"Safe" pop music - does it exist anymore?

[oldcelt]

I have to join those who have suggested Taylor Swift. She moving away from country an is a legitimate talent, plays multiple instruments, writes her own songs, etc… Add to that, is that she doesn’t seem like a person who would alter herself, just to sell her music.

Plus, she grew up in Pennsylvania and her great-grandparents are buried in my hometown. How could you go wrong?

 

[Midwest88]

I think there’s a few songs out there that aren’t as self-involved and as narcissistic that’s played in the Top 40, though right now my mind now is stumped to name these few.

I think these two singles (the latter I forgot the name off) is a good gist of the mentality that pervades Millennials and Gen. Y:

I was listening to Stay With Me by Sam Smith, nice chorus and nice voice, and only until I listened to it a few more times did I wonder “What’s this song about again?” I was too caught up in the melody to fully pay attention to the lyrics that it finally occurred to me that he’s singing about one night stands. :coffeeread:

The there’s Kelly Clarkson’s song about no one telling her what’s right or wrong, that she only decides what’s her own right and wrong. :coffeeread:

 

[Midwest88]

How about One Direction?

Strange enough, yes, at least the singles I’ve heard and I’ve liked. Despite the gripes people have because they’re a boy band and are seemingly emasculate in appearance, Story of My Life and You Don’t Know You’re Beautiful are two songs that really stick out in terms of gratitude and thoughtfulness for the opposite sex. When people talk about empowerment I think of these songs for young women (and old). I mean, you have the first song about a young woman’s vulnerability and a boy’s awareness of that; then in the second song is a shout out to all the girls who may not fit what’s considered “hot/sexy/pretty” in terms of personality and physical appearance without forgetting those who might fit that “hot/sexy/pretty” standard - it’s just an overall feel good song.

 

[Happy_B]

Hello,

There is always a Christian / Catholic pop music. When I was a teenager I used to listen to the Christian music a LOT and it really helped me stay on the right path. My favourite singer was Jaci Velasquez - her songs have really great texts - this is especially great for the girls.

Also here is another discussion suggesting other great Christian artists.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=392372

Good luck

 

[ltravis]

Good stuff in these responses - thanks all. I will look into all the suggestions, and just gratified to know there even are acts worthy of suggesting. Regarding 1D (i.e. One Direction - see I am becoming saavy to my kids lingo ), I vaguely remember their lead artist catching some unfair flack from the left for something or other. I don’t remember the specifics of the issue but he didn’t back down, called them out on it, and demanded they just let the music be the music. I was impressed to see that.

Regarding the Christian/Catholic pop music, I agree there is some good stuff there, especially nowadays, good enough to cross over in some cases. I love Marie Miller. She is a Catholic artist but in the style of Taylor Swift. That said, I would like my DD to be exposed to CC music, but just to broaden her taste and not as a means of totally running away from what secular music might have to offer that is still worthwhile.

LT

 

[Happy_B]

Oh and here is another contemporary catholic singer - he is a catholic priest and a recording artist from Australia - Fr Rob Galea, he is very inspiring, must be in his twenties!!

frrobgalea.com/

And here is his Youtube channel:

youtube.com/user/thatsworship/videos

 

[randomuser]

“Safe” pop music = ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic

He has always done CLEAN parodies - e.g., “Like a Surgeon” (instead of the Madonna song) and “Another One Rides The Bus” (instead of the Queen song.) His new album features “Word Crimes” (parody of “Blurred Lines”) which, aside from being literally gramatically correct, is one of the funniest things I have heard in a long, long time.

Any other Weird Al fans?

 

[revab1991]

Hello! If you look to the Catholic world of music you may find success for you and your daughter in discovering music you can both enjoy. Matt Maher, Marie Miller, Eric Genius and L’Angelus are all examples of fine Catholic artists representing various musical genres.

As your daughter looks to music in the secular world, she will have to do what all of us did; find her own way. You can provide example, counsel and the wisdom of experience. Yet, as in many elements of life, we make our own choices. Other posts listed members who enjoy heavy metal/hard rock while being people of faith. We can enjoy the music, without following the example of the artists, or the direction given by the lyrics. Led Zeppelin is my favorite band, by far, although they were not examples of purity, moderation and innocence. The music is remarkable, and helps to form a soundtrack for our lives.

As your daughter finds her way in this area, it may bring back memories for you as you recall walking this journey in previous years. We all survived, and so will she. Be not afraid! Try and keep a dialogue going, check out the Catholic artists listed above, keep Christ at the center, and rock on!

 

[revab1991]

“Safe” pop music = ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic

He has always done CLEAN parodies - e.g., “Like a Surgeon” (instead of the Madonna song) and “Another One Rides The Bus” (instead of the Queen song.) His new album features “Word Crimes” (parody of “Blurred Lines”) which, aside from being literally gramatically correct, is one of the funniest things I have heard in a long, long time.

Any other Weird Al fans?

Hello! Weird Al first made a name for himself with parodies of Michael Jackson songs from the THRIlLER album. And yes, at that time, it was actually an album! Anyway, check out EAT IT, a parody of BEAT IT. Weird Al parodied everything in the song, and had me watching the original video more carefully. He also faced adversity with the tragic deaths of his parents, but was able to go on and keep the rest of us laughing. A good life lesson.

 

[John_Savage]

Artists make decisions on what to support and what not to support. Mainstream artists in the past wouldn’t have advocated for the causes they do now because they would have lost audience.

Artists don’t just sell music, they sell themselves. If they only cared about music, they wouldn’t advertise and promote their pet causes.

If you want to change the culture, you can’t reward people who want to see your values destroyed.

Does this work? Yes. Imagine if a pop star came out against same sex marriage and put it in a video. Would people who support SSM just say, “Don’t worry about that. Just listen to the music.” ?

No. I think we should stop being naive.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Does this work? Yes. Imagine if a pop star came out against same sex marriage and put it in a video. Would people who support SSM just say, “Don’t worry about that. Just listen to the music.” ?

No. I think we should stop being naive.

Proof? Calling people naive only works if you either have personal experience or some marketing statistics to back it up.

 

[John_Savage]

Yes. Several people in the business, entertainment, and literary world have been officially or critically boycotted for being for marriage. Read the reviews of that kids space warrior movie written by a Mormon. The reviews mentioned it and some urged people not to see it for that reason. Also, the fact that almost no artists broach that subject. You can add things like the chairman of Mozilla and Chick Fil A.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You can add things like the chairman of Mozilla and Chick Fil A.

I’m sorry is Chick-Fil-A out of business? According to this, it’s completely contrary. As for the Mozilla chairman, you might want to double check your facts. For one thing, the CEO insisted on resignation. He wasn’t ‘booted out.’

Coincidentally, I researched both topics (and other similar subjects) before because it’s part of my job as an online marketer. With all due respect, I’m not sure naive is something I would apply to myself when it came to the business of reputation and promotion.

The only thing I’ve never head of is this Mormon space warrior flick. Are you talking about Ender’s Game? The movie seemed to flop simply because it wasn’t the best film out there and nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[John_Savage]

So, you’re saying that the Mozilla chairman’s resignation had nothing to do with his position on SS"M"? I believe that Mozilla put out a statement about how their stance on diversity made the chairman’s view unacceptable.

Also, my point about Ender’s Game and Chick Fil A isn’t whether the campaigns were successful or not. It’s that they were tried. There are pressure groups that have gotten actors to apologize for statements and jokes that don’t promote their agenda.

Look at all reviews concerning religious movies and/or ones with conservative agendas. They’re hated primarily because of reviewer bias. Are people on your side or their editors telling them to ignore the politics and just write about the movie?

There are three possibilities:

1. I’m wrong and Human Rights Campaign and media in general aren’t trying to advance an agenda through positive and negative reinforcement.

1a. I’m uninformed, naive, or lying.

1. You’re wrong and uninformed, naive, or lying.
2. The truth is somewhere in between.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So, you’re saying that the Mozilla chairman’s resignation had nothing to do with his position on SS"M"? I believe that Mozilla put out a statement about how their stance on diversity made the chairman’s view unacceptable.

Mozilla’s FAQ states differently. Did you read it?

Also, my point about Ender’s Game and Chick Fil A isn’t whether the campaigns were successful or not. It’s that they were tried. There are pressure groups that have gotten actors to apologize for statements and jokes that don’t promote their agenda.

But the links have show you plenty of evidence that this so-called pressure isn’t as effective as you imply. Chick-Fil-A is still giving Colonel Sanders and Ronald McDonald a run for their money. Much of the criticism I’ve seen of the Ender’s Game movie stemmed nothing from any bias against Christianity. The film just didn’t please the critics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Look at all reviews concerning religious movies and/or ones with conservative agendas. They’re hated primarily because of reviewer bias. Are people on your side or their editors telling them to ignore the politics and just write about the movie?

Examples please? Unlike me, you haven’t provided any serious links or references that I can verify. If a politician needs a fact checker, why are you exempt?

1. I’m wrong and Human Rights Campaign and media in general aren’t trying to advance an agenda through positive and negative reinforcement.

1a. I’m uninformed, naive, or lying.

The links I’ve shown you seem to only indicate that these are the only case here. I’ve provided evidence that your so-called pressure didn’t have as much impact as you claimed.

 

[John_Savage]

I don’t care about Mozilla covering up what they did. I’m talking about their original statement.

However, the Mozilla and Chick FIL A examples prove my point. Mozilla tried to appease a certain group after pressure. When counter pressure was applied, they apparently released some FAQ.

Leftists tried to boycott Chick FIL A. When conservatives found out, they supported Chuck Fil A.

[the QUOTE=Lost Wanderer;12182519]Mozilla’s FAQ states differently. Did you read it?

But the links have show you plenty of evidence that this so-called pressure isn’t as effective as you imply. Chick-Fil-A is still giving Colonel Sanders and Ronald McDonald a run for their money. Much of the criticism I’ve seen of the Ender’s Game movie stemmed nothing from any bias against Christianity. The film just didn’t please the critics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Examples please? Unlike me, you haven’t provided any serious links or references that I can verify. If a politician needs a fact checker, why are you exempt?

The links I’ve shown you seem to only indicate that these are the only case here. I’ve provided evidence that your so-called pressure didn’t have as much impact as you claimed.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I don’t care about Mozilla covering up what they did. I’m talking about their original statement.

And where is the proof of this cover up? You seem to be going to a lot of unsubstantiated lengths to justify your critical generalization of modern culture. Being a Christian, shouldn’t you be more honest than this?

When counter pressure was applied, they apparently released some FAQ.

Which you apparently refuse to read because it debunks a lot of your assumptions on the matter.

Leftists tried to boycott Chick FIL A. When conservatives found out, they supported Chuck Fil A.

Is that really the case? Can you please put up some information to prove this? I’ve provided mine. Your lack of an informed response is really telling.

 

[John_Savage]

This is the statement Mozilla made after Eich “stepped down.” I interpret it as Eich left because he had the wrong opinion on marriage. I suspect the rest of Mozilla helped him reach this decision. I further interpret “people are hurt and angry” as homosexual pressure groups complained, since I doubt most non-activists knew about Eich’s views.

So, the boycott/pressure worked.

Again, to interpret differently is either dishonest or naive.

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the Web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.

We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.

What’s next for Mozilla’s leadership is still being discussed. We want to be open about where we are in deciding the future of the organization and will have more information next week. However, our mission will always be to make the Web more open so that humanity is stronger, more inclusive and more just: that’s what it means to protect the open Web.

We will emerge from this with a renewed understanding and humility — our large, global, and diverse community is what makes Mozilla special, and what will help us fulfill our mission. We are stronger with you involved.

Thank you for sticking with us.

Mitchell Baker, Executive Chairwoman

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This is the statement Mozilla made after Eich “stepped down.” I interpret it as Eich left because he had the wrong opinion on marriage. I suspect the rest of Mozilla helped him reach this decision. I further interpret “people are hurt and angry” as homosexual pressure groups complained, since I doubt most non-activists knew about Eich’s views.

So, the boycott/pressure worked.

Again, to interpret differently is either dishonest or naive.

The FAQ was posted quite a few days after the source you cited. You’d know that if you actually read it and checked the date. You will also know that the Board even tried to retain Eich by offering another C-level position but he resigned anyway.

Repeat: He was not fired for his views. He did not resign because of employee pressure. I would say a more educated guess would be he resigned due to something personal. I’m sure being hated by gays is a nice cover for that but really, the facts don’t give activists the credit you’re giving them.

I’m really gonna be blunt now: Your researching skills are terrible and you call me naive (or worse, dishonest)? I could’ve thought of at least a few more links against myself that you could’ve easily googled.

If this is the kind of ‘apologetics’ so-called ‘culture warriors’ engage in then it’s no wonder the GLBT movement has been gaining so much ground. If anyone’s naive (or perhaps more dishonest), it’s people like you.

 

[John_Savage]

I think he was fired because pressure groups complained. I further think that after they heard from the other half of the country, they released an FAQ.