Dren5 said:

It's not because kids nowadays are stupid and only value shitty music.

It's because that's all they're being offered by the current music establishment.

I believe that if the quality of music was better and they had more options, they'd be listening to better shit.

This question is kinda like wondering why people in McDonald's aren't eating fine steaks or something.

mjscarousal said:

duccichucka said:

There was never a time when music was all "good" or mostly "good" or

"better" than what's out now or before. What you are doing is looking

at music history anachronistically and assuming that something awfully

subjective is self-evident.

In 30 years, the teens listening to the "trash" today will bemoan the quality of

music their own children champion.

You honestly believe there is NO difference from how the music industry was 50 years ago versus how it is today??? You dont have to care about how it has changed but to just suggest there is NO difference is being really really naive. People are just looking and analyzing how the industry use to be. Its not a huge issue. This is a place for discussion of the matter at hand. And I disagree with people of this generations who will become parents will say the same thing. I have grandparents and parents in their 50s and old school to them is50s, 60s and 70s artists.. they think artists like MJ, Prince and Madonna are more new school but they dont think their horrible maybe except for Madonna. They dont keep up with the music out now because they dont care for it... If my mother or grandmother heard Beyonce on the radio they probably wouldnt even recognize her voice let alone recognize its a Beyonce song let alone even know who she is!!!!

Um, yes!

There is no objective way you could EVER qualify the claim that one decade of music

was better than another. In order to do this you would need to do the following:

1) formulate a universal theorem that encapsulates and describes what "better" is - and

by universal, I mean that it is self-evident (like 2+2=4) and leaves no room for debate

or subjective interpretation. I'm sure that if you are going to say something is factual

and not open for interpretation, it must be a self-evident universal, right? Everyone must

be able to agree

2) listen to EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF MUSIC released during a decade and analyze its

musical merits according to an already established universal theorem that encapsulates

and describes EVERY SINGLE GENRE OF MUSIC as "good" or "bad" or "<insert term here>";

and remember, the standards that you are using to objectively judge these types of music

are universal, self-evident----> FACTUAL

3) compare decade "A" to decade "B" and be able to use for an analysis using 1)

This is impossible because:

1) what is "good", "bad" or "X" is subjective, not universal and not self-evident; what you think

is "good", some will think is "bad", etc.

2) you cannot possibly listen to every piece of music ever recorded in one decade,

enabling you to compare a decade's worth of music in totality to another in the first place

All that you are really saying, those of you who would claim that today's music sucks and

yesterday's music is "better" (mutatis mutandis), is:

I like x music.

I don't like y music.

But to try to pass off any type of assertion similar to these as being objectively factual and

applicable to the millions of recordings released in a particular decade is just humanity's

penchant for hyperbole and anachronism.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Dren5 said:

It's not because kids nowadays are stupid and only value shitty music.

It's because that's all they're being offered by the current music establishment.

I believe that if the quality of music was better and they had more options, they'd be listening to better shit.

This question is kinda like wondering why people in McDonald's aren't eating fine steaks or something.

Co- The fuck are some of y'all blabbing about?

Timmy84 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Co- The fuck are some of y'all blabbing about?

I think it's sad that people actually think that one form of music can actually be superior to another.

People listen to crap (wear crap, eat crap, read crap) when no one has taken the time to show them something better.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Timmy84 said:

Co- The fuck are some of y'all blabbing about?

I think it's sad that people actually think that one form of music can actually be superior to another.

Supremacy is a bitch ain't it?

Genesia said:

People listen to crap (wear crap, eat crap, read crap) when no one has taken the time to show them something better.

or they haven't bothered to look for themselves. some people want everything served to them on a plate

Timmy84 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

I think it's sad that people actually think that one form of music can actually be superior to another.

Supremacy is a bitch ain't it?

duccichucka said:

mjscarousal said:

You honestly believe there is NO difference from how the music industry was 50 years ago versus how it is today??? You dont have to care about how it has changed but to just suggest there is NO difference is being really really naive. People are just looking and analyzing how the industry use to be. Its not a huge issue. This is a place for discussion of the matter at hand. And I disagree with people of this generations who will become parents will say the same thing. I have grandparents and parents in their 50s and old school to them is50s, 60s and 70s artists.. they think artists like MJ, Prince and Madonna are more new school but they dont think their horrible maybe except for Madonna. They dont keep up with the music out now because they dont care for it... If my mother or grandmother heard Beyonce on the radio they probably wouldnt even recognize her voice let alone recognize its a Beyonce song let alone even know who she is!!!!

Um, yes!

There is no objective way you could EVER qualify the claim that one decade of music

was better than another. In order to do this you would need to do the following:

1) formulate a universal theorem that encapsulates and describes what "better" is - and

by universal, I mean that it is self-evident (like 2+2=4) and leaves no room for debate

or subjective interpretation. I'm sure that if you are going to say something is factual

and not open for interpretation, it must be a self-evident universal, right? Everyone must

be able to agree

2) listen to EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF MUSIC released during a decade and analyze its

musical merits according to an already established universal theorem that encapsulates

and describes EVERY SINGLE GENRE OF MUSIC as "good" or "bad" or "<insert term here>";

and remember, the standards that you are using to objectively judge these types of music

are universal, self-evident----> FACTUAL

3) compare decade "A" to decade "B" and be able to use for an analysis using 1)

This is impossible because:

1) what is "good", "bad" or "X" is subjective, not universal and not self-evident; what you think

is "good", some will think is "bad", etc.

2) you cannot possibly listen to every piece of music ever recorded in one decade,

enabling you to compare a decade's worth of music in totality to another in the first place

All that you are really saying, those of you who would claim that today's music sucks and

yesterday's music is "better" (mutatis mutandis), is:

I like x music.

I don't like y music.

But to try to pass off any type of assertion similar to these as being objectively factual and

applicable to the millions of recordings released in a particular decade is just humanity's

penchant for hyperbole and anachronism.

I think you read way to much in that last post. I have never said that every music for a particular decade was ALL perfectly made. I said that the music industry HAS CHANGED and it has. From how artists are signed to labels, how they are marketed and the over quality of music. No I am not insisting that EVERY music out now is bad but there is difference from how the industry use to be and the change has not been for its good interest at all.

If you dont care about the change or seem to not mind it so be it. But to act like the music industry is still the same is being naive because if the music industry was the same acts like Rihanna, Chris Brown, Beyonce, Katty Perry, etc who are basically images and carbon copies of already more established real artists would not exist.

[Edited 5/1/12 14:16pm]

unique said:

Genesia said:

People listen to crap (wear crap, eat crap, read crap) when no one has taken the time to show them something better.

or they haven't bothered to look for themselves. some people want everything served to them on a plate

I don't disagree. But it's easier to grow into that discernment when your parents (or other caring adults) give you some experience in "the good stuff" starting at a young age.

My mother played great music for me, and required at least two years of piano lessons for each child in our family (I studied for eight). She dressed me beautifully (and taught me to sew), fed me well (and diversely, so I grew up to enjoy more than chicken fingers and Spaghetti-Os), and took me to the movies, theatre, ballet - and even opera.

So when I found the musicians I liked as a teen and an adult, I had enough of a grounding in music to be able to appreciate stuff that was incredible - even if it wasn't a genre that my parents appreciated.

Genesia said:

unique said:

or they haven't bothered to look for themselves. some people want everything served to them on a plate

I don't disagree. But it's easier to grow into that discernment when your parents (or other caring adults) give you some experience in "the good stuff" starting at a young age.

My mother played great music for me, and required at least two years of piano lessons for each child in our family (I studied for eight). She dressed me beautifully (and taught me to sew), fed me well (and diversely, so I grew up to enjoy more than chicken fingers and Spaghetti-Os), and took me to the movies, theatre, ballet - and even opera.

So when I found the musicians I liked as a teen and an adult, I had enough of a grounding in music to be able to appreciate stuff that was incredible - even if it wasn't a genre that my parents appreciated.

Thats what I had. MOST children/teens dont have that which is why they cant tell between generic music versus music with depth. Not because they dont care for it but because they havent been exposed.

mjscarousal said:

duccichucka said:

Um, yes!

There is no objective way you could EVER qualify the claim that one decade of music

was better than another. In order to do this you would need to do the following:

1) formulate a universal theorem that encapsulates and describes what "better" is - and

by universal, I mean that it is self-evident (like 2 2=4) and leaves no room for debate

or subjective interpretation. I'm sure that if you are going to say something is factual

and not open for interpretation, it must be a self-evident universal, right? Everyone must

be able to agree

2) listen to EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF MUSIC released during a decade and analyze its

musical merits according to an already established universal theorem that encapsulates

and describes EVERY SINGLE GENRE OF MUSIC as "good" or "bad" or "<insert term here>";

and remember, the standards that you are using to objectively judge these types of music

are universal, self-evident----> FACTUAL

3) compare decade "A" to decade "B" and be able to use for an analysis using 1)

This is impossible because:

1) what is "good", "bad" or "X" is subjective, not universal and not self-evident; what you think

is "good", some will think is "bad", etc.

2) you cannot possibly listen to every piece of music ever recorded in one decade,

enabling you to compare a decade's worth of music in totality to another in the first place

All that you are really saying, those of you who would claim that today's music sucks and

yesterday's music is "better" (mutatis mutandis), is:

I like x music.

I don't like y music.

But to try to pass off any type of assertion similar to these as being objectively factual and

applicable to the millions of recordings released in a particular decade is just humanity's

penchant for hyperbole and anachronism.

I think you read way to much in that last post. I have never said that every music for a particular decade was ALL perfectly made. I said that the music industry HAS CHANGED and it has. From how artists are signed to labels, how they are marketed and the over quality of music. No I am not insisting that EVERY music out now is bad but there is difference from how the industry use to be and the change has not been for its good interest at all.

If you dont care about the change or seem to not mind it so be it. But to act like the music industry is still the same is being naive because if the music industry was the same acts like Rihanna, Chris Brown, Beyonce, Katty Perry, etc who are basically images and carbon copies of already more established real artists would not exist.

[Edited 5/1/12 14:16pm]

And I don't think you read enough of my post. You asked if I honestly believed

that there isn't much of a difference between what happened yesterday in the music

industry (as far as quality is concerned) to what's happening today, and I clarified my

stance that no, I don't.

Of course the way the game is played has changed: but that is not the question of this

thread or the content of my posts. I'm responding to the thread initiator's claims of:

and

...and explaining that it is impossible to make these claims, other than just to say "I

prefer listening to music from this period of music as opposed to another."

Furthermore, even though you've completely misssed the content of my original post

and the purpose of the thread, I still disagree with your replies. This is because you act

as if there was a point in time when artists weren't the results of record companies'

machinations in order to make a profit:

1. Whitney Houston - she was an image

2. Michael Jackson - he had an image

3. Prince - carefully, meticulously, and purposefully constructed an image

What is a "real artist"? Who determines what a "real artist" should be?

You?

My point is that when you purchase music, you are purchasing a product, even if you

think the recording artist has no image, and is "real" which is, in fact, precisely an image

in and of itself! So in some respects, although how music as a product is sold to the

consumer has changed; and how consumers acquire music as a product has changed,

much of the trimmings of this exchange between consumer and producer has not: you

are still buying the product of a musician who is either selling himself as a "real artist"

(whatever the fuck that means) or someone whose a carbon copied puppet.

Timmy84 said:

nursev said:

My son is not like that-he has his own thing going on and he appreciates great music. He can take it from Kanye's Twisted Fantasy to Prince's News to Adele's 21 ( ) He's not influenced by what momma listens to, but he can appreciate a good song. Just yesterday he was singing Ohio Players "Free" I was like are you trying to tell me something Just kidding

I like those that can listen to Kanye or Nicki and then turn around and listen to the Dells and Platters like it ain't nothing. I tip my hat off to them because they don't give a FUCK and neither do I. I never thought I was special because I like a lot of older shit. I like newer shit too and shit "I'm not supposed to like" according to the ORG. I'm vocal if I don't like something now, new or old. You know that.

I agree with this. I like Kanye West or Future, sometimes I listen to 40s-60s Arabic music, to listening to H-town, Nas, YoungBloodz, Goodie Mob, or Crash Bandicoot VGM to litening to The Impressions, O'Jays, Black Byrds, or War. I like what I like, I mean there's certain artists are don't care for but if I hear a song and it sounds good, I'm gonna listen to it, regardless if most people hate the artist.

mjscarousal said:

Genesia said:

I don't disagree. But it's easier to grow into that discernment when your parents (or other caring adults) give you some experience in "the good stuff" starting at a young age.

My mother played great music for me, and required at least two years of piano lessons for each child in our family (I studied for eight). She dressed me beautifully (and taught me to sew), fed me well (and diversely, so I grew up to enjoy more than chicken fingers and Spaghetti-Os), and took me to the movies, theatre, ballet - and even opera.

So when I found the musicians I liked as a teen and an adult, I had enough of a grounding in music to be able to appreciate stuff that was incredible - even if it wasn't a genre that my parents appreciated.

Thats what I had. MOST children/teens dont have that which is why they cant tell between generic music versus music with depth. Not because they dont care for it but because they havent been exposed.

It's a generational thing. As much as I like 90s music, I really do think people tend to over exaggrate about how groundbreaking music was at the time... right. There were plenty of people who didn't care for music during the 90s and thought it was shit, but again they come from a different generation.

I have a friend who basically just listens to underground/freestyle rap, he said if it wasn't for that, he wouldn't be listening to music at all, I was sitting there going what the hell? So closed-minded...the fact that you would altogether stop listening to music over that is so silly, there's other stuff to listen to.

NastradumasKid said:

Timmy84 said:

I like those that can listen to Kanye or Nicki and then turn around and listen to the Dells and Platters like it ain't nothing. I tip my hat off to them because they don't give a FUCK and neither do I. I never thought I was special because I like a lot of older shit. I like newer shit too and shit "I'm not supposed to like" according to the ORG. I'm vocal if I don't like something now, new or old. You know that.

I agree with this. I like Kanye West or Future, sometimes I listen to 40s-60s Arabic music, to listening to H-town, Nas, YoungBloodz, Goodie Mob, or Crash Bandicoot VGM to litening to The Impressions, O'Jays, Black Byrds, or War. I like what I like, I mean there's certain artists are don't care for but if I hear a song and it sounds good, I'm gonna listen to it, regardless if most people hate the artist.

aardvark15 said:

NastradumasKid said:

I agree with this. I like Kanye West or Future, sometimes I listen to 40s-60s Arabic music, to listening to H-town, Nas, YoungBloodz, Goodie Mob, or Crash Bandicoot VGM to listening to The Impressions, O'Jays, Black Byrds, or War. I like what I like, I mean there's certain artists are don't care for but if I hear a song and it sounds good, I'm gonna listen to it, regardless if most people hate the artist.

I honestly can't stand people who act superior over others, especially annoying ass hip hop elites, because they listen to nothing but 90s and 80s rap or underground as if that's something special. I listen to 90 stuff too but come on, that doesn't make me any better than the next person.

I don't for a lot of songs that are out now but if people like it, that's on them. I ain't trying to be some damn music Nazi.

I honestly don't like topics like this, and try as much as possible to stir clear of them, because people whine too much and let nostalgia cloud their better judgement of things.

Genesia said:

unique said:

or they haven't bothered to look for themselves. some people want everything served to them on a plate

I don't disagree. But it's easier to grow into that discernment when your parents (or other caring adults) give you some experience in "the good stuff" starting at a young age.

My mother played great music for me, and required at least two years of piano lessons for each child in our family (I studied for eight). She dressed me beautifully (and taught me to sew), fed me well (and diversely, so I grew up to enjoy more than chicken fingers and Spaghetti-Os), and took me to the movies, theatre, ballet - and even opera.

So when I found the musicians I liked as a teen and an adult, I had enough of a grounding in music to be able to appreciate stuff that was incredible - even if it wasn't a genre that my parents appreciated.

unless you've lived some weird dual life you can't tell if it's easier or not

i didn't have the experience of good music from parents or other family members when i was growing up, i found it for myself. i had no interest in what other family members liked. i did my own thing

so being brought up surrounded by crap doesn't mean you will keep listening to it. i have the most varied music tastes of anyone i've ever known, and that includes dj's and record store workers. from pop to rock to hip hop to house music to jazz to country to disco. pink floyd to public enemy to prince to pavarotti to presley, it's all in my collection

perhaps being starved of good music growing up made me hunger to find it when i was older and able. same with movies

Well, there's good new music out there for them but apparently they aren't "searching for it". Hell, I can't really blame them though because anyone, young or old, that has a life, job, and bills to pay doesn't have a lifetime to devote to "searching" for something good. As for why they settle for bullshit and actually like it, the hell if I know. I guess just bad taste.

.

.

.

[Edited 5/1/12 22:41pm]

vainandy said:

Well, there's good new music out there for them but apparently they aren't "searching for it". Hell, I can't really blame them though because anyone, young or old, that has a life, job, and bills to pay doesn't have a lifetime to devote to "searching" for something good. As for why they settle for bullshit and actually like it, the hell if I know. I guess just bad taste.

.

.

.

[Edited 5/1/12 22:41pm]

well i have a life, job and bills to pay and i don't find it hard to find good music. try turning the radio off, and mtv off, and ignoring the charts and spend that time looking for something you want to listen to instead of accepting what is being force fed to you. it's not a great skill that only certain people can do. everyone can do it. imagine the charts if people didn't follow the leader and fashion

Because they choose to?

unique said:

vainandy said:

Well, there's good new music out there for them but apparently they aren't "searching for it". Hell, I can't really blame them though because anyone, young or old, that has a life, job, and bills to pay doesn't have a lifetime to devote to "searching" for something good. As for why they settle for bullshit and actually like it, the hell if I know. I guess just bad taste.

.

.

.

[Edited 5/1/12 22:41pm]

well i have a life, job and bills to pay and i don't find it hard to find good music. try turning the radio off, and mtv off, and ignoring the charts and spend that time looking for something you want to listen to instead of accepting what is being force fed to you. it's not a great skill that only certain people can do. everyone can do it. imagine the charts if people didn't follow the leader and fashion

Oh, I do all those things. My radio doesn't go near a station that plays current music, I dropped cable because I don't even want to hear the shit or see the reality shit when I'm switching through the channels to get to another channel, and as far as the charts go these days, if someone gets on the charts these days, that means they're doing something wrong.

The only thing I don't do is "search" for good new music because I shouldn't have to when there's radio that should be playing it. It's the principle of the thing. Plus, when you do search for something good, you have to listen to a bunch of bullshit to find that needle in a haystack and I don't want to hear any five seconds of the haystack because it depresses me. The only searching I'm going to do is for something old that I don't already have. We didn't used to have to search for good new music and we shouldn't have to now. Like I said, it's the principle of the thing. Searching for good new music should be the job of the radio stations. I can't help it if they stopped doing their job. If I'm gonna search for something good, somebody needs to pay me because I'm not going to do the job of the radio for free.

.

.

.

[Edited 5/1/12 23:59pm]

vainandy said:

unique said:

well i have a life, job and bills to pay and i don't find it hard to find good music. try turning the radio off, and mtv off, and ignoring the charts and spend that time looking for something you want to listen to instead of accepting what is being force fed to you. it's not a great skill that only certain people can do. everyone can do it. imagine the charts if people didn't follow the leader and fashion

Oh, I do all those things. My radio doesn't go near a station that plays current music, I dropped cable because I don't even want to hear the shit or see the reality shit when I'm switching through the channels to get to another channel, and as far as the charts go these days, if someone gets on the charts these days, that means they're doing something wrong.

The only thing I don't do is "search" for good new music because I shouldn't have to when there's radio that should be playing it. It's the principle of the thing. Plus, when you do search for something good, you have to listen to a bunch of bullshit to find that needle in a haystack and I don't want to hear any five seconds of the haystack because it depresses me. The only searching I'm going to do is for something old that I don't already have. We didn't used to have to search for good new music and we shouldn't have to now. Like I said, it's the principle of the thing. Searching for good new music should be the job of the radio stations. I can't help it if they stopped doing their job. If I'm gonna search for something good, somebody needs to pay me because I'm not going to do the job of the radio for free.

.

it's not the radio stations job to play good new music. the radio stations are there to make money like any other business, by playing what their board members dictate based on what they believe their shareholders want. thus you get the lowest common denominator shite played

then people hear that shite and some enjoy it like mcdonalds. so in the uk even the non commercial stations operated by government money play similar shite as their directors believe that is what the consumers want to hear, based on what the competition plays

the radio stations aren't there to give you good new music. if you want to hear good new music you need to find it for yourself. the same as anything else. and it's not hard, especially in the current day

these days you can read a music magazine or even read about artists in newspapers and websites and easily checkout their music for free online from official sites, youtube, etc etc etc. you have sites like allmusic and amazon that give suggestions based on what you are looking for. so if you like marvin gaye it might suggest al green

vainandy said:

unique said:

well i have a life, job and bills to pay and i don't find it hard to find good music. try turning the radio off, and mtv off, and ignoring the charts and spend that time looking for something you want to listen to instead of accepting what is being force fed to you. it's not a great skill that only certain people can do. everyone can do it. imagine the charts if people didn't follow the leader and fashion

Oh, I do all those things. My radio doesn't go near a station that plays current music, I dropped cable because I don't even want to hear the shit or see the reality shit when I'm switching through the channels to get to another channel, and as far as the charts go these days, if someone gets on the charts these days, that means they're doing something wrong.

The only thing I don't do is "search" for good new music because I shouldn't have to when there's radio that should be playing it. It's the principle of the thing. Plus, when you do search for something good, you have to listen to a bunch of bullshit to find that needle in a haystack and I don't want to hear any five seconds of the haystack because it depresses me. The only searching I'm going to do is for something old that I don't already have. We didn't used to have to search for good new music and we shouldn't have to now. Like I said, it's the principle of the thing. Searching for good new music should be the job of the radio stations. I can't help it if they stopped doing their job. If I'm gonna search for something good, somebody needs to pay me because I'm not going to do the job of the radio for free.

.

.

.

[Edited 5/1/12 23:59pm]

Why not?! They ain't doin' it right!

mjscarousal said:

Yea I guess we can just end it here because none of your replies make any sense either.

Michael, Prince, and Whitney had RAW TALENT something that is lacking in todays music industry and if you want to sit here and make rants like the artists out now have the same level of talent GO RIGHT AHEAD. I am done with going back and forth with snobbish folks. Obviously, image is a factor in the pop industry but that is not what they sold and why they were ORIGINALLY SIGNED. They had talent and made quality material.

You said so yourself that the way the game is played has changed, so I am not sure what point you are getting at? That was the point I was only trying to making because you seem to insist the game is still the same even though image is a factor there is MORE to the music industry besides that that is completely different

Going by your logic, everything playing on the radio is the greatest thing in the world and labels still pick out great talent and people still make great pop music as 50 years ago. How awards are giving out is STILL THE SAME and what labels look at in artists is STILL the same.. THATS BULLSHIT but whatever if thats how you feel so be it.

I didnt imply that artists never had acted as products by record companies.. I am STRICTLY looking at "talent", awards and material quality because even though that played some role before the artists still had raw talent and the pop music was overall better than how it is NOW. The talent/music was pushed in the forefront before image.

You are very narrow minded about this, Carousal. And I don't mean that as a

put down; but you are not thinking about what you believe in and why you believe

in it. Much of your argument does not follow from your premisses.

How in the world can you ever objectively qualify or quantify something such as

"raw talent?" What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that there is a method

of determining who has more "raw talent" than another?; or who has less "raw talent"

than the next? How do you determine the "raw talent" of Prince/MJ/Whitney as being

better than someone else's talent? Why do artists of a past generation have more

"raw talent" than another - did raw talent just skip a generation? No, of course not!

Nothing has changed about the way artists are paraded out in front of the consumers:

if you're pretty, we buy that image. If you're musically adroit, we buy into the image

that you're "real." If you're both, we buy into the image that you are the next Prince.

Whatever the case may be, when you purchase a cd, you are buying more than just

"music" - you are buying what that person is selling! I don't know why you are trippin'

about this....There was NEVER a time in pop music recording history when "raw talent"

was completely prior to image; in fact, I would argue that talent in some cases was

simply an appurtenance to talent. I honestly think what you, and the thread initiator, are

saying is this:

Because popular music released in this particular decade had more substance or qualities

that I believe are important to a recording musician's career than what I see today, I pre-

fer music of said era to that of today.

Then it is up to you to talk about what those qualities are, why you find them important, why

and how those qualities are present in artists you prefer and why and how those qualities

are not in the artists of today. You have not done this other than just blurting out how you

feel - and I'm the type of poster who does not buy opinions at face value.

And no, going by my logic, you can never say that everything on the radio is the

greatest in the world. Again, I'm not sure if you are reading clearly my posts. If

you go by my logical argument, music in and of itself is never objectively "good",

"bad," or anything else. If it ain't objective, your opinion cain't ever be established

as factual or universal, only "truthful." And there's a big difference between fact and truth.

And chill the fuck out; I don't know why people complain about "bad music" anyways. Why?

1) There is so much music being released today as compared to what was happening years

ago. Get off your lazy ass and go find good music. Here's a hint: it ain't on the radio. Hint

numero B: Google.

2) If there was no such thing as subjectively bad music, and only good music; if only good

music was being released, then what was good would lose all its meaning. You need bad

music in order to appreciate and identify and enjoy good music.

awesomeav said:

Now im a younger prince fan (14) and i hate alot of the shit thay my friends listen 2 ect justin beiber and cody simpson and brit 1 direction but still think abba,queen,mj and prince r great musos i think they dont know what good music is because 1 there parents didnnt teach them right or didnt have any way 2 heear good musos case closed.

What the hell, you're 14? Damn you making me feel old. I've been a Prince fan since I was 8. I really don't see what's wrong with your friends liking those artists. When I was very young, I thought NSYNC and Aaron Carter were one of the greatest artists out there. It's a generational thing.

unique said:

vainandy said:

Oh, I do all those things. My radio doesn't go near a station that plays current music, I dropped cable because I don't even want to hear the shit or see the reality shit when I'm switching through the channels to get to another channel, and as far as the charts go these days, if someone gets on the charts these days, that means they're doing something wrong.

The only thing I don't do is "search" for good new music because I shouldn't have to when there's radio that should be playing it. It's the principle of the thing. Plus, when you do search for something good, you have to listen to a bunch of bullshit to find that needle in a haystack and I don't want to hear any five seconds of the haystack because it depresses me. The only searching I'm going to do is for something old that I don't already have. We didn't used to have to search for good new music and we shouldn't have to now. Like I said, it's the principle of the thing. Searching for good new music should be the job of the radio stations. I can't help it if they stopped doing their job. If I'm gonna search for something good, somebody needs to pay me because I'm not going to do the job of the radio for free.

.

it's not the radio stations job to play good new music. the radio stations are there to make money like any other business, by playing what their board members dictate based on what they believe their shareholders want. thus you get the lowest common denominator shite played

then people hear that shite and some enjoy it like mcdonalds. so in the uk even the non commercial stations operated by government money play similar shite as their directors believe that is what the consumers want to hear, based on what the competition plays

the radio stations aren't there to give you good new music. if you want to hear good new music you need to find it for yourself. the same as anything else. and it's not hard, especially in the current day

these days you can read a music magazine or even read about artists in newspapers and websites and easily checkout their music for free online from official sites, youtube, etc etc etc. you have sites like allmusic and amazon that give suggestions based on what you are looking for. so if you like marvin gaye it might suggest al green

Well, it used to be their job. Songs like "Lady Cab Driver", "Automatic", "Head", etc. were never singles but yet they were played the hell out of on the radio. "Fire and Desire" by Rick James was one of his biggest and it was never a single. Local acts were supported and played in heavy rotation. Apparently the DJs had a lot more input on what was played other than what some huge corporation was telling them to play. And one R&B station might have two or three songs that it played that the other R&B stations didn't have and vice versa.

Shit hop existed in the late 1980s also and the majority of it wasn't played. Only the rap jams that deserved to be played which could fit in and be played alongside funk without sounding completely out of place made it onto the radio back then. The stripped down "talking over a slow weak sounding beat" existed even back then but wasn't on the radio because stations saw it for what it actually was which is a whole bunch of nothing. Apparently the radio was doing their job in finding good new music and playing it and keeping the majority of the bullshit out. Yeah, there were some songs that didn't sound so great but that was just a matter of opinion and taste of the individual listener because not everyone likes the exact same thing. But bullshit that didn't even deserve to be on the radio because it was a bunch of nothing was kept out for the most part. Yeah, radio did it's job back then.

.

.

.

[Edited 5/2/12 6:32am]

vainandy said:

unique said:

it's not the radio stations job to play good new music. the radio stations are there to make money like any other business, by playing what their board members dictate based on what they believe their shareholders want. thus you get the lowest common denominator shite played

then people hear that shite and some enjoy it like mcdonalds. so in the uk even the non commercial stations operated by government money play similar shite as their directors believe that is what the consumers want to hear, based on what the competition plays

the radio stations aren't there to give you good new music. if you want to hear good new music you need to find it for yourself. the same as anything else. and it's not hard, especially in the current day

these days you can read a music magazine or even read about artists in newspapers and websites and easily checkout their music for free online from official sites, youtube, etc etc etc. you have sites like allmusic and amazon that give suggestions based on what you are looking for. so if you like marvin gaye it might suggest al green

Well, it used to be their job. Songs like "Lady Cab Driver", "Automatic", "Head", etc. were never singles but yet they were played the hell out of on the radio. "Fire and Desire" by Rick James was one of his biggest and it was never a single. Local acts were supported and played in heavy rotation. Apparently the DJs had a lot more input on what was played other than what some huge corporation was telling them to play. And one R&B station might have two or three songs that it played that the other R&B stations didn't have and vice versa.

Shit hop existed in the late 1980s also and the majority of it wasn't played. Only the rap jams that deserved to be played which could fit in and be played alongside funk without sounding completely out of place made it onto the radio back then. The stripped down "talking over a slow weak sounding beat" existed even back then but wasn't on the radio because stations saw it for what it actually was which is a whole bunch of nothing. Apparently the radio was doing their job in finding good new music and playing it and keeping the majority of the bullshit out. Yeah, there were some songs that didn't sound so great but that was just a matter of opinion and taste of the individual listener because not everyone likes the exact same thing. But bullshit that didn't even deserve to be on the radio because it was a bunch of nothing was kept out for the most part. Yeah, radio did it's job back then.

it's NEVER been their job. it's always been about the money. ain't you never heard of payola?

if you want something, you need to find it if you don't like what you are handed on a plate. and it's not hard to do, particularly today. you have spotify, itunes, google, p2p, youtube, countless internet radio stations. newspapers, magazines, blogs. you have more tv channels and more radio stations than there has ever been. there's more music than theres ever been, with it being easier than ever for new artists to make and release music, plus as time goes on you have more and more and more back catalogue to listen to. and today it's never been easier to access music from around the world without leaving your home

if you are complaining about listening to bad music, you only have yourself to blame

unique said:

vainandy said:

Well, it used to be their job. Songs like "Lady Cab Driver", "Automatic", "Head", etc. were never singles but yet they were played the hell out of on the radio. "Fire and Desire" by Rick James was one of his biggest and it was never a single. Local acts were supported and played in heavy rotation. Apparently the DJs had a lot more input on what was played other than what some huge corporation was telling them to play. And one R&B station might have two or three songs that it played that the other R&B stations didn't have and vice versa.

Shit hop existed in the late 1980s also and the majority of it wasn't played. Only the rap jams that deserved to be played which could fit in and be played alongside funk without sounding completely out of place made it onto the radio back then. The stripped down "talking over a slow weak sounding beat" existed even back then but wasn't on the radio because stations saw it for what it actually was which is a whole bunch of nothing. Apparently the radio was doing their job in finding good new music and playing it and keeping the majority of the bullshit out. Yeah, there were some songs that didn't sound so great but that was just a matter of opinion and taste of the individual listener because not everyone likes the exact same thing. But bullshit that didn't even deserve to be on the radio because it was a bunch of nothing was kept out for the most part. Yeah, radio did it's job back then.

it's NEVER been their job. it's always been about the money. ain't you never heard of payola?

if you want something, you need to find it if you don't like what you are handed on a plate. and it's not hard to do, particularly today. you have spotify, itunes, google, p2p, youtube, countless internet radio stations. newspapers, magazines, blogs. you have more tv channels and more radio stations than there has ever been. there's more music than theres ever been, with it being easier than ever for new artists to make and release music, plus as time goes on you have more and more and more back catalogue to listen to. and today it's never been easier to access music from around the world without leaving your home

if you are complaining about listening to bad music, you only have yourself to blame

I don't listen to it. Hell, I gave up on it and took stations that play current music off my dial back in the late 1990s and I should have done it years earlier. But I be damned if I'm going to "search" for anything. I didn't have to before and I shouldn't have to now. Like I said before, it's the principle of it. And since I don't listen to it, the reason I don't do it is because I can't even stand to hear it. In order to "search" for something, you have to hear a bunch of bullshit while searching. I don't want to hear even five seconds of the bullshit.