"Crap for the masses" - What is that exactly?

[Jack Bastard]

I am really, really, really sick of the notion that just because something is popular, it's bad.

Well, you'll be really, really, really happy to hear that not's what people are saying.



Things can be great and popular, but frequently they aren't.

[3heads]

One thing that separates "true" house music from house-like pop music is song structure. While those tunes from Guetta feat. random R&B artist, Calvin Harris and so many others borrow Tempo (128 bpm) and Instrumentation (dominant 4/4 bass drum, clap on the 2 and 4, hi-hats on the 8ths, Avicii-esque synths) from House music but when it comes to song structure, they are a lot closer to Rock.

They nearly all follow a verse - chorus - verse - chorus - bridge - chorus - chorus scheme that essentially hasn't changed since the Beatles. "Real" House music on the other hand has a drastically different structure based on elements being added or removed at the beginning of every phrase (I think someone else can explain this better than I can) leading to tracks that are 6 to 15 minutes long.
And if you think about it, those Mainstream artists hardly have another chance since they must be suitable to be played at radio stations and thus are not allowed to exceed 3 to 4 minutes in length. And since the "mainstream" radio listener doesn't want to hear anything different to the accepted scheme, it's very rare that Radio Edits of longer house tracks reach the same popularity as those produced to the Rock scheme. Levels being the only exception I can think of at the moment.

Also, Vocals are very different in house music and mainstream sound-a-likes. While real house mostly (there are exceptions... talking about Jack and his groove) use vocals in a repetitive sense to add to the track (more like an instrument), mainstream tracks try to tell some kind of story (how irrelevant it may be). You could say, that house music are "tracks" in the original sense of the word, while Guetta, Calvin Harris & Co. produce "songs".

That is not a new phenomenon by the way, not at all. Look at early Hip-Hop that was largely based around sampling and scratching and how nearly all chart-topping hip-hop since the late 90s incorporated the scheme mentioned above.

Sure, you can produce exceptional music within that framework, but you are a lot more limited in options where you can stand out. In Rock music it was either about great lyrics or singers with great voices, but within what is called "crap for the masses" now, there isn't anything extraordinary. It's basically auto-tuned mediocre singers, singing about how much they drank and who they fucked last night and that simply isn't enough to impress musically. And since some househeads are really scared by the sheer popularity of that stuff they try to portray it as inferior to "the real stuff". And again that's nothing new. I'm sure you could hear some punk fans referring to Blink182 or Offspring as "crap for the masses" in the 90s.

In the end, I think it's an understandable reaction to defend the music you love by trying to create a distinction. But instead of trying to distinguish in the way i tried above it's done by portraying one form of music as qualitatively superior. And the recent events around DJs getting kicked off the decks show, that there is a misunderstanding with Club Owners and promoters who think that people who listen to house-like Pop want to listen to House music. So, it is necessary to find different names, but I'm not the one to judge if "crap for the masses" is the right way to express it.

Awesome post, dude. I wholeheartedly agree....

[scamo]

@Miec,

Thanks. That is a nice and long explanation. Thanks for the effort and that got me thinking.

I looked this up from your post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_st...popular_music)

So, and this is for everyone, would a bad house track possibly "made for the masses" have a song structure more like in the Wikipedia article? Because, maybe I am not deep enough into the scene, but I actually look out for tracks that have more song structure, because I find them more entertaining. I personally don't like it, for instance, when a track has the same repetitive section lasting for more than 32 beats. The first thing I say to myself is "boooring". For instance, when I listen to tracks on Beatport, I listen to the first 16 beats. If it catches my ear in the first 8-16 or so, I continue listening. Then I click forward to the middle of the clip they give you to listen to. If I hear a sudden different sound (chorus/ bridge), then I continue listening, if I like it. Then after some more bars of listening, I then click to the back of the clip and listen. If that sounds good too, then I usually buy the track. I want to be entertained with a track and I need to feel a "groove" with the beat and sooo much house music doesn't give me this. Am I strange or not a true "house" lover, to want more song structure? Am I just a "masses drone" too? I could care less actually. It would just be interesting to know, because I consider a lot of house music pretty poor. But then, a lot of pop music I consider pretty poor too.

And back to Miec. I think you are right. Calling any form of art "crap" just isn't really right. People creating stuff (no matter what it is) is good. If it is an art form being created, it's use is primarily for entertainment purposes in my eyes. That means, someone creates a piece of art (house track) for others to be impressed by (and entertained). So the basic rule of art is 1) personal expression and 2) to entertain. Well, that is my personal view. I or anyone else may not like a piece of art, however, what is important to note is, being creative is also what makes us humans. If we couldn't be creative, we'd all still be sitting on jungle floors or in trees eating bananas. We should cherish our ability as humans to be creative and just leave art forms that we don't like simply alone. No judgments, no "crap" comments...please.

scamo

[dj matt blaze]

Simply put, "crap for the masses" is anything whether it be music, movies, tv, fashion, food, that takes an original idea or concept that a certain group of people may love and waters it down, commericalizes it for the rest of the world. 1 person does it, then everyone is doing it. Its always been this way and it will always be this way. Its just human nature to see success and try to copy it using the same or similar formula. Like lately I have noticed that every commercial that tries to be hip and edgy uses dubstep. So now it gets commercialized and devalues it cuz you hear it all over the place, its generic "crap for the masses".

I don't know that I would use song structure as a comparison point to differentiate. All songs are symetric and will always follow a format in groups of 4. Radio friendly is 3-4 min so it has to follow that verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus type formula. If you aren't going for radio friendly you can extend the intro, extend the solo, add a drum break, etc. I mean I guess you could technically call anything that is the radio version "crap for the masses" but not all songs are meant to be 8 min long and sometimes even with house, hearing that extra 8 bars of the drum and bassline is a little boring. I kinda understand both perspectives. With that being said, at times it does make for more interesting tracks when they are longer and don't follow such a regimen of a formula. The other day I was listening to old skool hip hop, like golden age stuff from 1985. Im listening to Roxanne Shante and she is rhyming and rhyming and rhyming, no chorus, no breaks, I didn't count but she must have gone on for like 64 bars without stopping. Remember this was 1985, hip hop was just rap and still considered a passing fad, it was still in the street, and not even close to getting on mainstream radio. You would never hear that now, now it all follows that formula, 16 bar verse, hook, verse 2, hook, guest verse, hook...rinse and repeat for every track. So I start listeing to more old school, KRS-one, Rakim, Big Daddy Kane, and my head starts bobbing and I'm thinking now this, this is what its all about. Todays hip hop doesn't have that passion, that soul, the rawness, the grit that was going on back then. Even though the flows were more basic, the inflection and the rhythm in their voices just doesn't exist anymore. Drake or Lil wayne, couldn't hold a candle to Rakim or Big Daddy Kane. The beats were basic drums, claps, scratches, basslines, they were just dirty and gritty, now you have these epic symphonies, did it evolve or just become "crap for the masses"?

[Philippro]

I am really, really, really sick of the notion that just because something is popular, it's bad.

IMHO this is a good example



But it's my opinion

[Jack Bastard]

Simply put, "crap for the masses" is anything whether it be music, movies, tv, fashion, food, that takes an original idea or concept that a certain group of people may love and waters it down, commericalizes it for the rest of the world. 1 person does it, then everyone is doing it. Its always been this way and it will always be this way. Its just human nature to see success and try to copy it using the same or similar formula. Like lately I have noticed that every commercial that tries to be hip and edgy uses dubstep. So now it gets commercialized and devalues it cuz you hear it all over the place, its generic "crap for the masses".

I don't know that I would use song structure as a comparison point to differentiate. All songs are symetric and will always follow a format in groups of 4. Radio friendly is 3-4 min so it has to follow that verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus type formula. If you aren't going for radio friendly you can extend the intro, extend the solo, add a drum break, etc. I mean I guess you could technically call anything that is the radio version "crap for the masses" but not all songs are meant to be 8 min long and sometimes even with house, hearing that extra 8 bars of the drum and bassline is a little boring. I kinda understand both perspectives. With that being said, at times it does make for more interesting tracks when they are longer and don't follow such a regimen of a formula. The other day I was listening to old skool hip hop, like golden age stuff from 1985. Im listening to Roxanne Shante and she is rhyming and rhyming and rhyming, no chorus, no breaks, I didn't count but she must have gone on for like 64 bars without stopping. Remember this was 1985, hip hop was just rap and still considered a passing fad, it was still in the street, and not even close to getting on mainstream radio. You would never hear that now, now it all follows that formula, 16 bar verse, hook, verse 2, hook, guest verse, hook...rinse and repeat for every track. So I start listeing to more old school, KRS-one, Rakim, Big Daddy Kane, and my head starts bobbing and I'm thinking now this, this is what its all about. Todays hip hop doesn't have that passion, that soul, the rawness, the grit that was going on back then. Even though the flows were more basic, the inflection and the rhythm in their voices just doesn't exist anymore. Drake or Lil wayne, couldn't hold a candle to Rakim or Big Daddy Kane. The beats were basic drums, claps, scratches, basslines, they were just dirty and gritty, now you have these epic symphonies, did it evolve or just become "crap for the masses"?

+1

[doombadger]

....are the fortunate songs that go up dance charts and are possibly making the people who made it money suddenly crap productions and musical garbage, just because they became popular?

Yes. Yes they are.

Not because they're popular but because they're shit. They became popular BECAUSE they're shit.

There is a distinct difference between art and entertainment. Artists are driven by a desire to express self in a way that releases an energy that would otherwise drive them insane.

Entertainers are c**ts.

Hope this clears things up for you.

[dj matt blaze]

Yes. Yes they are.

Not because they're popular but because they're shit. They became popular BECAUSE they're shit.

There is a distinct difference between art and entertainment. Artists are driven by a desire to express self in a way that releases an energy that would otherwise drive them insane.

Entertainers are c**ts.

Hope this clears things up for you.

This really makes no sense. It's shit according to who? Obviously the majority likes it and doesn't think its shit or else it wouldn't be popular. To make a statement that entertainers are c**ts is just rediculous and simply stupid. Artists have the desire to express themselves and create. Psycotics are driven by a desire to express self in a way that releases an energy that would otherwise drive them insane. Hope that clears things up for you.

[Miec]

A different approach: Maybe we should try to define what we see as great music and how "crap for the masses" differs from that?
And I will only refer to Top40/Mainstream/Pop music, because that's what is produced "for the masses".

By my definition, great music is about somehow standing out from the rest. How do you do that? You could try to be innovative, bring in new sounds that no one heard before.. but since that's based on trial and error, there will be a lot of pretty bad output - "crap for the hipsters" if you want to call it like that.
And then there are people that don't necessarily have to be innovative at doing something because they are incredibly talented and just do the "old thing" better than most others. In the Rock/Pop World that would be Bands with either very good songwriters or excellent individual voices. For me a recent example would be Adele. Absolutely produced for the masses, but still with musical quality.

And on the other hand there are songs who are produced on behalf of record labels with the lowest possible risk in mind. You go with traditional song structure, a producer that can offer you the current "flavour of the month" - sound (House-ish now, HipHop & RnB before, Eurodance earlier...) and a well-known singer that already has a solid fanbase. So you could argue that it is formulaic.

It's not about producing music that is liked by the most people, it's about producing music that is hated by the least - finding the least common denominator. And if you define great music as somehow standing out, it's clear that this stuff never will be great music for me.
The production quality is very good technically, which is not surprising if you see the money that's behind it, and somehow it's acceptable to listen to, but I can't think of one track that's produced that way and that I would call great music.

[loverocket]

here's a song that was good and popular:



>