New topic
Printableviolator said: AlexdeParis said: Well, that's not the same as seeing equal parts bullshit. There's a great deal of middle ground between "classic" and "bullshit." At any rate, the closest things to classics on either list are probably the top two from '86. More importantly, I find the vast majority of the '80s songs enjoyable. "Glory of Love" and "Take My Breath Away" are delicious slices of cheese. OTOH, Chaka's backing vocals alone on "Higher Love" put every '06 performance to same. But who determines what that middle ground is? It's fine that you enjoy some of the cheesy songs on that 80's list. At least you recognize cheese when you hear it. Some of the folks on this thread want to use the cheese of today's era to define an entire generation of music. I'm sure many of the folks that enjoy new music wouldn't want that Billboard list held up as a representation of their music anymore than I'd want that 80's list used as a representation of mine. I can't speak for anyone else, but my problem is that today we're getting extra servings of cheese and not much else. (And I find it less well crafted and genuine.) Even comparing two random weeks, there seems to be a lot more variety in the top 10 from '86. The rise of Clear Channel has a lot to do with my distaste of today's radio. For example, the legends are being pushed aside nowadays. During the '80s, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, Gladys Knight, and Diana Ross - all artists with around 20 years of experience at the time - had #1 hits. In this day and age, Usher is a veteran.  "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: The rise of Clear Channel has a lot to do with my distaste of today's radio.
Exactly. But that's why you have to dig a little deeper nowadays. Don't let Clear Channel define your perception of today's music. There are plenty of good artists out there. You're just not necessarily going to hear them on the airwaves. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violator said: AlexdeParis said: The rise of Clear Channel has a lot to do with my distaste of today's radio.
Exactly. But that's why you have to dig a little deeper nowadays. Don't let Clear Channel define your perception of today's music. There are plenty of good artists out there. You're just not necessarily going to hear them on the airwaves. Well, I agree with that. I love Van Hunt. I'll buy anything D'Angelo (eventually) releases. India.Arie is 3-for-3 with me. Still, I think the point is that the cream all seems to be buried. Back in the day, some of it was underground, but a lot of it rose to the top. Radio is obviously less important than it was years ago, but it's still a huge source of music for the general public. When people talk about music of a certain decade, I'll bet most of them are talking mostly about what was played on the radio. At the very least, that's why I say today's music pales in comparison to the last four decades. "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: Well, I agree with that. I love Van Hunt. I'll buy anything D'Angelo (eventually) releases. India.Arie is 3-for-3 with me. Still, I think the point is that the cream all seems to be buried. Back in the day, some of it was underground, but a lot of it rose to the top. Radio is obviously less important than it was years ago, but it's still a huge source of music for the general public. When people talk about music of a certain decade, I'll bet most of them are talking mostly about what was played on the radio. At the very least, that's why I say today's music pales in comparison to the last four decades. And still there are some promising new acts that actually get airplay. The Strokes, The Killers and Arcade Fire immediately come to mind. If you're talking about the last five years or so, you can also throw in folks like Rufus Wainwright, The White Stripes and Jill Scott. I've never been a big listener of radio (in any era), so I can't relate as much from that perspective. I've always found that the best music was just below the surface. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violator said: AlexdeParis said: Well, I agree with that. I love Van Hunt. I'll buy anything D'Angelo (eventually) releases. India.Arie is 3-for-3 with me. Still, I think the point is that the cream all seems to be buried. Back in the day, some of it was underground, but a lot of it rose to the top. Radio is obviously less important than it was years ago, but it's still a huge source of music for the general public. When people talk about music of a certain decade, I'll bet most of them are talking mostly about what was played on the radio. At the very least, that's why I say today's music pales in comparison to the last four decades. And still there are some promising new acts that actually get airplay. The Strokes, The Killers and Arcade Fire immediately come to mind. If you're talking about the last five years or so, you can also throw in folks like Rufus Wainwright, The White Stripes and Jill Scott. I've never been a big listener of radio (in any era), so I can't relate as much from that perspective. I've always found that the best music was just below the surface.  I loathe the Killers and couldn't get into Arcade Fire. I kind of like the Shins and Jet, though, so what do I know?  "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |