The amount of utter crap I see posted on this music forum is scary, this comment above takes the biscuit. If your only capable of ignorant posts like this (and daring to claim them as fact) take your account and never post in a music discussion forum again. You bring no value to the forum.
erm... the poster youre having a go at has made an intelligent, insightful, contribution to the debate on this (and other) threads. unlike your good self!
From the point of view of an 18 year old here.. I'm deeply disillusioned with so much of today's music. And the problem is not as simple as 'crap chart music'.. the indie charts are weaker than I've ever known as well.
There's not an ounce of originality or talent in so much of todays mainstream hits. Time and time again I hear the same recycled beats, songs that sound identical, artists with no identity, artists that are famous only because of their rich parents or attention seeking publicity stunts... it's quite telling that the best popular songs are those recycling ideas from 30 years ago (new wave and disco).
The fact is that it shouldn't have become like this.. technology should have been used to enhance songs.. that's what was so great about so much of the late 70s and some early 80s for me. It was enhanced but retaining its soul and identity.. and it produced so many great songs. Just look at the diversity of hits we had in the 80s, for example.
Technology instead has only succeeded in killing the art of sincere songwriting and serving to make almost everything over-polished and soulless. It's good when used to enhance a good track, but 99% of the time it is now used as a substitute for both songwriting and melody.
There's still hope of course. I still hear the odd song here and there that I enjoy, but it's all too rare. I'm just thankful that music from the past or the underground is so easily accessible nowadays, or so much of what I enjoy today would have been lost to me.
scarey that an 18 year old agrees with us old buggers! well said!
Personally I think music is on great form at the moment. Tom Odell, Miles Kane, The Courteeners, Of Monsters and Men, The Lumineers, Noel Gallagher, Jake Bugg, Vampire Weekend, Editors, Mumford and Sons, Ben Howard, Kasabian, Band of Skulls, Stornoway, Sterephonics, The View. All of these have released albums in this decade that I think are fantastic and have listened to again and again. Then there are new albums on the way from Travis and Franz Ferdinand, looking forward to those, and also can't wait to hear The Strypes debut.
.
guess we differ on this, to me that lot are most unremarkable, generic, heard their sound all before so they have to produce something pretty damn good to get my attention. i do like mumford, but have been listening to folk since the early 70's, so whilst its nice to hear it in mainstream, its still nothing special to me.
is it? just opinion? i remember prog fans deriding the charts in 73, citing long haired lover from liverpool.. were the osmonds as good as pink floyd? i dislike both but would imagine that pink floyd are light years better then the osmonds!
citing as good or bad? either way it's still their opinion
id agree, upto the late 80's, when manufactured music made its successful entry big time into the charts. since then id suggest theres been a gradual decline in the standard of pop music as its become uber commercial, formulaic, and generic, especially over the last 7 years.
but whilst manufactured music entered the charts, at the same time you had all that indie music going on, and similar discussions back then about music not being as good as before. you then had dance music taking off. then the following decade had britpop and grunge which was almost a backlash against manufactured music
but will they? we dont know but chart music today follows closely set formulae, the most profitable way of making as much money for as little investment as they can. id suggest that its worse today then ever before, and that wont be missed by future pop historians.
there's been forumualic music for years. remember when the beatles became a hit and people were falling all over themselves to find the next beat group?
no a single year isnt an era, i meant modern times upto now.
true, eras or periods when certain styles proliferated didnt last long, but their legacy did. my point is that for the last 7 odd years theres been no real 'era defining' style of music or associated fashion.
what about dub step?
i first joined music forums just over ten years ago... back then i was arguing in favour of modern music being as good as retroland. imho there was great new indie , rock and dance . but that died out. it might be the case that im old.. but after 56 years ive not done bad!
but you are old, and getting older. but sometimes some people who have been happy with similar styles of music for decades find that those styles decline and new styles become the norm instead, and they may not appreciate or understand those new styles. and this has been the same over the years, such as when hip hop and house music came out. people were saying "whats this rubbish, it has no proper singing", but not people look back and say how great it was. even taking an album like pauls boutique that was critically and commercially slated at the time, but now it's hailed a masterpeice
Yeah but the older generation are supposed to be shouting at the youngsters to "turn that bloody racket down!" not rolling their eyes at them because modern music's so bloody tame.
I really rate Mumford and sons. I'm just listening to The Killers at T in the park, they're amazing. Brandon Flowers reminds me of the great Lou Reed.
mumford and son sound like someone dug them out of a ditch and they are crying about the death of their goat whilst playing a washboard. i expect kayne west is a huge fan and he will collab on his next album
Well he said last 7 years, and technically dubstep is older than that. It's also not that popular. It's like emo was a decade ago, disproportionately famous beyond what its actual fanbase size should warrant.
On di.fm, the most popular channel is Vocal Trance. On play.fm, the most popular channel is Tech House. Dubstep has 78k listeners on play.fm right now. Tech House has 560k.
On di.fm, the most popular channel is Vocal Trance. On play.fm, the most popular channel is Tech House. Dubstep has 78k listeners on play.fm right now. Tech House has 560k.
I'm not sure why that's incredibly funny, but it just is
(That list is just an example, and I didn't bother with songs that were famously covers, like Billy Idol covering The Doors with L.A. Woman, or GnR covering Bob Dylan with Knockin' on Heaven's Door)
I don't see what point you're trying to make. I'd rather hear a cover that completely transforms a song (as most of those 80s covers do) than an insipid original.
I do think music has 'gone down the tubes' and I'm only 21.
Half the top 40 seems to be produced by Calvin Harris/David Guetta and therefore a lot of songs have the same sound as one another. A few years ago it was JR and RedOne who seemed to be doing all the producing. I don't remember the top 40 being like this 10 years ago.
Even sticking to the idea a concept album has to be narrative based not just a collectio of songs themed around an idea - there has still been a lot of them released in the past 10 years...
Hadestown, Black Sheep Boy, The Hazards of Love, America Idiot, 21st Century Breakdown, Metropolis, Archandroid, Separation Sunday, New Roman Times, The Monitor, The Getty Address, Tallahassee, Hospice.....
And that's sticking to narrative, if you open up to theme based then you can easily add a ton more. Also that's simply a selection of albums I know - and I'm very sure there have been several narrative based albums released in the Metal and Hip Hop genres that I not fully aware off.
I take it you understand that I did mean era not just idea, clearly once an idea is out there it can have legs. I know about half the list. Some of those deserve a bigger audience.
The point about the concept album (and maybe albums generally), which of course gets lost if people snip out bits, is that listeners are much more able to create their own narratives and don't have to stick with the album as presented. Hence the importance of the playlist and personal listening habits. I'm surprised no-one has really argued that this could be a very positive and liberating aspect of modern music technologies. That's what I was getting at but it got lost somewhere.
Well he said last 7 years, and technically dubstep is older than that. It's also not that popular. It's like emo was a decade ago, disproportionately famous beyond what its actual fanbase size should warrant.
regardless of when it started, it was an era defining style of music over the last 7 years. you say it's not popular, but the most recent albums by muse and taylor swift had dubstyle influenced tracks, and they have huge fanbases. when tv adverts and kids tv shows start using a particular style of music, you know it's made an impact
Yeah but the older generation are supposed to be shouting at the youngsters to "turn that bloody racket down!" not rolling their eyes at them because modern music's so bloody tame.
Can't you see the difference?
I'm sure parents would complain about that "bloody racket" if they had dance music playing loudly
Now this week's chart...it's all utter shit, every single track and that includes the Arctic Monkeys who I don't usually mind too much. It's all synthetic, meaningless nightclub music. There's hardly any variety and it all plods along in a perfunctory workmanlike manner. I don't want to bang on about "real" music but it's depressing to hear hardly any proper instrumentation at all in any of the tracks, not simply because synthetic sounds are inferior to my ears but mainly because it demonstrates such a lack of variety in the way the songs are put together. It just sounds like they were all concocted on a music-making machine, like something out of Brave New World. There's no individuality, no spark, no real sense of fun, no edginess, it's all numbly conservative
Yes! No would question it if "Let Her Go", "Another Love" and "Everything Has Changed" were being played in nightclubs. Everyone would just dance!
Personally I think music is on great form at the moment. Tom Odell, Miles Kane, The Courteeners, Of Monsters and Men, The Lumineers, Noel Gallagher, Jake Bugg, Vampire Weekend, Editors, Mumford and Sons, Ben Howard, Kasabian, Band of Skulls, Stornoway, Sterephonics, The View. All of these have released albums in this decade that I think are fantastic and have listened to again and again. Then there are new albums on the way from Travis and Franz Ferdinand, looking forward to those, and also can't wait to hear The Strypes debut.
I think perhaps people will always say that "music is not as good as it used to be", but 20 years later will look back on that same era with a much more favourable view. It's just the rose-tinted spectacles of nostalgia at work! There's good and bad in all eras. I think the 60s and 70s were a very inspirational and exciting time for music, and we will probably never see another era like that again, because many things were being tried for the first time, and probably nothing can be quite as new and exciting as it must have seemed then, but I still think we have great music being made today.
Agree with both points you made here! Especially the second point you made. The rose tinted glasses can be powerful. I can't help but notice that according to people of my parents generation; everything thing was better in the 70s/80s. Music, TV, films, food, drink, just everything seemed to better, it couldn't have been that good?
From the point of view of an 18 year old here.. I'm deeply disillusioned with so much of today's music. And the problem is not as simple as 'crap chart music'.. the indie charts are weaker than I've ever known as well..
Coming from another 18 year old, how much can you know about the 'indie charts' (which do not contain songs that we call 'indie', just the ones that are made by artists on independent labels) because I only know about anything about the charts from about 6/7 years ago. Therefore, surely you should only know about that too? Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm just assuming
Some of those artists you named I can agree with, but others are either
A) uninteresting and unmemorable overly derivative
C) far weaker than anything you could find in the same area in the past
D) all three
I'm not all about the charts by any means, but compare the number 1s from this and the last decade with the 60s, 70s and 80s. There's a massive fall in sincerity and diversity of the chart hits. Seldom is there a number 1 without either inane rapping or club beats.
Right, in your first post you said you don't like much recent stuff. So I take that to mean you don't listen to it much . So you can't know much about the artists they named? (Again, feel free to correct me if I am wrong )
I agree with you second point though, it is a massive shame, as there is some good stuff out there. But it can never manage number 1
Right, this is a long shot but I'm talking from the pov of being an old punk. Have you checked out any Folk Metal? Bands such as Turisas, Korpiklaani, Ensiferum, Eluveitie, Equilibrium. There might be something there for you. I love them all
Folk metal? Might have to listen to some some of that, I'm generally interested in how they mix the two together.
The Killers are a bastard hybrid of Coldplay and Duran Duran.. Mumford and Sons is a scarily average folk band .. I don't mean to be obnoxious here but is this really the best we have to offer in 2013? I'd genuinely rather listen to One Direction. At least they wilfully admit their poppiness and make sure it doesn't take itself too seriously.
:eek:
The Killers are far better than Coldplay! (And possibly Duran Duran, but I can't comment as I only know about 4 of their songs)
scarey that an 18 year old agrees with us old buggers! well said!
Is it? I bet there was someone who 18 in 70s/80s who preferred music from the 40s/50s they just didn't have forums to post it on. It's probably more so today for 3 reasons 1) It's the stuff our parents loved, and they played when we were little, and we were brought up on it (at least in my case) 2) It's more accessible nowadays, all you have to do it type a bands name into Youtube and you have pretty much every song they have ever done to listen to right there and then and 3) music from then was pretty brilliant, and keep in mind that modern rock fans probably want to know where it all started
Half the top 40 seems to be produced by Calvin Harris/David Guetta and therefore a lot of songs have the same sound as one another. A few years ago it was JR and RedOne who seemed to be doing all the producing. I don't remember the top 40 being like this 10 years ago.
Come on! Half is an exaggeration, it's more like a quarter
Well he said last 7 years, and technically dubstep is older than that. It's also not that popular. It's like emo was a decade ago, disproportionately famous beyond what its actual fanbase size should warrant.
I agree that dubstep isn't as popular as the media make it out to be. I think adults heard kids using the word occasionally, and the thought it's the biggest style of music out there (it's popular, but not THAT huge). People in the media think dubstep sounds like Bangarang, and it doesn't really.
There's other genres which are more popular with my age group which I never hear any adults or the media talking about, yet they all seem to know what dubstep is. Shows how out of touch adults are with young people.
scarey that an 18 year old agrees with us old buggers! well said!
How is that scary? I keep telling you over and over again, most 18 year-olds don't listen to chart music. There's the occasional song people like of course, but most of the music the normal 18 year-old listens to isn't chart music. People think you're weird if you've got lots of current chart hits on your phone.
You're complaining about what young people listen to, but you don't even seem to know what we actually listen to.
The Killers are a bastard hybrid of Coldplay and Duran Duran.. Mumford and Sons is a scarily average folk band .. I don't mean to be obnoxious here but is this really the best we have to offer in 2013? I'd genuinely rather listen to One Direction. At least they wilfully admit their poppiness and make sure it doesn't take itself too seriously.
Sorry but I cannot take your opinions seriously if you would rather listen to One Direction :eek:
How is that scary? I keep telling you over and over again, most 18 year-olds don't listen to chart music. There's the occasional song people like of course, but most of the music the normal 18 year-old listens to isn't chart music. People think you're weird if you've got lots of current chart hits on your phone.
You're complaining about what young people listen to, but you don't even seem to know what we actually listen to.
I'm glad you mentioned this. I think there's a misconception by a lot of people that chart music is what most 'young' people like to listen to. I mean, I'm not totally sure myself because I'm not 'young' any more but when I look at the chart I can't really believe that a lot of college/Uni students are into that music. So it would be interesting to me if you could give some examples of some of the artists/songs your fellow Uni students are into.
Also, it does beg the question as to why the music they're listening to isn't reflected in the chart. Is it because of the way they consume/access the music? (i.e. streaming or illegally downloading rather than actually buying the music).
citing as good or bad? either way it's still their opinion
...but if you take that to its logical conclusion then anybody with an opinion is always right, though who would argue that 'long haired lover from liverpool' is as good, musically, vocally, production wise, as a track from 'dark side of the moon'? just because someone has an opinion doesnt make it correct.
there's been forumualic music for years. remember when the beatles became a hit and people were falling all over themselves to find the next beat group?
true, that everytime a new sound was popularised by one or several innovative groups, others copied... but on the other hand you had an explosion into proto rock (kinks) and the popularisation of british rhythm and blues (stones, yardbirds). the beatles might have kicked things off with beat, or merseybeat, but others didnt follow the beat sound and in fact very few beat acts charted.
theres no comparsion between 60's - 80's formulaic music and the late 80's onwards stricter formula.
what about dub step?
dubstep started in the late 90's as an offshoot of uk garage, which id suggest is the last great british genre. most dubstep fans i know, and those on here too dislike the modern version of it... although i prefer it..
but you are old, and getting older. but sometimes some people who have been happy with similar styles of music for decades find that those styles decline and new styles become the norm instead, and they may not appreciate or understand those new styles. and this has been the same over the years, such as when hip hop and house music came out. people were saying "whats this rubbish, it has no proper singing", but not people look back and say how great it was. even taking an album like pauls boutique that was critically and commercially slated at the time, but now it's hailed a masterpeice
yeah im old and getting older, but what ive seen over the last 50 years has been the rise of all our great musical styles, whether i like them or not.. i think i can still be objective, and i still cannot se anything great going on... like i said (and erasurehead also mentioned) theres no buzz, no excitement, no great movement.
regardless of when it started, it was an era defining style of music over the last 7 years. you say it's not popular, but the most recent albums by muse and taylor swift had dubstyle influenced tracks, and they have huge fanbases. when tv adverts and kids tv shows start using a particular style of music, you know it's made an impact
im cynical, if muse and taylor swift have employed dubstep styles then id suggest its courting popularity with a view to shifting units by trying to appear trendy. of course one could argue that thats been the case for many years, but nevertheless it smacks of desperation and always has done.
as for tv adverts... youll find far more employing retro tracks then anything dubstep orientated. rare 60's are often cropping up, in fact ive discovered several rare 60's tracks via tv adverts. did they make an impact? (im talking about non charters).
Is it? I bet there was someone who 18 in 70s/80s who preferred music from the 40s/50s they just didn't have forums to post it on. It's probably more so today for 3 reasons 1) It's the stuff our parents loved, and they played when we were little, and we were brought up on it (at least in my case) 2) It's more accessible nowadays, all you have to do it type a bands name into Youtube and you have pretty much every song they have ever done to listen to right there and then and 3) music from then was pretty brilliant, and keep in mind that modern rock fans probably want to know where it all started
not to my knowlege. i knew of no one who listend to the music their parents did. the generations back then were very much divided. it wasnt until those who grew up with pop/rock music could converse with their kids about it. my parents had no time for 'that bloody racket'..
good point about rock fans wanting to know where it started...
How is that scary? I keep telling you over and over again, most 18 year-olds don't listen to chart music. There's the occasional song people like of course, but most of the music the normal 18 year-old listens to isn't chart music. People think you're weird if you've got lots of current chart hits on your phone.
You're complaining about what young people listen to, but you don't even seem to know what we actually listen to.
the person i replied to didnt cite chart music per se, he bemoaned modern music.
my lads (21, 23) both like different music, heavy rock (most of it retro as 'theres nothing much as good as that now' ) and trance (esp from the late 90's early 00's).
I'm glad you mentioned this. I think there's a misconception by a lot of people that chart music is what most 'young' people like to listen to. I mean, I'm not totally sure myself because I'm not 'young' any more but when I look at the chart I can't really believe that a lot of college/Uni students are into that music. So it would be interesting to me if you could give some examples of some of the artists/songs your fellow Uni students are into.
Also, it does beg the question as to why the music they're listening to isn't reflected in the chart. Is it because of the way they consume/access the music? (i.e. streaming or illegally downloading rather than actually buying the music).
... but back in the 70's uni student didnt listen to chart music then, uni students were heavily into rock and prog rock. the singles charts were mainly the preserve for mid-teens. why should it be any different now?
...but if you take that to its logical conclusion then anybody with an opinion is always right, though who would argue that 'long haired lover from liverpool' is as good, musically, vocally, production wise, as a track from 'dark side of the moon'? just because someone has an opinion doesnt make it correct.
no, because that's not my point. the music was derided by people, and that was their opinion. but they weren't proven wrong
true, that everytime a new sound was popularised by one or several innovative groups, others copied... but on the other hand you had an explosion into proto rock (kinks) and the popularisation of british rhythm and blues (stones, yardbirds). the beatles might have kicked things off with beat, or merseybeat, but others didnt follow the beat sound and in fact very few beat acts charted.
theres no comparsion between 60's - 80's formulaic music and the late 80's onwards stricter formula.
you had as much diversity of musical styles, if not more, from the late 80s onwards. nothing much has changed as regards to all periods having music that is both new and interesting and music that copies something else, either from that time or before it
dubstep started in the late 90's as an offshoot of uk garage, which id suggest is the last great british genre. most dubstep fans i know, and those on here too dislike the modern version of it... although i prefer it..
i think you should best listen to the guy that spoke about dubstep and new styles above. the dubstup from the 90s is about as far away from dubstep of the 00's in the same way as the original techno music from detroit is to the techno most people think of. just like there are all sorts of offshoots of rock music.
grime was another great british genre before it was commercialised
yeah im old and getting older, but what ive seen over the last 50 years has been the rise of all our great musical styles, whether i like them or not.. i think i can still be objective, and i still cannot se anything great going on... like i said (and erasurehead also mentioned) theres no buzz, no excitement, no great movement.
perhaps new music isn't aimed at people your age and you are looking in the wrong place. maybe young people don't want you involved. would you have like it if there was a load of people approaching 60 jumping around when you were at a punk club or gig?
im cynical, if muse and taylor swift have employed dubstep styles then id suggest its courting popularity with a view to shifting units by trying to appear trendy.
no shit sherlock. just like dolly parton and pink floyd using disco styles to have hits in the 70s. or all sorts of god damned awful crap having dance mixes in the 80s and 90s
of course one could argue that thats been the case for many years, but nevertheless it smacks of desperation and always has done.
so another thing that hasn't changed
as for tv adverts... youll find far more employing retro tracks then anything dubstep orientated. rare 60's are often cropping up, in fact ive discovered several rare 60's tracks via tv adverts. did they make an impact? (im talking about non charters).
i was referring more to commissioned advert music for crappy ad's for banks and cleaning products than stylized ad's using the levi's type formula to create a "cool" ad. when a new genre becomes popular, the music makers start reaching for the sample loop discs and plugins. again it's been the same through the years, disco style ad music back in the 70s
not to my knowlege. i knew of no one who listend to the music their parents did. the generations back then were very much divided. it wasnt until those who grew up with pop/rock music could converse with their kids about it. my parents had no time for 'that bloody racket'..
that's one thing that has changed, as at your age, what your parent's listened to was very different to what people have experienced since then. they wouldn't likely be used to loud amplification in clubs and gigs and a diverse range of music dating back a number of decades nor have a huge and comprehensive music collection of varying styles of music from around the world. i guess that's another sign of getting old
Coming from another 18 year old, how much can you know about the 'indie charts' (which do not contain songs that we call 'indie', just the ones that are made by artists on independent labels) because I only know about anything about the charts from about 6/7 years ago. Therefore, surely you should only know about that too? Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm just assuming
Right, in your first post you said you don't like much recent stuff. So I take that to mean you don't listen to it much . So you can't know much about the artists they named? (Again, feel free to correct me if I am wrong )
I agree with you second point though, it is a massive shame, as there is some good stuff out there. But it can never manage number 1
I'm very big on indie charts from the 80s when they really truly were 'indie' in the real sense, not how it is today. Then again, the indie charts were often very good 5 years ago or so, but seem to have tumbled badly lately. Hoping it's just a bad phase.
And I do listen to a fair amount of modern stuff, maybe I'm too curious to hear what is being made but also it can be hard to avoid the songs that are in the mainstream eye.. maybe I'm also living in hope that it will get better again.
It's not that everything is 'bad' per sè, I'm no fan of say 'dubstep' but when it first arrived it was a breath of fresh air as it sounded different to what had been before. Too much music now sounds too similar to everything that came before and is too afraid to forge its own identity.
Sorry but I cannot take your opinions seriously if you would rather listen to One Direction :eek:
Sorry but I can't take your opinions seriously if you would dismiss someone's opinion because they enjoy music that is designed to be as fun and unpretentious as possible.
I'm very big on indie charts from the 80s when they really truly were 'indie' in the real sense, not how it is today. Then again, the indie charts were often very good 5 years ago or so, but seem to have tumbled badly lately. Hoping it's just a bad phase..
What was so great about the Indie music 5 years ago that isn't around now?
... but back in the 70's uni student didnt listen to chart music then, uni students were heavily into rock and prog rock. the singles charts were mainly the preserve for mid-teens. why should it be any different now?
I thought one of your arguments was that chart music used to be more diverse and cater for more tastes for all sorts of people, not just one narrow section of the public? Now you're telling me that it's all about what mid-teens are listening to? I mean WTF? Who cares what they like, kids always have terrible taste in music because they don't know any better.
'young' people to me are also late-teens/early 20's. I'm much more interested in what they're listening to than young kids.
Comments
erm... the poster youre having a go at has made an intelligent, insightful, contribution to the debate on this (and other) threads. unlike your good self!
scarey that an 18 year old agrees with us old buggers!
guess we differ on this, to me that lot are most unremarkable, generic, heard their sound all before so they have to produce something pretty damn good to get my attention. i do like mumford, but have been listening to folk since the early 70's, so whilst its nice to hear it in mainstream, its still nothing special to me.
citing as good or bad? either way it's still their opinion
but whilst manufactured music entered the charts, at the same time you had all that indie music going on, and similar discussions back then about music not being as good as before. you then had dance music taking off. then the following decade had britpop and grunge which was almost a backlash against manufactured music
there's been forumualic music for years. remember when the beatles became a hit and people were falling all over themselves to find the next beat group?
what about dub step?
but you are old, and getting older. but sometimes some people who have been happy with similar styles of music for decades find that those styles decline and new styles become the norm instead, and they may not appreciate or understand those new styles. and this has been the same over the years, such as when hip hop and house music came out. people were saying "whats this rubbish, it has no proper singing", but not people look back and say how great it was. even taking an album like pauls boutique that was critically and commercially slated at the time, but now it's hailed a masterpeice
are they?
mumford and son sound like someone dug them out of a ditch and they are crying about the death of their goat whilst playing a washboard. i expect kayne west is a huge fan and he will collab on his next album
Well he said last 7 years, and technically dubstep is older than that. It's also not that popular. It's like emo was a decade ago, disproportionately famous beyond what its actual fanbase size should warrant.
On di.fm, the most popular channel is Vocal Trance. On play.fm, the most popular channel is Tech House. Dubstep has 78k listeners on play.fm right now. Tech House has 560k.
I don't see what point you're trying to make. I'd rather hear a cover that completely transforms a song (as most of those 80s covers do) than an insipid original.
Half the top 40 seems to be produced by Calvin Harris/David Guetta and therefore a lot of songs have the same sound as one another. A few years ago it was JR and RedOne who seemed to be doing all the producing. I don't remember the top 40 being like this 10 years ago.
I take it you understand that I did mean era not just idea, clearly once an idea is out there it can have legs. I know about half the list. Some of those deserve a bigger audience.
The point about the concept album (and maybe albums generally), which of course gets lost if people snip out bits, is that listeners are much more able to create their own narratives and don't have to stick with the album as presented. Hence the importance of the playlist and personal listening habits. I'm surprised no-one has really argued that this could be a very positive and liberating aspect of modern music technologies. That's what I was getting at but it got lost somewhere.
I'm sure parents would complain about that "bloody racket" if they had dance music playing loudly
Yes! No would question it if "Let Her Go", "Another Love" and "Everything Has Changed" were being played in nightclubs. Everyone would just dance!
Agree with both points you made here! Especially the second point you made. The rose tinted glasses can be powerful. I can't help but notice that according to people of my parents generation; everything thing was better in the 70s/80s. Music, TV, films, food, drink, just everything seemed to better, it couldn't have been that good?
Coming from another 18 year old, how much can you know about the 'indie charts' (which do not contain songs that we call 'indie', just the ones that are made by artists on independent labels) because I only know about anything about the charts from about 6/7 years ago. Therefore, surely you should only know about that too? Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm just assuming
Right, in your first post you said you don't like much recent stuff. So I take that to mean you don't listen to it much . So you can't know much about the artists they named? (Again, feel free to correct me if I am wrong
I agree with you second point though, it is a massive shame, as there is some good stuff out there. But it can never manage number 1
Folk metal? Might have to listen to some some of that, I'm generally interested in how they mix the two together.
:eek:
The Killers are far better than Coldplay! (And possibly Duran Duran, but I can't comment as I only know about 4 of their songs)
Is it? I bet there was someone who 18 in 70s/80s who preferred music from the 40s/50s they just didn't have forums to post it on. It's probably more so today for 3 reasons 1) It's the stuff our parents loved, and they played when we were little, and we were brought up on it (at least in my case) 2) It's more accessible nowadays, all you have to do it type a bands name into Youtube and you have pretty much every song they have ever done to listen to right there and then and 3) music from then was pretty brilliant, and keep in mind that modern rock fans probably want to know where it all started
Come on! Half is an exaggeration, it's more like a quarter
I agree that dubstep isn't as popular as the media make it out to be. I think adults heard kids using the word occasionally, and the thought it's the biggest style of music out there (it's popular, but not THAT huge). People in the media think dubstep sounds like Bangarang, and it doesn't really.
There's other genres which are more popular with my age group which I never hear any adults or the media talking about, yet they all seem to know what dubstep is. Shows how out of touch adults are with young people.
How is that scary? I keep telling you over and over again, most 18 year-olds don't listen to chart music. There's the occasional song people like of course, but most of the music the normal 18 year-old listens to isn't chart music. People think you're weird if you've got lots of current chart hits on your phone.
You're complaining about what young people listen to, but you don't even seem to know what we actually listen to.
Here's some tunes for you
Turisas - Sahti-Waari
Finntroll - Trollhammeren
Alestorm - Keelhauled
Ensiferum - One More Magic Potion
Eluvieitie - Inis Mona
Equilibrium - Blut Im Auge
Korpiklaani - Ievan Polkka
Arkona - Goi, Rode, Goi!
And just for the lols.Turisas cover of Boney M's Rasputin
www.tessparks.bandcamp.com/album/the-tp-demos
Sorry but I cannot take your opinions seriously if you would rather listen to One Direction :eek:
Also, it does beg the question as to why the music they're listening to isn't reflected in the chart. Is it because of the way they consume/access the music? (i.e. streaming or illegally downloading rather than actually buying the music).
...but if you take that to its logical conclusion then anybody with an opinion is always right, though who would argue that 'long haired lover from liverpool' is as good, musically, vocally, production wise, as a track from 'dark side of the moon'? just because someone has an opinion doesnt make it correct.
true, that everytime a new sound was popularised by one or several innovative groups, others copied... but on the other hand you had an explosion into proto rock (kinks) and the popularisation of british rhythm and blues (stones, yardbirds). the beatles might have kicked things off with beat, or merseybeat, but others didnt follow the beat sound and in fact very few beat acts charted.
theres no comparsion between 60's - 80's formulaic music and the late 80's onwards stricter formula.
dubstep started in the late 90's as an offshoot of uk garage, which id suggest is the last great british genre. most dubstep fans i know, and those on here too dislike the modern version of it... although i prefer it..
yeah im old and getting older, but what ive seen over the last 50 years has been the rise of all our great musical styles, whether i like them or not.. i think i can still be objective, and i still cannot se anything great going on... like i said (and erasurehead also mentioned) theres no buzz, no excitement, no great movement.
im cynical, if muse and taylor swift have employed dubstep styles then id suggest its courting popularity with a view to shifting units by trying to appear trendy. of course one could argue that thats been the case for many years, but nevertheless it smacks of desperation and always has done.
as for tv adverts... youll find far more employing retro tracks then anything dubstep orientated. rare 60's are often cropping up, in fact ive discovered several rare 60's tracks via tv adverts. did they make an impact? (im talking about non charters).
not to my knowlege. i knew of no one who listend to the music their parents did. the generations back then were very much divided. it wasnt until those who grew up with pop/rock music could converse with their kids about it. my parents had no time for 'that bloody racket'..
good point about rock fans wanting to know where it started...
the person i replied to didnt cite chart music per se, he bemoaned modern music.
my lads (21, 23) both like different music, heavy rock (most of it retro as 'theres nothing much as good as that now' ) and trance (esp from the late 90's early 00's).
... but back in the 70's uni student didnt listen to chart music then, uni students were heavily into rock and prog rock. the singles charts were mainly the preserve for mid-teens. why should it be any different now?
grime was another great british genre before it was commercialised perhaps new music isn't aimed at people your age and you are looking in the wrong place. maybe young people don't want you involved. would you have like it if there was a load of people approaching 60 jumping around when you were at a punk club or gig? no shit sherlock. just like dolly parton and pink floyd using disco styles to have hits in the 70s. or all sorts of god damned awful crap having dance mixes in the 80s and 90s so another thing that hasn't changed i was referring more to commissioned advert music for crappy ad's for banks and cleaning products than stylized ad's using the levi's type formula to create a "cool" ad. when a new genre becomes popular, the music makers start reaching for the sample loop discs and plugins. again it's been the same through the years, disco style ad music back in the 70s that's one thing that has changed, as at your age, what your parent's listened to was very different to what people have experienced since then. they wouldn't likely be used to loud amplification in clubs and gigs and a diverse range of music dating back a number of decades nor have a huge and comprehensive music collection of varying styles of music from around the world. i guess that's another sign of getting old
I'm very big on indie charts from the 80s when they really truly were 'indie' in the real sense, not how it is today. Then again, the indie charts were often very good 5 years ago or so, but seem to have tumbled badly lately. Hoping it's just a bad phase.
And I do listen to a fair amount of modern stuff, maybe I'm too curious to hear what is being made but also it can be hard to avoid the songs that are in the mainstream eye.. maybe I'm also living in hope that it will get better again.
It's not that everything is 'bad' per sè, I'm no fan of say 'dubstep' but when it first arrived it was a breath of fresh air as it sounded different to what had been before. Too much music now sounds too similar to everything that came before and is too afraid to forge its own identity.
Sorry but I can't take your opinions seriously if you would dismiss someone's opinion because they enjoy music that is designed to be as fun and unpretentious as possible.
What was so great about the Indie music 5 years ago that isn't around now?
'young' people to me are also late-teens/early 20's. I'm much more interested in what they're listening to than young kids.
But then, they're a quality, under-rated pop act, and the Killers are a standard indie borefest.
Saw them live once and the only track worth hearing was a Joy Division cover.