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.

Keep doing your thing orger, and dont allow anyones opinion in here get you down....

vainandy said:

unique said:

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.

i see. you want to be SERVED

well the people who enjoy music the most do the searching to find it. and that is a very satisfying process

you can go to a fishmonger or supermarket and buy a fish. or you can get a rod and catch your own fish. the one you catch yourself will be the tastiest

duccichucka said:

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.

It's no use talking to her. She's a borderline troll.

AsherFierce said:

duccichucka said:

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?

No.. no no... your the one that is narrow minded because you fail to grasp the over all point of the arguement which you agreed with way back... so Im confused with what point you are trying to make now

The primary point of my ORIGINAL post was that the music mainstream industry has change and doesnt operate how it use to be. And in one of your replies back to me you even agreed with that point which was the ONLY point I was trying to make. I admit sometimes my points are not clear at all but that was the primary gest of my post that you agreed with.

I also pointed out that most (not all) kids and teenagers are not exposed to other forms of music like jazz, blues, reggae, neo soul, folk, etc it doesnt necessarily have to be OLD but just other music besides the Beyonces, Rihannas, Chris Browns, Drakes... Some kids honestly believe that that is where the industry ends and yes there is facts to back that claim up and yes that does alter how a child may view music if they believe that is the ONLY selections they have to choose from. Thats why sometimes Parents introduce their children to their music or to other forms of music to give them more music exposure.

So I am not sure what other points you are trying to prove here...

I wasnt the one that brought up Whitney, MJ or Prince into this arguement. YOU DID. And I assumed that your point in bringing them into the arguemetment was to make a comparision of the artists of today. This entire time in speaking of artists of today I am NOT speaking of ALL current artists. I am speaking primarily on commercial artists and the commercial industry in itself and yes that has change and yes the way in which people define talent has change in that MARKET. To be honest, I am not even sure why you would mention WHitney, Michael or even Prince as "examples" because their is no one out currently in the MAINSTREAM market that has the same level of talent regardless whether they are talented or not. Personally, that particular kind of talent comes once in a life time for those artists that you mentioned. You probably should have used a more current artist like Erykah Badu, etc.

I am not making this about old or new. I commented on the examples YOU BROUGHT UP.

duccichucka said:

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."

There are alot of older artists that I dont care for and dont listen to. I find Elvis Presly to be very overrated. However, what I come to observe based on listening to a variety of different artists from past eras is that for the MOST part the commercially successful artists of those past eras had better quality material and appeared to be vocally and overall musically more talented and just how the industry operated was different.

OF COURSE their are alot of talented artists out right now that make great music BUT their not playing on the radio. There not winning any grammys. There not selling a million records. The primary target group that I am speaking of is the artists that is constantly shoved down our faces as being good when they make mediocre music and are mediocre overall. The latter of your arguement I dont completely disagree with because that is also true but the formula is very different. Al Green was good looking, Chaka was good looking to but you know what else.. they were great singers and the record labels put effort into producing them quality music. The two went together. It was mostly about saling sex or gimmick like it is today. Today that is the overall objective because labels care about money more so about creating music not to say they didnt care about that back in the day but it was more appreciation into creating music

duccichucka said:

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.

I have in no way implied this...and admitted to agreeing with some points you made but the industry has changed versus how it was in the 70s even with how awards are given out, its not COMPLETELY the same and its very narrow minded to suggest that the music industry in the 1950s is the same in 2012.

Its very very very very sad and quite snobbish that a person cant come into a music forum and express why they prefer the kind of music or express why they like a particular kind of music over another. Its almost as if you cant be an individual and express yourself. Fine, you dont have to agree with the OP's opinion but to suggest his narrow minded just because he prefers older music? How does that make him narrow minded? How does that make me narrow minded? Old school is NOT the only music that I listen to I like to everything of ALL eras but when people make threads that asks for comment on how they feel about music or what eras they enjoy I personally lend toward 70s because I love the music and can relate to it more. A person that is snobbish shuns a certain kind of music but if a person is open and has listen to a variety of music to come to their conclusion...How does that make them snobbish?

I think ranting about how a person should or should not feel about the music THEY enjoy is snobbish

duccichucka said:

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.

I disagree with that.

I think there is a difference between music that is generic (bad) and music that is of better quality (good). However, I also believe that every music has its place. I dont think a Soul Ja Boy song is on the same creativity, lyrical level as a Erykah Badu song but thats my opinion. Someone else might think a Soul Ja Boy song is very creative but I have objective reasoning to show that it is not a song with creative depth.

duccichucka said:

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.

I have not complained about anything. I simply gave my opinion on what the OP asked and I so happened to agree with it. Why dont YOU chill the fuck out.

The OP is young so 9 times out of 10 he or she doenst have conversations like this with his peers who probably listens to Chris Brown all day and is just simply looking to vent and read some insightful opinions, not to be bashed because he " likes old skool over 2012 radio"

And lastly, you dont have to give me a lesson on good music or where to find it because I know where to find "good" music and NO its not playing on mainstream radio... thanks but no thanks.

Its sad that these opinions are viewed as "complaints" on a message board. How do you know someone doesnt look for other kinds of music or listens to other kinds of music. Just because they say they like Charlie Wilson or Funkadelic instead of listening to the radio doesnt necessarily mean that is the ONLY music they listen to which is very judgemental especially when the title is asking you to compare two particular eras IN music.

[Edited 5/2/12 14:37pm]

Why do kids my age listen to so much trash?

Because they haven't seen this thread yet: http://prince.org/msg/8/380531

Lack of music and arts education in American schools and has been a trend for quite some time and it is more apparent now than ever. Kids aren't exposed to various musical styles, so they lack the appreciation of a well-produced track and without a point of reference for real music (made by musicians TM), they think Chris Clown and Snorah Jones are better than that Prince guy. However, European and Asian educational institutions continue to keep music appreciation alive that's why foolishness like Hip Hop dies on the rails over there as it rightfully should compared to real music...

I was exposed to various style growing up, Hip Hop, Rock, R+B, Jazz, Classical, and I came to be a piano player that ranges in those styles, so I understand music quite intimately and better than most of the population. Music is really a lost art, but as I often believe, 30-40 years ago John Legend and Alicia Keys would be working in a piano bar if the quality in music didn't fall like a rock..If you tell someone in the street that you play piano (younger than say, 21) they'd think you are from another planet....

Musicians make music and musicians being:

a) Able to play and master one or more instruments (voice obviously is included).

Trashy Music:

Non-musicians ie ('producers') whom can't even formulate coherent sentences much like their fans use auto-tune, samples, and the work of others to sell as "music"...They lack talent and see music as a hustle and not an art....

Can you honestly say there's been a producer within the past 10 years that has been equivalent or creative as Teddy Riley? Or Babyface? Jimmy Jam/Terry Lewis?Going further back Stevie or Quincy Jones? Any answers? I thought not...

Listen to a Teddy Riley track and then a or fraudulent Kanye "song" or DJ Khaled Track(same 4 chord progressions lol), and the quality and craftsmanship should be quite apparent.

gdiminished said:

Lack of music and arts education in American schools and has been a trend for quite some time and it is more apparent now than ever. Kids aren't exposed to various musical styles, so they lack the appreciation of a well-produced track and without a point of reference for real music (made by musicians TM), they think Chris Clown and Snorah Jones are better than that Prince guy. However, European and Asian educational institutions continue to keep music appreciation alive that's why foolishness like Hip Hop dies on the rails over there as it rightfully should compared to real music...

I was exposed to various style growing up, Hip Hop, Rock, R+B, Jazz, Classical, and I came to be a piano player that ranges in those styles, so I understand music quite intimately and better than most of the population. Music is really a lost art, but as I often believe, 30-40 years ago John Legend and Alicia Keys would be working in a piano bar if the quality in music didn't fall like a rock..If you tell someone in the street that you play piano (younger than say, 21) they'd think you are from another planet....

Musicians make music and musicians being:

a) Able to play and master one or more instruments (voice obviously is included).

Trashy Music:

Non-musicians ie ('producers') whom can't even formulate coherent sentences much like their fans use auto-tune, samples, and the work of others to sell as "music"...They lack talent and see music as a hustle and not an art....

Can you honestly say there's been a producer within the past 10 years that has been equivalent or creative as Teddy Riley? Or Babyface? Jimmy Jam/Terry Lewis?Going further back Stevie or Quincy Jones? Any answers? I thought not...

Listen to a Teddy Riley track and then a or fraudulent Kanye "song" or DJ Khaled Track(same 4 chord progressions lol), and the quality and craftsmanship should be quite apparent.

All I'm seeing is opinions everywhere.

gdiminished said:

Lack of music and arts education in American schools and has been a trend for quite some time and it is more apparent now than ever. Kids aren't exposed to various musical styles, so they lack the appreciation of a well-produced track and without a point of reference for real music (made by musicians TM), they think Chris Clown and Snorah Jones are better than that Prince guy. However, European and Asian educational institutions continue to keep music appreciation alive that's why foolishness like Hip Hop dies on the rails over there as it rightfully should compared to real music...

Well Said

smoothcriminal12 said:

gdiminished said:

Lack of music and arts education in American schools and has been a trend for quite some time and it is more apparent now than ever. Kids aren't exposed to various musical styles, so they lack the appreciation of a well-produced track and without a point of reference for real music (made by musicians TM), they think Chris Clown and Snorah Jones are better than that Prince guy. However, European and Asian educational institutions continue to keep music appreciation alive that's why foolishness like Hip Hop dies on the rails over there as it rightfully should compared to real music...

I was exposed to various style growing up, Hip Hop, Rock, R+B, Jazz, Classical, and I came to be a piano player that ranges in those styles, so I understand music quite intimately and better than most of the population. Music is really a lost art, but as I often believe, 30-40 years ago John Legend and Alicia Keys would be working in a piano bar if the quality in music didn't fall like a rock..If you tell someone in the street that you play piano (younger than say, 21) they'd think you are from another planet....

Musicians make music and musicians being:

a) Able to play and master one or more instruments (voice obviously is included).

Trashy Music:

Non-musicians ie ('producers') whom can't even formulate coherent sentences much like their fans use auto-tune, samples, and the work of others to sell as "music"...They lack talent and see music as a hustle and not an art....

Can you honestly say there's been a producer within the past 10 years that has been equivalent or creative as Teddy Riley? Or Babyface? Jimmy Jam/Terry Lewis?Going further back Stevie or Quincy Jones? Any answers? I thought not...

Listen to a Teddy Riley track and then a or fraudulent Kanye "song" or DJ Khaled Track(same 4 chord progressions lol), and the quality and craftsmanship should be quite apparent.

All I'm seeing is opinions everywhere.

That's all you're gonna get from these music snobs. And they pass it off as gospel. I played in my school's band for years and I took piano lessons until I graduated high school, so that means I'm better than you.

Terrib3Towel said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

All I'm seeing is opinions everywhere.

That's all you're gonna get from these music snobs. And they pass it off as gospel. I played in my school's band for years and I took piano lessons until I graduated high school, so that means I'm better than you.

I'm not a snob, just a passionate musician who doesn't sugarcoat what the music environment is like for listeners of today.

Well that's understandable I suppose.

I will say that music is under-represented in American schools. Some school districts even cut their bands because of budgets. But America is such a social hierarchy, the poorer schools don't give a shit and students don't either.

Terrib3Towel said:

Well that's understandable I suppose.

I will say that music is under-represented in American schools. Some school districts even cut their bands because of budgets. But America is such a social hierarchy, the poorer schools don't give a shit and students don't either.

Music and art programs are the least problems poorly-funded school systems have, but that discussion should head to the pol. forum...

Imagine you are a chemist and a meth dealer is getting all the credit for being a "scientist" while we know that isn't the case. You're average musician is equivalent to a chemist (in terms of dedication to the form) while your fruity loops and sample man is equal to a meth dealer...knows how to mix enough not to get themselves killed or hurt, but enough to pull in the mook (ie consumer)

Sure the charlatans know some pro terms, but when you need a real professional, they will always deliver(ie a Teddy Riley Track (pro) vs Kanye Scoop and Loop Sample (novice).

gdiminished said:

Terrib3Towel said:

That's all you're gonna get from these music snobs. And they pass it off as gospel. I played in my school's band for years and I took piano lessons until I graduated high school, so that means I'm better than you.

I'm not a snob, just a passionate musician who doesn't sugarcoat what the music environment is like for listeners of today.

Damn Preach it! But there is no sense in arguing back in forth with the most judgmental snobbish poster on prince.org. He thinks anyone is a snob if they disagree with him.... What other instruments do you play, are you in a band?

mjscarousal said:

gdiminished said:

I'm not a snob, just a passionate musician who doesn't sugarcoat what the music environment is like for listeners of today.

Damn Preach it! But there is no sense in arguing back in forth with the most judgmental snobbish poster on prince.org. He thinks anyone is a snob if they disagree with him.... What other instruments do you play, are you in a band?

Just piano with a strong emphasis on theory from college but I also teach privately as well.

Terrib3Towel said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

All I'm seeing is opinions everywhere.

That's all you're gonna get from these music snobs. And they pass it off as gospel. I played in my school's band for years and I took piano lessons until I graduated high school, so that means I'm better than you.

It's true. They can hide it any way, but in the end they are all wrong.

smoothcriminal12 said:

gdiminished said:

Lack of music and arts education in American schools and has been a trend for quite some time and it is more apparent now than ever. Kids aren't exposed to various musical styles, so they lack the appreciation of a well-produced track and without a point of reference for real music (made by musicians TM), they think Chris Clown and Snorah Jones are better than that Prince guy. However, European and Asian educational institutions continue to keep music appreciation alive that's why foolishness like Hip Hop dies on the rails over there as it rightfully should compared to real music...

I was exposed to various style growing up, Hip Hop, Rock, R+B, Jazz, Classical, and I came to be a piano player that ranges in those styles, so I understand music quite intimately and better than most of the population. Music is really a lost art, but as I often believe, 30-40 years ago John Legend and Alicia Keys would be working in a piano bar if the quality in music didn't fall like a rock..If you tell someone in the street that you play piano (younger than say, 21) they'd think you are from another planet....

Musicians make music and musicians being:

a) Able to play and master one or more instruments (voice obviously is included).

Trashy Music:

Non-musicians ie ('producers') whom can't even formulate coherent sentences much like their fans use auto-tune, samples, and the work of others to sell as "music"...They lack talent and see music as a hustle and not an art....

Can you honestly say there's been a producer within the past 10 years that has been equivalent or creative as Teddy Riley? Or Babyface? Jimmy Jam/Terry Lewis?Going further back Stevie or Quincy Jones? Any answers? I thought not...

Listen to a Teddy Riley track and then a or fraudulent Kanye "song" or DJ Khaled Track(same 4 chord progressions lol), and the quality and craftsmanship should be quite apparent.

All I'm seeing is opinions everywhere.

Well, gee, sonny - maybe it's because you asked a question for which the only possible answers are opinions.

Because being different and being interested in different type of things is frowned upon more than it has been in quite a while. Kids these days are afraid to pick up anything that challenges them and the values they've adopted from the mainstream media.

The educational system seems to have brainwashed young people to think that they should do what everyone else does and behave like everyone else does so that they don't become "losers". I remember how artists and people with a decent taste in art were often considered the "elite" at least in some sense, but these days being part of the "elite" just means you have the most money and get to have sex with the most attractive members of the opposite sex.

Genesia said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

All I'm seeing is opinions everywhere.

Well, gee, sonny - maybe it's because you asked a question for which the only possible answers are opinions.

lol

Genesia said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

All I'm seeing is opinions everywhere.

Well, gee, sonny - maybe it's because you asked a question for which the only possible answers are opinions.

Did I ask the question? No.

Besides, I'm referrring to the him stating his opinion as a fact which is why I said it was an opinion.

[Edited 5/3/12 14:32pm]

smoothcriminal12 said:

Genesia said:

Well, gee, sonny - maybe it's because you asked a question for which the only possible answers are opinions.

Did I ask the question? No.

Besides, I'm referrring to the him stating his opinion as a fact which is why I said it was an opinion.

[Edited 5/3/12 14:32pm]

I was thinking the same, you didn't ask the question? so idk why she's so pressed at u

Gunsnhalen said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Did I ask the question? No.

Besides, I'm referrring to the him stating his opinion as a fact which is why I said it was an opinion.

[Edited 5/3/12 14:32pm]

I was thinking the same, you didn't ask the question? so idk why she's so pressed at u

I mean damn...give me a break here.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Genesia said:

Well, gee, sonny - maybe it's because you asked a question for which the only possible answers are opinions.

Did I ask the question? No.

Besides, I'm referrring to the him stating his opinion as a fact which is why I said it was an opinion.

[Edited 5/3/12 14:32pm]

LOL I was about to say. I didn't see you ask anything. I swear, some people stay pressed.

mjscarousal said:

duccichucka said:

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?

No.. no no... your the one that is narrow minded because you fail to grasp the over all point of the arguement which you agreed with way back... so Im confused with what point you are trying to make now

The primary point of my ORIGINAL post was that the music mainstream industry has change and doesnt operate how it use to be. And in one of your replies back to me you even agreed with that point which was the ONLY point I was trying to make. I admit sometimes my points are not clear at all but that was the primary gest of my post that you agreed with.

I also pointed out that most (not all) kids and teenagers are not exposed to other forms of music like jazz, blues, reggae, neo soul, folk, etc it doesnt necessarily have to be OLD but just other music besides the Beyonces, Rihannas, Chris Browns, Drakes... Some kids honestly believe that that is where the industry ends and yes there is facts to back that claim up and yes that does alter how a child may view music if they believe that is the ONLY selections they have to choose from. Thats why sometimes Parents introduce their children to their music or to other forms of music to give them more music exposure.

So I am not sure what other points you are trying to prove here...

I wasnt the one that brought up Whitney, MJ or Prince into this arguement. YOU DID. And I assumed that your point in bringing them into the arguemetment was to make a comparision of the artists of today. This entire time in speaking of artists of today I am NOT speaking of ALL current artists. I am speaking primarily on commercial artists and the commercial industry in itself and yes that has change and yes the way in which people define talent has change in that MARKET. To be honest, I am not even sure why you would mention WHitney, Michael or even Prince as "examples" because their is no one out currently in the MAINSTREAM market that has the same level of talent regardless whether they are talented or not. Personally, that particular kind of talent comes once in a life time for those artists that you mentioned. You probably should have used a more current artist like Erykah Badu, etc.

I am not making this about old or new. I commented on the examples YOU BROUGHT UP.

I disagree with that.

I think there is a difference between music that is generic (bad) and music that is of better quality (good). However, I also believe that every music has its place. I dont think a Soul Ja Boy song is on the same creativity, lyrical level as a Erykah Badu song but thats my opinion. Someone else might think a Soul Ja Boy song is very creative but I have objective reasoning to show that it is not a song with creative depth.

duccichucka said:

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.

I have not complained about anything. I simply gave my opinion on what the OP asked and I so happened to agree with it. Why dont YOU chill the fuck out.

The OP is young so 9 times out of 10 he or she doenst have conversations like this with his peers who probably listens to Chris Brown all day and is just simply looking to vent and read some insightful opinions, not to be bashed because he " likes old skool over 2012 radio"

And lastly, you dont have to give me a lesson on good music or where to find it because I know where to find "good" music and NO its not playing on mainstream radio... thanks but no thanks.

Its sad that these opinions are viewed as "complaints" on a message board. How do you know someone doesnt look for other kinds of music or listens to other kinds of music. Just because they say they like Charlie Wilson or Funkadelic instead of listening to the radio doesnt necessarily mean that is the ONLY music they listen to which is very judgemental especially when the title is asking you to compare two particular eras IN music.

[Edited 5/2/12 14:37pm]

You are doing way too much on this thread. It's almost like a trend to bash music now, I mean what the hell? It's one thing not to care for some contemporary music but why you mad because people like to listen to it? Does it really piss you off that much?