# Justin Timberlake and the like



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

One of my mottos is that any radio station that has a "Z" in front of their numbers is pretty much guaranteed to play utter crap about 95% of the time. I can't stand the vast majority of "Top 40" music, but there are a few good things that creep in there from time to time.

With that said, I often wonder about those who hate anything mainstream. I have my suspicions that many of them are just so smug, have such a feeling of superiority yet, have such self-loathing (which project to everyone else), that they have made a conscious (and often subconscious) choice to hate all that "the ugly masses" enjoy.

I had a friend in Junior High school who loved U2. Then in High School, I asked her if she still liked U2, and she said, "No, they've become too mainstream." I thought, "What? So overnight, they forgot how to be good? They stopped writing good music?" Sometimes that could happen, but maybe, they were always good, and maybe so good, that the "masses" caught on and embraced them.

Same thing with movies. I know a few people who don't like "Braveheart," "Shawshank Redemption," "Mystic River," and such because they are all "Big Budget" with "Famous" actors. So what? that means it automatically sucks?

Now, with all that said, a friend of mine gave me three Justin Timberlake albums. I am suffering through the second one right now (I always listen to everything that someone gives me, no matter how bad it is). About 6 months ago, I saw one of his concerts on TV. It was actually really good, and what surprised me the most, was the quality musicians that he surrounded himself with.

That is one of the most underrated skills/abilities/actions that one has: The wisdom to choose to surround oneself with greatness. Justin himself is very talented. He is a great performer, a solid actor, and a solid musician (for the Pop genre). How he delved into Blues, Funk, R&R, and such was just really good musicianship throughout the entire concert. I wish he would put more in the studio what he does live onstage.

His studio stuff is less than good and that was the entire point of this thread: Talented people who do not put out the potential of their talent.

He is one of them. Another one is *Alicia Keyes.* Puts out stuff far lower than her talent level. I would never buy a Justin Timberlake album, but I would gladly attend one of his concerts.

Was wondering what other artists some here find do not come close (musically) to what their potential is.

V


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Who says they hate everything mainstream? Sounds like a strawman.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

I have met MANY people who automatically recoil (they admit it) at most things mainstream (within the arts, I'm speaking). I have heard countless times when asked if they liked something, "No, that's too mainstream." 

Having worked in the music industry for more than 10 years, living in NYC for more than 15 years, I have come across many real people like this. No strawmen in my experience.

V


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Could it be that the "mainstream" they refer to is shorthand for exactly the squandering of talent in the pursuit of easier sales that you seem to be accusing Timberlake and Keyes of? You should dig a little deeper with them and get them to unpack the term for you. They may each mean subtly different things by it.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

The problem seems to be one that you allude to yourself. In order to become mainstream, potentially talented musicians like Justin Timberlake and Alicia Keys must abandon their serious artistic principles and opt for something safe and radio-friendly, because that's what the kids are into. Similar problem with U2. The band may have started out as something fresh and interesting, but once this formula attracted a large stadium-filling audience, they never really changed the formula; they never really took any risks. It is just a shame when this sort of thing stifles the creativity of potentially interesting artists.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Winterreisender said:


> The problem seems to be one that you allude to yourself. In order to become mainstream, potentially talented musicians like Justin Timberlake and Alicia Keys must abandon their serious artistic principles and opt for something safe and radio-friendly, because that's what the kids are into. Similar problem with U2. The band may have started out as something fresh and interesting, but once this formula attracted a large stadium-filling audience, they never really changed the formula; they never really took any risks. It is just a shame when this sort of thing stifles the creativity of potentially interesting artists.


I agree with your over-all point but to be fair U2 changed their style multiple times in their career and certainly took some risks. They were huge in the '80s and could have stayed safe and continued with that sound from _Joshua Tree_, but _Achtung Baby_ and _Pop_ were completely different from the early albums, and their later stuff is also very different from their early or middle period stuff. I don't like all of their music but all around I think U2 is actually a really good example of a band that is quite good and quite mainstream - it _is_ possible.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Best U2 albums: Achtung Baby, Zooropa, POP.

U2 are very limited as musicians but that's nothing new in the pop/rock universe. Eno deserves a lot of credit for their artistic success.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

If I were to listen to mainstream pop... it would probably be Timberlake. Of course it's not anywhere near the level of creativity and artistic execution of the music we normally discuss here, but at least he has a certain level of skill that slightly perforates the sludge of utter dullness.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Let me clarify further: I don't think Timberlake and Keys are deliberately "selling out" or "selling themselves short" just to make money or gain more fame. I think that the genres they *chose* (and I do believe THEY chose it) aren't conducive to what their personal talent has the potential to produce. I am sure they are very happy doing what they are doing.

A live performance of Timberlake shows the depth he has as a musician and a performer. IMO, he doesn't come close to that potential in his studio albums.

The main point of my OP was that I find it frustrating that some of these artists chose to stay in a sub-genre that don't promote great musicality, and because they are so "mainstream" many people will not give them enough time to realize that they actually have talent. They'll just automatically write them off.

I was wondering if other's here have the same frustration towards otherwise talented artists that they think do not produce to their potential, and that may be overlooked because they are mainstream.

V


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Varick said:


> *I was wondering if other's here have the same frustration towards otherwise talented artists that they think do not produce to their potential, and that may be overlooked because they are mainstream.*
> 
> V


Absolutely not. That's the entirety of life... people not living up to potentials. Get in, get on, get over.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Varick said:


> Let me clarify further: I don't think Timberlake and Keys are deliberately "selling out" or "selling themselves short" just to make money or gain more fame. I think that the genres they *chose* (and I do believe THEY chose it) aren't conducive to what their personal talent has the potential to produce. I am sure they are very happy doing what they are doing.


If Timberlake is as talented as you suggests, one wonders what other reason he would have for deliberately under-representing himself if, if not the commercial reasons.



> I was wondering if other's here have the same frustration towards otherwise talented artists that they think do not produce to their potential, and that may be overlooked because they are mainstream.


Yes, I can sympathise with this. The country singer Brad Paisley immediately springs to mind. He is one of the finest guitarists on the scene and can also sing a killer ballad when he wants to, yet these days he seems to waste his talent on one stupid novelty song after another. Even Taylor Swift sells herself short a bit. Her earlier country music had at least some degree of sophistication to it, but now she just churns out trashy pop.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> If Timberlake is as talented as you suggests, one wonders what other reason he would have for deliberately under-representing himself if, if not the commercial reasons.
> 
> Yes, I can sympathise with this. The country singer Brad Paisley immediately springs to mind. He is one of the finest guitarists on the scene and can also sing a killer ballad when he wants to, yet these days he seems to waste his talent on one stupid novelty song after another. Even Taylor Swift sells herself short a bit. Her earlier country music had at least some degree of sophistication to it, but now she just churns out trashy pop.


Trash sells. Most people don't care for sophistication in music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Trash sells. Most people don't care for sophistication in music.


Understatement of the century. I am so bored with "mainstream" music and those damn singing contest shows on the Telly. Wonder how Simon Cowell would react if he heard some seriously really good singing?


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Selling out is what artists do best. They want to make money--the companies they are signed to want to make money. Uninspired electro-pop with skin-deep lyrics is what is appealing now. And even artists who started out with unique interesting music have sold out. Owl City has always been one of my favorite artists--his earlier music contained dreamy synthpop sounds with poetic lyrics full of bizarre and interesting imagery. His new music is dance-pop with lyrics about "getting down tonight". This is what artists do when they become popular--it's unfortunate, but it's how it works.

I don't hate everything mainstream, but for me, most mainstream music is nothing more than fluff for background music while driving. I never really invest in it the way I would something a little more "unknown".

To claim that all mainstream artists are "talentless" is simply untrue. Many of them are quite talented--the problem is that it might never show in their music. Or it might only show in their early music.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Out of curiosity, I went and sampled Timberlake's 20/20 album on Amazing. Plenty of peacock nonsense on there. Dude's got some talent, but I can't stand those levels of pretension.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I am guilty of this sort of thing with regards to the Black Keys. Blah, blah, blah, they sold out. But the thing is, their last two albums are a far cry from their earlier filthy blues rock (way too much Danger Mouse).

It's not that their popularity turns me off, it's that what I like isn't what the masses like.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Varick said:


> Let me clarify further: I don't think Timberlake and Keys are deliberately "selling out" or "selling themselves short" just to make money or gain more fame. *I think that the genres they chose (and I do believe THEY chose it) aren't conducive to what their personal talent has the potential to produce*. I am sure they are very happy doing what they are doing.
> 
> The main point of my OP was that *I find it frustrating that some of these artists chose to stay in a sub-genre that don't promote great musicality.*


Timberlake is but one instance: a former Disney kid who has been working hard, and groomed to be, a highly polished performer. Many another fine pop musician and performer has a fair amount of training and grooming, some of that training via conservatory, and their having studied 'classical theory,' etc.

The parts of your quote I set *in bold*, however, I think are a complete personal projection on your part.

I have heard from many people that since I played so well, they thought it a shame I did not play pop music, or show tunes / musicals, or songs from the great American Songbook at a piano bar, etc. because, to their way of thinking that would "give so much to so many." Those individuals were merely stating their preferences for music, what they thought was 'deep music, musicality and expression,' which did not happen to agree with my idea of deep music, musicality and expression, lol.

I think you have done the same kind of projecting your preferences upon the pop musicians you have named. I doubt if any of them are 'yearning to make or do another kind of work, or performance,' i.e. they _are_, for the most part, doing what they want, sincerely believe in, and are not feeling that 'lack' or 'something avoided' which you seem to think they are 

In that regard, the OP is a kind of straw dog.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Best U2 albums: Achtung Baby, Zooropa, POP.
> 
> ... Eno deserves a lot of credit for their artistic success.


I agree, and the best of their best albums was imo _Achtung Baby_

My personal favorite U2 song --> _Until the End of the World_


----------

