Was pop music always manufactured industry plants or is it a relatively new phenomenon?

Attached: Billie-x-Olivia-rnrg-splash-page-by-Ron-Hart-2.jpg (1364x764, 729.43K)

Almost all music by your favorite artists is written by someone else. Sometimes having more than 10 people who compose it. Most artists are just there to present the product. Aka dance and sing. They are not the main creative force behind the music. No label would let their signings do whatever they want.

Attached: The_Monkees_1966.jpg (1450x1919, 492.36K)

>Almost all music by your favorite artists is written by someone else.
How could you say that without knowing the bands that I listen to? I don't listen to pop music.

pop is business, so

its just that in the past a real degree of talent and artistry was needed for the music making - thats why you had all those famous studio bands around that are in the documentaries these days - the muscle shoals guys, the LA wrecking crew, shit like that. old school showbiz meant you have to have real fucking chops to get in and keep up. still happens behind some scenes, but the over all content is a lot less interesting

shit thats why the edge does that!!

well said, I'm satisfied with this answer. No need to bump the thread anymore. Thanks

It was even more ubiquitous in the past, I'd say

but im also saying that - there's the industry, but i dont really think their are 'plants' so to speak. and then their is the other side of the history, of artists really coming into their own as artists and still getting up. no one wrote jimi hendrix's music, the image and possibilities for artists changes. lou reed goes from being a pop song writer to being an artist and in doing so, i suppose he becomes a lot more like an artist of the past. jazz evolving into big band troupes and then back into trios and soloist would be interesting to explore. everybody gotta hustle somehow.

>but i dont really think their are 'plants' so to speak
I think you're wrong. Billie Eilish and Olivia Rodrigo had no grassroots following. They were overnight sensations. They were signed by major labels and given access to the whole force of the machine. Marketing, channels of distribution, etc.

lurk more new fag tourist fag

Attached: fr.jpg (1422x1424, 161.29K)

im talking about the past to be more specific. those really, like i said the industry is the industry - when they make someone and put their resources behind them its pretty obvious. kinda hard to be all "omg plant'

I agree

Rockism killed good pop music

Look up who Jim Morrison's father was.

look up deez nuts

I will always maintain the Olivia isn't a plant since she is a Disney girl
People forget that plants pretend that they had a grassroots following in the first place
Anyone from Disney can't have that luxury since their career trajectory is monitored by millions of children in the first place
Any Forums conflates how pop artists function with industry plants as a whole

Ok sub Olivia with Phoebe

I will rape them both.

social media put planting on steroids

each and every performer/singer/dancer/musician you can name is a plant. music stopped being an artform in 1953.

It's always been pretty commercial but it was less manufactured in the 60s than it is today. It's almost entirely a corporate product now.

you are ignorant
buddy rich was an on stage drum persona at age 12 cuz he had carny parents
you dont know shit

seethe more consoomie