rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

Madonna writes and co-produces her own stuff !!

Eh, I'm sure mickeydolenz knows more than me about the Monkees but they did write some of their own stuff and may have produced some too.

Personally I have never cared who wrote and produced anything. I'm much more interested in the songs being good. Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald barely wrote anything but I would much rather listen to them than Barry Manilow and Mariah Carey.

oh, I agree

but the main difference is that Madonna has ACTUALLY written or co-written dozens and dozens of good songs, specially since 1988. Some people keep twisting the truth...

Not in any particular order:

1. Rhianna

2. Chris Brown

3. Beyonce

4. Eminem

5. Ciara

6. Milli Vanilli

7. Vanilla Ice

8. Lady Ga Ga

9. Justin Bieber

10. 50 Cents

Anybody on a major label (and even on many so-called indie labels, which in some cases are distributed by a major) is a "corporate act". If you're so concerned about that, you wouldn't even listen to the Top 40 or be concerned about whether someone is "more famous" than someone else, and just buy music by people selling their albums out of their trunk or shop at record stores that sell local performer CD's.

kitbradley said:

Not in any particular order:

4. Eminem

really? one of the few respectable rappers of the 00's ?

How about MP3's/iTunes? Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man but it seems like the kids these days don't really value music. When I was a lad it was a big deal to get a new album and effort went into acquiring new music. It was a slow process to build your music library but you treasured each album you god (well, not the crappy ones but you did your best to avoid those). I guess it's true that there has always been disposable pop music but today it feels like everything is disposable.

MickyDolenz said:

Anybody on a major label (and even on many so-called indie labels, which in some cases are distributed by a major) is a "corporate act". If you're so concerned about that, you wouldn't even listen to the Top 40 or be concerned about whether someone is "more famous" than someone else, and just buy music by people selling their albums out of their trunk or shop at record stores that sell local performer CD's.

uh...whatever

man, you know I love you and your posts are worthy, but we really should stop talking about the Monkees, since I'm a hater and you are a BIG fan . We both love the Stones / Beatles and that's all that matters

Peace

[Edited 2/27/11 12:23pm]

Weird thing is up until 2009, I was in the same position you guys were about how music declined after the advance of technology but I think in the fray there is still great music that is often in critical raves but is not as commercially successful as one would hope. But I think it's just a cycle that repeats itself. Maybe not in the way it used to do but it does repeat itself...

As for acts???

I can't no longer blame them for its ruin. The industry is to blame. And WE are to blame for even CONSUMING it (just saying in general).

Obviously kids love the music acts that we so claim to hate/dislike today and the industry is always pushing on the youth and they're young and impressionable so if they like someone, they'll make that up in their mind that the act is good until they get older.

It happens. Happened in our childhoods and I'm sure it's happening now with kids in this generation.

I'm not sure who to blame, the Bee Gees are the typical target, but disco killed far too many of the R & B/soul artists of the '60s/early '70s careeers stone dead. I guess it's kind of similar to the way Nirvana and grunge/alternative killed the "hair bands" of the '80s. In both cases I think it's fair to say that things tilted much too far in one direction. There's a lot of great disco and alternative music but there was also some great soul and glam music that was unjustly dismissed.

rialb said:

How about MP3's/iTunes? Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man but it seems like the kids these days don't really value music. When I was a lad it was a big deal to get a new album and effort went into acquiring new music. It was a slow process to build your music library but you treasured each album you god (well, not the crappy ones but you did your best to avoid those). I guess it's true that there has always been disposable pop music but today it feels like everything is disposable.

The funny thing is : MP3's/iTunes have killed high-quality albums, but also, ironically, high-quality singles.

I thought that in an era where the single is king again, and where the industry and the mainstream audience don't truly care about albums anymore (people don't complain about filler anymore, and that's sad and dangerous), at least there would be good singles, but noooooooooo...people just download new singles no matter how crappy/average they are. These days, a good single is usually surroundered by 25 crappy ones...

Timmy84 said:

As for acts???

I can't no longer blame them for its ruin. The industry is to blame. And WE are to blame for even CONSUMING it (just saying in general).

Obviously kids love the music acts that we so claim to hate/dislike today and the industry is always pushing on the youth and they're young and impressionable so if they like someone, they'll make that up in their mind that the act is good until they get older.

It happens. Happened in our childhoods and I'm sure it's happening now with kids in this generation.

Oh, I'm just really pissed off that "the kids" abandoned the Jonas Brothers so quickly. Michael Bland and Sonny Thompson deserved a bit more of that Jonas money!

rialb said:

How about MP3's/iTunes? Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man but it seems like the kids these days don't really value music. When I was a lad it was a big deal to get a new album and effort went into acquiring new music. It was a slow process to build your music library but you treasured each album you god (well, not the crappy ones but you did your best to avoid those). I guess it's true that there has always been disposable pop music but today it feels like everything is disposable.

I'd say video games, DVD's, satellite/cable, cell phones, computers, and other technology helped to kill music too. These things didn't exist in the past, and people didn't have much to do but listen to music. There was only (in the US) 3 networks, plus PBS and a couple of local UHF channels. TV used to go off the air at 11pm or midnight.

JoeTyler said:

rialb said:

How about MP3's/iTunes? Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man but it seems like the kids these days don't really value music. When I was a lad it was a big deal to get a new album and effort went into acquiring new music. It was a slow process to build your music library but you treasured each album you god (well, not the crappy ones but you did your best to avoid those). I guess it's true that there has always been disposable pop music but today it feels like everything is disposable.

The funny thing is : MP3's/iTunes have killed high-quality albums, but also, ironically, high-quality singles.

I thought that in an era where the single is king again, and where the industry and the mainstream audience don't truly care about albums anymore (people don't complain about filler anymore, and that's sad and dangerous), at least there would be good singles, but noooooooooo...people just download new singles no matter how crappy/average they are. These days, a good single is usually surroundered by 25 crappy ones...

See, I'm not sure if the music now sucks or if I'm just reaching that age where everything new sounds like crap to me. I'd like to think it's the music that's crappy but you never know.

MickyDolenz said:

rialb said:

How about MP3's/iTunes? Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man but it seems like the kids these days don't really value music. When I was a lad it was a big deal to get a new album and effort went into acquiring new music. It was a slow process to build your music library but you treasured each album you god (well, not the crappy ones but you did your best to avoid those). I guess it's true that there has always been disposable pop music but today it feels like everything is disposable.

I'd say video games, DVD's, satellite/cable, cell phones, computers, and other technology helped to kill music too. These things didn't exist in the past, and people didn't have much to do but listen to music. There was only (in the US) 3 networks, plus PBS and a couple of local UHF channels. TV used to go off the air at 11pm or midnight.

I guess it depends on when you think that music started to decline. For me things were great until the last ten years or so and there haves been video games and dvd's (VHS) since the early '80s so I'm not sure I buy into your argument.

JoeTyler said:

kitbradley said:

Not in any particular order:

4. Eminem

really? one of the few respectable rappers of the 00's ?

There are other respectable, far more talented rappers who don't get the kind of exposure that he does.

rialb said:

I'm not sure who to blame, the Bee Gees are the typical target, but disco killed far too many of the R & B/soul artists of the '60s/early '70s careeers stone dead. I guess it's kind of similar to the way Nirvana and grunge/alternative killed the "hair bands" of the '80s. In both cases I think it's fair to say that things tilted much too far in one direction. There's a lot of great disco and alternative music but there was also some great soul and glam music that was unjustly dismissed.

Key word: the industry.

By the way I grew up on grunge/alternative and found myself loving it... still do. But then again, I also grew up on hip-hop in my childhood and outgrew some of the music (Snoop's in particular). I think it's the acts of both the consumer and the industry in why popular music has been "ruined".

Hell in the '60s after Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis supposedly "scandalized" the nation (they were considered shock performers because they always attracted controversy, mainly for their music and for others, their performances and demeanors). That's why Pat Boone, Rick Nelson, Fabian and Chubby Checker (among others) were brought in to sanitize the rough edges of early rock and roll. And I bet there were some older guys who grew up listening to rock and roll thinking "this ruins music for me."

Same can be said about the British Invasion (American acts who didn't survive the Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who, etc., weren't particuarly happy about the Brit acts claiming they "stole" their position in airplay when it was really an industry that was looking to sell and once the Beatles came, there was a real onslaught that didn't let up until the Beatles went psychedelic and fucked up everything.

People claimed James Brown ruined soul music by incorporating no melody to "Cold Sweat". Others claimed Motown ruined music because some acts recorded (and sometimes performed) supper club material claiming it ruined the music scene and in the case of black consumers that they "sold out" (see The Supremes). That's why when Aretha and Sam & Dave came in, that made it easier for them to move on to the next thing.

Then when hard rock and psychedelic rock became popular, it sure didn't make the more older acts happy either. With the exception of Sammy Davis Jr., none of the pop artists in his generation said anything fond of those acts. Sammy even tried to dress like he was a hippie in the late '60s ("I've gotta be meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!").

Then came glam rock (David Bowie, T. Rex, mid-1970s Elton John, Mott the Hopple, early Queen, late-era Stooges, Jobriath, Sweet, etc.), progressive soul/funk (Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Funkadelic, Curtis Mayfield, early 1970s Temptations/Norman Whitfield, Labelle, etc.), soft rock (which became the TOP genre in pop music in terms of radio airplay/singles while hard rock acts sold on the strength of albums), arena/album rock, folk rock, country rock, outlaw country, progressive rock, then disco, punk, new wave, hip-hop...

I mean it's all a cycle. I think why people get more critical of artists of this generation has more to do that now we have the internet where we can discuss it when that wasn't possible for most of the people here on this board.

rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

The funny thing is : MP3's/iTunes have killed high-quality albums, but also, ironically, high-quality singles.

I thought that in an era where the single is king again, and where the industry and the mainstream audience don't truly care about albums anymore (people don't complain about filler anymore, and that's sad and dangerous), at least there would be good singles, but noooooooooo...people just download new singles no matter how crappy/average they are. These days, a good single is usually surroundered by 25 crappy ones...

See, I'm not sure if the music now sucks or if I'm just reaching that age where everything new sounds like crap to me. I'd like to think it's the music that's crappy but you never know.

It's the music, trust me.

I think that the 00's mainstream audience don't care about singles (and certainly not about albums) anymore: THEY'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A SOUND. Nowadays, the 00's mainstream audience digs shit-dance and shit-hop. As long as a new single (no matter how average it is) features that sound, the mainstream audience will COMPLETELY dig it.

This has happened before (90s alternative rock, hair-metal, disco, corporate folk, etc.) but the main difference is that at least those genres featured memorable songs that hooked jaded or demanding listeners, not only the mainstream audiences...

I mean, I can imagine a 70's rock lover embracing Stayin' Alive because the song is friggin' awesome and catchy, but I can't imagine a Strokes fan, for example, diggin' a faceless Usher single...

The 00's mainstream audience has abandoned quality, they just want the sound, they want to dig the sound that is "fresh" and current...fuck them

rialb said:

Timmy84 said:

As for acts???

I can't no longer blame them for its ruin. The industry is to blame. And WE are to blame for even CONSUMING it (just saying in general).

Obviously kids love the music acts that we so claim to hate/dislike today and the industry is always pushing on the youth and they're young and impressionable so if they like someone, they'll make that up in their mind that the act is good until they get older.

It happens. Happened in our childhoods and I'm sure it's happening now with kids in this generation.

Oh, I'm just really pissed off that "the kids" abandoned the Jonas Brothers so quickly. Michael Bland and Sonny Thompson deserved a bit more of that Jonas money!

Honestly their shelf life did not surprise me. How many teen acts do you know (with exceptions obviously) survive their third year?

You get a two-year head start, then you reach puberty and they forget you.

rialb said:

MickyDolenz said:

I'd say video games, DVD's, satellite/cable, cell phones, computers, and other technology helped to kill music too. These things didn't exist in the past, and people didn't have much to do but listen to music. There was only (in the US) 3 networks, plus PBS and a couple of local UHF channels. TV used to go off the air at 11pm or midnight.

I guess it depends on when you think that music started to decline. For me things were great until the last ten years or so and there haves been video games and dvd's (VHS) since the early '80s so I'm not sure I buy into your argument.

The video game market is way bigger today than in the Atari 2600/arcade days. It's like rap is bigger now than it was then. VHS wasn't that big a market. In the beginning, a pre-made videotape of a movie averaged from $80-$120 a piece. That's pretty much the reason video rental places came into being. Most people used VCR's to record TV programs like the soap operas to watch when they came home from work. Today since DVD's are relatively cheap, many of the rental places are going out of business. Still the decades before the 80's didn't have these things. At the most they had board games and maybe they went to a diner and played a pinball machine. But most people didn't have a pinball machine in their house.

[Edited 2/27/11 12:59pm]

Mariah Carey and Britney Spears.

Timmy84 said:

rialb said:

I'm not sure who to blame, the Bee Gees are the typical target, but disco killed far too many of the R & B/soul artists of the '60s/early '70s careeers stone dead. I guess it's kind of similar to the way Nirvana and grunge/alternative killed the "hair bands" of the '80s. In both cases I think it's fair to say that things tilted much too far in one direction. There's a lot of great disco and alternative music but there was also some great soul and glam music that was unjustly dismissed.

Key word: the industry.

By the way I grew up on grunge/alternative and found myself loving it... still do. But then again, I also grew up on hip-hop in my childhood and outgrew some of the music (Snoop's in particular). I think it's the acts of both the consumer and the industry in why popular music has been "ruined".

Hell in the '60s after Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis supposedly "scandalized" the nation (they were considered shock performers because they always attracted controversy, mainly for their music and for others, their performances and demeanors). That's why Pat Boone, Rick Nelson, Fabian and Chubby Checker (among others) were brought in to sanitize the rough edges of early rock and roll. And I bet there were some older guys who grew up listening to rock and roll thinking "this ruins music for me."

Same can be said about the British Invasion (American acts who didn't survive the Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who, etc., weren't particuarly happy about the Brit acts claiming they "stole" their position in airplay when it was really an industry that was looking to sell and once the Beatles came, there was a real onslaught that didn't let up until the Beatles went psychedelic and fucked up everything.

People claimed James Brown ruined soul music by incorporating no melody to "Cold Sweat". Others claimed Motown ruined music because some acts recorded (and sometimes performed) supper club material claiming it ruined the music scene and in the case of black consumers that they "sold out" (see The Supremes). That's why when Aretha and Sam & Dave came in, that made it easier for them to move on to the next thing.

Then when hard rock and psychedelic rock became popular, it sure didn't make the more older acts happy either. With the exception of Sammy Davis Jr., none of the pop artists in his generation said anything fond of those acts. Sammy even tried to dress like he was a hippie in the late '60s ("I've gotta be meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!").

Then came glam rock (David Bowie, T. Rex, mid-1970s Elton John, Mott the Hopple, early Queen, late-era Stooges, Jobriath, Sweet, etc.), progressive soul/funk (Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Funkadelic, Curtis Mayfield, early 1970s Temptations/Norman Whitfield, Labelle, etc.), soft rock (which became the TOP genre in pop music in terms of radio airplay/singles while hard rock acts sold on the strength of albums), arena/album rock, folk rock, country rock, outlaw country, progressive rock, then disco, punk, new wave, hip-hop...

I mean it's all a cycle. I think why people get more critical of artists of this generation has more to do that now we have the internet where we can discuss it when that wasn't possible for most of the people here on this board.

the main difference is that in ALL those past eras, people still cared about the quality of the music, that's why some 60s, 70s and 80s (or even 90s) albums were considered as major disappointments just because they featured more than 3 songs of pure filler or whatever.

AND it's true that every decade has featured CRAP, but the difference is that the crap was QUICKLY overshadowed by new & better sounds that appeared out of nowhere. For example, those tired of folk & psychodelia quickly had early-70s hard-rock/soul/funk or those tired with disco quickly discovered new wave and electro... I'm tired of shit-dance/shit-hop since 2005 and that sound is STILL popular...

I can't imagine a 17 years old teen complaining about the filler in a Usher album. As I've said, the 00's mainstream scene was just about sound, not quality. The way I see it, 00's pop should have been instrumental...stop writing pop songs with lyrics if you can't build a decent melody or a catchy chorus anymore...

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

Key word: the industry.

By the way I grew up on grunge/alternative and found myself loving it... still do. But then again, I also grew up on hip-hop in my childhood and outgrew some of the music (Snoop's in particular). I think it's the acts of both the consumer and the industry in why popular music has been "ruined".

Hell in the '60s after Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis supposedly "scandalized" the nation (they were considered shock performers because they always attracted controversy, mainly for their music and for others, their performances and demeanors). That's why Pat Boone, Rick Nelson, Fabian and Chubby Checker (among others) were brought in to sanitize the rough edges of early rock and roll. And I bet there were some older guys who grew up listening to rock and roll thinking "this ruins music for me."

Same can be said about the British Invasion (American acts who didn't survive the Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who, etc., weren't particuarly happy about the Brit acts claiming they "stole" their position in airplay when it was really an industry that was looking to sell and once the Beatles came, there was a real onslaught that didn't let up until the Beatles went psychedelic and fucked up everything.

People claimed James Brown ruined soul music by incorporating no melody to "Cold Sweat". Others claimed Motown ruined music because some acts recorded (and sometimes performed) supper club material claiming it ruined the music scene and in the case of black consumers that they "sold out" (see The Supremes). That's why when Aretha and Sam & Dave came in, that made it easier for them to move on to the next thing.

Then when hard rock and psychedelic rock became popular, it sure didn't make the more older acts happy either. With the exception of Sammy Davis Jr., none of the pop artists in his generation said anything fond of those acts. Sammy even tried to dress like he was a hippie in the late '60s ("I've gotta be meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!").

Then came glam rock (David Bowie, T. Rex, mid-1970s Elton John, Mott the Hopple, early Queen, late-era Stooges, Jobriath, Sweet, etc.), progressive soul/funk (Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Funkadelic, Curtis Mayfield, early 1970s Temptations/Norman Whitfield, Labelle, etc.), soft rock (which became the TOP genre in pop music in terms of radio airplay/singles while hard rock acts sold on the strength of albums), arena/album rock, folk rock, country rock, outlaw country, progressive rock, then disco, punk, new wave, hip-hop...

I mean it's all a cycle. I think why people get more critical of artists of this generation has more to do that now we have the internet where we can discuss it when that wasn't possible for most of the people here on this board.

the main difference is that in ALL those past eras, people still cared about the quality of the music, that's why some 60s, 70s and 80s (or even 90s) albums were considered as major disappointments just because they featured more than 3 songs of pure filler or whatever.

AND it's true that every decade has featured CRAP, but the difference is that the crap was QUICKLY overshadowed by new & better sounds that appeared out of nowhere. For example, those tired of folk & psychodelia quickly had early-70s hard-rock/soul/funk or those tired with disco quickly discovered new wave and electro... I'm tired of shit-dance/shit-hop since 2005 and that sound is STILL popular...

I can't imagine a 17 years old teen complaining about the filler in a Usher album. As I've said, the 00's mainstream scene was just about sound, not quality. The way I see it, 00's pop should have been instrumental...stop writing pop songs with lyrics if you can't build a decent melody or a catchy chorus anymore...

Like I said when the industry is full of money-whoring college graduates, that's exactly what you get. Lastdecember explained that fact millions of times whenever this subject comes up.

JoeTyler said:

the main difference is that in ALL those past eras, people still cared about the quality of the music, that's why some 60s, 70s and 80s (or even 90s) albums were considered as major disappointments just because they featured more than 3 songs of pure filler or whatever.

Many of the albums pre-1970's were slapped together around a hit song, so there's not much of a difference. Motown had many of their acts record the same songs to fill out albums. Many acts only had a deal to record singles, and if the song became popular, the label had the act record similar songs or maybe an album was quickly recorded to capitalize on the success (ie. Chubby Checker, doo-wop groups, girl groups). Before The Beatles, it was mainly jazz and classical acts who concentrated on the album. Also before The Beatles popularized it, it wasn't really that common for acts to self-write. Look at how the labels operated, in America, the Beatles British albums were chopped up and mixed with singles tracks on Capitol Records and there's albums like Hey Jude.

JoeTyler said:

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

the main difference is that in ALL those past eras, people still cared about the quality of the music, that's why some 60s, 70s and 80s (or even 90s) albums were considered as major disappointments just because they featured more than 3 songs of pure filler or whatever.

Many of the albums pre-1970's were slapped together around a hit song, so there's not much of a difference. Motown had many of their acts record the same songs to fill out albums. Many acts only had a deal to record singles, and if the song became popular, the label had the act record similar songs or maybe an album was quickly recorded to capitalize on the success (ie. Chubby Checker, doo-wop groups, girl groups). Before The Beatles, it was mainly jazz and classical acts who concentrated on the album. Also before The Beatles popularized it, it wasn't really that common for acts to self-write. Look at how the labels operated, in America, the Beatles British albums were chopped up and mixed with singles tracks on Capitol Records and there's albums like Hey Jude.

Well that's true, I guess I was subconsciously talking about strong 66-69 british albums (Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Cream, Zeppelin, etc). I've always considered 60s Motown as a singles factory, not an album factory...

But even in America people was already aware of the overall quality of an album , that's why the Beach Boys albums post-Pet Sounds were considered as disappointments; hell, even Strange Days of the Doors got mixed reviews due to the inclusion of a couple or three of "bad" leftovers.

Nowadays, if a new album features a couple of truly strong songs, journalists quickly overrate that album with rave reviews.

And do you remember how the Stones' albums of the mid-70's were nearly panned due to the inclusion of some filler tracks??? Hell, I'm sure that if someone released It's Only Rock N' Roll in 2011 it would be considered as the best album of the decade

JoeTyler said:

MickyDolenz said:

Many of the albums pre-1970's were slapped together around a hit song, so there's not much of a difference. Motown had many of their acts record the same songs to fill out albums. Many acts only had a deal to record singles, and if the song became popular, the label had the act record similar songs or maybe an album was quickly recorded to capitalize on the success (ie. Chubby Checker, doo-wop groups, girl groups). Before The Beatles, it was mainly jazz and classical acts who concentrated on the album. Also before The Beatles popularized it, it wasn't really that common for acts to self-write. Look at how the labels operated, in America, the Beatles British albums were chopped up and mixed with singles tracks on Capitol Records and there's albums like Hey Jude.

Well that's true, I guess I was subconsciously talking about strong 66-69 british albums (Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Cream, Zeppelin, etc). I've always considered 60s Motown as a singles factory, not an album factory...

But even in America people was already aware of the overall quality of an album , that's why the Beach Boys albums post-Pet Sounds were considered as disappointments; hell, even Strange Days of the Doors got mixed reviews due to the inclusion of a couple or three of "bad" leftovers.

Nowadays, if a new album features a couple of truly strong songs, journalists quickly overrate that album with rave reviews.

And do you remember how the Stones' albums of the mid-70's were nearly panned due to the inclusion of some filler tracks??? Hell, I'm sure that if someone released It's Only Rock N' Roll in 2011 it would be considered as the best album of the decade

But in the US, it depends on what part of the country you live as to what is popular. One area it might have been psychedelic (ie. San Francisco), in another country & western, in yet another it might have been teen idol pop like Bobby Sherman and Leslie Gore, and so on. In the southern US, Stax Records performers were more popular than in the north, where Chicago soul was more popular. In Louisiana and Texas, there was a big market for zydeco music, which is a genre little known elsewhere. Many acts were on small labels that didn't have the money and distribution power of a major.

Again, this might just be the grumpy old man in me but there seems to be far less variety in today's music, at least in the mainstream. The top forty hits in the '60s-'90s seemed to have a lot more songs that sounded absolutely nothing alike. I guess it's probably true that as early as the late '70s/early '80s a lot of that variety was squeezed out but it really seemed to disappear in the last 10-15 years.

What were the major musical movements circa 2000-2010? The '60s, '70s and, probably to a lesser degree, the '80s and '90s each had many distinct musical genres and movements but the '00s seemed very stale in comparison. Maybe I feel that way because I am not a big fan of modern R & B/Hip Hop music but it really feels like those were the dominant genres and they were very stagnant.

rialb said:

Again, this might just be the grumpy old man in me but there seems to be far less variety in today's music, at least in the mainstream. The top forty hits in the '60s-'90s seemed to have a lot more songs that sounded absolutely nothing alike. I guess it's probably true that as early as the late '70s/early '80s a lot of that variety was squeezed out but it really seemed to disappear in the last 10-15 years.

What were the major musical movements circa 2000-2010? The '60s, '70s and, probably to a lesser degree, the '80s and '90s each had many distinct musical genres and movements but the '00s seemed very stale in comparison. Maybe I feel that way because I am not a big fan of modern R & B/Hip Hop music but it really feels like those were the dominant genres and they were very stagnant.

no its not you being old, its you being REAL! Im tired of people falling back on "your old man" that excuse about ALL of todays music be it mainstream or indie or whatever the fuck, is severly lacking any diversity and variety, mainly because the means of producing it are cheap, and when add CHEAP production with Lacking Talent, you get the last 2 decades basically by in large

rialb said:

Again, this might just be the grumpy old man in me but there seems to be far less variety in today's music, at least in the mainstream. The top forty hits in the '60s-'90s seemed to have a lot more songs that sounded absolutely nothing alike. I guess it's probably true that as early as the late '70s/early '80s a lot of that variety was squeezed out but it really seemed to disappear in the last 10-15 years.

What were the major musical movements circa 2000-2010? The '60s, '70s and, probably to a lesser degree, the '80s and '90s each had many distinct musical genres and movements but the '00s seemed very stale in comparison. Maybe I feel that way because I am not a big fan of modern R & B/Hip Hop music but it really feels like those were the dominant genres and they were very stagnant.

No when it comes to this, you're not a grumpy old man. I agree with this.

rialb said:

Again, this might just be the grumpy old man in me but there seems to be far less variety in today's music, at least in the mainstream. The top forty hits in the '60s-'90s seemed to have a lot more songs that sounded absolutely nothing alike. I guess it's probably true that as early as the late '70s/early '80s a lot of that variety was squeezed out but it really seemed to disappear in the last 10-15 years.

What were the major musical movements circa 2000-2010? The '60s, '70s and, probably to a lesser degree, the '80s and '90s each had many distinct musical genres and movements but the '00s seemed very stale in comparison. Maybe I feel that way because I am not a big fan of modern R & B/Hip Hop music but it really feels like those were the dominant genres and they were very stagnant.

a) Modern-Rock (in fact, it's just the mainstream extension of 90s alternative rock; Strokes, Arctic Monkeys, Franz Ferdinand, Arcade Fire, White Stripes, Kings of Leon, QOTSA, etc.)

b) Shit-hop

c)Modern R&B (extension of the same late-90s sound)

d)Shit-Dance (the dance-pop of the 00's)

e)Modern Metal (pretty crappy and forgettable)

f) Old-school acts that still do their thing.

g)European Dance/Electronic music

this proves that the 00's were a rather sterile decade...

[Edited 2/27/11 15:22pm]