Originally Posted by David Tee:
“Alternatively, it could be that they DO know what they're talking about and what they're saying is true.
Your argument, and that of the OP, is based on the idea that old people just don't "get" today's music. While that's certainly the case to a large extent - it's also another gross generalisation (the other one is that British Music is dead). The fact - and it IS a fact - is that music goes through periods when the overall standard is high, and other times when it is low. That's nothing new, it's been doing that for centuries. You can take genres such as Jazz and Classical and find peaks and troughs all over the place.
So, if the question is "Is today's British music generally up to the same standard as previous years?" IMO, not a chance. Remember, I'm not saying there's NO good music. There most certainly is. I'm saying that the overall standard is very low.
Once of the best music books ever written is Ian McDonald's book on the Beatles "Revolution In The Head". McDonald was a extremely well respected music journalist who crossed genres (he wrote a brilliant book on Shostakovitch, too) . His book on the Beatles is bookended by a couple of great articles that relate to the 60's and to what followed after The Beatles split up. Not unnaturally, he turns his attention to the quality of the music.
He is utterly damning in his criticism that today's music is a pale shadow of what preceded it. Here are just a few quotes..
"In whatever genre and of whatever artistic standard, the singles of the Sixties were as a rule more memorable, inventive and affecting than those of today".
"Most of today's sounds are synthetic, clogging frequencies and adding to the general sense of aural asphyxiation. The result of this (and other factors) has been the gradual replacement of expressive skills by technical ones - the decline in subtlety of songwriting and instrumental finesse mirrored by a monstrous efflorescence of boffin expertise in sound manufacture and studio craft."
"Dominated by the synthetic slam of the sequenced off-beat - modern songs are regularised and formulised, their harmonic movements banal and predictable, their vocal lines devoid of independent melody and constructed from prefabricated melodic/lyric cliches bolted together."
"The difference between the Sixties and what came after it are epitomised by the loss of one vital element - the unexpected"
and, most tellingly..
"A staple belief among critics is that what changes in pop is not its objective level of "soul" and inspiration, but the subjective points of view of commentators as they get older and less involved with it. In the end, of course, such matters are subjective - yet the paucity of relativism will be clear to anyone with a modicum of musical instinct and an ounce of common sense"
In other words..you only need to use your ears to hear for yourself that it doesn't compare.
If you feel that today's British music is brilliant - great, lap it up, whatever turns you on. However, if you really want to stand there and say that its as good as it's ever been, and that old people don't know what they're talking about (because they're old) - be prepared for others to say that you're talking rubbish and you're too young to know any better.”
This is pretty much how I feel and I'm only 22! Daren't say too much on the subject of it though for fear of being called a purist, music snob etc etc.
The music I grew up with was genius (even if I do say so myself); Jimmy Hendrix, Sam Cooke et al! I mean, lets not kid ourselves, production line level music was around even in the 60s. Take a look at Motown, as great as it was, it was a production line, but the real difference lies in the quotes.
The formula for Motown was to have a writing session, have a music session, give the singer the score and record live in a few takes. You had the genius of instrumental interpretation, vocal expression and great songwriting. The formula for today lies somewhere between grabbing an idiot from a talent show like Leona, Jordin Sparks, Alexandra Burke, pair them up with a computer geek, have a totally synthetic sound and sing in a way that is totally prompted by someone else. Devoid of all interpretation and personality... But hey, lets not forget to piss ourselves with excitement when Leona reaches for yet another C6 flourish
"omg she hit a C6, wowowowow, wet yourself! She can hold a note for 14 seconds, zomg!" And if they aren't having orgasms in synch with her predictable, emotionally devoid, producer-prompted vocal tics, it's just chart analysis and radio airplay analysis. As boring and robotic as the music!
. But I can't cite that as fact, nor can you cite it as fact that is is poorer.