Twitter: Dak & Mike McCarthy at Kenny Chesney concert

GINeric said:

They are all pretty good artists in their own right and have all had major success, so apparently they done something right during their run. I don't believe they were classified as country music artists were they??? I stand to be corrected of course.

Click to expand...

GINeric said:

Im not looking at "popular", im looking at how the hip-hop culture has dominated the world. I remember there was a time music critics said hip-hop was just a faze and that it wouldn't last.

But 40+ years later, it is still on top by miles.

Click to expand...

Runwildboys said:

The genre is irrelevant. The point is that just because someone's music is popular doesn't mean it's good, and vice versa.

Click to expand...

SteveTheCowboy said:

Totally concur. "Popular music" ...pop.....generally has other qualities about it than musical "worth". Aforementioned Britney for example...a pretty big seller!....but it's about about the dance/show rather than music listening experience.

Pink Floyd might be an example of big seller...and musical value/worth.

Click to expand...

SteveTheCowboy said:

Okay...I didn't know you were being so specific. You did say "the music I listen to".

I still say...music in general.....global sales and downloads are not a direct correlation to "quality". Usually the opposite.

Click to expand...

Runwildboys said:

The genre is irrelevant. The point is that just because someone's music is popular doesn't mean it's good, and vice versa.

Click to expand...

GINeric said:

I understand what you're saying about quality, but its about what the people want to hear. Those people paying for those albums, downloads and streams feel like they are getting quality music. Its quality to them.

Nobody can lead the world in music sales and tour revenue if people all over the world didn't think it was quality music. There is no set definition of "quality" in music.

Click to expand...

GINeric said:

Well my point was about Dak at a country music show, so i singled out country. If someone is consistently selling 2 to 3+ million albums everytime they drop a new one, then it must be pretty good music. Numbers don't lie.

Click to expand...

SteveTheCowboy said:

LOL..."quality to them". Could be, maybe...but...not sure they are concerned about "quality".

SO you are trying to tell me there's ZERO difference between nickelback and Dixie Dregs...musically. Quality. Adeptness.

Dude. I think you are why we get shtty music.

I kid.....sorry!

Click to expand...

ShortRound said:

Click to expand...

GINeric said:

I believe we get shtty music nowadays because people don't invest in their craft like they used to as a whole. Plus we definitely live in the "microwave music era". There are more labels out to distribute their own music opposed to maybe 10 to 15 major labels globally years ago.

Click to expand...

GINeric said:

Well my point was about Dak at a country music show, so i singled out country. If someone is consistently selling 2 to 3+ million albums everytime they drop a new one, then it must be pretty good music. Numbers don't lie.

Click to expand...

RonWashington said:

Mr Ron MacDonald sells lots of burgers wouldn’t exactly go by “ the numbers “ ….anyhow hope Dak tipped the valet well .

Click to expand...

GINeric said:

Burgers and the music business are two totally different things, so you can totally go by the numbers in most instances. Glad i can help!!

Click to expand...

SteveTheCowboy said:

They actually aren't any different at all. Either sales numbers determine quality, or not. You can;t pick and choose to suit your agenda.

I suppose we have a definition problem here.... "Good" music. Rightly so...it's kind of subjective in some ways.

You trust the "popular" sales to determine it. I, and apparently some others, think that is a mistake.

The GOOD thing is...like food....you can consume what you enjoy.

Click to expand...

GINeric said:

Pretty much anybody can cook a good burger. There's not alot of people who can write, produce, and perform a great song.

If you have a couple of dollars, you can buy a McDonald's that mass produce good burgers.

Those same couple of dollars could not pay for the production and the operations of a successful music label. Even though you fund a major label, it doesn't mass produce good music like McDonald's mass produce good burgers.

So comparing music production to burger production is not a good example.

Click to expand...

SteveTheCowboy said:

You can make...produce...good listenable music these days for pretty cheap...by comparison to say 20-30 years ago. It can be very good music... of value and adeptness..regardless.

You can make very adept music without the high priced studio. The production may, or may not lack....but as I said....pretty cheap these days. You could probably by studio hardware and software for around a grand....and then mass produce your songs for pennies on those dollars.

PC/Interface/Mic/recording suite. PAy for pro mastering. You could even start a record company of your own. If it's good music you'll get a deal by the big shots (with some caveats of course like show attendance/multimedia presence).

Steve Vai made his first recording Flexable on 4track cassette tape recorder. It's not for everyone (obviously), but it is of very high musical adeptness and surprising audio quality. . It, along with his Frank Zappa gig shot him out the canon. Of course...REAL musical talent too.


The problem here is you never said "how much does it cost to produce". You claimed "sell numbers don't lie". In regards to the QUALITY of the music. It's just incorrect.

And now you reveal you think McDonalds is "a good burger". The..."numbers don;t lie"?

Click to expand...

GINeric said:

Lol!!! No i wasn't referring specifically to McDonald's, i just used the franchise as an example of burger production. Maybe i should have said Five Guys, they're better burgers lol!!

Click to expand...