| |
Poll: Is Beyonce too generic?
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 4,154
|
Quote:
Originally posted by rihannafan
Yes. Pretty hurts sounds like a pitbull somg if pitbull sang ballads.
|
why did i screamed 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,
and 4 being generic 
it was too mature and far from what was catered back in those times
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 2,383
|
Quote:
Originally posted by VyktorJonas
|
Really ? Coming from the 1D stan
Quote:
Originally posted by Artemisia
no, wtf
**** singles success if we keep getting records like BEYONCE
|
Album sales >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> singles sales
Quote:
Originally posted by rihannafan
Yes. Pretty hurts sounds like a pitbull somg if pitbull sang ballads.
|
You have got to be kidding 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 18,151
|
Drunk In Love is a safe song....
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/3/2014
Posts: 2,910
|
No not at all but as a bey stan she coulda kept that 4 album!!! it should have been shelved!!!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/3/2014
Posts: 2,910
|
and how is drunk in love a safe song?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 61,634
|
So you think DIL, Partition and ***Flawless are generic?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 19,477
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
uuuuuuuuuuuuuh… I agree she is not generic enough to be getting smash hits, but I disagree completely that she needs to be generic.
For people who don't stan for #1s, or people who expect their faves making millions to be artists, not generic products, this is a crazy statement to read. The GP only wants generic music because they don't know any better. Once they hear a new sound that really is amazing, they will gravitate to it, even if it is not generic. (Example: Crazy in Love sounded nothing like what was going on in pop yet was a HUGE hit and is one of the most respected songs of our time. Another example is Crazy by Gnarles Barkley).
An artist at Beyoncé's stature SHOULD be trying out new sounds and different lyrical content. She should not be looking at the top ten for inspiration, she should be doing what she wants. And that's why artists like J.Lo who cater to whatever is hot does not command the intense respect as someone like Beyoncé. Yes, 4 was a big underperformance but it gave her more than she lost.
Just look at the VMAs - the audience was really reacting to hearing songs like Partition, Flawless, Bow Down, XO and Blow, although they were not hits. That is more powerful and more important - connecting with people on their own terms instead of forcing it into the GP's mind through radio catchiness. These are organic hits. You can't really chart them because they happen behind the scenes, but the impact is still there.
|
I don't stan for #1s. I stan for two artists who happen to have a lot of #1 singles because my personal taste often aligns with what the GP wants.
My point was that there's nothing wrong with a song being "generic" if it's following current trends. Sure, that doesn't necessarily have to mean "I'm gonna party until the sun comes up. Pass the bottle. I love being alive." That's not what I meant when I said "she's not generic enough." I meant that sonically, she doesn't seem to be paying attention to current trends enough. She's doing her own thing, which is true artistry, but often it doesn't hurt to have a snapshot of what people of 2014 are currently enjoying.
Changes in pop music are incredibly incremental. You listen to pop music from 1984 and 1985 and think "these don't sound too different..." but over time, you look back and think "wow, the popular sound back then was so different. This sounds so 80s." For that reason, trends and changes are really incremental. A recent one ATRL has been discussing is horns and brass instruments being added to the choruses of uptempo pop songs (like Problem, Talk Dirty and Shake It Off) - that's a popular trend and there's nothing wrong with following it if that's what's popular in 2014 and that's the sound that will make people 30 years from now look back and go "wow, that's sounds so 2010s!"
So when I said generic, I wasn't talking about the LMFAO style of dance-pop that's like "pass the bottle and let's dance like it's the last night on earth" (which btw, there's nothing wrong with, as it will help define the early 2010s) - I simply meant that songs like Ghost, Haunted, Jealous, Mine, Superpower and No Angel are so artistic that they diverge from what current trends are. And that's great. Clearly her stans (myself included) and all the attendees of her concerts love the fact that she's making innovative, new music. It's something that she's done ever since 4 and it's part of the reason why she receives so much critical acclaim. But as I said at the beginning of my argument, changes in pop music are really incremental. If you want to be a trendsetter, the trends often have to be small, like adding a horn to a chorus. And you can argue that Beyonce is a pioneer of that trend with Crazy In Love (like you said, nothing else sounded like that in 2003, but it was still uptempo pop). But I don't think one artist can single-handedly revolutionise the entire sound of what's popular overnight, and I don't think there's anything wrong with making sounds that are popular now, purely for because that's what's popular now. That's what people of the mid-2010s want.
TLDR; when I said generic, I didn't mean "pass the vodka *breakdown*" - I simply meant following current sonic production sounds, which is why 'Blow' definitely should have been a single, because that mixed-beat, disco RnB made a huge comeback in mid-2013 (Daft Punk, Robin Thicke, Pharrell, etc)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/25/2012
Posts: 30,317
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rihinvention
Clearly her stans (myself included) and all the attendees of her concerts love the fact that she's making innovative, new music. It's something that she's done ever since 4 and it's part of the reason why she receives so much critical acclaim. But as I said at the beginning of my argument, changes in pop music are really incremental. If you want to be a trendsetter, the trends often have to be small, like adding a horn to a chorus. And you can argue that Beyonce is a pioneer of that trend with Crazy In Love (like you said, nothing else sounded like that in 2003, but it was still uptempo pop). But I don't think one artist can single-handedly revolutionise the entire sound of what's popular overnight, and I don't think there's anything wrong with making sounds that are popular now, purely for because that's what's popular now. That's what people of the mid-2010s want.
TLDR; when I said generic, I didn't mean "pass the vodka *breakdown*" - I simply meant following current sonic production sounds, which is why 'Blow' definitely should have been a single, because that mixed-beat, disco RnB made a huge comeback in mid-2013 (Daft Punk, Robin Thicke, Pharrell, etc)
|
You're right. But I don't think Beyoncé is trying to change the Top 40.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rihinvention
I don't stan for #1s. I stan for two artists who happen to have a lot of #1 singles because my personal taste often aligns with what the GP wants.
My point was that there's nothing wrong with a song being "generic" if it's following current trends. Sure, that doesn't necessarily have to mean "I'm gonna party until the sun comes up. Pass the bottle. I love being alive." That's not what I meant when I said "she's not generic enough." I meant that sonically, she doesn't seem to be paying attention to current trends enough. She's doing her own thing, which is true artistry, but often it doesn't hurt to have a snapshot of what people of 2014 are currently enjoying.
Changes in pop music are incredibly incremental. You listen to pop music from 1984 and 1985 and think "these don't sound too different..." but over time, you look back and think "wow, the popular sound back then was so different. This sounds so 80s." For that reason, trends and changes are really incremental. A recent one ATRL has been discussing is horns and brass instruments being added to the choruses of uptempo pop songs (like Problem, Talk Dirty and Shake It Off) - that's a popular trend and there's nothing wrong with following it if that's what's popular in 2014 and that's the sound that will make people 30 years from now look back and go "wow, that's sounds so 2010s!"
So when I said generic, I wasn't talking about the LMFAO style of dance-pop that's like "pass the bottle and let's dance like it's the last night on earth" (which btw, there's nothing wrong with, as it will help define the early 2010s) - I simply meant that songs like Ghost, Haunted, Jealous, Mine, Superpower and No Angel are so artistic that they diverge from what current trends are. And that's great. Clearly her stans (myself included) and all the attendees of her concerts love the fact that she's making innovative, new music. It's something that she's done ever since 4 and it's part of the reason why she receives so much critical acclaim. But as I said at the beginning of my argument, changes in pop music are really incremental. If you want to be a trendsetter, the trends often have to be small, like adding a horn to a chorus. And you can argue that Beyonce is a pioneer of that trend with Crazy In Love (like you said, nothing else sounded like that in 2003, but it was still uptempo pop). But I don't think one artist can single-handedly revolutionise the entire sound of what's popular overnight, and I don't think there's anything wrong with making sounds that are popular now, purely for because that's what's popular now. That's what people of the mid-2010s want.
TLDR; when I said generic, I didn't mean "pass the vodka *breakdown*" - I simply meant following current sonic production sounds, which is why 'Blow' definitely should have been a single, because that mixed-beat, disco RnB made a huge comeback in mid-2013 (Daft Punk, Robin Thicke, Pharrell, etc)
|
All true.
I think what it comes down to is goals. There are some artists whose goals are very clearly #1s (as evidenced by what they produce, how they release it and how they react when they get that #1). However Beyonce's goal is clearly not Hot 100 domination anymore. You can see proof of that in what she says about "quick little singles" in her documentary, how she went against pop trends on 4 (except for releasing the basic BTINH), and the entire BEYONCÉ era as far as release, single treatment, etc.
Because of all that I really don't think Beyoncé needs to be more generic. She's already has impactful songs that barely went top 40, and that as I've said before is more impressive and I think much more true to the audience. Thousands of instagrams a day do not have the caption "I woke up like this" because they heard it a thousand times on radio, but because the general public themselves chose that line to reference.
All in all, there's no problem with catering to trends. It makes perfect marketing sense, even if it means that you're always playing it safe. I'm just glad that Beyoncé is getting her perfect marketing in different ways than simply following the path of others. It what makes her a vanguard and it's what makes her music mean more. IASF is super pop and rather generic and was very popular. But what people remember most from it is Single Ladies - something that was genuinely different from the mainstream and that the public took into their own hands, not something that was just a trendy song like If I Were a Boy. So to me, going against the grain will always be better.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/12/2010
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
Originally posted by rihannafan
Yes. Pretty hurts sounds like a pitbull somg if pitbull sang ballads.
|
The sheer desperation....
Quote:
Originally posted by GlitterBitch
Quote:
Originally posted by VyktorJonas
|
Really ? Coming from the 1D stan
|
Literally nothing but heart throbs (no talent whatsoever).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Yes.
Bey is quite generic, sure, but its understandable, she just wants to maintain her pop stardom and radio airplay.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/24/2012
Posts: 30,779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
