DS Forums

 
 

70s/80s vs now


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-01-2010, 02:14
Julie68
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,023

I think the music from the 70s/80s wipes the floor with todays music (maybe thats just my age).
What do other posters think.
Right now I'm listening to Roxy Music and I can't think of any of todays bands that come close to their excellance.
Julie68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-01-2010, 02:25
misslibertine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Strawberry Fields
Posts: 13,722
I think its more or less equal.

There were good bands and movements then, and there's good bands and movements now and in the past decade.

There's a lot of crap/rubbish/manufactured shit/whatever you want to call it in the charts now (as countless threads tell us every day), but the same goes for back then.
misslibertine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 03:48
diamond1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,073
I love 70's/80's music but I don't know if that's just me being nostalgic .. like the previous poster says there was a lot of rubbish around then too but I seemed to be able to tollerate it more then than I can now .. for example I loved Chuck Berry's My Ding A Ling and Benny Hill's Ernie when they were released but I was just a kid then and so my mental age probably was tuned into that kind of thing .. and now I don't tend to like comedy/novelty records .. because I'm a grown up ... lol

But yeah Roxy Music produced some great stuff .. I loved the whole glam rock thing of the 70's .. Bowie and Bolan ... and I also loved all the 80's stuff, Japan, Duran Duran, Culture Club, Wham .. and the more or less one hit wonders like Scritti Politti.

There is lots of good music around today too .. I love Lady Gaga/Muse/Black Eyed Peas .. I guess music like everything has to evolve and you're going to fing good and bad

But I think that there definitely is something to be said for favoring music that you grew up with as it tends to bring back memories of certain times and most of those times are when you didn't have a care in the world .. so it seems more fun
diamond1 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 04:06
misslibertine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Strawberry Fields
Posts: 13,722
But I think that there definitely is something to be said for favoring music that you grew up with as it tends to bring back memories of certain times and most of those times are when you didn't have a care in the world .. so it seems more fun
Ooh, be careful about putting things down to nostalgia... they don't like that on the music forum
misslibertine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 04:41
diamond1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,073
Ooh, be careful about putting things down to nostalgia... they don't like that on the music forum
lol .. I'm a bit of a newbie to the music forum so I guess I've fallen into the first trap
diamond1 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 08:26
SharpshooterTom
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,540
I think its more or less equal.

There were good bands and movements then, and there's good bands and movements now and in the past decade.

There's a lot of crap/rubbish/manufactured shit/whatever you want to call it in the charts now (as countless threads tell us every day), but the same goes for back then.
But in my opinion, and lot of everybody elses opinion, there's a lot more of it now than there was back then.

I mean wheres the Michael Jacksons etc to compensate for the crap that was in 80s?
SharpshooterTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 08:53
Servalan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,479
I have to say that, for me, the late sixties, the seventies and early eighties are possibly the most vibrant time in music - which isn't to do down later eras ... but how can you compete with Motown, the Beatles and the Stones at their peak, glam rock, heavy metal, disco, punk, Two Tone and hip hop? Not to mention unique and incomparable talents such as David Bowie, Kate Bush, Prince, The Clash, Kraftwerk and Stevie Wonder ... trailblazing artists with integrity whose first thought wasn't making a fast buck. They had something to say.

Sure, there were manufactured acts back then, but nothing on the scale of what we see now, with MTV and its ilk relentlessly used to create an apparently endless stream of acts that have no longevity. And, sadly, the success of Simon Cowell will only generate more wannabes who think 'fame' is the be-all and end-all.

There is definitely good music around today, sure (I'd nominate Gorillaz, Jazmine Sullivan, Annie, Empire Of The Sun, The Ting Tings and Goldfrapp - to name a few) - but it is harder to find it as the volume of dross has increased dramatically ... And promising artists are dumped overnight if they don't make an immediate impact (I'm thinking of Unklejam here, for one) - there's no long term investment in talent.
Servalan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 10:28
Electra
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 53,841
I think the music from the 70s/80s wipes the floor with todays music (maybe thats just my age).
What do other posters think.
Right now I'm listening to Roxy Music and I can't think of any of todays bands that come close to their excellance.
Completely agree with you. Especially about Roxy Music. It's great to see someone else on here who appreciates them. Imo they're criminally overlooked. Especially when you consider how groundbreaking & influential they were. Not to mention Ferry's lyrical genius.
Electra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 13:06
tangsman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,597
70/80's wins easily.

The last 10 years have been the worst in music history in my view.

UK scene full of crap Karaoke acts thanks to you know who, dire R'n'B artists and manufactured girl/boy bands who can't sing "live" to save themselves.
tangsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 13:37
kutox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Watford
Posts: 15,815
I think it will only get worse in the long term thanks to Simon Cowell, because we now have a generation of kids who watch and love X Factor, and are being brainwashed into thinking that having a half-decent voice, being famous and on tv, and being no.1 in the charts, are the only things that count in music. Less and less kids and teenagers are bothered about good music because of that.

I think Cowell is a disgrace to music. He might know how to make an entertaining show and how to make sure that the songs his artists release sell at the time - and I'm not denying he's very good at that - but in the long term, when shows like X Factor are long gone, will he be remembered as someone who took music forward and inspired people to make great music? No chance. Never in a million years.
kutox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 15:09
Servalan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,479
I think it will only get worse in the long term thanks to Simon Cowell, because we now have a generation of kids who watch and love X Factor, and are being brainwashed into thinking that having a half-decent voice, being famous and on tv, and being no.1 in the charts, are the only things that count in music. Less and less kids and teenagers are bothered about good music because of that.

I think Cowell is a disgrace to music. He might know how to make an entertaining show and how to make sure that the songs his artists release sell at the time - and I'm not denying he's very good at that - but in the long term, when shows like X Factor are long gone, will he be remembered as someone who took music forward and inspired people to make great music? No chance. Never in a million years.
I wouldn't be so dismissive of teenagers - in my experience, they are quite savvy and can be open to music from different eras.

However, I totally agree with your second paragraph. Cowell may well have made himself a mint - but he's also created a cesspit of utterly pointless performers who will quickly earn him some money and are then consigned to obscurity (Gareth Gates, Michelle McManus, Leon Jackson - to name but three).

None of his acts have any musical talent beyond singing and as he cynically shifts the spotlight onto his carefully packaged karaoke acts, genuine musicianship is left in the shadows.

I just hope the bubble will burst for him at some point - but I can't see it happening any time soon ...
Servalan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 16:08
SharpshooterTom
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,540
Thought that RATM nonsense would be short lived. I pointed out that he just dominate the charts once that silly christmas chart week was over. Nobody listened, everybody thought that was the end of him based on just that week for some reason.
SharpshooterTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2010, 16:48
essexpete
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,609
I think the music from the 70s/80s wipes the floor with todays music (maybe thats just my age).
What do other posters think.
Right now I'm listening to Roxy Music and I can't think of any of todays bands that come close to their excellance.
IMO, with a handful of exceptions, you're spot on. I'm a Roxy fan too
essexpete is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2010, 21:26
misslibertine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Strawberry Fields
Posts: 13,722
But in my opinion, and lot of everybody elses opinion, there's a lot more of it now than there was back then.

I mean wheres the Michael Jacksons etc to compensate for the crap that was in 80s?
I don't think there necessarily needs to be any.

Especially for those of us who don't like Michael Jackson.
misslibertine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2010, 22:20
SharpshooterTom
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,540
I don't think there necessarily needs to be any.

Especially for those of us who don't like Michael Jackson.
Well I named him as one artist of many of that time, whether you like him or not is irrelevant. I talking about groundbreaking artists with sales on par with him and other artists around that time. Queen, Abba etc? Just my opinion of course now but I just want to know where the current lot lot are in comparison.
SharpshooterTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2010, 22:49
misslibertine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Strawberry Fields
Posts: 13,722
Well I named him as one artist of many of that time, whether you like him or not is irrelevant. I talking about groundbreaking artists with sales on par with him and other artists around that time. Queen, Abba etc? Just my opinion of course now but I just want to know where the current lot lot are in comparison.
I know what you meant. By my reply, I meant that I don't think stars like him are a necessity anymore. My favourite artists from the past decade aren't the ones you'd immediately name when looking back over the years, but I don't think any less should be thought of them just because they didn't reach the level of fame/notoriety or sales that MJ did. Sales are a difficult thing to compare over decades anyway, given the rise in downloading.

But assuming you mean "superstars" of the last decade or so, those performing on sell-out tours and selling records by the truckload while having a definite effect and influence on pop culture and the music world = Britney, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Jay-Z, Amy Winehouse, Arctic Monkeys, Coldplay, The Strokes, Green Day, MGMT, White Stripes, The Streets, and the continuing work of Madonna, Muse, Radiohead, etc.

Despite loving 70s/80s music as much as I do, what I'm trying to say is it's not a talent wasteland out there now either.
misslibertine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2010, 23:45
ShaunIOW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 7,829
I like late 60's to early 80's music a lot more than the 90's or todays and particularly in the rock/heavy metal area as that went right downhill imo with thrash, rap and nu-metal. Look through my MP3 collection and CD's and there's very little new(ish) stuff (unless from a band thats been around a while like AC/DC etc) and my most listened to albums are from 30 odd years ago.
ShaunIOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2010, 12:35
Servalan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,479
I know what you meant. By my reply, I meant that I don't think stars like him are a necessity anymore. My favourite artists from the past decade aren't the ones you'd immediately name when looking back over the years, but I don't think any less should be thought of them just because they didn't reach the level of fame/notoriety or sales that MJ did. Sales are a difficult thing to compare over decades anyway, given the rise in downloading.

But assuming you mean "superstars" of the last decade or so, those performing on sell-out tours and selling records by the truckload while having a definite effect and influence on pop culture and the music world = Britney, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Jay-Z, Amy Winehouse, Arctic Monkeys, Coldplay, The Strokes, Green Day, MGMT, White Stripes, The Streets, and the continuing work of Madonna, Muse, Radiohead, etc.

Despite loving 70s/80s music as much as I do, what I'm trying to say is it's not a talent wasteland out there now either.
While I totally agree with your last paragraph, I have to say I find a certain irony in the list of artists you cite in the previous one: while they may influence pop culture, I wouldn't say any of them have pushed any boundaries musically. Indeed, I'd say they all owe a massive debt to the 70s and 80s: without hip hop, punk, soul or electro, they probably wouldn't exist.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they are bad or undeserving of success - but I wouldn't give them the same kudos as David Bowie, Kate Bush, Kraftwerk or Prince, for example, all of whom genuinely pushed boundaries in their music and performance.
Servalan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2010, 13:06
Chris1964
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,037
Inevitably there is always going to be an age factor here. However, when i was growing up in the seventies and eighties there was Glam, Punk, Ska,New Wave, New Romantic, Progressive-and others. All I seem to see today (not that I look much) are R and B, Rap and middle of the road (or X Factor as its known these days). The charts seemed to mean alot more then too-records generally went up gradually peaked and then went downwards. It was far more interesting seeing records react in this way rather than the instancy of today. Very few records actually enterred at number one-in fact when The Jam achieved the feat in 1980 it was the first for five years.
Chris1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2010, 17:12
Retrospective
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,084
Loved the music from the 70's did enjoy some from the 80's but not as much as the 70's. For me music picked up around 1995 but started to lose its way again in the 2000's. Haven't heard anything yet so far in this new decade that I would rave about. Same as could be said about 2009.Oops just remembered Celebration by Madonna from last year. Now that was great!
Retrospective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2010, 19:50
misslibertine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Strawberry Fields
Posts: 13,722
While I totally agree with your last paragraph, I have to say I find a certain irony in the list of artists you cite in the previous one: while they may influence pop culture, I wouldn't say any of them have pushed any boundaries musically. Indeed, I'd say they all owe a massive debt to the 70s and 80s: without hip hop, punk, soul or electro, they probably wouldn't exist.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they are bad or undeserving of success - but I wouldn't give them the same kudos as David Bowie, Kate Bush, Kraftwerk or Prince, for example, all of whom genuinely pushed boundaries in their music and performance.
I didn't claim any of them had "pushed boundaries", because I don't particularly think any of them have. That's why I didn't say it.
misslibertine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2010, 20:52
Gulftastic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the southstand
Posts: 87,671
Music may be the same or worse or better nowadays, but the charts are certainly worse. Back in the 70's and 80's you got a good mix of everything, and predicting how a record might do was hard. Now, it seems to be all down to marketing.
Gulftastic is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2010, 22:27
TranceClubber
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,754
Some tunes from the 80's were ok but there's nothing really amazing about it i think the 90's was bettter but some of you might disagree and no its not because you had the spice girls but you had alot of good dance tracks and good uplifting pop tracks.
TranceClubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2010, 22:59
Servalan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,479
I didn't claim any of them had "pushed boundaries", because I don't particularly think any of them have. That's why I didn't say it.
Er - no, but you did credit them with "having a definite effect and influence on pop culture and the music world" ...

And none of them have really done much musically that hasn't been done already previously. All they've really done is create wannabes - hardly the same as the artists I named ...
Servalan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2010, 23:21
misslibertine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Strawberry Fields
Posts: 13,722
Er - no, but you did credit them with "having a definite effect and influence on pop culture and the music world" ...

And none of them have really done much musically that hasn't been done already previously. All they've really done is create wannabes - hardly the same as the artists I named ...
If you want examples, I meant the sort of things like Arctic Monkeys being one of the first prominent users of the Internet in the way they distributed their music and marketed themselves ("Arctic Monkeys are heralded as one of the first acts to come to the public attention via the Internet (fan-based sites rather than from the band), with commentators suggesting they represented the possibility of a change in the way in which new bands are promoted and marketed"), etc.

I didn't say the artists I listed were doing things no-one had done before - maybe you should read my posts more carefully than replying to what you assume I've said or what you think I'm implying.

There are a lot of artists around at the moment who are doing new and different things, but then they don't fit into the point I was making about there still being "superstars" in the music world today. Had I listed them, it would have undermined the previous point.

I didn't say they could match Bowie et al in terms of innovation, just that they have had an effect and they have influenced others, in my opinion. If yours doesn't match mine... that's really no problem, but at least allow me to have it without witheringly picking it apart.
misslibertine is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:22.