I have nothing against this cover, its good, but I also have nothing against the original, in my opinion, its just as good if not more so since it actually has the burden to become popular in the first place.
There’s definitely something to that. In this case, it re-contextualizes the song, you don’t have to take Britney selling herself as a sex symbol with the song and might appreciate the melody and lyrics in another light.
But like I said, I actually like both, Now for an example of a cover that actually addresses the blandness of pop I give you this, Dirty loops covering Justin Bieber’s “baby”
There is nothing wrong with a really good pop song, the only problem I have with pop music is when it either uncritically accepts its own stupid ideas about what it’s popular and what will sell or when it cynically promotes ideas that it doesn’t believe in in order to sell something.
Sounds like they hit on a formula that works and makes them lots of money. Funnily enough, their breakout hit was #SELFIE, which sounds nothing like their current style of 3-chord love song.
Pretty sure there’s more than one great Beatles song that has only the 1 chord. In the end, it’s not about how many chords you have, it’s what you do with them.
I think a lot of bands realized a long time ago that most people don’t actually pay attention to the lyrics, even if they sing along to them. I heard a Train song yesterday, and … jeez, they’re just throwing in words that rhyme because they rhyme and no other reason. “If you ain’t sweet like aspartame” and “keep you going just like Ritalin.” Seriously. In the same song. Pop music is now about aspartame and ritalin.
It’s pop music. Repetition and simplicity are the bread and butter of pop - the laziest of musical genres. It’s also why it’s mostly a kids’ thing. When people get older and get a clue, they (hopefully) move on to more challenging and interesting stuff. I do know some adults who only like pop music, and it’s kind of pathetic.
Pop is a bunch of garbage, but granted saying so discounts a lot of really fucking good pop music. Michael Jackson was considered the king of pop and his music is amazing. Similarly there’s other artists or particular songs that are really great.
However pop music isn’t normally want i want to listen to so i’m pretty happy ignoring it I don’t mind if that’s someone’s jam. I’m sure someone could say that certain things i listen to are crap but music is subjective.
I tend to enjoy pop music in retrospect. There’s so much crapola that it takes a few years to filter out the good stuff, which is often pretty good, or at least fun ear-candy. Occasionally I’ll hear a song that’ll catch my ear immediately, but that’s rare and special.
So, the question is, what is the definition of pop music? Is it just music that gets a large market share and cycles onto the top 40? Because pretty much everyone you list could be said to be of a distinct genre of music that evolved out of earlier non-pop genres, yeah? So… what is “pop” music anyway and who gets to decide what is and isn’t pop music?
Even within artists, it’s tough to define. Bowie did glam, folk, hard rock, jazz, soul, gospel, electronica, and probably some country and new age and polka in there, too – he pretty much tried everything. And then there’s something like this, which is… alternative-pop-jazz-prog-rock? Labels sort of become meaningless.
I think the willingness to experiment helps to define an artist who can rise above the constricting boxes of corporate-defined genres of music. Much the same can be said of Prince. While he was certainly funky as hell (especially his early work), he criss-crossed effortlessly into rock, too. Prince and Bowie were two of the most talented rock stars in the business right up until their deaths.
Exactly – he also got into a lot of jazz, orchestral stuff, soul, and even a sexed-up slow-jam album recorded to sound as if he was female. Experimentation might not sell records at Chainsmokers levels, but recording songs called #SELFIE won’t make you an enduring legend.