thesexofit said:

duccichucka said:

I've randomly selected the top five songs of any given year in the 70s and the 00s/10s

and I hope someone can explain why the songs in the 70s are superior to those in the
00s/10s:

(my source is the Billboard Hot 100 chart)


1971

1. "Joy to the World" - Three Dog Night
2. "Maggie May" - Rod Stewart
3. "It's too Late" - Carole King
4. "One Bad Apple" - The Osmonds
5. "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?" - The Bee Gees



1974

1. "The Way We Were" - Barbra Streisand
2. "Seasons in the Sun" - Terry Jacks
3. "Love's Theme" - Love Unlimited Orchestra
4. "Come and get Your Love" - Redbone
5. "Dancing Machine" - The Jackson Five




1978

1. "Shadow Dancing" - Andy Gibb
2. "Night Fever" - The Bee Gees
3. "You Light Up my Life" - Debbie Boone
4. "Stayin' Alive" - The Bee Gees
5. "Kiss You All Over" - Exile




2002

1. "How You Remind Me" - Nickelback
2. "Foolish" - Ashanti
3. "Hot in Herre" - Nelly
4. "Dilemma" - Nelly/Kelly Rowland
5. "Wherever You Will Go" - The Calling




2011

1. "Rolling in the Deep" - Adele
2. "Party Rock Anthem" - LMFAO
3. "Firework" - Katy Perry
4. "ET" - Katy Perry
5. "Give me Everything" - Pitbull




2014

1. "Happy" - Pharrell Williams

2. "Dark Horse" - Katy Perry
3. "All of Me" - John Legend
4. "Fancy" - Iggy Azalea
5. "Counting Stars" - OneRepublic



Good luck, you intrepid soul(s)!

There's always been shit, we all know that. But come on! The total lack of record companies actually competing nowadays has been the main cause of the demise of good new pop music.

No competition creates stagnation. The charts have been a joke for years now with songs lasting years on the charts as no new shit takes it over LOL....

.

The handful of record companies left are fine with this, but it makes the labels in general look lazy, uninspired and content which has created this situation we are in where there is a total lack of good new songs and good new artists coming through.

.

The few that get signed can't be blamed as they just do what they do, but A&R is practically non-existant now.

.

The possible new talent are the bedroom making musicians, but they won't get signed as there's hardly no one to sign with LOL. Plus, alot of them need that record label "polish" and "direction" that record companies use to give but simply don't anymore.

The lact of new acts, along with the awful way radio is run and segregated are 2 of the main factors as to why pop music these days just seems so horrible and "narrow" now. Very little variety compared to say the 80's.

.

There's still good pop music, but compared to the past, it's noticable how few and far between genuinely good pop songs are these days.

.

Example being a song like "happy". It deserved to be a big hit, but it was so big and got played for so long because nothing that good would replace it LOL. Back in the 80's, that wouldn't of happened. It would of been a hit no doubt, but it would of moved along alot quicker also.

.

Today's radio being scared to play new stuff just tops off the stupidity of these mass media controlled stations and record companies. All this and more has created a general decline in pop music based mainly on the sheer number of actual new music released to top 40.

I simply don't find your argument at all compelling! You cannot show that "today's music" is
inferior to "yesterday's music." Even if there is a dearth of record companies today (a claim
I find unbelievable. In fact, I'd argue that with the middle man cut out of the recording arts
business, that more music is being released today than ever before), it still does not mean
that contemporary pop musicians aren't as "good"as their forebears. What made Stevie Won-
der "good" and Hall & Oates "good" in the 70s and 80s respectively while what makes Pharrell
and Katy Perry"good" today is not a matter intrinsic to the art they've produced, but is merely
a matter of taste. As an amateur composer, the compositional qualities of "Happy" is not better
than or worse than those found in "Sara Smile" or "Sir Duke." My grandpa thinks "Happy" is
boring, while kiddies today love it. Yet, my grandpa doesn't assess "Sir Duke" as being
"better" than "Happy" because of its intrinsic value as a piece of art, but because his taste has
been formed by the conventions popular during the 20th century, not the 21st!

Nobody in this board can convincingly show that the compositional qualities of any song released
in the 21st century is better or worse than what was released in the 70s or any decade of music.
This means, then, that the claim "Music from the year X is better than the year Y" is unfounded.
The most we can do is say "I prefer music from the year X over the music from year Y as a matter
of taste."

Good post, though.

JoeTyler said:

CANNOT hear an ENTIRE album of ANY post '90s new artist, Adele's 21 being the exception...

So you've listened to all of the albums released on every continent in the world in all languages to determine this?

laurarichardson said:

duccichucka said:

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but the music biz has always been ruled by "mediocre 18-
30 yo AOR folk, fame-oriented dance-pop "artists."" If you go back to the Billboard charts in the
60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, you'll find cookie-cutter recording artists charting who are mostly slinging
what music industry taste makers want you to dig as opposed to selling seminal or even good
music chiefly. In other words, smart, intelligent, thoughtful pop music is rarely as profitable as
cheez. In other, other words, the populace has always been suckers for bad taste.

Check it out, here, Joe - and click on the succeeding years and you'll see that what was popular in
the 70s is certifiable cheez and cannot be shown to be artistically superior/inferior to any decade
of recorded music.

Music is not dead. Music has never died. What is happening is that you are getting old and your
taste is not in fashion anymore. The R&B I listened to on the radio in the 90s isn't better or
worse artistically than what I hear today or what my parents heard in their day. It's simply a
matter of taste and age! In twenty years, millenials will decry what's popular in 2035 while
reminiscing about "the good ol' days" of Rae Sremmurd and Nicki Minaj.

Get off the crack. Music sales are at a all time low for a reason.

It is utterly ridiculous to insinuate that music sales (I'm assuming you're talking about CDs) are
at an "all time low" for anything other than being able to stream music for free, piracy, and the
advent of Youtube, and similarly themed websites. Clearly I don't represent the entire music
industry as a single consumer, but I used to average five to six album/CD purchases year, until
Napster hit. And once I found out about Soulseek and The Pirate Bay, I kept the $50-$60 bucks
I would budget for a year's worth of music purchases snugly in my pocket. Why buy the cow if
you can get the milk for free?

So, that's a bullshit argument, Laura. Music sales are down because music is mostly free. To
argue that it has something to do with the quality of music is a canard.

(proof)

SoulAlive said:

In my opinion,all of these songs are better than anything that is currently on the charts right now."Shadow Dancing" was actually the very first 45 single that I bought come to think of it,1978 is my favorite year for music.Those Bee Gees songs are excellent!!

duccichucka said:

I've randomly selected the top five songs of any given year in the 70s and the 00s/10s

and I hope someone can explain why the songs in the 70s are superior to those in the
00s/10s:

(my source is the Billboard Hot 100 chart)


1971

1. "Joy to the World" - Three Dog Night
2. "Maggie May" - Rod Stewart
3. "It's too Late" - Carole King
4. "One Bad Apple" - The Osmonds
5. "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?" - The Bee Gees



1974

1. "The Way We Were" - Barbra Streisand
2. "Seasons in the Sun" - Terry Jacks
3. "Love's Theme" - Love Unlimited Orchestra
4. "Come and get Your Love" - Redbone
5. "Dancing Machine" - The Jackson Five




1978

1. "Shadow Dancing" - Andy Gibb
2. "Night Fever" - The Bee Gees
3. "You Light Up my Life" - Debbie Boone
4. "Stayin' Alive" - The Bee Gees
5. "Kiss You All Over" - Exile

"Better" as in "My taste prefers" because you can hardly quantify what "better" is when it comes
to music. It can be done, certainly, but it is difficult; and trust me, nobody in this thread has the
ability to do so.

But I hope I'm wrong! Believe you me, I'd like to see an argument why the Bee Gees are
artistically superior to OneRepublic or Maroon 5 my damn self!

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

CANNOT hear an ENTIRE album of ANY post '90s new artist, Adele's 21 being the exception...

So you've listened to all of the albums released on every continent in the world in all languages to determine this?

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said:

I've randomly selected the top five songs of any given year in the 70s and the 00s/10s

and I hope someone can explain why the songs in the 70s are superior to those in the
00s/10s:

(my source is the Billboard Hot 100 chart)


1971

1. "Joy to the World" - Three Dog Night
2. "Maggie May" - Rod Stewart
3. "It's too Late" - Carole King
4. "One Bad Apple" - The Osmonds
5. "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?" - The Bee Gees



1974

1. "The Way We Were" - Barbra Streisand
2. "Seasons in the Sun" - Terry Jacks
3. "Love's Theme" - Love Unlimited Orchestra
4. "Come and get Your Love" - Redbone
5. "Dancing Machine" - The Jackson Five




1978

1. "Shadow Dancing" - Andy Gibb
2. "Night Fever" - The Bee Gees
3. "You Light Up my Life" - Debbie Boone
4. "Stayin' Alive" - The Bee Gees
5. "Kiss You All Over" - Exile




2002

1. "How You Remind Me" - Nickelback
2. "Foolish" - Ashanti
3. "Hot in Herre" - Nelly
4. "Dilemma" - Nelly/Kelly Rowland
5. "Wherever You Will Go" - The Calling




2011

1. "Rolling in the Deep" - Adele
2. "Party Rock Anthem" - LMFAO
3. "Firework" - Katy Perry
4. "ET" - Katy Perry
5. "Give me Everything" - Pitbull




2014

1. "Happy" - Pharrell Williams

2. "Dark Horse" - Katy Perry
3. "All of Me" - John Legend
4. "Fancy" - Iggy Azalea
5. "Counting Stars" - OneRepublic



Good luck, you intrepid soul(s)!

Because the artists of the 70s were musically talented in some way and had something to bring to the table whether it be singing, songwriting, producing, instrumentation, dancing, or a combination thereof. They all had paid their dues or were paying their dues and had to prove themselves worthy of success in order to make it which is why today's artists and their music don't have a snowball's chance in hell of holding a candle to their predecessors. Today's artists are mostly industry products that are pushed by their labels artificially as some major force and "the new (insert name of musical legend here)" via implication or blatant explanation and not coming within a square mile of living up to the hype. While artists of the 70s had to invest all their time and effort into just being a relevant act in music, most of today's artists are being hailed as an all-time great for simply debuting. One hit song that won't be remembered after 2 weeks somehow makes them worthwhile. Ariana Grande came out just 2 years ago and was already being called the next Mariah Carey. It's all marketing these days and some people are smart enough not to invest in this cheap ploy the industry uses like toilet paper. Today's top stars would be lucky to even have a career playing in bars much less opening for the top stars of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and even 90s; there's just no comparison. MJ on his worst day could embarrass Justin Timberlake at his best. Prince eclipses Bruno's entire career so far in just one album. Beyonce couldn't hope to outsing Whitney Houston. Gaga, Rihanna, Miley, Nicki, and Katy combined have less starpower than Madonna. Marvin Gaye had more soul in one strand of hair than Robin Thicke has in his entire body. George Michael makes Justin Bieber look like Justin Bieber. Practically every female pop star today owes their careers to Janet. Stevie Wonder outperformed every artist that paid tribute to him at his own show and can still bring it live at the age of 65; something these young, cookie cutter, manufactured clowns infesting the charts couldn't do on their best day. There's just no comparison. Sure, trash has always been on the charts but in the 70s there was an equal if not greater amount of good music alongside it (music still celebrated and enjoyed and revered today, mind you). A good amount of crap from the 70s craps all over the crap from today and wipes its ass with the parts it just so happened to miss. Mainstream music today is a joke; plain and simple. [Edited 5/22/15 8:33am]

Motown, I feel ya; I really do. This is a thoughtful post.

But it does absolutely nothing by way of proving that what occurred in the 70s is better/worse
than what occurs today. You can bemoan the quality of the talent that contemporary recording
artists possess today as compared to the quality of the talent those recording artists in the 70s
had, but you still wouldn't be able to convincingly show how The Bee Gees "Stayin' Alive" is better
than or worse than John Legend's "All of Me" or Pitbull's "Give Me Everything." Remember, in
order to show that something is "better/worse," we have to agree with the standards of "better/
worse" in the context of pop music (good luck with that) and then you'd have to compositionally,
lyrically, and with all other manifestations of recorded music, show how it applies. This means, for
example, that you'd have to show why the chord progression in "Stayin' Alive" is superior/inferior
to "All of Me;" show why the lyrics of "Stayin' Alive" is superior/inferior to "All of Me;" and then, as
if this was not enough, show how THE ENTIRE 70s POP MUSIC SCENE IS BETTER/WORSE THAN
THE ENTIRE 10s POP MUSIC SCENE!

This is fucking impossible! And if I remember correctly, the 80s castigated the 70s for its disco
reliance. What changed? Nothing but taste!

Besides, as you rhapsodize eloquently about the recording artists in the 70s, does your assess-
ment of the levels of their talent apply to Debbie Boone, Three Dog Night, Exile, Terry Jacks, and
The Osmonds? When we speak wistfully about the 70s, we refer specifically to Stevie Wonder,
and Earth, Wind, & Fire, and all the other greats while we totally forget all the Osmonds, and the
Debbie Boones, and the Terry Jacks, and all the other cornball artists who were just as popular.

JoeTyler said:

da '70s were the golden age of solid albums/strong as hell album tracks

sure there were some silly songs getting the number 1 spot in da '70s, but there were HUNDREDS of GREAT songs that made the top30 and THOUSANDS that were never released as singles; Elton John's Tower of Babel was never released as a single and that song ALONE shits on ANYTHING released after the first half of the 00's (in my opinion, the last "good" era of music)

judging an entire decade just because the number ones is all kind of biased/ignorant

nowadays singles are just bottom of the barrel and the albums are a CHORE to sit through; I literally CANNOT hear an ENTIRE album of ANY post '90s new artist, Adele's 21 being the exception...

[Edited 5/22/15 12:47pm]

You're blah-blahing right outta yer arsehole, dude.

We're talking about the BILLBOARD AWARDS, which means that listing what was popular according
to the most reliable source used to provide us with what is popular in the recording arts industry,
BILLBOARD magazine, is appropriate and hardly biased and ignorant. You said that the music of
the 70s was better than the music of today. Well, the BILLBOARD charts/magazine will tell us
what was, in fact, popular with the masses. So, if you're gonna reproach what is popular today,
that means you accept the method of how that was determined, which means you acknowledge
that the BILLBOARD charts/magazine applies to this conversation.

Second of all, you are really talking out of your ass when you say that you "literally cannot hear
an entire...." because that means you've listened to every single album released since the 90s.



What's happening in this thread is that you've some who think that their taste in music is incon-
trovertibly fact; and also think that proving what is "good" and "bad" in music is a matter of
facticity as well. But as we can see with your post, you are clearly exaggerating. Say what you
really mean, which is: "I can't prove that the music of the 70s was better than the music of today;
I just know that I prefer it." and keep it moving!

duccichucka said:

Besides, as you rhapsodize eloquently about the recording artists in the 70s, does your assess-

ment of the levels of their talent apply to Debbie Boone, Three Dog Night, Exile, Terry Jacks, and
The Osmonds? When we speak wistfully about the 70s, we refer specifically to Stevie Wonder,
and Earth, Wind, & Fire, and all the other greats while we totally forget all the Osmonds, and the
Debbie Boones, and the Terry Jacks, and all the other cornball artists who were just as popular.

Why are they "cornball"? I like them and have made threads about most of them. Also, how are they forgotten? There's a thread right at the top about 70's heartthrobs and Time Life has compilations sold on infomercials with many of those 1970s hits and I sometimes hear the songs in stores. Maybe they're not cool to you, but that does not mean their music is any less valid. You say that today's acts are no better or worse than the old acts and then say someone is "cornball". So you're doing the same thing as most of the other posters in this thread.

duccichucka said:

Besides, as you rhapsodize eloquently about the recording artists in the 70s, does your assess-
ment of the levels of their talent apply to Debbie Boone, Three Dog Night, Exile, Terry Jacks, and
The Osmonds? When we speak wistfully about the 70s, we refer specifically to Stevie Wonder,
and Earth, Wind, & Fire, and all the other greats while we totally forget all the Osmonds, and the
Debbie Boones, and the Terry Jacks, and all the other cornball artists who were just as popular.

I acknowledge that there was crap music in the 70s,but I actually don't think those artists you listed are crap."Seasons In The Sun" by Terry Jacks is a good song."You Light Up My Life" is schmaltzy but I still think it's a good song.The Osmonds,I could take or leave,but even they aren't as terrible as the crap that pollutes the airwaves right now.

MickyDolenz said:

duccichucka said:

Besides, as you rhapsodize eloquently about the recording artists in the 70s, does your assess-

ment of the levels of their talent apply to Debbie Boone, Three Dog Night, Exile, Terry Jacks, and
The Osmonds? When we speak wistfully about the 70s, we refer specifically to Stevie Wonder,
and Earth, Wind, & Fire, and all the other greats while we totally forget all the Osmonds, and the
Debbie Boones, and the Terry Jacks, and all the other cornball artists who were just as popular.

Why are they "cornball"? I like them and have made threads about most of them. Also, how are they forgotten? There's a thread right at the top about 70's heartthrobs and Time Life has compilations sold on infomercials with many of those 1970s hits and I sometimes hear the songs in stores. Maybe they're not cool to you, but that does not mean their music is any less valid. You say that today's acts are no better or worse than the old acts and then say someone is "cornball". So you're doing the same thing as most of the other posters in this thread.

They are "cornballs" because I am acknowledging that my own personal taste prefers the
music of the 70s over contemporary artists while also acknowledging that there was large
amounts of "cheez" on the Billboard charts back then in the 70s as there is now. If you like
them, then damnit, don't let my own subjectivity get in your way!

What distinguishes me from the other posters in this thread is that I'm not saying that the 70s
is better than anything as that is damn near impossible to prove.

But you make an excellent point, Dolenz:

"Maybe they're not cool to you, but that does not mean their music is any less valid."

Great point and well taken.

" />

SoulAlive said:

duccichucka said:

Besides, as you rhapsodize eloquently about the recording artists in the 70s, does your assess-
ment of the levels of their talent apply to Debbie Boone, Three Dog Night, Exile, Terry Jacks, and
The Osmonds? When we speak wistfully about the 70s, we refer specifically to Stevie Wonder,
and Earth, Wind, & Fire, and all the other greats while we totally forget all the Osmonds, and the
Debbie Boones, and the Terry Jacks, and all the other cornball artists who were just as popular.

I acknowledge that there was crap music in the 70s,but I actually don't think those artists you listed are crap."Seasons In The Sun" by Terry Jacks is a good song."You Light Up My Life" is schmaltzy but I still think it's a good song.The Osmonds,I could take or leave,but even they aren't as terrible as the crap that pollutes the airwaves right now.

I think you're missing the two points I'm trying to make here:

(1) The song lists I provided indicates that you either like those tunes or you don't or you're
indifferent. But nobody can point to them as pieces of art and explain why one is superior
or inferior to the other.

(2) The song lists from the 70s contains just as many good songs, bad songs, wack songs,
cheezy songs, so-so songs as much as the songs from the 00s/10s contain according to your
taste, and not according to some distinct criteria. For every "great" 70s artist and song, I
can easily give you a "great" 10s artist and song, mutatis mutandis with "bad" artist/song.

Wittgenstein said that when you ask people to define the word "red," you get a lot of blank
stares. People can't give the Merriam-Webster definition for it; they simply know how to use
it. Well, the same can be said about music; most really don't know how to define "good music,"
but you know it when you hear it, which means it's really just a matter of taste!

^^well yes,we all know that music tastes are subjective but come on now!

[Edited 5/22/15 15:33pm]

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

CANNOT hear an ENTIRE album of ANY post '90s new artist, Adele's 21 being the exception...

So you've listened to all of the albums released on every continent in the world in all languages to determine this?

MotownSubdivision said:

MotownSubdivision said:

We could have an epic discussion/debate about what's better about older pop music than current, but what it comes down to in regards to todays pop music is M.O.N.E.Y.

.

The suits at the top of the chain don't have any artistic talent or taste. So what DO they know? They know that if you spend a shitload of money on dressing, marketing and advertising someone who's young, sounds flashy and looks flashy, people will buy into the "music".

.

So that's what they do. That's all they know how to do! They don't know about what comprises a finely crafted song or a great vocalist let alone a great player, but they know what a hot piece of ass looks like, so they put the funding into selling THAT.

.

Will those suits put their top marketing team behind someone that looks like Aretha Franklin or Stevie Wonder in 2015? NO. And we're all the worse off for the fact that these kind of c**ts are running MUSIC companies.

.

FUCK THEM.

nd33 said:

MickyDolenz said:

Maybe they're {cornball artists} not cool to you, but that does not mean their music is any less valid.

I just wanted to point out how this applies entirely to this thread: just because you don't like
something, in this context, a piece of art, doesn't necessarily mean then that the object of art
was inferiorly made or constructed.

Just because you don't like today's music doesn't mean that today's music is inherently invalid
or inferior. "Good music" could be like beauty - in the eye of the beholder. The standard(s) of
beauty, at least in the west, has changed over the years. I remember growing up in the 80s and
90s where big tits and a small ass was the apex of beauty for women. Now those standards
have changed, but the big tits/small ass women haven't suddenly lost their intrinsic value.
Instead, because society now enjoys feasting on big arsed women, it merely indicates that
standards of taste have changed. You cannot point to a small butt and say "This 1980 butt is
better than the 2014 butt" and think you'll be able to show how that is the case with any type
of facility. All you can really say is "I prefer a small 1980 butt over a big 2014 butt; just my taste;
just my own personal preference." The same can be said for music as nobody in this thread took
my list, compositionally and lyrically assessed those songs and came to a conclusion that what
was popular in the 70s was better than what is popular today. Instead, most of you relied on
expositing on your musical taste.

Finally, I think most of you who are denouncing today's music seem to think that your taste in
music, as you prefer the 60s, 70s, 80s, where "good music" thrived, or so you claim, is more
refined than others which makes you somehow worthy of entrance into some special social club
where members pat each other on the back for preferring one decade over another. Well, there
is no proper commendation for people who champion what was heard yesterday over today;
and you're not instantly "cool" because you think today's music sucks.

Scorp said:

There was a time where people were presented with the full range of music, u got the full gamut, thats why the artists who grew up during that realm, not only were they more versatile, but as a whole, the music was more rich, mature, and complete, people were making real music, the culture was represented, u had great black artists, great white artists, great male artists, great female artists We supported acts from all age groups

Not really true. Music has always been segregated. Music by blacks was originally called "race music" and country & western was called "hillbilly" and was looked down on by the upper class. Jazz & ragtime was put down as jungle bunny music accused of bringing down the white race when flappers and mafia run jazz clubs became big during prohibition. Rock N Roll was said to cause juvenile delinquency. RCA & Columbia Records in their early days even had different colored labels for genres. Classical/opera records were generally sold at a higher price than the "lower class" race, hillbilly, & folk records.

.

Top 40 pretty much always played a certain kind of music. It never played "the full range of music". A folk or zydeco act can't get a big hit. When crooners were popular, you wouldn't hear blues singers or country music or bop jazz. Black performers generally performed at TOBA places aka chitlin' circuit.

.

Even later on, besides white & black performers, other races were rarely represented in the mainstream. There were a few exceptions like Don Ho, Carlos Santana, Julio Iglesias, & Gloria Estefan. Santata was a mixed race group and not fully Latino. Redbone was a Native American group that got a hit record in the 1970s. Even after Motown became popular in the 1960s, most R&B/soul did not cross over to Top 40. It generally didn't sell that big, which is the reason some acts (and the labels) wanted to crossover to get the bigger audiences and money. Kenny originally started in a rock act The First Edition. Only a few Motown acts really became popular like The Supremes & The Four Tops as that is who they promoted the most, the ones who were more likely to crossover and get the big money. African music was not really played on Top 40, unless someone like Paul Simon recorded it. Gospel & instrumental songs didn't become hits much. Heavy metal didn't get Top 40 play either, except a few "hair metal" acts in the 1980s. I don't think Iron Maiden had any hits. Prog didn't either, since the songs tended to be long and Top 40 usually stuck to short songs. Some groups like Rush & Pink Floyd were popular with albums, but not radio hits. They got some airplay on separate formats like Album Oriented Rock & "freeform FM". Freeform played long songs and even entire albums.

MickyDolenz said:

CynicKill said:

[Hook 1: Kanye West] All day, nigga,
How long you niggas ball?
All day, nigga How much time you spent at the mall?
All day, nigga How many thots do you got on call?
All day, nigga H-how long they keep you in court?
All day, nigga Take you to get this fly?
All day, nigga, Tell your P.O. how how long you been high?
All day, nigga Y'all already know I’m straight from the Chi,
All day, nigga South, south, south side!
All day, nigga

[Verse 1: Kanye West]
It's Ye, nigga Shoppin' for the winter, and it’s just May, nigga
Ball so hard, man, this shit cray, nigga
And you ain't gettin' money 'less you got eight figures
From the Jesus piece, man I've been saved, nigga
Just talked to Farrakhan, that's sensei nigga
Told him I've been on ten since 10th grade, nigga
Got a middle finger longer than Dikembe, my nigga,
uh I don't let 'em play with me I don't let 'em talk to me no kind of way
You better watch what you say to me
People still gettin' popped on the day to day
Still got the 100 with the small face, nigga
Might spend 50 racks on my off day, nigga
You a fake Denzel like the Allstate nigga
If you run into me, better have Allstate with you
You a Rico Suave nigga
Drive around listening to Sade nigga
If you ain't with us, you in our way, nigga
You an actor, you should be on Broadway nigga
Cause you do shit the broad way nigga
Your bitch got an ass but my broad way thicker
Late for the class, in the hallway, nigga
Yeah the dropout at it as always nigga

[Bridge: Allan Kingdom]
At [inaudible] in a sweet bread, and I reach into my head
Gave him what I had left At that moment I disperse (All day!)
At that moment I disperse (All day!)

[Hook 2: Kanye West]
All day nigga How long y'all playas ball?
All day nigga How much time y'all spent at the mall?
All day nigga How long it take you to get this fly?
All day nigga Tell your P.O. how how long you been high?
All day nigga Pour some Hen out for my niggas that died
And I keep a bad chick on the passenger side
Y'all already know I’m straight from the Chi, all day, nigga
South, south, south side! All day, nigga

[Verse 2: Kanye West]
I could do this all day, boy, I'm 'bout to turn this bitch out That nigga
Ye in the streets, boy, there's never really been a drought [inaudible] late, boy, you know I still go wild
I'm like a light skinned slave, boy, we in the mothafuckin' house Right now, lookin' real sus right now
I swear I've been on this flight like a month right now
Stupid niggas gettin' paid, Forrest Gump right now Sail out to [inaudible] I need to stunt right now
I've been lookin' at the Gram, I've been lookin' at the Grammys
Like, whoo, that's us right now 24/7, 365 days, everybody gettin' paid
People lookin' at me like I'm worth both MJs
Screamin, "Ye, Ye, take it easy"
20 Gs for the Yeezys on the ebay
People do the most and they ain't done shit
Only way we can sum it up, son, bitch

Not to defend that garbage, but Kanye actually said "All day, all day" in an echo without the N word live at the Billboard Awards.
Here's a short clip. http://www.billboard.com/...ards-video

duccichucka said:

MickyDolenz said:

Maybe they're {cornball artists} not cool to you, but that does not mean their music is any less valid.

I just wanted to point out how this applies entirely to this thread: just because you don't like
something, in this context, a piece of art, doesn't necessarily mean then that the object of art
was inferiorly made or constructed.

Just because you don't like today's music doesn't mean that today's music is inherently invalid
or inferior. "Good music" could be like beauty - in the eye of the beholder. The standard(s) of
beauty, at least in the west, has changed over the years. I remember growing up in the 80s and
90s where big tits and a small ass was the apex of beauty for women. Now those standards
have changed, but the big tits/small ass women haven't suddenly lost their intrinsic value.
Instead, because society now enjoys feasting on big arsed women, it merely indicates that
standards of taste have changed. You cannot point to a small butt and say "This 1980 butt is
better than the 2014 butt" and think you'll be able to show how that is the case with any type
of facility. All you can really say is "I prefer a small 1980 butt over a big 2014 butt; just my taste;
just my own personal preference." The same can be said for music as nobody in this thread took
my list, compositionally and lyrically assessed those songs and came to a conclusion that what
was popular in the 70s was better than what is popular today. Instead, most of you relied on
expositing on your musical taste.

Finally, I think most of you who are denouncing today's music seem to think that your taste in
music, as you prefer the 60s, 70s, 80s, where "good music" thrived, or so you claim, is more
refined than others which makes you somehow worthy of entrance into some special social club
where members pat each other on the back for preferring one decade over another. Well, there
is no proper commendation for people who champion what was heard yesterday over today;
and you're not instantly "cool" because you think today's music sucks.

>

All this is correct as a personal point of mission, but "level-of-culture" needs a loud, critical voice. The culture doesn't have to be important to you, but we all benefit from supposed high standards. I suppose personal preference and culture have nothing to do with each other.

CynicKill said:

duccichucka said:

I just wanted to point out how this applies entirely to this thread: just because you don't like
something, in this context, a piece of art, doesn't necessarily mean then that the object of art
was inferiorly made or constructed.

Just because you don't like today's music doesn't mean that today's music is inherently invalid
or inferior. "Good music" could be like beauty - in the eye of the beholder. The standard(s) of
beauty, at least in the west, has changed over the years. I remember growing up in the 80s and
90s where big tits and a small ass was the apex of beauty for women. Now those standards
have changed, but the big tits/small ass women haven't suddenly lost their intrinsic value.
Instead, because society now enjoys feasting on big arsed women, it merely indicates that
standards of taste have changed. You cannot point to a small butt and say "This 1980 butt is
better than the 2014 butt" and think you'll be able to show how that is the case with any type
of facility. All you can really say is "I prefer a small 1980 butt over a big 2014 butt; just my taste;
just my own personal preference." The same can be said for music as nobody in this thread took
my list, compositionally and lyrically assessed those songs and came to a conclusion that what
was popular in the 70s was better than what is popular today. Instead, most of you relied on
expositing on your musical taste.

Finally, I think most of you who are denouncing today's music seem to think that your taste in
music, as you prefer the 60s, 70s, 80s, where "good music" thrived, or so you claim, is more
refined than others which makes you somehow worthy of entrance into some special social club
where members pat each other on the back for preferring one decade over another. Well, there
is no proper commendation for people who champion what was heard yesterday over today;
and you're not instantly "cool" because you think today's music sucks.

>

All this is correct as a personal point of mission, but "level-of-culture" needs a loud, critical voice. The culture doesn't have to be important to you, but we all benefit from supposed high standards. I suppose personal preference and culture have nothing to do with each other.

So where is this "loud, critical voice" when it comes to assessing what is supposed to be the
lack of quality in today's Billboard pop charts in this thread? Again, I've asked repeatedly for
someone to assume a musicologist's role and explain why Pitbull, One Direction, Chris Brown,
et. al. are inferior to Terry Jacks, Exile, Three Dog Night, and the Osmonds. The Billboard charts
from the 70s reveal that "cheeze" was popular then as it was now. The only thing that has
changed is how the "cheeze" is dressed and presented to the public, whether it be in the guise
of a singer-songwriter context, to disco, to hip hop, to EDM.

Instead, what you have in this thread are a few posters who think it's cool to diss today's music
in favor of yesterday's music because it reveals they've good taste when really they cannot ex-
plain the artistic merits of yesterday's music over today's music without relying only upon "I pre-
fer it.'

I don't disagree that culture needs its critiquing and deconstruction in order to assess if for whe-
ther or not it is contributing effectively to society. But who in this thread has that ability to criti-
cally approach today's pop music as being considerably detrimental to today's culture while hold-
ing up what occurred in the 70s as a paradigm? Like I said, most people cannot tell you specific-
ally what "good music" is without "I like it" being the number one criterion.

Seems to me that being able to appreciate high culture and articulate why demands more than
that.

duccichucka said:

CynicKill said:

>

All this is correct as a personal point of mission, but "level-of-culture" needs a loud, critical voice. The culture doesn't have to be important to you, but we all benefit from supposed high standards. I suppose personal preference and culture have nothing to do with each other.

So where is this "loud, critical voice" when it comes to assessing what is supposed to be the
lack of quality in today's Billboard pop charts in this thread? Again, I've asked repeatedly for
someone to assume a musicologist's role and explain why Pitbull, One Direction, Chris Brown,
et. al. are inferior to Terry Jacks, Exile, Three Dog Night, and the Osmonds. The Billboard charts
from the 70s reveal that "cheeze" was popular then as it was now. The only thing that has
changed is how the "cheeze" is dressed and presented to the public, whether it be in the guise
of a singer-songwriter context, to disco, to hip hop, to EDM.

Instead, what you have in this thread are a few posters who think it's cool to diss today's music
in favor of yesterday's music because it reveals they've good taste when really they cannot ex-
plain the artistic merits of yesterday's music over today's music without relying only upon "I pre-
fer it.'

I don't disagree that culture needs its critiquing and deconstruction in order to assess if for whe-
ther or not it is contributing effectively to society. But who in this thread has that ability to criti-
cally approach today's pop music as being considerably detrimental to today's culture while hold-
ing up what occurred in the 70s as a paradigm? Like I said, most people cannot tell you specific-
ally what "good music" is without "I like it" being the number one criterion.

Seems to me that being able to appreciate high culture and articulate why demands more than
that.

I look at it from the opposite end. I didn't listen 2 the fluff then and I don't listen 2 it now. That said, where is the equal of The Jacksons, Marvis Gaye, EW&F, P-Funk, Prince, The Ohio Players, Stevie Wonder, Luther.....etc in todays musical landscape?