New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Why It Seems Like Music Today Just Sucks... I was thinking the other day...why does it seem to me as if the music scene today isn't nearly as important, profound, or full of true artistic integrity like it was when I was growing up?? Is is just nostalgia that makes me think music was better "back in the day"??...
Then I started thinking...when I was growing up, these following artists were in their prime, their heyday: Marvin Gaye Stevie Wonder David Bowie Sly Stone Earth, Wind & Fire Elton John Led Zeppelin Parliament/Funkadelic Simon & Garfunkel Billy Joel Jackson 5 Credence Clearwater Revival The Eagles Fleetwood Mac Steely Dan Queen Al Green Joni Mitchell Pink Floyd Tom Petty Gladys Knight & The Pips Barry White Music by all of these artists is what surrounded us on the radio, in our homes, our cars...and I'm not talking about over a period of 15 years...I'm talking about like within a 5 year span, at most. And I started thinking about the list of artists that could be made from, let's say, 1999-2004, of who is out there from the present that could match any of the above artists. Who would be on that list?? Eminem?? Britney Spears?? Justin Timberlake?? Beck?? Christina Aguilera?? White Stripes?? Usher?? Brandy?? Outkast?? Black Eyed Peas?? I'm amazed at just how many Hall Of Fame-worthy artists made up my musical environment when growing up...and wonder if my daughter will have that same feeling, that same experience when she's older, being able to look back at the music now and say to herself "Wow...can't believe I experienced so many legendary artists when I was younger"... So...am I missing just a boatload of current musical geniuses, or is there really a void of possible legendary artists in the present-day musical landscape?? | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Byron said: I was thinking the other day...why does it seem to me as if the music scene today isn't nearly as important, profound, or full of true artistic integrity like it was when I was growing up?? Is is just nostalgia that makes me think music was better "back in the day"??...
Then I started thinking...when I was growing up, these following artists were in their prime, their heyday: Marvin Gaye Stevie Wonder David Bowie Sly Stone Earth, Wind & Fire Elton John Led Zeppelin Parliament/Funkadelic Simon & Garfunkel Billy Joel Jackson 5 Credence Clearwater Revival The Eagles Fleetwood Mac Steely Dan Queen Al Green Joni Mitchell Pink Floyd Tom Petty Gladys Knight & The Pips Barry White Music by all of these artists is what surrounded us on the radio, in our homes, our cars...and I'm not talking about over a period of 15 years...I'm talking about like within a 5 year span, at most. And I started thinking about the list of artists that could be made from, let's say, 1999-2004, of who is out there from the present that could match any of the above artists. Who would be on that list?? Eminem?? Britney Spears?? Justin Timberlake?? Beck?? Christina Aguilera?? White Stripes?? Usher?? Brandy?? Outkast?? Black Eyed Peas?? I'm amazed at just how many Hall Of Fame-worthy artists made up my musical environment when growing up...and wonder if my daughter will have that same feeling, that same experience when she's older, being able to look back at the music now and say to herself "Wow...can't believe I experienced so many legendary artists when I was younger"... So...am I missing just a boatload of current musical geniuses, or is there really a void of possible legendary artists in the present-day musical landscape?? You are absolutely right ! I honestly think there is a void. People like Outkast, Beck and the White Stripes have great talent, but the others you listed do not. They may have had a hit record, but will they be around 10, 20 years from now. I highly doubt it. I guess I'm getting old because I believe that the artists you listed above are the true greats! You missed a few like Santana, The Beatles, Bob Dylan and Prince and probably a few more too, but for the most part, you got it right. It's a sad state of affairs indeed. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kisscamille said: Byron said: I was thinking the other day...why does it seem to me as if the music scene today isn't nearly as important, profound, or full of true artistic integrity like it was when I was growing up?? Is is just nostalgia that makes me think music was better "back in the day"??...
Then I started thinking...when I was growing up, these following artists were in their prime, their heyday: Marvin Gaye Stevie Wonder David Bowie Sly Stone Earth, Wind & Fire Elton John Led Zeppelin Parliament/Funkadelic Simon & Garfunkel Billy Joel Jackson 5 Credence Clearwater Revival The Eagles Fleetwood Mac Steely Dan Queen Al Green Joni Mitchell Pink Floyd Tom Petty Gladys Knight & The Pips Barry White Music by all of these artists is what surrounded us on the radio, in our homes, our cars...and I'm not talking about over a period of 15 years...I'm talking about like within a 5 year span, at most. And I started thinking about the list of artists that could be made from, let's say, 1999-2004, of who is out there from the present that could match any of the above artists. Who would be on that list?? Eminem?? Britney Spears?? Justin Timberlake?? Beck?? Christina Aguilera?? White Stripes?? Usher?? Brandy?? Outkast?? Black Eyed Peas?? I'm amazed at just how many Hall Of Fame-worthy artists made up my musical environment when growing up...and wonder if my daughter will have that same feeling, that same experience when she's older, being able to look back at the music now and say to herself "Wow...can't believe I experienced so many legendary artists when I was younger"... So...am I missing just a boatload of current musical geniuses, or is there really a void of possible legendary artists in the present-day musical landscape?? You are absolutely right ! I honestly think there is a void. People like Outkast, Beck and the White Stripes have great talent, but the others you listed do not. They may have had a hit record, but will they be around 10, 20 years from now. I highly doubt it. I guess I'm getting old because I believe that the artists you listed above are the true greats! You missed a few like Santana, The Beatles, Bob Dylan and Prince and probably a few more too, but for the most part, you got it right. It's a sad state of affairs indeed. Don't worry, we're coming to the rescue! SynthiaRose said "I'm in love with blackguitaristz. Especially when he talks about Hendrix."
nammie "What BGZ says I believe. I have the biggest crush on him." http://ccoshea19.googlepa...ssanctuary http://ccoshea19.googlepages.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kisscamille said: You are absolutely right ! I honestly think there is a void. People like Outkast, Beck and the White Stripes have great talent, but the others you listed do not. They may have had a hit record, but will they be around 10, 20 years from now. I highly doubt it. I guess I'm getting old because I believe that the artists you listed above are the true greats! You missed a few like Santana, The Beatles, Bob Dylan and Prince and probably a few more too, but for the most part, you got it right. It's a sad state of affairs indeed.
Well, The Beatles and Dylan are more 1960's, and Prince is more 1980's...I was mostly referring to the timeframe of 1970-1975, where all of the above artists were available to me musically on the radio (or 95% of them anyway)...I was just amazed at how much amazing artistry was surrounding me in such a short timespan. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I get depressed just thinking about it. "I saw a woman with major Hammer pants on the subway a few weeks ago and totally thought of you." - sextonseven | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Actually there are still a lot of good performers around today. What's lacking are those with some originality and creativity. Bringing Together Five Decades of R&B/Funk/Soul/Dance
http://reunionradio.blogspot.com/ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
no Byron.. you are not missing something.
the 1970s was absolutely the best decade of popular music in the US. all the artists you mentioned- & I use the word artist correctly & reverently- were indeed in their prime, many of them maintained a high level of musical & artistic brilliance beyond the 1970s. looking at your 70s list & your 90s-&-today list, it's absolutely no wonder that I barely listen to the radio today. from my perspective, what changed the most was the emphasis from seeking & developing budding & accomplished musicians, singers, & songwriters over "the long term" to emphasizing style over substance & ability, copying then overdoing trends (at the expense of artistic creativity, no less), & shunning artistic growth all in favor for the off-chance of that 1 "Thriller-esque" "big score. to me it is SO SAD that we now have a full generation (& counting) that has grown up with & has nothing against 'sampled music' ; that we have a generation that is more impressed with a female singer kissing another female singer onstage than the overall quality (& direction) of her music.. Byron - as much as you can possibly do it : EDUCATE YOUR CHILD, EXPOSE HER TO WHAT REAL MUSIC IS.. before it's too late. I'll see you tonight..
in ALL MY DREAMS.. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Byron said: I was thinking the other day...why does it seem to me as if the music scene today isn't nearly as important, profound, or full of true artistic integrity like it was when I was growing up??
3 letters: M.T.V It was not in vain...it was in Minneapolis! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I was just talking to a musician buddy of mine about this yesterday. I told him that nothing significant happened in the 90s on the music scene (as far as styles go, New Jack Swing and grunge were the only ones relevant...for a little while.)
Someone mentioned originality...I think that has a lot to do with it. Think about the evolution of jazz, rock n roll, funk, fusion, hip-hop and rap, disco, etc. Decades were defined by the creation of new styles. But the last 15 years or so,  whatever, maybe it just a sign o' the times. Also consider the way the "money machine" shoves artists down your throat these days, trying to recoup their losses. Commercialism, gratuitous displays of sexuality, lack of mastering the voice or musical instruments...the list goes on and on!I'm sick and tired of the Prince fans being sick and tired of the Prince fans that are sick and tired! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kev1n said: Byron said: I was thinking the other day...why does it seem to me as if the music scene today isn't nearly as important, profound, or full of true artistic integrity like it was when I was growing up??
3 letters: M.T.V This is so true. MTV and videos ruined music in my opinion, because now what's being put out there these days is pretty much only based on image and having a "cool" video. It used to be that you went by what you heard and if you wanted to see your favorite artists, you would have to go see them live. And they could actually PLAY, and PERFORM, WRITE something original, and have a distinct sound all their own. "I saw a woman with major Hammer pants on the subway a few weeks ago and totally thought of you." - sextonseven | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Byron said: I was thinking the other day...why does it seem to me as if the music scene today isn't nearly as important, profound, or full of true artistic integrity like it was when I was growing up?? Is is just nostalgia that makes me think music was better "back in the day"??...
Then I started thinking...when I was growing up, these following artists were in their prime, their heyday: Marvin Gaye Stevie Wonder David Bowie Sly Stone Earth, Wind & Fire Elton John Led Zeppelin Parliament/Funkadelic Simon & Garfunkel Billy Joel Jackson 5 Credence Clearwater Revival The Eagles Fleetwood Mac Steely Dan Queen Al Green Joni Mitchell Pink Floyd Tom Petty Gladys Knight & The Pips Barry White Music by all of these artists is what surrounded us on the radio, in our homes, our cars...and I'm not talking about over a period of 15 years...I'm talking about like within a 5 year span, at most. And I started thinking about the list of artists that could be made from, let's say, 1999-2004, of who is out there from the present that could match any of the above artists. Who would be on that list?? Eminem?? Britney Spears?? Justin Timberlake?? Beck?? Christina Aguilera?? White Stripes?? Usher?? Brandy?? Outkast?? Black Eyed Peas?? I'm amazed at just how many Hall Of Fame-worthy artists made up my musical environment when growing up...and wonder if my daughter will have that same feeling, that same experience when she's older, being able to look back at the music now and say to herself "Wow...can't believe I experienced so many legendary artists when I was younger"... So...am I missing just a boatload of current musical geniuses, or is there really a void of possible legendary artists in the present-day musical landscape?? So you've just noticed? There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 again, here are just some of the reasons...
1) Style Over Substance Unfortunately, it's become much more important to be a Star rather than an artist...we live in the age of the Video Image...as Quincy Jones once pointed out, back in the day,it didn't matter if an artist came to the studio with rollers in her hair...just as long as she could Sing...now the emphasis is on your image, your profile, your hook, your angle... it doesn't even matter if you have talent...even William Hung can get his 15 minutes... ...and it Certainly doesnt matter if you can play an instrument ...one executive remarked, "it's sad, but if a young Hendrix came in right now, I'd have to show him the door, because there's no money in it..." ...So now, it doesn't matter if you can't play, they can "clean everything up in the studio"..."we'll just punch it in later"... if you sing flat, they can modify the pitch with the press of a button...worried about having to sing on tour? no problem, you can lip sync !! the dancing is the emphasis now, the show, not the music...the Image... 2) Immediate Investment Return In the late 60's and throughout most of the 70's , labels wanted to gradually build an audience for an artist or group, so that the artists would have longevity... To take the example of (EWF's)Philip Bailey: "We weren't an immediate hit...back at that time, the label would put your album out, and have you tour, to hone your craft, work on your record, and let you build up an audience over time...you weren't expected to be an overnight smash, it took us two or three albums before success came..." ...todays artists aren't gonna get that chance...you're lucky If you get a 1 or 2 album deal these days, and if you don't sell a certain amount...you're through! They want an immediate return on their investment... ...and the turnover rate is even higher for record executives than it is for artists...you may find one person in the company who likes your record and is backing you, and in the next year, that person will be gone, replaced by a new company guy who's never heard of you and couldn't give a shit.... 3) "Clear" Channel ... what used to be called "payola" is now regular buisness practice in radio...most stations(most now owned by a few conglomerates) will only play what the Majors pay them to promote...otherwise it "doesn't fit their format"... 4)..the "Sound" ... there is, generally speaking a tendency to opt for "clean", cold, digital precision sound in the studio nowadays... back in the day, the sounds used were analog and had a warmer feel.... [This message was edited Tue Jul 13 17:03:36 2004 by paligap] " I've got six things on my mind --you're no longer one of them." - Paddy McAloon, Prefab Sprout | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paligap said: again, here are just some of the reasons...
1) Style Over Substance Unfortunately, it's become much more important to be a Star rather than an artist...we live in the age of the Video Image...as Quincy Jones once pointed out, back in the day,it didn't matter if an artist came to the studio with rollers in her hair...just as long as she could Sing...now the emphasis is on your image, your profile, your hook, your angle... it doesn't even matter if you have talent...even William Hung can get his 15 minutes... ...and it Certainly doesnt matter if you can play an instrument ...one executive remarked, "it's sad, but if a young Hendrix came in the right now, I'd have to show him the door, because there's no money in it..." ...So now, it doesn't matter if you can't play, they can "clean everything up in the studio"..."we'll just punch it in later"... if you sing flat, they can modify the pitch with the press of a button...worried about havining to sing on tour? no problem, you can lip sync !! the dancing is the emphasis now, the show, not the music...the Image... 2) Immediate Investment Return In the late 60's and throughout most of the 70's , labels wanted to gradually build an audience for an artist or group, so that the artists would have longevity... To take the example of (EWF's)Philip Bailey: "We weren't an immediate hit...back at that time, the label would put your album out, and have you tour, to hone your craft, work on your record, and let you build up an audience over time...you weren't expected to be an overnight smash, it took us two or three albums before success came..." ...todays artists aren't gonna get that chance...you're lucky If you get a 1 or 2 album deal these days, and if you don't sell a certain amount...you're through! They want an immediate return on their investment... ...and the turnover rate is even higher for record executives than it is for artists...you may find one person in the company who likes your record and is backing you, and in the next year, that person will be gone, replaced by a new company guy who's never heard of you and couldn't give a shit.... 3) "Clear" Channel ... what used to be called "payola" is now regular buisness practice in radio...most stations(most now owned by a few conglomerates) will only play what the Majors pay them to promote...otherwise it "doesn't fit their format"... 4)..the "Sound" ... there is, generally speaking a tendency to opt for "clean", cold, digital precision sound in the studio nowadays... back in the day, the sounds used were analog and had a warmer feel.... [This message was edited Tue Jul 13 14:22:51 2004 by paligap]  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paligap said: again, here are just some of the reasons...
1) Style Over Substance Unfortunately, it's become much more important to be a Star rather than an artist...we live in the age of the Video Image...as Quincy Jones once pointed out, back in the day,it didn't matter if an artist came to the studio with rollers in her hair...just as long as she could Sing...now the emphasis is on your image, your profile, your hook, your angle... it doesn't even matter if you have talent...even William Hung can get his 15 minutes... ...and it Certainly doesnt matter if you can play an instrument ...one executive remarked, "it's sad, but if a young Hendrix came in the right now, I'd have to show him the door, because there's no money in it..." ...So now, it doesn't matter if you can't play, they can "clean everything up in the studio"..."we'll just punch it in later"... if you sing flat, they can modify the pitch with the press of a button...worried about havining to sing on tour? no problem, you can lip sync !! the dancing is the emphasis now, the show, not the music...the Image... 2) Immediate Investment Return In the late 60's and throughout most of the 70's , labels wanted to gradually build an audience for an artist or group, so that the artists would have longevity... To take the example of (EWF's)Philip Bailey: "We weren't an immediate hit...back at that time, the label would put your album out, and have you tour, to hone your craft, work on your record, and let you build up an audience over time...you weren't expected to be an overnight smash, it took us two or three albums before success came..." ...todays artists aren't gonna get that chance...you're lucky If you get a 1 or 2 album deal these days, and if you don't sell a certain amount...you're through! They want an immediate return on their investment... ...and the turnover rate is even higher for record executives than it is for artists...you may find one person in the company who likes your record and is backing you, and in the next year, that person will be gone, replaced by a new company guy who's never heard of you and couldn't give a shit.... 3) "Clear" Channel ... what used to be called "payola" is now regular buisness practice in radio...most stations(most now owned by a few conglomerates) will only play what the Majors pay them to promote...otherwise it "doesn't fit their format"... 4)..the "Sound" ... there is, generally speaking a tendency to opt for "clean", cold, digital precision sound in the studio nowadays... back in the day, the sounds used were analog and had a warmer feel.... [This message was edited Tue Jul 13 14:22:51 2004 by paligap] Paligap is no joke ya'll! U nailed it brother! SynthiaRose said "I'm in love with blackguitaristz. Especially when he talks about Hendrix."
nammie "What BGZ says I believe. I have the biggest crush on him." http://ccoshea19.googlepa...ssanctuary http://ccoshea19.googlepages.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Two thoughts:
1. Every decade had its share of oppressive crap music that seemed, to its detractors anyway, to dominate the airwaves. 2. I suspect every generation looks down on the music of the next generation. I remember when I was a young'un and folks my mom's age were rolling their eyes at Prince and Annie Lennox. 'Course, they were rolling their eyes at Stacy Q. and T'Pau too, and they were dead on with them.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
minneapolisgenius said:
I get depressed just thinking about it. I agree completely. I like very few modern artists, and I miss the golden age of R&B and soul. I also miss stars who could sing live, could sing without studio trickery, and could write to back it up. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: Two thoughts:
1. Every decade had its share of oppressive crap music that seemed, to its detractors anyway, to dominate the airwaves. 2. I suspect every generation looks down on the music of the next generation. I remember when I was a young'un and folks my mom's age were rolling their eyes at Prince and Annie Lennox. 'Course, they were rolling their eyes at Stacy Q. and T'Pau too, and they were dead on with them. True...but every decade does not have its share of truly great musical artists...the time period I was referring to (early to mid 70's) was when I was a kid...and there just seemed to be an abundance of truly great artists at work during that time. Has there been just as many truly great artists at work during the past 5 years or so??...Not in my eyes... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paligap said: again, here are just some of the reasons...
1) Style Over Substance Unfortunately, it's become much more important to be a Star rather than an artist...we live in the age of the Video Image...as Quincy Jones once pointed out, back in the day,it didn't matter if an artist came to the studio with rollers in her hair...just as long as she could Sing...now the emphasis is on your image, your profile, your hook, your angle... it doesn't even matter if you have talent...even William Hung can get his 15 minutes... ...and it Certainly doesnt matter if you can play an instrument ...one executive remarked, "it's sad, but if a young Hendrix came in the right now, I'd have to show him the door, because there's no money in it..." ...So now, it doesn't matter if you can't play, they can "clean everything up in the studio"..."we'll just punch it in later"... if you sing flat, they can modify the pitch with the press of a button...worried about havining to sing on tour? no problem, you can lip sync !! the dancing is the emphasis now, the show, not the music...the Image... 2) Immediate Investment Return In the late 60's and throughout most of the 70's , labels wanted to gradually build an audience for an artist or group, so that the artists would have longevity... To take the example of (EWF's)Philip Bailey: "We weren't an immediate hit...back at that time, the label would put your album out, and have you tour, to hone your craft, work on your record, and let you build up an audience over time...you weren't expected to be an overnight smash, it took us two or three albums before success came..." ...todays artists aren't gonna get that chance...you're lucky If you get a 1 or 2 album deal these days, and if you don't sell a certain amount...you're through! They want an immediate return on their investment... ...and the turnover rate is even higher for record executives than it is for artists...you may find one person in the company who likes your record and is backing you, and in the next year, that person will be gone, replaced by a new company guy who's never heard of you and couldn't give a shit.... 3) "Clear" Channel ... what used to be called "payola" is now regular buisness practice in radio...most stations(most now owned by a few conglomerates) will only play what the Majors pay them to promote...otherwise it "doesn't fit their format"... 4)..the "Sound" ... there is, generally speaking a tendency to opt for "clean", cold, digital precision sound in the studio nowadays... back in the day, the sounds used were analog and had a warmer feel.... [This message was edited Tue Jul 13 14:22:51 2004 by paligap] Great breakdown... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
On the plus side:The past will always be there, and as long as the record companys continue to rerelease classic music, then there will always be a century of recorded music to explore.
I realize that doesnt fix the problem and might even seem selfish, but I gave up on current musical trends about 10 years ago.Ive never been a big radio listener ,and missed alot of the music in Byron's list growing up. Therefore Ive spent the last several years exploring the past.From about 1998-2002 , I checked out just about ALL of the 70s funk I could get my hands on.In 2002 , this segued into an interest in Jazz,which kept me busy till I got sidetracked into a mid60s rock journey that Im still stuck in (for the moment anyway)...
I cant change todays shitty fake music by not buying it,but Im happy that there are several artists and eras of music from the past that I have yet to expirience. Of course , this doesnt help those of you who HAVE expirienced everything the past has to offer and are frustrated with today's scene....but you can pass it on to those who care to listen.Ive learned alot about the good and the bad from this forum. "...all you need ...is justa touch...of mojo hand....." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Byron said: I was thinking the other day...why does it seem to me as if the music scene today isn't nearly as important, profound, or full of true artistic integrity like it was when I was growing up?? Is is just nostalgia that makes me think music was better "back in the day"??...
Only partly. Others have outlined some of the main reasons for it, so I won't repeat it. Except for repeating what The Buggles said: video killed the radio star. Never has a one-hit wonder been so prophetic. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
aint nothin like the old stuff  give me old school music (of any kind) any day  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Byron said: I was thinking the other day...why does it seem to me as if the music scene today isn't nearly as important, profound, or full of true artistic integrity like it was when I was growing up?? Is is just nostalgia that makes me think music was better "back in the day"??...
Then I started thinking...when I was growing up, these following artists were in their prime, their heyday: Marvin Gaye Stevie Wonder David Bowie Sly Stone Earth, Wind & Fire Elton John Led Zeppelin Parliament/Funkadelic Simon & Garfunkel Billy Joel Jackson 5 Credence Clearwater Revival The Eagles Fleetwood Mac Steely Dan Queen Al Green Joni Mitchell Pink Floyd Tom Petty Gladys Knight & The Pips Barry White Music by all of these artists is what surrounded us on the radio, in our homes, our cars...and I'm not talking about over a period of 15 years...I'm talking about like within a 5 year span, at most. And I started thinking about the list of artists that could be made from, let's say, 1999-2004, of who is out there from the present that could match any of the above artists. Who would be on that list?? Eminem?? Britney Spears?? Justin Timberlake?? Beck?? Christina Aguilera?? White Stripes?? Usher?? Brandy?? Outkast?? Black Eyed Peas?? I'm amazed at just how many Hall Of Fame-worthy artists made up my musical environment when growing up...and wonder if my daughter will have that same feeling, that same experience when she's older, being able to look back at the music now and say to herself "Wow...can't believe I experienced so many legendary artists when I was younger"... So...am I missing just a boatload of current musical geniuses, or is there really a void of possible legendary artists in the present-day musical landscape?? Because the majority if it does! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Byron, you speak the truth.
Music is sadly dying a slow and painful death. There is still talent out there, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to find, and those that are found, never have the resources to produce as much or reach as many. Sad, I'm a 21 year old surrounded by a generation so ignorant about music that they think that the milkshake song is the best thing to come out in 50 years. These people, when asking me to change CDs by any of those artists that you just mentioned make me so angry that I will literally lose my temper and speak in a raised voice at them telling them to open their fucking minds to music without a date. I said once... "This is a great song, what are you talking about?" they said "It's an old song. it sucks." I said "Do you have any value of music whatsoever?!?! Are you out of your mind?!? Since when did music have an expiration date? I'll tell you when, since today's artists started producing flavour of the month beat tracks with voice synthesized overlays that nobody cares about, and that are so overly played and overly promoted that we think it's the only way music can exist. Grow up, and quit trying to follow with a crowd that should have never had the dominant voice in the first place" we didn't talk much for the rest of the trip. "Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring faith. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal" - Carl Sagan | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It is all about money now and not music. MTV and BET dominate the image. Clear Channel and record labels dominate the sound. When you have a major corporation owning the majority of the radio stations, that corporation dictates what we hear. If that corporation works together with record labels and can find a form of music that is very cheap to make and can be made at a very fast pace, they are going to make money, money, ..... money!!!!!
That cheap form of music is hip hop. It has dominated the 1990s and continues on today with no signs of dying. Everything else died over a period of 5 to 7 years, why not hip hop? Because major corporations are making big money off of it. No instruments to buy and no musicians to pay. They can pick up a hoodlum off the street and give him far more money than he is used to and he is content. They are keeping the majority of his profits and all he knows is this is more money than he ever dreamed of. They can pick up teeny boppers and they don't know the difference either. And everytime you turn around, people are making accoustical albums. Why, no instruments to buy and no musicians to pay. Take disco for instance. Disco died because of racism and homophobia. The majority of disco artists were black and disco was dominating white radio. Disco started in the gay clubs. Rock artists were not getting any airplay or making money because of disco. They were furious. Also, everyone was getting into disco. Old people were taking disco dance lessons. Ethel Mermon did a disco record. Silly records were starting to be released like "Disco Duck". All these things were starting to make disco uncool. A rock disc jockey started the whole record burning incident, "disco free weekends", and "disco sucks" movement. I think we all need to devise a plan of attack for the death of hip hop as follows: 1. Introduce our elders to disco. Convince them they look good in hop hop clothes. Get them started in hip hop dance classes. Teach them all the hip hop slang. 2. Everyone write to Barbara Streisand, Bette Middler, and Liza Minella and convince these ladies to record some hip hop tracks. 3. Tom Joyner and Howard Stern need to combine forces a have a hip hop record burning, "hip hop free weekend" and "hip hop sucks" movement. Everyone, white and black need to get behind this movement because hip hop has not only killed funk, it has also invaded rock. Leave the homophobia and racism out this time. I have always heard history repeats itself. I certainly hope that's true. Andy is a four letter word. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yea, it's pretty sad. I'm watching the BET awards now for the first time - they did the tribute to the Isley Bros. It's trippy to think longevity like that is pretty much already a thing of the past   I never met you, but I LOVE you & I will forever!! Thank you for being YOU - my little Princey, the best to EVER do it | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yep, MTV killed it.
almost entirely to blame. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Byron said: Marvin Gaye Stevie Wonder David Bowie Sly Stone Earth, Wind & Fire Elton John Led Zeppelin Parliament/Funkadelic Simon & Garfunkel Billy Joel Jackson 5 Credence Clearwater Revival The Eagles Fleetwood Mac Steely Dan Queen Al Green Joni Mitchell Pink Floyd Tom Petty Gladys Knight & The Pips Barry White It's interesting to note that most of those artists are still going strong.David Bowie,Elton John,Billy Joel,Earth Wind and Fire,The Eagles and Simon and Garfunkel are still touring and selling out arenas.These guys have built longterm careers and their music will live on forever.Younger fans are flocking to their shows,enjoying and embracing music that their parents grew up on.How many of today's artists will be around 30 years from now,selling out arenas? Eminem has talent,but will there be an audience for his music in 2025? Justin Timerlake has fun,catchy songs,but will those songs be regarded as "classics" 20 years from now? R.Kelly is considered the King of Today's R&B,but will his music stand the test of time the way Marvin Gaye or Al Green's songs have? P.Diddy's Bad Boy Records label has done extremely well,but 30 years from now,will it remembered as fondly as Motown is? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
... The great thing about being around today, is that although the music scene may be weaker at the moment, there is some good stuff around PLUS we have all of the people you mentioned (and others) to go back to!
Eveybody's happy! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RocknRollisalive said: ... The great thing about being around today, is that although the music scene may be weaker at the moment, there is some good stuff around PLUS we have all of the people you mentioned (and others) to go back to!
Eveybody's happy! haha, good point! my record collection is big enuff already, and I don't have time & money to keep up with all the new releases coming out anyway Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
vainandy said: It is all about money now and not music. MTV and BET dominate the image. Clear Channel and record labels dominate the sound. When you have a major corporation owning the majority of the radio stations, that corporation dictates what we hear. If that corporation works together with record labels and can find a form of music that is very cheap to make and can be made at a very fast pace, they are going to make money, money, ..... money!!!!!
That cheap form of music is hip hop. It has dominated the 1990s and continues on today with no signs of dying. Everything else died over a period of 5 to 7 years, why not hip hop? Because major corporations are making big money off of it. No instruments to buy and no musicians to pay. They can pick up a hoodlum off the street and give him far more money than he is used to and he is content. They are keeping the majority of his profits and all he knows is this is more money than he ever dreamed of. They can pick up teeny boppers and they don't know the difference either. And everytime you turn around, people are making accoustical albums. Why, no instruments to buy and no musicians to pay. Take disco for instance. Disco died because of racism and homophobia. The majority of disco artists were black and disco was dominating white radio. Disco started in the gay clubs. Rock artists were not getting any airplay or making money because of disco. They were furious. Also, everyone was getting into disco. Old people were taking disco dance lessons. Ethel Mermon did a disco record. Silly records were starting to be released like "Disco Duck". All these things were starting to make disco uncool. A rock disc jockey started the whole record burning incident, "disco free weekends", and "disco sucks" movement. I think we all need to devise a plan of attack for the death of hip hop as follows: 1. Introduce our elders to disco. Convince them they look good in hop hop clothes. Get them started in hip hop dance classes. Teach them all the hip hop slang. 2. Everyone write to Barbara Streisand, Bette Middler, and Liza Minella and convince these ladies to record some hip hop tracks. 3. Tom Joyner and Howard Stern need to combine forces a have a hip hop record burning, "hip hop free weekend" and "hip hop sucks" movement. Everyone, white and black need to get behind this movement because hip hop has not only killed funk, it has also invaded rock. Leave the homophobia and racism out this time. I have always heard history repeats itself. I certainly hope that's true. kILLING HIP HOP IS NOT THE ANSWER KILLING THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF ALL MUSIC IS....BECAUSE REAL HIP HOP IS NOT THE NELLYS,50 CENTS,JA-RULES,SNOOP DOGGS,AND PUFFYS YOU HEAR ON THE RADIO.....ALOT OF THE PRODUCTION YOU HEAR IS NOT REAL HIP HOP....BEYONCE'S NAUGHTY GIRL IS NOT HIP HOP..... I am not African. Africa is in me, but I cannot return.
I am not taína. Taíno is in me, but there is no way back. I am not european. Europe lives in me, but I have no home there. I am new. History made me. My first language was spanglish. And I am | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
