You can't remove 'force fed popular culture' because it isn't force fed. People watch X Factor because they enjoy it. These people just have objectively awful taste. If they weren't watching X Factor they'd be finding some other music that offered little resistance to them enjoying it. David Guetta doesn't exist because of X Factor and neither does the PertcTrax label, but the latter isn't less popular bcause of the either of the less 'worthy' things but precisely because they are better and more involved, and that causes them to exclude people.

I knew I was getting into something I don't have the knowledge or passion to back up, so I apologise. I know plenty about drum and bass and some other electronic music, and nothing about singers and bands really, so I'm just an outsider passing comment.

It just seems to me, to answer your question m0stly and to address your point T, that if you took it away people would indeed have to look elsewhere, and maybe elsewhere is made up of people who cared about music first rather than fame or money.

What were you guys listening to when you were 11? When I was 11 I was listening to things like Rage, Cypress Hill, Radiohead's first album and a band called Soul Coughing - the reasons for that were purely that I had two older brothers and I liked the sounds they were playing. If you took away the media bombardment through TV, radio and endless newspaper gossip articles wouldn't we free up these kids' brains to develop their own tastes from other influences?

Nick wrote:

What were you guys listening to when you were 11? When I was 11 I was listening to things like Rage, Cypress Hill, Radiohead's first album and a band called Soul Coughing - the reasons for that were purely that I had two older brothers and I liked the sounds they were playing. If you took away the media bombardment through TV, radio and endless newspaper gossip articles wouldn't we free up these kids' brains to develop their own tastes from other influences?

Really there isn't much difference between you getting your taste from your siblings and those who get it from the Radio. You haven't explored all avenues of music and decided that's what you like, it's just what you were exposed to. The only difference would be that those bands are more acceptable to like, socially, in your opinion.

nick what about susan boyle? Her wish was for lots of people to hear her music. Not so much the fame game which comes with it. There is lots of money involved, and its inevitable that the media will highlight their spending or feelings towards the benefits of popularity and money if they make it.

I think there's a feeling or undertone that someone who wins X-factor is talentless.. they're not but quite possibly less talented when compared with people like the bands you mentioned (radio head etc). Its very rare for bands or groups or artists to have the level of sucess as some like rage against the machine or radio head with as much credibility because these people are on a 6 month show and plucked often from a level of obscurity. I think i'm trying to say you're not comparing apples with apples.

The fact the majority of the people on shows like the voice or xfactor are just singing and not playing an instrument is another reason why they come under criticism for having less talent than someone who does both but it also raises the bar in terms of how good that singing voice has to be. I've watched the odd episode of this and that and had the hairs on the back of my neck/on my arms stand on end because they delivered a performance which had a wow factor.

I'd prefer none of this backstory shit though "it means everything to me. I'm doing it for my dead grandfather. I want to share my passion with the world etc etc etc" as it gets repetetive. Of course you want it more than anything, its the biggest chance you've ever had to make something of yourself duh..

Its also harder to compare against what is often seen as an original. Films often get teh raw end from the book as the book was the original so it must be better. Sequels are rarely better in general. So its harder to be the next original band as so much more material is created/shared and sold.

I knew someone very well who was in one of the biggest boy bands in the uk/world and he could sing like an angel but he was also one of the main people in a manufactured band. Didn't matter, when I was round at his and after a few beers he'd start singing and the room would sit there captivated. When he sang with his group I didn't like it as much despite having numerous number 1s, what he sang at home was his own stuff. Alot of "artists" dont get to pick what they do as much as told by their record label and other "experts" about what is current and what will sell.

My problem with the mainstream outputs isn't so much what type of music they play but that they rarely play the best of that type. 

Santigold and M.I.A are very similar and much better than Rhianna but Rhianna is played on a 5 track cycle. 

Beyonce spends her entire time singing about how she doesn't need men yet ditched her female band mates, married the richest guy in rap and suddenly her career stepped up a gear, the worst thing was that 'Run the World' track, produced by two men with a very mysoginistic live act (seen it, it's a good show, just not exactly feminist), nice. 

Will-I-am is the worst though, rips off Daft Punk, Boys Noize, Deadmau5 and Adam Freeland. Note not samples, actually takes their tracks and uses them un-changed and un-credited resulting in law suits against him. Gets made a judge on a talent contest.

Nick wrote:

Not really sure what you're saying, sorry Matty.  Those influences I mentioned didn't define my tastes which are quite different now. If my early influences had been x factor type pop perhaps I wouldn't have needed to explore other avenues, it would all just be spoon fed to me in a depressing stream of paparazzi shots, autotune vocals and key change choruses.

I don't really see how someone listening to pop music from X Factor is less likely to explore other avenues then you listening to the music your siblings did, is all.

I do actually think Cowell has a good ear for music, his main focus however is the marketability of an act.

M0stly harm13ss wrote:

@Tempy I'm not convinced the music excludes people, but the sniffy culture around it does (i.e. look at my taste, it's so much better and more refined than yours). I'd like to give people credit for not having awful taste, but just not being able to easily find good music without being sneered at.

I dunno, band in hand at the moment for me is Swans and I think your averge listener would turn off fairly quickly considering their latest LP has a song that is as long as a lot of Pop albums.

The "my taste is better" remark I used was a lazy jibe, but the fact that pop music offers less resistance is the reason people listen to it. Rhianna will out and out say "I want to fuck you" or words to those effect, with people like Robyn you'll have to listen a bit harder to find that message. A lot of people don't like to think.

As for the finding it bit:

@Nick: with regards to X Factor and such, the music I listen to is entirely found by myself on the webs, has been for years. I've not ever really had anyone to guide my music taste and my Mum always had Radio 1 on in her car for years. Not sure exposure to shite damns you for the rest of your life. People are happy with what they are happy with, i've posted a fair chunk of stuff in the various music threads only to be met with chuckles from Brooks but it doesn't put me off, he knows his shit but it isn't mine.

Nick, I know nothing about music either . I was listening to the charts when I was 11, my tastes didn't develop until into secondary school and beyond. 

It's easier and less risky to listen to the X Factor/ Will I Am type music and be spoon fed it than it is to go out and find good music (I know I like this, therefore I don't need to make the effort to go elsewhere). But that's probably a society in general issue. A similar analogy is why people eat at MacDonalds...rather bland food that won't challenge your tastebuds or taste so strongly as to offend, but people know what they are getting.

wasn't will-i-am in outkast? And they were good. Hey ya is a banging tune.

Nope Will-i-am wasn't in Outkast, that was Andre 3000 and Big Boi.

The Black Eyed Peas did used to be a fairly respectable if forgetable rap act before Fergie joined and they changed their sound.

Nick wrote:

Edit: Everything you guys say makes sense, and it's kinda interesting to find out people's influences - - but essentially my stance is "I wish there was less music that made me want to throw myself under a moving vehicle". I don't really have much more than that to add to the debate, carry on  : )

Some people want to throw themselves under a bus when they hear Radiohead. Different strokes innit?

I don't mind the fact that the X Factor exists, I don't think it takes the limelight from any other genre of music either. If we banned X Factor tomorrow, would people rush out to buy the Radiohead back catalogue? I doubt it. If they did though, and Radiohead and their ilk became Popular Music to the point where you couldn't get away from it, how long would it be before you started to despise Radiohead and their army of immitators?

Paul - Not long. And I don't even like them now, as it goes. For me they deserve their success way more than someone who's been on x factor though, being as they've actually made good music.

I do think more emphasis needs to be put back on artists who produce, play, write their own music. 
They don't have to play every instrument or produce every edit but just shoving some lyrics in a 17 year olds face and getting them to sing it like what that other singer does isn't creative in the slightest.

Radiohead probably aren't the best example for this conversation as they tend to divide opinion more than most.

X Factor: turning karaoke singers into millionaires since 20XX