Charts? what are they? That's my attitude. Has been for years. Not an ounce of originality or talent anywhere to be had. It's sad. Perhaps i'm showing my age but to be a teenager back in the 80's really seems like a blessing more and more these days.

we really were spoiled.

GangstaFam said:

Few months ago Rebellion popped up on one of the promo cd's I still get send.

I play it so often it feels I have known it for ages and do not even consider it to be 'new'.

It should be nr one on my best of 2004 list.

namepeace said:

I AM in the 18-25 age bracket. A lot of my friends consider modern popular music complete crap as well. Call me crazy but I don't think it's a problem with us....

say what you will...drop it like its hot is cool. though i'm not too sure that it should be on radio.
[Edited 12/3/04 15:11pm]

VoicesCarry said:

i always took you to be older. (that's a compliment BTW)

Marrk said:

Thanks

VoicesCarry said:

See what I said above. I made a general statement, but I also made an exception for younger folk like you.

By "us" if you mean you and your friends and folks like you, you're right. If you mean your age group in general, I disagree.

Like I said, crappy songs ruling the top-40 is nothing new. It's happened since rock was invented. But in every generation it has been the teenagers and young adults with disposable income that have been the deciding factor on the pop charts. You didn't see many people over 25 on American Bandstand (and later, Soul Train and MTV Grind) and there's a reason for that.

BTW, I forgot to mention that a sizable portion of the kids who hate pop music also buy stuff from older "catalogued" albums, but that market is diffuse and does little to affect the trend.

theAudience said:

'my poo' more like.

namepeace said:

I disagree that it's merely generational retrospective thing. Most kids today have absolutely no musical perspective. They don't know their history. They think P. Diddy is original, a musical genius. That Run DMC is a running shoe. I have no idea what you think these kids are buying, but it isn't back catalogue material. If they're 18, their range is only post-1995.

Unless you can tell me honestly that there are many modern acts comparable to Madonna, Michael Jackson, Prince, U2, The Police, Blondie, Pet Shop Boys, New Order, Whitney Houston, Peter Gabriel, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen, George Michael, Eurythmnics, etc. working in the industry today, I'm afraid I can't see your point. These were songwriters, singers, performers. Some were geniuses, and were recognized as such from the beginning. There was such a thing as an "instant classic" back then (well, not really, but you could recognize brilliance when you heard it - I'm sure you know what I'm talking about). Sure the 80s top 40 was filled with crap, too (there will always be novelty songs), but at least real singers and original songs went to #1 and talent was still appreciated!

And if you look back to the 60s, the late 90s and 00's seem like a shitsmear on history. Where is the modern Marvin Gaye, Beatles (Oasis? ), Aretha (Fantasia? ), Sam Cooke, Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, Rolling Stones, and so on?

Because real artists used to rule the charts, too.
[Edited 12/3/04 15:52pm]

I will make an exception for OutKast, who I think are truly great producers and songwriters.

VoicesCarry said:[quote]

namepeace said:

I think that is a slight overgeneralization. I was listening to stuff from the 60's when I was a teenager in the 80's. I'm sure a lot of kids like that exist today. But you are right, a lot of kids don't have that perspective. KRS-ONE and Rakim may as well be Louis Armstrong or Dylan to them.



You're kind of making it for me. Remember, I don't disagree with you at all as to the comparative qualities of the music, but a lot of folks 20 years older than us would tell you that most of 80's artists couldn't hold a candle to the cream of the 60's crop, and that artists like Madonna couldn't sing and had no talent either. And many 60's acts were working steadily in the 80's (Stones, Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, etc. etc. etc.) too, so the parallels to what you're saying and what a 60's person would say are striking.
Hell, fans of swing and big band said the same thing about Bird and Diz when they came on the scene.


I could go on, but my point is that this argument is a cyclical thing, regardless of my actual opinion, which is closer to yours.




Well, there are modern day greats, they just may not be exactly who you expect.
Folk like Beck. Me'Shell. And they don't get on the radio, that is true.

Replace "late 90's and 00's" in your post with "80's" and you will have the exact same argument that fortysomethings and even some thirtysomethings make all the time. The 80's sucked, or so they say.

namepeace said:[quote]

VoicesCarry said:

Try going to high school with these kids! Being a teen in the 80s was different, I think, because you were still exposed to the greats from the 60's, so you had a reference point. Today I'm pretty dumbfounded by how little they know or are willing to try.

Mind you this is the same breed of moron who won't watch a black-and-white film because it "isn't in color". You know what I mean?
[Edited 12/3/04 16:25pm]

vainandy said:

I think that hip hop was best in the eighties (and to say that only the great stuff charted would be a mistake) and it was also really good in the ninties...and then something happened and hip hop and R&B become this very homogonized mess!

namepeace said:

I think all of these acts will become Carl Douglases! I don't think it's the same thing as the eighties and the kids are the ones that suffer, really. We look back on the music of the eighties very fondly but now everything sounds like the same fucking song. Do you think anyone will look back on a song like "Drop It Like It's Hot" with fondness?

namepeace said:

\

Here is something you must keep in mind. This Top 10 does not have the credibility of the Top 10 from even five years ago. It's all based on radio. There are so few sell through singles now that most stores don't have a section for them. British people can complain about the teen pop or whatever on their charts, but they are a hell of alot more diverse than ours could ever hope to be! It's based on people buying singles. Radio plays what radio wants, so it really isn't based on the kids so much. We can't really blame the kids...we must blame Clear Channel. The kids have little choice!

VoicesCarry said:

I trust your judgment since you're closer.

Mebbe I give the youngsters too much credit when it comes to music!

But I believe that as they get older many of them will discover great music, like I did.

VinnyM27 said:

True. You never hear of a single going gold or platinum these days.

VoicesCarry said:

these are 2 of my favorite singles of the year but the rest is shit.

Yeah actually the last 2 days I've been alll about "Drop It Like It's Hot", and I bet a few of you Prince fans are lovin that Linn drum clap too.

And I think Neptunes and Snoop deserve to have a number one record.

VinnyM27 said:

you have to go back a lot farther than 5 years ago to find a Billboard Hot 100 with any credibility.

went to hell in 1995, when they reorganized the chart to give airplay (and various sub-formats) a bigger portion of the points.

I haven't heard these songs

I don't watch MTV VH! or listen to the radio
Consider me Lucky hehe

I LIKE JA RULE SONG, SNOOP SONG IS ASS!

GrayKing said:

Well, it was less credibility then...none it is like 1%, which is probably how much singles sales and/or people's opinions count when making these charts.

VoicesCarry said:

You're right, Voices Carry - it is all crap!

VinnyM27 said:

i understand WHY they had to change it, because some of the most popular songs in the country weren't showing up on the Hot 100.... however, when they changed it again in late 1998, it was basically a signal to the record companies that they didn't have to release singles at all anymore. and i often wonder if that's one of the roots of the labels not making as much money as they used to. they blame it on illegal downloading, but in Napster's biggest year, they had a record amount of sales, but they also still released singles. singles haven't been money-makers for many, many, many years. but they do act as loss leaders, to get people into the stores to buy something. singles acted for record stores the same way music in general act for chains like Best Buy and Circuit City. they make almost no money off of them (sometimes they even lose money on sales of CD's), but they get people going to the store to buy the bigger ticket items, like stereos, TV's, DVD players, refrigerators, etc.

VinnyM27 said:

-----
I wish RnB music was this popular 20 years ago. Now RnB is the pop music of today and it is crap. It is shameful. I think people have lost their damm minds with this "Drop it like it's hot." I hope to hell this is just double scanning as far as sales goes but they play two times an hour on the radio so someone out there likes it.

::steering wheel dance::

When the pigs try to get at ya
Park it like it's hawwwt
Park it like it's hawwwt
Park it like it's hawwwt

Actually, I am very glad that the majority of R&B in the early 1980s did not have much crossover pop success. When it started entering the pop charts, artists started watering down the music to stay on the pop charts, new artists started coming out that went straight for a pop audience, and the next thing you knew, good hardcore R&B was gone.

vainandy said:

-----
So you like the crap that passes for RnB today. The 80's Rnb was much better.

CinisterCee said:

U know what...I think your talking about the CABBAGE PATCH dance I had to think about it for a second...but anyway...I agree with Trick Daddy, Ja Rule, Destiny's Child, Nelly and Kelly Clarkson, Lil John and Usher. But I Love Ciara's and Snoop's songs