Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

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?

The musical landscape featured in the 70s, where you have an explosion of sophisticated yet
accessible R&B groups, has changed, dude. Those types of bands are no longer popular, so
stop looking for Stevie Wonder redux; stop waiting for Prince 2.0 - it's not gonna happen today.
What resonates in the market place now is hip hop and EDM and country.

There are talented, sophisticated, yet accessible R&B recording artists today who are not popular
and charting on Billboard because the music landscape has shifted; Van Hunt would be "Old Hat"
(pun intended) if this was 1975, instead of 2015. This means that he, and artists like Georgia
Anne Muldrow, Cody Chestnutt, and Bilal remain on the outskirts of that pop landscape where
they used to be featured.

God didn't stop producing inventive, talented, intelligent, and creative R&B artists after 1979. In-
stead, the public's taste changed and we stopped prioritizing them.

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

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?

The musical landscape featured in the 70s, where you have an explosion of sophisticated yet
accessible R&B groups, has changed, dude. Those types of bands are no longer popular, so
stop looking for Stevie Wonder redux; stop waiting for Prince 2.0 - it's not gonna happen today.
What resonates in the market place now is hip hop and EDM and country.

There are talented, sophisticated, yet accessible R&B recording artists today who are not popular
and charting on Billboard because the music landscape has shifted; Van Hunt would be "Old Hat"
(pun intended) if this was 1975, instead of 2015. This means that he, and artists like Georgia
Anne Muldrow, Cody Chestnutt, and Bilal remain on the outskirts of that pop landscape where
they used to be featured.

God didn't stop producing inventive, talented, intelligent, and creative R&B artists after 1979. In-
stead, the public's taste changed and we stopped prioritizing them.

I hear u, but when I look at the charts, I'm damn near embarrassed by what I consider 2 be the lack of talent in the industry. That said, I have more music than I can listen 2, so 2 your point, it is there, we just have 2 seek it out.

Another ridiculous feature of this message board is that when there is an artist who resembles
those luminary R&B figures of the past, it castigates them for being too beholden to their influence;
or, this board calls the contemporary artist who is directly influenced by the greats a "wannabe"
or a "knock off" or bauble.

Instead of praising him for making thoughtful R&B, this board largely castigates or ignores Van
Hunt. Bilal threads are quiet affairs around here. Janelle Monae has been deemed "not it." Ka-
masi Washington gets no love. Hunt is our generation's Mayfield and Prince; Bilal makes progress-
ive R&B albums a la Gaye and P-Funk; Janelle Monae is a throwback; Kamasi Washington has
summoned the spirit of Coltrane and Sun Ra....

....this message board needs to be put on blast!

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

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?

The musical landscape featured in the 70s, where you have an explosion of sophisticated yet
accessible R&B groups, has changed, dude. Those types of bands are no longer popular, so
stop looking for Stevie Wonder redux; stop waiting for Prince 2.0 - it's not gonna happen today.
What resonates in the market place now is hip hop and EDM and country.

There are talented, sophisticated, yet accessible R&B recording artists today who are not popular
and charting on Billboard because the music landscape has shifted; Van Hunt would be "Old Hat"
(pun intended) if this was 1975, instead of 2015. This means that he, and artists like Georgia
Anne Muldrow, Cody Chestnutt, and Bilal remain on the outskirts of that pop landscape where
they used to be featured.

God didn't stop producing inventive, talented, intelligent, and creative R&B artists after 1979. In-
stead, the public's taste changed and we stopped prioritizing them.

Mainly the suits behind the labels stopped prioritizing them and

chose to promote what sells over musical talent.

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

The musical landscape featured in the 70s, where you have an explosion of sophisticated yet
accessible R&B groups, has changed, dude. Those types of bands are no longer popular, so
stop looking for Stevie Wonder redux; stop waiting for Prince 2.0 - it's not gonna happen today.
What resonates in the market place now is hip hop and EDM and country.

There are talented, sophisticated, yet accessible R&B recording artists today who are not popular
and charting on Billboard because the music landscape has shifted; Van Hunt would be "Old Hat"
(pun intended) if this was 1975, instead of 2015. This means that he, and artists like Georgia
Anne Muldrow, Cody Chestnutt, and Bilal remain on the outskirts of that pop landscape where
they used to be featured.

God didn't stop producing inventive, talented, intelligent, and creative R&B artists after 1979. In-
stead, the public's taste changed and we stopped prioritizing them.

I hear u, but when I look at the charts, I'm damn near embarrassed by what I consider 2 be the lack of talent in the industry. That said, I have more music than I can listen 2, so 2 your point, it is there, we just have 2 seek it out.

1). I'm in no position, and neither are you, to talk intelligently about the "levels of talent" that
is grouped on the Billboard charts. "Talent" is not something that is easily quantified and we
really don't know what "talent" is, so let's not compare the talent of a 70s recording artist who
was popular during his/her day with the talent of a contemporary recording artist. I mean, if
you can show how Bruno Mars is more or less talented than Marvin Gaye; or how One Direction
is more or less talented than the Osmonds; or how Kendrick Lamar is more or less talented than
George Clinton, then be my guest.

2). You're absolutely right - good music, whatever the fuck it is, is certainly being produced.
Where before, the Billboard chart was a reference point for discovering good music, it seems
to be the case that today, you have to go look for it yourself.

duccichucka said:

Another ridiculous feature of this message board is that when there is an artist who resembles
those luminary R&B figures of the past, it castigates them for being too beholden to their influence;
or, this board calls the contemporary artist who is directly influenced by the greats a "wannabe"
or a "knock off" or bauble.

Instead of praising him for making thoughtful R&B, this board largely castigates or ignores Van
Hunt. Bilal threads are quiet affairs around here. Janelle Monae has been deemed "not it." Ka-
masi Washington gets no love. Hunt is our generation's Mayfield and Prince; Bilal makes progress-
ive R&B albums a la Gaye and P-Funk; Janelle Monae is a throwback; Kamasi Washington has
summoned the spirit of Coltrane and Sun Ra....

....this message board needs to be put on blast!

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

I hear u, but when I look at the charts, I'm damn near embarrassed by what I consider 2 be the lack of talent in the industry. That said, I have more music than I can listen 2, so 2 your point, it is there, we just have 2 seek it out.

1). I'm in no position, and neither are you, to talk intelligently about the "levels of talent" that
is grouped on the Billboard charts. "Talent" is not something that is easily quantified and we
really don't know what "talent" is, so let's not compare the talent of a 70s recording artist who
was popular during his/her day with the talent of a contemporary recording artist. I mean, if
you can show how Bruno Mars is more or less talented than Marvin Gaye; or how One Direction
is more or less talented than the Osmonds; or how Kendrick Lamar is more or less talented than
George Clinton, then be my guest.

2). You're absolutely right - good music, whatever the fuck it is, is certainly being produced.
Where before, the Billboard chart was a reference point for discovering good music, it seems
to be the case that today, you have to go look for it yourself.

Actually I am in that position but it doesn't matter 2 me anymore. I accept it 4 what it is. I can make the music that I love so at this point I really don't care that much anymore. It is what it is.

[Edited 5/24/15 9:19am]

JoeTyler said:

music is dead and the only thing we have left i old legends complaining about it, which offers some relief, but it's not enough

2015 is what happens when you let the industry be ruled by mediocre 18-30 yo AOR folk, fame-oriented dance-pop "artists", sellout rappers, all of them offering lip service to petulant, ignorant teenagers from the "iPhone era" living in their own bubble...

Ah, I think I'm gonna listen to my old '70s records again...

Are these "old legends" just complainig about the state of music or are they telling the truth?

duccichucka said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

duccichucka said:

1). I'm in no position, and neither are you, to talk intelligently about the "levels of talent" that
is grouped on the Billboard charts. "Talent" is not something that is easily quantified and we
really don't know what "talent" is, so let's not compare the talent of a 70s recording artist who
was popular during his/her day with the talent of a contemporary recording artist. I mean, if
you can show how Bruno Mars is more or less talented than Marvin Gaye; or how One Direction
is more or less talented than the Osmonds; or how Kendrick Lamar is more or less talented than
George Clinton, then be my guest.

2). You're absolutely right - good music, whatever the fuck it is, is certainly being produced.
Where before, the Billboard chart was a reference point for discovering good music, it seems
to be the case that today, you have to go look for it yourself.

So a contemporary artist like Kanye West who sings and raps nigger this, nigger that, nigger, nigger, nigger and gets booed by a contemporary audience is nothing to compare and judge on?

This is a ridiculous post, Starr; my god! You clearly have a hard on for reproaching Kanye West
as you completely ignore his other works that are probably more agreeable, like the ode to his
daughter, "Only One." You are not being fair to him it seems. But on to my argument:

Kanye West's body of work is not accurately represented by reducing him to singing and rapping
only "nigger this, nigger that." And Kanye West's body of work does not reflect the entirety of
the recording arts industry; his talent is not representative of contemporary talent as a whole.
And finally, Kanye West's performance receiving boos doesn't have to say anything about the
quality of his talent. In this thread, you listed one West song and made it seem that his entire
career can be assessed as equaling that one song - this is farcical. Do you think me posting the
Marvin Gaye lyric where he encourages his lover to "suck dick" faithfully captures his career and
speaks to the level of his talent as a recording artist?

It does not. My point to Gray was that comparing the talent levels of contemporary artists with
their forebears is a monumental task that can't be done by merely referencing one particular
rapper's lyrics in one particular song, making it encapsulate the totality of one era and then cor-
rectly comparing and contrasting it with the totality of another era. Speaking cogently about
talent is difficult, as we can see even you've managed to make a big mess out of it!

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

1). I'm in no position, and neither are you, to talk intelligently about the "levels of talent" that
is grouped on the Billboard charts. "Talent" is not something that is easily quantified and we
really don't know what "talent" is, so let's not compare the talent of a 70s recording artist who
was popular during his/her day with the talent of a contemporary recording artist. I mean, if
you can show how Bruno Mars is more or less talented than Marvin Gaye; or how One Direction
is more or less talented than the Osmonds; or how Kendrick Lamar is more or less talented than
George Clinton, then be my guest.

2). You're absolutely right - good music, whatever the fuck it is, is certainly being produced.
Where before, the Billboard chart was a reference point for discovering good music, it seems
to be the case that today, you have to go look for it yourself.

Actually I am in that position but it doesn't matter 2 me anymore. I accept it 4 what it is. I can make the music that I love so at this point I really don't care that much anymore. It is what it is.

[Edited 5/24/15 9:19am]

As an amateur musician, I agree with you about creating music that I like. And as a thinker, I
agree with you again about accepting the contemporary music landscape "for what it is." I per-
sonally don't think today's music is better or worse than what came before, although I prefer
the 70s and 80s.

Hmm....now that I'm thinking about this....Whitney Houston's songs in the 80s, for example, are
probably more compositionally sophisticated than Beyonce's contemporary songs. Think about it:
the modulation after the first half of the verse into the second half in "You Give Good Love" is
really thoughtful and probably something that would not be featured in a contemporary Beyonce
tune, 'tho I may be mistaken. However, that doesn't mean that Beyonce's songs are thereby
inferior because they don't similarly contain interesting modulations. Nor does it mean that
Houston's compositionally sophisticated songs weren't totally as cheezy as Beyonce's schlock, er,
dreck, er, work. And finally, if the above is true, it still doesn't mean that I can abstract one truth
(the 80s are superior to the 10s) from it.


EDIT: holy shit! "You Give Good Love" starts off in the key of E and concludes in the key of Bb!
LaForrest Cope, stand the fuck up!

[Edited 5/24/15 10:13am]

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

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?

Exactly! We had all those amazing artists and bands in the past and what do we have now? Where is the What's Going On of 2015? Where is the Songs In The Key Of Life of this era?? Today's music can't even compare.

duccichucka said:

Another ridiculous feature of this message board is that when there is an artist who resembles
those luminary R&B figures of the past, it castigates them for being too beholden to their influence;
or, this board calls the contemporary artist who is directly influenced by the greats a "wannabe"
or a "knock off" or bauble.

Instead of praising him for making thoughtful R&B, this board largely castigates or ignores Van
Hunt. Bilal threads are quiet affairs around here. Janelle Monae has been deemed "not it." Ka-
masi Washington gets no love. Hunt is our generation's Mayfield and Prince; Bilal makes progress-
ive R&B albums a la Gaye and P-Funk; Janelle Monae is a throwback; Kamasi Washington has
summoned the spirit of Coltrane and Sun Ra....

....this message board needs to be put on blast!

I don't think people quite understand exactly what I was saying. The post itself wasn't an attack on Monae, rather, I was using her to make a commentary on the next big thing and what that might be. I was trying to say that it most likely won't be someone like Janelle, who borrows very liberally from her influences and releases music that sounds like a throwback, but it will probably be someone operating in a completely different realm that both borrows from the past and is rooted in it's time.

Of course, as expected, people completely assume that I was attacking Monae rather than actually looking at the bigger picture.

duccichucka said:

I have said repeatedly that music tastes are subjective.I acknowledge that these are just my "opinions".Opinions can't really be "explained" and they can't be debated.The music of the 70s simply sounds better to me than the crap I hear nowadays.So if you're happy with today's music and if you're satisfied with Beyonce,Kanye and the other artists who dominate the charts these days,knock yourself out Enjoy! But,I'll be listening to my old Earth Wind and Fire and Stevie Wonder albums instead,lol.

duccichucka said:

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.'

[Edited 5/24/15 19:15pm]

duccichucka said:

Um, most sang live:

duccichucka said:

JoeTyler said:

music is dead and the only thing we have left i old legends complaining about it, which offers some relief, but it's not enough

2015 is what happens when you let the industry be ruled by mediocre 18-30 yo AOR folk, fame-oriented dance-pop "artists", sellout rappers, all of them offering lip service to petulant, ignorant teenagers from the "iPhone era" living in their own bubble...

Ah, I think I'm gonna listen to my old '70s records again...

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.

This, exactly.

JoeTyler 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.

I exactly know where to put this vile pile of words:

Yup, this is how old farts respond.

Ego101 said:

I agree with both of you..

There's always been 'throwaway' 'non compelling' artists & music..

Back in the day you had to at least have SOME REAL TALENT!

Today you really dont even need to concern yourself with talent if the package/look is right.

That along with 'Computer Recording' IMHO has made this nightmare a reality.

SoulAlive said:

You gotta be joking.Sure,every decade has its share of crap music,but back then,good music frequently ruled the charts.In the 70s,you had important,credible artists like Stevie Wonder,Carole King,Aretha Franklin,Fleetwood Mac,Santana,The Eagles,Bill Withers,Marvin Gaye,Curtis Mayfield,Earth Wind & Fire,Bee Gees,Parliament,Funkadelic,Elton John,etc...all making amazing,smart,thoughful music.And their music was the music that dominated the radio!! Nowadays,the radio airwaves are dominated by vapid,boring pop starlets,wannabees and lame hip-hop.Are you really trying to compare the 70s pop music scene to the CRAP that we have now?!

There is "real talent" out there mixed in right along side the package/looks only crowd.

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

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?

The musical landscape featured in the 70s, where you have an explosion of sophisticated yet
accessible R&B groups, has changed, dude. Those types of bands are no longer popular, so
stop looking for Stevie Wonder redux; stop waiting for Prince 2.0 - it's not gonna happen today.
What resonates in the market place now is hip hop and EDM and country.

There are talented, sophisticated, yet accessible R&B recording artists today who are not popular
and charting on Billboard because the music landscape has shifted; Van Hunt would be "Old Hat"
(pun intended) if this was 1975, instead of 2015. This means that he, and artists like Georgia
Anne Muldrow, Cody Chestnutt, and Bilal remain on the outskirts of that pop landscape where
they used to be featured.

God didn't stop producing inventive, talented, intelligent, and creative R&B artists after 1979. In-
stead, the public's taste changed and we stopped prioritizing them.

Yup, well, except the God part. Lol.

Sheila E. is right! A lot of new acts are awful live. There are still a few good ones left, though: Janelle Monae and Esperanza Spalding are two artists I've seen put on great shows recently.

For anyone in upstate New York who wants to see Sheila E. live, she is headlining the Saratoga Jazz Festival on Saturday, June 28. Erykah Badu goes on right before Sheila - so two great live perfomers in a row! I just got my ticket.

JustErin said:

duccichucka said:

The musical landscape featured in the 70s, where you have an explosion of sophisticated yet
accessible R&B groups, has changed, dude. Those types of bands are no longer popular, so
stop looking for Stevie Wonder redux; stop waiting for Prince 2.0 - it's not gonna happen today.
What resonates in the market place now is hip hop and EDM and country.

There are talented, sophisticated, yet accessible R&B recording artists today who are not popular
and charting on Billboard because the music landscape has shifted; Van Hunt would be "Old Hat"
(pun intended) if this was 1975, instead of 2015. This means that he, and artists like Georgia
Anne Muldrow, Cody Chestnutt, and Bilal remain on the outskirts of that pop landscape where
they used to be featured.

God didn't stop producing inventive, talented, intelligent, and creative R&B artists after 1979. In-
stead, the public's taste changed and we stopped prioritizing them.

Yup, well, except the God part. Lol.

SoulAlive said:

I have said repeatedly that music tastes are subjective.I acknowledge that these are just my "opinions".Opinions can't really be "explained" and they can't be debated.The music of the 70s simply sounds better to me than the crap I hear nowadays.So if you're happy with today's music and if you're satisfied with Beyonce,Kanye and the other artists who dominate the charts these days,knock yourself out Enjoy! But,I'll be listening to my old Earth Wind and Fire and Stevie Wonder albums instead,lol.

Well, opinions can be explained and debated if they include more than "I think "A" is true
because I just feel that way" which is what a lot of people in this message board do. There
is a difference compositionally between Songs in the Key of Life with Beyonce, for example,
where one could get into a healthy debate about the merits of one album over another that
doesn't necessarily rely upon "I think the former is better than the latter because I just
feel that way."

You are still being dismissive of today's recording artists in your "You can listen to Beyonce
and I'll listen to my Stevie Wonder." 1) I've already admitted that I prefer the 70s and 80s
over to today's music. 2) you choosing to listen to Stevie Wonder over Beyonce has nothing
to do with the quality of the music as you (and no one else) has STILL managed to musico-
logically assess WHY Stevie Wonder is better than Beyonce, and instead, appears to be the
case that you either you a) fall in line with the notion in our society where good taste tells
us that one ought to prefer Stevie Wonder over Beyonce or b) you simply prefer Stevie Wonder
over Beyonce.

But let's get one thing straight here: no one in this thread can explain WHY Stevie Wonder is
better than Beyonce without relying primarily upon some social norm of what good taste in music
is. In other words, you feel "cool" or "accepted" or "part of a special group of people with good
taste in music" if you say "Stevie Wonder is better than Beyonce" and not because you've
personally assessed her music as inherently inferior. If you have, then what were the results?
Please share them!

SoulAlive said:

Graycap23 said:

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?

Exactly! We had all those amazing artists and bands in the past and what do we have now? Where is the What's Going On of 2015? Where is the Songs In The Key Of Life of this era?? Today's music can't even compare.

Sigh....

Read my response to Gray's post. It holds; his does not. "Today's music can't even compare"
means "I prefer the limited amount of music of the 70s I heard to the limited amount of music
of the 21st century that I've heard." You have not assessed all of the 70s with all of the 21st
century in order to make that claim, Soul.

And you and I both know that you'd have a conniption if I told you that Kendrick Lamar's To
Pimp a Butterfly is our generation's What's Going On, for example. Well, time will tell. The point
is that people like you who simply refuse to acknowledge that today's music is not better/worse
than its antecedents, but merely "different," cannot entertain the notion that their beloved idols,
i.e., Stevie Wonder, Prince, Michael Jackson, Earth Wind & Fire, Marvin Gaye, are approachable,
surpassable, and not inimitable.

There is no art that can't be surpassed; I'd encourage y'all to stop hanging onto your idols in the
first place! It doesn't make you any more cool to prefer Stevie Wonder over Beyonce and really
doesn't speak to some "fact" that your taste is more sophisticated because you do prefer Stevie
Wonder over Beyonce.

duccichucka said:

SoulAlive said:

I have said repeatedly that music tastes are subjective.I acknowledge that these are just my "opinions".Opinions can't really be "explained" and they can't be debated.The music of the 70s simply sounds better to me than the crap I hear nowadays.So if you're happy with today's music and if you're satisfied with Beyonce,Kanye and the other artists who dominate the charts these days,knock yourself out Enjoy! But,I'll be listening to my old Earth Wind and Fire and Stevie Wonder albums instead,lol.

Well, opinions can be explained and debated if they include more than "I think "A" is true
because I just feel that way" which is what a lot of people in this message board do. There
is a difference compositionally between Songs in the Key of Life with Beyonce, for example,
where one could get into a healthy debate about the merits of one album over another that
doesn't necessarily rely upon "I think the former is better than the latter because I just
feel that way."

You are still being dismissive of today's recording artists in your "You can listen to Beyonce
and I'll listen to my Stevie Wonder." 1) I've already admitted that I prefer the 70s and 80s
over to today's music. 2) you choosing to listen to Stevie Wonder over Beyonce has nothing
to do with the quality of the music as you (and no one else) has STILL managed to musico-
logically assess WHY Stevie Wonder is better than Beyonce, and instead, appears to be the
case that you either you a) fall in line with the notion in our society where good taste tells
us that one ought to prefer Stevie Wonder over Beyonce or b) you simply prefer Stevie Wonder
over Beyonce.

But let's get one thing straight here: no one in this thread can explain WHY Stevie Wonder is
better than Beyonce without relying primarily upon some social norm of what good taste in music
is. In other words, you feel "cool" or "accepted" or "part of a special group of people with good
taste in music" if you say "Stevie Wonder is better than Beyonce" and not because you've
personally assessed her music as inherently inferior. If you have, then what were the results?
Please share them!

^^that's the thing.....Nobody can "musicologically assess" why one artist is better than another artist.It is all SUBJECTIVE Opinions can't be debated.People simply like what they like.To MY EARS,the music I grew up with sounds better than the stuff I hear nowadays.End of story.

[Edited 5/26/15 14:24pm]

SoulAlive said:

duccichucka said:

Well, opinions can be explained and debated if they include more than "I think "A" is true
because I just feel that way" which is what a lot of people in this message board do. There
is a difference compositionally between Songs in the Key of Life with Beyonce, for example,
where one could get into a healthy debate about the merits of one album over another that
doesn't necessarily rely upon "I think the former is better than the latter because I just
feel that way."

You are still being dismissive of today's recording artists in your "You can listen to Beyonce
and I'll listen to my Stevie Wonder." 1) I've already admitted that I prefer the 70s and 80s
over to today's music. 2) you choosing to listen to Stevie Wonder over Beyonce has nothing
to do with the quality of the music as you (and no one else) has STILL managed to musico-
logically assess WHY Stevie Wonder is better than Beyonce, and instead, appears to be the
case that you either you a) fall in line with the notion in our society where good taste tells
us that one ought to prefer Stevie Wonder over Beyonce or b) you simply prefer Stevie Wonder
over Beyonce.

But let's get one thing straight here: no one in this thread can explain WHY Stevie Wonder is
better than Beyonce without relying primarily upon some social norm of what good taste in music
is. In other words, you feel "cool" or "accepted" or "part of a special group of people with good
taste in music" if you say "Stevie Wonder is better than Beyonce" and not because you've
personally assessed her music as inherently inferior. If you have, then what were the results?
Please share them!

^^that's the thing.....Nobody can "musicologically assess" why one artist is better than another artist.It is all SUBJECTIVE Opinions can't be debated.People simply like what they like.To MY EARS,the music I grew up with sounds better than the stuff I hear nowadays.End of story.

[Edited 5/26/15 14:24pm]

What is this stuff that "opinions can't be debated?" You are certainly free to have the opinion
that the sky is red, for example. But that means I can't tell you that your opinion is fucking ri-
diculous? Opinions are debated all the time, Soul. You're being silly here.

And you certainly can assess music and give indicators as to why you believe piece A is a better
composition than piece B. We did it all the time in my music theory classes and composition
classes too. No one denies that all of art is subjective. But to think that you can just get away
with blurting out an opinion and having it taken seriously simply because you have a right to an
opinion is wrong-headed - even when it comes to subjectivity. And there are people, myself in-
cluded, who can give you a reason why artist A is a more interesting than artist B.

And finally, you just touched upon one criteria as to what makes music "better" for you: you grew
up listening to it. That's it! That's the only reason why you prefer the 70s over today's music:
you simply grew up with one over the other. Well guess what? Like I said earlier in this thread,
when the kiddies who grow up listening to Trey Songz get older, they will bemoan, just like you
do, the music that their kids enjoy. You didn't say that you prefer Stevie Wonder, for example,
because compositionally he's better than Beyonce; instead, it was simply a matter of you growing
up with him that convinces you he's superior to her. At the end of the day, prefering option A
over option B did not involve assessing the inherent worth/value of either option but the one you
were most familiar with.

So human....all too human.

duccichucka said:

SoulAlive said:

Exactly! We had all those amazing artists and bands in the past and what do we have now? Where is the What's Going On of 2015? Where is the Songs In The Key Of Life of this era?? Today's music can't even compare.

Sigh....

Read my response to Gray's post. It holds; his does not. "Today's music can't even compare"
means "I prefer the limited amount of music of the 70s I heard to the limited amount of music
of the 21st century that I've heard." You have not assessed all of the 70s with all of the 21st
century in order to make that claim, Soul.

And you and I both know that you'd have a conniption if I told you that Kendrick Lamar's To
Pimp a Butterfly is our generation's What's Going On, for example. Well, time will tell. The point
is that people like you who simply refuse to acknowledge that today's music is not better/worse
than its antecedents, but merely "different," cannot entertain the notion that their beloved idols,
i.e., Stevie Wonder, Prince, Michael Jackson, Earth Wind & Fire, Marvin Gaye, are approachable,
surpassable, and not inimitable.

There is no art that can't be surpassed; I'd encourage y'all to stop hanging onto your idols in the
first place! It doesn't make you any more cool to prefer Stevie Wonder over Beyonce and really
doesn't speak to some "fact" that your taste is more sophisticated because you do prefer Stevie
Wonder over Beyonce.

Oh really? Your posts are now becoming comical