JoeTyler said:

duccichucka said:

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

I'm not dismissing anybody's opinion on the quality of today's music. I'm simply stating that you

cannot objectively prove that today's music is better/worse than any other decade of popular

music.

See ya!

duccichucka said:

JoeTyler said:

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

I'm not dismissing anybody's opinion on the quality of today's music. I'm simply stating that you

cannot objectively prove that today's music is better/worse than any other decade of popular

music.

See ya!

man we're not proving anything, we're SAYIN' it

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).

And I do admit that classical and jazz are much more talented genres than funk. As boring as they may be, it takes real talent to play them so yes, when it comes to a comparison of funk vs. classical or jazz talentwise, funk loses. All the genres are talented genres with funk being the least talented of the three. As to which sounds better, yes, that's a matter of taste. See, I can definitely be objective to music, even when it comes to genres that I don't like. I don't care for most country/western music either but it is definitely a talented genre of music.

.

But if you compare funk which was yesterday's mainstream R&B to shit hop which is today's mainstream R&B, funk wins hands down and it's not just a matter of taste either because funk was made with instruments by talented musicians while shit hop is made with Fisher Price toys.

.

And as for getting older, as I said before, I first started bitching about music in 1985 when Shitney Houston influenced R&B for the worst. Yes, that's simply a matter of taste or opinion but it's definitely not a matter of getting older because I was only freshly graduated from high school at the ripe old age of 17. And then it get even worse in the 1990s with shit hop. I was only in my early to mid 20s at the time and that is far for middle aged also. True, I have my own reasons for hating new mainstream music but getting older is definitely not one of them because I started bitching when I was only 17. Hating new mainstream music didn't start when I got in my 30s and 40s. I bitched for over a decade before I even turned 30.

.

And true, my favorite decade of music is from my early teenage years but I also like music from the 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, and even a little of the swing type stuff from the 1940s such as The Andrew Sisters, The Stripper Song, and yeah, I also little a little jazz (not much) like the A Train, I like some country, lots of rock, and lots of house from the 1990s (most of which was underground), blues from the 1970s and 1980s, so yes, I have diverse tastes and am not just partial to the era in which I grew up in when it comes to comparing it to today's mainstream R&B music. Hell, compare the 40s to it and the 40s wins. Compare classical to it, which is extremely boring, and classical wins. Shit hop is THE must untalented genre of music ever made in the history of recorded music and for it to dominate mainstream R&B is just fucking ridiculous and a damn shame. I'd rather hear two tin cans clanking together than to hear that bullshit.

vainandy 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).

And I do admit that classical and jazz are much more talented genres than funk. As boring as they may be, it takes real talent to play them so yes, when it comes to a comparison of funk vs. classical or jazz talentwise, funk loses. All the genres are talented genres with funk being the least talented of the three. As to which sounds better, yes, that's a matter of taste. See, I can definitely be objective to music, even when it comes to genres that I don't like. I don't care for most country/western music either but it is definitely a talented genre of music.

.

But if you compare funk which was yesterday's mainstream R&B to shit hop which is today's mainstream R&B, funk wins hands down and it's not just a matter of taste either because funk was made with instruments by talented musicians while shit hop is made with Fisher Price toys.

.

And as for getting older, as I said before, I first started bitching about music in 1985 when Shitney Houston influenced R&B for the worst. Yes, that's simply a matter of taste or opinion but it's definitely not a matter of getting older because I was only freshly graduated from high school at the ripe old age of 17. And then it get even worse in the 1990s with shit hop. I was only in my early to mid 20s at the time and that is far for middle aged also. True, I have my own reasons for hating new mainstream music but getting older is definitely not one of them because I started bitching when I was only 17. Hating new mainstream music didn't start when I got in my 30s and 40s. I bitched for over a decade before I even turned 30.

.

And true, my favorite decade of music is from my early teenage years but I also like music from the 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, and even a little of the swing type stuff from the 1940s such as The Andrew Sisters, The Stripper Song, and yeah, I also little a little jazz (not much) like the A Train, I like some country, lots of rock, and lots of house from the 1990s (most of which was underground), blues from the 1970s and 1980s, so yes, I have diverse tastes and am not just partial to the era in which I grew up in when it comes to comparing it to today's mainstream R&B music. Hell, compare the 40s to it and the 40s wins. Compare classical to it, which is extremely boring, and classical wins. Shit hop is THE must untalented genre of music ever made in the history of recorded music and for it to dominate mainstream R&B is just fucking ridiculous and a damn shame. I'd rather hear two tin cans clanking together than to hear that bullshit.

and just before duccichucka¤ jumps in here claiming that we cannot prove if classical music is a more talented form of music than shit-hop, just DON'T man, just don't, unless

a) you wanna jump the shark

b) a music teacher SURELY could prove that classical music is a more difficult/labored form of music than shit-hop

Shawy89 said:

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]

Horrendous song! But this is the first time I'm hearing her voice not be drowned out by loud, thrashing techno music. She doesn't sound as bad here as she sounds on the songs I've heard her on in the past. I would maybe consider giving her a chance if she ever decided to record an album of serious music.

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.

What gets me is the idea that it wasn't stuff for kids (teens at the oldest) during any of the decades that have been mentioned. From the moment kids had money, that's where they've been aiming popular music--because they don't have anything important that they have to spend their money on, and even if they do, they don't have the sense to say "no" to getting what they want. Hardly anyone still spends much on music (recorded or live) after their mid-20s, and certainly not enough to base an industry on. That we old folks even still care makes us freaks.

JoeTyler said:rk

b) a music teacher SURELY could prove that classical music is a more difficult/labored form of music than shit-hop

Hmmmm.... so "more difficult/labored" is somehow a mark of being better? Just because it's hard or takes a lot of work to make doesn't mean it's worth making.

Admittedly, I'm a populist, and tend to think that because a piece isn't classical or jazz it's probably better (with some exceptions, of course), but this really seems like an odd idea to me.

Shawy89 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,,,..

Some people claim that the veterans are trying to be nice or selling out because they like the acts they don't like, like their favorite performers are supposed to automatically dislike them because they don't. I remember at MJJC there were many "fans" complaining about Michael Jackson was making records with Akon or rappers. People complain about the Fergie era Black Eyed Peas, but James Brown did a song with them and he wasn't actively recording or releasing anything himself. Michael Jackson was working with Will.I.Am. Stevie Wonder played harmonica on an N'Sync record. Jimmy Page & Sting did songs with Puff Daddy. There's nothing wrong with those records. If people don't like it, then don't listen to it. People complaining about Top 40 is like a vegan going into McDonald's and then complaining there is nothing there for them to eat. The purpose of Top 40 hit radio is to sell time to advertisers. So of course they're not going to play death metal, polka, or neo-soul, which has a more limited appeal. They're going to play whatever appeals to the largest amount of people possible to buy whatever the commercials are selling. It's always been that way.

.

People have always complained about whatever was popular during their time period: Madonna, The Beatles, Elvis, disco, arena rock, new wave, jazz, teen idols, hair metal, etc. I like The Monkees which the critics have never liked, and they'd try to bait other acts of the time like Jerry Garcia to put them down, but they didn't. Some of these "serious" acts appeared on their TV show like Frank Zappa, Tim Buckley, and Charlie Smalls (who later wrote The Wiz). The Beatles invited them to the one of the Sgt. Pepper recording sessions. People complained about MC Hammer dancing, forgetting that rap and breakdancing were together in the beginning. Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five didn't wear ordinary clothes, they had flashy outfits like funk bands or glam rock groups.

duccichucka said:

babynoz said:

Very unfair to Prince. He was never vulgarity 24/7 even his mainstream songs.

And it's very unfair to today's music to claim all of it as vulgar or without substance. You can't

have your cake and eat it too.

I am sure I have not claimed any such thing. I just think that it's a false equivalent to imply that Prince only ever made vulgar popular songs given the phenomenal diversity of his catalog. Maybe some people only dug his more vulgar work but he has never been limited to making one type of song.

In fact, some of his most popular songs cannot be described as vulgar...Purple Rain, (the song he is actually most known for), is an obvious choice.

Also...

The Beautiful Ones

The Most Beautiful Girl In The World

Sign Of The Times

Seven

1999

Kiss

As far as songs with substance, I can't agree that there are as many artist doing those types of songs as there used to be. If we're talking about Prince, even artists who could be considered his contemporaries were not recording as many songs of substance as he was much less those that came after him.

Those who came before, yes.

That is not to say we didn't have silly songs. Just listen to Joe Tex or the Jimmy Castor Bunch,

But the difference is that the airwaves werent saturated with silliness to the exclusion of everything else. We weren't bombarded with it.

The thing is, before the era of corporate playlists there was more variety in the mainstream. It wasn't a case where people had to go looking for it either. Surely you are aware that most djs used to be able to whatever they felt like playing for the most part and every dj had a different vibe.

kitbradley said:

Shawy89 said:

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]

Horrendous song! But this is the first time I'm hearing her voice not be drowned out by loud, thrashing techno music. She doesn't sound as bad here as she sounds on the songs I've heard her on in the past. I would maybe consider giving her a chance if she ever decided to record an album of serious music.

I'm not a fan of hers and never will be, but unlike most of today's frauds Gaga can sing and play too. Always could.

That's probably what bothers me most about gaga...she has actual talent and still resorts to too many over the top silly gimicks for no good reason.

babynoz said:

That's probably what bothers me most about gaga...she has actual talent and still resorts to too many over the top silly gimicks for no good reason.

It bother's me too but not only about her. There are more pipes out there being wasted on shitty music and producers.

GaGa is one that will always be talked about. Loved by many and absolutely hated by many. I think she does have talent! but her pop songs are always meh. I do really enjoy So Happy I Can Die, Bloody Marry, Speechless, You & I.

Her song from her recent album Dope is really good too. But her poppier songs just don't do it for me.

But what about some mainstream artists who are heavly praised. Even highly praised on the org? i think a prime example is Kendrick Lamar who got nominated for all his grammy awards. Has respect from old and new hip-hop heads alike, is praised for his songwriting and production. Yet he is VERY mainstrem right now. There was a time he was more ''underground'' but he had 3 big hits from Good Kid, Mad City. And, the grammy awards boosted that.

A lot of people like Lorde too... i don't personally dig her. But, she at least tries with her songs.

There are artists who are big, yet loved even by the underground and hipsters. I guess they just pretend they didn't have a hit or two

EddieC 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.

What gets me is the idea that it wasn't stuff for kids (teens at the oldest) during any of the decades that have been mentioned. From the moment kids had money, that's where they've been aiming popular music--because they don't have anything important that they have to spend their money on, and even if they do, they don't have the sense to say "no" to getting what they want. Hardly anyone still spends much on music (recorded or live) after their mid-20s, and certainly not enough to base an industry on. That we old folks even still care makes us freaks.

Perhaps music is not as important to them. Some will spend $70 on a video game disc or $200 on Air Jordans (and camp outside a store all night when a new one comes out), but download music for free. That cell phone bill is not cheap either. Other things have taken the place of buying records. That's why they stick music on video games like Grand Theft Auto, Dance Dance Revolution, or Rock Band. Technology has killed the old way more than any so-called drop in music quality. You can have an IPOD or phone that you can have hundreds of songs on it and carry around rather than having a component set that can only be played at home and have a bunch of records and tapes or a big boom box. A lot of the younger generation didn't grow up with these things, just like post 1950s, most younger people didn't relate to a Victrola or a radio drama/comedy broadcast like War Of The Worlds. Television killed that, and some of the radio programs transfered to TV like Amos & Andy and Dragnet.

Gunsnhalen said:

GaGa is one that will always be talked about. Loved by many and absolutely hated by many. I think she does have talent! but her pop songs are always meh. I do really enjoy So Happy I Can Die, Bloody Marry, Speechless, You & I.

Her song from her recent album Dope is really good too. But her poppier songs just don't do it for me.

But what about some mainstream artists who are heavly praised. Even highly praised on the org? i think a prime example is Kendrick Lamar who got nominated for all his grammy awards. Has respect from old and new hip-hop heads alike, is praised for his songwriting and production. Yet he is VERY mainstrem right now. There was a time he was more ''underground'' but he had 3 big hits from Good Kid, Mad City. And, the grammy awards boosted that.

A lot of people like Lorde too... i don't personally dig her. But, she at least tries with her songs.

There are artists who are big, yet loved even by the underground and hipsters. I guess they just pretend they didn't have a hit or two

There are ecxeptions to every rule. There are good artists out there making good music but the shit far outweighs the good stuff.

[Edited 2/24/14 21:48pm]

lrn36 said:

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?

That may be the case sometimes, but the excessive compression of today can also make many songs easier to listen to. It certainly makes up for the flaws in the vocalist's performance, for example.

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!

Do you have any idea how incredibly annoying that line of argumentation is?

The title of this thread is "Cite the reasons why you complain or don't like today's mainstream music". What part of it called for a verification process for our views that adhere to the contemporary standards of natural sciences? If something "being better" than something else cannot be "proven empirically" then you shouldn't try to clamp down on the discussion by repeating that statement. It doesn't invalidate the discussion as such.

Most scientific theories can't be proven empirically either, only parts of them can be subjected to testing and the rest relies on interpretation. For that matter, many aspects of what makes music pleasant and unpleasant can be and have been studied empirically, so the situation in musicology and the aesthetics of music isn't that different from the situation in general psychology, sociology or any other field of study that's not comparable to physics and chemistry.

[Edited 2/25/14 9:53am]

I think,for many of us older folks,we grew up in a time when there was soooo much great music and you didn't really have to "search" for it.The good music WAS mainstream.I grew up in the 70s,listening to amazing stuff like Earth Wind and Fire,Stevie Wonder,Fleetwood Mac,Marvin Gaye,The Eagles,etc.When you grow up with that kinda music,it's hard to 'settle' for the mediocre stuiff that dominates nowadays.

SoulAlive said:

I think,for many of us older folks,we grew up in a time when there was soooo much great music and you didn't really have to "search" for it.The good music WAS mainstream.I grew up in the 70s,listening to amazing stuff like Earth Wind and Fire,Stevie Wonder,Fleetwood Mac,Marvin Gaye,The Eagles,etc.When you grow up with that kinda music,it's hard to 'settle' for the mediocre stuiff that dominates nowadays.

SoulAlive said:

I think,for many of us older folks,we grew up in a time when there was soooo much great music and you didn't really have to "search" for it.The good music WAS mainstream.I grew up in the 70s,listening to amazing stuff like Earth Wind and Fire,Stevie Wonder,Fleetwood Mac,Marvin Gaye,The Eagles,etc.When you grow up with that kinda music,it's hard to 'settle' for the mediocre stuiff that dominates nowadays.

EXACTLY MY POINT

Back in the day GOOD music was MAINSTREAM music, The Beatles were all over the place, yet their music shaped up almost everything we listen too, their albums were successfull and went platinum in every country but they were GOOD albums.. You can say the same for James Brown, Bob Dylan, Johhny Cash, Pink Floyd...

Across all genres, country, rap, r&b, dance, rock, pop, whatever... same four issues. A very limited melody, compression like a motherfucker, artificially enhanced pitch perfect vocals, unimaginative lyrics. The entire mainstream music industry is playing it safer than ever before. The same thing is playing out on the film and televison side of the business as well. Investors expect virtually guaranteed profits, so the only thing that gets released is factory made cookie cutter products. Miley Cyrus is supposed to be the edgy artist right now, right? LOL

SoulAlive said:

I think,for many of us older folks,we grew up in a time when there was soooo much great music and you didn't really have to "search" for it.The good music WAS mainstream.I grew up in the 70s,listening to amazing stuff like Earth Wind and Fire,Stevie Wonder,Fleetwood Mac,Marvin Gaye,The Eagles,etc.When you grow up with that kinda music,it's hard to 'settle' for the mediocre stuiff that dominates nowadays.

It strikes me also that none of that little list had to resort to vulgarity or overtly sexual under (or over) tones to express themselves. Raunch is everywhere these days.

However, maybe that's the media of today and that's probably another thread all by itself!

I hate today's music because it's too childish and one-note. Youth sensibilities has always been a significant component of contemporary music, but at no point in history has it ever been THIS unapologetically callow, petulant and one-note. At no point in history has music been SO narrowly catered to the 13-20 year old demograpic. And since when did it become cool to be from Disney? When I was a kid, that shit was for dorks. That's another thing that I find annoying. Nowadays "dorky" has become cool.

Back in the 80s and 90s, there were teeny-bopper acts, but there was also a lot of "grown folks music" that was equally well received -- even amongst kids themselves. In the 80s and even in the 90s (although it started to taper off by then), acts in their 30s and 40s were having huge hits. Could Mary J. Blige or Mariah Carey in their 40s today have a commercial revival the way Tina Turner/Aretha Franklin did when they were their age in the mid 80s? No. Could a middle of the road song like "Shake You Down" by Gregory Abbott or "One More Night" by Phil Collins go to #1 on the Hot 100 today?

Can you turn on the radio and hear a pop song, followed by an R&B song, followed by a rock song, followed by big voiced diva AC ballad, followed by a hip hop song? No. Music has become *harrowingly* one-dimensional and narrow over the past 10 years (with a heavy emphasis on the past 5.) Now if it's not obnoxious thumpa-thumpa EDM or some cheesy folksy/indie nonsense, it's not getting played, period.

In closing I'll put it like this:
Throughout history I'm sure adults over 30 have ALWAYS complained about "today's music" and how it isn't as good as it used to be...but I wholeheartedly believe that when my parents were the age I am now that there was more on top 40 radio that they could appreciate than there is for me today.

[Edited 2/25/14 7:56am]

The people in this thread saying that they didn't have to look for good music in the past make no sense. Don't you think Top 40 music on the radio today is good to its listeners? People don't buy or listen to music they don't like. I remember there were goth kids that didn't like the Top 40 or any of the other radio formats and there was no radio format for the music they liked such as Bauhaus or something. It was the same for metalheads or people who liked bluegrass, folk music, or Dixieland. Radio has never pleased everyone. They had to "find" whatever music they liked and there was no internet.

funksterr said:

Across all genres, country, rap, r&b, dance, rock, pop, whatever... same four issues. A very limited melody, compression like a motherfucker, artificially enhanced pitch perfect vocals, unimaginative lyrics. The entire mainstream music industry is playing it safer than ever before. The same thing is playing out on the film and televison side of the business as well. Investors expect virtually guaranteed profits, so the only thing that gets released is factory made cookie cutter products. Miley Cyrus is supposed to be the edgy artist right now, right? LOL

Yeah, this!! Its seems very rare for something "risky" to get released into the mainstream both in the music and film industry....but when it does and makes it big, my god, watch the mainstream peddlers jump on the bandwagon and flog it to death.

One thing that does seem to be missing today is music that had a set manifesto. My Dad still talks about when The Specials Ghost Town was climbing up the charts as a direct reflection of what Thatcher's government was doing to this country. When was the last time we had something like that in the mainstream? And I'm not talking about crap protest songs, but music that was not only great music but also had something to say...

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.

[...]

[...]

I was really enjoying that reworking of the song and then the dick with the tambourine plopped in like a big turd into the punch bowl, all out of time with everyone else and horsing around like an idiot. Drove me mad, as the rest of the musicians are great and it's a nice version.

I do agree with your point though, and the musicianship in those clips certainly adds a lot to the performance of the songs.

I wonder if it's not the case that both sides of this old debate have something to them. So, on one hand, yes, it's true that there's an awful lot of shit in any era - probably a majority - but memory tends to filter out the crap and just hold onto the good stuff, which accumulates over the decades, making it seem like the past was filed with great sounds, as opposed to the present where it's split between good and bad, often with the good stuff is in the minority. And, yes, these things also come wrapped in a bit of nostalgia, and the music that reminds you of a great time of your life gets coloured by that when you look back at it.

But, at the same time, if you try to relativise everything, and say any era is the same as any other era, you lose the fact that the way art and music develops isn't just some regular, linear, evenly-spread process; a whole of bunch of unpredictable conditions happen to coalesce in a certain time and place so as to make a particular scene (e.g. Detroit in the late-50s/60s, or the South Bronx in the 70s) incredibly fertile in a way that isn't going to necessarily be repeated anytime, anywhere.

And, likewise, music always develops in a social and cultural context that feeds into it, and some of the ideals that seem to be in its 'DNA' are better or worse than others. So, for example, people might like the music that was the cultural counterpart to, say, the Civil Rights or Black Power movements - or at least the music that seemed to have something of those ideals about it; whereas the music that seems to be a counterpart to an era of urban decay, violence, incarceration, etc, in which there doesn't seem to be much hope for change, and in which there seems even to be a trend towards celebrating the vices and ills born of that impoverishment, is necessarily going to seem less inspiring to people that lived through the earlier time, or younger people who turned to music history with that cultural history in mind.

Again, it's true that these things can get romanticised and idealised, but levelling everything as an alternative to that seems to deny the sense that some moments really were better than others, which is, I suspect, partly why it gets people annoyed.

My fav era is the 70s because of all the great music that co-existed in the mainstream conciousness. Today I feel there's either just electronic, deep house, house/pop, pop-techno and indie rock & pop that pretty much sounds the same. Some rappers are doing their thing but for the most part, I think hiphop/rap died 2008, because what we hear today sure as hell aint rap (exception, Kendrick, J Cole, Badass Joey, Nas, I might have forgotten someone) The rock scene isnt' as creative as it used to be and I think generally people that are doing things that are not "mainstream" are trying too hard, making the music fake. I do like the imagery of many artists tho. There are some great artists tho, but the music industry isn't about pushing these people and that's fine not everything needs to be mainstream. Musicianship isn't valued as it once was and I think that the record companies are way 2 interested in getting young people to purchase music.

Speaking of hip hop, listen to Black Sheep's The Choice is Yours. The way multiple samples, breakdowns, the call and response, and use of silence are used almost like a live band. The hard driving energy of the music complements Dres' almost melodic, tight delivery of clever, humorous lyrics. And this was typical of hip hop during this era. Who is doing anything like this today?

I agree with Mickey 100% on this actually. I call 100% bullshit that people back in the day didn't find good music. Kids who were goth in the early 80's weren't going to see say The Cure for example on MTV. The Cure wasn't a ''mainstream'' thing till the late 80's So, kids had to learn about them through record shops. And shows... and things like that.

Other bands who are beloved today... but weren't huge in their time. Include The Smiths, Sonic Youth, Metallica, Megadeth, Overkill, Venom, Grover Washington JR etc. Just to name a few. They wern't getting big or sometimes any MTV exposure.

How did metal kids learn about Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Anthrax, Motorhead, Priest, Maiden? when there video were never played on MTV in the early days. No rock station was playing metal yet.. and it was years before headbangers ball. They had to go to shows, hear word of mouth. or go and discover them at record stores. Many metal guys said they discovered Metallica & Slayer through going to their record store... seeing the cover and saying ''wtf is that''

And, what about the non MTV kids. It was a cable channel.... so i know not EVERYONE had it in the 80's. So, they only had radio play to go on. If there parents or whatever only listened to one or two stations, how would they discover other music? if they were a punk, goth, rockabilly, metal head, funkster etc. They had to search! and it's even easier to search nowadays... you just gotta go to google or fucking youtube. Back in the day it was a lot harder to know if something was good or not. Based on a record sleeve or whatever

So, for those who don't like modern ''mainstream'' and think 00's and 10's are shit and in that mind set. It's 1000 times easier to find new music, then it was in the 80's or 70's.