THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Frivial on 13 Dec 2006, 05:25
-
I have heard both arguments made, and so I am curious as to your opinions. Do you think the state of music today is better or worse (or equal) in quality to that of the past? You can choose any span of time for the 'past' that you would like.
I am undecided, however I do think it would be very interesting if there were no such thing as labels, if bands had to make it on their own.
You can qualify your answer or not :-)
-
No, you choose the past.
-
god dammit
music just changes. it doesn't get better or worse. there is good music and bad music. there will always be good music and bad music, and now is no exception
-
Some people feel that there is more good music during certain time periods, due to their personal preferences. That is what I am asking about. Obviously you feel that it hasn't changed in terms of overall quality. That's fine; you don't have to make it sound like my question is ridiculous.
-
Your question is ridiculous.
-
Why?
-
Because of what doki said earlier.
-
There is pretty much an equal ratio of crap to not crap throughout the history of popular music, I'd say. Breaking it down seems like a fruitless exercise.
-
And it's easier to look at the past and pick out only the good artists because no one remembers the truly crap ones.
There's heaps of good modern music just as there's plenty of brilliant older music. I don't think I particularly like anything pre 60's though... Which begs the question, do people listen to much music pre-1960?
The obvious answer is yes, classical, jazz and so on. Yet, how many young people actually listen to those? I mean, I like a bit of classical every once in a while but it's pretty few and far between.
-
one of my biggest pet peeves in life is ANYONE that utters the words "music sucks these days" or something to that effect, I just feel like doing some major punching of the face
-
If we go back historically, we find that only the most popular and/or best music stands the test of time. All the people that claim the 60s were the golden age of music because jazz, rock, folk, R&B, etc were releasing definitive masterpieces neglect the fact that there was also a ton of shit clogging up the charts and shops that we've subsequently forgotten about.
It's the same as it is today.
In this DVD that Thrill Jockey records put out awhile back, they go around to a ton of artists and ask them to talk about the album/concert/band/life moment that inspired them to be creative, or keeps them inspired, or re-inspired them. One guy, who's name I don't remember, says that all the albums he owns don't inspire him so much as intimidate him. He made the analogy that when Chicago burned down, all the great architects could start from scratch because there was nothing there to build off of or be too intimidated to change or try to top. I think there may be some truth to this, because from time to time I myself read things others have written and throw up my hands in despair because it's so perfect to me I almost want to quit writing entirely because I think I can never match it.
But the point that is missed is that, the more music we have, the more influences and the more things we have to build off of. Yes, some bands are derivative of older music, but I think today's music is just as fresh and interesting as the 60s best. Judging by how often I listen to different albums, I don't tend to favor any single decade or period from the last 40 years or so of music. I'm not saying that I think the Wolf Parade album is better than or will be as lasting/as important as something like Blonde on Blonde or Bitches Brew, but I listen to it as often if not more often than those albums. So today's music isn't better or worse than music from the past, it's just a different beast with different influences, different things to say, and different experiences to climb inside.
-
Yeah I think the general question is sort of silly too. But on a tangent...
I think 2006 has been a particularly average year for music. Theres been a lot of solid stuff but nothing incredible. I think trying to find "weak" years and "strong" years is enjoyable.
I also wonder how much of the "music sucks these days" sentiment is based on how derivative music can be these days. If we considered music in isolation from historical context I think theres a very good chance we'd decide contemporary music was by and large better than the classics just because contemporary music has had the advantage of building on everything that came before it.
-
I think 2006 has been a particularly average year for music. Theres been a lot of solid stuff but nothing incredible.
Blood Mountain, A Matter of Life and Death.
IMHO of course.
-
I've never really been disappointed with the state of music as a whole. Popular music is usually mostly disappointing to me but not all of it.
-
Overall, music may remain of consistent quality, but I can't think of twenty decent songs that have gained any sort of general radio play since about 1990. We definitely live in an era where peoples taste is worse. Come on, for fucks sake, we actually live in a time when people can honestly compare Oasis and the Beatles and everyone will nod and agree.
I mean fucking hell.
-
I think you need to take heed of Camera Obscura's latest record (although I don't imagine you liking the music itself), since I can't thik of any place other than britain where that might happen
(http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000FFJ8CG.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V65933314_.jpg)
-
I think 2006 has been a really good year for Metal, probably the best in the last 5 years. With some truly amazing albums:
Summoning - Oath Bound
Borknagar - Origin (a lot of mixed opinion on this one, I love it.)
Agalloch - Ashes Against the Grain
Countess - Holocaust of the God Believers (I'm ashamed I took so long to get into Countess, one of the best BM bands around today)
Iron Maiden - A Matter of Life and Death
Then theres the string of other good albums from bands like Queensryche, Green Carnation, Ihsahn, Blind Gaurdian etc.
I don't really listen to much from other genres these days. I think I've bought two non metal albums from this year (The Mars Volta and The Killers) and I thought both of those were very solid as well I do agree that popular music today is not so impressive.
-
The number of good bands and the quality of popular music are pretty much inversely proportional. Eventually we'll have an infinitely large number and infinitely terrible music respectively, the charts will implode and everyone will live happily ever after. Or something.
-
It seems to me that there is just as much good music these days, but you have to dig a little further to get to it. In my humble opinion, POPULAR music nowadays is worse than it has been in the past. But I think that's partially because what was popular in the past is now considered "classic".
...and now that I've come full circle, I'm going to slowly back towards the door.
-
Come on, for fucks sake, we actually live in a time when people can honestly compare Oasis and the Beatles and everyone will nod and agree.
To be fair, thats only Britain.
-
Yeah, but in the US you have bands like Switchfoot and Goo Goo Dolls and Creed and 3 Doors Down having hit records.
-
Poor taste is universal I guess.
-
Bingo.
-
Yeah, but in the US you have bands like Switchfoot and Goo Goo Dolls and Creed and 3 Doors Down having hit records.
:x
What have we done?
-
3 Doors Down came to my town of Statesboro, Georgia about a year or so back (can't really remember fo sho). I avoided that gig like the plague.
-
:x
What have we done?
Eh?
-
By making best-selling records of Creed, 3 Doors Down, Goo-Goo Dolls, and Switchfoot, that is. Only America...
-
can we all agree that no matter what time period we live in, there will always be good tunes and bad tunes.
-
There will always be things that suck and there will always be stuff that's good. And whether the good is out in front or walking around behind, it's all there in pretty equal portions. Which is because there will always be differrent people who appreciated differrent music listenign and making it.
THE END
...
?
-
Yeah, that's more or less the conclusion I would expect a sane person to make. Was there anyone who didn't see that result coming from this thread?
All this 'music was better then' stuff is bullshit. People just don't remember the shit stuff, because no one plays it any more, with a disappointingly large amount of exceptions.
-
If you think today's music sucks compared to what came out in the past you're either: 1) not listening to the right music 2) a jaded fool stuck on the past 3) paying too much attention to the mainstream and actually giving a shit what other people listen to instead of just enjoying the music you like 4) a closeted fan of a genre that has not produced a single major work for years and years (arguably, jazz and country)
-
Hear, hear
-
I think you need to take heed of Camera Obscura's latest record (although I don't imagine you liking the music itself), since I can't thik of any place other than britain where that might happen
That album is getting generally radio play?
i love it, but yesterday i reached the 'this is the 200th time i have heard this album. please stop' point.
i haven't heard it on the radio though. just on my ipod and at work
-
no no, i was subtly suggesting to khar that he may, as Camera Obscura say, want to leave the country, since that's the only place Oasis are still remotely relevant
-
When you say, 'remotely relevant' you probably actually mean 'worshipped as some sort of Gods', since that is the actual situation.
-
There have been a bunch of articles about Noel Gallagher doing an acoustic tour of Australia lately and I can't figure out why people are still validating their existence
-
The state of music today is a little different.
Now, our bands, our great bands, are distributed differently to the great bands of yesterday. They had no choice but to use major labels to get their music heard. It's different now. The good bands are moving away from major labels. But, major labels being what they are don't want to admit that. So they buy up all the music they can, good or bad, (althought quality is irrelevant) and plaster them all over the walls to get them heard so that you buy the records.
This worked once, not so much now. So, yes, we still have amazing music. But it's just not all over the news now as the 'big thing'. It's written on a noticeboard in some shady club. So the good music just isn't as acknowledged anymore.
The greats of the past are the independents of today!
And remember kids, listen to Gryff!
-
I don't think pop music has got worse at all. This year's seen some enjoyable singles from Nelly Furtado, Girls Aloud and probably a few more if I think hard about it. There's probably a fair few I haven't heard as well since I don't listen to music radio or tv.
-
I think there's an equal amount of shyte out there and an equal amount of great music. However, I think that, the older you get, you think more lovingly about your past and start to feel soft and mellow about music you hated with a fervent passion years ago when it came out.
-
I would far, far prefer to listen to Lil Chris than The Beatles or The Rolling Stones any day, but that's because I hate them (and did think Lil Chris' first single was a good tune). Dizzee Rascal's debut is an album that I think you could objectively put beside records by any of those artists though, and that wasn't released all that long ago.
-
There's no 'objectively' in music taste.
-
I would far, far prefer to listen to Lil Chris than The Beatles or The Rolling Stones any day, but that's because I hate them (and did think Lil Chris' first single was a good tune). Dizzee Rascal's debut is an album that I think you could objectively put beside records by any of those artists though, and that wasn't released all that long ago.
Okay, Dizzee Rascal is one of the few genuine big talents in British hip-hop but Lil fucking Chris? He doesn't deserve to even be mentioned in the same breath as Gene Simmons, and Simmons is the guy that essentially discovered him. Hell, he doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Peter Kriss, or however you spell it.
-
I don't think pop music has got worse at all. This year's seen some enjoyable singles from Nelly Furtado, Girls Aloud and probably a few more if I think hard about it. There's probably a fair few I haven't heard as well since I don't listen to music radio or tv.
I think the current Top 40 stuff is a whole lot better than the Top 40 of 4-5 years ago.
-
The music on the charts and the radio today may suck compared to the music on the charts and the radio from the 50s and 60s, but I would argue that the--for lack of a better term--alternative/underground music is just as good as music from the past. Please note that alternative/underground encompass all sorts of genres, not just indie rock. I'm also talking about hip hop, electronica, indie pop, and so on.
-
There's no 'objectively' in music taste.
Quite right, that was a daft thing to say. What I meant was if you were trying to compare Boy In Da Corner and Sgt Pepper's but attempting to do so using more criteria than just personal preference I think Boy In Da Corner would still hold up very well.
As for Lil' Chris, he's good. I'm even coming around on the new single, it's a grower although his voice isn't as well suited on that one. And since Simmons has done a few good songs and decades of boring shite then I'd say Lil' Chris is looking pretty good compared to him right now.
-
There is pretty much an equal ratio of crap to not crap throughout the history of popular music, I'd say. Breaking it down seems like a fruitless exercise.
Although I agree with this statement pretty much the only problem is: What albums produced this decade will 'stand the test' of time? A limited few would be my answer. Much less than from the 60s/70s.
-
Personally, I completely disagree. I'd say there will almost certainly be more, since it's easier for bands to get records out now than it was back then. More records means, probably anyway, more that will stand up over time.
-
As for Lil' Chris, he's good. I'm even coming around on the new single, it's a grower although his voice isn't as well suited on that one. And since Simmons has done a few good songs and decades of boring shite then I'd say Lil' Chris is looking pretty good compared to him right now.
How can you seriously like his songs? He seems to make a deliberately effort to rape any semblance of a melody in his tracks. 'Gettin' Enough' would be a decent track if almost anyone else had done it.
-
I actually find that aspect of him quite appealing. You've got pop songs with a yelping child attacking them, and it works.
-
I think the last time I heard a singer attack a melody rather than sing it, there was a huge backlash.
That was St. Anger.
Anyway, I'm going to be on my way as we clearly just disagree.
-
the key difference between today and the past is that music is more easily distributed today. as for actual quality, i suppose statistically speaking it's probably safe to assume there hasn't been a difference so long as the human species has not changed much. technology for producing music has improved, but that isn't what makes good music good - it just gives more instruments to the musician.
-
as for actual quality, i suppose statistically speaking it's probably safe to assume there hasn't been a difference so long as the human species has not changed much. technology for producing music has improved, but that isn't what makes good music good - it just gives more instruments to the musician.
I dont think that we'll see another Giant Steps, Kind of Blue or Free Jazz* in the near and not so near future.
*Although, we do have John Zorn (Naked City's first album, for example).
-
its not the music that I hate as much as the suggestive styles. Musical styles rub off on people in ways that can include: angry, horny, apathetic, sad, slutty, dumb, insecure, conservative, liberal etc. So the point that i'm thinking of is that lyrics aren't the only thing that matters. It's more of a style thing that I worry about today. Tougher rap makes tougher thugs. Non-creative rock makes careless, brainless zombies. Country makes conservatives. Screamo, Emo, and Industrial can inspire anger, anxt and evilness. Etcetera
Even if music isn't a direct influence on people. The musical subcultures (scenes) and friend's that listen to a particular band can be an strong influence.
The state of music today is bad because people who have conditioned themselves to like a musical type played on the radio are less likely to condition themself to a new style. And it just so happens that I hear mainly crap on the radio today.
-
Hang on, you raggin on industrial? I mean what the fuck? you have any idea what industrials fucking about?
I mean, take even the most fucking populist industrial, Ministry say.
I've seen 'em live, the best moment of the concert? the fucking all in one crowd unity moment?
The sample: "kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! YOU. WILL. NOT. KILL!"
-
Hang on, you raggin on industrial? I mean what the fuck? you have any idea what industrials fucking about?
I mean, take even the most fucking populist industrial, Ministry say.
I've seen 'em live, the best moment of the concert? the fucking all in one crowd unity moment?
The sample: "kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! YOU. WILL. NOT. KILL!"
Surely you're not serious, Khar. For one thing, this would be hilarious hypocritical of you. For another, the guy spells it 'anxt.'
-
im not ragging on industrial. I remember listening to bauhaus and coil in my hayday. The point of my topic should be apparent even if the examples arent the greatest.
oh, and grammar and spellcheck perfectionists should all die. Like seriously. Drop down in a fetal position and croak.
-
Besides, it was an ironic aside to my post which was predominantly focused on Khar, mere days after his 'indie is wank and has been for twenty years' taking offence to an unintentional 'industrial is all shit.'
-
Not what he said, nor what I took offence to.
READ POSTZ LOL.
-
Hang on, you raggin on industrial? I mean what the fuck? you have any idea what industrials fucking about?
Yes, how stupid of me.
-
the key difference between today and the past is that music is more easily distributed today. as for actual quality, i suppose statistically speaking it's probably safe to assume there hasn't been a difference so long as the human species has not changed much. technology for producing music has improved, but that isn't what makes good music good - it just gives more instruments to the musician.
Well, duh. :-D
-
as for actual quality, i suppose statistically speaking it's probably safe to assume there hasn't been a difference so long as the human species has not changed much. technology for producing music has improved, but that isn't what makes good music good - it just gives more instruments to the musician.
I dont think that we'll see another Giant Steps, Kind of Blue or Free Jazz* in the near and not so near future.
*Although, we do have John Zorn (Naked City's first album, for example).
Can we go back to talking about Jazz, guys?
-
I like this forum. It makes me happy inside.
KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KITTENS! FLUFFY!
Wait, is that not how it goes? Al Jourgenson wouldn't be pleased.