Today's Music v. Older MusicMusic

[astrosdude91]

If you think today's music sucks, then you aren't listening to the right station. Heck, there's always been crappy music. Of course you don't hear old crappy music, cause the classic rock station only plays memorable good stuff.

 

[adam46]

I think I need to get some of my bands music up on the web. If you like Feeder and stuff like that then it's for you.

 

[Slash]

Put your money where your mouth is.

Hehe

 

[Prosthetic]

2009 is my most played by far... (data from March 2009 to now) A little shocked none of the TDM bands from the 70's made any noise on my charts.

I guess I don't listen to them enough.

 

[Pupik]

Back in the 80s and 90s when you only heard the new songs on radio or on MTV only the very best got played.

Generally, only the most popular was played. (Or whatever the record companies wanted to make darn sure they received a return on their investment.) Which makes it no different than today...Face it, there was crap popular music in the 1950s just as much as there was today. The sheer volume of music has increased, so there's more to wade through, which makes a big difference. We generally have musical tastes that mature, change, or spread out...so it seems like "there's more crap", but in reality, you've experienced other genres of music that have opened one door, and may or may not have shut the door behind it in return.

That's not to say I'm enamored by most popular music by any stretch of the imagination; its aim is to cross over into different spectra for mass appeal (i.e. a fan of country music and another fan of rock might enjoy this single, or a fan of adult contemporary and another fan of rhythm and blues will really like that single), so there's bound to be some "impurity" amongst core fans (this piece of music/band is not really this or that). On the other hand, sometimes the right fusion of these elements produces something interesting and unique...other times, it mimeographs the reproductions of duplicates that were left in the waste basket of the copy room, with a similar title.

And just because something isn't popular doesn't automatically grant it immunity from being bad, either. There's a lot of stuff that should go unnoticed for a reason...but most music does have that magical quality of transporting back to the time and place where you've heard it for the first time, and suddenly you remember how you felt, the scenery, the good and bad times, et cetera. Even the stuff you don't really like.

 

[Bigbazz]

Looking at it with years. This is what I have listened to most of all this year.

The Beatles - 1960s
Oasis - 1990s-2000s
Blink 182 (latest album) - 2012?
Devin Townsend - Stuff from 2009 -2011
Mr Fastfinger - 2012

 

[Tom]

I'm 15 and I listen to any 80's/90's/00's rock/metal, anything from Maiden to Skidrow, Guns n' Roses to Nirvana, you get the picture. The reason people think good (mainly rock) music is dead is because it's not commerical enough, if you asked someone 20 years ago to name 3 Metallica tracks then I'm sure they could and purely because the record companies promoted the music because that's what people wanted to listen too. Nowadays it's an entirely different kettle of fish, people are only interested in the mainstream crap because of the same reasons as stated earlier. Rock music is dead because of other genre's such as Pop becoming way more commercial, it's a shame. I want to see Slash and Iron Maiden in the charts just as much as the next person who appreciates decent music, but will it happen? No, not at all.

 

[Liquid]

You like what you like.

It's a fact that roughly two-thirds of my music library was made well before I was born or old enough to appreciate it. But I'm not a "I'm XX and I like this band from 19XX" fanboy type thing. That's annoying. Your age is irrelevant. But that's mainly something which only happens in YouTube comments.

 

[Dustone]

Theres plenty of good music out there. I dont listen to the Top 40 crap, I wouldnt even know whats there now, but I do manage to find new music all the time. I think music is in great shape at the moment

 

[GranTurismo916]

I don't listen to that chart music. Especially Nicki Minaj. Who wants to listen to someone who says "You a stupid hoe"?
And I listen to Rock/Alternative.

 

[Slash]

I'm 15 and I listen to any 80's/90's/00's rock/metal, anything from Maiden to Skidrow, Guns n' Roses to Nirvana, you get the picture. The reason people think good (mainly rock) music is dead is because it's not commerical enough, if you asked someone 20 years ago to name 3 Metallica tracks then I'm sure they could and purely because the record companies promoted the music because that's what people wanted to listen too. Nowadays it's an entirely different kettle of fish, people are only interested in the mainstream crap because of the same reasons as stated earlier. Rock music is dead because of other genre's such as Pop becoming way more commercial, it's a shame. I want to see Slash and Iron Maiden in the charts just as much as the next person who appreciates decent music, but will it happen? No, not at all.

The Final Frontier went #1 in US charts.

 

[Tom]

The Final Frontier went #1 in US charts.

I'm strictly speaking from a European/UK point of view.

 

[Scaff]

I'm strictly speaking from a European/UK point of view.

It was #1 in a number of European countries as well, including the UK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Maiden_discography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Frontier#Chart_performance


Mainstream popular music has always (and I do mean always) a mass of quickly produced titles designed to appeal to the single buying demographic (which is still to this day pretty much 13 - 14 year old girls and has been so since the '50s).

Go here....

http://www.everyhit.com/retros/index.php

...pick a year and a week and see how many of the singles you recognise. The bulk is throwaway stuff that is just forgotten about now.

That's why we think music from (insert chosen year/decade) is better is because the 'good' stuff gets remembered and the dross forgotten. The same with hold true of this decade when its looked back on in 10/20/30 years time. The funny thing is that a lot of what gets remembered was either never released as a single or never charted.

Take Bob Dylan as an example, 'Blowin' in the wind' is seen as a classic of its day and most people imagine it must have gotten huge amounts of airplay. However the truth is that it never even charted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan_discography#Singles

Oh, here's what was in the UK charts the same month as it was released...
http://www.everyhit.com/retros/inde...1962&m1=08&y2=1962&m2=08&sent=1&day1=1&day2=3


Most of Dylan's stuff did poorly in the charts, and serves as a good example of this effect.

You can see the same with 'The Stone Roses', a great band that is synonymous with the late '80s and early '90s indie scene in the UK, however once again singles chart success did not occur, while album sales were better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stone_Roses_discography


How about Black Sabbath, they pretty much invented Metal and everyone knows a Sabbath tune or two (play Iron Man or Paranoid to just about anyone and they will recognise it after all), they must have done OK....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sabbath_discography

...however with 18 studio albums, 5 live albums and 44 singles released they managed only one #1 album and the highest placed single (Paranoid) peaked at #4 in the UK and #61 in the US (it did better in Sweden), and of the 44 singles it was the only one from the first five albums that charted in the UK!


Ignore what's in the singles charts today, on the whole its as poor as what was in the charts in any year/decade. Good stuff is around, a hell of a lot of it as well, just don't expect to find much of it in the charts (as you never will and that hold true for the past as it does today).

 

[cgr-10]

Rock music is dead because of other genre's such as Pop becoming way more commercial, it's a shame.

It's pretty far from dead mate; just because it's not the most popular genre around doesn't mean it's not the best and and doesn't have a large following.

 

[BobK]

Mainstream popular music has always (and I do mean always) a mass of quickly produced titles designed to appeal to the single buying demographic (which is still to this day pretty much 13 - 14 year old girls and has been so since the '50s).

Absolutely true. An excellent example would be the Beatles. Although they later did some truly excellent stuff, their instant success (in the US at any rate) was due to the early teen girls.

Go here....

http://www.everyhit.com/retros/index.php

...pick a year and a week and see how many of the singles you recognise. The bulk is throwaway stuff that is just forgotten about now.

Heh, I picked a pretty much random month there, April 1967, and not only recognized most of the songs on the chart, I own 24 of them. I'm sure I'd get similar results for other 60's years and early 70's. Nonetheless I agree with your statement.

That's why we think music from (insert chosen year/decade) is better is because the 'good' stuff gets remembered and the dross forgotten. The same with hold true of this decade when its looked back on in 10/20/30 years time. The funny thing is that a lot of what gets remembered was either never released as a single or never charted.

Take Bob Dylan as an example, 'Blowin' in the wind' is seen as a classic of its day and most people imagine it must have gotten huge amounts of airplay. However the truth is that it never even charted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan_discography#Singles

Oh, here's what was in the UK charts the same month as it was released...
http://www.everyhit.com/retros/inde...1962&m1=08&y2=1962&m2=08&sent=1&day1=1&day2=3


Most of Dylan's stuff did poorly in the charts, and serves as a good example of this effect.

I'm not sure Dylan is a good example of this; he had twelve Top 40 hits, of which four were Top 10.

It's certainly true, though, for Jimi Hendrix who had only one song hit the US Top 40 list ("All Along the Watchtower", 1968). He did do better in the UK I understand.

And of course there's the Grateful Dead, who went 20 years(!) before finally cracking the Top 40 in 1987 with "Touch of Grey". Personally I'm not a deadhead but there are plenty of them out there. Good group? Definitely. Popular? Not according to the charts.

Generally, though, we tend to remember the good and forget the bad in everything not just music so it does seem as though the older stuff is better. On the other hand, the barriers to getting your music published are much lower today than they were in years passed, so I would think this means that relatively more crap stuff is available nowadays (same goes for book publishing too).

 

[Scaff]

I'm not sure Dylan is a good example of this; he had twelve Top 40 hits, of which four were Top 10.

I still maintain he's a great example. Over 50+ years he has had 6 top ten singles in the UK, while in six years the Spice Girls managed 9.

If chart success was a measure of musical merit then the Spice Girls would beat Bob Dylan by a factor of 10 (actually slightly higher using number of top ten hits per year).

Even in the US the Spice Girls have had as many top ten hits as Dylan, but in a much shorter period of time (lowers the ratio - but still puts them way ahead).

Ergo single chart success is not a good measure, nor a consistent place to find good music, as your over ten times likely to find a 'Spice Girls' as you are a 'Dylan' and over a hundred times less likely to find a 'Sabbath'.

 

[Tom]

It's pretty far from dead mate; just because it's not the most popular genre around doesn't mean it's not the best and and doesn't have a large following.

I mean in the Top 40, I can't remember the last time I looked at that list (I work in radio so I have to keep up to date) and thought "Now there's a cracker of a song!" Most songs today are written, released and forgotten.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

I mean in the Top 40, I can't remember the last time I looked at that list (I work in radio so I have to keep up to date) and thought "Now there's a cracker of a song!" Most songs today are written, released and forgotten.

Would you want rock to become more mainstream though ? Ask any true Rap, Hip-Hop or Dubstep fan what they thought of them becoming liked by the mainstream and the response would be an overwhelmingly negative one.

 

[Skython]

Go here....

http://www.everyhit.com/retros/index.php

...pick a year and a week and see how many of the singles you recognise. The bulk is throwaway stuff that is just forgotten about now.

I couldn't stop laughing when I saw Alexei Sayle in March 1984. He was in the top 20 as well.

And to add to the topic, Iron Maiden is actually in the countdowns too. But then again, in the 80's metal really was a big thing. But heck! Even in New Zealand, the Final Frontier got #1. This is coming from the country who a few years back voted Rage against the machine as the best rock/metal song of all time in the rock 1000... So for a country with taste that bad to vote Maiden #1... They must be doing something right.

 

[Camaroyenko]

Well I'm 14 and I listen only to 70's rock...SOME 80's stuff. Never really been into heavy metal.


Favorite band is Rush :-)

 

[Nicksfix]

There is some good newer music out there, but as others have previously mentioned ... you gotta do some digging for it. I'm pretty much stuck in the 60's - 70's - 80's mode though.

 

[Slash]

There is some good newer music out there, but as others have previously mentioned ... you gotta do some digging for it. I'm pretty much stuck in the 60's - 70's - 80's mode though.

Same with a bit of '90s and '00s

 

[Prosthetic]

There is some good newer music out there, but as others have previously mentioned ... you gotta do some digging for it. I'm pretty much stuck in the 60's - 70's - 80's mode though.

Man... really?

I have the opposite issue... Albums are coming out faster then I can listen to them. So far this year 23 albums have come out that I have mark as good-great. And 3 of my most anticipated albums are coming out with 2 months.

I really have my hands full.

 

[Scaff]

I mean in the Top 40, I can't remember the last time I looked at that list (I work in radio so I have to keep up to date) and thought "Now there's a cracker of a song!" Most songs today are written, released and forgotten.

Once again what you are describing as a modern issue is nothing of the sort, this has been the case since charts of popular music has existed.

Areas such as Rock and Metal have always been poorly represented in the mainstream charts (because they are not mainstream), now while a few will sneak in they will always be the exception rather than the norm.

The battle cry that music today is not as good as in 'insert year/decade/era' is not a new one and every time I see it, the reference to the single chart is made. Which renders the argument totally and utterly redundant.

Now if you think that Rock and Metal has a hard job breaking into the mainstream singles charts then you might want to pause and take a look at Blues artists. Worldwide Blues is stronger than it has been for a very, very long time; yet if you were to use the charts as an indicator you would be under the belief that Blues was dead.

The mainstream singles charts are not an indicator of the quality or range of music that is around and never have been. I also have to chuckle a little at someone as young as yourself moaning about this, simply because right now its far, far easier to find the music that doesn't hit the charts. The web allows it to be found, supported and bought without having to leave your home.

When I was your age it was near impossible to buy anything that was outside the mainstream unless you were lucky enough to have an independent music shop in the town you lived (and that was rare in the mid Eighties). MTV didn't exist in the UK and apart from a few late night TV shows it was hard to find it on the radio (which is why John Peel was so important to those my age).

Today's music offers a much wider range and quality (in all areas) is most certainly around, whats more its easier to find than ever. As such I can't even start to agree with point you are making, as not only is your measure flawed (the singles chart) but once you look outside that the basic fact is wrong.

 

[BobK]

I mean in the Top 40, I can't remember the last time I looked at that list (I work in radio so I have to keep up to date) and thought "Now there's a cracker of a song!" Most songs today are written, released and forgotten.

Just like they were in the 60s, 70s, 80s etc... until resurrected by Eric, Ace or Collectibles.

 

[finnracer]

In general, modern chart music is shockingly bad nowadays, even going back a few years to 2005/6 and it is no where near as bad. How can anyone pick Nicki Minaj, Justin Bieber, Skrillex/Dubstep and One Direction over the likes of the Foo Fighters, Red Hot Chili Peppers, AC/DC, Led Zep, The Rolling Stones, Feeder, Chickenfoot and Guns & Roses!!!

I personally think musical talent is an optional extra these days as most people seem to like certain so called 'artists' just because 'everyone' does or they fancy the pants off of them (Directioners and Belibers, the worst thing ever to be let loose on Twitter!). I should also add that although I've listed mainly bands/genres I like there are loads of bands and artists covering all manner of genres that are far more talented and deserve far more recognition than the tarted up talentless posers lurking in todays Top 40.

Finally in agreement of what many have already stated popular 'old' music is far better than popular new 'music' but there are still plenty of great bands and artists around, it just takes a little more effort to find them amongst the crap!!

 

[Prosthetic]

In general, modern chart music is shockingly bad nowadays, even going back a few years to 2005/6 and it is no where near as bad. How can anyone pick Nicki Minaj, Justin Bieber, Skrillex/Dubstep and One Direction over the likes of the Foo Fighters, Red Hot Chili Peppers, AC/DC, Led Zep, The Rolling Stones, Feeder, Chickenfoot and Guns & Roses!!!

What if I were to say that I disliked those bands (except for Zep) just as much as all the others? Those are all charted bands that have had large quantities of success. Bands like Rolling Stones had that same teenage girl fan base. I honestly don't think Justin Bieber fans are remotely as bad as the Beatles fan girls back in the 60's...

I should also add that although I've listed mainly bands/genres I like there are loads of bands and artists covering all manner of genres that are far more talented and deserve far more recognition than the tarted up talentless posers lurking in todays Top 40.

Its always been that way... It isn't something new.

Finally in agreement of what many have already stated popular 'old' music is far better than popular new 'music' but there are still plenty of great bands and artists around, it just takes a little more effort to find them amongst the crap!!

But it isn't. When I think of the great bands of today... They aren't amongst the crap, they are in there own area surrounded by other fine bands. Charts aren't a measure of good/greatness, they are a measure of mass appeal. Most people don't care about the substance of the music, they want something to sing along in the car.

 

[finnracer]

The Stones/Beatles probably did suffer similar 'fan problems' to many of today's artists although I would argue that the quality of the music they produced is far better (and less artificial) than that of many modern artists. What I meant about finding new bands is people have to look beyond the obvious, something those less interested in music don't really do and as a result they end up listening to the contents of the charts, which is a shame as if they didn't bands that deserve good recognition based on their talents would get it.

As for disliking the bands fair enough, its your opinion, I was simply trying to state some more talented and individual bands (the latter may not absolutely apply to all of those) which generally let their music do the talking, rather than how they look. I am also a big fan of many smaller bands as it seems you are, The Answer are a good example (Northern Irish Rock band) of an up and coming band as is Frank Turner (Alternative/Folk) who both deserve more recognition. However I do see what can happen to bands when they get 'big' for instance Coldplay recently have become very generic and almost pop-ish while growing very quickly whereas beforehand when they were still pretty big but not as much as today the music they produced was noticeably 'better' and less generic.

However I guess music is a very subjective topic, so in most cases it each to their own and I guess this is sadly reflected in who gets the attention and recognition they deserve.

 

[Pagey279]

In general, modern chart music is shockingly bad nowadays, even going back a few years to 2005/6 and it is no where near as bad. How can anyone pick Nicki Minaj, Justin Bieber, Skrillex/Dubstep and One Direction over the likes of the Foo Fighters, Red Hot Chili Peppers, AC/DC, Led Zep, The Rolling Stones, Feeder, Chickenfoot and Guns & Roses!!!

I personally think musical talent is an optional extra these days as most people seem to like certain so called 'artists' just because 'everyone' does or they fancy the pants off of them (Directioners and Belibers, the worst thing ever to be let loose on Twitter!). I should also add that although I've listed mainly bands/genres I like there are loads of bands and artists covering all manner of genres that are far more talented and deserve far more recognition than the tarted up talentless posers lurking in todays Top 40.

I listen to both dubstep and rock/alternative music. I love the Foo Fighters, and the Chilis because it's just generally really cool music. I listen to the Chilis when I want to chill out and reminisce, I've listened to the album Stadium Arcadium more than any other on my iPod.

But I listen to dubstep because it's really heavy hitting. It gets the adrenalin flowing and is exciting to listen to.

I wouldn't choose either one over the other because I listen to them for different reasons.

 

[gtuned]

In general, modern chart music is shockingly bad nowadays, even going back a few years to 2005/6 and it is no where near as bad. How can anyone pick Nicki Minaj, Justin Bieber, Skrillex/Dubstep and One Direction over the likes of the Foo Fighters, Red Hot Chili Peppers, AC/DC, Led Zep, The Rolling Stones, Feeder, Chickenfoot and Guns & Roses!!!

I'mma let you finish but.

A. Please, for the love of god do not class Skrillex + Dubstep together, or Dubstep/EDM with those... things.

B. But on topic, I can choose EDM over rock Pretty easily infact. I used to listen to Rock/Metal, like Metallica, RATM, Buckethead. I still do, but it's mostly EDM now because to me, and a lot of others, newer rock/metal has just lost it's punch and screw you attitude.