- 3,542
- Marin County, C
Today's Music v. Older MusicMusic
- Thread starter hogger129
- 98 comments
- 4,528 views
- 1,491
- Brighton
- TheFinners96
The Skrillex, Dubstep was a typo, it should be how I've written it in this post although I'm not really in to it Dubstep is probably more unique and 'alternative' than 'mainstream' and is alright as something to listen to for a change on occasion but even so I would consider it more a mixture of effects and computers than true music, so you can argue that there is not much musical talent involved. However as I've said music is not the easiest thing to debate as there is so much variety and so many different views on it, its just a case of each to their own. 
- 3,232
- Wales
You talk about Skrillex in a negative way, but though I am not a fan of the music he is a highly talented musician, a guitarist from a relatively succesful band who went forward to create his own very unique style of dubstep-ish music that solidified the genre into the mainstream through merit.
Skrillex has created a very unique and new sound that a lot of people really like, not many people have achieved that. Whether or not you like it, to call him talentless is to be blind. I'm not saying he created dubstep, but he certaintly took from it and created something from it, musically it is very clever but due to his popularity he has become one of the "cool to hate" musicians.
Many years ago the band Slipknot were not very mainstream and really well respected in the music scene of metal festivals and metalheads, but then through their ventures they gained a very large following of mainstream success, with rock/metal at the time being extremely popular with young kids and teenagers it soon turned out that Slipknot (along with bands like Linkin Park) became the "cool to hate" band. None of that was anything to do with their music getting worse.
Skrillex has created a very unique and new sound that a lot of people really like, not many people have achieved that. Whether or not you like it, to call him talentless is to be blind. I'm not saying he created dubstep, but he certaintly took from it and created something from it, musically it is very clever but due to his popularity he has become one of the "cool to hate" musicians.
Many years ago the band Slipknot were not very mainstream and really well respected in the music scene of metal festivals and metalheads, but then through their ventures they gained a very large following of mainstream success, with rock/metal at the time being extremely popular with young kids and teenagers it soon turned out that Slipknot (along with bands like Linkin Park) became the "cool to hate" band. None of that was anything to do with their music getting worse.
- 19,687
- Alabamamania
(Did anyone think we'd get someone to step up to the plate and admit they like today's music over music from the past? I suppose that's kind of like expecting people to say they dislike sports cars or food or privacy, and we'd just assume they were a troll...)
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
- 5,717
- England
I just about fall into this category also; I listen to older stuff all the time and I love it, but I listen to more new music on the whole.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,022
- Mile High City
There is a lot of great new music coming out, and has been coming out all throughout the 2000s. There is also a lot of garbage (as was the case at any other time). It's easy to look at the 60s and say "wow lots of great music". But really you're weeding out the crap and only going to the absolute best stuff from that decade. Do the same with the 2000s and you'll be impressed.
Add to that the fact that our music bandwidth has increased dramatically with the advent of internet radio and we've multiplied the number of bands that get heard... but that's not a bad thing. It just increases your chances of finding something you like.
Add to that the fact that our music bandwidth has increased dramatically with the advent of internet radio and we've multiplied the number of bands that get heard... but that's not a bad thing. It just increases your chances of finding something you like.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,709
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Lets take a look at how many UK Top Ten singles chart appearances they have made then:
Foo Fighters - 4 (out of 28)
Red Hot Chili Peppers - 4 (out of 48)
AC/DC - 0 (out of 58)
Led Zep - 0 (out of 16)
The Rolling Stones - 21 (out of 117)
Feeder - 3 (out of 34)
Chickenfoot - Never released a single in the UK and only formed in 2009
Guns & Roses - 10 (out of 24)
So even the most commercial successful of these bands (Stones and GnR's) fall well short of the Spice Girls in regard to both number of Top Ten singles as a percentage of total singles released (10 out of 11) or Top Ten hits as a ratio of years together as a band.
Once again someone has walked headfirst into this myth, chart music has always been awash with the bland and easy to sell. You ask why and its already been answered in this thread, singles are bought by 13 - 14 year old girls.
The singles charts are not and never have been a good barometer of the quality of music in any given year/decade/era, for reasons that have been quite clearly explained.
I quite agree that a whole load of artists deserve much more recognition that they currently get, what I totally disagree with is that this is a modern phenomenon.
Its something that has occurred since charts of popular music have existed, back in the '50s you didn't find a great deal of Rock and Roll in the Billboard singles sales charts because it wasn't given airplay and a lot of outlets wouldn't even stock it (it was more punk that punk in its anti-establishment image in that regard). Billboard even came up with a new chart (based on Jukebox plays) before it was seen as a popular trend. Yet anyone who thinks of music from the '50s automatically thinks of Rock n Roll, despite the fact it didn't sell in comparison to the mainstream of its day.
Except nothing actually supports the "popular 'old' music is far better than popular new 'music'", because what you appear to believe was popular old music wasn't popular in its day.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!!
Led Zeppelin and AC/DC are household names now, yet both were seen as counter-culture in the contemporary world they formed in and as a result got almost zero airplay and zero singles chart success. Hell the popular music press dismissed most of Zeppelins album releases at the time, with a lot of negative reviews (a point that Jimmy Page has mentioned many times - particularly regarding Zep III).
You are falling into the trap of judging older bands mainstream impact by the regard they are held in today, rather than that of the time. These bands did have huge followings at the time, but they were not made up of the mainstream record buying public at all.
Last edited:
- 3,221
- Maldives
- zedextreme8177
I feel that most of today's music sounds no different from each other (and it seems to be true). There was much more variety in the past, which made for interesting, catchy and beautiful songs.
IMO, older music is much better in general, much of the list on my phone is from before the 90's. That being said: there are some modern songs which I really like as well
IMO, older music is much better in general, much of the list on my phone is from before the 90's. That being said: there are some modern songs which I really like as well
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
How is there more variety? Right now I could sit down and listen to a dozen of genres that didn't exist 30+ years ago. Pop has been the same thing for the last 50 years... More computer effects, but the song structures, chord progressions and such are pretty much the same.
Its kind of like saying you have a bigger selection of cars to buy at the dealer... You didn't. And in 30 years there will be twice the selection we have now.
If Catchy, Beautiful and Interesting are the major quantifiable ingredients of old music then no wonder I prefer newer music. Though all three of those things are still influx to mass degrees nowadays.
I'm simply going to say... If you think older music is that much greater (this goes for everyone) then you haven't tried very hard at the discovering game.
- 17,865
- 509
You realize there is a quite more to modern music than just Pop? Would be like me saying all music in the 80's sounds the same and then only be talking about Metal or such.
- 17,865
- 509
Everyone is calm...
The issue what is played on the Radio these days is incredibly generic for the most part, so if that is the majority of one's exposure to current music then I can't blame them for finding it a bit dull. But if one takes some time to discover music from emerging artists or even just walk of the known path of radio, there is a lot of amazing stuff.
As for older music being "better," I feel a lot of that likely comes from all the good artists being discovered later on. At the time where older music was current, I imagine it all sounded fairly similar as well on the radio, as it would just play popular songs as is the case often today.
- 1,600
- ON, Canada
- AMCNUT
- AMCNUT
I can cherry-pick what I like from new, currently releasing artists, but most of my CD and record collections are albums originally released between mid/late '60s and the early '90s. Music is a subjective thing, and there's good and bad stuff from all eras. But to me, there are more misses than hits today compared to 20 or 30 years ago.
As far as I'm concerned, this is because of a trend towards having one singer and a computer/drum machine comprising most of the rest of the band alot of the time. It's rarer nowadays to get a full band of actual musicians playing a suite of instruments. There's too much of a reliance on computers and digital gimmicks in much of - not all, but a sizable portion - today's music. Pop/dance/electronica has really pushed proper rock/metal to a status of secondary importance, I think.
As far as I'm concerned, this is because of a trend towards having one singer and a computer/drum machine comprising most of the rest of the band alot of the time. It's rarer nowadays to get a full band of actual musicians playing a suite of instruments. There's too much of a reliance on computers and digital gimmicks in much of - not all, but a sizable portion - today's music. Pop/dance/electronica has really pushed proper rock/metal to a status of secondary importance, I think.
- 2,046
- Wales
- GTP_Tyrrell
You could also try liveplasma if you're completely stuck. Won't go very deep though obviously but the way some people are talking about absolutely no good music I'd imagine they haven't tried too hard. With the internet it isn't hard at all to find something you like, unless you have an agenda or are just ridiculously picky.
American radio must be really bad because even the most mainstream UK radio station, Radio 1 plays a huge variety of music, most of which from artists I haven't heard of.
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
Elwood Blues (in Blues Brothers 2000) put it best when describing new music:
Especially the junk that's played on the radio, and at all the stupid "awards" shows these days.
I bet there is good music produced these days, the problem is good music used to be more mainstream and accessible than it is today. Only good "new" stuff is country music IMO.
2 reasons I prefer the old stuff:
1. Technology (or lack thereof). No digitally altered garbage to make it sound good, and no autotune.
B. Modern music (at least the "pop" garbage) is as much or more about "image" and "marketability" than it is about musical talent. Old music (50's, 60's & 70's) put emphasis on musical talent rather than image.
Especially the junk that's played on the radio, and at all the stupid "awards" shows these days.
I bet there is good music produced these days, the problem is good music used to be more mainstream and accessible than it is today. Only good "new" stuff is country music IMO.
2 reasons I prefer the old stuff:
1. Technology (or lack thereof). No digitally altered garbage to make it sound good, and no autotune.
B. Modern music (at least the "pop" garbage) is as much or more about "image" and "marketability" than it is about musical talent. Old music (50's, 60's & 70's) put emphasis on musical talent rather than image.
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
Have you not read a single post in this thread?
Image? The 50's and 60's defined image and marketing bands. Look at the Beatles, all they mainstreamed the band label by putting it on everything. They weren't exactly the most talented musicians but they played simple songs which doesn't take a whole lot of talent to do.
Talent is so subjective, plenty of 'mainstream' musicians have plenty of talent. But people hate that genre because its popular... and well that's it.
Why do so many people care about mainstream music anyways? Everyone just goes on about how bad it is, how about ignore it and move it. It really is quite easy.
- 3,232
- Wales
I wouldn't go so far as to say The Beatles weren't talented, a very narrowminded view on them, 3 of them were very talented, if you look at their later music from around 1966 and later they created a number of masterpieces of music that could hardly be called "simple"
Sure they made it by playing blues covers of music mostly written by black people accross the pond (and all due credit to those musicians), and their early success came as a result of mainstream marketing but they later went on to prove they had great worth in writing some amazing music.
The reason they are so widely regarded still to this day is that they had music during their careers that could satisfy both the mainstream and the more experienced listener. As a musician myself I admire them, they were revolutionary and have influenced more of "the greats" than perhaps any other band. Not only were The Beatles talented, but they were exceptionally so.
Take yourself away from the "Hey Jude" and "She loves you yeah" mainstream Beatles that gets pumped down peoples throats and you will find there is a lot more to The Beatles.
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
I never said they weren't talented... But speaking on the subject... Ringo wasn't a very good drummer (I'm assuming this is why you said 3). I have nothing against the Beatles. I've heard just about everything the Beatles have done and none of it did anything for me... In terms of 60's British music I'm a Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath person. I've never got the hype for Beatles, maybe its something in my genes. My dad was a drummer in the 60's and never liked the Beatles either.
I would like to make a point to Scaff as he said something about Led Zep not getting a lot of air time. Stairway was so overplayed at the time my dad still to this day changes the radio station if it comes on. May have been a US thing.
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
Yes, I read through this thread. It's all opinions on new vs old music, I gave mine. What is your deal?
All 4 Beatles had talent. Both as a group and in solo careers. (even Ringo, the Rodney Dangerfield of the group) And not all their songs were simple.
If you actually read MY post, I never claimed modern artists didn't have any talent.
I stated an opinion. Don't like it? how about ignore it and move on. It really is quite easy.
hogger129
(Banned)
- 691
- United States
I would argue that there are more 'musicians' in the mainstream who do not have talent as opposed to those that do. Somebody like that Adele lady who can actually sing songs, is much more talented than somebody like Lil Wayne.
It's not that I hate mainstream music, but I don't get the appeal of it when more than half of the songs have terrible lyrics. Many of the songs have a meaning to them, but the lyrics do not make sense most of the time, and when you do find out what the song is about, it's something pointless like drinking or sexual things. Compare that to older music which was much more effective at communicating its meaning to its listeners, and when you figured out the meaning of the song, it was a much more important issue in society. Plus it sounds better IMO.
Last edited:
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
You said the same thing that is said in every other post in this thread and every other post in youtube comments on any song pre-1980.
How much do you know about new mainstream pop musicians/singers? Have you actually explored any of them, I bet you they can do a lot more then you think. I'm not going to argue for Lil Wayne, but people like Justin Bieber who is the ass of every music related joke does two things well. He can sing and apparently can dance.
Elvis is like the prime example... He could dance and had a pretty face, his singing was kind of meh and didn't write any of it. Same goes for all the white people cover the black bands. Bunch of people with little talent and a pretty face.
Azuremen made a good point... Please use more then just modern MAINSTREAM music as an example.
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
Again, it's my opinion, learn to deal with it.
- 17,865
- 509
I think it is more that your opinion is based almost entirely off of Pop music representing all "new" music. You can find a lot of new music that has a focus on musical talent, and absent of the things you've complained about.
You can also find lots of older musics from the 60's and 70's that has both of your main grievances with new music.
What Prosthetic has been attempting to point out is that your opinion is just built from narrow, or short sighted, sampling from both eras.
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
Here we go again. You too?
Actually, my opinion was pop music of today, vs old pop music of 50's, 60's & 70's. (Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga etc. vs. Elvis, The Beatles, Beach Boys etc.)
Yes, there is good music produced today, as well as garbage from decades ago.
I'm only going to tell you guys 12 more times. I stated an opinion, don't like it? Ignore it.
Similar threads
