Hashtag: Failed Artists

Xena2000 said:Jesus... you're kind of that type, aren't you? The "I hate everything around me, especially anyone who isn't exactly like me" type.🙂

Yeah. 😍

I think analogharbor442 put both my thoughts and theirs perfectly

gentlepuma20 said:Congrats, we've got ourselves a winner! 👋

Plus, you get a whole year's supply of corn from Zlatko advertising

Go promote your stuff somewhere else instead of using this space for free.

Xena2000 said:Why does everything commercial that gets played on MTV have to be absolute garbage?!😕

As if nothing else matters except some niche alternative underground music....🙄
.

The issue isn't that something is commercial; the issue is that it’s trash. And unfortunately, about 90% of what MTV broadcasts is commercial trash.
Commercialism has always existed, but it morphed into this specific kind of filth when MTV exploded in the 90s, ushering in a massive, heavy-handed commercial machine. MTV became the gatekeeper, deciding what would be a hit simply by choosing what to play and what to ignore. They pushed the most tasteless music imaginable, and record labels began tailoring their entire output to suit MTV's whims. Artists were forced to manufacture music designed for easy consumption by a numbed mass, specifically targeting the teenage demographic—which, predictably, is the loudest group and the one most obsessed with following trends.
It’s true; music history has been plagued by such periods. Fortunately, over the last few years, MTV has been steadily losing its credibility, allowing better music to slowly reclaim its place on the scene.
Do you really think we had those countless pathetic boy bands in the 90s because all those young men suddenly felt an overwhelming urge for artistic expression? Where are they now? They vanished, because they didn't create themselves; they were manufactured by people looking to turn a profit. And where is all that dreadful 90s dance-techno-trance? If it even still exists, nobody plays it, and nobody listens to it. Today, the commercial zeitgeist is R&B, but R&B, Beyoncé, and similar nonsense won't exist in fifteen years. No one will remember them, and no one will be listening to their tracks. Why? Because it all boils down to "instant stars" who are required to be quantitatively popular rather than contributing any qualitative value to music or satisfying a discerning listener. You might find the occasional tolerable act like Alicia Keys or Macy Gray, but who is going to have the patience fifteen years from now to sift through wheat from the chaff? Nobody, of course. People will much rather listen to Boney M, ABBA, or the Bee Gees—who were the commercial giants of the 70s—than the commercial junk of the 90s like Scooter and DJ Bobo, or today's current fluff. The reason is simple: the former is actually good music, while the latter, sadly, is not.
Ultimately, MTV isn't the culprit; it's the audience that allowed MTV to brainwash them.

granitecrane said:it’s not about being commercial, it’s about being garbage, and at least 90% of what they play on MTV is just pure trash.
Commercialism has always been around, but things turned into actual garbage once MTV blew up in the 90s and that massive commercial machine really kicked into gear. MTV basically decided what was a hit and what wasn't just by choosing what to air. They played the worst music imaginable with zero taste, and record labels started catering specifically to them. Artists had to make whatever music the mindless masses could digest most easily, and MTV focused mostly on teenagers—the loudest crowd out there chasing every single trend.
Yeah, exactly. Music has almost always been this bad. Luckily, over the last few years, MTV has been losing its credibility, and better music is slowly starting to reclaim the scene.
You think we had all those millions of crappy boy bands in the 90s because all those kids suddenly felt this huge artistic urge? Where are they now? Gone. Because they didn't create themselves; they were manufactured by people looking to cash in. And what happened to all that lousy 90s dance-techno-trance? If it even still exists, nobody plays it or listens to it anymore. Nowadays, "commercial" means R&B, but R&B, Beyoncé, and similar crap won't exist in 15 years. No one will even remember they were around, let alone listen to them. Why? Because it all boils down to instant superstars who have to be "in" by sheer volume, rather than contributing quality to the genre or satisfying a more demanding listener. You might find someone halfway tolerable like Alicia Keys or Macy Gray here and there, but who’s going to have the patience to sift through the wheat from the chaff in 15 years? Nobody! People will much rather listen to Boney M, ABBA, or the Bee Gees—who were commercial hits back in the 70s—than the 90s commercial stuff like Scooter and DJ Bobo, or today's pop, simply because that older stuff is actually good music, while the rest usually isn't.
So it’s not actually MTV's fault; it's the audience that let MTV brainwash them.

Man, tell me about it! Totally!😉.... but just like everything else, it's all temporary, including those hits on MTV. People who actually know their stuff value the bands that actually influence today's music... personally, I've always been more interested in the bands flying under the radar—you know, the ones not selling out to the market or any propaganda. You have to put in a little effort to discover them... it's such a great feeling😍..at least for me... heh... I just don't think you should limit yourself to whatever MTV throws at you. You should always be looking for something new... there's plenty of that out there if you look, though some people unfortunately just drown in the MTV flood...

Things were actually decent back when MTV used to play music videos of any kind... 🙄... seriously, just give me the Backstreet Boys over these obnoxious reality shows any day of the week.

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.

Stars like Britney Spears aren't stars because they possess some innate celestial quality; they are stars because an entire industry manufactured them to be so. Britney has lived her entire life under a glass bell jar, a sheltered existence where she didn't even know who John Lennon was when asked. There is a fundamental distinction between my own lack of knowledge and a professional singer lacking such basic cultural literacy. I’m sorry, but her music is nothing more than the most egregious commercial pop drivel currently in existence. I won't deny the catchiness or the melodic pull of several of her tracks, but the sole purpose of such music is to extract money. There is zero authenticity or originality to be found there. She isn't even creating her own music. And no, I wouldn't go so far as to call it absolute garbage or objectively "bad," but her output—much like most boy bands—is utterly soulless and characterless, built upon banal, generic melodies. Even I can't deny that I found certain songs by the Backstreet Boys, like "As Long As You Love Me" or "I Want It That Way," quite infectious, but unfortunately, such melodic hooks cannot save bands of that ilk. The Backstreet Boys were perhaps the pinnacle of boy bands in the 90s—though calling them "good" is a stretch—while every other similar group was a pathetic display of forced posturing.

Xena, you haven't quite grasped the crux of my argument, though I don't hold it against you since I failed to articulate it properly. The issue is that someone like David Gray could release at least five albums before anyone even realized he existed. Why? Because he wasn't "in," and because your precious MTV was systematically dismantling the foundations of music. MTV had no interest in playing videos for artists who weren't hyper-commercialized; they refused to air clips from "unattractive" performers or groups, and even before those arbitrary standards, they wouldn't touch anyone over the age of thirty. These are established facts. Various managers and record labels, driven by a thirst for easy profit, dictated exactly what kind of music singers had to perform if they wanted their albums released. This is how instant superstars are manufactured.
Of course, all of them could more or less sing, and those boy bands and such... but frankly, I couldn't care less about their stage performances, their choreographed dancing, or their desperate posturing in music videos. I couldn't care less about ten women from Harlem gyrating on my screen while guys behind them, decked out in oversized hats and gold chains, strike bizarre poses and gesture wildly as if they’re looking for a fight. Suddenly, every kid from Harlem became "high art." Since everyone was part of the gang culture, people were getting killed left and right, yet they managed to package that ghetto subculture and sell it to the youth as something "cool."
Okayyyy, whatever, I suppose. But why was it that I couldn't see anything of actual substance on television besides things like SCOOTER: "PIPL, WAKE UP.... IT'S A FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING..... DAMN ALARM ALARM.... BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM.... and then after five minutes, BOOM BOOM BOOM..."
You can defend them all you want, but I believe it is patently obvious how much authenticity a musician possesses and whether they are actually evolving. The programming provided by MTV was a mountain of rubbish. I feel the same about Justin Timberlake; his music is just as vapid as Beyoncé's. I am not denying their vocal abilities, but a man like Tom Waits might not even be able to "sing" in a traditional sense, yet he is a million times better than they are. Justin refuses to step outside the realm of extreme commercialism. I listened to his latest album, and it is nothing more than the most pedestrian synthetic trash.
Robbie Williams is decent because he does exactly what he wants and doesn't aim for the commercial limpness exhibited by someone like Justin. Even Christina Aguilera's new album stands as a masterpiece in comparison to Justin's.
It is evident that you are unwilling to consider the full picture or the consequences of the narrow-minded policies pursued by MTV. Ten years ago, MTV held a monopoly over the entire musical landscape, and a mediocre outlet like VIVE certainly didn't help matters.
My intention isn't to generalize, Xena, but please be aware that there are countless brilliant musicians and bands out there whom you might actually enjoy, but you will never encounter them. You will never know they exist because no one will ever agree to release their albums or play them on the radio or television. That is the point: there is no bread for good music today. If you want to succeed through sheer quality, you need more luck than intellect. Though, I suppose the situation is slightly better now than it was a decade ago, especially as MTV loses its credibility and spends more time focusing on everything except actually playing music videos.

As for the whole jazz situation, I must admit I don't claim to be much of an expert. However, I do have a certain fondness for that classic sound—the kind that truly feels like jazz to my ears, featuring legends like Ella Fitzgerald or Glenn Miller. I wouldn't call myself a purist or anything, but when you consider that jazz is a profound art form in its own right, and its influence permeates nearly every genre of music, it feels somewhat reductive to compare true jazz to the stuff they play on MTV.

Honestly, Xena, does it even say anywhere that I’m required to agree with you? It’s perfectly fine by me if people don't see eye to eye with my perspective. In fact, I’ve grown quite accustomed to the friction; there is a certain, albeit cynical, charm in knowing that everyone is going to lose their minds over what I post. 🤣

There have been a few brief flashes in pop music history where actually innovative, exciting sounds managed to blow up commercially—mostly back in the sixties. Maybe the last time that really happened was during the New Wave era in the late seventies. But honestly, if you pull up any old Billboard compilation from even those "golden" years, you'll see that the sheer volume of garbage hits in any given era has always been pure commercial trash... I can't say things have gotten significantly worse since MTV showed up, it’s just that we tend to romanticize the past. We only remember the quality tracks that actually stuck around, while we conveniently forget all the absolute filler that surrounded them...

stormyviper11 said:There have been a handful of brief windows in the history of popular music where genuinely innovative and thrilling sounds actually managed to achieve commercial success—most notably during the sixties. Perhaps the last true instance was the late seventies with the rise of New Wave. Even then, if you look at any annual compilation of Billboard hits, even from those supposedly "golden" eras, you’ll find that the vast majority of hits in any given decade were nothing more than pure commercial garbage. I wouldn't go so far as to say things have become significantly worse since the advent of MTV, but perhaps we simply hold earlier eras in an idealized light; we remember the quality tracks that endured, while the surrounding mediocrity fades from our collective memory.

There is certainly truth to be found in that assessment. However, the depressing reality is one of diminishing returns: back in the sixties, out of perhaps 100,000 mediocre commercial tracks, you could still stumble upon at least 1,000 phenomenal ones. Today, amidst a sea of a million songs climbing the charts, you might be lucky to find ten that are actually worth listening to.
I am simply waiting for that one final song—the kind that makes your blood pressure spike just like it did when I first heard Ben E. King's "Stand by Me," or Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms," or Procol Harum's "A Whiter Shade of Pale." Because, quite frankly, this modern landscape is utterly frustrating.

Hehe... I actually wrote a blog post about this like a year ago, just rambling on about those first times you hear certain artists and how they just stick with you forever...

The first ones always hit different.

HEY, LET ME DROP SOME POSITIVE VIBES HERE!

I’M NOT DENYING IT!

This is actually my second time making my way through "The Failed Geniuses." 😲

analogharbor442 said:GIVE THIS PERSON SOMETHING POSITIVE FOR ONCE!

God, I am just so "sweet," aren't I? 😈

damned_2_eternal_lie said:Every great band and singer seems to be fading away faster than ever... does anyone have any clue why?

It’s because the big-shot managers and the entire heavyweights within the American music industry are looking for that quick turnaround—they want immediate profit. Their strategy is basically to manufacture some half-baked band with music they didn't even write themselves, something shallow and mindless, just making sure everyone involved looks pretty enough for the cameras. It’s a revolving door; once that act loses its luster, they just swap them out for the next shiny thing. Meanwhile, those who actually take the craft seriously and put real blood into their music often lack the massive media backing needed to break through. They end up stuck in the shadows, left to fend for themselves. But since most people can't be bothered to dig deeper—honestly, most people just don't care and consume whatever is shoved in their faces—those more authentic artists struggle to find an audience. 😁

True enough... most people just can't be bothered to hunt for something fresh. They just settle for whatever's right in front of them... heh... kind of pathetic, really... 😢

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.

Xena2000 said:granitecrane, hold on a second—it isn't just one single MTV. I was actually watching David Gray on MTV just five minutes ago, maybe six years ago... if you look at channels like Pop, New, Center, or Europe, you realize it’s not all just "commercial garbage" on MTV (though this specific version of MTV we watch hardly plays any music videos at all).

Thank God for VH1.

It is true that high-quality artists—the ones you actually prefer—show up less frequently than they used to, but they are still out there. For me, that might be Paolo Nutini; for you, it'll be someone else. Regardless, I would much rather listen to Justin than Tom Waits. What I cannot stand is how people immediately label you just because of your choices. I can enjoy Otis Redding just as much as I can enjoy Justin Timberlake. Naturally, they aren't comparable, but I find myself revolted by the posers who feel they *must* listen to Nick Cave simply because it's deemed "quality." Listen to him if you actually like him, not for some other ulterior motive.

You mentioned Robbie... if he were some newcomer, nobody would bother with his ballads; they’d dismiss him as pure pop. But since he’s known for being a complete madman, everyone has swallowed his music. That's effective marketing. Plus, Robbie has the charisma, so everything aligned perfectly. Otherwise, his music is fine by me, but I can't help but wonder: what if he wore glasses, acted like a total geek, and only sang about love? They would have spat on him just like they did James Blunt (who, quite ironically, critics adore).

Take Green Day, for instance; I never particularly liked them, yet their new album is excellent (not that I’d put it among my top ten favorites, but it’s good).

Then there's Ayo, being billed as the next Tracy Chapman... but to me, she’s nowhere near her level. Some will think Ayo is better than Tracy, others won't. It’s simply a matter of taste, and you can't argue with that. However, if you truly care about music, you will inevitably stumble upon something that resonates with you from time to time.

Fine... everyone has different tastes and everyone loves different music. No one should label you for what you like, because you like it for a reason. Who is doing the labeling? And why does it even matter? The person doing it is clearly an idiot. You only label someone when you allow trends to wash your brain out, or when you believe nothing else exists or holds value. Liking something simply because you like it is a different matter entirely, whether it’s Britney or Nick Cave. I don't like Justin because of the music; I like Robbie's music specifically, and his best album is Escapology, though the others are decent enough too. I listen to Nick Cave occasionally, but I don't really care for him... he repeats the same tired themes over and over until I'm bored.
It isn't "uncool" to love Elton John, and I have loved him forever. I will always love Elton John and I will maintain that he is better than Cave, Waits, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan. But that is my opinion, and I don't expect anyone to agree. I also love Billy Joel, Ennio Morricone, Vangelis, Yanni, Phil Collins, Coldplay, Loreena McKennitt, and I've been obsessed with Mark Knopfler's solo work lately. I love Angela Badalamentija, Julee Cruise, Shelby Lynne, Chris Reau, a bit of Massive Attack, several 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 just about everything else I can't remember. It varies from group to group and artist to artist, and that is my taste. Honestly, I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of my taste, because I know I actually listen to this music because I enjoy it—not because some windbags label things as "quality" because they have no lives of their own. They spend their time acting as critics or amateur listeners, telling me that what I love is kitsch or shallow; they can take their opinions and shove them.
Everyone loves something different, and that is precisely why television and various music programs exist: to allow us to discover all sorts of performers and bands, rather than just those manufactured by the trend machine.
And true, when you hold VH1 up against the rest of the music programming out there, it really does stand head and shoulders above the pack.