SoulAlive said:

duccichucka said:

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

Oh, yes really!

I do not subscribe to the thought that classics in the western canon must remain classics
interminably; or that their putative beauty and grandeur are unmatchable. I try my hardest
not to make idols out of pieces of art or artists.

I've said my piece in this thread, so see ya around!

TD3 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...

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

sorry dear, but I'm not gonna post anymore in this thread; certain orger is up his arse and it's just about ego posting bullshit

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.

JoeTyler said:

TD3 said:

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

sorry dear, but I'm not gonna post anymore in this thread; certain orger is up his arse and it's just about ego posting bullshit

understood.

duccichucka said:

But let's get one thing straight here: no one in this thread can explain WHY Stevie Wonder is
better than Beyonce

Lol.........some things simply don't require an explaination.

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

But let's get one thing straight here: no one in this thread can explain WHY Stevie Wonder is
better than Beyonce

Lol.........some things simply don't require an explaination.

Sure, there are some things that don't require an explanation. But what is happening in this thread
is that people can't explain, so to make up for this deficiency, they reduce their argument to "it doesn't
require" an explanation, which is an intellectual cop out.

Saying that recording artists/pop music in the 70s is better than today's recording artists/pop music
requires an explanation, I'm afraid.

duccichucka said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

duccichucka said:

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.

Glad you agree, Q.

2020 said:

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

But let's get one thing straight here: no one in this thread can explain WHY Stevie Wonder is
better than Beyonce

Lol.........some things simply don't require an explaination.

indeed

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said:

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.

I get your point but honestly, they aren't. The industry has been looking for the next Stevie, Prince, Michael, EW&F, and Marvin Gaye for decades and have failed for decades. Anybody who is supposed to be the next anyone has pailed in comparison to the genuine article every single time and really it's quite telling that we don't have stars on their level these days and that the industry can't find somebody and craft a star out of them on their level based on their own merits and not that of their influences. And yes, music is different now in that it's far worse.

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said:

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.

I get your point but honestly, they aren't. The industry has been looking for the next Stevie, Prince, Michael, EW&F, and Marvin Gaye for decades and have failed for decades. Anybody who is supposed to be the next anyone has pailed in comparison to the genuine article every single time and really it's quite telling that we don't have stars on their level these days and that the industry can't find somebody and craft a star out of them on their level based on their own merits and not that of their influences. And yes, music is different now in that it's far worse.

The industry is looking for the next Prince and MJ? Says who? Where is the public clamoring for
a recording artist to fill the gap left by MJ? YOU are looking for the next Prince and MJ. YOU are
looking for the new Marvin Gaye. The 15 year fucktard across the street is looking for the next
Beyonce or Trey Songz. Last time I checked, Prince and Stevie were still making albums...and still
not selling like they used to. Face it; the times have changed and so did the public's taste. The
public doesn't want the sophisticated R&B pop of Stevie Wonder; or the daring amalgamation of
pop genres featured in Prince's music. (May I remind you, these qualities do not make art better or
worse than art that does not feature these things). Again, if you are willing to engage in a discussion
why Stevie Wonder is "better" or even "worse" than Beyonce, as opposed to merely "different," then
by all means, please commence with it!

And no, you can't possibly prove that today's music is different than yesterday's music because it's
worse, because in order to show that, you'd have to listen to all the music of yesterday and compare
it to all of today's music; and you are hardly a trained musicologist who can intelligently and cogently
explain why compositionally and artistically one monolithic art form is better than a generation's mono-
lithic art form. Dude, just say what you really mean to say: "I prefer the limited amount of music that
I grew up listening to (I didn't chose it; my parents did) over the limited amount of music that I hear
today based upon this familiarity." The results of your argument are what happens due to idol-forming
and idol-worship to the extent that you can't even see pass these structures for what is approaching
on the horizon: you completely ignore today's recording artists and immediately excoriate contemporary
artists simply because they did not toil during the 70s. What a silly argument.

And another thing about this board that's zany: you mutherfuckers are obsessed with stars. Speaking
of which, the reason why the music business cannot "craft" a star of yester-year is because the con-
text of the music industry has changed. It does not speak to the level or quality of contemporary pop
music that we have no superstars commensurate with what we saw in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

2020 said:

Whoa somebody on this thread sure thinks his opinions and long winded pointless rants sure are worthy...#STFU

And I bet you read every single word I've posted in this thread, mutherfucker.

So, shaddup.

SoulAlive said:

Graycap23 said:

Lol.........some things simply don't require an explaination.

indeed

No.

Some things you all can't explain, as you've no ability to intellectually form an opinion that doesn't
appeal to "I just prefer it."

Dig, if you will:

Speaker A: Apples are better than oranges.

Speaker B: Why? Are you going by nutritional value? Taste value? What standard are you using to
make this claim?

Speaker A: What? No; I'm just telling you; I grew up eating apples over oranges, and trust me - they
are BETTER!

Speaker B: But why? You do realize that cultivars can change over time so that an apple you ate in the
70s is not the same apple that you can buy in the stores today.

Speaker A: Fuck! Dude, some things simply don't require an explanation!





Speaker A, for the lack of a better word, is a fucking simpleton.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said: I get your point but honestly, they aren't. The industry has been looking for the next Stevie, Prince, Michael, EW&F, and Marvin Gaye for decades and have failed for decades. Anybody who is supposed to be the next anyone has pailed in comparison to the genuine article every single time and really it's quite telling that we don't have stars on their level these days and that the industry can't find somebody and craft a star out of them on their level based on their own merits and not that of their influences. And yes, music is different now in that it's far worse.

The industry is looking for the next Prince and MJ? Says who? Where is the public clamoring for
a recording artist to fill the gap left by MJ? YOU are looking for the next Prince and MJ. YOU are
looking for the new Marvin Gaye. The 15 year fucktard across the street is looking for the next
Beyonce or Trey Songz. Last time I checked, Prince and Stevie were still making albums...and still
not selling like they used to. Face it; the times have changed and so did the public's taste. The
public doesn't want the sophisticated R&B pop of Stevie Wonder; or the daring amalgamation of
pop genres featured in Prince's music. (May I remind you, these qualities do not make art better or
worse than art that does not feature these things). Again, if you are willing to engage in a discussion
why Stevie Wonder is "better" or even "worse" than Beyonce, as opposed to merely "different," then
by all means, please commence with it!

And no, you can't possibly prove that today's music is different than yesterday's music because it's
worse, because in order to show that, you'd have to listen to all the music of yesterday and compare
it to all of today's music; and you are hardly a trained musicologist who can intelligently and cogently
explain why compositionally and artistically one monolithic art form is better than a generation's mono-
lithic art form. Dude, just say what you really mean to say: "I prefer the limited amount of music that
I grew up listening to (I didn't chose it; my parents did) over the limited amount of music that I hear
today based upon this familiarity." The results of your argument are what happens due to idol-forming
and idol-worship to the extent that you can't even see pass these structures for what is approaching
on the horizon: you completely ignore today's recording artists and immediately excoriate contemporary
artists simply because they did not toil during the 70s. What a silly argument.

And another thing about this board that's zany: you mutherfuckers are obsessed with stars. Speaking
of which, the reason why the music business cannot "craft" a star of yester-year is because the con-
text of the music industry has changed. It does not speak to the level or quality of contemporary pop
music that we have no superstars commensurate with what we saw in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Lol you're joking right? Don't let your cyber-anger overpower your common sense.

I said the industry as in the music industry is looking for new Stevie, Prince, Michael, EW&F, and Marvin. YOU brought the public into this so that attempted counter to my argument is invalid. As for me personally, I'm not looking for anything that can't be found. If I want to listen to Michael Jackson, I play Michael Jackson's music, if I want to bump Prince, I bump Prince's music, if I want to groove to Marvin Gaye, I groove to Marvin Gaye's music. It's as simple as that. Why waste time hoping somebody else replaces them and trying to find them when the originals still exist (if not physically, then via their music)? And what does Prince and Stevie's current albums/ sales have to do with anything? Once again, YOU are putting words in my mouth; I'm well aware that music doesn't sell like it used to including that of the legends but that isn't my complaint. Nice try though.

And I most certainly can say that today's music is generally worse because that's my opinion. I'm not saying all music today is bad or even that I don't listen to any of today's music but overall it has nothing on music from the 60s-90s. And yeah, I do like the "limited" amount of music my parents played more than what I hear today, what's your idiotic point? That doesn't make my or anybody else's opinion any less valid than those that prefer today's music whether or not they grew up listening to what their parents played (and it's highly unlikely that the latter isn't the case). You sound stupid for even trying to make that sound like a mark against me.

Also, how am I ignoring today's stars when I listen to their music? I have to have listened to it in order to exonerate it and in order to exonerate I obviously have to not like it, don't you think? Dude just say it, you're upset that people don't like today's music as much as music of the past because "Oh, we just can't have that!" Even many of today's mainstream artists are acknowledging how the past was better with how they retrofy their sound or did you once again fail to see that detail for the sake of your own self-righteous, pompous, stick-up-your-ass argument?

Yeah, yeah we get it, music now is different than it used to be. Congratulations on once again pointing out the obvious. That does not mean that things can't be better and that stars can't be made on the levels of the past once again. If anything your argument sounds like "Well music is different today so it doesn't matter if it's good or not!"

Different =/= good and many people including myself don't like today's music and yes we are well aware that many people do enjoy today's music but why should that stop us from stating that we like music of the past more? To avoid hurting the apparently fragile feelings of keyboard warrior know-it-alls such as yourself? Get real.

With that, music today sucks. Get over it.

[Edited 5/30/15 10:54am]

These days,when I do find a "new" song that I like,it's usually a song that borrows heavily from the past.

SoulAlive said:

These days,when I do find a "new" song that I like,it's usually a song that borrows heavily from the past.

.

+1.

.

Same. If I like a song from these days, it's usually a throwback or old-school sounding song, nostalgiac even.

MusicAddict95 said:

SoulAlive said:

These days,when I do find a "new" song that I like,it's usually a song that borrows heavily from the past.

.

+1.

.

Same. If I like a song from these days, it's usually a throwback or old-school sounding song, nostalgiac even.

Alot of today's music sounds dead and uninspired.That's why a throwback song like "Uptown Funk" made such an impact.I think people are starving for that type of sound again.

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said:

The industry is looking for the next Prince and MJ? Says who? Where is the public clamoring for
a recording artist to fill the gap left by MJ? YOU are looking for the next Prince and MJ. YOU are
looking for the new Marvin Gaye. The 15 year fucktard across the street is looking for the next
Beyonce or Trey Songz. Last time I checked, Prince and Stevie were still making albums...and still
not selling like they used to. Face it; the times have changed and so did the public's taste. The
public doesn't want the sophisticated R&B pop of Stevie Wonder; or the daring amalgamation of
pop genres featured in Prince's music. (May I remind you, these qualities do not make art better or
worse than art that does not feature these things). Again, if you are willing to engage in a discussion
why Stevie Wonder is "better" or even "worse" than Beyonce, as opposed to merely "different," then
by all means, please commence with it!

And no, you can't possibly prove that today's music is different than yesterday's music because it's
worse, because in order to show that, you'd have to listen to all the music of yesterday and compare
it to all of today's music; and you are hardly a trained musicologist who can intelligently and cogently
explain why compositionally and artistically one monolithic art form is better than a generation's mono-
lithic art form. Dude, just say what you really mean to say: "I prefer the limited amount of music that
I grew up listening to (I didn't chose it; my parents did) over the limited amount of music that I hear
today based upon this familiarity." The results of your argument are what happens due to idol-forming
and idol-worship to the extent that you can't even see pass these structures for what is approaching
on the horizon: you completely ignore today's recording artists and immediately excoriate contemporary
artists simply because they did not toil during the 70s. What a silly argument.

And another thing about this board that's zany: you mutherfuckers are obsessed with stars. Speaking
of which, the reason why the music business cannot "craft" a star of yester-year is because the con-
text of the music industry has changed. It does not speak to the level or quality of contemporary pop
music that we have no superstars commensurate with what we saw in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Lol you're joking right? Don't let your cyber-anger overpower your common sense.

I said the industry as in the music industry is looking for new Stevie, Prince, Michael, EW&F, and Marvin. YOU brought the public into this so that attempted counter to my argument is invalid. As for me personally, I'm not looking for anything that can't be found. If I want to listen to Michael Jackson, I play Michael Jackson's music, if I want to bump Prince, I bump Prince's music, if I want to groove to Marvin Gaye, I groove to Marvin Gaye's music. It's as simple as that. Why waste time hoping somebody else replaces them and trying to find them when the originals still exist (if not physically, then via their music)? And what does Prince and Stevie's current albums/ sales have to do with anything? Once again, YOU are putting words in my mouth; I'm well aware that music doesn't sell like it used to including that of the legends but that isn't my complaint. Nice try though.

And I most certainly can say that today's music is generally worse because that's my opinion. I'm not saying all music today is bad or even that I don't listen to any of today's music but overall it has nothing on music from the 60s-90s. And yeah, I do like the "limited" amount of music my parents played more than what I hear today, what's your idiotic point? That doesn't make my or anybody else's opinion any less valid than those that prefer today's music whether or not they grew up listening to what their parents played (and it's highly unlikely that isn't the case). You sound stupid for even trying to make that sound like a mark against me.

Alsi, how am I ignoring today's stars when I listen to their music? I have to have listened to it in order to exonerate it and in order to exonerate I obviously have to not like it, don't you think? Dude just say it, you're upset that people don't like today's music as much as music of the past because "Oh, we just can't have that!" Even many of today's mainstream artists are acknowledging how the past was better with how they retrofy their sound or did you once again fail to see that detail for the sake of your own self-righteous, pompous, stick-up-your-ass argument?

Yeah, yeah we get it, music now is different than it used to be. Congratulations on once again pointing out the obvious. That does not mean that things can't be better and that stars can't be made on the levels of the past once again. If anything your argument sounds like "Well music is different today so it doesn't matter if it's good or not!"

Different =/= good and many people including myself don't like today's music and yes we are well aware that many people do enjoy today's music but why should that stop us from stating that we like music of the past more? To avoid hurting the apparently fragile feelings of keyboard warrior know-it-alls such as yourself? Get real.

With that, music today sucks. Get over it.

Uh-oh; our formerly pleasant exchanges are headed into Nowhereville fast. Let's gather ourselves
here, bro!

I know you said the industry is looking for the new MJ et al. And again, I'm asking you - where are
you getting this from? You're making this up! Instead, I think YOU are looking for the new MJ et al.
My point about Prince/Wonder album sales is to question your claim that the industry is looking for new
Princes and new Wonders when Prince and Wonder are still releasing new music; and that by indicating
Prince and Wonder don't sell records anymore, it could indicate that the public doesn't want Prince's
music or Wonder's music, which then means that the industry could hardly be looking for recordings it
currently possesses! In other words, until you prove that the record industry is lusting for a new 70s
R&B superstars, your rant here is pointless. Savvy? And I didn't put words in your mouth, bro.

Sure, you can say today's music sucks; that's your right to an opinion. And until you've given a reason
why I should take your opinion seriously by providing examples compositionally, production-wise, or
artistically, I think you're talking outta yer butt, Motown! Listen to me, and listen carefully: I don't dis-
agree with you that compositionally there is a difference between Stevie Wonder's work in the 70s with
the work Beyonce's doing today. And an argument can be made why SITKOL is "better" compositionally
than anything Beyonce's done. But what is the argument? I can make it. Like I said earlier, in my
composition classes, we used to compare and constrast compositions all the time and debate why one
piece was better/worse than the other. In these classes, we appealed to standards in taste, culture, and
musical norms in western music theory and western ideals. I distinctly remember a class that analyzed
why Stravinsky was "better" than Prokofiev; and another on why the Beatles were "better" than the
Stones. Guess what? There was never a moment in these classes that the "answer" was suggested to
be incontestable or incontrovertible. But, we did the critical work anyways so that we could learn what
is "acceptable" in music composition.

I'm just pointing out that NONE of you mutherfuckers can back up the claim being made in this thread
without relying PRIMARILY on preference as when I ask you guys to show how Wonder's work in the 70s
is better, I get nada, zilch. I'm coming from a vantage point where I was trained to offer a
reason why a piece was better/worse than another utilizing standards in music composition, music
theory, and critical theory. So, until you and your cohort are able to SHOW how today's music sucks,
you'll find me telling you to put yer money where yer mouth is and PROVE it. So, here I go for the
fifth time: someone, for the sake of an argument, assume that Stevie Wonder's SITKOL is repre-
sentative of all the 70s, and that Beyonce's eponymous album is likewise, indicative of all that is
featured in contemporary pop music and critically compare and contrast these albums
compositionally/artistically so that one can be determined to be "better" or "worse" than
the other!

If you can do that, then I'll eat crow and bow down and worship at the idol of Stevie Wonder, whilst
proclaiming that all of the 70s is superior to contemporary pop music.

Let's hug it out, bro-ham! I'm no internet tuff guy!

SoulAlive said:

These days,when I do find a "new" song that I like,it's usually a song* that borrows heavily from the past.


*which was probably heavily indebted to its musical predecessors as well

So, what's yer point, Soul? That ALL recording artists rely upon the past for inspiration
and that taste in music can be said to be cyclical?

Good point!



(boy, you guys really hate today's music, but struggle to explain why. It's so interesting to me)

duccichucka said:

SoulAlive said:

indeed

No.

Some things you all can't explain, as you've no ability to intellectually form an opinion that doesn't
appeal to "I just prefer it."

Dig, if you will:

Speaker A: Apples are better than oranges.

Speaker B: Why? Are you going by nutritional value? Taste value? What standard are you using to
make this claim?

Speaker A: What? No; I'm just telling you; I grew up eating apples over oranges, and trust me - they
are BETTER!

Speaker B: But why? You do realize that cultivars can change over time so that an apple you ate in the
70s is not the same apple that you can buy in the stores today.

Speaker A: Fuck! Dude, some things simply don't require an explanation!





Speaker A, for the lack of a better word, is a fucking simpleton.

Mm!

Gotta pat myself on the back for this one!

duccichucka said:

SoulAlive said:

These days,when I do find a "new" song that I like,it's usually a song* that borrows heavily from the past.


*which was probably heavily indebted to its musical predecessors as well

So, what's yer point, Soul? That ALL recording artists rely upon the past for inspiration
and that taste in music can be said to be cyclical?

Good point!



(boy, you guys really hate today's music, but struggle to explain why. It's so interesting to me)

my point is....In my opinion,the best sounding songs of today are the songs that sound like the past.

In other words,I'd rather listen to a song that sounds like 1978,as opposed to a song that sounds like 2015.

Are we clear on that?

but like I said earlier.....if YOU are satisfied with today's music,knock yourself out.I'm happy for you I'm gonna be nice and post a 'modern' song for you to enjoy.Put on your headphones and JAM!

Meanwhile,I'm gonna listen to Curtis Mayfield's SuperFly soundtrack.Have a great weekend

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said:

Uh-oh; our formerly pleasant exchanges are headed into Nowhereville fast. Let's gather ourselves
here, bro!

I know you said the industry is looking for the new MJ et al. And again, I'm asking you - where are
you getting this from? You're making this up! Instead, I think YOU are looking for the new MJ et al.
My point about Prince/Wonder album sales is to question your claim that the industry is looking for new
Princes and new Wonders when Prince and Wonder are still releasing new music; and that by indicating
Prince and Wonder don't sell records anymore, it could indicate that the public doesn't want Prince's
music or Wonder's music, which then means that the industry could hardly be looking for recordings it
currently possesses! In other words, until you prove that the record industry is lusting for a new 70s
R&B superstars, your rant here is pointless. Savvy? And I didn't put words in your mouth, bro.

Sure, you can say today's music sucks; that's your right to an opinion. And until you've given a reason
why I should take your opinion seriously by providing examples compositionally, production-wise, or
artistically, I think you're talking outta yer butt, Motown! Listen to me, and listen carefully: I don't dis-
agree with you that compositionally there is a difference between Stevie Wonder's work in the 70s with
the work Beyonce's doing today. And an argument can be made why SITKOL is "better" compositionally
than anything Beyonce's done. But what is the argument? I can make it. Like I said earlier, in my
composition classes, we used to compare and constrast compositions all the time and debate why one
piece was better/worse than the other. In these classes, we appealed to standards in taste, culture, and
musical norms in western music theory and western ideals. I distinctly remember a class that analyzed
why Stravinsky was "better" than Prokofiev; and another on why the Beatles were "better" than the
Stones. Guess what? There was never a moment in these classes that the "answer" was suggested to
be incontestable or incontrovertible. But, we did the critical work anyways so that we could learn what
is "acceptable" in music composition.

I'm just pointing out that NONE of you mutherfuckers can back up the claim being made in this thread
without relying PRIMARILY on preference as when I ask you guys to show how Wonder's work in the 70s
is better, I get nada, zilch. I'm coming from a vantage point where I was trained to offer a
reason why a piece was better/worse than another utilizing standards in music composition, music
theory, and critical theory. So, until you and your cohort are able to SHOW how today's music sucks,
you'll find me telling you to put yer money where yer mouth is and PROVE it. So, here I go for the
fifth time: someone, for the sake of an argument, assume that Stevie Wonder's SITKOL is repre-
sentative of all the 70s, and that Beyonce's eponymous album is likewise, indicative of all that is
featured in contemporary pop music and critically compare and contrast these albums
compositionally/artistically so that one can be determined to be "better" or "worse" than
the other!

If you can do that, then I'll eat crow and bow down and worship at the idol of Stevie Wonder, whilst
proclaiming that all of the 70s is superior to contemporary pop music.

Let's hug it out, bro-ham! I'm no internet tuff guy!

I just noticed you turned up the ante so it was hard for me to resist doing the same! Then I was prepared to respond to your scathing response with an even more scathing response of my own, you know the drill lol. Yeah, let's keep this thing on the ground. Like I said earlier, I know where you're coming from and understand your stance but stand by my argument. We old souls don't hate today's music because it is different, we hate most of it because of how it has differed. Obviously music now is different fro what it was 20-50 years ago but its the new landscape and how even then isn't being used to what we believe can be its best. As for the industry looking for the next such-and-such it's a cyclical thing. When an artist proves to have been a combination of influential, charismatic, talented, critically and more importantly, commercially successful, the industry seeks to replicate that magic. Look at how many artists are promoted these days as the next legend because of superficial at best similarities. Ariana Grande is supposed to ne today's Mariah, JT is supposed to be today's Michael, so many of today's female pop stars are supposed to be the next Madonna, and to a lesser extwnt, Bruno is supposed to be today's Prince. It's all about marketing but this sort of marketing is a double edged sword because if you hype people up by saying that some young upstart who is just about to drop their first album is just like someone they're much more familiar with who are already revered as the best of the best and that upstart doesn't deliver then that inspires apathy and dislike. It's not the artists' fault as much as it is their labels who are in charge of their promotion and marketing though some who get enough leeway often toot their own horn and it bites them in the butt. There's also many of today's stars who heavily showcase their influence(s) over themselves (why they do is another story) and people figure if they're going to sound like one of their old favorites then they may as well listen to the genuine article and not some "ripoff". Not to many mainstream artists have a style that's their own or can make their own without drawing comparisons to many musical legends and that can drag them down. [Edited 5/30/15 12:36pm]

But you are avoiding my question, Motown:

What criterion/standards of critical and musical theory are you using in claiming that the music of
the 70s is superior to the music of today? I get that you "hate the difference" but that is different
from saying one is better than the other. If you say: "I hate contemporary music; I prefer the 70s,"
that is wholly distinct from saying "I hate contemporary music; the 70s were better." Well, what do
you mean by "better"? I've no beef with anyone saying they "hate" contemporary music. I do have
beef with someone saying "contemporary music is worse/better than {fill in the blanks}." The former
is subjectively true and could be considered a matter of taste. The latter, however, explicitly makes
an appeal to some type of criterion and it is the latter that is being expressed predominantly in this
thread.

As for your section about today's stars heavily showcasing their influences, I don't understand your
issue at hand and also how it applies to this conversation. For example, you don't EVER see people
in this message board reproaching Michael Jackson for heavily showcasing his influences! Why does
MJ get a pass for being indebted to his musical and artistic predecessors and today's contemporary
artist is considered "ripping someone off" when doing likewise? Like I said earlier, it seems to me
that this board loves its superstars and its idols and anybody who assails these sacred images is likely
to be "dealt with."

SoulAlive said:

duccichucka said:

So, what's yer point, Soul? That ALL recording artists rely upon the past for inspiration
and that taste in music can be said to be cyclical?

Good point!



(boy, you guys really hate today's music, but struggle to explain why. It's so interesting to me)

my point is....In my opinion,the best sounding songs of today are the songs that sound like the past.

In other words,I'd rather listen to a song that sounds like 1978,as opposed to a song that sounds like 2015.

Are we clear on that?

As long as you recognize that today's artists are influence by artists from the past, who are likewise
influenced by their own past, then yes sir, we are all clear!

And I'm with you: I prefer the 70s/80s over contemporary music; and I prefer music that harkens to
those decades over contemporary stylings and presentations as well. I'd rather listen to What's Going
On over To Pimp a Butterfly even though I'm in no position at this moment to argue that one is super-
ior, artistically/compositionally/musically, over the other.

SoulAlive said:

but like I said earlier.....if YOU are satisfied with today's music,knock yourself out.I'm happy for you I'm gonna be nice and post a 'modern' song for you to enjoy.Put on your headphones and JAM!

Meanwhile,I'm gonna listen to Curtis Mayfield's SuperFly soundtrack.Have a great weekend

Wait a second, here, bro-seph!

I never EVER claimed that I was "satisfied" with today's music. Don't confuse my attempt to get
its detractors to offer up an argument for their enmity towards it as a defense of it. I am in no way
defending the artistic merits of the 2015 Billboard pop charts with the 1975 Billboard pop charts.

ALL of it is cheese, if you ask me.

I hope you have a good weekend, too.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said: I just noticed you turned up the ante so it was hard for me to resist doing the same! Then I was prepared to respond to your scathing response with an even more scathing response of my own, you know the drill lol. Yeah, let's keep this thing on the ground. Like I said earlier, I know where you're coming from and understand your stance but stand by my argument. We old souls don't hate today's music because it is different, we hate most of it because of how it has differed. Obviously music now is different fro what it was 20-50 years ago but its the new landscape and how even then isn't being used to what we believe can be its best. As for the industry looking for the next such-and-such it's a cyclical thing. When an artist proves to have been a combination of influential, charismatic, talented, critically and more importantly, commercially successful, the industry seeks to replicate that magic. Look at how many artists are promoted these days as the next legend because of superficial at best similarities. Ariana Grande is supposed to ne today's Mariah, JT is supposed to be today's Michael, so many of today's female pop stars are supposed to be the next Madonna, and to a lesser extwnt, Bruno is supposed to be today's Prince. It's all about marketing but this sort of marketing is a double edged sword because if you hype people up by saying that some young upstart who is just about to drop their first album is just like someone they're much more familiar with who are already revered as the best of the best and that upstart doesn't deliver then that inspires apathy and dislike. It's not the artists' fault as much as it is their labels who are in charge of their promotion and marketing though some who get enough leeway often toot their own horn and it bites them in the butt. There's also many of today's stars who heavily showcase their influence(s) over themselves (why they do is another story) and people figure if they're going to sound like one of their old favorites then they may as well listen to the genuine article and not some "ripoff". Not to many mainstream artists have a style that's their own or can make their own without drawing comparisons to many musical legends and that can drag them down. [Edited 5/30/15 12:36pm]

But you are avoiding my question, Motown:

What criterion/standards of critical and musical theory are you using in claiming that the music of
the 70s is superior to the music of today? I get that you "hate the difference" but that is different
from saying one is better than the other. If you say: "I hate contemporary music; I prefer the 70s,"
that is wholly distinct from saying "I hate contemporary music; the 70s were better." Well, what do
you mean by "better"? I've no beef with anyone saying they "hate" contemporary music. I do have
beef with someone saying "contemporary music is worse/better than {fill in the blanks}." The former
is subjectively true and could be considered a matter of taste. The latter, however, explicitly makes
an appeal to some type of criterion and it is the latter that is being expressed predominantly in this
thread.

As for your section about today's stars heavily showcasing their influences, I don't understand your
issue at hand and also how it applies to this conversation. For example, you don't EVER see people
in this message board reproaching Michael Jackson for heavily showcasing his influences! Why does
MJ get a pass for being indebted to his musical and artistic predecessors and today's contemporary
artist is considered "ripping someone off" when doing likewise? Like I said earlier, it seems to me
that this board loves its superstars and its idols and anybody who assails these sacred images is likely
to be "dealt with."

I thought I was quite clear when I said that I'm stating my opinion. I have no experience in musical theory other than my own and what I've come to gather from various sources from music listeners, artists both past and present, and industry professionals as well. Most of today's mainstream music comes off as homogenous, manufactured drivel and I don't like it, simple as that. It doesn't move me or inspire me like music from the 60s-90s does. It's all about the botom line and as a result comes a sacrifice of creativity in the making of music since the industry is afraid to take risks. Yeah, I know you're going to say the point of labels is to make money but to say that is to avoid the point entirely and the point is that the musical landscape is completely dictated by the bottom line and anything that doesn't instantly feed that bottom line is rendered underground or indie.

MJ gets a "pass" because he turned his influences' styles into that of his own and left such a mark on what he did that the fact that it wasn't a completely original idea didn't even slightly overshadow his work. If anything, MJ surpassed many of his influences (and that doesn't take away from his influences at all) which led to him getting such overwhelming praise for what he did. He and his contemporaries felt authentic and an extension to their influences whereas many of today's stars feel more like imitators. Chris Brown is an excellent dancer and probably rivals MJ in that regard but when you see him dance, do you think of him or MJ? That's the difference betwen the two. When you saw/ see MJ perform, you didn't think of James Brown tearing up the stage, you were focused on what was happening right in front of you. When you saw/ see Prince perform, you don't think of Sly Stone because you're completely focused on Prince. MJ and Prince were examples of progress in music and moving forward whereas today's artists either are stuck in neutral or moving in reverse. Simply put, the bar has been raised too high for this generation of artists to reach, they can try but many have and will fail.

[Edited 5/30/15 20:17pm]