I know what most of you are thinking. They're not real musicians, they're just manufactured, talentless, boys with good looks who happen to catch a break and gained popularity solely on their looks. You're thinking, what kind of person besides a teenage girl can stand their music, much less like it. Or moreover, how could anyone LIKE their music, and not just buy their CDs because they "look good". These guys are a disgrace to all forms of music out there, and they should die for it.
But, while they may not be for everyone, there are millions of fans out there who do enjoy their music, and don't think of them as any more than they actually are. It's a form of entertainment, and nothing deeper than such. They don't claim listening to their CDs will change your lives or cure world hunger, but provide nothing else but pure music to listen to.
When people say their music isn't on the levels of groups like Nirvana or whoever it may be, so what? In zero ways do they try to replicate, imitate, or otherwise try to attract a similar audience as those groups do. With that being the case, there's little reason for people to make the comparison, or otherwise judge them with their tastes obviously being different.
People say their lyrics are shallow, and don't compare to the lyrics that have deeper meaning and such. Yet again it's a comparison with zero basis to it, as the two cannot be farther from being the same. It's like trashing "Something About Mary" because it was all toilet humor and doesn't have any insights on the world among us like American Beauty might have. So why the comparisons? The music groups have almost zero similarities other than the fact that they record and sell music, much like actors of all movies act and have people pay money to see their movies. But why don't people trash movies that are in completely different genres and "aren't up to par" with their old time favorites, while they trash "boybands" for the same reasons?
Another level of criticism that arises is that these guys don't write their own lyrics. Now based on the fact that these same people criticize them for being "shallow", it's a lude argument to start with. But even so the lyrics are much more poetic than I'm sure the average person can come up with. And while they're being blamed for not writing their music, people don't blame actors for not writing their own dialogues and scripts. Again, what's the difference? I've yet to see any actor's credibility decreased because he/she didn't create their own dialogues and have had to rely on memorizing scripts to get through a movie with.
But, while they may not be for everyone, there are millions of fans out there who do enjoy their music, and don't think of them as any more than they actually are. It's a form of entertainment, and nothing deeper than such. They don't claim listening to their CDs will change your lives or cure world hunger, but provide nothing else but pure music to listen to.
When people say their music isn't on the levels of groups like Nirvana or whoever it may be, so what? In zero ways do they try to replicate, imitate, or otherwise try to attract a similar audience as those groups do. With that being the case, there's little reason for people to make the comparison, or otherwise judge them with their tastes obviously being different.
People say their lyrics are shallow, and don't compare to the lyrics that have deeper meaning and such. Yet again it's a comparison with zero basis to it, as the two cannot be farther from being the same. It's like trashing "Something About Mary" because it was all toilet humor and doesn't have any insights on the world among us like American Beauty might have. So why the comparisons? The music groups have almost zero similarities other than the fact that they record and sell music, much like actors of all movies act and have people pay money to see their movies. But why don't people trash movies that are in completely different genres and "aren't up to par" with their old time favorites, while they trash "boybands" for the same reasons?
Another level of criticism that arises is that these guys don't write their own lyrics. Now based on the fact that these same people criticize them for being "shallow", it's a lude argument to start with. But even so the lyrics are much more poetic than I'm sure the average person can come up with. And while they're being blamed for not writing their music, people don't blame actors for not writing their own dialogues and scripts. Again, what's the difference? I've yet to see any actor's credibility decreased because he/she didn't create their own dialogues and have had to rely on memorizing scripts to get through a movie with.
Facebook
Twitter