I think The Smiths summed it up perfectly back in the eighties when Morrissey sang about pop music..."it says nothing about my life"

I find that truer now than at any time before, and I don't consider myself old at 33...

Gun

This is more about "mainstream" music, not "modern" music, of course good music still exists

It's just the way these genres are represented globally

Otherwords, in the 80s or 70s, genres had their mainstream figures who represented them in a good way, Michael & Prince represented funk and pop music and that music was actually good. Rihanna is regarded as an R&B act but is her music good R&B? (Is it actually R&B?).... Does Chris Brown put on good music when he's regarded as a mainstream R&B artist?

Amy Winehouse was mainstream and she represented soul and jazz music in a good way

In the 60s, The Beatles were everywhere and they were the most famous act on the planet, equally, their albums are classics and landmarks of pop music.

One Direction is in the same league if we talk about fame, unlike the Beatles, their albums aren't good albums and no way next generations will remember them.

Justin Bieber (around 2010) was as famous as MJ was in 1984 and thats a fact, is his body of work worth mentioning after 30 years?

One is always aware of the good shit that exists, if you are a good listener and you search for good music, you'd find modern and contemporary artists who do those genres justice,,,, its just the mainstream arena, its leaders are regarded as the leaders of R&B or pop or Hip Hop while their music don't equale the real artists or leaders of that genre of music.

[Edited 2/24/14 9:28am]

Shawy89 said:

Gun

This is more about "mainstream" music, not "modern" music, of course good music still exists

It's just the way these genres are represented globally

Otherwords, in the 80s or 70s, genres had their mainstream figures who represented them in a good way, Michael & Prince represented funk and pop music and that music was actually good. Rihanna is regarded as an R&B act but is her music good R&B? (Is it actually R&B?).... Does Chris Brown put on good music when he's regarded as a mainstream R&B artist?

Amy Winehouse was mainstream and she represented soul and jazz music in a good way

In the 60s, The Beatles were everywhere and they were the most famous act on the planet, equally, their albums are classics and landmarks of pop music.

One Direction is in the same league if we talk about fame, unlike the Beatles, their albums aren't good albums and no way next generations will remember them.

Justin Bieber (around 2010) was as famous as MJ was in 1984 and thats a fact, is his body of work worth mentioning after 30 years?

One is always aware of the good shit that exists, if you are a good listener and you search for good music, you'd find modern and contemporary artists who do those genres justice,,,, its just the mainstream arena, its leaders are regarded as the leaders of R&B or pop or Hip Hop while their music don't equale the real artists or leaders of that genre of music.

[Edited 2/24/14 9:28am]

I know this is more about mainstream. But, just saying that in general. And some of those artists i listed are mainstream i would say. Some have had hits, or top 10 albums.

But, the reason for my post. Is a lot of people hate on maisntrean music and think that's all there is. There is some HORRIBLE mainstream music going on... and i mean horrible. But some older orgers think top 40 represents all of the 10's and 00's. Which is very untrue i must say.

Shawy89 said:

Gun

This is more about "mainstream" music, not "modern" music, of course good music still exists

It's just the way these genres are represented globally

Otherwords, in the 80s or 70s, genres had their mainstream figures who represented them in a good way, Michael & Prince represented funk and pop music and that music was actually good. Rihanna is regarded as an R&B act but is her music good R&B? (Is it actually R&B?).... Does Chris Brown put on good music when he's regarded as a mainstream R&B artist?

Amy Winehouse was mainstream and she represented soul and jazz music in a good way

In the 60s, The Beatles were everywhere and they were the most famous act on the planet, equally, their albums are classics and landmarks of pop music.

One Direction is in the same league if we talk about fame, unlike the Beatles, their albums aren't good albums and no way next generations will remember them.

Justin Bieber (around 2010) was as famous as MJ was in 1984 and thats a fact, is his body of work worth mentioning after 30 years?

One is always aware of the good shit that exists, if you are a good listener and you search for good music, you'd find modern and contemporary artists who do those genres justice,,,, its just the mainstream arena, its leaders are regarded as the leaders of R&B or pop or Hip Hop while their music don't equale the real artists or leaders of that genre of music.

[Edited 2/24/14 9:28am]

Hardly.

He's far from being a well-known figure in most places around Earth except amongst teenagers. I suppose all the crap that he's gotten involved in getting covered in entertainment news, especially on free online news, might have made him more recognizeable recently.

Yeah, exactly.

But its kinda sad, that what we hear regularly on the radio is very bad.. While acts you mentioned or other good acts don't get half of the airplay 1D get..

It is a sign of the corrupt pop music is facing, as JoeTyler said, ever since Britney and other teenage sensations landed on the scene, pop music became total shit... and what sickens me the most is that media and all make JB or 1D or Rihanna sound like they made eternal and classic music, Rihanna recieved Icon award at the AMAs last year.... Britney will, Katy will.... same goes for Grammys, look at the nominees for Song of The Year 30 years ago, look at them now... mainstream music controls everything, media is ready to support JB and every puppet from now on, its all for money... It goes like this

Managers look everyday for a pop sensation to BRING money -> They start looking for a good looking white boy who can do whatever they say whenever they order (Control them as puppets and eventually those puppets believe it and they keep doing what they do,,, its fun why not?) -> That's why shits like Bieber or Miley Cyrus take the world by storm -> Labels support that financially and pay money to media and all to praise his name and make him look "GOOD" -> Meanwhile, good music makers are sick of that bullshit, tho they say "no matter what Ill keep doing my thing and I'll become famous" -> they realize they cant cuz their labels are too broke to create a machine to help them -> Why their labels are broke? Its because other labels took all the money OR even the people who control those small labels cared more about money so they dont mind if the artists who signed a contract with them are suffering commercially........

Thats why Janelle Monae is struggling, why Danny Brown or The Weeknd are struggling.... and I believe they will at the end of the day go POP and ELECTRONIC or whatever appealing music turns into in the next few years, losing their artistry or craft (like Miley did,,,).

novabrkr said:

Shawy89 said:

Gun

This is more about "mainstream" music, not "modern" music, of course good music still exists

It's just the way these genres are represented globally

Otherwords, in the 80s or 70s, genres had their mainstream figures who represented them in a good way, Michael & Prince represented funk and pop music and that music was actually good. Rihanna is regarded as an R&B act but is her music good R&B? (Is it actually R&B?).... Does Chris Brown put on good music when he's regarded as a mainstream R&B artist?

Amy Winehouse was mainstream and she represented soul and jazz music in a good way

In the 60s, The Beatles were everywhere and they were the most famous act on the planet, equally, their albums are classics and landmarks of pop music.

One Direction is in the same league if we talk about fame, unlike the Beatles, their albums aren't good albums and no way next generations will remember them.

Justin Bieber (around 2010) was as famous as MJ was in 1984 and thats a fact, is his body of work worth mentioning after 30 years?

One is always aware of the good shit that exists, if you are a good listener and you search for good music, you'd find modern and contemporary artists who do those genres justice,,,, its just the mainstream arena, its leaders are regarded as the leaders of R&B or pop or Hip Hop while their music don't equale the real artists or leaders of that genre of music.

[Edited 2/24/14 9:28am]

Hardly.

He's far from being a well-known figure in most places around Earth except amongst teenagers. I suppose all the crap that he's gotten involved in getting covered in entertainment news, especially on free online news, might have made him more recognizeable recently.

I think MJ had everyone buying Thriller from 12 year old kids to 50 year old grown men, something Bieber never experienced, but fame-wise, Bieber was everywhere... Too bad.

I don't think most 40-50-somethings in Europe that do not read gossip magazines or have a teenaged daughter would even recognize Bieber's face from a photo. Most surely would recognize MJ even if he looked completely different during his various eras.

I'm not sure if Bieber's level of fame globally has been even comparable to New Kids On The Block during their heyday.

I think one problem is lack of musicianship. Most pop songs today actually have decent structure because they are written by profession songwriters. It's when they get into the studio and the song is arranged to its most dumbed down form. What happened to guitar riffs, distinctive bass lines, drum fills, unpredictable chords and key changes? All of this used to be part of pop music.

Check these musicians who add interesting arrangements and musicianship to current pop songs. Now I'm not saying we should do retro style. I'm just saying the song structure is there, but the execution is bad.

I think the problem is probably me. I grew up on a certain set of music and to the extent that new stuff matches up to my preconceived ideas of "good" and "bad" sounds, I'll register a thumbs up or down. And I accept that it may not be a purely a difference of quality. It's a difference of preference. I prefer, you know, things like real musicians with interesting playing styles. To the extent that modern music doesn;t have that, it's not to going to be my preference.

That's me at my most reasonable, after a few drinks I'd probably tell you it's all shit, made by thalidomide babies whose ability to concentrate and absorb complex ideas has been compromised from birth.

Odd to see Larry & co doing "Moves Like Jagger", but I wouldn't say the musicianship on the original one is somehow subpar. I know it's a widely disliked song, but I like it myself more than most of the newer "party songs" out there. I don't mind hearing it in a club. Sort of reminds me "Get Lucky" and maybe even paved way for its success.

They've got the groove down, if you ask me.

[Edited 2/24/14 13:27pm]

vainandy said:

duccichucka said:

There is no way for you to prove that new music is actually shit. In order to do that, you'd have

to break down what good music is. This is an impossible task because there is no consensus as

to what constitutes "good" music. Then, you'd have to compare and contrast whatever standard

of that good music with ALL of today's "new music." This is another impossible task. That's like

saying "I hate Fuji apples; they are not good apples." Well, you better be able to explain to us

what makes a good apple; have science and society agree with you, and then eat ALL the apples

known to humankind for comparison. Like I said: impossible!

Judging by the tone of your post, it is probably a good bet that you think today's new music is shit

because you are simply an elitist. By the way, in your opinion, what was the best decade of

popular music, Andy?

It's very simple. Funk = good, Shit hop and neo stool = shit. As far with the rock genre, I really wouldn't know, nor would I care, because my beef is with today's R&B. I love rock, mainly old rock, but I really could care less about the state of rock today because it never was a dancefloor genre of music anyway.

.

As far as trying to be "elite", that's far from what I am. A lot of people who complain about shit hop, think neo stool is a mainstream R&B alternative to listen to instead of shit hop. They sit around in their clubs with an empty dancefloor and drink wine instead of beer and talk about their favorite artists having influences such as jazz and such and like to put on an elite act of being "cultured". That's not me at all. That shit is boring as hell and I want something that makes you want to get down and dirty on the dancefloor. And yes, I've noticed that some of mainstream R&B has gotten uptempo these days, which is something it hasn't been since the 1990s, but it's recorded with Fisher Price toys and not drums and bass so even though it's uptempo, it's still weak sounding because there's no power or real thump to it.

.

My favorite decade of music? That's very simple to answer. 1975-1985. Disco came along in the mid 1970s and sped up the tempo of funk and modernized it by making it sound less jazz influenced. Disco so-called "died" in 1979 but it's impact was still alive in the funk from the early 1980s because it remained at a disco tempo and didn't go back to it's more primitive sound before disco's impact. When things first started fucking up was when Shitney Houston made it big in 1985 making the dullest adult contemporary sounding slow stuff and watered down sounding uptempo stuff. Then came Anita Faker, Deadie Jackson, Sicki Howard, Regina Hell, and a whole bunch of other dull asses who started getting more airplay than funk and eventually killed it. I didn't think things could get any worse but then came shit hop in the 1990s. Well hell, the timing was perfect for it since it was all dull and slow to midtempo and a lot of people's ears had gotten used to hearing a huge portion of dull slow to midtempo stuff with those tired ass adult contemporary artists of the late 1980s. Plus, shit hop filled the "rebellion" void that was missing after funk died and R&B was littered with all these "parent friendly" adult contemporary acts.

.

.

.

[Edited 2/24/14 8:09am]

But I didn't ask you to tell me what a good genre of music is (you answered with funk = good

music). I asked you to define good music - period. You do admit that within the confines of

all music, funk is not the sole occupant of what is considered good, right? I am an admitted

elitist: I think anything that's not jazz and/or classical is already inferior. But then again, I'm

also not proclaiming that today's mainstream music is either "good" or "bad" because no one is

qualified to make that assertion and pass it off as a fact.

Your answer speaks to the difficulty in what I'm asking: nobody can objectively define what good

music is, because taste is subjective. You guys are acting as if taste is objective - that is simply

not the case! Objectivity is grounded in empiricism, i.e., things you can measure, study; that has

some grounding in an applied science. It is an objective fact that Prince has released x records.

I can go look that up and prove it to be true. It is not an objective fact that 3121 sucks. You

can't go look that up and prove it to be true (or false).

I asked you what the best decade of music was and unsurprisingly, it is the music of your youth!

This too, speaks to what I'm arguing: you.are.getting.older! Embrace it, like me. Mainstream hip

hop, R&B, pop, rock, all that shit - it ain't written for us who are past the age of 30. Today's main

stream music is neither good or bad; it's neither better than or worse than any decade. It's all

relative. In the decade 1975 - 1985, these are the #1 Hits according to Billboard:


Love Will Keep Us Together - Captain & Tennille

Silly Love Songs - Wings

Tonight's The Night - Rod Stewart

Shadow Dancing - Andy Gibb

My Sharona - The Knack

Call Me - Blondie

Bette Davis Eyes - Kim Carnes

Physical - Olivia Newton John

Every Breath You Take - The Police

When Doves Cry - Prince

Careless Whisper - Wham!


I defy anybody to critically analyze these songs and show us how they are better than the #1 Hits

from the years 2003 - 2013! This means you are critiquing lyrics, production, musicianship,

songwriting, arranging, engineering, and all the particulars that accompany the recording arts.

Hell, I defy anybody to critically analyze any song from any generation and compare and contrast

it with any song from today's mainstream music. In other words: those of you hollering about the

plethora of shitty music today - put yer money where your mouth is! I am not championing what

passes as modern mainstream music over yesterday's. My point is that these threads are always

just a matter of:

A. You are getting older (and perhaphs being wistful towards the music of your youth).

B. You are an elitist snob.

Now, maybe my argument is attenuated because I'm presenting it in a binary fashion (it's either

A or B) but I am happily, and proudly, both!

(on a side note to anybody who takes up my challenge: merely listing "When Doves Cry" as an

example of when music was better than today's music because "Thrift Shop" sucks - one song

does not a case for your argument make).

novabrkr said:

Odd to see Larry & co doing "Moves Like Jagger", but I wouldn't say the musicianship on the original one is somehow subpar. I know it's a widely disliked song, but I like it myself more than most of the newer "party songs" out there. I don't mind hearing it in a club. Sort of reminds me "Get Lucky" and maybe even paved way for its success.

They've got the groove down, if you ask me.

[Edited 2/24/14 13:27pm]

I wasn't implying that the songs were good or bad. If you can take modern pop songs and make them sound like the past by rearranging them, then the problem isn't the songwriting. I think it comes down to execution.

We also shound't forget the dynamic compression or the 'loudness war' that is typical of modern music. Could the actual recording be so irritating to our ears that we mistaken it for a badly written song?

the success of One Direction is the musical equivalent of the literary success of Harry Potter , and equally relevant

it's stuff for kids, folks

Miley sure is targeting her new image to horny 18-22 yo guys, but it's still stuff for kids (mentally speaking)

what pisses me off is the fact that, as shawy has said, the industry is trying to sell these artists as relevant, legit stuff, ...BS

the Grammys are D-E-A-D

duccichucka said:

vainandy said:

It's very simple. Funk = good, Shit hop and neo stool = shit. As far with the rock genre, I really wouldn't know, nor would I care, because my beef is with today's R&B. I love rock, mainly old rock, but I really could care less about the state of rock today because it never was a dancefloor genre of music anyway.

.

As far as trying to be "elite", that's far from what I am. A lot of people who complain about shit hop, think neo stool is a mainstream R&B alternative to listen to instead of shit hop. They sit around in their clubs with an empty dancefloor and drink wine instead of beer and talk about their favorite artists having influences such as jazz and such and like to put on an elite act of being "cultured". That's not me at all. That shit is boring as hell and I want something that makes you want to get down and dirty on the dancefloor. And yes, I've noticed that some of mainstream R&B has gotten uptempo these days, which is something it hasn't been since the 1990s, but it's recorded with Fisher Price toys and not drums and bass so even though it's uptempo, it's still weak sounding because there's no power or real thump to it.

.

My favorite decade of music? That's very simple to answer. 1975-1985. Disco came along in the mid 1970s and sped up the tempo of funk and modernized it by making it sound less jazz influenced. Disco so-called "died" in 1979 but it's impact was still alive in the funk from the early 1980s because it remained at a disco tempo and didn't go back to it's more primitive sound before disco's impact. When things first started fucking up was when Shitney Houston made it big in 1985 making the dullest adult contemporary sounding slow stuff and watered down sounding uptempo stuff. Then came Anita Faker, Deadie Jackson, Sicki Howard, Regina Hell, and a whole bunch of other dull asses who started getting more airplay than funk and eventually killed it. I didn't think things could get any worse but then came shit hop in the 1990s. Well hell, the timing was perfect for it since it was all dull and slow to midtempo and a lot of people's ears had gotten used to hearing a huge portion of dull slow to midtempo stuff with those tired ass adult contemporary artists of the late 1980s. Plus, shit hop filled the "rebellion" void that was missing after funk died and R&B was littered with all these "parent friendly" adult contemporary acts.

.

.

.

[Edited 2/24/14 8:09am]

But I didn't ask you to tell me what a good genre of music is (you answered with funk = good

music). I asked you to define good music - period. You do admit that within the confines of

all music, funk is not the sole occupant of what is considered good, right? I am an admitted

elitist: I think anything that's not jazz and/or classical is already inferior. But then again, I'm

also not proclaiming that today's mainstream music is either "good" or "bad" because no one is

qualified to make that assertion and pass it off as a fact.

Your answer speaks to the difficulty in what I'm asking: nobody can objectively define what good

music is, because taste is subjective. You guys are acting as if taste is objective - that is simply

not the case! Objectivity is grounded in empiricism, i.e., things you can measure, study; that has

some grounding in an applied science. It is an objective fact that Prince has released x records.

I can go look that up and prove it to be true. It is not an objective fact that 3121 sucks. You

can't go look that up and prove it to be true (or false).

I asked you what the best decade of music was and unsurprisingly, it is the music of your youth!

This too, speaks to what I'm arguing: you.are.getting.older! Embrace it, like me. Mainstream hip

hop, R&B, pop, rock, all that shit - it ain't written for us who are past the age of 30. Today's main

stream music is neither good or bad; it's neither better than or worse than any decade. It's all

relative. In the decade 1975 - 1985, these are the #1 Hits according to Billboard:


Love Will Keep Us Together - Captain & Tennille

Silly Love Songs - Wings

Tonight's The Night - Rod Stewart

Shadow Dancing - Andy Gibb

My Sharona - The Knack

Call Me - Blondie

Bette Davis Eyes - Kim Carnes

Physical - Olivia Newton John

Every Breath You Take - The Police

When Doves Cry - Prince

Careless Whisper - Wham!


I defy anybody to critically analyze these songs and show us how they are better than the #1 Hits

from the years 2003 - 2013! This means you are critiquing lyrics, production, musicianship,

songwriting, arranging, engineering, and all the particulars that accompany the recording arts.

Hell, I defy anybody to critically analyze any song from any generation and compare and contrast

it with any song from today's mainstream music. In other words: those of you hollering about the

plethora of shitty music today - put yer money where your mouth is! I am not championing what

passes as modern mainstream music over yesterday's. My point is that these threads are always

just a matter of:

A. You are getting older (and perhaphs being wistful towards the music of your youth).

B. You are an elitist snob.

Now, maybe my argument is attenuated because I'm presenting it in a binary fashion (it's either

A or B) but I am happily, and proudly, both!

(on a side note to anybody who takes up my challenge: merely listing "When Doves Cry" as an

example of when music was better than today's music because "Thrift Shop" sucks - one song

does not a case for your argument make).

you're contradicting yourself and trying too hard, lol; art (music included) is subjective, so let us proudly say that '00s mainstream music is CRAP, while mainstream music of previous decades was, at the very worst, tolerable

and this comes from a '90s kid who accepts that '90s music, while varied and enjoyable, was not very good (as a whole) compared to previous decades...

getting old? NO. As I've said, it's all about good taste, common sense and a certain level of knowledge about pop music: the decline started after the '80s...(MY) FACT

if you can't see the difference between La Gioconda and some faceless cubist painting of any NY office, if you can't hear the difference between "Sex Machine" and "Yeah", then I PITY YOU

JoeTyler said:

it's stuff for kids, folks

What's wrong with that? I have children's records from when I was little and still listen to them sometimes and there's lots of other kids songs I enjoy. All music is good if someone likes it. Just because something is made for adults does not make it superior to anything else.

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

it's stuff for kids, folks

What's wrong with that? I have children's records from when I was little and still listen to them sometimes and there's lots of other kids songs I enjoy. All music is good if someone likes it. Just because something is made for adults does not make it superior to anything else.

ok, we're going in circles here...

[Edited 2/24/14 14:54pm]

lrn36 said:

I think one problem is lack of musicianship. Most pop songs today actually have decent structure because they are written by profession songwriters. It's when they get into the studio and the song is arranged to its most dumbed down form. What happened to guitar riffs, distinctive bass lines, drum fills, unpredictable chords and key changes? All of this used to be part of pop music.

Check these musicians who add interesting arrangements and musicianship to current pop songs. Now I'm not saying we should do retro style. I'm just saying the song structure is there, but the execution is bad.

Wow, I heard some of what you posted and its crazy how it sounded real good, Roar!!!! I fucking hate that song but that jazz version blew me away!! Same for We Can't Stop..

I like artists when they do alternative (mostly jazz) versions of their songs, ie, Amy Winehouse or Bruno Mars

Just the Way you Are sucks imo, but the jazz rendition is great, very mellow, soft and honest.

JoeTyler said:

MickyDolenz said:

What's wrong with that? I have children's records from when I was little and still listen to them sometimes and there's lots of other kids songs I enjoy. All music is good if someone likes it. Just because something is made for adults does not make it superior to anything else.

ok, we're going in circles here...

You're the one who implied that because kids like Harry Potter or One Direction, it can't be taken seriously by saying "it's stuff for kids", like the things that children and teens enjoy are unimportant or inferior. I don't think it's any less important.

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

ok, we're going in circles here...

You're the one who implied that because kids like Harry Potter or One Direction, it can't be taken seriously by saying "it's stuff for kids", like the things that children and teens enjoy are unimportant or inferior. I don't think it's any less important.

my point exactly, you have your opinion, I have mine

this thread was about that, people expressing the reasons why they think modern music suxxx

Irn36 proved a nice point guys, he says that sometimes lyrics aren't the problem but the music is what matters, I myself agree with that... some songs you just can't stand but the remixes or alternate renditions can sound even better....

Reasons why I complain and don't like today's mainstream music:

1. Beyonce

2. Rhianna

3. Lady Ga Ga

4. Justin Bieber

5. Chris Brown

Today's musical superstars.

JoeTyler said:

MickyDolenz said:

You're the one who implied that because kids like Harry Potter or One Direction, it can't be taken seriously by saying "it's stuff for kids", like the things that children and teens enjoy are unimportant or inferior. I don't think it's any less important.

my point exactly, you have your opinion, I have mine

this thread was about that, people expressing the reasons why they think modern music suxxx

Appreciate your discussions Joe n Micky

Joe, "Mainstream" is what sucks, modern music is in goooood ol hands fella

kitbradley said:

Reasons why I complain and don't like today's mainstream music:

1. Beyonce

2. Rhianna

3. Lady Ga Ga

4. Justin Bieber

5. Chris Brown

Today's musical superstars.

I know I'm bringing trouble with me saying this, but Lady Gaga is actually a talented artist and a good singer. If we all appreciate the fact that the likes of Prince or Madonna broke grounds back in the day with their videos and music, we should do the same thing for Gaga, shes going to sing in space, her videos (2009 era) brought something controversial and bold, her outfits, her dancing and everything is so gay and unique and I like that, imo she's the most unique female super star since Amy... I'd rather see her live than Katy or Rihanna. This is just an opinion and i know many will disagree.



Just look at what she did with Poker Face!!

[Edited 2/24/14 15:31pm]

JoeTyler said:

duccichucka said:

But I didn't ask you to tell me what a good genre of music is (you answered with funk = good

music). I asked you to define good music - period. You do admit that within the confines of

all music, funk is not the sole occupant of what is considered good, right? I am an admitted

elitist: I think anything that's not jazz and/or classical is already inferior. But then again, I'm

also not proclaiming that today's mainstream music is either "good" or "bad" because no one is

qualified to make that assertion and pass it off as a fact.

Your answer speaks to the difficulty in what I'm asking: nobody can objectively define what good

music is, because taste is subjective. You guys are acting as if taste is objective - that is simply

not the case! Objectivity is grounded in empiricism, i.e., things you can measure, study; that has

some grounding in an applied science. It is an objective fact that Prince has released x records.

I can go look that up and prove it to be true. It is not an objective fact that 3121 sucks. You

can't go look that up and prove it to be true (or false).

I asked you what the best decade of music was and unsurprisingly, it is the music of your youth!

This too, speaks to what I'm arguing: you.are.getting.older! Embrace it, like me. Mainstream hip

hop, R&B, pop, rock, all that shit - it ain't written for us who are past the age of 30. Today's main

stream music is neither good or bad; it's neither better than or worse than any decade. It's all

relative. In the decade 1975 - 1985, these are the #1 Hits according to Billboard:


Love Will Keep Us Together - Captain & Tennille

Silly Love Songs - Wings

Tonight's The Night - Rod Stewart

Shadow Dancing - Andy Gibb

My Sharona - The Knack

Call Me - Blondie

Bette Davis Eyes - Kim Carnes

Physical - Olivia Newton John

Every Breath You Take - The Police

When Doves Cry - Prince

Careless Whisper - Wham!


I defy anybody to critically analyze these songs and show us how they are better than the #1 Hits

from the years 2003 - 2013! This means you are critiquing lyrics, production, musicianship,

songwriting, arranging, engineering, and all the particulars that accompany the recording arts.

Hell, I defy anybody to critically analyze any song from any generation and compare and contrast

it with any song from today's mainstream music. In other words: those of you hollering about the

plethora of shitty music today - put yer money where your mouth is! I am not championing what

passes as modern mainstream music over yesterday's. My point is that these threads are always

just a matter of:

A. You are getting older (and perhaphs being wistful towards the music of your youth).

B. You are an elitist snob.

Now, maybe my argument is attenuated because I'm presenting it in a binary fashion (it's either

A or B) but I am happily, and proudly, both!

(on a side note to anybody who takes up my challenge: merely listing "When Doves Cry" as an

example of when music was better than today's music because "Thrift Shop" sucks - one song

does not a case for your argument make).

you're contradicting yourself and trying too hard, lol; art (music included) is subjective, so let us proudly say that '00s mainstream music is CRAP, while mainstream music of previous decades was, at the very worst, tolerable

and this comes from a '90s kid who accepts that '90s music, while varied and enjoyable, was not very good (as a whole) compared to previous decades...

getting old? NO. As I've said, it's all about good taste, common sense and a certain level of knowledge about pop music: the decline started after the '80s...(MY) FACT

if you can't see the difference between La Gioconda and some faceless cubist painting of any NY office, if you can't hear the difference between "Sex Machine" and "Yeah", then I PITY YOU

Hi Joe.

I don't think you're understanding my post. Because what is considered good/bad in art is

entirely subjective, one cannot pass off art as better/worse than any other art objectively,

which is the tone of this thread. I'm trying hard because I want people to understand this

argumen:t "Music from decade A is better than music from decade B" is unfounded. This

much is indicated in your rant when you say " X is...(MY) FACT." You're confusing facts with

opinions. Maybe you think I'm contradicting myself because I'm admitting that I prefer the

music of my youth/classical/jazz while arguing against the critique of modern mainstream music.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Notice I said "I prefer" as opposed to "it is better than."

There is no objective test which allows someone to say La Gioconda is better/worse than

the dump my cat took this morning: again, this is a subjective argument which renders

establishing anything as anything more than a matter of taste impossible. Sure, I hear you

when you speak to "good taste" and common sense and having a level of knowledge. These

conventions ought to inform your opinion. But who told you what "good taste" was? Is it an

universal law? Is it empirical? Is it measurable or quantifiable? Who gets to say what good

taste has to be? Tell us why La Gioconda is better than some faceless cubist painting in an NYC

office. This amuses me: people like to say "X art is better than Y art" and when you ask them

why, they say "Because I have good taste! Because I have knowledge! Because I have

common sense!" Great! But none of these things actually work to prove your assertion is

factual.

By the way: calm the fuck down, homie. Jeezus!

duccichucka said:

JoeTyler said:

you're contradicting yourself and trying too hard, lol; art (music included) is subjective, so let us proudly say that '00s mainstream music is CRAP, while mainstream music of previous decades was, at the very worst, tolerable

and this comes from a '90s kid who accepts that '90s music, while varied and enjoyable, was not very good (as a whole) compared to previous decades...

getting old? NO. As I've said, it's all about good taste, common sense and a certain level of knowledge about pop music: the decline started after the '80s...(MY) FACT

if you can't see the difference between La Gioconda and some faceless cubist painting of any NY office, if you can't hear the difference between "Sex Machine" and "Yeah", then I PITY YOU

Hi Joe.

I don't think you're understanding my post. Because what is considered good/bad in art is

entirely subjective, one cannot pass off art as better/worse than any other art objectively,

which is the tone of this thread. I'm trying hard because I want people to understand this

argumen:t "Music from decade A is better than music from decade B" is unfounded. This

much is indicated in your rant when you say " X is...(MY) FACT." You're confusing facts with

opinions. Maybe you think I'm contradicting myself because I'm admitting that I prefer the

music of my youth/classical/jazz while arguing against the critique of modern mainstream music.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Notice I said "I prefer" as opposed to "it is better than."

There is no objective test which allows someone to say La Gioconda is better/worse than

the dump my cat took this morning: again, this is a subjective argument which renders

establishing anything as anything more than a matter of taste impossible. Sure, I hear you

when you speak to "good taste" and common sense and having a level of knowledge. These

conventions ought to inform your opinion. But who told you what "good taste" was? Is it an

universal law? Is it empirical? Is it measurable or quantifiable? Who gets to say what good

taste has to be? Tell us why La Gioconda is better than some faceless cubist painting in an NYC

office. This amuses me: people like to say "X art is better than Y art" and when you ask them

why, they say "Because I have good taste! Because I have knowledge! Because I have

common sense!" Great! But none of these things actually work to prove your assertion is

factual.

By the way: calm the fuck down, homie. Jeezus!

you're, clearly, the only one who's losing it here, really you say I "rant" (clearly you haven't seen me ranting ), but at least I don't toss away 30 lines of text whereas other people use 5 , you're the one who has tried to pseudo-intellectualize this thread, whereas the rest of us are just answering to the OP (why do you think modern music sucks), you're (not) the (only) one who is defending the concept of subjectivism in art while at the same time dismissing our personal, subjective thoughts and opinions about modern music (ugly, evident contradiction right there, bravo!)

talking with you is pointless, really, goodbye

Afraid I've only got time right now to speak in generalities.Despite the proliferation of new channels for real artists to get their music out there, the sheer volume of music they have to compete wroth means it is easier for them to get lost.

For most of pop music history, megaselling 'manufactured' acts have been with us. When Beiber and 1D's time is up, there will be a new generation of teen fans with new teen idols to wet themselves over. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

The difference between now and previous eras seem to be that 'manufactured' music is becoming more ubiquitous because, like junk food and junk TV, it's cheap to make, easy to distribute and carries massive profit margins. Also , now that music has to compete with so many other distractions for peopek,s attention, it's even harder for new artists with 'something (original) to say' to make themselves heard in the mainstream. It doesn't help also that new and worthy artists have to compete for fans money with older, well established acts.

Shawy89 said:

lrn36 said:

I think one problem is lack of musicianship. Most pop songs today actually have decent structure because they are written by profession songwriters. It's when they get into the studio and the song is arranged to its most dumbed down form. What happened to guitar riffs, distinctive bass lines, drum fills, unpredictable chords and key changes? All of this used to be part of pop music.

Check these musicians who add interesting arrangements and musicianship to current pop songs. Now I'm not saying we should do retro style. I'm just saying the song structure is there, but the execution is bad.

Wow, I heard some of what you posted and its crazy how it sounded real good, Roar!!!! I fucking hate that song but that jazz version blew me away!! Same for We Can't Stop..

I like artists when they do alternative (mostly jazz) versions of their songs, ie, Amy Winehouse or Bruno Mars

Just the Way you Are sucks imo, but the jazz rendition is great, very mellow, soft and honest.

If you like that check out his reimagining of the Games of Thrones theme.

MickyDolenz said:

You know Mickey, I always thought artists look at each other in a different way

Stevie Wonder praised Bieber so much 2 years ago, Elton John praised someone also (forgot his name), Mick Jagger always expressed his love for Katy Perry.....

Maybe we, listeners, look at these guys in a different way, critics also..... but musicians themselves? Maybe they're like "we been there and done that" or "we know what it's like".... I always say musicians have different opinions,,,..