Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-04-2019, 09:00 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
Everyone thinks the music they latched onto when they grew pubes is the best music ever. Boomers think it’s a crime that kids today don’t still worship Elvis and The Beatles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
On the contrary. I'm amazed that young people today still listen to them. Back to 60s, people couldn't even name a song from fifty years earlier (except maybe "Alexander's Ragtime Band").
Yeah, JZ's experience is not shared with my daughter and her friends who went through a Sinatra phase in the 8th grade, inspiring her and her friends to buy record players and vinyl albums.

It's YouTube. It's compressed time and eliminated, as far as music is concerned, anyway, eliminated the generation gap.

Last edited by JohnT; 10-04-2019 at 09:00 AM.
  #52  
Old 10-04-2019, 09:16 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,798
For many years I've been saying that music from the 1960's was much better than today's music. ("Get off my lawn!") It turns out ... I was right!

This 20-minute YouTube discusses a variety of scientific measures to confirm that, yes, music from the 1960's IS much better than later music in several ways: e.g. harmonic complexity, timbral diversity, lyric "intelligence" (by a full grade level). And, by compressing dynamic range, modern music forces an aggressive loudness on the listener.

Examples: a huge number of modern pop songs were all written by the same man: Max Martin; and
a huge number of modern songs employ a g-e-g or g-e-g-e note progression (with vocal Wa-ho-Wa-oh) called the "Millennial Whoop."
  #53  
Old 10-04-2019, 01:05 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I think it's more than just how common they wereóit's who heard or even knew about them at all, and where. DId the "average person" know about them?
I'm not sure what you mean - I would say that the average person was certainly aware that there were extemely explicit songs in existence. Were they aware of those specific songs? Probably not, but they probably wouldn't find it that surprising if they found out that someone had a bootleg of one that they played at a stag party. On the other hand, has the average person actually heard those three songs madsircool linked? I hadn't heard any of them, and had only heard of one of the artists before.
  #54  
Old 10-04-2019, 01:45 PM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,466
Haven't like one or two guys written every radio pop song over the past two decades? I wonder if this has anything to do with the perceived lack of talent in today's musicians.

I mean, yeah Bob Dylan does not have a great singing voice, but at least he could write.
  #55  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:11 PM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Utter nonsense.

Bob Dylan was praised for his singing when he first came along, mostly because he could find the emotional heart of the song and make the most of it.
Dylan was not a technically skilled singer. Wasn't then, isn't now. "He has emotion" is fine, and he's famous for a lot of reasons, but stop kidding yourself. Singing skill is not what made him a legend.

Quote:
The Ramones were revolutionary. Sure their music was simple, but no one did it better. If those "thousands of university bands" were better, why don't they revolutionize music themselves? Why are they playing Ramones songs, if the Ramones had no talent?
1. The Ramones did not revolutionize music to nearly the extent the guys at Rolling Stone want to believe they did, and

2. You have epically, horribly missed the point.

The point here is not that Bob Dylan, the Ramones, or Ringo Starr don't deserve to be famous and weren't great acts. (The Ramones have been overrated, really, but Dylan and the Beatles certainly have not.) The point is that

1. The idea there is less talent in popular music now is just stupid, and

2. Musicianship and skill in a particular aspect of music isn't necessarily indicative of greatness.

Bob Dylan is not a legend because he's a great singer (he isn't) or a great guitar player (not really top tier there either.) He is a legend for his songwriting, but that's kind of understating it. Dylan didn't just write great songs, he wrote great songs that captured the zeitgeist of the times and changed the way people thought about popular music. Zillions of people have been better singers. None of them wrote "All Along The Watchtower."

The Beatles aren't the greatest rock act that ever existed because they were the most musically talented. They were talented, but not among rock's great virtuosos. There have been greater guitarists, singers, bassists, and way better drummers. They were the best rock act ever because they created songs and whole albums and a new kind of popular music nobody had ever heard before or, hell, even thought of before.

I'm not saying talent doesn't matter or there aren't legendarily great musicians among the greats; Prince, for instance, was absurdly skilled. But there is just as much raw SKILL today - it's crazy to say there isn't - and skill has never been totally correlated with greatness in rock and pop music.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #56  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:29 PM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 5,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I'm not sure what you mean - I would say that the average person was certainly aware that there were extemely explicit songs in existence. Were they aware of those specific songs? Probably not, but they probably wouldn't find it that surprising if they found out that someone had a bootleg of one that they played at a stag party. On the other hand, has the average person actually heard those three songs madsircool linked? I hadn't heard any of them, and had only heard of one of the artists before.
This reminds me of how i first heard the infamous "the rodeo song" It was passed around school on self-recorded tapes in the mid-80s....... heck I didn't know it even had an actual name until i told my nephew about it and he found it on youtube ....
  #57  
Old 10-04-2019, 05:07 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
It's YouTube. It's compressed time and eliminated, as far as music is concerned, anyway, eliminated the generation gap.
That's exactly correct. The best time to be listening to music is right now, because it is *all* available. The young team don't care when stuff was made, and they don't particularly care how it was made either.
  #58  
Old 10-04-2019, 05:21 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
The 90s was a special decade for music. Music of multiple genres. I find this hard to dispute. But I'm also quite biased. I dont have a lawn yet but i will!!!!
  #59  
Old 10-05-2019, 12:22 AM
Regallag_The_Axe's Avatar
Regallag_The_Axe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: United States of Leifholm
Posts: 3,240
As a thirty-[mumble mumble] year old I have to point out that some of you have hit on the difference between top 40/pop and... let's just call it serious music. The subject came up in real life this summer when Tool's latest album came out, and it happened that I was hanging out with my (younger) brother and his wife. My brother is a serious music fan, he bought Fear Inoculum the minute he heard about it. His wife likes top 40 stuff and hasn't bought an album in years, listening to whatever comes on the radio/streaming service. My brother will be listening to Fear Inoculum when he's in a nursing home while his wife will have forgotten about the top songs of 2019.

Similarly there are songs and bands from the "classic rock era" that I've only recently discovered, despite having listened to classic rock stations for most of childhood. Roky Erickson; Uriah Heep; most of Emmerson, Lake and Palmer's catalog; most of the Grateful Dead's catalog. Not to mention all the blues, classical, jazz, metal, etc. that never got played on the radio. Maybe acts like Tool, the Black Keys, Hatebreed, and Heilung will be tomorrows Roky Erickson and EL&P.
__________________
PMA to the grave
  #60  
Old 10-05-2019, 01:10 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regallag_The_Axe View Post
As a thirty-[mumble mumble] year old I have to point out that some of you have hit on the difference between top 40/pop and... let's just call it serious music. The subject came up in real life this summer when Tool's latest album came out, and it happened that I was hanging out with my (younger) brother and his wife. My brother is a serious music fan, he bought Fear Inoculum the minute he heard about it. His wife likes top 40 stuff and hasn't bought an album in years, listening to whatever comes on the radio/streaming service. My brother will be listening to Fear Inoculum when he's in a nursing home while his wife will have forgotten about the top songs of 2019.

Similarly there are songs and bands from the "classic rock era" that I've only recently discovered, despite having listened to classic rock stations for most of childhood. Roky Erickson; Uriah Heep; most of Emmerson, Lake and Palmer's catalog; most of the Grateful Dead's catalog. Not to mention all the blues, classical, jazz, metal, etc. that never got played on the radio. Maybe acts like Tool, the Black Keys, Hatebreed, and Heilung will be tomorrows Roky Erickson and EL&P.
Tool is not considered "pop music" but it *is* considered "popular music". In fact, "pop music" is considered a subset of "popular music". So all "pop" is under the "popular music" umbrella but not all "popular music" is made up of "pop music".
  #61  
Old 10-05-2019, 02:05 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Tool is not considered "pop music" but it *is* considered "popular music". In fact, "pop music" is considered a subset of "popular music". So all "pop" is under the "popular music" umbrella but not all "popular music" is made up of "pop music".
This. When Lateralus came out, ďSchismĒ got a lot of airplay. And that is a fairly complex song. Probably one of their greatest.
  #62  
Old 10-05-2019, 06:43 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
This. When Lateralus came out, ďSchismĒ got a lot of airplay. And that is a fairly complex song. Probably one of their greatest.
I am absolutely a huge fan of Tool but dear god, please don't ever mistake me for a "Tool fan". A more breathtakingly pretentious and utterly intoxicated on the smell of their own farts group of "fans" have never graced this earth before.
  #63  
Old 10-05-2019, 08:07 AM
turner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 526
I'm a child of the 80s and love that music. But my parents used to listen to the old crooners (Martin, Crosby, Sinatra, etc.) so I've listened to and appreciated that music as well. It seems that back then, the singers used their voice more as an instrument, varying tone and pitch within the song. Crosby and Martin were masters at this e.g. list to White Christmas by Crosby and Sway by Martin. Sinatra was good when he was young, but once he was established, just played to his "cool" persona and mailed in his performances. It seems like in the late 70s and early 80s, this fell out of fashion (with a few exceptions) in favor of more "powerful voices" and an emphasis on musical instruments.
  #64  
Old 10-05-2019, 02:27 PM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I am absolutely a huge fan of Tool but dear god, please don't ever mistake me for a "Tool fan". A more breathtakingly pretentious and utterly intoxicated on the smell of their own farts group of "fans" have never graced this earth before.
I think those people are more Maynard James Keenan fans.
  #65  
Old 10-05-2019, 02:56 PM
cieskokid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Okay - she's got some range, obviously a bunch of fans, and has undoubtedly made more $ at 17 than I ever have or ever will. And she and her brother write the songs - good on them. Doesn't matter that I'm personally not thrilled w/ her delivery.

Let's see what she (and her brother) are doing 3-5 years from now.
Indeed. while Billie has range, this is one of the most boring "songs" I've ever heard in my life - no real melody, the feigned intensity of delivery, all the marks of following the formula. THIS is the point I think some of us older people are making - there's no substance or depth to be heard or found in 2day's music; just because you can hit the notes doesn't mean you're interesting to listen to.
  #66  
Old 10-05-2019, 03:34 PM
carrps is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Okay - she's got some range, obviously a bunch of fans, and has undoubtedly made more $ at 17 than I ever have or ever will. And she and her brother write the songs - good on them. Doesn't matter that I'm personally not thrilled w/ her delivery.

Let's see what she (and her brother) are doing 3-5 years from now.
She sounds like a watered down clone of Regina Spector. Not bad. But I prefer the original.
  #67  
Old 10-05-2019, 03:43 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
I think those people are more Maynard James Keenan fans.
No no. Google "Tool fans" -obnoxious or "Tool Fans" -the worst. Its like this loose-knit group of fans who shout down conversations about other styles of metal and music in general. Tool is like mystical and deep man!

https://www.metalsucks.net/2015/10/2...rable-retards/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ToolBand/co...by_a_tool_fan/

Last edited by Ambivalid; 10-05-2019 at 03:44 PM.
  #68  
Old 10-05-2019, 04:15 PM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by cieskokid View Post
Indeed. while Billie has range, this is one of the most boring "songs" I've ever heard in my life - no real melody, the feigned intensity of delivery, all the marks of following the formula. THIS is the point I think some of us older people are making - there's no substance or depth to be heard or found in 2day's music; just because you can hit the notes doesn't mean you're interesting to listen to.
But that's just Billie Eilish, who's exactly one act out of thousands. You aren't familiar with most modern music, and the fact Billie Eilish is kind of boring doesn't mean all music is boring. It is, furthermore, entirely possible that the popularity of Billie Eilish is a brief fad and will swiftly pass.

1967 is widely regarded as a banner year in music. Do you know what Billboard's #1 single of 1967 was? The Beatles? The Stones? The Doors? Nope! It was "To Sir With Love" by Lulu. Not exactly a thrilling, landmark achievement in music. Aretha's "Respect" was 13th, not bad - but below "Somethin' Stupid" by Frank and Nancy Sinatra. A list of the year's top songs contains a shocking number of songs that are boring and forgettable, by acts no one remembers anymore.

1992 was a big year in music; the rise of grunge, and with hop hop making a huge splash. The #1 song was... "End of the Road" by Boyz II Men. "Smells Like Teen Spirit," which is now a song Rolling Stone writers masturbate to, was 32nd, behind songs by CeCe Peniston, Vanessa Williams, and whoever the hell Atlantic Starr was.

I recalled 1994 as being a great year in music. Here are the top ten songs, but just the band names:

Ace of Base
All-4-One
Boyz II Men
Celine Dion
Mariah Carey
Lisa Loeb
Toni Braxton
Bryan Adams, Rod Stewart, and Sting (yes, it was a boring movie song)
Ace of Base
Ace of Base

Come on, that's BORING. Nothing there is cutting edge. Mariah is great, sure. Lisa Loeb's one great song was a work of genius, but it was a wild fluke. Who likes Ace of Base anymore? All those three songs were exactly the same. There was a lot of great music in 1994, though - it's just that there is always a lot of generic stuff like Ace of Base.

Music today has just as much that's cool and interesting as it ever has. If Billie Eilish doesn't stand the test of time, that won't mean much.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #69  
Old 10-05-2019, 04:39 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
"Smells Like Teen Spirit," which is now a song Rolling Stone writers masturbate to, was 32nd, behind songs by CeCe Peniston, Vanessa Williams, and whoever the hell Atlantic Starr was.
Bolding mine.

Oi, don't knock Finally - it's a cracking tune.
  #70  
Old 10-05-2019, 04:41 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 450
I was born in the early 80s, but 99.9% of what I listen to (+10,000 mp3s) is from the 60/70s
  #71  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:10 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 230
To me ABBA comes to mind when I think about this question.

I always enjoy listening to their music when it gets aired on the radio. Great music is whether they stand the test of time and theirs do. But the thing is I have never gone out of my way to listen to them. I never bought their albums, don't have their songs on my playlists and wouldn't really think of them until that one radio station happens to air their 70's stuff. And it's a throwback to the 70's disco era.

But the two girls on stage would wear skimpy outfits which one might call lewd. The two guys - their husbands - let them parade themselves off on stage. Wonderful voices but their songs were pretty simple. Lots of the 70s stuff was simple to be catchy. ABBA probably called it a day at the right time. At a time when their popularity was still strong but had peaked and was only going to go down as they all got older.
  #72  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:33 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 450
non-music stuff like "drum machines" and "auto-tune", "auto-eatshit", etc. doesn't help.
  #73  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:51 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
To me ABBA comes to mind when I think about this question.
<...>But the two girls on stage would wear skimpy outfits which one might call lewd. The two guys - their husbands - let them parade themselves off on stage.
Follow the money. ABBA took a tax break in Sweden because their costumes couldn't be worn in public and were thus exempt. Bless their accountant!

Sturgeon's Law applies to popular music. 95% of everything IS crap. We cherry-pick to forget the reality. Pick any top-10 list, or hits since music was sold publicly, and most will be forgettable and forgotten. Why? People are comfortable with familiar crud. It may be shit but it's warm, soft, all-enveloping shit.

Today IS the best time in history to hear music. It's almost ALL available online, from Maori chants (I needn't keep my 78s), to Gregorian chants, to Chance the Gardener rapping softly somewhere. In Uzbek. With bullfrogs.
  #74  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:56 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 230
To me this is utter cringe but folks back then seemed to like it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT9QZBGyXjU

Quote:
"Kookie, Kookie (Lend Me Your Comb)" is a song written by Irving Taylor and performed by Edward Byrnes and Connie Stevens. It reached #4 on the U.S. pop chart, #27 on the UK Singles Chart, and #30 on the U.S. R&B chart in 1959.[1] The song was featured on Byrnes' 1959 album, Kookie Star of "77 Sunset Strip".[2] It was based on Byrnes' character from the television show 77 Sunset Strip. The song is mostly spoken, except when Kookie sings the Bridge section: "I've got smog in my noggin' ever since you made the scene...", and makes use of cool, Beatnik slang. Connie continually interrupts him, asking him to lend her his comb. When he finally asks her, "What's with this comb caper, baby?...", she says she wants him to stop combing his hair and kiss her. Kookie likes the sound of that, ending up saying, "Baby, you're the ginchiest!".

The single was produced by Karl Engemann and arranged by Don Ralke,[3] and ranked #37 on Billboard's Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1959.
  #75  
Old 10-05-2019, 07:27 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,584
Janelle Monae is one of the most exciting musicians in my lifetime (Dance Apocalyptic, Make Me Feel, Tightrope, Sesame Street). She certainly pulls on Prince and Andre 3000 and others, but she's doing amazing new work.

Lewd? Absolutely. And?

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 10-05-2019 at 07:30 PM.
  #76  
Old 10-05-2019, 09:29 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortSahlFan View Post
non-music stuff like "drum machines" and "auto-tune", "auto-eatshit", etc. doesn't help.
Pop music has been using computer-generated sounds (of which "drum machines" and "auto-tune" are subsets) since the early '70s, you know. Did you think the intro to Baba O'Riley was played on the guitar?
  #77  
Old 10-05-2019, 11:49 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Pop music has been using computer-generated sounds (of which "drum machines" and "auto-tune" are subsets) since the early '70s, you know. Did you think the intro to Baba O'Riley was played on the guitar?
I'm related to a pianist-conductor who despises analog but especially digital synths for putting honest musicians out of work. I dared to ask how many wind players and chorus singers lost employment to pipe organs over the last millennium. Frown...

Drum machines? A proto-metronome was developed around 870 CE. Professional metronomes date from 1815 and Beethoven scored metronome timings by 1817. Mozart wrote for clock and mechanical organ a quarter-century earlier. Musical rhythm has been artificially tick-tocked for quite a while.

Other mechanized music? Besides hurdy-gurdys, musical automata have thrown their lure; Haydn and C.P.E.Bach wrote for them. An automatic flute player dates from ca. 1735; an automatic harpsichord player, from ca. 1775. Wind chimes are much older.

Artificial production and processing of musical sounds goes WAY back, even before the megaphone pumped-up crooning, voh-dee-oh-doh. Are castratos artificial?
  #78  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:24 AM
Personal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Beach
Posts: 1,703
I don't disparage contemporary popular music as being talentless. Lack of subtlety as far as lewdness goes, I'll give you. I find the music of the last 15-20 years or so a lot of times just difficult to listen to because of the way it's mastered. The Loudness Wars have ruined a lot of what is likely otherwise perfectly fine music for me. It can be physically tiring to listen to contemporary music for me. There are bands currently making music that I like, music similar to what I grew up with, but the recordings are so compressed that I can only take so much. Every moment of every song is filled -- even the quiet spaces are amplified. When I go see live music, though, I'm generally good. Nothing beats live music.
  #79  
Old 10-06-2019, 10:20 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 440

Nostalgia is still what it used to be


Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
On the contrary. I'm amazed that young people today still listen to them. Back to 60s, people couldn't even name a song from fifty years earlier (except maybe "Alexander's Ragtime Band").
True. Go back 50 years and you have psychedelia, Woodstock and a lot of what is now considered classic rock. If if there could ever be such a thing. The 50s and 60s had a great deal of manufactured music, straight off the production line, with zero-talent perforrmers, Some things never change. But the music of the 50s and 60 s still gets played on the radio, Anything older than that... it's just background music on a period film. to let you know what era it was.
  #80  
Old 10-06-2019, 10:50 AM
F. U. Shakespeare is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
Iím almost 60 years old, and I still regularly find new songs that I like. Not so much on the radio, but even there it happens once in a while. More often I get recommendations from Facebook or Twitter. The key is that Iíll try just about any recommendation. Most donít do anything for me, but Iíve discovered some real gems.
I'm the same age as you, and agree with this. As noted upthread, there is objective evidence that pop music today is more homogeneous and corporate-created.

But once in a while I hear new music I like. I love "Happy" by Pharrel (and I'm showing how calcified I am by citing it as recent -- what is it, five years ago?)

I think the prevalence of algorithm-generated music is simply one more instance of corporate interests killing the quality of music. I don't know whether Nashville country music uses those same tools, but most of the stuff I've heard might as well have been written by machines. It's not just that it all sounds the same -- it's trying to sound the same. It uses the same hoary cliches (pedal steel swells, twangy vocals, lyrics about patriotism, girls, and drinking, etc.) I get the feeling that if they could sell people the same song over and over, they would.

And I'm not singling out country: whenever you have a popular trend, there will be more crap produced, to cash in on the trend. IMO a lot of 1960s rock hasn't held up very well, if you listen to randomly selected album cuts.
  #81  
Old 10-06-2019, 02:59 PM
pmwgreen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
Iím almost 60 years old, and I still regularly find new songs that I like. Not so much on the radio, but even there it happens once in a while. More often I get recommendations from Facebook or Twitter. The key is that Iíll try just about any recommendation. Most donít do anything for me, but Iíve discovered some real gems.
I've got to believe we have access to more music today than at any time in history, that the number of artists we can hear has grown ten-fold, twenty-fold, a hundred-fold in the last twenty years or so. Every day I find gems like this one. And then I get in a cab and hear dreck. I think there are radio stations that only exist to play music for cab drivers. I don't think the drivers like it, but it's safe and not going to get complaints.

As far as the good old days, Elvis was good, but Viva Las Vegas by the Dead Kennedys is better.
  #82  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:01 PM
Yookeroo's Avatar
Yookeroo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Clemente, California
Posts: 5,084
If you're judging today's music based on what you hear on pop radio, you're missing a lot of great stuff. And nowadays it's pretty trivial to find it too. People who complain about contemporary music are just being lazy.
  #83  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:19 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yookeroo View Post
If you're judging today's music based on what you hear on pop radio, you're missing a lot of great stuff. And nowadays it's pretty trivial to find it too.
No argument there. But, if what you hear on pop radio nowadays really is more lewd, or talentless, or homogeneous, or otherwise distasteful, than what you heard on pop radio in earlier eras, than that means... somethingóright?

If that's what they're playing on the radio, then somebody must be listening to it, either because that's what they genuinely want to listen to or because they don't know any better. That's what they're being sold as "popular music."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017