vainandy said:

So monopolized radio and labels had absolutely nothing to do with it? When acts that had been around since the 1960s such as Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye, The Isley Brothers, The Chi-Lites, The Temptations, The Four Tops, etc. had new releases in the 1980s, R&B radio welcomed them with open arms and gave them massive airplay just like the new artists at that time and many of them went on to continue to have big hits during the 1980s. R&B radio was also open to the different styles that were evolving such as artists like Newcleus, The Jonzun Crew, who had a more futuristic outer space type sound, Shannon, who had a sound like nothing else at the time, folks like Trouble Funk with a Go-Go sound, etc.

When the 1990s got settled in and adult contemporary and shit hop had completely taken over, all that ended. Cameo, The Barkays, and War all had a funk album in the 1990s and received little or no airplay whatsoever. Prince was still around but once the 1990s got fully kicked off, the only songs of his they would play would be the ballads such as "I Hate U" or "The Most Beautiful Girl In The World". You could forget about hearing a funk jam such as "319" or a dance track "The Human Body". And there were tons of black house/dance acts in the underground scene of the mid 1990s that R&B stations of the past would have embraced but not R&B stations of the 1990s. By around 1994 or so, damn near all black dance acts were practically banned from R&B radio and there were still plenty of them out there at the time. I think that may be why a lot of blacks abandoned the dance/house scene altogether and let it get taken over by whites who turned it into acid or trance because the only place they could get any recognition at all was in clubs, and by this time, strictly gay clubs only, and there's not much money to be made there at all. R&B radio by that time had only two forms of music they would play and nothing else got in. It was either adult contemporary type ballads, or slow to midtempo stripped down shit hop. It has been that way ever since and hasn't changed at all. I have tons and tons of black dance jams from the mid 1990s that should have been on the radio but never was. When the 2000s came along, I finally just gave up, said "fuck it", and took all current stations off my dial because it was apparent they weren't going to let anything change. Actually, I took current R&B stations off my dial in 1997 and took current pop stations off my dial three years later in 2000 when the shit hop seemed to be taking over pop radio also.

Music became easier and cheaper to make music with technology. Funk bands had too many members and it was costly, so the companies stopped signing them and promoters stopped booking them for gigs. Why do you think groups like Cameo started getting smaller and smaller? Electrofunk didn't need a horn section, percussionists, or even a rhythm section in some cases, just synths and keyboards. Some of the music on early hip hop songs was performed by a band. Later, drum machines took over and bands weren't really needed, just beats. The radio only played whatever the record companies payed them to play. As I said before, people in the old groups learned to play an instrument which is more expensive to buy and takes a lot of time to learn, and the drum machines, samplers, and cheap Casio keyboards were inexpensive and didn't take much time to master. Multitrack overdubbing also made it easier for someone to record instrument and/or vocal tracks by themselves and just "punch in" a part if a mistake was made.

There was black adult contemporary long before Whitney Houston. Look at the Commodores. They were a funk band and then Lionel Richie started doing things like Three Times A Lady, which is the basis for Lionel's solo career. Jeffrey Osborne (LTD) did the same thing as well as Kool & The Gang. Billy Preston's biggest hit was the duet with Syreeta With You I'm Born Again which was AC. Diana Ross was doing AC in the 1970's and so was Roberta Flack, Stevie Wonder, & Peabo Bryson. Even Whitney's cousin Dionne Warwick was known for AC. One of Whitney's more famous songs is The Greatest Love Of All, which was an exact replica of George Benson's original from 1977. Then there were "California Soul" acts like the 5th Dimension in the 1960's, and crooner pop like Johnny Mathis & Sammy Davis Jr. in the 1950's and Brook Benton in the 1960's. All of this was pre-Whitney. Really it was more Clive Davis than Whitney, as many of the acts on his label were middle of the road like Dionne & Barry Manilow. He softened Aretha Franklin's music and had her recording songs like United Together.

MickyDolenz said:

vainandy said:

So monopolized radio and labels had absolutely nothing to do with it? When acts that had been around since the 1960s such as Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye, The Isley Brothers, The Chi-Lites, The Temptations, The Four Tops, etc. had new releases in the 1980s, R&B radio welcomed them with open arms and gave them massive airplay just like the new artists at that time and many of them went on to continue to have big hits during the 1980s. R&B radio was also open to the different styles that were evolving such as artists like Newcleus, The Jonzun Crew, who had a more futuristic outer space type sound, Shannon, who had a sound like nothing else at the time, folks like Trouble Funk with a Go-Go sound, etc.

When the 1990s got settled in and adult contemporary and shit hop had completely taken over, all that ended. Cameo, The Barkays, and War all had a funk album in the 1990s and received little or no airplay whatsoever. Prince was still around but once the 1990s got fully kicked off, the only songs of his they would play would be the ballads such as "I Hate U" or "The Most Beautiful Girl In The World". You could forget about hearing a funk jam such as "319" or a dance track "The Human Body". And there were tons of black house/dance acts in the underground scene of the mid 1990s that R&B stations of the past would have embraced but not R&B stations of the 1990s. By around 1994 or so, damn near all black dance acts were practically banned from R&B radio and there were still plenty of them out there at the time. I think that may be why a lot of blacks abandoned the dance/house scene altogether and let it get taken over by whites who turned it into acid or trance because the only place they could get any recognition at all was in clubs, and by this time, strictly gay clubs only, and there's not much money to be made there at all. R&B radio by that time had only two forms of music they would play and nothing else got in. It was either adult contemporary type ballads, or slow to midtempo stripped down shit hop. It has been that way ever since and hasn't changed at all. I have tons and tons of black dance jams from the mid 1990s that should have been on the radio but never was. When the 2000s came along, I finally just gave up, said "fuck it", and took all current stations off my dial because it was apparent they weren't going to let anything change. Actually, I took current R&B stations off my dial in 1997 and took current pop stations off my dial three years later in 2000 when the shit hop seemed to be taking over pop radio also.

Music became easier and cheaper to make music with technology. Funk bands had too many members and it was costly, so the companies stopped signing them and promoters stopped booking them for gigs. Why do you think groups like Cameo started getting smaller and smaller? Electrofunk didn't need a horn section, percussionists, or even a rhythm section in some cases, just synths and keyboards. Some of the music on early hip hop songs was performed by a band. Later, drum machines took over and bands weren't really needed, just beats. The radio only played whatever the record companies payed them to play. As I said before, people in the old groups learned to play an instrument which is more expensive to buy and takes a lot of time to learn, and the drum machines, samplers, and cheap Casio keyboards were inexpensive and didn't take much time to master. Multitrack overdubbing also made it easier for someone to record instrument and/or vocal tracks by themselves and just "punch in" a part if a mistake was made.

There was black adult contemporary long before Whitney Houston. Look at the Commodores. They were a funk band and then Lionel Richie started doing things like Three Times A Lady, which is the basis for Lionel's solo career. Jeffrey Osborne (LTD) did the same thing as well as Kool & The Gang. Billy Preston's biggest hit was the duet with Syreeta With You I'm Born Again which was AC. Diana Ross was doing AC in the 1970's and so was Roberta Flack, Stevie Wonder, & Peabo Bryson. Even Whitney's cousin Dionne Warwick was known for AC. One of Whitney's more famous songs is The Greatest Love Of All, which was an exact replica of George Benson's original from 1977. Then there were "California Soul" acts like the 5th Dimension in the 1960's, and crooner pop like Johnny Mathis & Sammy Davis Jr. in the 1950's and Brook Benton in the 1960's. All of this was pre-Whitney. Really it was more Clive Davis than Whitney, as many of the acts on his label were middle of the road like Dionne & Barry Manilow. He softened Aretha Franklin's music and had her recording songs like United Together.

That's not necessarilly the case. When a record company signs a group, it doesn't matter how many members are in the group. The record company pays one amount to the group. Then the group splits it however many ways.

It's more economical to hire musicians to tour and pay them for the road instead of dealing with record company royalities.

A lot of times, groups would let members go just because of money. Teddy Pendergrass described this in his bio. He explained how Harold Melvin was getting paid from the label and would skip payment to the members of the group.

[Edited 9/12/11 9:38am]

Amy Winehouse for sure, but I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "this generation". I can't think of too many artists who's work will stand the test of time. If we're going back a few decades, we can include the Beatles, Stones, Marvin and several others, but if we're talking artists from the 2000's - I can only think of one and I named her above.

I think in general I'm sick of the onslaught of post-00's solo female artists using auto-tune (with the exception of Gaga, I really think she's a great performer). I think Mary J Blige now is the only legit R&B artist who can actually sing over hip hop beats, she's the Queen of Hip Hop for a reason and I love her to pieces. But I really wish Rihanna, Beyonce, Katy Perry and others would seriously GO AWAY and stop relying on stripping while singing for their careers, very boring....

JANELLE MONAE ROBINSON....

and Amy Winehouse...

The reasons are obvious...they are artists and true performers...

and Alicia Keys first two albums...are not bad...among the artists posted....

MickyDolenz said:

vainandy said:

So monopolized radio and labels had absolutely nothing to do with it? When acts that had been around since the 1960s such as Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye, The Isley Brothers, The Chi-Lites, The Temptations, The Four Tops, etc. had new releases in the 1980s, R&B radio welcomed them with open arms and gave them massive airplay just like the new artists at that time and many of them went on to continue to have big hits during the 1980s. R&B radio was also open to the different styles that were evolving such as artists like Newcleus, The Jonzun Crew, who had a more futuristic outer space type sound, Shannon, who had a sound like nothing else at the time, folks like Trouble Funk with a Go-Go sound, etc.

When the 1990s got settled in and adult contemporary and shit hop had completely taken over, all that ended. Cameo, The Barkays, and War all had a funk album in the 1990s and received little or no airplay whatsoever. Prince was still around but once the 1990s got fully kicked off, the only songs of his they would play would be the ballads such as "I Hate U" or "The Most Beautiful Girl In The World". You could forget about hearing a funk jam such as "319" or a dance track "The Human Body". And there were tons of black house/dance acts in the underground scene of the mid 1990s that R&B stations of the past would have embraced but not R&B stations of the 1990s. By around 1994 or so, damn near all black dance acts were practically banned from R&B radio and there were still plenty of them out there at the time. I think that may be why a lot of blacks abandoned the dance/house scene altogether and let it get taken over by whites who turned it into acid or trance because the only place they could get any recognition at all was in clubs, and by this time, strictly gay clubs only, and there's not much money to be made there at all. R&B radio by that time had only two forms of music they would play and nothing else got in. It was either adult contemporary type ballads, or slow to midtempo stripped down shit hop. It has been that way ever since and hasn't changed at all. I have tons and tons of black dance jams from the mid 1990s that should have been on the radio but never was. When the 2000s came along, I finally just gave up, said "fuck it", and took all current stations off my dial because it was apparent they weren't going to let anything change. Actually, I took current R&B stations off my dial in 1997 and took current pop stations off my dial three years later in 2000 when the shit hop seemed to be taking over pop radio also.

Music became easier and cheaper to make music with technology. Funk bands had too many members and it was costly, so the companies stopped signing them and promoters stopped booking them for gigs. Why do you think groups like Cameo started getting smaller and smaller? Electrofunk didn't need a horn section, percussionists, or even a rhythm section in some cases, just synths and keyboards. Some of the music on early hip hop songs was performed by a band. Later, drum machines took over and bands weren't really needed, just beats. The radio only played whatever the record companies payed them to play. As I said before, people in the old groups learned to play an instrument which is more expensive to buy and takes a lot of time to learn, and the drum machines, samplers, and cheap Casio keyboards were inexpensive and didn't take much time to master. Multitrack overdubbing also made it easier for someone to record instrument and/or vocal tracks by themselves and just "punch in" a part if a mistake was made.

There was black adult contemporary long before Whitney Houston. Look at the Commodores. They were a funk band and then Lionel Richie started doing things like Three Times A Lady, which is the basis for Lionel's solo career. Jeffrey Osborne (LTD) did the same thing as well as Kool & The Gang. Billy Preston's biggest hit was the duet with Syreeta With You I'm Born Again which was AC. Diana Ross was doing AC in the 1970's and so was Roberta Flack, Stevie Wonder, & Peabo Bryson. Even Whitney's cousin Dionne Warwick was known for AC. One of Whitney's more famous songs is The Greatest Love Of All, which was an exact replica of George Benson's original from 1977. Then there were "California Soul" acts like the 5th Dimension in the 1960's, and crooner pop like Johnny Mathis & Sammy Davis Jr. in the 1950's and Brook Benton in the 1960's. All of this was pre-Whitney. Really it was more Clive Davis than Whitney, as many of the acts on his label were middle of the road like Dionne & Barry Manilow. He softened Aretha Franklin's music and had her recording songs like United Together.

Well, of course it was costly. Anything that's good is. Unless they are broke as hell, they should have continued to pay for and promote good stuff, not cheap bullshit. They did it before, so why cut costs just because they can? It affects the product and if you're in the business of making art, you don't want your product weakened if you are a true artist or in the business of releasing some true art.

I can see if newer technology sounds better such as Prince's earlier career when his music sounded more modern futuristic using synths rather than using the traditional horns. That's progress and moving ahead to the future because he was using something fairly new that sounded unique, however, it was just another added feature on top of instruments such as real drums and bass which still put meat behind the songs and gave them power. But when you strip the meat behind the songs off such as the drums and bass, no matter what the new technology is, you're taking away the power from underneath the songs so they are going to sound cheap. It's one thing if cheap sounds better, but if cheap sounds worse, don't go the cheap route.

I don't believe in going the cheap route just because you can. It's one thing if you're broke but it's another thing if you just want to be greedy. The quality of the product being released should be the most important thing and when you have nothing but business men running labels and no musicians whatsoever, they don't give a damn about the quality of the product. All they care about is making the biggest profit possible regardless if the product sounds like shit and they have promoted cheap shit for so long that a whole new generation thinks that cheap shit actually sounds good. I couldn't stand the 1990s, not just musically, but the decade as a whole, for this reason. It was the "downsizing" era. The decade that did away with anything except skeleton crews in even the most basic jobs so the corporations could make the biggest profit possible without having to pay more employees. Dropping insurance for employees who previously had insurance so the companies can have more money for themselves. Encouraging people to be more "down to earth" rather than outrageous. I like silks, satins, leather, furs, and anything with flash and shine. I hate plain "ordinary" things. I'm a peacock not a damn hound dog. Folks stoppped riding in Cadillacs and Lincolns and started driving more average looking cars. Hell, even luxury cars such as a Lexus looked like any other average car on the street. Sure it had inside features that other cars didn't but it looked like an average car. Boom boxes became smaller. People raving about them being so much smaller than the ones from the 1980s but also overlooking the fact that they couldn't shake the fucking walls with throbbing bass like the bigger ones. I'm sorry but smaller is never better than bigger. Would someone rather have a smaller dick? Hell naw! The 1990s just fucked everything up, not only music but everything. Let's get back to wildness, outrageousness, individuality, freakiness, all things shiny and flashy, get rid of that down to earth "I may be a star but I look and act just like you" attitude and get back to "I'm a star and I'm better than you" attitude. Hell, I never lost my style and attitude despite the 1990s happening. I've always had the attitude of "I'm Andy and you're not". Oh, how I HATE the cheap plain Jane 1990s and what it has done to society. Lord, you done got me started now and got me going all the way around the world shitting all over the 1990s not just musically but as a complete shitty decade as a whole. You trying to make me preach up in here?

Hell, after shitting all over the 1990s, I almost forgot about the adult contemporary side of things. True, there has always been adult contemporary but it never threatened funk's existence until Shitney's little goodie two shoes, barbi doll, ass kissing, rhythmless, chocolate valley girl cheerleader, silver ball licking, white girl next door asssssssssss came onto the scene. True, there was adult contemporary before her, especially Lionel Richie, but Lionel didn't kill anything. He had his little "Truly" singing ass out there and other funk groups were still throwing down hard, kicking ass, continueing the funk, and not even trying to follow his route. It wasn't like that after little miss goodie two shoes. More and more people sprung up like her and less and less funk groups continued. Ooooooh how I'd love to put my big size 12 shoe as deep in her asssssss as I possibly can.

vainandy said:

MickyDolenz said:

Music became easier and cheaper to make music with technology. Funk bands had too many members and it was costly, so the companies stopped signing them and promoters stopped booking them for gigs. Why do you think groups like Cameo started getting smaller and smaller? Electrofunk didn't need a horn section, percussionists, or even a rhythm section in some cases, just synths and keyboards. Some of the music on early hip hop songs was performed by a band. Later, drum machines took over and bands weren't really needed, just beats. The radio only played whatever the record companies payed them to play. As I said before, people in the old groups learned to play an instrument which is more expensive to buy and takes a lot of time to learn, and the drum machines, samplers, and cheap Casio keyboards were inexpensive and didn't take much time to master. Multitrack overdubbing also made it easier for someone to record instrument and/or vocal tracks by themselves and just "punch in" a part if a mistake was made.

There was black adult contemporary long before Whitney Houston. Look at the Commodores. They were a funk band and then Lionel Richie started doing things like Three Times A Lady, which is the basis for Lionel's solo career. Jeffrey Osborne (LTD) did the same thing as well as Kool & The Gang. Billy Preston's biggest hit was the duet with Syreeta With You I'm Born Again which was AC. Diana Ross was doing AC in the 1970's and so was Roberta Flack, Stevie Wonder, & Peabo Bryson. Even Whitney's cousin Dionne Warwick was known for AC. One of Whitney's more famous songs is The Greatest Love Of All, which was an exact replica of George Benson's original from 1977. Then there were "California Soul" acts like the 5th Dimension in the 1960's, and crooner pop like Johnny Mathis & Sammy Davis Jr. in the 1950's and Brook Benton in the 1960's. All of this was pre-Whitney. Really it was more Clive Davis than Whitney, as many of the acts on his label were middle of the road like Dionne & Barry Manilow. He softened Aretha Franklin's music and had her recording songs like United Together.

Well, of course it was costly. Anything that's good is. Unless they are broke as hell, they should have continued to pay for and promote good stuff, not cheap bullshit. They did it before, so why cut costs just because they can? It affects the product and if you're in the business of making art, you don't want your product weakened if you are a true artist or in the business of releasing some true art.

I can see if newer technology sounds better such as Prince's earlier career when his music sounded more modern futuristic using synths rather than using the traditional horns. That's progress and moving ahead to the future because he was using something fairly new that sounded unique, however, it was just another added feature on top of instruments such as real drums and bass which still put meat behind the songs and gave them power. But when you strip the meat behind the songs off such as the drums and bass, no matter what the new technology is, you're taking away the power from underneath the songs so they are going to sound cheap. It's one thing if cheap sounds better, but if cheap sounds worse, don't go the cheap route.

I don't believe in going the cheap route just because you can. It's one thing if you're broke but it's another thing if you just want to be greedy. The quality of the product being released should be the most important thing and when you have nothing but business men running labels and no musicians whatsoever, they don't give a damn about the quality of the product. All they care about is making the biggest profit possible regardless if the product sounds like shit and they have promoted cheap shit for so long that a whole new generation thinks that cheap shit actually sounds good. I couldn't stand the 1990s, not just musically, but the decade as a whole, for this reason. It was the "downsizing" era. The decade that did away with anything except skeleton crews in even the most basic jobs so the corporations could make the biggest profit possible without having to pay more employees. Dropping insurance for employees who previously had insurance so the companies can have more money for themselves. Encouraging people to be more "down to earth" rather than outrageous. I like silks, satins, leather, furs, and anything with flash and shine. I hate plain "ordinary" things. I'm a peacock not a damn hound dog. Folks stoppped riding in Cadillacs and Lincolns and started driving more average looking cars. Hell, even luxury cars such as a Lexus looked like any other average car on the street. Sure it had inside features that other cars didn't but it looked like an average car. Boom boxes became smaller. People raving about them being so much smaller than the ones from the 1980s but also overlooking the fact that they couldn't shake the fucking walls with throbbing bass like the bigger ones. I'm sorry but smaller is never better than bigger. Would someone rather have a smaller dick? Hell naw! The 1990s just fucked everything up, not only music but everything. Let's get back to wildness, outrageousness, individuality, freakiness, all things shiny and flashy, get rid of that down to earth "I may be a star but I look and act just like you" attitude and get back to "I'm a star and I'm better than you" attitude. Hell, I never lost my style and attitude despite the 1990s happening. I've always had the attitude of "I'm Andy and you're not". Oh, how I HATE the cheap plain Jane 1990s and what it has done to society. Lord, you done got me started now and got me going all the way around the world shitting all over the 1990s not just musically but as a complete shitty decade as a whole. You trying to make me preach up in here?

Hell, after shitting all over the 1990s, I almost forgot about the adult contemporary side of things. True, there has always been adult contemporary but it never threatened funk's existence until Shitney's little goodie two shoes, barbi doll, ass kissing, rhythmless, chocolate valley girl cheerleader, silver ball licking, white girl next door asssssssssss came onto the scene. True, there was adult contemporary before her, especially Lionel Richie, but Lionel didn't kill anything. He had his little "Truly" singing ass out there and other funk groups were still throwing down hard, kicking ass, continueing the funk, and not even trying to follow his route. It wasn't like that after little miss goodie two shoes. More and more people sprung up like her and less and less funk groups continued. Ooooooh how I'd love to put my big size 12 shoe as deep in her asssssss as I possibly can.

I don't know why I keep 4getting Angie Stone on these lists.

I think that Britney among ladies and Eminem among gentlemen - the biggest stars of the first decade of the 21st century. Some of their songs are always in demand, now and in future.

vainandy said:

It affects the product and if you're in the business of making art, you don't want your product weakened if you are a true artist or in the business of releasing some true art.

I don't believe in going the cheap route just because you can. It's one thing if you're broke but it's another thing if you just want to be greedy. The quality of the product being released should be the most important thing and when you have nothing but business men running labels and no musicians whatsoever, they don't give a damn about the quality of the product. All they care about is making the biggest profit possible regardless if the product sounds like shit and they have promoted cheap shit for so long that a whole new generation thinks that cheap shit actually sounds good.

The music business has always been about money, just like any other business. Like Johnnie Taylor said "It's not called show business for nothing. It's 90% business and 10% show. If you don't know your business, you're in trouble". The performer is an employee of a company. Do you go to your job and tell the boss or manager what you want to do or how to run their business. Probably not unless you want to get fired. People think that a music act has some sort of power and control over their product, when they're working for a company. Some decide to do it themselves like Ani DiFranco. But she doesn't get any radio play because she doesn't have the big money (or power) to pay stations to play her music like a major does.

What exactly is "art"? That could be anything, and often is.

Graycap23 said:

I don't know why I keep 4getting Angie Stone on these lists.

Shes soooo underrated.

No!

SeventeenDayze said:

MickyDolenz said:

Technology is one of the factors that killed music. Decades ago, young people didn't really have anything to do. There were no video games, texting, cell phones, DVD, internet, computers, etc. There were no sampling machines, drum machines, keyboards with sounds of other instruments in them, and so on. Some teens would learn to play an instrument and other would sing on the street corners. Some families had a piano, guitar, or other instrument in the house for entertainment, which is not as common today. What's the incentive for learning an instrument today, when it's easy to get some software like Reason which requires no actual instrument and make music. When I was going to school, they had music class, many schools don't have that today. Kids today also have way more extra curricular activities than kids decades ago. Many performers before the 1970's didn't even finish high school (which is part of the reason they got ripped off so bad by the record companies), so didn't have much else they could do as far as getting a job, especially for non-whites in the US. When Bobby Bland first started performing, he didn't know how to read. There was also a social difference. Look at The Beatles, Billie Holiday, The Jackson 5, and other acts. They started out as teens and pre-teens performing in bars and strip joints. That won't fly today. The clubs are more policed now and the parents would probably get their children taken away by CPS. Most acts played in bars or the chitlin circuit for years before getting "discovered", often doing 2-6 shows a day for 6-7 days a week. So they got their playing/singing up by default and this also helped them to develop their sound. Some old singers got their start singing in the church, blues singers started singing and/or playing while they were picking cotton in the fields. James Brown & B.B. King sang on the street corners for change. Many of these things are different today. The media back then was also different, news programs rarely if ever mentioned celebrities and gossip like now. The average act wasn't written about, so no one knew anything about them, or cared for that matter. In some cases not many people knew what the acts looked like, unless they happened to be on Ed Sullivan or something. So most of the audience only heard the music on the radio, and what they looked like wasn't as important.

[Edited 9/11/11 22:38pm]

Very good point, Mick---seems like technology is making people lazier by the minute. It seems like if everything isn't instant than people get annoyed and feel like the world is coming to an end because they have to wait a few extra minutes at the grocery store before being checked out or wait a few minutes at a traffic light (rather than risking your life and the lives of others running red lights) because you're too impatient. It seems like things are too easy and convenient to get (except jobs of course) and when things don't require much effort there's just zero appreciation for it. I'm not totally against the use of synthesizers but it seems like they are just programming the same crap over and over again and it sounds terrible. To add insult to injury, people like Rihanna who have zero vocal ability and can't dance her way out of a paper bag will have her "music" played a long time from now but she's is one of the most untalented pop artists that has been on the scene that I can recall...I think her story epitomizes everything wrong with music today.

there were talentless people even before technology was as important as it is now... a lot of old school radio is essentially the best of the best from those eras. the same will happen 20 yrs from now.

Mdizzles said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Very good point, Mick---seems like technology is making people lazier by the minute. It seems like if everything isn't instant than people get annoyed and feel like the world is coming to an end because they have to wait a few extra minutes at the grocery store before being checked out or wait a few minutes at a traffic light (rather than risking your life and the lives of others running red lights) because you're too impatient. It seems like things are too easy and convenient to get (except jobs of course) and when things don't require much effort there's just zero appreciation for it. I'm not totally against the use of synthesizers but it seems like they are just programming the same crap over and over again and it sounds terrible. To add insult to injury, people like Rihanna who have zero vocal ability and can't dance her way out of a paper bag will have her "music" played a long time from now but she's is one of the most untalented pop artists that has been on the scene that I can recall...I think her story epitomizes everything wrong with music today.

there were talentless people even before technology was as important as it is now... a lot of old school radio is essentially the best of the best from those eras. the same will happen 20 yrs from now.

Not true.

There are songs today that are old school that were not popular during its eras.

mjscarousal said:

Mdizzles said:

there were talentless people even before technology was as important as it is now... a lot of old school radio is essentially the best of the best from those eras. the same will happen 20 yrs from now.

Not true.

There are songs today that are old school that were not popular during its eras.

true, but i don't think that popular necessarily = the best though. an unpopular song can still be one of the best songs of its era.

[Edited 9/14/11 18:06pm]

Neophyte said:

No!

[img:$uid]http://a2.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/38/b554c5d62d7e49078cfac9e999773341/l.gif[/img:$uid]

[Edited 9/14/11 18:12pm]

Mdizzles said:

mjscarousal said:

Not true.

There are songs today that are old school that were not popular during its eras.

true, but i don't think that popular necessarily = the best though. an unpopular song can still be one of the best songs of its era.

[Edited 9/14/11 18:06pm]

Thats the same point I was trying to make but I forgot to edit it LOL... I meant to say their are old songs that werent popular during its eras but are held as classics today. So popularity doesnt matter.

The only reason any past "catalogs" have monetary value is because there is an older baby boomer market still willing to pay for them.

Even if today's catalogs have staying power (popularity), young listeners never valued them at a dollar amount. They will be shared for free on the Internet for eternity.

HohnerCatcher said:

The only reason any past "catalogs" have monetary value is because there is an older baby boomer market still willing to pay for them.

Even if today's catalogs have staying power (popularity), young listeners never valued them at a dollar amount. They will be shared for free on the Internet for eternity.

True. The older audience will pay $1000 for a Beatles "Butcher Babies" album cover, collect Grateful Dead bootlegs, rebuy albums each time they are remastered, get picture disc records, or buy KISS dolls. A lot of the younger audience aren't interested in things like this, because that's not what they know.

Alicia for sure. She has a good catalogue that I think will stand the test of the time.

The others i'm not too sure about. Only time will tell.

well, i'd like to see a twenty year reunion with:

1. nicki minaj

2. rihanna

3. lil kim

4. britney spears

i'd be all wondering wtf nicki, wtf rihanna, wft lil kim and wtf britney? can't ya'll drop it no mo?

and don't let me back stage 'cause i'd be asking and saying:

-rihanna, girl what's up with that weave girlfriend, is that the same one your wore back inna day?

-nicki did you bring all your alter-egos, i think there's an invisible one on your shoulder cause i hear two voices coming out you at once.

-lil kim, what's wrong with your face girl you look like plastic woman after she got too close to the stove.

-britney, pull in that stomach b4 you go on stage, you know you and rihanna got to get them chains, whips and things.

just kidding

mjscarousal said:

Graycap23 said:

I don't know why I keep 4getting Angie Stone on these lists.

Shes soooo underrated.

Very underrated.

MickyDolenz said:

HohnerCatcher said:

The only reason any past "catalogs" have monetary value is because there is an older baby boomer market still willing to pay for them.

Even if today's catalogs have staying power (popularity), young listeners never valued them at a dollar amount. They will be shared for free on the Internet for eternity.

True. The older audience will pay $1000 for a Beatles "Butcher Babies" album cover, collect Grateful Dead bootlegs, rebuy albums each time they are remastered, get picture disc records, or buy KISS dolls. A lot of the younger audience aren't interested in things like this, because that's not what they know.

I agree and disagree a bit because I listen to a lot of music that's older than me and still do. But, most of the "older" stuff I listen to is from the 60s and 70s, not stuff from like the 20s and 30s, so I guess most people listen to stuff just one generation removed from their own.

SeventeenDayze said:

MickyDolenz said:

True. The older audience will pay $1000 for a Beatles "Butcher Babies" album cover, collect Grateful Dead bootlegs, rebuy albums each time they are remastered, get picture disc records, or buy KISS dolls. A lot of the younger audience aren't interested in things like this, because that's not what they know.

I agree and disagree a bit because I listen to a lot of music that's older than me and still do. But, most of the "older" stuff I listen to is from the 60s and 70s, not stuff from like the 20s and 30s, so I guess most people listen to stuff just one generation removed from their own.

How old the music is or the type of music a person enjoys is not the point. It's that most young people today download music for free, and don't purchase 45's, 8-tracks, albums, cassettes, concert posters, music magazines, etc. or play music on a stereo system like the older listeners did. A person raised on MP3's don't care about remastered CDs, or a record with a rare cover picture or gatefold cover, because they didn't buy the original albums. At most they might buy a legal download, which is still not the same thing. So the reissue market will probably die out or become really small in the future. That may be why labels are finding alternate ways of putting music out there like on a game like Grand Theft Auto and Rock Band.

To be frank, I don't know.