance anyway)... think LCD Soundsystem, the Shapeshifters, or Faithless.

I mean, even modern R&B isn't what it used to be... so we shouldn't claim that certain styles or MTV artists just vanished because they weren't high quality. In their own era, they were what was "in." Naturally, some were better than others... some resonated with people, some didn't. That's just how it works.

Music has branched out into a hundred different subgenres, and I guess I'm actually happier now because there’s such a wider variety available. I don't restrict myself by labeling things as commercial versus non-commercial, or techno, pop, or rock... for me, it just comes down to whether I vibe with it or I don't.

For instance, I don't like jazz at all, but I won't go so far as to say it's garbage... because I try to be realistic. It just doesn't sound like anything I enjoy, even though plenty of people swear it's the ultimate genre. Some of them are being sincere, but a huge number of them are just posers... and honestly, it's nauseating.

It’s easy to claim you listen to jazz just so people will have a higher opinion of you, whereas if you say you follow the current mainstream scene, people assume you lack the ability to recognize quality. Prejudices, prejudices... I suppose those are the first things you have to get past when it comes to music.
Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
Drew Adams58 said:The answer to both points is basically


People who admit it... well, you know how it goes.
But seriously, tell us, what kind of songs are actually in your karaoke rotation? 🙂
Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
Jesus... I guess you're just one of those types who hates everything around them, especially anyone who dares to be different from you, right?!🙂
Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
Drew Adams58 said:She should be burned at the stake for grouping hippies and punks together like that. P

Oof, we're being pretty harsh here, aren't we?

She used to be all hippie, and now she's singing about how she would've been a punk, but I mean, who actually takes any of this seriously???😬

Maybe she’s just mocking both sides...
Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
Why does everything commercial that gets played on MTV have to be absolute garbage?!😕

It’s almost as if the only thing worth listening to is some niche, underground alternative music....🙄

And regarding Sandi Thom, I mentioned her before as someone with a genuinely original approach—she actually managed to break through to the public by recording at home and hosting concerts online (even if her music isn't really my cup of tea). Sure, her mentor back in school was Paul McCartney, but the girl made it happen. From here on out, it's entirely up to her.
Hashtag: Failed Artists in Music ·
I wouldn't go so far as to say everything is done instantly or solely for the sake of money. Of course, those kinds of projects exist today just as they always have, but I think people are pretty quick to spot whether something is actually high quality or just cheap filler.

The current music scene is absolutely flooded with these blended R&B, pop, and hip-hop rhythms... some of it is definitely derivative, but there are some genuinely talented performers buried in there too. Now, that’s a different conversation entirely if you simply can't stand that sound because it isn't your thing. For instance, I personally don't care for jazz, but I'm not going to sit here and say it's garbage.

Times change, so the music industry naturally adapts to market shifts and trends, which seems perfectly normal to me. That said, there is still a massive underground scene and plenty of independent labels where you can find great music. It really just depends on what attracts you and what you happen to enjoy.

As for why bands break up? Well, sometimes it's just because time catches up with them. 😛
Some split because of sheer ego and stubbornness that prevents them from functioning as a cohesive unit, some do it for the money, and others just drift apart because they've been together for decades. Take Shirley Manson, for example—she's heading off on a solo path... and it's not as if the last Garbage album was a failure. So, it's often a matter of following the money (it's not that they weren't earning enough, but they'll likely pull in more solo, plus they get much more creative freedom), though it's quite common for solo material to lack the punch of a band's work. You look at Dave Gahan and his solo stuff... and then he goes back to Depeche Mode and they put out a fantastic new record.

But then again, new faces constantly emerge, bringing fresh sounds... like that girl who used to stream her concerts from her living room, Sandi Thom... or Lilly Allen, who was so sharp-tongued yet incredibly melodic.

Obviously, none of that has to appeal to you, but the examples are certainly there.
Traffic violation procedures in Criminal and Misdemeanor Law ·
Look, I don't see why anyone would complain if they actually have solid grounds for an appeal or if they manage to spot a loophole in the law... you wouldn't really go through all that trouble just to end up admitting guilt in court while begging for leniency, right? 🙄
You need a legitimate legal basis to file an appeal. In my experience, my arguments have always been upheld.
Traffic violation procedures in Criminal and Misdemeanor Law ·
I mean, look, the government doesn't go out of its way to protect anyone except its own interests, so I don't really see why regular citizens shouldn't take advantage of things whenever they get the chance...
Movie terminology glossary in Movies ·
northerncrane4 said:Oh, and by the way—it's not the director's job to "film" things. That’s what the cinematographer does, who in our industry is usually also the Director of Photography.

Good grief, people, how are you all taking everything written here so literally? I know he isn't the one physically sitting behind the lens... even though most directors end up doing that themselves. No, I mean the person who sets the frame (though I suppose you'll tell me that's the Production Designer's job 😁) — basically, the one choosing the composition, deciding the camera angles, and guiding how an actor delivers their lines. At the end of the day, he's the person responsible for the overall atmosphere and the integrity of the film as a whole.

Sorry if I missed anything; I probably did.😉
Movie terminology glossary in Movies ·
I don't know. Everything feels upside down here... I get why they're focusing on producers, given how small our market is and how underdeveloped our film industry has become. I'm not trying to offend anyone—I truly believe there's plenty of talent in America—but the money just isn't there, and everyone seems stuck in the past. You see actors in movies acting like they're still on a Broadway stage, which is a total disaster. Then you have directors who act like they're some untouchable geniuses, obsessed with making these massive epic sagas about national identity or just playing around with pretentious "art house" tropes. An American thriller? An American comedy? An American drama that doesn't rely on heavy-handed patriotism or war stories? Those feel like foreign concepts, honestly (aside from the few legendary classics we can count on one hand).

I suppose we just have to put our faith in the new generation, especially someone like Steven Spielberg.
Movie terminology glossary in Movies ·
I feel like the role of a producer is constantly underestimated. It’s usually because people either have no clue what the job actually entails or they assume there isn't much of a market for it here... even though we still have plenty of film, music, radio, and theater producers keeping things moving.

It’s definitely not just some banal task of scraping money together. A producer has to greenlight everything—vetting locations, giving the studio the okay to pick the director and then the cast, coordinating the actual shoot, drafting the budget... you name it. That's honestly why there are always a hundred assistants running around. 😉

The Actor acts, the Director shoots, but the whole operation is overseen by the *capo di tutti capi*... Mr. Producer.

At the end of the day, it makes sense that he gets the final word, since he's the one responsible for making sure the movie actually happens in the first place.

That is where the true power of a great producer lies. In the United States, they are treated like pure gold. Well, the good ones are, anyway. I mean, they don't just win Oscars for nothing in the most prestigious category for Best Picture.👍