StarDestroyer.Net BBS

We keep hearing this all the time; today's music sucks, there's no good bands around anymore, but is this really true? Was the music scene really a million times better in the past?

The reason this comes to mind is a series of TV programs I've seen lately on one of our music channels (MuchMoreMusic) about the "worst of" the 70's, 80's, & 90's, and dear god each decade had a bunch of pure unlistenable crap. That got me thinking, since pure craptacular forgettable shit is produced all the time, is part of the reason past music seems so good due to the fact that we've forgotten all the bad shit?

Granted, we don't really have a modern equivalent of a band such as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd that is huge and successful enough to set worldwide trends & leave lasting influences on all successive musicians, but are things really as bad as people say they are? Is there really no good work coming out of the music industry or do you just have to dig a little deeper? Thoughts?

Popular music shifts, in general. If you were a huge fan of classic rock, you'd likely not like the heavy metal of the '80s or the rap of the '90s. As such, people that liked "old" music won't like "new" music, and people that like "new" music won't like "old" music.

Essentially, they're stagnant blowhards that are stuck in the past. My musical tastes cross the decades, from old classic Jazz and Blues from the '20s, Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, Talking Heads, Andrew WK... hell, I just travelled through time talking about 'em.

EDIT: Oh, and about the music "revolution" in the '60s... remember, everyone was taking lots of drugs.

Yes, music today completely and utterly sucks in every regard.

Note that I don't really believe this, but I like to show off my knowledge of rock at public gatherings, and the best way to appear to know what you're talking about is to relentlessly savage anything and everything being produced today and harken back to the good old days. It works surpisingly well.

There's good music today, just that they're usually hard to find due to all the Hip-Hop hogging the attentions of teens.

Good music is subjective. What I consider good music, you may hate. If enough people think the music is good, then it's elevated to great. If nearly everyone likes it, or if it exhibits something new or unusual, then it becomes legendary.

For example, the reason the Beatles are considered to be music geniuses is not because their music was wonderful or original - it wasn't; it was the same pollyanna crap everyone else was putting out - but because they, unlike nearly every other friggin' music up to that time, wrote their own music. After the Beatles, musicians were expected to write their own songs, otherwise they were downgraded a notch. As a result, people give Avril Lavigne more credit than they do to Britney Spears, because Avril writes her own songs. Whether you like them or not, of course, is up to you.

Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc., all wrote their own music, but I'd be hard pressed to tell you the difference between them. It all pretty much sounds the same to me, but obviously they did something sufficiently different, or enough people liked them, to have them considered legends of classical music.

There's always some winners and some losers. I don't think we've seen the end of decent music as we know it or anything.

I think you can still make some cross-decade comparisons. The bimbo sexgirl of 80s rock was Madonna in her early days. Today, it's Britney Spears, and while I never liked Madonna, I dislike Britney Spears even more. You could probably try to do a similar comparison for other genres as well; just giving an example.

Yes, music today completely and utterly sucks in every regard.

Franz Ferdinand. Jon Brion. Air.

I win.

Then I can cheat and reference artists that harken back several decades and are STILL putting out amazing music, like David Byrne and Tom Waits.

To quote, or paraphrase probably, Bob Marley, "In every music, there is something beautiful." It doesn't matter what genre or what time, there is something beautiful being produced, somewhere. Finding it is a matter that is entirely different.

I discount that gangsta rap contains anything of value justifying its existence.

WHAT? OKAY

YEAH! YEAH!

I know a value of gangsta rap: Making fun of it is fucking hilarious.

SPOOFE: I'm definately backing you on Franz Ferdinand and Air (Haven't even heard of Jon Brion, I'll look into him), and also throw in the Dresden Dolls along with Prodigy and Ministry.

Prodigy I dig. Jon Brion did the soundtrack to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, as well as a crapload of other Michael Gondry movies.

If you live in LA, you should go down to the Largo in Hollywood on Friday nights... his live shows are INCREDIBLE. He improvs everything, and takes requests from the audience. He'll pound out a drum beat and then let it play on his repeater machine... then he'll do a piano bit, and add that into the repeater... then some rhythm guitar... maybe bang on a bucket (or some other craziness) for some ambience... then he'll pick up his rhythm guitar and start singing along. The man's a musical genius.

Darth Wong wrote:The bimbo sexgirl of 80s rock was Madonna in her early days. Today, it's Britney Spears, and while I never liked Madonna, I dislike Britney Spears even more.

To the extent of denying a threesome with them?

I think what we've been observing in recording industry is not much different than that of computer games; the market's been heavily flooded by GENERIC albums and artists, especially recently. I mean, take a look at *pukes* boys band. I mean, how in hell can we tell the difference between one boys band with another? Even their songs are mostly recycled from older periods.

Or take look at Britney Spears; one wouldn't need to be a music expert to recognize the similarity between Baby One More Time and Oops! I Did It Again.

Sadly, GENERIC, MacDonalized albums (which is CHEAP to produce) still the biggest profit contributors, thanks to impressionable, clueless teenagers which is unfortunately a significant part of market segment.

Fortunately, there's more chance in music industry for indie publishers than in computer games, so we could still hear new forms of creativity like Basement Jaxx.

I think what we've been observing in recording industry is not much different than that of computer games; the market's been heavily flooded by GENERIC albums and artists, especially recently.

Nuh-uh. Generic wannabe artists have been around since there was music to make. C'mon, think it through.... do you think the reason nobody remembers the crap bands from the '60s is because there weren't any? Or is it because... they were crap bands that disappeared really quickly?

Or take look at Britney Spears; one wouldn't need to be a music expert to recognize the similarity between Baby One More Time and Oops! I Did It Again.

But go back to Mike's comparison of Britney to Madonna. Half of Britney's fandom is based on her, um, "music"... the other half is based on tight midriff tank-tops and painted-on shorts (then there's the jerk-off contingent).

I don't wanna jump down you're throat, because you are technically right about the market being flooded with posers... I'm just saying that this has ALWAYS been the case. In the '50s, there were so many Beach Boys ripoffs that "surfer music" has come to define the era... in the '60s it was Beatles rips, starting a psychedelic trend.

I think it's has been pointed out: Good music and crap music have always existed and come hand-in-hand, with the crap being forgotten in a decade or two (Huh? Spice Girls? Who are they?). The ratio today I think is different, however. Today's pop is decidedly subpar. More specific genres too are awash with crap, but there's quality mixed in. Rap for instance: Anyone with half a brain can tell you that it's basically all shit, but quality exists in the form of, say, Eminem (like him or not and like rap or not, I think we can agree he puts actual effort into his music). The same can be said of techno/dance/whatever; while more a European thing, there are pieces like Sandstorm and What is Love that stand out amongst the generic junk.

The past/modern star comparisons bring something to mind. Today, we can synthesize virtually any sound imaginable and theoretically have the greatest range of potential music than ever before, but why don't we use it? Jimi Hendrix, for example, didn't have fancy digital soundboards and amps and the like, yet he created music of such staggering range with one instrument and a few pedals. If there was a band today that replicated those sounds with today's gizmos, I'd be all over them in a heartbeat; But I'm still here listening to the Master. Drugs or not (I'd argue that a good portion of today's bands are still on drugs, however), where'd the purple haze go?

it's not that good music isn't being made, it's just that the uneducated 12 year olds with more discretionary income than brains aren't buying it, therefore it doesn't become "popular".

Rap for instance: Anyone with half a brain can tell you that it's basically all shit, but quality exists in the form of, say, Eminem (like him or not and like rap or not, I think we can agree he puts actual effort into his music).

I agree about Eminem, at least in his ability to write good lyrics (or flow, or whatever). But if you wanna see something TRULY horrendous, then you want to watch this

JediNeophyte wrote:Rap for instance: Anyone with half a brain can tell you that it's basically all shit, but quality exists in the form of, say, Eminem (like him or not and like rap or not, I think we can agree he puts actual effort into his music).

Actually, anyone with half a brain WOULDN'T tell you that. It's obviously not the personal preference of most of the people on this board (myself included), but it's got about the same ratio of quality to shit as the rest of pop music. The focus in rap, gangsta or otherwise, is the cleverness of the rhymes. So they've shed most of the instrumentals and reduced singing to speaking in cadence in order to put the lyrics out front. From the perspective of someone who appreciates rap, most rock is shit because the most important part, the lyrics, is difficult to impossible to understand thanks to all the extraneous crap around them.

Do I like it? No, not my thing. All shit? No--it's impossible to look at the lyrics of Eminem, or Ice Cube, or (really old school) Run DMC and not appreciate the artistry with the language. Yeah, there's lots of shitty rap out there. There's lots of bad rock, too. Doesn't prove anything about either genre.

SPOOFE wrote:

I think what we've been observing in recording industry is not much different than that of computer games; the market's been heavily flooded by GENERIC albums and artists, especially recently.

Nuh-uh. Generic wannabe artists have been around since there was music to make. C'mon, think it through.... do you think the reason nobody remembers the crap bands from the '60s is because there weren't any? Or is it because... they were crap bands that disappeared really quickly?

Am I wrong to say that McDonald-style bands are much more numerous today compared to past times because of:
- it's easier to "compose" tunes today (sampler and the likes) than it was on the sixties?
- recording companies have been larger today, and getting less and less interested in producing quality music, because it seems when a company is getting bigger they tend to prefer generic, cheap n easy solution than making quality products. Is that true?
- today's consumer has lower expectations than previous generations (especially teenagers) so they are more accepting to generic products?

Mind you, I was born in mid-seventies, and during my youth NKOTB was the only boys band around, and even that one was loathed by any self-respecting music fans. Personally I'd prefer 2 Unlimited, long before techno was heavily McDonalized during mid-90s. And C&C Music Factory, since the music offered in their first album is distinctive enough to differentiate itself from tons of generic rap/hip-hop out there. Not to mention EMF who practically spit upon "hip-hop", NKOTB-style music. And of course, I'd listen to Ugly Kid Joe instead of those generic "hair metal" flooding the market during that time.

I guess in my youth there was a lot more brave attempt to create something new than today, although most of them didn't last long due to classic mistakes of hanging too much on their initial success. Mind you, while I enjoyed the first C&CMF album, their later songs are basically clones of Gonna' Make You Sweat (including "C&Cized" Freedom originally performed by George Michael).

For today's pop artist, there's a few I still respect like Pink. I thought she's just "yet-another-R&B-artist", until Lets Get The Party Started, not to mention Don't Let Me Get Me. Lets see whether she'll fall into the same trap of making another clones of Just Like A Pill.

Even the "trying to be cute" Aqua (Barbie Girl, anyone?) still managed to succeed with something different like Turn Back Time.

A note on Madonna: I think there's a reason why she's been lasting that long: she always dares to try something new. From generic 80s like Spotlight, latino-style La Isla Bonita and Who's That Girl, right to "Prodigy-esque" techno Frozen, she's always making hit. This is the one big difference from Michael Jackson, where his only "musical innovation" I could remember is Black & White.

But hey, if you're really bored with today McDonalized pop, I still found solace in these titles:

Brand New Heavies - Soulflower

Bonnie Pink - My Sleeping Child

Basement Jaxx - Romeo

Basement Jaxx - Do Your Things

Moby - Landing

Paul Oakenfold & Orbital - Beached (OST The Beach)

Tatu - Stars

Today's music is just like every other eras music.

Some good music surrounded by a load of crap.

Muse, the White Stripes, Scissor Sisters, Franz Ferdinand, Coldplay are all great bands IMO and no doubt people who prefer other types of music will chime in with what bands/artists are good for them.

the white stripes are overrated, but i agree with the rest of your selections. Dave Matthews has made a nice career out of playing not only good, but suprisingly complex (for rock) music.

JediNeophyte wrote:Rap for instance: Anyone with half a brain can tell you that it's basically all shit, but quality exists in the form of, say, Eminem (like him or not and like rap or not, I think we can agree he puts actual effort into his music).

Despite how much people like to bash rap/hip-hop/R&B, that particular genre still has some creative attempts compared to Britney. Should I mention Thong Song? (nothing related to the fact I'm a pervert; what I'm talking about is the musical composition) Or Jean Paul's Get Busy?

2000AD wrote:Today's music is just like every other eras music.

Some good music surrounded by a load of crap.

But how about the percentage of the good music against crappy ones? Do the crappy ones are actually getting bigger share and become more acceptable these days, or am I just wrong?