I saw a post on a thread recently to the effect of "I can't even take Luke/Max seriously anymore, they're redoing the same song over and over
and mass producing art etc"
In today's standards and styles Dr L and Max have as good as a variety as any in their overall body of work.
Pop Rock and Dance Pop by definition recycles chord patterns and melody lines, so they're not mass producing any more than other pop/rock people.
I know most of us obviously love their music but I'm still curious if there are those here that really think that they're being any more
repetitious than the average pop writer.
Nah, not more than anyone..
Just by looking at a piano you can tell that being original is hard. And with modern music where melody is pretty much dead it's much more up to production and sound to create that what people want to listen to..
I think with the way they approach songwriting, it's easy to see the end result as repetition. They basically use the same chord progressions and song structures over and over again. But what keeps it fresh is the way they (and their respective regular co-writers) use the ongoing trends in music sonically speaking and of course, the melodies. I think what makes their success is how they balance their creative side with what never fails to work. When you're in the business of writing pop hits, there's only so much you can explore musically, a lot of songwriters are simply caught in the game of trying to one-up the best charting songs.
There's definitely something formulaic about what they do, but that's what THEY do. They're household producers, you know what you're gonna get when you work with them. Criticizing pop music for being too repetitive is like criticizing chewing gum for not satisfying your hunger. It's the times we live in, although pop music is definitely heading to more daring places, which is nice.
Quote from: J_A24 on October 25, 2014, 04:38:19 AM
Criticizing pop music for being too repetitive is like criticizing chewing gum for not satisfying your hunger.
well said
Absolutely agree.
I have to add that this is not art: it's entertainment.
Art and entertainment come from different places.
^ ^ ^
For me, they may come from different places, but the EFFECT can be equal from both.......say for example I go to the Museum of Modern Art in NY and get inspired out of my mind by what I see.......and then an hour later I hear a new pop song that blows my mind: the stimulation on me from both sources is equal to me......I don't differentiate. In fact, pop music often affects me even stronger than the highest "art".......to me it's actually harder to create a pop song on that level than say a really good painting....
I mean, the motivations are different: people make things because they have reasons to do it.
That's what makes a difference.
I have nothing against entertainment, but it's just that: have fun.
Yeah, definitely. The intention is to please the crowd, wether you're conscious about it or not. So initially, the expression is less artistic than pure art. The effect it has on people is emotional. You explore familiarity and repetition because that's the safest way to catch the listener's emotions.
The problem as an artist is when you do it for the wrong reasons. Some writers and producers think they can get into the pop business and get it to sound like the future, but it doesn't work like that. It's a business, it's a game.
No, I don't think they are being any more repititious than other pop songwriters. Every songwriter has their sound and their style and we either like it or not.