Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-01-2019, 07:29 PM
sta3535 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 83

Why is modern day music viewed as "lewd & talentless" by certain people?


Is it really that bad, when compared to certain songs, singers, & bands in the past? Our younger generation seems to enjoy it, only because they grew up listening to it.
  #2  
Old 10-01-2019, 07:34 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 15,694
Pretty much those exact words have been used by parents to describe the popular music that their kids like for literally decades -- back to the start of the rock era in the 1950s, and probably before that.
  #3  
Old 10-01-2019, 07:51 PM
mbh is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,785
Jazz took the same flak in the 1930s.

Mozart wrote a song about anilingus.

The waltz was once controversial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz
Quote:
In the 1771 German novel Geschichte des Fršuleins von Sternheim by Sophie von La Roche, a high-minded character complains about the newly introduced waltz among aristocrats thus: "But when he put his arm around her, pressed her to his breast, cavorted with her in the shameless, indecent whirling-dance of the Germans and engaged in a familiarity that broke all the bounds of good breedingóthen my silent misery turned into burning rage."[3]
Young people have been offending their elders since time immemorial.
  #4  
Old 10-02-2019, 12:00 AM
DorkVader's Avatar
DorkVader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: boise idaho
Posts: 2,752
While I don't view the music of millenials as talentless, and not all of it as lewd, a lot of the enduring music of the boomers was certainly performed by talentless people.

For instance, the beetles, not offensive, just meh. I don't deny their influence on modern music, but they are cursed with being the first, those that followed did it so so much better

The world would have been a much better place without mick Jagger. His, well I guess most people seem to think what he was doing was singing, caterwauling is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

I guess that makes me a little weird, in that it's the prior generations musical icons that are mostly void of merit, not the following generation to me.
__________________
"The Wonka will show you the true nature of the chocolate, He is your master now."
Darth Desserticola, Sith Hare
  #5  
Old 10-02-2019, 12:39 AM
Staggerlee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 1,997
I'd agree that it's an age-old tradition to see new music , and the youth of today generally, as vulgar and scandalous, though there's maybe some truth to things being 'worse' than ever.

When I was growing up in the 80s/90s it was perhaps Madonna who shocked, poncing about in underwear and conical bras - but in the age of self-objectification and narcissism encouraged by social media, lewdness has surely blossomed.

And modern music production techniques (e.g. real-time pitch modulation) mean that the talentless can prosper - though this doesn't mean that talent doesn't exist any more of course.

The modern age is always getting better at pushing the buttons of old folks, basically.
  #6  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:38 AM
F. U. Shakespeare is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorkVader View Post
For instance, the beetles, not offensive, just meh. I don't deny their influence on modern music, but they are cursed with being the first, those that followed did it so so much better
I'm curious: which artists influenced by the Beatles do you believe did it so much better.
  #7  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:55 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,641
Traditionally the whole point of rock music was to be "lewd" and push the buttons of the establishment. It was a form of rebellion for young people. Usually in the form of loud metaphors and double entendre about sex, drugs and partying.

"Modern" music, which I define as music from the past couple of decades isn't particularly "lewd" IMHO. But much of what is played on the radio has become "talentless". Or at the very least, it has become sort of bland, indistinctive and very corporate sounding. Kind of like the musicians were farmed by some giant corporation to play scientifically tested and focus-group approved tunes for a shrinking number of outlets attempting to inoffensively reach the largest number of people.






Quote:
Originally Posted by DorkVader View Post
While I don't view the music of millenials as talentless, and not all of it as lewd, a lot of the enduring music of the boomers was certainly performed by talentless people.

For instance, the beetles, not offensive, just meh. I don't deny their influence on modern music, but they are cursed with being the first, those that followed did it so so much better

The world would have been a much better place without mick Jagger. His, well I guess most people seem to think what he was doing was singing, caterwauling is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

I guess that makes me a little weird, in that it's the prior generations musical icons that are mostly void of merit, not the following generation to me.
It's weird because it doesn't make any sense. The music of The Beatles and The Stones has been around for decades and is still enjoyed today. That's not simply a matter of being "first".
  #8  
Old 10-02-2019, 07:00 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by sta3535 View Post
Is it really that bad, when compared to certain songs, singers, & bands in the past? Our younger generation seems to enjoy it, only because they grew up listening to it.
Everyone thinks the music they latched onto when they grew pubes is the best music ever. Boomers think itís a crime that kids today donít still worship Elvis and The Beatles.
  #9  
Old 10-02-2019, 07:43 AM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,726
There has long been a category of popular music that has been (at least as much) concerned with image and attitude, as with the quality of the music. Somewhat more complex is the fact that some new music explores different sonic textures, which may be not only unfamiliar, but also unpleasant to folk familiar with other styles. And different people may seek different things from their music. If I enjoy love ballads, I may have a hard time appreciating even well-crafted rap tunes expressing rage at an unfair system.

As an example - I recently saw/heard someone named Billie Ellish (sp?) on SNL. Apparently she is quite successful at promoting herself at a young age, but (from the parts of the 2 song I heard), any musical talent was well disguised.

Another category is the "manufactured" stars. We had the Monkees in the 60s. Before that, there were any number of Rickie Nelson clones. And my kids had Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys. Today, there is K-Pop. Hard to compare those groups to any number of people who write and perform their own music. But even such "products" can have a catchy tune or 2. And I have to admit, when I first saw/heard Destiny's Child, I never dreamt the phenomena Beyoncť would become.

I attended 4 weddings this summer. I found it interesting to hear what songs from the 70s thru the oughts got played by the DJs. Staying power can be difficult to predict.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #10  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:11 AM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 56,443
As I tell people: If you can remember when rock music was considered a fad that would die in two years, you are old. If you can remember when music was segregated, you are very old (white people had folk and country, "colored" people had jazz, soul and blues).

People have been decrying modern music since the first cave person sang the first notes.
  #11  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:23 AM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,418
Talentless seems a bit harsh, although I can definitely understand where that thought comes from. I think what I'd say is that radio music is very... produced and polished. If it was food, we'd call it highly processed food, to use an analogy.

But I don't get a lot of the love for a lot of the contemporary artists of the past few years, and I did as recently as about 5 years ago. I don't at all get what makes Billie Eilish so popular for example. Nor do I get why Cardi B is remotely popular either. Or Post Malone. I mean, his songs aren't *bad*, but they're not *good* either, and certainly not good enough for his level of fame. Or for that matter, why Iggy Azalea was popular some years back. None are *that good*, IMO.

I do think part of it is that we see pendulum swings- a few years ago, it was all folk-ish sounding rock (Mumford & Sons, George Ezra, etc...), and now the pendulum has swung in a more rap/r&B/hip-hop direction, making people go "WTF is this crap?" if they liked the other stuff.
  #12  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:50 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,057
If you want to define "lewd" as being "more profane and/or explicit than ever before", then yes, that is true objectively. What was once the province of double entendres is now openly described. The word "fuck" is used more in recorded pop music in recent years (last 15-20) than ever before.

Talentless is a stretch but technology does help mask deficiencies in playing or singing.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns

Last edited by FoieGrasIsEvil; 10-02-2019 at 08:50 AM.
  #13  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:57 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,641
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.
Yes and no. A lot of people still listen to The Beatles and Elvis today. When people look back on the music from the 60s, 70s, etc, they mostly remember the good stuff that staid good. They largely forget most of the crap.

People remember Pearl Jam and Nirvana from the 90s. They have (or should have) largely forgotten The Spin Doctors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bump
I do think part of it is that we see pendulum swings- a few years ago, it was all folk-ish sounding rock (Mumford & Sons, George Ezra, etc...), and now the pendulum has swung in a more rap/r&B/hip-hop direction, making people go "WTF is this crap?" if they liked the other stuff.
Firstly, I think it's kind of weird that there is a "pendulum" that swings back and forth between rap/hip hop and rock. Music that has largely been around for 40 years and doesn't seem much different from what I listened to as a kid.

Secondly, I think the oscillations (or whatever) for that pendulum has been getting shorter as hip hop, rock and electronic dance music seem to be growing less distinctive as genres. It's all sort of an "urban pop crossover" now. Katy Perry & Ed Sheeran (featuring Drake) (Deadmou5 remix).

At least bands like Mumford & Sons tried something different for awhile. Even if their last two albums discarded the banjos and washboards for traditional instruments, placing them solidly and generically somewhere between Coldplay and Imagine Dragons.

Last edited by msmith537; 10-02-2019 at 08:57 AM.
  #14  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:04 AM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,652
Talentless i dont think so. But its lewder by many degrees than any other generational music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14K6KtBlusY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ZlvTuS9kw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDMGmtpvBjs
  #15  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:29 AM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
Boomers think itís a crime that kids today donít still worship Elvis and The Beatles.
Nobody with a brain feels that way.
  #16  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:03 AM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 42,835
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 itís a crime that kids today donít still worship Elvis and The Beatles.
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").
__________________
"If a person saying he was something was all there was to it, this country'd be full of rich men and good-looking women. Too bad it isn't that easy.... In short, when someone else says you're a writer, that's when you're a writer... not before."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
  #17  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:40 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
If you want to define "lewd" as being "more profane and/or explicit than ever before", then yes, that is true objectively. What was once the province of double entendres is now openly described. The word "fuck" is used more in recorded pop music in recent years (last 15-20) than ever before.

Talentless is a stretch but technology does help mask deficiencies in playing or singing.
This, and this.

Plus there's real evidence that "modern day music" is more homogeneous than that of earlier eras. (Science Proves: Pop Music Has Actually Gotten Worse; Scientists Just Discovered Why All Pop Music Sounds Exactly the Same).

Plus, some of today's musicians aren't talented in the same way as musicians of yesteryear. (It takes a different kind of talent to be a rapper than to be a rock star or a crooner.)
  #18  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:23 AM
Osano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 33
Lip syncing, pitch correction, and sampling. Modern music is hopeless.
  #19  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:30 AM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
If you want to define "lewd" as being "more profane and/or explicit than ever before", then yes, that is true objectively. What was once the province of double entendres is now openly described. The word "fuck" is used more in recorded pop music in recent years (last 15-20) than ever before.
While bad language and explicit lyrics are more more common now, I dispute the notion that things were once solely the province of double entendres. (Spoiler tags and broken links for NSFW language). A quick little youtube searching finds:

LUCILLE BOGAN - Shave 'Em Dry (1935)
https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PhOWpdt6xg
SPOILER:
Now if fuckin' was the thing
That would take me to heaven,
I'd be fuckin' in the studio
Till the clock strike eleven.
Oh daddy, daddy shave 'em dry,

I would fuck you baby,
Honey I'd make you cry.
Now your nuts hang down
Like a damn bell sapper,
And your dick stands up like a steeple.
Your goddam ass-hole
Stands open like a church door,
And the crabs walks in like people.
Ow, shit!
(Aah, sure enough, shave 'em dry?)
Ooooh! Baby, won't you shave 'em dry


The Clovers - The Rotten Cocksucker's Ball - 1954
https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-n5vG2SjJY
SPOILER:
Come on you poor ass singers and ya' big dick slingers
We're going downtown to the cocksucker's ball
Fuck, suck and fight till the beginning of broad daylight

We don't need no god damned taxi fair
We're going to trim those hoes in a rocking chair
Take off all their rags
We're going to play a little game call tag
Tomorrow night at the rotten cock sucker's ball
Cha, cha, cha, cha
  #20  
Old 10-02-2019, 12:26 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,995
Moderator Action

Since this is about music, let's move it to Cafe Society (from MPSIMS).
  #21  
Old 10-02-2019, 12:27 PM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 22,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorkVader View Post
While I don't view the music of millenials as talentless, and not all of it as lewd, a lot of the enduring music of the boomers was certainly performed by talentless people.

For instance, the beetles, not offensive, just meh. I don't deny their influence on modern music, but they are cursed with being the first, those that followed did it so so much better

The world would have been a much better place without mick Jagger. His, well I guess most people seem to think what he was doing was singing, caterwauling is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

I guess that makes me a little weird, in that it's the prior generations musical icons that are mostly void of merit, not the following generation to me.
Yeah, that's weird. Jagger was much more than the Stones' lead vocalist. People went to Stones concerts to see the way he danced and strutted on stage. He was a showman in that regard. There was even a recent hit song called Moves Like Jagger.

Last edited by cochrane; 10-02-2019 at 12:27 PM.
  #22  
Old 10-02-2019, 01:10 PM
Gatopescado is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 22,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osano View Post
Lip syncing, pitch correction, and sampling. Modern music is hopeless.
Shaz Natch, My Bizzle Biotch!
  #23  
Old 10-02-2019, 01:24 PM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817
Boomers think itís a crime that kids today donít still worship Elvis and The Beatles.
Not quite. Many Boomers do feel that way about the Beatles, but Elvis' fans are slightly older - not necessarily the parents of the Boomers, but perhaps their significantly older siblings.
  #24  
Old 10-02-2019, 01:41 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
While bad language and explicit lyrics are more more common now, I dispute the notion that things were once solely the province of double entendres. (Spoiler tags and broken links for NSFW language). A quick little youtube searching finds:
Yeah, but those songs were totally underground. You would never hear them on the radio and were hard to get hold of on record. Today the explicit songs are just part of the everyday background. You might as well say that because pornography existed in the 1930s, nothing about it has changed today.
  #25  
Old 10-02-2019, 04:34 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Yeah, but those songs were totally underground. You would never hear them on the radio and were hard to get hold of on record. Today the explicit songs are just part of the everyday background. You might as well say that because pornography existed in the 1930s, nothing about it has changed today.
I'm not really sure why you're posting a 'yeah, but' when you don't appear to disagree with anything I said. I stated clearly in what you quoted that they are more common now, saying 'yeah, but they were a lot harder to get ahold of then' just confirms that. The dirty versions of songs may not have been on major-label records, but they were certainly recorded and passed around, and played in some performances. If someone stated that pornography only existed now and didn't exist in the 1930s, I would point to documented evidence of pornography going back to the 1930s (and earlier) to show them wrong.
  #26  
Old 10-02-2019, 05:44 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I'm not really sure why you're posting a 'yeah, but' when you don't appear to disagree with anything I said. I stated clearly in what you quoted that they are more common now, saying 'yeah, but they were a lot harder to get ahold of then' just confirms that.
I think it's more than just how common they wereóit's who heard or even knew about them at all, and where.
Quote:
The dirty versions of songs may not have been on major-label records, but they were certainly recorded and passed around, and played in some performances.
DId the "average person" know about them?
  #27  
Old 10-02-2019, 06:21 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,294
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?
Yeah, underground vs. above ground.
  #28  
Old 10-03-2019, 07:37 AM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,726
Another thing that just struck me, was that modern music is so much more fragmented than in the past, with so many more options available. Yeah, I'm a dinosaur, but back in the 60s-70s in Chicago, it was top 40s on WLS and WCFL. As the 70s progressed, some FM options appeared. But even FM stations playing "deep cuts" offered nothing near the variety - and ease of access - as Youtube. In the past, for an artist to be widely heard, they generally had to have a record company behind them - or at least word of mouth resulting from touring and write-ups.

So someone I never heard of before is all over the media one day. Possibly on the basis of a single song. Will they still be making music tomorrow? That sort of ephemeral nature might contribute to consumers viewing some modern music as "less substantial."
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #29  
Old 10-03-2019, 08:27 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by sta3535 View Post
Is it really that bad, when compared to certain songs, singers, & bands in the past? Our younger generation seems to enjoy it, only because they grew up listening to it.
No, it's just as good and as skilled as it's ever been. Old people have bitched about new music for generations, and they always will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by staggerlee
And modern music production techniques (e.g. real-time pitch modulation) mean that the talentless can prosper - though this doesn't mean that talent doesn't exist any more of course.
Bob Dylan couldn't sing for shit, The Ramones had far less talent than one thousand university bands active right now, and the drummer for the greatest band that ever existed was, let's be honest, not all that great. KISS has twenty gold albums or whatever it's up to, and they are entirely a marketing and merchandising operation (and are totally unapologetic about it.)
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #30  
Old 10-03-2019, 09:29 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,582

* raises hand as a CERTAIN PEOPLE kind of individual *


I don't care about "lewd". Lewd is fine. A lot of modern music is masculine posturing with a lot of threat, swagger, misogyny, etc, but so was a shitload of the stuff we listened to when I was 19, so I can't point fingers.

TALENTLESS on the other hand...

* Who would know? Most of it, as I understand, now consists of loop tracks recorded once and then computer-replicated; my ears tell me I'm hearing the same sound and not multiple different renditions of the same phrases or refrains. There's some process called "compression" that eliminates the quiet parts, jacking up the volume so it's blandly uniform, albeit loudly so. And it's autotuned to death, more about that in a moment. And, worst of all, it strikes me as passionless, uninspired, kind of whiny music that I just don't much care for.

* So, autotune... I'm willing to deep-six the easy attack that says modern singers use autotune because they can't hit the freaking pitch without electronic help. I'll instead stipulate that autotune is in heavy use because the autotuned sound, itself, is trendy, and that today's singers could indeed hit their notes on their own power, they use autotune to get that current-era sound. OK. Well, good god y'all, that sound sounds tinny and nasal and mechanical and whiny and generally awful. Maybe today's singers have great voices but who can tell?

* I could make a similar concession about the loops and the processing; I guess today's artists do perform live, on television or at concerts etc? And so they must be capable of simply picking up their instruments and standing in front of a live microphone and delivering music to the audience. But the music trend is towards that heavily processed packaged computer-generated perfectly-sculpted 0:767.1 seconds per looped measure (or whatever) repetitious stuff, that's what gets the radio play, and it all freaking sounds the same, and it's not a good same. That they can do an approximation of that when performing live doesn't make it any better music.

None of this pretends to be objective. You'd be justified in saying the reason this particular "certain people" individual doesn't like modern day music is that I'm a 60 year old fogey and 60 year old fogeys are notoriously inclined to go around saying "back in my day we had better music".
  #31  
Old 10-03-2019, 09:50 AM
F. U. Shakespeare is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,217
Part of the problem here is semantics. What is "talent"?

When rock and roll came to be, lots of people said it didn't require talent. I think that oversimplifies it.

The number of voices that could ever be trained to sing opera professionally is smaller than the number who could ever sing rock and country music professionally. Jazz is generally more complicated than most rock. And the aggregate amount of work it took for, say, a big band to develop a passable sound was more than it took 4-5 players with electric instruments to get there -- whereas you generally took lessons to learn to play brass, woodwind, or string instruments, rock and country were more widely accessible.

A big change that took hold in the 1960s (although it started earlier) was bands writing their own material. Hired musicians who could read notation gave way to performers expressing themselves more personally. Some would claim the former have more "talent" but I think it's more that the public wanted a different type of talent. (This trend was aided by the fact that record companies could sign unknown performers and own their song rights for less than professional songwriters would want, and it was cheaper to hire a four-piece band than a big band).

A member of Glenn Miller's band couldn't replace Buddy Holly. And vice versa. But both were talented.

I can't comment knowledgeably on music of the last 30 years or so, being too freaking old.
  #32  
Old 10-03-2019, 10:16 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
* So, autotune... I'm willing to deep-six the easy attack that says modern singers use autotune because they can't hit the freaking pitch without electronic help. I'll instead stipulate that autotune is in heavy use because the autotuned sound, itself, is trendy, and that today's singers could indeed hit their notes on their own power, they use autotune to get that current-era sound. OK. Well, good god y'all, that sound sounds tinny and nasal and mechanical and whiny and generally awful. Maybe today's singers have great voices but who can tell?
Well, I mean, anyone who goes to a concert, or heck, just watches one of those singing shows.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #33  
Old 10-03-2019, 10:22 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Well, I mean, anyone who goes to a concert, or heck, just watches one of those singing shows.
Acknowledged @ the third asterisk.
  #34  
Old 10-03-2019, 10:35 AM
YamatoTwinkie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
As an example - I recently saw/heard someone named Billie Ellish (sp?) on SNL. Apparently she is quite successful at promoting herself at a young age, but (from the parts of the 2 song I heard), any musical talent was well disguised.
To each their own, I guess. While I agree her SNL performance wasn't particularly great (I imagine it's difficult to pull off a strong vocal performance in a vertically rotating set with what appeared to be two sprained ankles). , Billie Eilish is who I initially thought of as the antithesis to "talentless modern day music".
  #35  
Old 10-03-2019, 10:46 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osano View Post
Lip syncing, pitch correction, and sampling. Modern music is hopeless.
I grew up on the music of the 1960s, and there's plenty of rock and pop from the current decade that I enjoy.

The 1960s, by the way, had a metric ton of Top-40 dreck, in addition to having the artists and bands we still remember today. If you listened to top-40 radio back then, most of what you heard was dreck. Same is almost certainly true of the stations that 15 year olds listen to nowadays.
  #36  
Old 10-03-2019, 12:07 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie View Post
To each their own, I guess. While I agree her SNL performance wasn't particularly great (I imagine it's difficult to pull off a strong vocal performance in a vertically rotating set with what appeared to be two sprained ankles). , Billie Eilish is who I initially thought of as the antithesis to "talentless modern day music".
A strong vocal performance wasn't required with all of that prerecorded audio. Still, it wasn't terrible.

You have to get down to the bar circuit to hear real live music nowadays. Professional 'live' music has real time pitch correction,prerecorded vocal and instrumental tracks, and God knows what other forms of sweetening.
  #37  
Old 10-03-2019, 12:48 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
...

You have to get down to the bar circuit to hear real live music nowadays. ...
Or small performance venues for the "acousticky" stuff I prefer. There is an amazing amount of talent out there. And - as an extremely mediocre musician - I'm regularly humbled by how hard they work for such little money. The contrast often confounds me, when I see someone who appears to be making big coin, with what impresses me as less obvious skills - other than PR.

It is cool when I see someone like St. Vincent - who writes her own material and has the chops to back up her impressive on-stage persona. Maybe I just am not engaged enough to make the effort to discern the "talent" of many popular acts.

I suspect for many of them, their greatest talent is in massaging the electronics - no mean feat, but not one that really draws me, and in presenting an image that sells.

I aspire to having an open mind. Can a fan of Billie Ellish direct me to something that will display her ability?
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #38  
Old 10-03-2019, 01:24 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
...

I aspire to having an open mind. Can a fan of Billie Ellish direct me to something that will display her ability?
Listened to/watched a few vids. Not my preferred style, but I admit some of the tunes are catchy, and some of the lyrics clever. Doubt I'd ever intentionally listen to any, but I imagine you could dance to them. Personally not impressed by the whispery vocals. She obviously wants to portray an image that doesn't resonate with this 58 yr old man. From what little I read about her and what I've seen, it seems several aspects of her "image" relate to several current issues/discussions.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #39  
Old 10-03-2019, 01:26 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Plus there's real evidence that "modern day music" is more homogeneous than that of earlier eras. (Science Proves: Pop Music Has Actually Gotten Worse; Scientists Just Discovered Why All Pop Music Sounds Exactly the Same).

Plus, some of today's musicians aren't talented in the same way as musicians of yesteryear.
Exactly. For those who aren't familiar with how nearly all major hits are created today, here are two articles that explain it: https://theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...harade/403192/
https://nypost.com/2015/10/04/your-f...-by-these-two/


Back in the 50's and 60's there were a large number of small producers scattered around the country that had relationships with radio stations and music halls in their local area. If they had a talented star, they could arrange to get the star's music on the radio and get some live performances scheduled and if the public liked it then nationwide fame would gradually arrive. The most famous example would be Sun Records, where Elvis, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Roy Orbison all got started. That type of system just doesn't exist any more. Every song that makes the top 10 now is a corporate product manufactured by formula.
  #40  
Old 10-03-2019, 02:17 PM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 42,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Bob Dylan couldn't sing for shit, The Ramones had far less talent than one thousand university bands active right now, and the drummer for the greatest band that ever existed was, let's be honest, not all that great. KISS has twenty gold albums or whatever it's up to, and they are entirely a marketing and merchandising operation (and are totally unapologetic about it.)
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. His voice was rough and he had limited range, but he always made the most of it. Trashing Bob Dylan's singing is the type of cheap snark that shows you haven't listened to him.

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?

If you're referring to Ringo Starr in the third sentence, you're woefully mistaken. Ringo was an excellent drummer -- he just wasn't a flashy one. He was deliberately in the background, doing what was best for the song.

Marketing and merchandising only goes so far. If you can't back it up, you vanish like New Coke and the Edsel.

There were certainly popular artists in the 60s who weren't all that great (bubble gum music, for instance). And there are certainly musicians today who are just as good (Lada Gaga has impressed me a lot). But, really, those examples show a lack of knowledge about music.
__________________
"If a person saying he was something was all there was to it, this country'd be full of rich men and good-looking women. Too bad it isn't that easy.... In short, when someone else says you're a writer, that's when you're a writer... not before."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
  #41  
Old 10-03-2019, 02:22 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I aspire to having an open mind. Can a fan of Billie Ellish direct me to something that will display her ability?
From a couple of days ago on the Howard Stern Show - just Billie singing, accompanied by her brother on piano:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzNuwjErYlE
  #42  
Old 10-03-2019, 03:26 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The 1960s, by the way, had a metric ton of Top-40 dreck, in addition to having the artists and bands we still remember today. If you listened to top-40 radio back then, most of what you heard was dreck. Same is almost certainly true of the stations that 15 year olds listen to nowadays.
I don't think anyone would deny that. I think the point is that in the 50's and 60's, there were some recording that became legendary and deservedly so. For example:

The Coasters, Down in Mexico
The Beach Boys, Good Vibrations
The Animals, House of the Rising Sun
Jefferson Airplane, Somebody to Love
Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell, Ain't No Mountain High Enough
Righteous Brothers, You've Lost that Loving Feeling

and others. But what music released in the past ten years is going to be legendary?
  #43  
Old 10-03-2019, 03:27 PM
suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,899
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.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #44  
Old 10-03-2019, 06:17 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
From a couple of days ago on the Howard Stern Show - just Billie singing, accompanied by her brother on piano:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzNuwjErYlE
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.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #45  
Old 10-03-2019, 06:37 PM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,299
and remember, Elvis was considered rather "lewd" for the time; outrage over his moves led them to only film him from above the waist during a later performance on the Ed Sullivan Show.
  #46  
Old 10-03-2019, 08:36 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 124
See Nicolas Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective, a few centuries' of bad reviews. Beethoven's "barnyard animal" sounds; Debussy's rubbish; the joy of being born deaf. Old music is always stale. New music always sucks. The C in rap is silent.
  #47  
Old 10-04-2019, 12:23 AM
digs's Avatar
digs is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 9,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
’m 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 I’ll try just about any recommendation. Most don’t do anything for me, but I’ve discovered some real gems.
And the key to finding those gems is to hunt for them, or have someone else recommend them. Luckily, I have kids and students with good taste (my daughter just walked down the aisle to this Bon Iver song).

Same as the 60's or any decade. I'm well over 60, and I remember all the dreck from back then, and how your car radio only played the Top 40... think about that, and imagine listening to the same 40 songs over and over and over. So much of it was crap; I clearly remember trying to leap into the front seat and immediately punch the AM radio buttons to avoid "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro.

I just randomly looked up the 40 you'd hear many many times at the beginning of 1963... the top 10 were a mixed bag:
1 TELSTAR –•– The Tornadoes
2 GO AWAY LITTLE GIRL –•– Steve Lawrence
3 LIMBO ROCK –•– Chubby Checker
4 BOBBY’S GIRL –•– Marcie Blane
5 BIG GIRLS DON’T CRY –•– The Four Seasons
6 HOTEL HAPPINESS –•– Brook Benton
7 PEPINO THE ITALIAN MOUSE –•– Lou Monte
8 RETURN TO SENDER –•– Elvis Presley
9 ZIP-A-DEE DOO-DAH –•– Bob B. Soxx and the Blue Jeans
10 TELL HIM –•– The Exciters

Last edited by digs; 10-04-2019 at 12:24 AM.
  #48  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:02 AM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 5,682
the mom of one of the neighbor girls says "Ariana grande is the daughter madonna should of had "
  #49  
Old 10-04-2019, 03:00 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
I don't think anyone would deny that. I think the point is that in the 50's and 60's, there were some recording that became legendary and deservedly so.
And my point is that they're comparing the stuff that they still listen to after 50 years with the stuff they happen to hear when they happen across some contemporary music. Which has an extremely high likelihood of being run-of-the-mill crap, today's equivalent of the forgettable top-40 stuff of 50 years ago.
Quote:
For example:

The Coasters, Down in Mexico
The Beach Boys, Good Vibrations
The Animals, House of the Rising Sun
Jefferson Airplane, Somebody to Love
Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell, Ain't No Mountain High Enough
Righteous Brothers, You've Lost that Loving Feeling

and others.
The Coasters song is so legendary that I literally have never heard of it before. I can take or leave the Righteous Brothers, and I have to say I've been unaware that their songs were considered legendary by people who weren't particular fans of the Righteous Brothers. And besides the fact that I actively dislike "Ain't No Mountain," I didn't know it was legendary either. But I'll agree that the other three are legendary, and deservedly so.

My point not being that your list is crap (it isn't) but that we clearly have great disagreement about what songs from 50 years ago have stood the test of time, let alone which are 'legendary.' And that's after 50 years of winnowing. How are we going to tell about now, even if we're familiar with today's music?
Quote:
But what music released in the past ten years is going to be legendary?
How do you know, until you see what survives the test of time? I could give you a list of my favorites, that I think I will still be listening to in 20 years, but when we get to 30 years out, I may or may not still be around to listen to anything. And 40 years is almost certainly right out.

Which brings up the point that I'm not part of the generation whose opinions will determine which songs from this decade are legendary; the people who will be the judge of that are 50 years younger than me, give or take a decade. All I can tell you is that some very good music is still being made, songs that I listen to over and over again.
  #50  
Old 10-04-2019, 08:46 AM
digs's Avatar
digs is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 9,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And my point is that they're comparing the stuff that they still listen to after 50 years with the stuff they happen to hear when they happen across some contemporary music. Which has an extremely high likelihood of being run-of-the-mill crap, today's equivalent of the forgettable top-40 stuff of 50 years ago...

Which brings up the point that I'm not part of the generation whose opinions will determine which songs from this decade are legendary; the people who will be the judge of that are 50 years younger than me, give or take a decade. All I can tell you is that some very good music is still being made, songs that I listen to over and over again.
Thanks, RT! Those are the points I've been trying to formulate in my head ever since I read the OP.

Sometimes I catch myself or one of my friends starting to bitch about "the hogswallup what passes fer music these days, dadburn these rapscallions!"... and we sound just like my grandparents: "You can't honestly call that music!" "Ummm, that's 'Let It Be', Gramps..."
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 09:55 AM.

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