DS Forums

 
 

I'm really sick of certain people moaning about ''today's'' music....


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-04-2010, 15:54
SpaceToilets
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,386
Haven't read the whole thread and I'm sure it's been said already but the people who usually moan about 'today's' music as being rubbish compared to the past are usually either part of an older generation or the people that look no further than the charts which is just a continual conveyer belt of watered-down crap

People that have lived through another generation or decade of music and moaning about the music today need to just accept the music is different to what you grew up with and probably wasn't made for you. If older people could still identify with music for the youth of today then I'd probably argue something's gone wrong. I'm still of the belief that the 90s was the best for music but then that's my decade, its the one where I started listening to music properly and really began to enjoy it. I'm not dismissing other music from other decades because it would be silly to do that but the 90s was my decade. The charts sounded better back then for me too but then I was young back then and if I caught a snapshot of it today I'd probably realise there was as much crap in the charts then as there is now

People who only look as far as the charts really haven't got much to complain about. If that's as far as you're willing to go then you've got yourself to blame for thinking the music today is rubbish. Chart music will always be 99% crap with the occasional genuinely good Pop tune arriving around the corner. I'm not slagging off Pop music before someone start kicking off; I actually don't mind Lady Gaga for the majority of the time and Kelis's new tune is good as well but then I've always liked her music back to when Kaleidoscope came out. I like people like Annie, Roisin Murphy and VV Brown who are as Pop as you're going to get but they'll never get played on Radio 1. Pop music or not the majority of the music the charts really is lowest common denominator crap

The US has an amazing Indie scene right now producing all types of bands and producers that makes this country's indie scene and guitar music scene look pathetic while there are several underground Hip Hop artists who are grabbing new sounds and influences from all over the place and producing exciting music as a result. The media will rarely report on Hip Hop unless it's your Jay-Z who before Glastonbury this country wanted nothing to do with him, or if you're the next Nicki Manaj or Drake gimmick or some ex-Grime or UK Hip Hop MC who's jumped on the 'let's just rap over a rubbish Dance track and make a quick couple of quid out of it because the music before wasn't paying me' bandwagon.

Britain as usual carries the torch for Bass music with Dubstep splintering off into new and interesting sounds and UK Funky which kind of grabs all the fragments of Bossa, House, Tribal and UK Garage is getting bigger all the time. Dance music is forever mutating after going through a five or so year phase of Minimal into a more Deep House trend while the whole Electro House thing which came around a whole decade ago thanks to Electroclash is showing no signs of losing popularity while a new mutation of Disco has emerged once again proving it never died the first time around that they tried to kill it... and that what I've mentioned isn't digging very far into the surface either

This is a very Pop oriented forum so I'd expect a lot of Pop talk on here anyway but the feeling I get from the people who slag off 'today's' music is that they're either going by what they've only heard on the radio, older than the generation the music was made for (and that's me saying that as a 24 year old) or they just blatantly don't know what they're on about. If you're not satisfied with the music you hear then go search it out, you've got the internet in front of you to start off with. Music is so fragmented nowadays there's no point waiting for something you like it to fall on your lap, it just doesn't work like that in this day and age. Sitting there moaning about how music doesn't sound good nowadays just sounds kind of pathetic
SpaceToilets is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-04-2010, 16:19
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
. If older people could still identify with music for the youth of today then I'd probably argue something's gone wrong.
oh dear.... then something HAS gone wrong!

i certainly can identify with some of todays music, i rate several tracks from the last decade as high as anything from the past.. and im 53! in fact i rate the 00's higher then the 90's!

imho amongst the pre-packaged manufactured dross there have been several classics per year... im happy to listen to tracks by qotsa, hives, robyn, gabriella cilmi, kaiser cheifs, outkast, gorillaz, hard-fi, etc plus uk garage and trance alongside anything from the 60's, 70's or early 80's.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 16:34
SpaceToilets
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,386
oh dear.... then something HAS gone wrong!

i certainly can identify with some of todays music, i rate several tracks from the last decade as high as anything from the past.. and im 53! in fact i rate the 00's higher then the 90's!

imho amongst the pre-packaged manufactured dross there have been several classics per year... im happy to listen to tracks by qotsa, hives, robyn, gabriella cilmi, kaiser cheifs, outkast, gorillaz, hard-fi, etc plus uk garage and trance alongside anything from the 60's, 70's or early 80's.
That was just a generalization but surely you get what I'm saying. If you're 53 and like music from the 00s then that's great, and you're right, there really has been some classic music that's been produced in the 00s. It'll probably take another decade for the majority of people to appreciate them. UK Garage especially was pretty amazing and even that's morphed and changed it's sound so much nowadays from what it used to sound like but then I'd never come on Digital Spy to discuss all that because it's all chart music talk on here. If you like certain forms of music then age shouldn't really matter, but I just think it's funny when older people could moan about music in the charts and comparing it to the music they listened to when the majority of the time it just isn't aimed for them. I'm sure the people moaning now probably had parents who wanted to know what that 'racket' was and said the music they listened to is worse than the stuff in their day
SpaceToilets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 17:51
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
That was just a generalization but surely you get what I'm saying. If you're 53 and like music from the 00s then that's great, and you're right, there really has been some classic music that's been produced in the 00s. It'll probably take another decade for the majority of people to appreciate them. UK Garage especially was pretty amazing and even that's morphed and changed it's sound so much nowadays from what it used to sound like but then I'd never come on Digital Spy to discuss all that because it's all chart music talk on here. If you like certain forms of music then age shouldn't really matter, but I just think it's funny when older people could moan about music in the charts and comparing it to the music they listened to when the majority of the time it just isn't aimed for them. I'm sure the people moaning now probably had parents who wanted to know what that 'racket' was and said the music they listened to is worse than the stuff in their day
i moan at the lack of indifference to blatantly commercially produced music.. manufactured music was once frowned on, i reckon most of us oldies experienced times when we had individual style, from mods n rockers, through glam, punk, new wave, indie, disco, soul, rockabilly etc etc etc. now whether its better or not is subjective, but surely originality cannot be all bad? some of the music might have been shit but at least it was original shit!

as i see it, todays youth have no identity of their own, music, fashion, all regurgitated courtesy of high street shops and kids in fancy dress playing the part. we used to customise our clothes, unstitching seams to add material to make 'flares', or after punk unstitching seams to take in trouser legs! we raided oxfam for clothes we could alter not because we were cheapskates (although there probably was less money around then ) but because we didnt want to look like everyone else. today you just walk into 'next' or 'top shop' or whatever the trendy places are called nowdays and buy you uniform... hey presto.. another indie kid is created, looking like all the others! ... and largely music is the same, lack of identity or individuality.. they all have to follow this formula or that one. this is what us older buggers moan about.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 18:38
franster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: London
Posts: 3,734
I think a lot of people don't understand the difference between opinion and fact. I also think just because something is a fact necessarily means everyone will have the same opiinon on it. Just let people like what they like and listen to what they listen to and don't slate their tastes. Is it really harming you if someone likes Justin Bieber?

Every older generation complains about the music of the current generation. Older generations complained about The Beatles.

I think as well you have to take into consideration the reasons why people listen to music.
franster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 19:07
Refusion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 7,601
ahhh yes.... fair play!

but doesnt such a band blow the notion that todays music is as good?...
Oh, I don't know. I consider them to be part of "today's" music as they're still releasing material! I've not managed to track down anything later than 2008, though! (My favourite is 1980's "Commercial Album", too).

Most of what I listen to from today falls under the electronic(a) umberella, which I wouldn't put The Residents under.

im happy to listen to tracks by qotsa, hives, robyn, gabriella cilmi, kaiser cheifs, outkast, gorillaz, hard-fi, etc plus uk garage and trance alongside anything from the 60's, 70's or early 80's.
OH NO! Kaiser Chiefs and Hard-Fi are terrible!
Refusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 19:21
Mallaha
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DTG Bunker
Posts: 5,044
That was just a generalization but surely you get what I'm saying. If you're 53 and like music from the 00s then that's great, and you're right, there really has been some classic music that's been produced in the 00s. It'll probably take another decade for the majority of people to appreciate them. UK Garage especially was pretty amazing and even that's morphed and changed it's sound so much nowadays from what it used to sound like but then I'd never come on Digital Spy to discuss all that because it's all chart music talk on here. If you like certain forms of music then age shouldn't really matter, but I just think it's funny when older people could moan about music in the charts and comparing it to the music they listened to when the majority of the time it just isn't aimed for them. I'm sure the people moaning now probably had parents who wanted to know what that 'racket' was and said the music they listened to is worse than the stuff in their day
Agree with most of this, apart from the stuff about UK Garage, of which I'm no fan. We all develop rosy-tinted views of the pop culture of our youth, and with some people, I'm not sure what it is they want from music - it's nothing like the "classic songwriting" of their youth, so it's bad, or it's ripping off the "classic songwriting" of their youth, so it's still bad.

The charts are less and less relevant as the years progress. All of the interesting, challenging, innovative music is outside the charts, on the internet, or being played live all over the world. If you don't like chart music, just ignore it. Indifference is bliss sometimes.
Mallaha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 20:19
mickmars
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 1984
Posts: 7,109
There are no newer proper "stars",and nobody "buys" music anymore..
mickmars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2010, 09:49
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765

OH NO! Kaiser Chiefs and Hard-Fi are terrible!
thats opinion not fact!
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2010, 10:08
abarthman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 7,839
The charts are no better and no worse than they've always been.

Most of the music in the charts is rehashed, disposable rubbish, but, in amongst all the rubbish, there is some good stuff and it is the good stuff that will become the classics and the defining music of the day.

There's loads of great music being released today, but you might not find a lot of it in the charts.
abarthman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2010, 11:39
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
The charts are no better and no worse than they've always been.

Most of the music in the charts is rehashed, disposable rubbish, but, in amongst all the rubbish, there is some good stuff and it is the good stuff that will become the classics and the defining music of the day.

There's loads of great music being released today, but you might not find a lot of it in the charts.
but will it? 'classics' of the past that define the music of that day did so because it was original to that time period. THIS is why many of us older buggers doubt the quality of todays music. yes it might be 'good', but if its of a style originally found in the past, can it define music of the day?
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2010, 21:36
Gorky
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,312
but will it? 'classics' of the past that define the music of that day did so because it was original to that time period. THIS is why many of us older buggers doubt the quality of todays music. yes it might be 'good', but if its of a style originally found in the past, can it define music of the day?
Not wishing to be rude but in my experience, older people like yourself who bemoan a lack of originality don't really want that because the music with originaliity that's around today is all a bit too weird and alternative and out of their comfort zone. To me it appears that what they really want is music that's more to their taste and more like the music they enjoy from the past. This is often reflected in their examples of the music/artists they do like from today.

You were asking about pop music that has originality and artists/songwriters that are critically acclaimed. Well the most obvious example is Animal Collective and especially their album from last year. I suspect though, that it might make the ears bleed of people with more traditional taste. Probably why they don't make it into the charts.
Gorky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2010, 21:47
David Tee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 22,520
Not wishing to be rude but in my experience, older people like yourself who bemoan a lack of originality don't really want that because the music with originaliity that's around today is all a bit too weird and alternative and out of their comfort zone. To me it appears that what they really want is music that's more to their taste and more like the music they enjoy from the past. This is often reflected in their examples of the music/artists they do like from today.

You were asking about pop music that has originality and artists/songwriters that are critically acclaimed. Well the most obvious example is Animal Collective and especially their album from last year. I suspect though, that it might make the ears bleed of people with more traditional taste. Probably why they don't make it into the charts.
Only young people can truly appreciate today's charts? In what way is that not rude?

Uninformed, ageist bollox.
David Tee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2010, 22:25
Gorky
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,312
Only young people can truly appreciate today's charts? In what way is that not rude?

Uninformed, ageist bollox.
Don't be a fool. I wasn't even talking about chart music (I pay no attention to that at all). I was addressing mushymanrob's points about originality in music today.

Some people really need to grasp the concept that "today's music" is much more that the tiny fraction that makes it into the charts.

ps. I'm no spring chicken myself
Gorky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2010, 22:33
BumbleSquat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6,522
It seems some people have difficulty with what makes fact and what are simply matters of opinion.
BumbleSquat is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 00:41
Leicester_Hunk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,041
People from a older decade should not expect the charts to have music which will appeal to them, because music is not aimed at people over 25. Teenagers are seen as the money generators, so therefore is it unlikely someone over 25 will like it. Although my mum who is in her 40s is very open minded and actually doesn't spend her time just slagging off everything after 2003.


This is just silly. "Music" is just a generalisation. What music is not aimed at people over 25? I'm 37 should I just turn the radio off for good?
Leicester_Hunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 00:47
Leicester_Hunk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,041
And is Justin Bieber mega-popular and selling lots of albums because of his music, or because young girls fancy him? That's a fairly obvious answer too.
Same reason the Osmonds sold so many records back in the 70s. The only decent thing they did was Crazy Horses, all the rest was bought because teenage girls fancied them, just like the Bay City Rollers, their music was pants.
Leicester_Hunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 08:43
PrincessPerfect
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In the red mist
Posts: 19,787


This is just silly. "Music" is just a generalisation. What music is not aimed at people over 25? I'm 37 should I just turn the radio off for good?
Commercial music in the charts is aimed at the under 25s because they are seen as the money generators. I am sorry you have an issue with record companies agenda.

I never said because of your age you should stop listening to modern music. Just said it is not aimed at an older audience.
PrincessPerfect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 09:50
nathanbrazil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: AccountKiller
Posts: 8,749
If older people could still identify with music for the youth of today then I'd probably argue something's gone wrong.
It is not necessary to identify with music to find it good. There's lots of music from across time, including the very latest stuff, which I personally do not identify with, but which I do find to be of good quality.

Sitting there moaning about how music doesn't sound good nowadays just sounds kind of pathetic
Few here are sitting around moaning. We're trying to have a constructive debate, using views based on many years of musical appreciation.
nathanbrazil is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 09:52
nathanbrazil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: AccountKiller
Posts: 8,749
.... just like the Bay City Rollers, their music was pants.
As a point of interest, several of the Bay City Rollers hits were, in fact, earlier hits for far more credible acts in the US, such as Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. In that form, they were most assuredly not pants.
nathanbrazil is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 09:59
nathanbrazil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: AccountKiller
Posts: 8,749
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.
I am encouraged that you have heard of Gil Scott Heron. Perhaps one day you might check out his song 'B-Movie', which I believe you could enjoy, or the song 'Gun.'

Yes, personal taste isalways going to boil down to opinion, but I believe it is a fact, by any measurable means, that GSH is a better musician and wordsmith that Dizzee Rascal? Surely, it is legitimate to contrast and compare musicians in this manner?

Example; are the Rolling Stones better than the Beatles. The answer, when not based purely on opinion, has to be informed by the achievements and recognizable impartial merits of each band. When measured that way, the Beatles have achieved far more.
nathanbrazil is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 11:29
nathanbrazil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: AccountKiller
Posts: 8,749
For anyone who would like a taste of Gil Scott-Heron, I found this on uTube.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKQd_...eature=related

Also got this version, which is a performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ipW...eature=related
nathanbrazil is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 11:33
Gorky
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,312
Yes, personal taste isalways going to boil down to opinion, but I believe it is a fact, by any measurable means, that GSH is a better musician and wordsmith that Dizzee Rascal? Surely, it is legitimate to contrast and compare musicians in this manner?
This sort of comparison is the other thing that annoys me a little about debates like this (the first thing being people saying "today's music" when what they mean is today's popular/chart music).

GSH is indeed excellent so if you want to make a fairer comparison with today's music you should be comparing him to the best wordsmiths of today, not using a poor example like Dizzee Rascal. You should be using an artist like Saul Williams instead.

Similarly, if you're going to cherry pick the best bands from the past you should compare them to the best bands of today, not the dross that often makes it into the charts.
Gorky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 11:42
nathanbrazil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: AccountKiller
Posts: 8,749
GSH is indeed excellent so if you want to make a fairer comparison with today's music you should be comparing him to the best wordsmiths of today, not using a poor example like Dizzee Rascal. You should be using an artist like Saul Williams instead.
I will check out your recommendation, thanks.

As for my comparison, I never said it was ideal, it was just the one that sprang to mind. Both artistes make extensive use of words, as commentary rather than lyric.
nathanbrazil is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 11:46
ohglobbits
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,137
Similarly, if you're going to cherry pick the best bands from the past you should compare them to the best bands of today, not the dross that often makes it into the charts.
I think the point the 'oldies' are making is you didn't have to search for the best bands in the past - they defined the era and had a heavy presence in the charts. There simply aren't bands capable of making the same impact today which is why the charts are left to the pop princesses. Or old bands that have reformed like AC/DC.
ohglobbits is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:18.