| greaserkat 10.07.2012 12:33 |
I found this pic in my facebook feed, I thought it was pretty funny and sad at the same time... link |
| Megine 10.07.2012 13:18 |
Yeah, but we still have good music today, but it's usally not on mainstream. But I prefer ols songs, my favorite band are from '60s, '70, and '80s. Sorry for my english. Wow, it's my first reply! |
| Megine 10.07.2012 13:18 |
*old *bands |
| Martin Packer 10.07.2012 13:42 |
Actually I consider it 5 producers on the right. The boys and RTB. |
| greaserkat 10.07.2012 15:29 |
I would probably guess that Freddie was the main one with Roy given that it was Freddie's baby |
| brENsKi 10.07.2012 16:20 |
well as the thread is music now vs music in the past, i'll comment on that: every decade has had plenty of sh*t. I loved the 60s and 70s - but BOTH decades had as much crap as great. the current decade is fairly similar in that respect. bands like the foos, kings of leon and killers are great, but the manufactured stuff must affionados hate has ALWAYS been around - the early rock n roll movement was full of it. the only decade that i'd cite as an exception to the rule is the 80s...wall to wall sh*t all the way through |
| mickyparise 12.07.2012 05:12 |
Music today is nothing but garbage! Bring back the old songwriting when a singer wrote from the heart and not from a team of 10 writers for one song. |
| freddiefan91 12.07.2012 07:06 |
There is some good stuff around at the moment but I much prefer stuff from the past I prefer singers/bands who can write their own music and perform with enthusiasm |
| tomchristie22 12.07.2012 07:22 |
The good music is still there, it's just no longer in the mainstream (and hasn't been since the 80's). |
| shamar 12.07.2012 09:47 |
brENsKi wrote: every decade has had plenty of sh*t. I loved the 60s and 70s - but BOTH decades had as much crap as great. But then good music was also in mainstream. Now shit music is mainstream music. Good stuff in underground. |
| brENsKi 12.07.2012 11:03 |
^^^ "good music" is a subjective term. but let's take it in the isolation of a "rock forum".... in the 70s there were loads of great bands who were not in the mainstream and loads of not so great who were huge and mainstream |
| waunakonor 14.07.2012 09:10 |
brENsKi wrote: the only decade that i'd cite as an exception to the rule is the 80s...wall to wall sh*t all the way throughI disagree... |
| Stelios 14.07.2012 09:51 |
There is no good - real music today for 3 reasons. 1. Youth culture is dead. 2. Queen brought music to some kind of limit.Grunge and Hip Hop injected some new elements but in terms of musicality Queen hitted the ceiling. 3. The world is a tottaly different place.Money won against the soul. And this is not a good place for the melody to grow. |
| The Real Wizard 14.07.2012 10:44 |
Face palm... If all one listens to is the radio, then yes, nearly all new music sucks. But most people with good musical taste understand one simple fact that the "new music sucks" crowd doesn't - the internet is becoming the new mainstream. Look for online radio stations from different countries - like Triple J in Australia or CBC music in Canada. There are tens of thousands of excellent artists out there. Look for "100 best song" lists of any of the past few years, and it will lead to great results - like this one: link If anyone thinks all new music sucks, they just aren't looking for it. And one may argue that they're going out of their way to avoid it, because online, it is everywhere. Enjoy the search. |
| Stelios 14.07.2012 11:45 |
Music today dosen't suck. It just lost something of its impact. |
| Sebastian 14.07.2012 23:03 |
Every generation will say that music of the next generation is horrible. I think there's a lot of great music both in and out of the mainstream, as it's always been. |
| The Real Wizard 15.07.2012 12:25 |
Indeed, the old "the end of art" argument. But these people have never been more wrong than they are now, due to the sheer amount of music that is out there, accessible in the digital realm. |
| Missreclusive 16.07.2012 22:12 |
What Wizard said. A lot of talent out there, you just have to look for it and with most mainstream music, thankfully we have internet. |
| Day dop 17.07.2012 13:16 |
Oddly enough, I'm seeing that the other way around a fair bit nowadays... I've a lot of talk on the net by kids/teens, who are of the opinion that music was better in the days of Led Zep, Queen (with Fred, obviously), Hendrix etc... |
| Dubroc 17.07.2012 16:23 |
Just wait twenty years and look back. Then you could say if today's music was good or not. And sure there still are bands worth listening to: -Muse -Chemical Romance (very Queen like) -U2 (still around) -White Stripes (at least Jack's stuff) -Coldplay -Kings of Leon and so on... Listen to the radio once in a while instead of your own music and you will find some gems. If you browse a random hitlist from the seventees, you'll see that there was a lot of rubbish back then with a few good ones. |
| oliverd05 17.07.2012 16:43 |
yeah i completely agree with a few people in this thread, music today isnt even music its just horrible noise! a lot of these songwriters dont even write their own material anymoe, its not heartfelt like a lot of stuff from the 70', and 80's |
| waunakonor 17.07.2012 16:51 |
Dubroc wrote: Just wait twenty years and look back. Then you could say if today's music was good or not. And sure there still are bands worth listening to: -Muse -Chemical Romance (very Queen like) -U2 (still around) -White Stripes (at least Jack's stuff) -Coldplay -Kings of Leon and so on... Listen to the radio once in a while instead of your own music and you will find some gems. If you browse a random hitlist from the seventees, you'll see that there was a lot of rubbish back then with a few good ones.I think if you talked to some people around here, you would find that they don't really like a lot of the bands you've listed. Just sayin'. I personally have a bit of a soft spot for U2, but that's somewhat off-topic. Day dop wrote: Oddly enough, I'm seeing that the other way around a fair bit nowadays... I've a lot of talk on the net by kids/teens, who are of the opinion that music was better in the days of Led Zep, Queen (with Fred, obviously), Hendrix etc...I'm getting a lot of kids/teenagers who know a lot of the stuff by Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Pink Floyd etc. but only know a little bit by Queen. It's kind of annoying. The Real Wizard wrote: Face palm... If all one listens to is the radio, then yes, nearly all new music sucks. But most people with good musical taste understand one simple fact that the "new music sucks" crowd doesn't - the internet is becoming the new mainstream. Look for online radio stations from different countries - like Triple J in Australia or CBC music. There are tens of thousands of excellent artists out there. Look for "100 best song" lists of any of the past few years, and it will lead to great results - like this one: link If anyone thinks all new music sucks, they just aren't looking for it. And one may argue that they're going out of their way to avoid it, because online, it is everywhere. Enjoy the search.That's informative. Thanks for that. I'm kind of getting into a few Indie artists who are fairly active right now. I feel like a bit of a snob, but I like the music in general. |
| The Real Wizard 17.07.2012 18:37 |
oliverd05 wrote: yeah i completely agree with a few people in this threadAnd you didn't listen to the people who are challenging your view. a lot of these songwriters dont even write their own material anymoe, its not heartfelt like a lot of stuff from the 70', and 80'sPlenty of singers from the 70s and 80s didn't write their own songs. Elvis didn't either. Radiohead and Bjork aren't heartfelt? |
| The Real Wizard 17.07.2012 18:37 |
Dubroc wrote: Just wait twenty years and look back. Then you could say if today's music was good or not. And sure there still are bands worth listening to: -Muse -Chemical Romance (very Queen like) -U2 (still around) -White Stripes (at least Jack's stuff) -Coldplay -Kings of Leon and so on... Listen to the radio once in a while instead of your own music and you will find some gems. If you browse a random hitlist from the seventees, you'll see that there was a lot of rubbish back then with a few good ones.Absolutely agree. Clearly I'm contradicting myself here on some level, but ... as good as that list is, let's compare it to the list of artists we could've seen live in 1975, perhaps in the span of a couple months - all of whom were near or at their peak: Queen, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Elton John, Rolling Stones, Alice Cooper, Billy Joel, ELP, Supertramp, Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, The Who, Frank Zappa, Roxy Music, Chicago, Stevie Wonder, Return To Forever As good and varied as music is today, the above assault of quality music in such a short time span will likely never be matched. But it's no reason to write off everything that's happening today. |
| Vocal harmony 18.07.2012 20:36 |
Absolutely agree.
Clearly I'm contradicting myself here on some level, but ... as good as that list is, let's compare it to the list of artists we could've seen live in 1975, perhaps in the span of a couple months - all of whom were near or at their peak:
Queen, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Elton John, Rolling Stones, Alice Cooper, Billy Joel, ELP, Supertramp, Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, The Who, Frank Zappa, Roxy Music, Chicago, Stevie Wonder, Return To Forever
As good and varied as music is today, the above assault of quality music in such a short time span will likely never be matched. But it's no reason to write off everything that's happening today.
Yeah, I'm with you. . . . A classic unrepeatable period. |
| brENsKi 19.07.2012 17:11 |
The Real Wizard wrote: let's compare it to the list of artists we could've seen live in 1975, perhaps in the span of a couple months - all of whom were near or at their peak: Queen, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Elton John, Rolling Stones, Alice Cooper, Billy Joel, ELP, Supertramp, Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, The Who, Frank Zappa, Roxy Music, Chicago, Stevie Wonder, Return To Forever As good and varied as music is today, the above assault of quality music in such a short time span will likely never be matched. But it's no reason to write off everything that's happening today.what a fucking list. that's the "airwaves" of my youth. add in some rainbow, ufo, badfinger, bob seger, skynyrd, argent(blunstone, ballard etc), frankie miller, montrose, crosby stills & nash, CCR, ELO, jefferson airplane, jethro tull, nazareth, dylan springsteen and lizzy....i think anyone anywhere could pick 20 bands/artists from the 60s or 70s that'd blitz the living fuck out of anything since....quality wise |
| Missreclusive 19.07.2012 18:30 |
ditto on that list except, I would add Motown to the list because not only did I love R&R, I loved Aretha, Al Green to name 2. |
| Sebastian 19.07.2012 23:46 |
There *is*, however, an increase in bad/poor artists making it to the mainstream because of technology, though. In the sixties, to record an album you needed a record label to sign you, as they were the ones who owned the studios; in order to be signed, you needed to either be good enough for them to consider you, or have some other appeal (looks, charisma, potential for commercial success) so they'd invest on you; session musicians, orchestras, etc., were very expensive to be paid for by a teenage singer or band, so they also had to be covered by the record company. That resulted in a tough quality control. It doesn't mean only 'the good ones' could record, as sometimes being good was not enough and as sometimes not-so-good ones would also get that chance, but still they were the exception. By the time independent studios became more popular, there was an alternative: you could be unsigned, but rich (or have rich parents or a rich spouse or whatever) and rent a professional studio for some hours and get yourself a demo, then use it to sell yourself to record companies. That's what Queen did in a way: they weren't rich, but Brian had a nice connexion and they got the gig at a pro studio and the rest is history. They were obviously talented, but there were also a lot of people who weren't, who since then had access to the same facilities. The advent of cheaper drum machines later on made it even easier, as now you didn't even need to pay a drummer or be able to play drums yourself: you could programme a Linn and that's it. Same with synths: you could emulate a bass, a guitar, an orchestra, etc. Synths were really expensive at first, but soon cheaper models began and then MIDI was introduced and then home studios became widespread, then enter Protools, Autotune, Beat Detective, Cakewalk, QBase, etc., and now it's really easy for anybody (from the hugely skilful to the outright horrible) to record and distribute your music. A lot of artists of today would've utterly failed to even come close to a studio fifty years ago, as their musicianship (or lack thereof) wouldn't have been enough to be signed; today, they can go to Joe Soundcard or simply use the Laptop's built-in mic to sing over a downloaded MIDI and voila! |
| br5946 20.07.2012 03:51 |
I agree with the opinion (although I'm convinced it's fact) that past music is better than present music. If you label stuff like Freemasons and Cascada under dance, not mainstream pop, Adele is the best new artist in the mainstream circle to come out in a long, long time. Seriously, I can only name four new artists and a handful of songs from said artists in the last eight years that are quality standard. |
| Dubroc 22.07.2012 08:48 |
Unfortunatly "mainstream" isn't about quality. Another issue is that we don't listen to complete albums anymore. Today it's more about making a hit song instead of making an album. I used to buy records and play them over and over again. That's because it was a well-picked purchase. Every week I went to the local recordstore and listened to albums before I bought them. Nowadays the kids browse songs on the net (youtube,Spotify, etc.) And sure, to me a real artist writes his own music and plays it live. Producers, computers and autotune can make a product but a musisian can produce real music. |
| The Real Wizard 23.07.2012 10:43 |
Dubroc wrote: And sure, to me a real artist writes his own music and plays it live. Producers, computers and autotune can make a product but a musisian can produce real music.Very well put. The same goes for movies and TV. And even food. One of the most important lessons for kids growing up in the 21st century to learn is the difference between art and product. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 23.07.2012 11:37 |
it's all the same |
