Talk:Manufactured pop

Scope[edit]

Manufactured pop has been around for a long time. To say it became popular in the 1990s seems to make reference to a very specific category of manufactured pop. What about The Monkees? Labalius (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be a good deal more written about the history of manufactured pop. Motown Records were doing this in the 1960s, with much of their most famous output being written by a single songwriting team and the artists being dressed, choreographed etc. by the record company. Manufactured pop has enjoyed popularity for a long time. As have artists who rely entirely or almost entirely on "other people to create and organise their work". It seems a bit harsh on Britney Spears and Rihanna to me to single them out in this regard, it is not a new phenomen.Peteds (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bring back the Manufactured pop page![edit]

(transplanted from Talk: Pop music by Sssoul (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It tells it like it is! Let's expose these fakes for who they are! Take that Britney, Rihanna, Keri (okay, she co-wrote her two biggest hits but aside from that) and well... Alot of artists.... I'm not gonna take the time to list 'em all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarthsBullet (talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right on! To a great extent, POP==MARKETING since, oh, take a stab, White Christmas. As Patrick Montgomery pointed out in his terrific film,[1] the original rock'n'rollers, and their DJs, were largely extinguished ... "too dangerous". This flies in the face of the definition which includes rock'n'roll as part of pop -- at that time it was the ANTI-THESIS of pop.
Thus Frank Sinatra went outta his way to SNEER at rock'n'roll, and Steve Allen mocked it on national TV; Thus it was dubbed 'vulgar animalistic *** "; Thus preachers ranted against "The beat, the beat, the beat"; Thus it was banned and the police called out to stifle it in city after city ... as they did recently to raves.) Who propped up to replace them? Fabian ... and ilk.
So POP was about the marketing campaign toeradicaterock'n'roll, replacing dangerous rebellion with cleancut wholesome quality music. Who played it safer than Motown (suits, cute dances for TV...)?? Then the cute Beatles came along, even parents could like them (couldn't read between the lines), but those terrible Rolling Stones started up the whole snotty, rabid, stinky, dangerous mess again with "Let's Spend the Night", "Satisfaction" and such satisfying trash about people and real life, not stain-glass dreams and narcolepsy.
So yeah ... pop and "Music industry" i.e. RIAA and "there's people out there turning music into gold". Only WP is too, errm, pop ... to face up to slapping THAT face. So how can the truth be told in an 'encyclopedic' way? Zinn: "honest ... and therefore, unmanageable." And so this article is doomed -never- to coalesce while simultaneously escaping suckitude. Cuz we're all worried about being respectable now. ;=> Twang (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth can so be told in an encyclopedic way, infact, I'm going remake the page... When I have nothing better to do.MarthsBullet (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the record: [2] is the edit that turned the "Manufactured pop" article into a redirect to Popular music. Sssoul (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page should be redirected too. I will do it later, if nobody else does. Dynablaster (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]