duccichucka said:

EDIT: nvm

[Edited 5/30/15 19:56pm]

MotownSubdivision said:

I thought I was quite clear when I said that I'm stating my opinion. I have no experience in musical theory other than my own and what I've come to gather from various sources from music listeners, artists both past and present, and industry professionals as well. Most of today's mainstream music comes off as homogenous, manufactured drivel and I don't like it, simple as that. It doesn't move me or inspire me like music from the 60s-90s does. It's all about the botom line and as a result comes a sacrifice of creativity in the making of music since the industry is afraid to take risks. Yeah, I know you're going to say the point of labels is to make money but to say that is to avoid the point entirely and the point is that the musical landscape is completely dictated by the bottom line and anything that doesn't instantly feed that bottom line is rendered underground or indie.

MJ gets a "pass" because he turned his influences' styles into that of his own and left such a mark on what he did that the fact that it wasn't a completely original idea didn't even slightly overshadow his work. If anything, MJ surpassed many of his influences (and that doesn't take away from his influences at all) which led to him getting such overwhelming praise for what he did. He and his contemporaries felt authentic and an extension to their influences whereas many of today's stars feel more like imitators. Chris Brown is an excellent dancer and probably rivals MJ in that regard but when you see him dance, do you think of him or MJ? That's the difference betwen the two. When you saw/ see MJ perform, you didn't think of James Brown tearing up the stage, you were focused on what was happening right in front of you. When you saw/ see Prince perform, you don't think of Sly Stone because you're completely focused on Prince. MJ and Prince were examples of progress in music and moving forward whereas today's artists either are stuck in neutral or moving in reverse. Simply put, the bar has been raised too high for this generation of artists to reach, they can try but many have and will fail.

[Edited 5/30/15 20:17pm]

So lemme get this straight:

Your claim that today's music is inferior to yesterday's music is NOT based upon your own critical re-
flection of comparing and contrasting the compositional and artistic merit of the 70s with the 10s, but
is instead, based upon the opinion of others? And to muddy things up a bit, you go on to claim that
today's music is "homogenous drivel" which means you are making a critical assessment of today's
pop music compositional and artistic merit? Hmm; seems to me that you are contradicting yourself
here just a bit, Motown! So, why don't you use the same reflective tools at your disposal that en-
abled you to assess contemporary music and give us your critical opinion on the pop music that
chartered with Billboard in the 70s? I'm willing to bet the farm that the same homogenous drivel
that we hear today on the radio is still the same homogenous drivel my parents heard in the 70s; it's
just wrapped up and presented differently. Don't believe me? Refer to the post I made in this thread
where I listed the top songs of certain years during the 70s, and tell me why they are superior to
what's happening today! Why is Three Dog Night superior to Pitbull?

But you just said the most amazing thing that has illumined your argument and means that I can
officially bow out of this thread, for it largely represents what EVERYBODY in this thread has been
saying implicitly when they say today's music "sucks:"

"I don't like it; simple as that."

THEN FUCKING SAY THAT FROM JUMP STREET! As soon as you qualify that subjectivity with "because
today's music sucks," then people who are trained in musical composition and music theory and en-

gaged in critical theory concerning music are going to ask you to explain yourself, which as I've said
all along in this thread, NO ONE can do! Today's music is NOT worse or better; it's just DIFFERENT.

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

No.

Some things you all can't explain, as you've no ability to intellectually form an opinion that doesn't
appeal to "I just prefer it."

Dig, if you will:

Speaker A: Apples are better than oranges.

Speaker B: Why? Are you going by nutritional value? Taste value? What standard are you using to
make this claim?

Speaker A: What? No; I'm just telling you; I grew up eating apples over oranges, and trust me - they
are BETTER!

Speaker B: But why? You do realize that cultivars can change over time so that an apple you ate in the
70s is not the same apple that you can buy in the stores today.

Speaker A: Fuck! Dude, some things simply don't require an explanation!





Speaker A, for the lack of a better word, is a fucking simpleton.

That might work well with the weak minded.....I suggest u look there. [Edited 5/30/15 17:20pm]

Dude, I operate, or at least try to operate, in a realm of reality where "keeping it real" means that
I try to live as honestly as I can in the face of dealing with some events that I'd rather not have to.

In keeping with this, let's "keep it real" here too: the only reason why you said that some things don't
require an explanation is because you can't provide an explanation. You can run your aphorism by
someone else, but don't try that shite with me, Gray!

My schematic follows; I suggest you look again.

MotownSubdivision said:

MJ gets a "pass" because he turned his influences' styles into that of his own and left such a mark on what he did that the fact that it wasn't a completely original idea didn't even slightly overshadow his work. If anything, MJ surpassed many of his influences (and that doesn't take away from his influences at all) which led to him getting such overwhelming praise for what he did. He and his contemporaries felt authentic and an extension to their influences whereas many of today's stars feel more like imitators. Chris Brown is an excellent dancer and probably rivals MJ in that regard but when you see him dance, do you think of him or MJ? That's the difference betwen the two. When you saw/ see MJ perform, you didn't think of James Brown tearing up the stage, you were focused on what was happening right in front of you. When you saw/ see Prince perform, you don't think of Sly Stone because you're completely focused on Prince. MJ and Prince were examples of progress in music and moving forward whereas today's artists either are stuck in neutral or moving in reverse. Simply put, the bar has been raised too high for this generation of artists to reach, they can try but many have and will fail.

[Edited 5/30/15 20:17pm]

What are you talking about here, Motown? Of course I see MJ when I see Chris Brown dancing. And,
because I am somewhat aware of MJ's predecessors, I definitely see James Brown, Fred Astaire, and
Sammy Davis Jr when I see Michael Jackson performing too! Come off it, man! You're completely
biased against today's superstars so that you can continue to prop up the idols of your formative years.
In other words, you're protecting your Truth (MJ) so that this generation's Truth (Chris Brown) doesn't
supplant what you hold dear (MJ).* The only reason why you allow MJ to "heavily showcase" his in-
debtedness to his predecessors is because you like MJ; the only reason why you denounce Chris Brown
for being just as indebted to his musical predecessor as MJ was is because his influece is MJ and
you don't like Chris Brown.

And finally, the bar has not been raised too high for this generation. This generation, instead, has
no need for your bar. Proof?

Prince can no longer sell records. And nobody but a very small minority is clamoring for the new Stevie
Wonder ish. You keep holding onto these 1970 and 1980 standards that not one single kiddie, tween,
or teen is interested in. If they were, they would be consuming Prince's new records like crazy. Music,
just like standards of "good" and "bad" and "meh" have changed, Motown. Your standards are no long-
er popular. This doesn't mean that your standards are instantly "bad" or must become obsolescence.
It just simply means that things are DIFFERENT, like I keep saying!

Besides, like I said earlier, there are records that are quite capable of being compared to the great
records of the 70s. But you and I both know that your partiality will prohibit you from being open
to the idea that To Pimp a Butterfly may be just as artistically meritorious as What's Going On.


* This is pretty deep, I must admit. It's similar to how some religious people behave too. People are
so damn sure that their God is the one true God and will slit your throat if you suggest otherwise. Re-
place "god" with "musical idol" and the situation is the same, mutatis mutandis.

duccichucka said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Dude you need to chill out. You still don't get it and I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to figure out that what we've been saying all throughout this topic is in fact an opinion. Congratulations on finally figuring something as obvious as that out after several pages of posts. And once more, obviously music today is different. So what? How many more times do you need to say that? It's literally yesterday's news and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to figure out that the musical landscape now is not the same one of the 70s. And yeah, clearly I'm relying solely on the opinions of others and my musical tastes have absolutely nothing to do with me... please. Anyone can say music of the past is better just as anyone can say today's music is better so long as they provide evidence but clearly it's a matter of subjectivity, something you apparently didn't know. I gave you my argument enough times for you to understand my position and I've certainly heard plenty from you so why do you insist on continuing to ask a question that has long since been answered? Because I'm not experienced in musical theory myself doesn't mean my stance holds no ground especially when you have displayed no more knowledge on the subject as I have. Simply saying music now is different is preaching to the choir. What does that prove outside of what's already known?

This post will not cut it, dude. You have not offered any evidence that clearly points to why the music
of today is inferior to the music of yesterday outside of "it's just my opinion."

Show how today's music is "homogenous drivel" and how yesterday's music is not. Until then, you
have a right to an opinion, but I want you to remember that just being able to have that right doesn't
mean that your opinion must be accepted as credible.

And if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm proving that you and your cohort do not know what you are
talking about. Another schematic, if you will:

Speaker A: Today's tuna fish definitely tastes like shit! Yesterday's was better!

Speaker B: Well, why?

Speaker A: I don't know! It just does! It's fucking awful! I think yesterday's version was better!

Speaker B: Hmm; I used to be a chef, too, so now I'm definitely interested. So, do you think you can
tell me what makes today's tuna taste inferior to yesterday's tuna? I tasted yesterday's tuna and com-
pared with today's tuna, it's pretty much the same fare; except today, it's on white instead of wheat
bread.

Speaker A: It just does, dude! You have to believe me! I've got good taste, even tho' I don't have any
particular culinary standard I'm appealing to oustide of my own! But, even my friend who also enjoys
tuna, told me that today's tuna is not as good as yesterday's tuna. He agrees with my opinion.

Speaker B: I got that, player! Still; without telling me "it's my opinion," what are the qualities
of today's tuna? What are the qualities of yesterday's tuna? And mind you, what was really popular
yesterday may not be popular today! So, how are you judging the taste of tuna, my friend?

Speaker A: Fuck off! You're annoying me. Either accept my opinion that today's tuna tastes like
shit, or shut the fuck up with your long winded, pointless questions.

Speaker B: Jeezus! It's just that the way you spoke initially made it seem so definitive. But now that
you can't even give me a reason why today's tuna tastes like shit, I'll leave you be. Enjoy yesterday's
tuna!


In this scenario, Speaker A thinks Speaker B should just accept his opinion because Speaker A has
"good taste" and the "right" to an opinion. Speaker A could've said something like "the mayo was
spoiled," or "there was mold in the bread," or "today's tuna wasn't fresh" or "I like my tuna fish cut
into small pieces and today's tuna was too chunky" or "the chef didn't put parsely on the tuna, and I
don't like celery in my tuna either." Instead, Speaker A kept appealing to his right to an opinion, and
Speaker B is justifiable in considering Speaker A's opinion on the matter as simple, unfounded, or
even downright retarded.

Well, what are the "qualities" of today's "tuna" i.e., music, that you don't like Motown? And compare
them to yesterday's "tuna" i.e., music! Let's have a conversation! Pick the best album of the 70s and
compare/contrast it to the best contemporary album and let's have a serious discussion on the artistic
merits of each one. I will accept this as "evidence" then, that today's music is inferior.

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said: That might work well with the weak minded.....I suggest u look there. [Edited 5/30/15 17:20pm]

Dude, I operate, or at least try to operate, in a realm of reality where "keeping it real" means that
I try to live as honestly as I can in the face of dealing with some events that I'd rather not have to.

In keeping with this, let's "keep it real" here too: the only reason why you said that some things don't
require an explanation is because you can't provide an explanation. You can run your aphorism by
someone else, but don't try that shite with me, Gray!

My schematic follows; I suggest you look again.

Sorry bro......If u think someone needs 2 "prove" that Beyonce in any way, shape or form compares 2 Stevie Wonder, that is a complete waste of time and energy.

Duccichuka,you need to STOP IT! This is ridiculous.I told you before,opinions can't be debated.Everyone likes what they like for their own reasons.It doesn't need to be analyzed or debated.

In my opinion,the music I grew up with in the 70s sounds better than the music being made today.

I don't need to "prove" it.....it is what it is.Accept people's opinions and end this madness now.

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

Dude, I operate, or at least try to operate, in a realm of reality where "keeping it real" means that
I try to live as honestly as I can in the face of dealing with some events that I'd rather not have to.

In keeping with this, let's "keep it real" here too: the only reason why you said that some things don't
require an explanation is because you can't provide an explanation. You can run your aphorism by
someone else, but don't try that shite with me, Gray!

My schematic follows; I suggest you look again.

Sorry bro......If u think someone needs 2 "prove" that Beyonce in any way, shape or form compares 2 Stevie Wonder, that is a complete waste of time and energy.

You could simply say:

"I place a premium on a recording artist being able to proficiently play several instruments; are
able to singlehandedly compose, produce, arrange, and perform albums alone and do it well; are con-
cerned with social issues and willing to speak on them convincingly and passionately; and have a gift
of melody that is unique while being musically explorative and adventurous when it comes to
composition. Therefore, I prefer Stevie Wonder over Beyonce." Or you could say, "Stevie Wonder is
fucken hawt; I never understood Beyonce's sex appeal at all! So, yep, he's better than her!"

We could have an interesting conversation or discussion on whether any of these things make Stevie
Wonder "better" than Beyonce that doesn't resemble a first grader's attempt at a debate, which is what
goes on around here much too often. We do this because you want people to think that when you
open your mouth and words come out, you kinda know what you're talking about!

SoulAlive said:

Duccichuka,you need to STOP IT! This is ridiculous.I told you before,opinions can't be debated.Everyone likes what they like for their own reasons.It doesn't need to be analyzed or debated.

In my opinion,the music I grew up with in the 70s sounds better than the music being made today.

I don't need to "prove" it.....it is what it is.Accept people's opinions and end this madness now.

Soul, sure, I may be mad. But damnit, it is even more mad to say:

"Music is dead."

and expect someone like me, who will argue with a wall, to just accept your opinion for what it is
without asking for an explanation. Music is not fucking dead. Music will never die. All that you have
happening in the record industry is just a typical feature of humanity: taste, standards, norms, values,
and the assessment of quality changes over time. Classical composers are not better than jazzers.
Jazzers are not better than rock n rollers. Rock n rollers are not better than R&B artists. The 70s
are not better than the aughts. Shit is just different and like you said, you hold dear to your heart
what you grew up with. My heart leans towards the 60s and 70s (what my parents played) and to
the 80s and 90s (what I grew up with). This does not mean that INTRINSICALLY any music that
doesn't feature the qualities of the 60-90s sucks. It's just fucking different.

But I will do what you say, and end this now.* People do not like having their subjective truths
picked apart, although opinions, if a democracy is to function properly, must be debated and analyzed -
this is most definitely the case.


*contingent

duccichucka said:

JoeTyler said:

music is dead and the only thing we have left i old legends complaining about it, which offers some relief, but it's not enough

2015 is what happens when you let the industry be ruled by mediocre 18-30 yo AOR folk, fame-oriented dance-pop "artists", sellout rappers, all of them offering lip service to petulant, ignorant teenagers from the "iPhone era" living in their own bubble...

Ah, I think I'm gonna listen to my old '70s records again...

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but the music biz has always been ruled by "mediocre 18-
30 yo AOR folk, fame-oriented dance-pop "artists."" If you go back to the Billboard charts in the
60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, you'll find cookie-cutter recording artists charting who are mostly slinging
what music industry taste makers want you to dig as opposed to selling seminal or even good
music chiefly. In other words, smart, intelligent, thoughtful pop music is rarely as profitable as
cheez. In other, other words, the populace has always been suckers for bad taste.

Check it out, here, Joe - and click on the succeeding years and you'll see that what was popular in
the 70s is certifiable cheez and cannot be shown to be artistically superior/inferior to any decade
of recorded music.

Music is not dead. Music has never died. What is happening is that you are getting old and your
taste is not in fashion anymore. The R&B I listened to on the radio in the 90s isn't better or
worse artistically than what I hear today or what my parents heard in their day. It's simply a
matter of taste and age! In twenty years, millenials will decry what's popular in 2035 while
reminiscing about "the good ol' days" of Rae Sremmurd and Nicki Minaj.

I disagree - R&B from the 60s to the 90s is LIGHT-YEARS ahead of the shit I hear today.

duccichucka said:

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

Sorry bro......If u think someone needs 2 "prove" that Beyonce in any way, shape or form compares 2 Stevie Wonder, that is a complete waste of time and energy.

You could simply say:

"I place a premium on a recording artist being able to proficiently play several instruments; are
able to singlehandedly compose, produce, arrange, and perform albums alone and do it well; are con-
cerned with social issues and willing to speak on them convincingly and passionately; and have a gift
of melody that is unique while being musically explorative and adventurous when it comes to
composition. Therefore, I prefer Stevie Wonder over Beyonce." Or you could say, "Stevie Wonder is
fucken hawt; I never understood Beyonce's sex appeal at all! So, yep, he's better than her!"

We could have an interesting conversation or discussion on whether any of these things make Stevie
Wonder "better" than Beyonce that doesn't resemble a first grader's attempt at a debate, which is what
goes on around here much too often. We do this because you want people to think that when you
open your mouth and words come out, you kinda know what you're talking about!

MotownSubdivision said:

duccichucka said:

Soul, sure, I may be mad. But damnit, it is even more mad to say:

"Music is dead."

and expect someone like me, who will argue with a wall, to just accept your opinion for what it is
without asking for an explanation. Music is not fucking dead. Music will never die. All that you have
happening in the record industry is just a typical feature of humanity: taste, standards, norms, values,
and the assessment of quality changes over time. Classical composers are not better than jazzers.
Jazzers are not better than rock n rollers. Rock n rollers are not better than R&B artists. The 70s
are not better than the aughts. Shit is just different and like you said, you hold dear to your heart
what you grew up with. My heart leans towards the 60s and 70s (what my parents played) and to
the 80s and 90s (what I grew up with). This does not mean that INTRINSICALLY any music that
doesn't feature the qualities of the 60-90s sucks. It's just fucking different.

But I will do what you say, and end this now.* People do not like having their subjective truths
picked apart, although opinions, if a democracy is to function properly, must be debated and analyzed -
this is most definitely the case.


*contingent

How many times did I and others say it was an opinion only for you to keep delving into your long-winded tirades about nothing we already don't know? And now you want to say that "some people" can't handle having their "subjective truths" picked apart like you've been saying that this entire time? Don't worry about me, check yourself. I can deal with people liking today's music even if I don't dig most of what I hear. You got an apparent issue with people expressing their disdain of today's mainstream music for some reason unless you somehow thought I was speaking for everybody? Either way, you need conduct yourself man.

And how many times did I say that resting on "it's just my opinion" is not enough to carry a conver-
sation forward or to maintain an intelligent discussion? And yes, I forgot that people do not like having
their subjective truth questioned because they often discover that the reasons for their truth are either
stupid or groundless - sue me, why doncha? I don't need to "check myself," brother! I enjoy going on
tirades and arguing with walls; somewhere internally, there is a lawyer pleading to be let loose upon this
world!

My "apparent issue" is not with people who think today's music sucks. My "issue" is with people who
think today's music sucks but cannot give an intelligent reason why; and my issue is with nitwits who
think "music is dead" as if they've listened to every single album produced after 1979 and justifiably
considered it unworthy. You are free to have the opinion that Beethoven sucked or that 1+1=3; but
damnit, those are some fucking dumb ass opinions that need/demand an explanation. You can't just
expect me to say "Okay, hunny; you're entitled to your opinion, so I won't question your absolutely
insanely dumb ass opinion that Beethoven was a shitty composer and that the sum of your math eq-
aution is what you say it is." I think you've learned my point: you cannot satisfactorily prove or show
that today's music is inferior by appealing to standards which you won't reveal or by founding
said opinion on the right to have an opinion.

See you around, pard'ner! This was fun; and I hope there is no enmity between us - it's just an
opinion!

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

You could simply say:

"I place a premium on a recording artist being able to proficiently play several instruments; are
able to singlehandedly compose, produce, arrange, and perform albums alone and do it well; are con-
cerned with social issues and willing to speak on them convincingly and passionately; and have a gift
of melody that is unique while being musically explorative and adventurous when it comes to
composition. Therefore, I prefer Stevie Wonder over Beyonce." Or you could say, "Stevie Wonder is
fucken hawt; I never understood Beyonce's sex appeal at all! So, yep, he's better than her!"

We could have an interesting conversation or discussion on whether any of these things make Stevie
Wonder "better" than Beyonce that doesn't resemble a first grader's attempt at a debate, which is what
goes on around here much too often. We do this because you want people to think that when you
open your mouth and words come out, you kinda know what you're talking about!

heheheh.....

duccichucka said:

My "apparent issue" is not with people who think today's music sucks. My "issue" is with people who think today's music sucks but cannot give an intelligent reason why;

Listen to the radio today or just take a look at the Billboard charts.No explanation is needed

SoulAlive said:

duccichucka said:

My "apparent issue" is not with people who think today's music sucks. My "issue" is with people who think today's music sucks but cannot give an intelligent reason why;

Listen to the radio today or just take a look at the Billboard charts.No explanation is needed