| mystic_rhythms 18.01.2007 12:48 |
Hello, dear friends...it's been some time since I last chatted with you all, but I'm sure no one really missed me :p Anyways, this is an observation I made about music these days. Now that we have ventured into the year 2007, the musical spectrum is most likely on the verge of another twist of fate. This current decade in music has brought us the best and the worst musical artists these days have to offer. I'm sure we all have favorite bands from this era. Newer bands like My Chemical Romance, Scissor Sisters, Franz Ferdinand, and other such rock groups in recent years have been popular to an extent. Then, of course, you have the unfavorable, loathsome, dreadfully chaotic music that we know today as pop music. With the controversy surrounding pop 'icons' such as Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, etc., it's hard to be able to concentrate on their music (not that I do, anyway; I tend to shut off their music). You can say it's because I'm a guy, or you can say it's because I'm musically biased, but this is what I believe. It's simply because I hate the idea of taking a female, using her sexiness and her vocal talents, and parading her around as if she's the greatest thing to happen to music. And another thing...who the hell said Fergie (from Black Eyed Peas) was great? I've had to listen to the theoretical train-wreck that is "London Bridge". Yeah, it's popular. All the young guys and girls love it...well, not all of them. Take this for example: British hip-hop prodigy Lady Sovereign has proven she is a pint-sized girl with a big mouth. She has a distinct hatred towards Fergie, dissing her every chance she gets. She is also quoted in the latest issue of Rolling Stone as saying (in reference to new music) that "apart from me, it's just been shit." THAT, my friends, is speaking from the heart! This smart woman actually has the balls to say this kind of stuff, no matter who hears it. Almost like a female Eminem, except not as controversial or problematic. My point is, it gets harder and harder to accept music in the 21st Century, mainly because of the numerous genres, the manipulation of the market, and the lack of credibility. You really can't take music the way you want it to anymore... ...anyways, that ends it for me. Anyone else want to speak? :) |
| deleted user 18.01.2007 13:01 |
I totally think music these days is disgusting. It looks to me that most people listen to these kinds of horrible bands not because they WANT to - but because of the influence from peers, and pop culture. Other than that, in my opinion, today's music (nearly all) is corrupting the youth. Especially rap and hip-pop. Metal, scream, poser-ish emo rock bands like My Chemical Romance, Slipknot, etc...aren't that good either. - I won't say anything about Green Day...at least they're somewhat ORIGINAL. I'm afraid that the new music of these days will somehow cover up the old "good" quality types...like Queen ;_;...as more and more people come into the world and are influenced to listen to this. For one, I think that POP is awful. It lacks lyrics, sounds THE SAME, and is always being copied and replayed which, quite honestly, is annoying. And I mean WTF!? Paris HILTON - a freaking pop singer!? What has the music world come to? To me, pop lacks EVERYTHING. No originality, no nothing. That's my opinion... Music these days is awful =p |
| deleted user 18.01.2007 13:40 |
mystic_rhythms wrote: It's simply because I hate the idea of taking a female, using her sexiness and her vocal talents, and parading her around as if she's the greatest thing to happen to music.Plenty of male current pop-singer-ly-fellows are guilty of this, too. Or, their fans are... or something. Image is a big thing - was a big thing, for example, The Beatles and Queen. I'm not saying Britney Spears is the next John Lennon, of course. But I don't fault David Bowie or Madonna for having an "image" (which changed many times and still does). Many of these "images" included 'sexiness'. That said... I don't know. I got into rock and then stuff I hate calling 'classic rock' after the pop stations started playing mostly rap. I don't know what happened - it was Beatles and Beach Boys until fourth grade and then... I do see the value in a good dance track, but I don't want that 100% of the time. I also like albums that are ALBUMS - with good "flow" - not just "singles + some crap". I'm 100% sure there is "new music" out there that I would like. Where is it ? I don't know. I would have to do some field-work to track it down and nail its ass. The only artist I am really aware of for "modern" would be Shakira. I love her. I don't know why, I just do. |
| Poo, again 18.01.2007 14:25 |
The only good music these days used to be the Darkness. Well, we've got Franz Ferdinand. |
| Mr.Jingles 18.01.2007 15:19 |
<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: The only good music these days used to be the Darkness.Does that even qualify as "good music"? I don't think it even qualifies as good rip-off. |
| sparrow 21754 18.01.2007 15:29 |
dont even get me started..... |
| Saif 18.01.2007 22:29 |
Razorlight, Franz Ferdinand, Green Day, Westlife(sue me), The Killers - now these bands stand out among the new acts, they're actually good...for some reason I don't like Evanescence(I think that chick is kinda chunky), Coldplay and all those other, IMO over-rated bands. The recently reunited Take That is also AWESOME. And I HATE rap music. Be it Tupac, Eminem, Jay-Z or Black-Eyed Peas, they all suck. I kinda like Akon's rap(Smack That and I Wanna Love You...kinda) but not much. Bob Dylan is the best rapper("Subterranean Homesick Blues"...yeah I know it's really the "talking blues"). |
| i-Fred 18.01.2007 23:11 |
<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:It is true that back in the day there was the image thing going on as well. But it had more substance, it wasnt packaged the way it is now. And i suppose the aritsts them self's had allot more input and were allot more creative than the ones who are up in the charts now. Allot of todays stuff is about making money, big corporate companys just trying to cash in on flash in the pan succes stories and everyhting that goes with it. Times have changed heaps. We have the net to download albums, with a "Idiols" USA, AUS, UK all having that show, its totally different and more cut throat then ever and there is allot of eye candy just seems to fill the shallow void of the minds of the people who bye it. Which means, allot of the soul of music has been sucked out and thrown away. Hence why bands like Queen and Beatles have the secured place among the best gruops that will have there music left around for ever. The If there is ever such as thing as ever.mystic_rhythms wrote: It's simply because I hate the idea of taking a female, using her sexiness and her vocal talents, and parading her around as if she's the greatest thing to happen to music.Plenty of male current pop-singer-ly-fellows are guilty of this, too. Or, their fans are... or something. Image is a big thing - was a big thing, for example, The Beatles and Queen. I'm not saying Britney Spears is the next John Lennon, of course. But I don't fault David Bowie or Madonna for having an "image" (which changed many times and still does). Many of these "images" included 'sexiness'. That said... I don't know. I got into rock and then stuff I hate calling 'classic rock' after the pop stations started playing mostly rap. I don't know what happened - it was Beatles and Beach Boys until fourth grade and then... I do see the value in a good dance track, but I don't want that 100% of the time. I also like albums that are ALBUMS - with good "flow" - not just "singles + some crap". I'm 100% sure there is "new music" out there that I would like. Where is it ? I don't know. I would have to do some field-work to track it down and nail its ass. The only artist I am really aware of for "modern" would be Shakira. I love her. I don't know why, I just do. |
| Mr.Jingles 19.01.2007 07:19 |
Saif wrote: I don't like Evanescence(I think that chick is kinda chunky)Then people wonder why women have so many issues about staying thin which lead to anorexia and bullimia. |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 19.01.2007 09:05 |
Saif wrote: Bob Dylan is the best rapper("Subterranean Homesick Blues"...yeah I know it's really the "talking blues").That song rules!!!! :D I keep telling people that he invented one of the first Rap songs and many don't want to believe it. . . |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 19.01.2007 09:08 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Your so right Jingles...Saif wrote: I don't like Evanescence(I think that chick is kinda chunky)Then people wonder why women have so many issues about staying thin which lead to anorexia and bullimia. So Saif, that's one of your reasons why you don't like Evanescene, because Amy Lee is curvy? |
| Mr.Jingles 19.01.2007 09:28 |
<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote:Amy Lee is smoking hot. Her looks are just about as stunning as her voice.Mr.Jingles wrote:Your so right Jingles... So Saif, that's one of your reasons why you don't like Evanescene, because Amy Lee is curvy?Saif wrote: I don't like Evanescence(I think that chick is kinda chunky)Then people wonder why women have so many issues about staying thin which lead to anorexia and bullimia. |
| eenaweena 19.01.2007 09:30 |
franz ferdinand. muse. live. the killers. nuff said. |
| Saif 19.01.2007 10:25 |
Nah, I don't like Evanescence not because Amy Lee is chunky, that was just a comment. I'm just not into THEIR brand of "piano rock". I like Billy Joel and Elton John though, and they're piano rock too. Boycotting music according to looks is stupid. Michael Jackson is ugly now and I think so too, but "Beat It" is still one of my favourite songs, and whether one likes it or not, he was possibly the coolest person alive in the 80's; beloved of black and white alike. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 19.01.2007 11:09 |
Anyone who is going to base what kind of music they listen to on what the singers or members of the band look like shouldn't be allowed to comment on music...music has never been about the looks...it was about the music first and foremost. Not that the looks don't help, because as we know from the devleopment of the massive stage shows that are popular today and music videos images and the looks can add to the music incredibly...but it's still all about the music. OK...end that rant, and onto the next one Yes, music today mostly sucks. It's gotten to the point where I can't really listen to radio anymore because all of the Hit stations I used to listen to have been flooded with rap...and rap NEVER has been and NEVER WILL BE music....ever. The female pop singers? All I can say is, most of them can't sing for shit, but since they look good and can act sexy they'll continue to sell records to hormone driven male teenagers who will jack off to them, and misguided female teens who will want to be just like them (sad enough). But the guys are just as guilty of this sin...need I bring up Justin Timberlake? There are VERY rare few who can actually sing (Christina Aguilera and Beyonce come to mind). Most of the rock has gotten rather boring and repetative too, which makes bands like Queen, The Killers, Muse, Evanescence and Franz Ferdinand frequents on my IPod. Music has traditionally been this way though....it will get into a mode where it does the same thing for what seems like forever, and eventually it will change. We just have to ride out this, IPods in our ears, until the next change occurs. Now, if I were a betting person, I'd say that the next major change is actually going to be a reversion to some older styles of music, but with a newer twist, rather than something completely new and different. But, I'm not really a betting person. end rant two. That's my opinion |
| deleted user 19.01.2007 12:04 |
shemp wrote: It is true that back in the day there was the image thing going on as well. But it had more substance, it wasnt packaged the way it is now. And i suppose the aritsts them self's had allot more input and were allot more creative than the ones who are up in the charts now. Allot of todays stuff is about making money, big corporate companys just trying to cash in on flash in the pan succes stories and everyhting that goes with it. Times have changed heaps. We have the net to download albums, with a "Idiols" USA, AUS, UK all having that show, its totally different and more cut throat then ever and there is allot of eye candy just seems to fill the shallow void of the minds of the people who bye it. Which means, allot of the soul of music has been sucked out and thrown away. Hence why bands like Queen and Beatles have the secured place among the best gruops that will have there music left around for ever. The If there is ever such as thing as ever.I think the only thing that's really changed is what people can "get away with". For instance, I listen to Queen (et cetera) and there's not much swearing in the lyrics - "Get Down, Make Love" doesn't go into anything like what I've heard even on the radio "today". I think it might be partially because now that people CAN "get away with it", they're milking it for all it's worth (the power of being explicit, sexually or not). Hopefully, it will wear itself out. In the same way, there's more people can get away with image-wise. Just look at "glam rock" for heaven's sake. The music-industry has been driven by profit for a very, very, very, long time. Also, there were bands "put together" long before now. I am not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying that it's nothing new. Also, Queen were said to be "uncreative". I believe they were even accused of not writing their own songs. And they were too "theatrical" to be taken seriously as musicians by most critics. Also, on the DVD commentary to Greatest Video Hits One, Brian and Roger talk about Queen's lack of creative control when it came to music videos. And the disaster and how much they hated "Top of the Pops" - which I don't know how it compares to "American Idol" since it was miming. I don't like American Idol or any of those shows, I don't watch them. But if someone was "found" there - with music that I liked, I wouldn't shun them for it. Freddie called Queen's music "disposable pop". Queen's music is usually for fun, it's not usually political, it's escape. It's just escape that reflects a different time. Yes, music needs TALENT behind it - an image needs talent to back it up, or it's just an image (which can 'sell', nonetheless). Who from "now" will stand the test of time ? I have no idea. But it's not like the bands we choose to remember and adore from the 60s, 70s, and 80s were the only ones out there and making music. Even some great ones (in my opinion) have been forgotten. And some crap ones have been lost to time too. But music "today" isn't just what you hear on the radio. There's music being made now that I would like. These bands might not make it. You know why ? Because I and other people like me don't know they exist. And that's partially MY fault. I could do some digging if I wanted to. And I'm sure I would like some songs on the radio if I had the courage to listen to it. |
| Mr.Jingles 19.01.2007 12:25 |
The music industry has been about image since Elvis, after all Elvis couldn't write songs and could hardly play instruments and yet Elvis by far gathered more media attention than all his contemporaries combinded. The 60s and 70s brought a change in which musical innovation, technical skill, and songwriting originality was more appreciated than image. However, it's undeniable that the MTV era has put the whole image based stardom way above talent and that's the main reason why talentless fabricated pop stars and hip hop dominate the industry. |
| john bodega 19.01.2007 12:52 |
Any thread where My Chemical Romance is classified as 'Music' clearly breaks not only boundaries of common sense and social decency... but I highly suspect it directly defies the Geneva Convention - and probably throws away the book on the laws of physics - indeed the unspoken Laws of the Universe. Suppose for a moment that this is all true - one might assume that I can do whatever I want in this thread... travel through time, change the world for the better (or worse) answer questions that rest in places fundamental to all humans from the dawn of our civilisation and up to it's untimely end sometime in the near future... hell maybe I could even make myself almost attractive to women... As uncountable as grains of sand on a beach, are the ways in which a thread like this could be used to the advantage (or detriment) to our species... as any world where My Chemical Romance = Music, is clearly a world that simply doesn't operate the same way as the real world - indeed, perhaps such a place would not even register in most peoples chosen forms of sensory perception (sight, smell, sound and groove). Suppose any of us were to, at this moment, take up this challenge - surely issued us by the Gods... and attempt to change things as they are, as they were... and make them how WE want them to be... Walking through walls would be seen as commonplace as square-jawed economic heroes playing with their iPods on the train... the heavens would be our playgrounds... and perhaps some of us would get along better with our parents (there are some malignants in the world who would have you believe you'd be better off just telling them to fuck off... GROW UP you tight-jeaned little wimps). And suppose we were to indulge the awful temptation to shake up the foundations of the universe (and indeed, conceptually possible multiverses on astral planes we are not yet even close to understanding)... wouldn't it be an awful risk? What if it all ended, tomorrow? What if we cause the end of all we hold dear, and those things we don't hold dear - but perpetuate just so we have something to complain about?!! Don't you think we're taking an awful risk by buying into this canned-vegetable brand of music? I think some boxes (like Pandora's) ought to be kept firmly closed with a weighty anvil thrown on the lid. I tell you. Go out - find some King Crimson, grab yourself some Carl Sagan. Stand on the crest of a grassy hill at sunset, enjoy whatever clean air you can find in your part of the world... There are so many things worth doing with your limited and finite life. Willingly listening to anything produced by the inane, the whiny, the cookie-cutter wizards that call themselves "My Chemical Romance".... strikes me as an unfortunate way to spend a life! |
| Poo, again 19.01.2007 12:54 |
Franz Ferdinand still wins. |
| Raststätte-Knödel 19.01.2007 13:22 |
Music these days sucks....there may be some nice songs, but the majority is all crap like the pussyfuckdolls |
| AspiringPhilosophe 19.01.2007 13:40 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: The music industry has been about image since Elvis, after all Elvis couldn't write songs and could hardly play instruments and yet Elvis by far gathered more media attention than all his contemporaries combinded. The 60s and 70s brought a change in which musical innovation, technical skill, and songwriting originality was more appreciated than image. However, it's undeniable that the MTV era has put the whole image based stardom way above talent and that's the main reason why talentless fabricated pop stars and hip hop dominate the industry.Good point, Jingles...but I have a small clarification, or at least my POV. Elvis wasn't as much into his image in the beginning until society decided that his hip swiveling was lewd and wouldn't allow it to be shown. When he appeared on TV during a show, and they refused to shoot him from the waist down, that was the beginning of him being about image. That banning done by society caused more interest, which Elvis, or his managers, cashed in on because they saw that it could get them more fans, and thus more money. That was the beginning of lavish stage shows. Then MTV came along, and that was the beginning of music videos, which as you point out, had a huge impact. Bravo on your last sentence, BTW....I totally agree with you! **applauds** |
| Mr.Jingles 19.01.2007 15:38 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: That was the beginning of lavish stage shows. Then MTV came along, and that was the beginning of music videos, which as you point out, had a huge impact. Bravo on your last sentence, BTW....I totally agree with you! **applauds**I don't know whether MTV was the beginning of music videos or the end of them. Each year we get more reality shows and MTV specials glorifying the lavish lifestyle of dumb talentless celebrities. ...and the music videos? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 19.01.2007 15:59 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:**laughes** relegated to MTV 2...probably soon they'll need an MTV 3 for the videos so they can have two stations for stupid shows.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: That was the beginning of lavish stage shows. Then MTV came along, and that was the beginning of music videos, which as you point out, had a huge impact. Bravo on your last sentence, BTW....I totally agree with you! **applauds**I don't know whether MTV was the beginning of music videos or the end of them. Each year we get more reality shows and MTV specials glorifying the lavish lifestyle of dumb talentless celebrities. ...and the music videos? I'm not sure whether to cry or laugh about that, honestly |