Graycap23 said:

BlaqueKnight said:

co-sign.

But who are the kids trying 2 pattern themselves after?

Good question. I think your question lends to an obvious status quo of what we've already talked about: Image over substance. With dumb lumps of flesh like Rachel Zoe (I'm still not totally sure who the fuck she is, other than she bought panties for Gwenyth Paltrow once or something) on TV hyping themselves as "stylists", and then we see everyone from Paris Hilton to whoever barely hiding their hatchet wounds under a "dress" - it seems that HOW you look is 100x more important than anything that comes out of your mouth.

It's a horrible machine of the wrong image begetting wannabes begetting people wanting 15 minutes of fame begetting young people following that and objectifying that begetting just a whole mess of ........well, MESS. They are patterning themselves after what they see. Everyone over 30 is considered a "retro" act, and that's too "old school" for some. Yet people who follow the old school rule of making music - like N'Dambi, Leela James, Lacee, Conya Doss, Maxwell, etc - they get lost, or get little credit in the whole mess. Frankly Rihanna couldn't pull off something that Maxwell does. And she knows it. They ALL know it. So - onward w/ the reality shows, the clothing lines, the colognes and perfumes, etc - anything but music.

ernestsewell said:

shorttrini said:

I took was watching, "Fantasia For Real",(long story). Anyway, while she was busy in the studio, her management was busy working on her image. One of them actually said, that in today's industry, image is more important than talent. I was like WTF?

I saw that. It was insane. However, Fantasia has the talent too.

She does. It's a damn shame that she is being used by her family.

Graycap23 said:

BlaqueKnight said:

co-sign.

But who are the kids trying 2 pattern themselves after?

That is the key question.

babybugz said:

Timmy84 said:

Some teenagers have heard classic songs on YouTube and all of them are more animated than we are about "THIS MUSIC SHOULD RETURN!" Like 11, 12, 13, 14, 15-year-old kids...

It's MY generation (the ones born between 1980 and 1990) that scare me more than ones in this generation.

Our generation is the main ones making the songs for the teenagers that you mention . I do like to rotate I listen to old school and I listen to what people our age are doing as well it's just certain people that I like the rest is eh sadly.

[Edited 8/25/10 16:30pm]

Pretty much hence why I don't listen to much of them. JUST ONE maybe but that's it.

Honestly though I think even here in the ORG some people take the music from the '60s and '70s for granted. Those were magical decades to me. Something about the music in those periods was majestic even if there were some duds there were also some great masterworks. Guess if you have to search, you're gonna have to study real hard and find it yourself. And there are some great music in this era. Searching is actually more risky than thinking it'll ever be played in a monopoly, which is what radio is. But I think there's something special about the decades of music even prior to the '60s and after the '70s. Music & image used to go hand in hand prior to 1999, now image is the main factor these days least in mainstream circles.

Timmy84 said:

Honestly though I think even here in the ORG some people take the music from the '60s and '70s for granted. Those were magical decades to me. Something about the music in those periods was majestic even if there were some duds there were also some great masterworks. Guess if you have to search, you're gonna have to study real hard and find it yourself. And there are some great music in this era. Searching is actually more risky than thinking it'll ever be played in a monopoly, which is what radio is. But I think there's something special about the decades of music even prior to the '60s and after the '70s. Music & image used to go hand in hand prior to 1999, now image is the main factor these days least in mainstream circles.

I'm going to disagree with you partially on this one. I don't believe people take it for granted. I know you said "some people". I think the larger majority would appreciate those decades in music. It seems to me that more people than not mentioned those decades in music, and how fantastic they really were back then. There is constant reference to those decades, those artists, that music, and it's influence today. What's even greater is that there are artists who are harnessing that sound into their own today, and making it new again while still maintaining some level of familiarity. I've repeatedly mentioned folks like N'Dambi or Leela James, who are just two in a long list of people are not only appreciate that time period, but use it as a springboard for their own artistic endeavors. I think perhaps the very-younger crowd might not have clued into that time period, but in time, if they're open to the roots of great music, they will. I also think they'll grow so weary and tired of what's on the radio show, that they'll go running to that time period with a quickness.

ernestsewell said:

Timmy84 said:

Honestly though I think even here in the ORG some people take the music from the '60s and '70s for granted. Those were magical decades to me. Something about the music in those periods was majestic even if there were some duds there were also some great masterworks. Guess if you have to search, you're gonna have to study real hard and find it yourself. And there are some great music in this era. Searching is actually more risky than thinking it'll ever be played in a monopoly, which is what radio is. But I think there's something special about the decades of music even prior to the '60s and after the '70s. Music & image used to go hand in hand prior to 1999, now image is the main factor these days least in mainstream circles.

I'm going to disagree with you partially on this one. I don't believe people take it for granted. I know you said "some people". I think the larger majority would appreciate those decades in music. It seems to me that more people than not mentioned those decades in music, and how fantastic they really were back then. There is constant reference to those decades, those artists, that music, and it's influence today. What's even greater is that there are artists who are harnessing that sound into their own today, and making it new again while still maintaining some level of familiarity. I've repeatedly mentioned folks like N'Dambi or Leela James, who are just two in a long list of people are not only appreciate that time period, but use it as a springboard for their own artistic endeavors. I think perhaps the very-younger crowd might not have clued into that time period, but in time, if they're open to the roots of great music, they will. I also think they'll grow so weary and tired of what's on the radio show, that they'll go running to that time period with a quickness.

I think its a little of both, i think its well respected but in some cases its over respected to the point of "god status" . I think the 60's 70's 80's all made their mark, but since then music hasnt so much made the mark as much as your image and look, and what you do out of the music scene have been the overall focus.

lastdecember said:

ernestsewell said:

I'm going to disagree with you partially on this one. I don't believe people take it for granted. I know you said "some people". I think the larger majority would appreciate those decades in music. It seems to me that more people than not mentioned those decades in music, and how fantastic they really were back then. There is constant reference to those decades, those artists, that music, and it's influence today. What's even greater is that there are artists who are harnessing that sound into their own today, and making it new again while still maintaining some level of familiarity. I've repeatedly mentioned folks like N'Dambi or Leela James, who are just two in a long list of people are not only appreciate that time period, but use it as a springboard for their own artistic endeavors. I think perhaps the very-younger crowd might not have clued into that time period, but in time, if they're open to the roots of great music, they will. I also think they'll grow so weary and tired of what's on the radio show, that they'll go running to that time period with a quickness.

I think its a little of both, i think its well respected but in some cases its over respected to the point of "god status" . I think the 60's 70's 80's all made their mark, but since then music hasnt so much made the mark as much as your image and look, and what you do out of the music scene have been the overall focus.

I see what the both of y'all are saying and agree with both points actually. But lastdecember is basically saying what I was saying that since the '90s looks have been more important than image whereas in previous decades it was the other way around.

It's a fact that most of the greatest music ever has already been made. No more albums spending months at #1 joining the best-selling lists. Won't happen.

People have attention spans of goldfish these days. Too many other distractions besides music to entertain the brain. Besides, the quality in the work is generally missing.

Keeping it short, the answer is no.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

I think its a little of both, i think its well respected but in some cases its over respected to the point of "god status" . I think the 60's 70's 80's all made their mark, but since then music hasnt so much made the mark as much as your image and look, and what you do out of the music scene have been the overall focus.

I see what the both of y'all are saying and agree with both points actually. But lastdecember is basically saying what I was saying that since the '90s looks have been more important than image whereas in previous decades it was the other way around.

Yeah i mean that honestly began with the takeover of videos, it was what they said would happen, the visual would ruin the idea and perspective of song, now i know there have some great works of videos since then, but as Queen said "Was it all Worth it" ? Think of the 70's when you had what they called "faceless" artists, no one ever knew what the hell a group like the Alan Parsons Project looked like, but they still got music played, imagine that kind of attempt now??

Marrk said:

It's a fact that most of the greatest music ever has already been made. No more albums spending months at #1 joining the best-selling lists. Won't happen.

People have attention spans of goldfish these days. Too many other distractions besides music to entertain the brain. Besides, the quality in the work is generally missing.

Keeping it short, the answer is no.

very very true, i think its that "need to sell right now" and the cashing in on peoples LACK of attention spans that has basically sucked the life out of music and the importance of it, but its not the only industry going down the drain because of that

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

I see what the both of y'all are saying and agree with both points actually. But lastdecember is basically saying what I was saying that since the '90s looks have been more important than image whereas in previous decades it was the other way around.

Yeah i mean that honestly began with the takeover of videos, it was what they said would happen, the visual would ruin the idea and perspective of song, now i know there have some great works of videos since then, but as Queen said "Was it all Worth it" ? Think of the 70's when you had what they called "faceless" artists, no one ever knew what the hell a group like the Alan Parsons Project looked like, but they still got music played, imagine that kind of attempt now??

Not in a billion years.

yes, in 2053, an artist not yet born will make a HISTORIC impact on music