The only thing I dislike about 'today's' music is that some people seem to judge songs on their hooks/melodies alone. That isn't the music though, just how it is received. To some people *cough* popjustice *cough* a 'good' song is bland and repetitive and a bad song tries to do something outside of the box.
I'm really sick of certain people moaning about ''today's'' music....
4 of 7
Originally Posted by nathanbrazil:
“It would be interesting to see if you have the same limited perspective in 25 years.
Music - good music - may be aimed at a particular market, but its quality does not fade. I still enjoy hearing tunes from my long ago teenage years, and tunes aimed at that market before I was conceived! I also enjoy many forms of music from the beginnings of rock 'n' roll in the 50's right up to stuff fresh out this week.
What I don't enjoy, is plonkers without any discernible talent, making millions, and feeding us rubbish that won't be played next year, never mind in ten years time. It's an 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome, with some artists, but I don't expect to to either agree, or be able to contemplate such a thing.
Why do I and other older music fans think we have a right to comment? Because we've been listening to rock and pop music since before you were filling your nappy. We have something against which to judge output. I don't care if a musician is 17 or 75, just as long as the music made falls somewhere along the very broad ribbon of what I recognise as quality. It may not be aimed at me, but that doesn't stop me liking it, or conversely, thinking it's a load of sh*te.”
“It would be interesting to see if you have the same limited perspective in 25 years.
Music - good music - may be aimed at a particular market, but its quality does not fade. I still enjoy hearing tunes from my long ago teenage years, and tunes aimed at that market before I was conceived! I also enjoy many forms of music from the beginnings of rock 'n' roll in the 50's right up to stuff fresh out this week.
What I don't enjoy, is plonkers without any discernible talent, making millions, and feeding us rubbish that won't be played next year, never mind in ten years time. It's an 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome, with some artists, but I don't expect to to either agree, or be able to contemplate such a thing.
Why do I and other older music fans think we have a right to comment? Because we've been listening to rock and pop music since before you were filling your nappy. We have something against which to judge output. I don't care if a musician is 17 or 75, just as long as the music made falls somewhere along the very broad ribbon of what I recognise as quality. It may not be aimed at me, but that doesn't stop me liking it, or conversely, thinking it's a load of sh*te.”
Limited perspective? LOL. I think it is you who has the limted perspective. Regradless of how long you have been alive or how you have seen music change you have to accept an opinon, is an opinon not fact.
I never said you could not like or not like/dislike the music you hear today, what I said is that you are not the target market it is aimed at because under 25s are considered the most profitable demographic to sell music to.
Quality is subjective regradless of how long you have been alive because no matter how you view it, everyone`s perception is different. Therefore your claims to judge music is no more valid than mine.
If you do not like a song, don`t listen to it. I don`t listen to radio 1 because I consider their output to be shite. I could name tons of artists that I don`t like but instead of moaning how shite they are I focus on how good the artists I like are. Like you my taste goes back to the 50s even the 40s. I love and apperciate artists of all decades.
Having a right to an opinion is different to having a right to claim something is fact. Have a view by all means. Just don`t confuse it with fact.
Originally Posted by Haruhion:
“Any particular reason as to why can't I say the same thing in reverse? Or you just wanted to vent your disagreement... Which is fine of course. It's just a Q. Quite often there is an appreciation thread, or at least a thread used as such for a relatively modern artist, with the majority of people saying Person X is perfect, fantastic, or whatever in a snobbish sense.
Pretty sure this did happen in the past. Anyway, only ones you've pick out are the people who act snobby in disagreement or disapproval of modern music. Even if you've done a thread about 40s music or whatnot, your own tastes may be secure, however, you haven't targeted any of the snobs in reverse play on the modern music bar, so opinion must matter to an extent, or this thread likely wouldn't exist.”
“Any particular reason as to why can't I say the same thing in reverse? Or you just wanted to vent your disagreement... Which is fine of course. It's just a Q. Quite often there is an appreciation thread, or at least a thread used as such for a relatively modern artist, with the majority of people saying Person X is perfect, fantastic, or whatever in a snobbish sense.
Pretty sure this did happen in the past. Anyway, only ones you've pick out are the people who act snobby in disagreement or disapproval of modern music. Even if you've done a thread about 40s music or whatnot, your own tastes may be secure, however, you haven't targeted any of the snobs in reverse play on the modern music bar, so opinion must matter to an extent, or this thread likely wouldn't exist.”
I wanted to offer an alternate view to the ''all modern music is shite''.....that is the reason why my thread came to be.
I`m not asking for people to like modern music. My view is that we should a respect that music is subjective and because you or I may consider something bad does not mean it is in a factual context.
I point out that my issue is not with opinion but with opinion being confused as fact in my first paragraph of my orginal post.
Say the same thing in reverse if you like it`s a free country.
Originally Posted by Mallaha:
“Big band swing as a genre may be very niche now, but swing stylings and influences pop up in all sorts of places, and hold an important place in the evolution of popular music. The basic swing beat still underpins a lot of "urban" music today, as well as some commercial dance music.
What we call pop music did not emerge and develop entirely between 1960 and 1989, as you claim. Its influences have been growing and developing and gathering pace for much longer than that, and continue to develop and split off into new sub-genres.
Music appreciation IS subjective, as well. Just because a lot of journos and industry people consider, say, Lennon and McCartney the best songwriters ever, the fact I don't doesn't make me wrong. It makes me from a different era, with different tastes, that's all. If you want to like classic pop music, that's fine, but if you want to like other forms of music, that is also fine. It doesn't make one person wrong.”
“Big band swing as a genre may be very niche now, but swing stylings and influences pop up in all sorts of places, and hold an important place in the evolution of popular music. The basic swing beat still underpins a lot of "urban" music today, as well as some commercial dance music.
What we call pop music did not emerge and develop entirely between 1960 and 1989, as you claim. Its influences have been growing and developing and gathering pace for much longer than that, and continue to develop and split off into new sub-genres.
Music appreciation IS subjective, as well. Just because a lot of journos and industry people consider, say, Lennon and McCartney the best songwriters ever, the fact I don't doesn't make me wrong. It makes me from a different era, with different tastes, that's all. If you want to like classic pop music, that's fine, but if you want to like other forms of music, that is also fine. It doesn't make one person wrong.”
we are arguing over minor points, yes theres been an evolution in music over many decades prior to the 60's which still can be seen in todays music, but GENERALLY the template for modern pop was laid down in the 60's with the beatles leading the way.
you cant compare the beatles with classical/big band etc, the topic is regarding todays music which doesnt appear to have the quality of composition that hundereds of tracks did in the past. it isnt subjective nor opinion if a beatles or abba track employed intricate chord changes, its a fact.
Originally Posted by nathanbrazil:
“Why do I and other older music fans think we have a right to comment? Because we've been listening to rock and pop music since before you were filling your nappy. We have something against which to judge output. I don't care if a musician is 17 or 75, just as long as the music made falls somewhere along the very broad ribbon of what I recognise as quality. It may not be aimed at me, but that doesn't stop me liking it, or conversely, thinking it's a load of sh*te.”
“Why do I and other older music fans think we have a right to comment? Because we've been listening to rock and pop music since before you were filling your nappy. We have something against which to judge output. I don't care if a musician is 17 or 75, just as long as the music made falls somewhere along the very broad ribbon of what I recognise as quality. It may not be aimed at me, but that doesn't stop me liking it, or conversely, thinking it's a load of sh*te.”
EXACTLY!
Originally Posted by Refusion:
“And you don't have to look hard today, either.
”
“And you don't have to look hard today, either.
”
erm... yes.... hello... what is there in the charts that isnt mass produced, easy going, derivative commercial pap? theres nothing new nor cutting edge... to find quality you have to look for it.
Quote:
“There's no point talking to me about The Beatles as I cannot stand them. Aren't awards decided by opinions, though; ergo, someone thinks something is good, so they award it something?”
“There's no point talking to me about The Beatles as I cannot stand them. Aren't awards decided by opinions, though; ergo, someone thinks something is good, so they award it something?”
so how can you have an objective discussion if you totally ignore the greatest pop group of all time? some awards are opinion, others are awarded upon merit, merit for musicianship and innovation. the beatles, abba, kinks, smiths, kate bush, etc etc etc all have that accolade.
You do know what "IMHO" stands for, don't you? Are you admitting that what you're posting is an opinion, as opposed to a fact. I disagree that there are no great songwriters around today, but what's the point?[/quote]
nope, im posting an opinion that in modern times there no great songwriters... please correct me if im wrong, i mean composers who write, play, perform their own material. please tell me who they are...please... who around today can match the ones i keep listing? lennon/mccartney, jagger richard, ray davies, morrisey marr, kate bush... etc... c'mon, win this by correcting me, WHO ARE THEY? cos from where im sitting theres been no one of their calibre for many years.
Originally Posted by PrincessPerfect:
“I wanted to offer an alternate view to the ''all modern music is shite''.....that is the reason why my thread came to be.
.”
“I wanted to offer an alternate view to the ''all modern music is shite''.....that is the reason why my thread came to be.
.”
ive never said ALL modern music is shyte, but alot of it, 95% at least, is derived from older material. its not original, but it is at times as good as anything from the past.
todays music seems all about style over substance, x factor, production teams, computer enhanced performances and lack of original ideas.
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“
you cant compare the beatles with classical/big band etc, the topic is regarding todays music which doesnt appear to have the quality of composition that hundereds of tracks did in the past. it isnt subjective nor opinion if a beatles or abba track employed intricate chord changes, its a fact.”
“
you cant compare the beatles with classical/big band etc, the topic is regarding todays music which doesnt appear to have the quality of composition that hundereds of tracks did in the past. it isnt subjective nor opinion if a beatles or abba track employed intricate chord changes, its a fact.”
But whether 'intricate chord changes' makes good music or not, is opinion.
Everything gets less original over time, its not just music. Books, films, plays, tv shows. I also think the major flaw in your argument, as well as in the argument of other people who dislike modern music is the assumption that something being original is good and something not being original makes it bad. To use an example outside of music, Shakespeare is regarded as the best playwright in the history of English literature and yet he is not an original by any stretch of the imagination. Not only did he 'borrow' ideas, storylines, characters etc. from classical literature, he also 'borrowed' them from his contemporaries. It was what he did with these unoriginal ideas which made him be viewed as a great playwright.
Something being original doesn't make it good and something being a rehash of something else doesn't make it bad. Orginality and quality are mutually exclusive. Quality is subjective.
Sure, originality isn't subjective, which is why I can see where you are coming from, nobody can really argue that modern music isn't indebted to the past (although, even music in the past was inspired by someone, the Beatles were inspired by Elvis and so on.) But by being unoriginal doesn't make it bad imo.
Originally Posted by PrincessPerfect:
“Having a right to an opinion is different to having a right to claim something is fact. Have a view by all means. Just don`t confuse it with fact.”
“Having a right to an opinion is different to having a right to claim something is fact. Have a view by all means. Just don`t confuse it with fact.”
This is the crux of the matter.
I believe it to be a fact that some artistes, (and I mean people in the industry from the 50's right up to the present day), are of extremely poor quality. I believe that not as an opinion, which is always a matter of individual taste, but as a fact. Based on a comparison of like for like, and experience.
An example being, Gil Scott Heron Vrs Dizee Rascal. Now, I would be very surprised if you'd even heard of Gil Scott Heron, which is not meant in any negative way. There's lots of acts I haven't heard of, which I may discover and think brilliant. Anyway, the point being, GSH is technically a soul-jazz act, but in many of his songs, he pioneered what is today known as rap music. GHS talked about the issues of the day and life in general, over a melodic background. What he said was always meaningful, often rather witty and sometimes moving. Shift focus to Dizzee Rascal, and what I hear is a chap with a machine gun delivery, concentrating more on the sound words make than on their meaning.
I'm not arguing that Dizee and the like should be barred, and would support the right of anyone to listen to whatever they please. All I'm saying is that when compared with earlier equivalents, (even better know acts such as LL Cool J and Grandmaster Flash), the Rascal is just not doing anywhere near as much with his chosen medium. It's a fine line between an opinion and a fact, but one that I think worth considering.
Originally Posted by nathanbrazil:
“This is the crux of the matter.
I believe it to be a fact that some artistes, (and I mean people in the industry from the 50's right up to the present day), are of extremely poor quality. I believe that not as an opinion, which is always a matter of individual taste, but as a fact. Based on a comparison of like for like, and experience.
An example being, Gil Scott Heron Vrs Dizee Rascal. Now, I would be very surprised if you'd even heard of Gil Scott Heron, which is not meant in any negative way. There's lots of acts I haven't heard of, which I may discover and think brilliant. Anyway, the point being, GSH is technically a soul-jazz act, but in many of his songs, he pioneered what is today known as rap music. GHS talked about the issues of the day and life in general, over a melodic background. What he said was always meaningful, often rather witty and sometimes moving. Shift focus to Dizzee Rascal, and what I hear is a chap with a machine gun delivery, concentrating more on the sound words make than on their meaning.
I'm not arguing that Dizee and the like should be barred, and would support the right of anyone to listen to whatever they please. All I'm saying is that when compared with earlier equivalents, (even better know acts such as LL Cool J and Grandmaster Flash), the Rascal is just not doing anywhere near as much with his chosen medium. It's a fine line between an opinion and a fact, but one that I think worth considering.”
“This is the crux of the matter.
I believe it to be a fact that some artistes, (and I mean people in the industry from the 50's right up to the present day), are of extremely poor quality. I believe that not as an opinion, which is always a matter of individual taste, but as a fact. Based on a comparison of like for like, and experience.
An example being, Gil Scott Heron Vrs Dizee Rascal. Now, I would be very surprised if you'd even heard of Gil Scott Heron, which is not meant in any negative way. There's lots of acts I haven't heard of, which I may discover and think brilliant. Anyway, the point being, GSH is technically a soul-jazz act, but in many of his songs, he pioneered what is today known as rap music. GHS talked about the issues of the day and life in general, over a melodic background. What he said was always meaningful, often rather witty and sometimes moving. Shift focus to Dizzee Rascal, and what I hear is a chap with a machine gun delivery, concentrating more on the sound words make than on their meaning.
I'm not arguing that Dizee and the like should be barred, and would support the right of anyone to listen to whatever they please. All I'm saying is that when compared with earlier equivalents, (even better know acts such as LL Cool J and Grandmaster Flash), the Rascal is just not doing anywhere near as much with his chosen medium. It's a fine line between an opinion and a fact, but one that I think worth considering.”
But that is still your opinion. Sure its fact that one raps about one thing and one raps about the other, but determining which is better is still just your opinion.
The problem with this debate is that there are two different arguments - subjective and objective reasoning - being rolled into one.
With music, subjective reasoning usually comes down to one basic question: "Do you like what you've heard, or not?"
Objective reasoning asks just as basic a question: "Is what you've heard any good or not?"
The argument here seems to be that it's impossible to judge whether today's music is better or worse than music made half a century ago. Sorry - but that's flat-out incorrect. It's perfectly possible to compare the two eras in music and list and measure all the strengths and weaknesses that appear in both. One of the most brilliantly incisive commentaries on this can be found in the Introduction and Ending to Ian McDonald's book "Revolution In The Head". IMVHO he nails it...
What would be impossible (unless they invent some kind of personal musical neuro-thermometer) is to judge whether today's music is any more or less enjoyable than that made years ago. We can get clues by looking at music sales over time, but that's generalising. On an individual level - no, we can't answer the question.
All of us, even those who have never ever studied music, are qualified to answer both the subjective and the objective questions. We obviously know what we like and don't like - no problem there. But we also know instinctively when music is good or bad. For example - the audience in the X Factor auditions knows within seconds whether an act is good or not. In reality most people listen to music objectively before they approach it subjectively.
The reason we know instinctively whether it's good or bad is because music conforms to rules and requires skills - as do the majority of all art forms. Without ever being taught them we know some of those rules and skills. Sing out of tune, sing in the wrong place, sing the wrong words, and (unless you're an undiscovered genius trying to invent a new art form) you're bad - and everyone will know it. So, even at a basic, uneducated level, it is possible to say that "music is bad" and be factually correct. At an educated level - where knowledge of rules and skills goes far, far deeper and people have the expertise to be able to look in depth at what is actually being done - they can not only say (factually) whether it's good or bad, they can also point out where and why.
Leaving aside the obvious issue that it's a generalisation (there is some brilliant music, easily comparable with the past, being made today) today's music comes in for a bit of a bashing from previous generations for many reasons but mostly because of its lack of ambition. Where's the sense of achievement?
"Pop Music is now little more than a soundtrack for physical jerks". Ian McDonald
With music, subjective reasoning usually comes down to one basic question: "Do you like what you've heard, or not?"
Objective reasoning asks just as basic a question: "Is what you've heard any good or not?"
The argument here seems to be that it's impossible to judge whether today's music is better or worse than music made half a century ago. Sorry - but that's flat-out incorrect. It's perfectly possible to compare the two eras in music and list and measure all the strengths and weaknesses that appear in both. One of the most brilliantly incisive commentaries on this can be found in the Introduction and Ending to Ian McDonald's book "Revolution In The Head". IMVHO he nails it...
What would be impossible (unless they invent some kind of personal musical neuro-thermometer) is to judge whether today's music is any more or less enjoyable than that made years ago. We can get clues by looking at music sales over time, but that's generalising. On an individual level - no, we can't answer the question.
All of us, even those who have never ever studied music, are qualified to answer both the subjective and the objective questions. We obviously know what we like and don't like - no problem there. But we also know instinctively when music is good or bad. For example - the audience in the X Factor auditions knows within seconds whether an act is good or not. In reality most people listen to music objectively before they approach it subjectively.
The reason we know instinctively whether it's good or bad is because music conforms to rules and requires skills - as do the majority of all art forms. Without ever being taught them we know some of those rules and skills. Sing out of tune, sing in the wrong place, sing the wrong words, and (unless you're an undiscovered genius trying to invent a new art form) you're bad - and everyone will know it. So, even at a basic, uneducated level, it is possible to say that "music is bad" and be factually correct. At an educated level - where knowledge of rules and skills goes far, far deeper and people have the expertise to be able to look in depth at what is actually being done - they can not only say (factually) whether it's good or bad, they can also point out where and why.
Leaving aside the obvious issue that it's a generalisation (there is some brilliant music, easily comparable with the past, being made today) today's music comes in for a bit of a bashing from previous generations for many reasons but mostly because of its lack of ambition. Where's the sense of achievement?
"Pop Music is now little more than a soundtrack for physical jerks". Ian McDonald
Originally Posted by franster:
“But that is still your opinion. Sure its fact that one raps about one thing and one raps about the other, but determining which is better is still just your opinion.”
“But that is still your opinion. Sure its fact that one raps about one thing and one raps about the other, but determining which is better is still just your opinion.”
It is my opinion, but I believe it is also a fact that when the output of the two artistes named is compared - by anyone willing to like either - one name is always going to come out on top. Because of an enormous difference in musicianship, intellect and raw talent.
Perhaps another, non-music, example might be helpful. We can all agree that Churchill and Cameron are both politicians. A large number of people support both, etc, etc. But by action and deed, the execution of his office, Churchill is always going to be considered as a far superior politician by a majority of impartial voters. Regardless of what Cameron may do if elected to same office. The two men are simply poles apart, and that is a fact.
Originally Posted by David Tee:
“Leaving aside the obvious issue that it's a generalisation (there is some brilliant music, easily comparable with the past, being made today) today's music comes in for a bit of a bashing from previous generations for many reasons but mostly because of its lack of ambition. Where's the sense of achievement? ”
“Leaving aside the obvious issue that it's a generalisation (there is some brilliant music, easily comparable with the past, being made today) today's music comes in for a bit of a bashing from previous generations for many reasons but mostly because of its lack of ambition. Where's the sense of achievement? ”
An excellent post.
I would absolutely love to see a new, young band come along, who had the same impact on music, politics and society in general, as the Sex Pistols did in their prime. Whatever form of music the newcomers produced would not matter so much to me, as whether it articulated the anger of a generation in the way that the Pistols, and slightly later, Elvis Costello did.
Unfortunately, much of what is on offer are 'bands' such as Westlife; navvies made good, singing other people's songs, and unable to play any instruments. Then we have the endless Cowell produced partly talented Whitney wannabes. I found it interesting that when X-Factor accidentally discovered someone with genuine talent, and with global potential, the first thing Cowell did was shift Leona Lewis on to a serious producer, who could properly exploit her talent and get her hit songs. The long game, not short-term gain.
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“erm... yes.... hello... what is there in the charts that isnt mass produced, easy going, derivative commercial pap? theres nothing new nor cutting edge... to find quality you have to look for it.”
“erm... yes.... hello... what is there in the charts that isnt mass produced, easy going, derivative commercial pap? theres nothing new nor cutting edge... to find quality you have to look for it.”
Yes, and it is not that hard to find, that was my point.
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“so how can you have an objective discussion if you totally ignore the greatest pop group of all time?”
“so how can you have an objective discussion if you totally ignore the greatest pop group of all time?”
So, I have to like The Beatles to be objective? Bugger that. I don't like them. THE. END.
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“nope, im posting an opinion that in modern times there no great songwriters... please correct me if im wrong, i mean composers who write, play, perform their own material. please tell me who they are...please... who around today can match the ones i keep listing? lennon/mccartney, jagger richard, ray davies, morrisey marr, kate bush... etc... c'mon, win this by correcting me, WHO ARE THEY? cos from where im sitting theres been no one of their calibre for many years.”
“nope, im posting an opinion that in modern times there no great songwriters... please correct me if im wrong, i mean composers who write, play, perform their own material. please tell me who they are...please... who around today can match the ones i keep listing? lennon/mccartney, jagger richard, ray davies, morrisey marr, kate bush... etc... c'mon, win this by correcting me, WHO ARE THEY? cos from where im sitting theres been no one of their calibre for many years.”
Jesus shitting christ, what is the point of me trying to ~win this by correcting you~. From your comments in this thread I get the overall impression that you're not even prepared to slightly entertain other people's ideas, so I'm not going to waste my time doing so.
If you really want an answer, two of my favourites are Wayne Coyne and Laura Marling; whether or not they match the ~calibre~ of the ones you list above remains to be seen, I'm suspecting that they don't, and quite frankly I could not care less whether you think they do or not.
Originally Posted by Refusion:
“So, I have to like The Beatles to be objective? Bugger that. I don't like them. THE. END.”
“So, I have to like The Beatles to be objective? Bugger that. I don't like them. THE. END.”
No, you don't have to like anyone. What is needed, is for you to accept that the Beatles are what they're cracked up to be, regardless of your personal preference. Otherwise, you're really saying everyone else is wrong.
There are any number of acts which I don't personally enjoy, for example Frank Sinatra, but which I am prepared to accept are 'great' due to the consistency of praise and reasoning upon which it is based.
Anyone who moans about 'today's' music not being as good as years gone by are irritating. It's easy to find different music and inspired new material out there - it's easier than ever to find anything you want now with the internet. Finding a new band you love is potentially just a click away. You moan because you aren't even looking hard enough.
Besides, 'yesterday's music' was probably considered dirge by an older generation as well. The only difference then was that people didn't have the means to have much variety. I suppose you could argue that the charts today don't offer much variety either but then they never really did. It's all manufactured US rappers and X Factor. But then it's always been like that. Take 'Sugar Sugar' by The Archies - reached number 1 back in the 60s - and that was as manufactured as anything Cowell and co churn out. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones weren't the only acts selling music.
Besides, 'yesterday's music' was probably considered dirge by an older generation as well. The only difference then was that people didn't have the means to have much variety. I suppose you could argue that the charts today don't offer much variety either but then they never really did. It's all manufactured US rappers and X Factor. But then it's always been like that. Take 'Sugar Sugar' by The Archies - reached number 1 back in the 60s - and that was as manufactured as anything Cowell and co churn out. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones weren't the only acts selling music.
Originally Posted by nathanbrazil:
“No, you don't have to like anyone. What is needed, is for you to accept that the Beatles are what they're cracked up to be, regardless of your personal preference. Otherwise, you're really saying everyone else is wrong.”
“No, you don't have to like anyone. What is needed, is for you to accept that the Beatles are what they're cracked up to be, regardless of your personal preference. Otherwise, you're really saying everyone else is wrong.”
I'm not really seeing how, but fair enough.
Originally Posted by BumbleSquat:
“Anyone who moans about 'today's' music not being as good as years gone by are irritating. It's easy to find different music and inspired new material out there - it's easier than ever to find anything you want now with the internet. Finding a new band you love is potentially just a click away. You moan because you aren't even looking hard enough.”
“Anyone who moans about 'today's' music not being as good as years gone by are irritating. It's easy to find different music and inspired new material out there - it's easier than ever to find anything you want now with the internet. Finding a new band you love is potentially just a click away. You moan because you aren't even looking hard enough.”
Exactly. Anyone would think sites like Last FM, Spotify, YouTube, etc didn't actually exist.
Originally Posted by BumbleSquat:
“Anyone who moans about 'today's' music not being as good as years gone by are irritating.”
“Anyone who moans about 'today's' music not being as good as years gone by are irritating.”
I agree with you that excellence does exist today, but reserve the right to moan about any act that is, IMHO, working on a false prospectus.
Originally Posted by BumbleSquat:
“Take 'Sugar Sugar' by The Archies - reached number 1 back in the 60s - and that was as manufactured as anything Cowell and co churn out.”
“Take 'Sugar Sugar' by The Archies - reached number 1 back in the 60s - and that was as manufactured as anything Cowell and co churn out.”
Can't argue with that. The only real difference, is that it was quality fluff, as evidenced by the fact that is has been continually played from then to now. Sugar Sugar has longevity due to its quality. Unlike Steve Brookstein, Michelle McManus, Leon Wotsit or any other Cowell act except Leona Lewis.
Originally Posted by nathanbrazil:
“Can't argue with that. The only real difference, is that it was quality fluff, as evidenced by the fact that is has been continually played from then to now. Sugar Sugar has longevity due to its quality. Unlike Steve Brookstein, Michelle McManus, Leon Wotsit or any other Cowell act except Leona Lewis.”
“Can't argue with that. The only real difference, is that it was quality fluff, as evidenced by the fact that is has been continually played from then to now. Sugar Sugar has longevity due to its quality. Unlike Steve Brookstein, Michelle McManus, Leon Wotsit or any other Cowell act except Leona Lewis.”
I'm sure there's plenty of manufactured acts from back then who didn't stand the test of time. Besides, would The Archies have been considered 'quality fluff' back then? For example, I hear that god awful Eiffel 65 'Blue Da Be Dee' song played in places at the end of drunken nights out - and that was released 11 years ago! Who's to say it won't still be played in another 30 years?
You can't say today's music won't stand the test of time - unless, of course, you have a crystal ball. If so, this weeks lottery numbers please!
It's all a matter of opinion - in 30 years time I'm not going to start stating as fact that music from 2010 was much better than music in 2040. Music is all subjective - what's 1 man's junk is another man's treasure and all that...
Originally Posted by franster:
“But whether 'intricate chord changes' makes good music or not, is opinion.
Everything gets less original over time, its not just music. Books, films, plays, tv shows. I also think the major flaw in your argument, as well as in the argument of other people who dislike modern music is the assumption that something being original is good and something not being original makes it bad. To use an example outside of music, Shakespeare is regarded as the best playwright in the history of English literature and yet he is not an original by any stretch of the imagination. Not only did he 'borrow' ideas, storylines, characters etc. from classical literature, he also 'borrowed' them from his contemporaries. It was what he did with these unoriginal ideas which made him be viewed as a great playwright.
Something being original doesn't make it good and something being a rehash of something else doesn't make it bad. Orginality and quality are mutually exclusive. Quality is subjective.
Sure, originality isn't subjective, which is why I can see where you are coming from, nobody can really argue that modern music isn't indebted to the past (although, even music in the past was inspired by someone, the Beatles were inspired by Elvis and so on.) But by being unoriginal doesn't make it bad imo.”
“But whether 'intricate chord changes' makes good music or not, is opinion.
Everything gets less original over time, its not just music. Books, films, plays, tv shows. I also think the major flaw in your argument, as well as in the argument of other people who dislike modern music is the assumption that something being original is good and something not being original makes it bad. To use an example outside of music, Shakespeare is regarded as the best playwright in the history of English literature and yet he is not an original by any stretch of the imagination. Not only did he 'borrow' ideas, storylines, characters etc. from classical literature, he also 'borrowed' them from his contemporaries. It was what he did with these unoriginal ideas which made him be viewed as a great playwright.
Something being original doesn't make it good and something being a rehash of something else doesn't make it bad. Orginality and quality are mutually exclusive. Quality is subjective.
Sure, originality isn't subjective, which is why I can see where you are coming from, nobody can really argue that modern music isn't indebted to the past (although, even music in the past was inspired by someone, the Beatles were inspired by Elvis and so on.) But by being unoriginal doesn't make it bad imo.”
ive already cited 2003 as one of my fav years and ive not said ALL modern music is crap.. on the whole i believe that something formed closer to the scource is purer. so generally but NOT exclusively original music tends to be better then re-vamps.
surely 'intricate chord changes' equates to better musicianship then 3 chord blues? or power chord?.. so from that perspective musically isnt it 'better'? i must underline though, even if its 'better' or more complex/advanced musically it doesnt mean you are obliged to like it on a personal level.
Originally Posted by Refusion:
“Yes, and it is not that hard to find, that was my point.”
“Yes, and it is not that hard to find, that was my point.
”
thats a matter of opinion, not fact!
from my perspective (and unlike the golden age of music) there isnt any challenging, original, inovative music in the charts.
Quote:
“So, I have to like The Beatles to be objective? Bugger that. I don't like them. THE. END.”
“So, I have to like The Beatles to be objective? Bugger that. I don't like them. THE. END.”
oh lord.... where did i say that? no of course you dont HAVE to like the beatles! but it helps your argument if you accept their worth, their acheivements and their factual place in british/world music. THAT is being objective, understanding their true position in music regardless of personal taste.
Quote:
“Jesus shitting christ, what is the point of me trying to ~win this by correcting you~. From your comments in this thread I get the overall impression that you're not even prepared to slightly entertain other people's ideas, so I'm not going to waste my time doing so.
If you really want an answer, two of my favourites are Wayne Coyne and Laura Marling; whether or not they match the ~calibre~ of the ones you list above remains to be seen, I'm suspecting that they don't, and quite frankly I could not care less whether you think they do or not.”
“Jesus shitting christ, what is the point of me trying to ~win this by correcting you~. From your comments in this thread I get the overall impression that you're not even prepared to slightly entertain other people's ideas, so I'm not going to waste my time doing so.
If you really want an answer, two of my favourites are Wayne Coyne and Laura Marling; whether or not they match the ~calibre~ of the ones you list above remains to be seen, I'm suspecting that they don't, and quite frankly I could not care less whether you think they do or not.”
oh resort to name calling, are you a child?
you reckon that todays music is as good as it ever has been, i say where are todays (the last decade) icons? where are the songwriters of the calibre of those in the past? the ones who have been critically acclaimed, have written standards, created ground breaking music?
its not whether or not I like them , its whether they have created an undeniable catalogue of all time great tracks that is recognised as such by music lovers all over the world. yes there are some individuals who have produced some great music, but its patchy and hasnt recieved the acclaim lennon/mccartney, morrisey/marr etc etc etc have... but the doors not closed, maybe those artists you like might in time do it, maybe there are some up and coming singer/songwriters who WILL produce such an impressive and respected catalogue.... but it hasnt happened in the last decade!
so by default, id suggest that musically, creatively, originality, modern music ISNT as good as it used to be generally. whether you, i, or anyone likes it as much is upto your own preferance.
Originally Posted by BumbleSquat:
“Besides, 'yesterday's music' was probably considered dirge by an older generation as well.”
“Besides, 'yesterday's music' was probably considered dirge by an older generation as well.”
thats true.... each new genre/style/fashion was generally hated by the one previous. ive heard the old mantra 'music was better in my day' from ex teddyboys, mods, glam fans, punks, two tone fans etc...
Quote:
“The only difference then was that people didn't have the means to have much variety.
i suppose you could argue that the charts today don't offer much variety either but then they never really did.”
“The only difference then was that people didn't have the means to have much variety.
i suppose you could argue that the charts today don't offer much variety either but then they never really did.”
utter nonsense! im not letting you get away with that! the charts were FAR more varied in the past with many great styles co-existing alongside one another. a chart from say 30 years ago had... rock, mod/new wave, ska, disco, pop, punk, rockabilly, ballads, and more... they were strong and had identity unlike todays mush where very few acts have any individuality.
Quote:
“It's all manufactured US rappers and X Factor. But then it's always been like that. Take 'Sugar Sugar' by The Archies - reached number 1 back in the 60s - and that was as manufactured as anything Cowell and co churn out. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones weren't the only acts selling music.”
“It's all manufactured US rappers and X Factor. But then it's always been like that. Take 'Sugar Sugar' by The Archies - reached number 1 back in the 60s - and that was as manufactured as anything Cowell and co churn out. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones weren't the only acts selling music.”
true it was manufactured... and was generally hated (by music fans ) , it was a lone novelty act that had 1 hit in a chart full of 'real' artists. dont make out that the 60's were all like that because simply.... they werent.
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“thats a matter of opinion, not fact!”
“thats a matter of opinion, not fact!
”
I'd refute that; the internet makes it easier than ever. Especially with the sites that I listed in my previous post.
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“from my perspective (and unlike the golden age of music) there isnt any challenging, original, inovative music in the charts.”
“from my perspective (and unlike the golden age of music) there isnt any challenging, original, inovative music in the charts.”
Quote:
“you reckon that todays music is as good as it ever has been, i say where are todays (the last decade) icons? where are the songwriters of the calibre of those in the past? the ones who have been critically acclaimed, have written standards, created ground breaking music?
its not whether or not I like them , its whether they have created an undeniable catalogue of all time great tracks that is recognised as such by music lovers all over the world. yes there are some individuals who have produced some great music, but its patchy and hasnt recieved the acclaim lennon/mccartney, morrisey/marr etc etc etc have... but the doors not closed, maybe those artists you like might in time do it, maybe there are some up and coming singer/songwriters who WILL produce such an impressive and respected catalogue.... but it hasnt happened in the last decade!
so by default, id suggest that musically, creatively, originality, modern music ISNT as good as it used to be generally. whether you, i, or anyone likes it as much is upto your own preferance.”
“you reckon that todays music is as good as it ever has been, i say where are todays (the last decade) icons? where are the songwriters of the calibre of those in the past? the ones who have been critically acclaimed, have written standards, created ground breaking music?
its not whether or not I like them , its whether they have created an undeniable catalogue of all time great tracks that is recognised as such by music lovers all over the world. yes there are some individuals who have produced some great music, but its patchy and hasnt recieved the acclaim lennon/mccartney, morrisey/marr etc etc etc have... but the doors not closed, maybe those artists you like might in time do it, maybe there are some up and coming singer/songwriters who WILL produce such an impressive and respected catalogue.... but it hasnt happened in the last decade!
so by default, id suggest that musically, creatively, originality, modern music ISNT as good as it used to be generally. whether you, i, or anyone likes it as much is upto your own preferance.”
Do you know what, I give up; this is me throwing in the towel. This thread is just going to go round and round and round in circles with people stating the same points over and over again, so what's the point of trying to have any kind of discussion?
I prefer what is released today to the dull crap of yesteryear [OMG, shoot me know]; you don't. Let's leave it there. This said, my favourite band has been going since 1969.
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“utter nonsense! im not letting you get away with that!”
“utter nonsense! im not letting you get away with that!”
Is he not allowed his opinion? Why does only yours, and those of people whose opinions tally with yours seem to count with regards to music?
Originally Posted by Refusion:
“Do you know what, I give up; this is me throwing in the towel. This thread is just going to go round and round and round in circles with people stating the same points over and over again, so what's the point of trying to have any kind of discussion?”
“Do you know what, I give up; this is me throwing in the towel. This thread is just going to go round and round and round in circles with people stating the same points over and over again, so what's the point of trying to have any kind of discussion?”
i make the same point again because they havnt been addressed.
Quote:
“I prefer what is released today to the dull crap of yesteryear [OMG, shoot me know]; you don't. Let's leave it there. This said, my favourite band has been going since 1969.”
“I prefer what is released today to the dull crap of yesteryear [OMG, shoot me know]; you don't. Let's leave it there. This said, my favourite band has been going since 1969.
”
.... but todays music is built upon 'the dull crap of yesteryear' ... so i find that odd... however i agree that you or anyone is perfectly entitled to like wtf you want!
which band would that be?...
Quote:
“Is he not allowed his opinion? Why does only yours, and those of people whose opinions tally with yours seem to count with regards to music?”
“Is he not allowed his opinion? Why does only yours, and those of people whose opinions tally with yours seem to count with regards to music?
”
because theres a difference between opinions and facts
he stated that there wasnt as much variety in the charts as there is now.... please view the chart from this day in 1980 ive just posted, that completely blows his statement out of the water! it isnt an opinion that there was more variety in the past, it is a fact, THATS why i wont allow an untruth to go unchallenged.
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“which band would that be?...”
“which band would that be?...”
The Residents. Never really had much "commercial" success, but have a dedicate fanbase nonetheless. I'm not entirely sure how to describe them, because they're quite unlike anything I've ever heard before.
Constantinople (1978)
Boxes of Armageddon (2008)
(If you're curious)
Originally Posted by BumbleSquat:
“I'm sure there's plenty of manufactured acts from back then who didn't stand the test of time. Besides, would The Archies have been considered 'quality fluff' back then?”
“I'm sure there's plenty of manufactured acts from back then who didn't stand the test of time. Besides, would The Archies have been considered 'quality fluff' back then?”
Yes, there were. Nobody is claiming differently. As for the Archies, yes, even then it was recognised as being quality of its type.
Originally Posted by BumbleSquat:
“You can't say today's music won't stand the test of time - unless, of course, you have a crystal ball.”
“You can't say today's music won't stand the test of time - unless, of course, you have a crystal ball.”
What I can say, is that based on a few decades of LOVING music of all types, (one decade of which was as an international DJ - different name), I think I am a reasonable judge of what will last. Be it to my taste, or music in general.
Originally Posted by BumbleSquat:
“1 man's junk is another man's treasure and all that...”
“1 man's junk is another man's treasure and all that...”
This is true. Some junk, however, sinks pretty damn fast.
Originally Posted by Refusion:
“The Residents. Never really had much "commercial" success, but have a dedicate fanbase nonetheless. I'm not entirely sure how to describe them, because they're quite unlike anything I've ever heard before.
Constantinople (1978)
Boxes of Armageddon (2008)
(If you're curious)”
“The Residents. Never really had much "commercial" success, but have a dedicate fanbase nonetheless. I'm not entirely sure how to describe them, because they're quite unlike anything I've ever heard before.
Constantinople (1978)
Boxes of Armageddon (2008)
(If you're curious)”
ahhh yes.... fair play!
but doesnt such a band blow the notion that todays music is as good?...
Originally Posted by nathanbrazil:
“Yes, there were. Nobody is claiming differently. As for the Archies, yes, even then it was recognised as being quality of its type.
”
“Yes, there were. Nobody is claiming differently. As for the Archies, yes, even then it was recognised as being quality of its type.
”
sorry, i am! the notion that the 60's were as packed with manufactured acts as today is is completely wrong.
many ordinary pop groups aiming for commercial success (hermans hermits, tremeloes, dave clarke 5, dave dee and co) had a manager who controled what they did, but it was still their material and they chose the musical direction or they found a manager who would facilitate this.... thats totally unlike the manufactured karaoke acts of today. of course the REAL pop groups who were inovators (the who, kinks, yardbirds, stones, animals, beatles etc) steered their own course.
the archies being recognised as 'quality of its type'?...
not where i was m8, they were a pop joke who no one took seriously except the little kids who bought that wretched track. perhaps the closest we got to a manufactured act in 1969 was the love affair which was basically a group of session musicians put together to support steve ellis on vocals..... the difference was the the love affair created some damn good respectable pop. ive NEVER heard of the archies getting any form of critical recognition from anyone.
Originally Posted by nathanbrazil:
“This is the crux of the matter.
I believe it to be a fact that some artistes, (and I mean people in the industry from the 50's right up to the present day), are of extremely poor quality. I believe that not as an opinion, which is always a matter of individual taste, but as a fact. Based on a comparison of like for like, and experience.
An example being, Gil Scott Heron Vrs Dizee Rascal. Now, I would be very surprised if you'd even heard of Gil Scott Heron, which is not meant in any negative way. There's lots of acts I haven't heard of, which I may discover and think brilliant. Anyway, the point being, GSH is technically a soul-jazz act, but in many of his songs, he pioneered what is today known as rap music. GHS talked about the issues of the day and life in general, over a melodic background. What he said was always meaningful, often rather witty and sometimes moving. Shift focus to Dizzee Rascal, and what I hear is a chap with a machine gun delivery, concentrating more on the sound words make than on their meaning.
I'm not arguing that Dizee and the like should be barred, and would support the right of anyone to listen to whatever they please. All I'm saying is that when compared with earlier equivalents, (even better know acts such as LL Cool J and Grandmaster Flash), the Rascal is just not doing anywhere near as much with his chosen medium. It's a fine line between an opinion and a fact, but one that I think worth considering.”
“This is the crux of the matter.
I believe it to be a fact that some artistes, (and I mean people in the industry from the 50's right up to the present day), are of extremely poor quality. I believe that not as an opinion, which is always a matter of individual taste, but as a fact. Based on a comparison of like for like, and experience.
An example being, Gil Scott Heron Vrs Dizee Rascal. Now, I would be very surprised if you'd even heard of Gil Scott Heron, which is not meant in any negative way. There's lots of acts I haven't heard of, which I may discover and think brilliant. Anyway, the point being, GSH is technically a soul-jazz act, but in many of his songs, he pioneered what is today known as rap music. GHS talked about the issues of the day and life in general, over a melodic background. What he said was always meaningful, often rather witty and sometimes moving. Shift focus to Dizzee Rascal, and what I hear is a chap with a machine gun delivery, concentrating more on the sound words make than on their meaning.
I'm not arguing that Dizee and the like should be barred, and would support the right of anyone to listen to whatever they please. All I'm saying is that when compared with earlier equivalents, (even better know acts such as LL Cool J and Grandmaster Flash), the Rascal is just not doing anywhere near as much with his chosen medium. It's a fine line between an opinion and a fact, but one that I think worth considering.”
I`ve heard of him - I remember seeing a news special on him. And yes, I share your opinion on him in a comparsion between him & Dizzee Rascal however this not fact. It is still an opinion.
In terms of Dizzee`s music he has never been hip hop. He was orginally Grime and then went the commercial route so I don`t think his music should even be compared to Gill Scott Heron, Grand Master Flash, or LL Cool J.
Every decade will have the artists who stand the test of time and those who are here today and gone tomorrow. However on factual level I believe we can claim nothing.
No matter how old we are, or how we have seen music develop no one an guess how music tastes will change or develop over the years to determine the fate of certain artists that people may regard non quality artists.
Quality is a perceptional thing because different types of music mean different things to people what you may see in song which you consider to be shite another may see something totally different.
4 of 7
