New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Is today's music REALLY that bad?? Is today's music REALLY that bad or is it just a generational disconnect? I was talking to one of my co workers who is in his mid 50's and he said that in the 70's, people railed against Led Zepplin and the rock movement of that time and said that it was "noise." I'm wondering if the same thing is occurring or is today's music really "noise?"
Comments plz.. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
well commercially..there seems to be more bad than good. i find myself liking a song or two by an artist more than an entire album. i also think the way the music industry has become has a lot to do with it. produce an instant hit, then make an album that sounds just like it. i also think downloading (especially illegally) is what has crippled creativity in the music industry as well. why put effort and time into making a great album when people are just going to steal that one big hit?
i don't think there are many people saying anything too different or really reaching creatively anymore. not too be cliché but i will..lol.. i think that's why on a lot of sites the 80's and some 90's are still the main topics of discussion. back when there was Madonna Michael Jackson Prince Bruce Springsteen Tina Turner Cyndi Lauper Depeche Mode The Cure Janet Jackson etc... and you could have pop, rock, r&b, alternative and dance all on the same stations. imagine that!! there was more individuality. sure it may have all been pop but each brought something to the table. where now it's very cookie-cutter. all the same producers, same image, and i like some of it, don't get me wrong. but enough is enough. the "noise" we're hearing now is called static. my  
LOVE ♪♫♪♫ ♣¤═══¤۩۞۩ஜ۩ஜ۩۞۩¤═══¤♣ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Is today's music bad, no.
Is today's mainstream music absolute horseshit, YES. People aren't responding to this generation's sound. They're responding to the wave of crap being dumped on us and the fact that you have to be Cousteau to find decent music. Other generations hated current music because it was a less complicated sound, was more raunchy, and inspired a huge shift in culture. The difference is all those generations were pushing music and culture forward, and not into the ground. There's also the fact that other generations defended their art because it was actually art. Now there are millions of teens that will say pop music sucks ass. Today's pop isn't even music. Other generations were picking up guitars and experimenting. Even people behind synths were actual musicians. Now people dedicate themselves to finding the most rare SAMPLE or watering down a classic hit in such a way that they can call it their own. Then people pat them on the back for it. WTF? but bigger than all of that No one's buying this shit. Regardless of your generation, no one's digging in their pocket for this crap that some claim is so "hot." Sure they do the stupid dance or wear stupid clothing, but do they buy the music? No, they just push the brand forward. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
.. [Edited 1/5/08 14:09pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
prettymansson said: YES it sucks..Why..?
IMO basically because Very few people having success.. know shit about making music..writting songs..or playing instruments.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Let's see, genre by genre:
Heavy/Metal: lame! Hard/rock: just as always, repeating new sounds and ideas from the 60's and 70's 
Rock: overrated!!! Funk: there are no new big stars or a truly new amazing sound... Hip/hop-rap: or should I say shit-hop?... 
Mainstream pop: the new artists are lame and without any really good single... Country: a genre that needs a new revolution, like in the early 90's... Jazz: a genre that lives in its own underground world... Blues: should be on an "endangered species" list... Electronica: just keeps getting better and better every year; both the mainstream and underground artists have strong albums in this century...  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yes. It is not known why FuNkeNsteiN capitalizes his name as he does, though some speculate sunlight deficiency caused by the most pimpified white guy afro in Nordic history.
- Lammastide | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
FuNkeNsteiN said: Yes.
Agree  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yes,it's that bad  I don't even listen to much music from this era.After growing up with amazing artists like Stevie Wonder and Earth Wind and Fire,how can I possibly get into crap like Beyonce and R.Kelly?!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Real rock and metal are like the only genres that haven't been raped and murdered by hip hop, MTV, and the industry.
Even though we're flooded with fake metal and fake prefab bands, you can still fairly easily hear/find decent bands. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
LoveAlive said: Is today's music REALLY that bad or is it just a generational disconnect? I was talking to one of my co workers who is in his mid 50's and he said that in the 70's, people railed against Led Zepplin and the rock movement of that time and said that it was "noise." I'm wondering if the same thing is occurring or is today's music really "noise?"
Comments plz.. There's a big difference between judging music based on genre and talent. Your co worker complained about Led Zepplin not for their lack of talent but for the kind of music they were doing... So it's more about generational disconnection more than anything else... The problem nowdays is Music sucks because of the lack of talent... The quality has dropped since the 70's... MTV has played a big part in that situation... and the irrational success of Madonna explains everything... |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LoveAlive said: Is today's music REALLY that bad or is it just a generational disconnect? I was talking to one of my co workers who is in his mid 50's and he said that in the 70's, people railed against Led Zepplin and the rock movement of that time and said that it was "noise." I'm wondering if the same thing is occurring or is today's music really "noise?"
Comments plz.. Forget the generational gap argument, most of 2000's music is REALLY f***ing wack. The first 4 years of the 1990's (90-93) were good for the well balance of genres at the time (all different types of rap, hip-house, miami bass, heavy metal's final years, funk-metal, latin freestyle's later years, etc.). But the rest of that decade (mostly 94-99) was a letdown for me. The 1980's were my childhood years. Synths had the spotlight for a while (synthpop, new wave, synth-driven funk, electro, latin freestyle's early years, house, electro-sounding techno [years before it went trance]). Heavy metal was ruling things on FM rock radio. And of course, let not forget about the days when hip-hop & rap was groundbreaking (althought my favorite era is still 88-93!). AFAIC, the 1970's is still the best decade ever for music. Real creativity & originality exist in those days of rock, soul, horn-driven funk, jazz fusion, disco, reggae.....many I say more?!? I'll leave it up to my elder orgers to tell you about the 1950's & 1960's. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As I read this thread I'm listening to Marvin Gaye. 
Yes, there is no Music being made today that has any kind of staying power. Its all flavor of the Month Bullsh*t. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TonyVanDam said: LoveAlive said: Is today's music REALLY that bad or is it just a generational disconnect? I was talking to one of my co workers who is in his mid 50's and he said that in the 70's, people railed against Led Zepplin and the rock movement of that time and said that it was "noise." I'm wondering if the same thing is occurring or is today's music really "noise?"
Comments plz.. Forget the generational gap argument, most of 2000's music is REALLY f***ing wack. The first 4 years of the 1990's (90-93) were good for the well balance of genres at the time (all different types of rap, hip-house, miami bass, heavy metal's final years, funk-metal, latin freestyle's later years, etc.). But the rest of that decade (mostly 94-99) was a letdown for me. The 1980's were my childhood years. Synths had the spotlight for a while (synthpop, new wave, synth-driven funk, electro, latin freestyle's early years, house, electro-sounding techno [years before it went trance]). Heavy metal was ruling things on FM rock radio. And of course, let not forget about the days when hip-hop & rap was groundbreaking (althought my favorite era is still 88-93!). AFAIC, the 1970's is still the best decade ever for music. Real creativity & originality exist in those days of rock, soul, horn-driven funk, jazz fusion, disco, reggae.....many I say more?!? I'll leave it up to my elder orgers to tell you about the 1950's & 1960's. Consolidation = Disaster. Its really that simple, as said before, u cant hear everyone on one station anymore, age is an issue in everything today. Scan a chart of the top 100 songs from 20 years ago and the ages of those artists and do that today, and you will see about a 10-15 year change. And its not just radio, its marketing, promotion etc.. its all a HYPE game and then it comes out and its always letdown, lets be honest, does anything live up to the HYPE that is given out in these promos. Take a look at mainstream during decades like the 70's and 80's and look HOW DIFFERENT those artists where, from their age to their looks, and most importantly to their diverse music. Think 70's mainstream, it was the likes of James Taylor,Queen,Stevie.Bowie,Elton,Manilow,Joel,EWF,Sly,Fleetwood Mac,Zep etc..And yes the 80's too, George Michael,Prince,MJ,Madonna,Bruce,Jovi,Janet etc..all very different, but now you have this desire to be the SAME, thats all labels do, theres no diversity anymore in whats coming up, thats why mainstream is a BAD WORD now, but in the decades of 70's and 80's Mainstream was full of talent and diversity. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
marvin,stevie,curtis,bill withers,james brown,The isley bros..EW&F...Herbie...Roy Ayers...J5,..I could sit here all night naming Badd Mofo's from back in the day..
Today.....?
Bishop31 said: As I read this thread I'm listening to Marvin Gaye.
Yes, there is no Music being made today that has any kind of staying power. Its all flavor of the Month Bullsh*t. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As was noted earlier, MTV had a lot to do with music's decline, but so did the structure of record companies and radio. For example, back in the day, you had folks like Mo Austin and Lenny Waronker at the helm of Warners. They were music lovers who were willing to nurture talent, even if the acts weren’t mega-million sellers. Now, record companies are run by bean counters whose main focus is to make as much money as possible from an artist. That means signing flavor-of-the-month acts and sticking with a formula that is guaranteed to sell.
The consolidation of radio plays a role as well. Clear Channel's grip over the airwaves has homogenized terrestrial radio to the point of being unlistenable. This really hit home for me when my satellite radio was out. I listened to the area’s mainstream station in my car for a couple of days. The first day, I heard the same 4 songs on my ride to work, then my trek to lunch, and finally my drive home. The variety is gone. I think Prince's music is a good litmus test for comparison. During his Super bowl performance, notice when he played Purple Rain--a 23-year-old hit, mind you--an entire stadium of people was singing along with him. The great songwriters of the past (The Stones, Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, etc.) can pull out songs that are decades old and still connect with an audience. Do you think 23 years from now, a stadium of people will join along in the choruses of "SexyBack", "My Humps" or "Crank That"? [Edited 1/5/08 20:52pm] "I Was FINE Back in the Day!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm pretty young 23, and I stopped listening to mainstream radio and Muchmusic in 1997, when I was 13, because I realised it was crap. THere are many people my age and in high school who hate the crap out today and prefer older music from the early 90s and previously.
I mean I find some of the music now catchy, forgive my for saying this, but I've been listening to some of T-pain's "music", and I hate myself for it. At the same time, it may be catchy, but it's still crap. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PicassoFace said: As was noted earlier, MTV had a lot to do with music's decline, but so did the structure of record companies and radio. For example, back in the day, you had folks like Mo Austin and Lenny Waronker at the helm of Warners. They were music lovers who were willing to nurture talent, even if the acts weren’t mega-million sellers. Now, record companies are run by bean counters whose main focus is to make as much money as possible from an artist. That means signing flavor-of-the-month acts and sticking with a formula that is guaranteed to sell.
The consolidation of radio plays a role as well. Clear Channel's grip over the airwaves has homogenized terrestrial radio to the point of being unmistakable. This really hit home for me when my satellite radio was out. I listened to the area’s mainstream station in my car for a couple of days. The first day, I heard the same 4 songs on my ride to work, then my trek to lunch, and finally my drive home. The variety is gone. I think Prince's music is a good litmus test for comparison. During his Super bowl performance, notice when he played Purple Rain--a 23-year-old hit, mind you--an entire stadium of people was singing along with him. The great songwriters of the past (The Stones, Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, etc.) can pull out songs that are decades old and still connect with an audience. Do you think 23 years from now, a stadium of people will join along in the choruses of "SexyBack", "My Humps" or "Crank That"? [Edited 1/5/08 18:48pm] Well thats it 100%, every point i have said in the past on tons of posts, you have nailed it here in every aspect. Labels are run by accountants and business majors etc..not by anyone who has a clue about growing an artist, its all about marketing marketing marketing, and why, well they get paid big $$$ to HYPE up a record that usually is nothing more than what some other artist is doing at another label, its a game, no diversity, all formula. And if you have some talent, they will get you and try to mold you into something, its like some freaking Twilight Zone episode. Music now is fast food, nothing more, give me it, let me taste it, next, which is why we get sick of it so quickly. I think what people forget is MAINSTREAM is not a bad thing, everyone thinks that because they look at what it is, and not what it used to be, Mainstream can be diverse, cutting edge and not formula. But formula is the way it is now, mainly because labels will HYPE a record, spend millions on marketing, and they are so scared to take a chance, they get the same producers, same writers, flava of the month. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No it's not bad, actually it is better.
The listener has become dumb and lazy. [Edited 1/5/08 21:02pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
it's better cause we have access to all types of genres and different years more than ever. Today's commercial music copies what's been done successfully already, so it's not evolving as much as one would think, but there are good songs here and there. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I am glad that you recognize the possibility of the generational disconnect. Myself, I think it's pretty arrogant when someone from my generation bashes music today. I remember how negative it felt when my older relatives would dis anything that came along after 1970 as being copycatting. One even said that the only way an artist could get a hit was to cover another song that was already a hit.
I don't really dig many of the artists that came out this decade, but that's just me - and if I don't want to hear it, I turn it off. I will say this, though, a lot of what's good this decade is in the singles. They bump the dance floor pretty hard. Alicia Keys, Creed, Missy Elliott, Ciara, and some more will keep the fires burning, but what it seems is definitely needed is a "new" music form. LoveAlive said: Is today's music REALLY that bad or is it just a generational disconnect? I was talking to one of my co workers who is in his mid 50's and he said that in the 70's, people railed against Led Zepplin and the rock movement of that time and said that it was "noise." I'm wondering if the same thing is occurring or is today's music really "noise?"
Comments plz.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No.
People just base their opinions on what they can see in the music video format or hear on the radio. Altough a big problem with the "good" pop / rock / r&b / etc. stuff is of course that it's these days almost by a rule sort of a retro thing where the validity of the material is judged against how well they imitate trademark sounds and concepts from the past decades without being intentionally too cheesy. If pop music irritates the hell out of you, I'd suggest listening to non-pop music. Stuff you can't usually buy from even record stores. Of course, since this board has a lot of funk fans, I'd tend to agree that people could actually try to replicate some of the magic of the past decades by at least using similar instrumentation and approaches. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LoveAlive said: Is today's music REALLY that bad or is it just a generational disconnect? I was talking to one of my co workers who is in his mid 50's and he said that in the 70's, people railed against Led Zepplin and the rock movement of that time and said that it was "noise." I'm wondering if the same thing is occurring or is today's music really "noise?"
Comments plz.. I started a thread with basically the same title and asking the same thing and got all the answers I knew I would. This forum is way too biased when it comes to today's music. They're all ready to hate on it as soon as they've heard it. There's an intense pressure from more intimidating members to "fit in" with the crowd and hang shit on each and every artist of today. No one has to like everything, but there are some great artists around today but you'd never know it if you visited here. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yeah basically. 
Nothing that comes out these days is going to be remembered in 20 years, hell I doubt any of it will last one. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I have some old VHS tapes where I've taped like 3-4 hours of typical MTV footage from the early 90s (we didn't have cable, so I just typed for myself a few hours worth of music videos as a kid). Sure you had a Prince and a Michael song there, but I couldn't imagine really listening to ANYTHING that was ACTUALLY there on the regular programming on a daily basis.
Plus in the early part of the 90s, we had something called Euro Techno that dominated the charts for over five years. Every third song / album on the charts was of that "genre". It was an absolute nightmare here and you couldn't escape that music at any public situation. People seem to have effectively forgotten that phase in history. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
theodore said: FuNkeNsteiN said: Yes.
Agree for the first time ever, i think i actually agree with him too. For all time I am with you, you are with me. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
purplepolitician said: theodore said: Agree for the first time ever, i think i actually agree with him too. It is not known why FuNkeNsteiN capitalizes his name as he does, though some speculate sunlight deficiency caused by the most pimpified white guy afro in Nordic history.
- Lammastide | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The other side of this is that you have all of these shitty bands/acts and wannabe actors or moguls that are part of the wave of crap but attack from another angle.
Labels know that there's a certain demo that won't mess with MS, but if some clowns tell them that an artist is underground and is doing really hot, brilliant stuff and a lot of people like them and they're "real," those people will eat that crap up. Meanwhile, they're exactly the same as MS artists only the company is dumping money into backdoor fake indie promo. It's a new neo-soul or alternative package. They know that culture whores will jump on it in a new form and might even hang onto the leftover neos if promoted right(see, "The label won't let my stuff come out"). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I am older person and I think today's music stinks and I have been thinking that from the early 90s. Having said that maybe there is too much choice and therefore music isn't has appreciated as it once was, hence practially all music is made to be disposable whatever the genre.
Back in the 70s there was no MTV, no Ipods or the net. You had your good old fashion record shops, the radio and some weekly music show. Artists had to do more live shows to sustain a living, they had to truely know how to entertain so that meant great music as well as knowing how perform with raw talent. Nowadays apart from when an artist actually goes on tour they don't have to actually perform live, MTV and the NET has taken care of that, therefore the emphasise has been more on looks and image than actual talent. Nowadays an artist doesn't have to be innovative or creative to get ahead. [Edited 1/6/08 9:21am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yes, in my opinion, today's MAINSTREAM music really is that bad, although the more guilty pleasures I find within the Hot 100 charts, the less snobbish I learn to be about it.
It's not our seeming inability (to others) to find good music outside the commercial airwaves that pisses us off; it's the fact that, generally speaking, the popular music is the stuff that really goes down in the books... the stuff that really goes down in history. And although every decade before this one has had fluffy/garbage music of its own, look at all the legendary entertainers and artistic geniuses we also had to represent those decades, and look at how non-formatted and diverse radio was! Look at all the creativity... THIS decade, on the other hand...  well, c'mon, guys... even though it's not impossible for some people (like me) to find quality (or at least fun... I think that's the best word that sums up some of the pop songs of today) music on the radio, you know when you have people telling you to dig underground or turn to the indie scenes for truly quality music, it's gotten pretty damn bad. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |