Unpopular Opinions about Music

[kili]

Quote

I'll give an example/background for this question: on the recent NYT Popcast, they were discussing Pink and how as late as 2010, she was opening up for Justin Timberlake. Given how talented and successful Pink is, it's a little amazing that she was opening for Justin Timberlake in 2010.

Timberlake didn't tour in 2010. He took a break from 2007 to 2013. P!nk did open for him on his US leg of his 2007 FutureSex/LoveShow Tour which is named after his album. That album debuted with 684K in sales its first week and went on to sell 4.4M in the US. In 2006, P!nk released her most successful album to date with 126K in opening week sales. "Funhouse" was the album that pushed up to another success level and it was released in 2008.

I love P!nk much more than Timberlake, but Timberlake was the much more successful than her when they toured together in 2007.

Quote

Meanwhile, Pink is a better singer, makes better pop music, and has been more consistent than Justin, and she's only recently been able to headline her own arena tours.

P!nk had an arena tour in 2009 in support of her "Funhouse" album. In 2009, the tour took in over $100M in ticket sales and was the fifth highest grossing tour of 2009 (behind U2, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen and ACDC).

I think that NYT Popcast gave some very bad intel even if I do agree that Timberlake is overrated.

[Ohwell]

Blake Shelton's songs might have some catchy lyrics, but the man just cannot sing.

[UYI]

The best part of Blake Shelton was always Miranda Lambert. But that's FAR from a UO. :)

[cpcathy]

Thriller isn't that great an album.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Ashlee Simpson is a terrible singer and La La is a terrible, ridiculous song, but I love it.

[Shannon L.]

I can't help it--I've liked every song I've heard Pit Bull featured in  and I really like his song Bad Man.

[WritinMan]

Everyone likes ABBA, but no one admits it.

[Blergh]

OK, here's another 'Get Off My Lawn, Whippersnappers' comment but since it's an UO, here goes:

 

 With all the news of rampant sexual harassment and even sexual battery in the music industry, etc., I have to wonder if things might have been at least less blatant if not had perps instantly called on their stuff instantly and  had there been some attempts to draw lines and boundaries instead of pushing them beyond the bounds of conventional taste with no attempt to say 'enough',etc. way back when. 

 

 Cases in point:instead of laughing off and considering it clever moves for Red Hot Chili Peppers to wear socks on parts other than feet onstage and TLC's  now-deceased Left Eye to wear a condom over her left eye, could things have been more tolerable had their audiences called out"BOOOOO! BOOOOOOO! YUCK! VULGAR! VULGAR! GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK! "

 

Just wondering. 

[janie jones]

On 11/24/2017 at 9:55 PM, WritinMan said:

Everyone likes ABBA, but no one admits it.

I know plenty of people who admit it!  I didn't know it was a thing to hide.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

OK, here's another 'Get Off My Lawn, Whippersnappers' comment but since it's an UO, here goes:

 

 With all the news of rampant sexual harassment and even sexual battery in the music industry, etc., I have to wonder if things might have been at least less blatant if not had perps instantly called on their stuff instantly and  had there been some attempts to draw lines and boundaries instead of pushing them beyond the bounds of conventional taste with no attempt to say 'enough',etc. way back when. 

 

 Cases in point:instead of laughing off and considering it clever moves for Red Hot Chili Peppers to wear socks on parts other than feet onstage and TLC's  now-deceased Left Eye to wear a condom over her left eye, could things have been more tolerable had their audiences called out"BOOOOO! BOOOOOOO! YUCK! VULGAR! VULGAR! GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK! "

 

Just wondering. 

In my opinion? No. And even if the answer is yes for other people, you'd have to go back farther than Left Eye and the Chili Peppers. The latter formed in 1983, years after Ed Sullivan refused to let The Rolling Stones perform Let's Spend the Night Together with the original lyrics, insisting that Mick Jagger sing 'Let's spend some time together" instead. Sullivan also tried to prevent The Doors from performing the original lyrics of Light My Fire, but Jim Morrison balked at the last moment and sang 'higher' instead of whatever else. And Madonna's career was just getting started in the 80s too; really, once one person has become famous partly by singing Like A Virgin, The Divinyls singing about masturbation couldn't have been that far behind.

[vibeology]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 6:56 PM, Blergh said:

OK, here's another 'Get Off My Lawn, Whippersnappers' comment but since it's an UO, here goes:

 

 With all the news of rampant sexual harassment and even sexual battery in the music industry, etc., I have to wonder if things might have been at least less blatant if not had perps instantly called on their stuff instantly and  had there been some attempts to draw lines and boundaries instead of pushing them beyond the bounds of conventional taste with no attempt to say 'enough',etc. way back when. 

 

 Cases in point:instead of laughing off and considering it clever moves for Red Hot Chili Peppers to wear socks on parts other than feet onstage and TLC's  now-deceased Left Eye to wear a condom over her left eye, could things have been more tolerable had their audiences called out"BOOOOO! BOOOOOOO! YUCK! VULGAR! VULGAR! GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK! "

 

Just wondering. 

I'd say no because sexual harassment long predates these examples. I am confident that there have been sexual predators in the music industry as long as there's has been a music industry. We just didn't hear about it then.

 

ETA: There was nothing vulgar about TLC wearing condoms. They weren't shock artists. They weren't doing it for attention. TLC has a history of talking about safe sex and in the early 90s that was a conversation we needed to be having with HIV still relatively new. They promoted safe sex through their music and fashion and their intent was to empower their female fans to protect themselves. I can't look at the band that sang Waterfalls and think their condom displays (and all of them did it on their clothes, just Left Eye wore one as an eye patch) were anything other than promoting safe sex practices.

Edited November 29, 2017 by vibeology

[Blergh]

OK, I guess vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder and one can decide for oneself whatever motivations performers may have had in wearing what they did onstage (and I'm not naive enough to think that harassment was unknown previous to the rock era).

 

One could even argue that Elvis and the Beatles were trying to rebel against hypocritical elements in society but the problem with any revolution is that if participants have no idea the concept of what would be 'too far' much less attempt to put hands on brakes if they do have said concept , there's nothing to stop said revolutions from imploding from their own excesses.

 

 Hence, I think if there HAD been open disapproval by audiences and peers (to say nothing of less profit) , harassment would be LESS blatant in this field than it is currently.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Blergh
taking a break

[Dandesun]

Well, 'rock and roll' has been a euphemism for sex since the turn of the last century so it's pretty much there on the label. And just about everything an artist does gets derided by someone. The Chili Peppers were one I got a kick out of because, to me, it felt like they were objectifying themselves as opposed to having scantily clad women writhing around on-stage for no reason other than to have scantily clad women writhing about on-stage. Back in the 70s, the Stones had a giant inflatable penis on-stage that shot confetti out of the tip and Jagger wrestled with and rode it. Fairly certain the cops showed in Texas over that one. And music is something the riles people up... always has been... you can say that's the whole point of it.

Unfortunately, something that gets attention like that and riles people up and then starts to make money, or puts people in a spotlight... well, it always comes with the unsavory side. And it's terrible when the money gets involved because then it gets really, really fucking dark and ugly.  The Chilis wearing nothing but socks onstage is downright harmless compared to the dirty shit that happens behind the scenes.

But I think music does a lot more good than harm... besides what is vulgar changes, as it should. Loretta Lynn was the most banned artist in America for years. She may still be... and a lot of that was due to 'The Pill' which she wrote because finally having access to birth control was a real thing for her. But the country music machine did not want THAT out there. A woman controlling when she could have a baby? BLASPHEMY!! It's interesting to me that rock music came to the forefront in the rigid post-WWII society and just shook everything apart... including race, gender and sex. I mean, it didn't sweep away all barriers immediately and fix everything, goodness knows that, but it was a powerful vehicle to bring those ideas out into the light.

[UYI]

While I appreciate the Foo Fighters for making actual rock music, the kind that won't easily be mistaken for pop or alternative music, they really don't do much for me. I like a few of their songs, but I'm not a hardcore fan or anything.

I have grown to REALLY love Demi Lovato. Her recent documentary on YouTube was fantastic, and this has to be one of the best pop songs of the year. Just stunning.

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by UYI

[Enigma X]

Foo Fighters would be my second favorite band of all time, but when they did their Sonic Highways series a few years back, I am pretty sure I am in the minority in hoping they would have experimented a little with the sound that showcased the city and/or major artists from that city that they were reflecting on in each episode.  Definitely still keeping it rock but rock (imo) really came into fruition by influence from other genres.

[SunnyBeBe]

On 8/12/2017 at 9:16 AM, Shannon L. said:

I didn't have an album, but Down by the Lazy River still puts a smile on my face and a bounce in my step.  I can still sing along to it, too  :)

Hey, what's wrong with the Osmonds?  lol  Seriously, a lot of people disliked them back in the day.  I got a lot of flack from being a huge fan.  Didn't let that get me down, though.  They got me through some tough times as a kid.   I have all their albums, except one (stolen, I think) and all singles. (Including Marie and Jimmy.)  

[UYI]

18 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Hey, what's wrong with the Osmonds?  lol  Seriously, a lot of people disliked them back in the day.  I got a lot of flack from being a huge fan.  Didn't let that get me down, though.  They got me through some tough times as a kid.   I have all their albums, except one (stolen, I think) and all singles. (Including Marie and Jimmy.)  

I'll defend Meet Me in Montana to anyone! :)

 

[SunnyBeBe]

Oh yeah. I liked that  one (Marie)  a lot too.  And even though the Osmonds had their fair share of critics, back in the day, I always loved 2 of their less known, non-hit songs:

 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Re: The Osmonds

 

*small voice* I kinda like "Soldier of Love" (but that's cause I like '80s cheese of any variety).

[janie jones]

I don't like the Cranberries.

[GaT]

3 hours ago, janie jones said:

I don't like the Cranberries.

As I opened this thread & started reading your post, I was watching an E!News story on her death & thinking "I never liked the Cranberries" I just don't like their music.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I don't hate Weezer, but I desperately wish I liked them more than I do. Also, I find Pinkerton a boring, overrated album.

[cpcathy]

I like The Sweater Song, but I never catch Weezer on the radio and go, "ooh, Weezer!" They're just THERE.

[27bored]

Gotta echo the above sentiment about Demi Lovato. Tell You Love Me is super underrated. I listen to it a few times a week. It has a muted gospel vibe that suits her voice.

So, Timberlake just performed on the Super Bowl and it was...pretty wack, actually.

Justin was a deceptively bad pick for the Halftime Show. You’d think because he’s been around awhile, he has hits, and is generally regarded as a good performer that he would make for a good Halftime Show performer. 

Justin’s songs aren’t big enough for a Halftime show. He’s not a belter, he doesn’t have a larger than life presence, and he has that showbiz kid compulsion to just hit his marks. In his best recorded moments, when the songs aren’t 5-6 minutes long, Justin works as a headphone or club experience. In a stadium he seems really pedestrian. 

I kinda resent that he didn’t get the band back together. I’ve said it before, but Justin is at his best on N Sync songs. You can the soul influence in his voice on pop songs than on the muted R&B songs. 

All that said, the Prince tribute was nice, especially when they showed the purple lights outside the stadium. That was some tribute.

Edited February 5, 2018 by 27bored

[Silver Raven]

That half time show bored me.

[cpcathy]

I don't understand the big deal over the Half Time show, it seems it's become another reason for people to snark and complain, especially on social media. No halftime show is ever going to be good enough for any one person, why do we even care anymore.

 

That said, I think JT is a douche and I did not watch.

[truthaboutluv]

You will always get a bunch of Negative Nancy's who live to be negative on social media but for the most part, there have been a number of halftime shows that the majority of people thought was good or enjoyed well enough. And as to its purpose, it is a great publicity platform for the performer and for many a highlight of their career since no matter which teams are playing in the game that year, millions will watch. The Superbowl, as we all know, for many is like an event. So I do get the big deal about the halftime show.

Regarding Justin's halftime show, this one was definitely in the fail category because it wasn't just some voices on social media slagging on him, it was pretty panned across the board - critics, fans, etc. I saw it and for me, it was just very average. There was no wow moment, no POP! The Prince moment was nice but that was more seeing the city lit up in purple than anything Justin was doing. A lot of his dancing and delivery of his songs was stuff we've seen many times from him. 

I know his ego made him reject having anyone else on stage with him but this definitely felt like a halftime show that could have benefited from another musical guest.

Edited February 7, 2018 by truthaboutluv

[CaughtOnTape]

Then I guess my unpopular opinion is that I didn't have a problem with the halftime show.  I love Justin Timberlake and I thought he did fine.  I've seen him in concert and if you haven't, you're missing out.  He is a helluva performer.  I was not a huge fan of us until after I saw the 20/20 Experience and he kept that crowd going for three hours.  That's quite a feat for one person to take on when there's no one else picking up the slack.

And for those of you who think he's a douche, I've met him...quite a few times.  You couldn't be more wrong.  He's very kind and sweet and unassuming.  Why did he need someone else on stage with him?  I see that complaint a lot and I guess I don't understand why anyone expected NSync to be there.  Honestly, the band ended....move on.  Although I had to laugh at the speculation that Britney would be there.  There have been plenty of performers who haven't had anyone on stage with them for it.  I don't see the big deal about it.

I saw a lot of media outlets reporting that "fans" hated it and Prince "fans" were upset and people panned it, I dunno who they spoke to because no one I know had an issue with it other than the sound sucked.  Everyone I talked to thought it was great.  It's become kind of sad nowadays that just because the loudest of us get on Twitter and Facebook and rant that means it is an indication of how the masses felt.  It's not.  Those people I spoke to are also not big social media users therefore....they weren't on social media saying one way or the other.  I'm a Prince fan, I didn't have an issue with what he did.  I thought it was a great tribute and the lights lighting up the city was very well done.

Can't win em all I guess.

[truthaboutluv]

34 minutes ago, CaughtOnTape said:

And for those of you who think he's a douche, I've met him...quite a few times.  You couldn't be more wrong.  He's very kind and sweet and unassuming. 

Everyone's experiences are different because my friend's boss met him, more than once (she works with celebrities for what she does) and she can't stand him. And essentially called him an entitled brat. So yeah...

 

34 minutes ago, CaughtOnTape said:

I've seen him in concert and if you haven't, you're missing out. 

I haven't seen him in person but I've seen a number of his live shows and I always thought he was amazing, which is why I actually was looking forward to his halftime performance, whatever my feelings about him as a person. And it truly surprised me how lackluster the performance was. In my opinion, I felt like the venue was too much and almost overpowered him. Like what he would do in a normal tour stage, suddenly seemed small and unimpressive on that stage. YMMV. 

And obviously there will always be those who see things differently because my friend loves him and so she loved the performance. However my sister and everyone else I talked to hated it and felt it was flat and limp and brought nothing new we haven't seen from him many times before. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by truthaboutluv

[UYI]

It's 2018 and I STILL love Meghan Trainor. FIGHT ME! :P

[BuyMoreAndSave]

On 11/26/2017 at 6:56 PM, Blergh said:

OK, here's another 'Get Off My Lawn, Whippersnappers' comment but since it's an UO, here goes:

 

 With all the news of rampant sexual harassment and even sexual battery in the music industry, etc., I have to wonder if things might have been at least less blatant if not had perps instantly called on their stuff instantly and  had there been some attempts to draw lines and boundaries instead of pushing them beyond the bounds of conventional taste with no attempt to say 'enough',etc. way back when. 

 

 Cases in point:instead of laughing off and considering it clever moves for Red Hot Chili Peppers to wear socks on parts other than feet onstage and TLC's  now-deceased Left Eye to wear a condom over her left eye, could things have been more tolerable had their audiences called out"BOOOOO! BOOOOOOO! YUCK! VULGAR! VULGAR! GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK! "

 

Just wondering. 

I don't think sexual assault and "vulgarity" (which is in the eye of the beholder) are related. There was probably just as much or more sexual crimes going on back when everything shown to the public was prim and proper. It just was never talked about and probably was never even characterized as sexual harassment or assault at the time. In fact I think this "vulgarity" or openness is part of what has helped people speak up. For example the term "date rape" did not exist until 1975 and the term was invented by a feminist author. In the past if someone was a victim of sexual abuse and they spoke up about it, a lot of times they would be victim-blamed or told that these things weren't talked about in polite society, etc.

I also doubt anyone was traumatized over the Chili Peppers wearing socks over their "parts" or Left Eye wearing a condom as eyewear, whereas sexual assault and harassment are traumatizing, so I don't know if it's fair to compare the two.

[Blergh]

BuyMoreandSave,

Yes, I recognize that sexual assault and harassment is virtually as old as time. However; it should be noted that unchaperoned DATING itself was virtually unheard of until the close of the 19th century.

  And do you truly believe that there have been  no negative contributing factors by popular music and entertainment re those crimes in the last sixty years but that they've only been positive influences re participants and audiences? Do you think that venues with 10 thousand or more folks in various stages of intoxication being urged from the stage to do 'whatever turns you on'  have been a good thing- even though they  often have blatantly ridiculed the idea that anyone else should so much as object much  less have had any right decline to participate?

No, I'm not saying rock or any other form of music and entertainment is a totally evil and wicked concept and there have been many positive things to spring forth from it as well as entertain. However; both by virtue of having lived through a few generations and studied those of earlier generations, I can't pretend that rock's all sweetness and light which has only helped participants and audiences with zero exploitation of the same.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Blergh
gerand

[27bored]

I've got a couple of UOs if you've got the stomach for it ;):

I know this is old by this point, but Justin Timberlake might've killed his career with the Halftime Show performance.

First of all, Justin should've reunited with *NSYNC. For all the obvious and not so obvious reasons. That should've been more of an imperative than doing a tribute to Prince, IMHO (more on him later). Justin has said his ethos to doing shows is that he wants it to be like a DJ's set, with one song after another. The problem is, you kinda have to let songs breathe a little. He didn't do that. He just cycled through decade-old hit after decade-old hit without embodying any of them. And like people have said, he had on a butt-ugly outfit. I mean, that looked like Justin has never even seen The Woods, much less been inside them. It was shockingly bad, the outfit.

I've heard people say Justin hasn't engaged enough with cultural politics and whatnot, and...I don't know. That's one of Justin's more redeeming qualities, IMO. I don't need another celebrity-politico in my life. I just think the enough project and way he went about this latest album was a bit rushed and under-thought. Justin could've made a contemporary Country record, which would've been a really smart, savvy thing to do at this point in career, or he could've just built off the sound on "Filthy" and gone more industrial sounding (think "...Ready For It?" by T. Swift). This indulgent mash-up of the two? Nah. It was a waste of decent talent by the Neptunes. The entire performance just felt old and stubborn. Like people wanted him to perform a more coherent medley of songs, but no. People wanted him to get NSYNC back together, but no. People wanted him to wear something that didn't look like ass, but no.

I do think that he probably should've worked this record in a more traditional fashion than doing the big Halftime Show roll-out.

------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of which, I'm getting tired of aging, almost legacy acts using the Halftime Show to roll-out their albums. Beyonce's done it twice, Bruno's done it, Gaga's done it, now Justin. The Halftime Show needs to be a celebration of success, not a brazen attention-grab by vacant cash cows. Justin hasn't released an album in five years, and other than that dumbass song on the Trolls soundtrack, he hasn't done much musically. Now he's doing the Halftime Show? FOH.

------------------------------------------------------

To shoot JT some bail, I wish people would stop blaming him for Janet Jackson's career in the wake of their last performance. People forget: Janet was already a legacy act by the time she performed on the Halftime Show. It's not like she was racking up hits back then anyway. And she was close to forty! But let's be clear: since then Janet has released like 3-4 albums, gone on 3-4 world tours, performed on SNL and other high-profile shows, and been in movies. Justin might've tarnished her image and slowed some things down, but I dare anyone who's saying he ruined her career to name three songs Janet's released in the last 10 years. If you can't, that means you probably didn't care that much anyway.

I remember a lot of people saying, at the time, Janet did that because Beyonce was so popular and she wanted some press. Now we're back to blaming Justin because he apologized for it.

----------------------------------------------------------

I would be considered a millennial, and though I hate that term and general concept, I will say one thing I'm proud of is my lack of acquiescence to people like Prince. God rest his soul, but it's like this: Prince's heyday was before I was born...more or less. I, like most people my age, only know about his genius because my mom loved him. He made some comment about Sexyback and Justin clapped back on Give It To Me and people were saying it was disrespectful. Uh, FUCK PRINCE. He shouldn't have been talking shit. I don't do this "oh, that's a legend...you can't respond to them" shit. I don't care who it is. Don't talk shit if you don't want to get it back. PERIOD.

----------------------------------------------------------

As much as I love Christina, I think she needs to listen to the Grammy-winning song she was on, "say something". Because bitch, SAY SOMETHING I'M GIVING UP ON YOU. Why does Christina think she can still have a viable career by waiting 5-6 years between putting out albums? I don't get it. Her manager (the legendary Irving Azoff), her label, her celebrity pals, none of them, say "Uh, La Aguilera? You might need to do a little more working and less chilling". It's been a full decade since she even toured. This is ridiculous. You're LOSING FANS.

Edited March 2, 2018 by 27bored

[Neko]

Quote

As much as I love Christina, I think she needs to listen to the Grammy-winning song she was on, "say something". Because bitch, SAY SOMETHING I'M GIVING UP ON YOU. Why does Christina think she can still have a viable career by waiting 5-6 years between putting out albums? I don't get it. Her manager (the legendary Irving Azoff), her label, her celebrity pals, none of them, say "Uh, La Aguilera? You might need to do a little more working and less chilling". It's been a full decade since she even toured. This is ridiculous. You're LOSING FANS.

Well, she's apparently releasing a collaboration with Demi Lovato.  So, there's that.

http://popcrush.com/christina-aguilera-demi-lovato-collaboration-clues/

[27bored]

6 hours ago, Sweet Summer Child said:

Well, she's apparently releasing a collaboration with Demi Lovato.  So, there's that.

http://popcrush.com/christina-aguilera-demi-lovato-collaboration-clues/

Yeah. They’ve been teasing that since before Demi’s album came out, I think. I thought it was going to come out around Christmas time. I don’t know who could possibly think teasing a collaboration this long is a good idea. Love them both, but they’re not the hottest ticket in town, separate or together.

In fact, someone already made a spoof of what their song is going to sound like. It’s sad that I instantly recognized the Christina runs are from when she did Alright Now on her My Reflection concert special.

[GaT]

To me, the problem with Christina is that she's become a caricature of herself, it's just like Mariah Carey. They both still have great voices, but they're so intent on looking sexy & young, that they look silly & it overshadows the performance. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by GaT

[Neko]

On 3/14/2018 at 11:46 AM, GaT said:

To me, the problem with Christina is that she's become a caricature of herself, it's just like Mariah Carey. They both still have great voices, but they're so intent on looking sexy & young, that they look silly & it overshadows the performance. 

Right.  I love Mariah, and I can take or leave Christina, but I think they both need to stop clinging to their youth and just sing.  That's what they both do, best.  They will always have fans; look at Barbra Streisand, or Celine Dion.  Both ladies with huge, power voices who were able to keep having careers and selling out venues, even if they weren't the hot young things at the top of the pop charts.  Granted, Barbra and Celine never had the sexy images that Mariah and Christina did in their respective heydays, BUT- do either of them really need that image to be successful?  They're not Britney Spears, they have enough raw talent to keep working.  Hell, Mariah wasn't always the sex kitten pop star, she was known for more adult contemporary power ballads at the beginning of her career.  Plenty of people would pay to hear them sing, even if they aren't grinding on hot backup dancers or wearing assless chaps.  I think. :P

[27bored]

I agree, but Christina’s my baby so I can’t agree too much. Here she is on a Simpsons episode that never was: 

[BuyMoreAndSave]

On 3/2/2018 at 5:39 PM, Blergh said:

BuyMoreandSave,

Yes, I recognize that sexual assault and harassment is virtually as old as time. However; it should be noted that unchaperoned DATING itself was virtually unheard of until the close of the 19th century.

  And do you truly believe that there have been  no negative contributing factors by popular music and entertainment re those crimes in the last sixty years but that they've only been positive influences re participants and audiences? Do you think that venues with 10 thousand or more folks in various stages of intoxication being urged from the stage to do 'whatever turns you on'  have been a good thing- even though they  often have blatantly ridiculed the idea that anyone else should so much as object much  less have had any right decline to participate?

No, I'm not saying rock or any other form of music and entertainment is a totally evil and wicked concept and there have been many positive things to spring forth from it as well as entertain. However; both by virtue of having lived through a few generations and studied those of earlier generations, I can't pretend that rock's all sweetness and light which has only helped participants and audiences with zero exploitation of the same.

Even if there wasn't unchaperoned dating there were still plenty of situations where people would be raped. Sexual assault, as well as other crime, was rampant in areas such as the pioneer West. Plus the rape and forcible marriage of women and girls from conquered groups of people by the conquerors. Girls would be married at a very young age. The Little House on the Prairie books discuss 13 year olds being married to grown men as a normal thing, which it was back then. Centuries prior to that it was even younger. Oftentimes they would be married off because their families were poor and could not afford to support them anymore. Back then women also weren't allowed to say no to their husbands. I mean there literally was the phrase "Lay back and think of England." Also women from lower classes such as prostitutes were raped all the time. With the "sexual revolution" came more of an awareness that women are people and not just playthings or property. Give me examples of popular songs that encourage rape.

[Silver Raven]

1 hour ago, BuyMoreAndSave said:

Give me examples of popular songs that encourage rape.

Jamie Foxx, "Blame it on the Alcohol" - I'm going to make you do what you've already said you're not going to do. ... shawty know what she want, but she don't wanna seem like she easy/I hear you saying what ya wont do, but you know we probably goin' do

[FormerMod-a1]

Blurred Lines - Robin Thicke

[vibeology]

I'm Still A Guy - Brad Paisley

"When you say a back rub means only a back rub, then you swat my hand when I try/Well, what can I say at the end of the day/Honey, I'm still a guy."

[BuyMoreAndSave]

8 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

Jamie Foxx, "Blame it on the Alcohol" - I'm going to make you do what you've already said you're not going to do. ... shawty know what she want, but she don't wanna seem like she easy/I hear you saying what ya wont do, but you know we probably goin' do

 

8 hours ago, aquarian1 said:

Blurred Lines - Robin Thicke

 

3 hours ago, vibeology said:

I'm Still A Guy - Brad Paisley

"When you say a back rub means only a back rub, then you swat my hand when I try/Well, what can I say at the end of the day/Honey, I'm still a guy."

Blurred Lines got such a huge backlash that I think it doesn't really even count. Also, according to the Wikipedia page for "I'm Still A Guy," Brad Paisley played that song for his wife (the subject of the song) immediately after writing it to get her opinion on it, and she approved of it...so I guess she doesn't see it as rapey in the context of their relationship. Also there were songs along the lines of Blurred Lines and Blame It On The Alcohol before the "sexual revolution" as well, such as the most well-known example, "Baby It's Cold Outside." People still debate whether songs such as these, with the "girl is pretending she doesn't want to have sex but secretly does" message are intended to not care about consent, or just have Unfortunate Implications. Anyway, just the fact that these are being discussed as rapey at all is something that would never even be discussed prior to the 1970s as that was something that was just not part of cultural lexicon. Let's put it this way, the modern era has produced a lot more anti-sexual assault media (songs, written or spoken statements, etc.) than media promoting sexual assault.

[Blergh]

Thanks, Silver Raven, aquarian 1, and vibeology for your contributions!

Buy More and Save, just because some of the above-mentioned songs got objections to their content does NOT mean that they didn't say what they said in the first place! IOW, the bell was rung and, even if there were those who objected to the ringing, that's not the same as it never having been rung.  

  I've said all along that I know what rape, assault, harassment, etc. has happened since time immemorial but just because there are a few 'messagey' songs against this in the current performing arts doesn't mean that there haven't been other songs in recent history that at least encourage those to blur the lines between right and wrong (and not just sexual assault). Moreover, I fail to see how venues with tens of thousands of more fans in various states of intoxication being encouraged to do 'whatever turns you on' can be truly considered a healthy much less a risk free environment.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Blergh
environment

[vibeology]

8 hours ago, BuyMoreAndSave said:

Blurred Lines got such a huge backlash that I think it doesn't really even count. Also, according to the Wikipedia page for "I'm Still A Guy," Brad Paisley played that song for his wife (the subject of the song) immediately after writing it to get her opinion on it, and she approved of it...so I guess she doesn't see it as rapey in the context of their relationship. Also there were songs along the lines of Blurred Lines and Blame It On The Alcohol before the "sexual revolution" as well, such as the most well-known example, "Baby It's Cold Outside." People still debate whether songs such as these, with the "girl is pretending she doesn't want to have sex but secretly does" message are intended to not care about consent, or just have Unfortunate Implications. Anyway, just the fact that these are being discussed as rapey at all is something that would never even be discussed prior to the 1970s as that was something that was just not part of cultural lexicon. Let's put it this way, the modern era has produced a lot more anti-sexual assault media (songs, written or spoken statements, etc.) than media promoting sexual assault.

Blurred Lines was also the biggest song of that year. People may have complained but it still got airplay, people still watched the video and people still sang along to those lyrics, normalizing that way of thinking.

Brad Paisley's wife being okay with something doesn't change the fact that a young man may hear the song and see it as tacit approval for him to push boundaries after a woman says no. It's a "boys will be boys" song and that's a dangerous sentiment to promote.

Also, I really doubt the modern era has produced much anti-sexual assault media. I'm struggling to think of a song about getting enthusiastic consent, though I am sure they exist.

And just to add to the list of rape culture songs:

Crash into Me by DMB is about a guy watching a woman through a window.

Animals by Maroon 5 is about hunting women complete with a creepy serial killer music video.

Drake's entire career is about pitting good girls against bad girls and his Madonna/Whore complex.

Timber by Pitbull features such wonderful lines as "She say she won’t, but I bet she will" and "One more shot, another round, End of the night, it’s going down."

Rick Ross' guest verse on UOENO actually features him bragging about rape "Put Molly all in her Champagne, she ain't even know it. I took her home and I enjoyed that, she ain't even know it."

[27bored]

On 3/22/2018 at 10:18 AM, vibeology said:

Drake's entire career is about pitting good girls against bad girls and his Madonna/Whore complex.

Duuude, I have been saying this about Drake for years. I’ve always thought it was crazy how so many women love Drake when he’s the purveyor of more Madonna/Whore lyrics than any rapper who could be called his contemporary. Every woman he nasally raps or casually sings about is either the most wonderful woman ever or an evil bitch who broke his heart.

[proserpina65]

On ‎01‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 9:21 PM, janie jones said:

I don't like the Cranberries.

I liked their first two albums (Everbody Else Is Doing It So Why Can't We & No Need To Argue - love the second one), but after that, eh.  And I hate Zombie; Dolores O'Riordan's weird vocal affectation on that one makes me stabby.

[UYI]

Diane Warren may have written "How Do I Live" with LeAnn Rimes in mind, but Trisha Yearwood's version blows her version out of the goddamn water. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Even if he were the kindest, sweetest, least embarrassing human being on the planet, I'd still think Kanye West was nothing special as a musician. 

[Silver Raven]

2 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Even if he were the kindest, sweetest, least embarrassing human being on the planet, I'd still think Kanye West was nothing special as a musician. 

Is this an unpopular opinion?