Is music in a terminal decline?

There is a shift in the average age of the mainstream, that is all. The younger the consumer group the more immature and vacuous the product, hence Bieber etc. In the 19th century Rachmaninov was considered rebellious nonsense for un-educated yoof by the mainstream who happened to be middle aged and above, those who could afford to consumer culture. Take money and smart phones away from 10 year olds and indie-rock-alt will return to the airwaves and you might get to hear the new Bowie/Young/Dylan etc.

What I think Pogue is saying, and I feel it too, is that the stuff that was written that was either a) truly edgy and different and b) stemming from some kind of intellectual, existential soulfulness of the songwriter combined with musical talent has ceased to be mainstream and therefore not part of a single consciousness.

The closest you can probably get to that is Radiohead because they span 2 or 3 generations and continue to move musically and innovate and have retained a huge fanbase, picking up new fans with what they produce now.
 
Digital music and reality TV.

No one needs to get together with a band anymore and jam for hours in their parents' garage (some still do, but a small minority), or learn how to play guitar themselves and plug away at pub gigs until they're finally noticed. All they need is their vocal chords, a beat that someone's made on their computer and mass marketing on social media and TV. There's not much creativity in the lyrics because most singers take their lyrics from songwriters who write songs like 3rd world slaves knit football shirts instead of making songs that mean something to them.

"Semi attractive teenager on youtube with 100k followers, who covers other peoples' songs fairly well? Sign them up and put them on the production line!"

"Young reality star just sang Shake It Up by Taylor Swift without managing to feck it up and they got 98% on a SMS poll nationwide?? sign 'em up! Sia's just wrote a new song that would be just perfect for her. Get Macklemore's mate to drop us a beat and we'll get in the top 10!"

"These 5 lads here... they can't sing for fecking shit, but look how moist they're making these little girls! Let's give them a song from the 80's that none of these little cnuts have heard of and make it triple platinum!"

*radio presenter* "and finally... with the number 1 hit in the nation right now, here is Trey Cumz with his hit single 'ass and titties''

*song plays* "ass, ass, titties, titties, i like ass and i like titties. yeah my home boy's over there and he likes titties. the only bitches i get have big ass and big titties

*random rapper pops up mid song* "titties, smitties, little itty bitties. me and my home boy Trey, showing these bitches that we aint fecking gay"

that's all I hear these days. I'm only 26 and I already listen to the "oldies" channel on the radio where they play shit from the 70's, 80's and early 90's. The overall quality of the songs trumps what is out now, it's not due to getting older. It's obvious in the lyrics and in the instrumentals. Even if there's a song I don't like much, like something from Kiss.. I'll think to myself "feck, that's a well put together song". Yeah, there's some good songs that come out every now and then these days, but in general music's going the way I listed above and it's all to do with money.
 
golazo said:
Digital music and reality TV.

No one needs to get together with a band anymore and jam for hours in their parents' garage (some still do, but a small minority), or learn how to play guitar themselves and plug away at pub gigs until they're finally noticed. All they need is their vocal chords, a beat that someone's made on their computer and mass marketing on social media and TV. There's not much creativity in the lyrics because most singers take their lyrics from songwriters who write songs like 3rd world slaves knit football shirts instead of making songs that mean something to them.

"Semi attractive teenager on youtube with 100k followers, who covers other peoples' songs fairly well? Sign them up and put them on the production line!"

"Young reality star just sang Shake It Up by Taylor Swift without managing to feck it up and they got 98% on a SMS poll nationwide?? sign 'em up! Sia's just wrote a new song that would be just perfect for her. Get Macklemore's mate to drop us a beat and we'll get in the top 10!"

"These 5 lads here... they can't sing for fecking shit, but look how moist they're making these little girls! Let's give them a song from the 80's that none of these little cnuts have heard of and make it triple platinum!"

*radio presenter* "and finally... with the number 1 hit in the nation right now, here is Trey Cumz with his hit single 'ass and titties''

*song plays* "ass, ass, titties, titties, i like ass and i like titties. yeah my home boy's over there and he likes titties. the only bitches i get have big ass and big titties

*random rapper pops up mid song* "titties, smitties, little itty bitties. me and my home boy Trey, showing these bitches that we aint fecking gay"

that's all I hear these days. I'm only 26 and I already listen to the "oldies" channel on the radio where they play shit from the 70's, 80's and early 90's. The overall quality of the songs trumps what is out now, it's not due to getting older. It's obvious in the lyrics and in the instrumentals. Even if there's a song I don't like much, like something from Kiss.. I'll think to myself "feck, that's a well put together song". Yeah, there's some good songs that come out every now and then these days, but in general music's going the way I listed above and it's all to do with money.
Click to expand...
What are the best albums you've heard this year?
 
golazo said:
Digital music and reality TV.

No one needs to get together with a band anymore and jam for hours in their parents' garage (some still do, but a small minority), or learn how to play guitar themselves and plug away at pub gigs until they're finally noticed. All they need is their vocal chords, a beat that someone's made on their computer and mass marketing on social media and TV. There's not much creativity in the lyrics because most singers take their lyrics from songwriters who write songs like 3rd world slaves knit football shirts instead of making songs that mean something to them.

"Semi attractive teenager on youtube with 100k followers, who covers other peoples' songs fairly well? Sign them up and put them on the production line!"

"Young reality star just sang Shake It Up by Taylor Swift without managing to feck it up and they got 98% on a SMS poll nationwide?? sign 'em up! Sia's just wrote a new song that would be just perfect for her. Get Macklemore's mate to drop us a beat and we'll get in the top 10!"

"These 5 lads here... they can't sing for fecking shit, but look how moist they're making these little girls! Let's give them a song from the 80's that none of these little cnuts have heard of and make it triple platinum!"

*radio presenter* "and finally... with the number 1 hit in the nation right now, here is Trey Cumz with his hit single 'ass and titties''

*song plays* "ass, ass, titties, titties, i like ass and i like titties. yeah my home boy's over there and he likes titties. the only bitches i get have big ass and big titties

*random rapper pops up mid song* "titties, smitties, little itty bitties. me and my home boy Trey, showing these bitches that we aint fecking gay"

that's all I hear these days. I'm only 26 and I already listen to the "oldies" channel on the radio where they play shit from the 70's, 80's and early 90's. The overall quality of the songs trumps what is out now, it's not due to getting older. It's obvious in the lyrics and in the instrumentals. Even if there's a song I don't like much, like something from Kiss.. I'll think to myself "feck, that's a well put together song". Yeah, there's some good songs that come out every now and then these days, but in general music's going the way I listed above and it's all to do with money.
Click to expand...

@Mockney, see that's what I'm talking about. I knew it wasn't just old cnuts like me who put music from that era on a pedestal.
 
I used to do that too when I was around 24. Then I discovered music I enjoy far more than the older stuff. Good times.

@Pogue Mahone any feedback on your "homework" from the other day?
 
golazo said:
Digital music and reality TV.
No one needs to get together with a band anymore and jam for hours in their parents' garage (some still do, but a small minority), or learn how to play guitar themselves and plug away at pub gigs until they're finally noticed. All they need is their vocal chords, a beat that someone's made on their computer and mass marketing on social media and TV. There's not much creativity in the lyrics because most singers take their lyrics from songwriters who write songs like 3rd world slaves knit football shirts instead of making songs that mean something to them.

"Semi attractive teenager on youtube with 100k followers, who covers other peoples' songs fairly well? Sign them up and put them on the production line!"

"Young reality star just sang Shake It Up by Taylor Swift without managing to feck it up and they got 98% on a SMS poll nationwide?? sign 'em up! Sia's just wrote a new song that would be just perfect for her. Get Macklemore's mate to drop us a beat and we'll get in the top 10!"

"These 5 lads here... they can't sing for fecking shit, but look how moist they're making these little girls! Let's give them a song from the 80's that none of these little cnuts have heard of and make it triple platinum!"

*radio presenter* "and finally... with the number 1 hit in the nation right now, here is Trey Cumz with his hit single 'ass and titties''

*song plays* "ass, ass, titties, titties, i like ass and i like titties. yeah my home boy's over there and he likes titties. the only bitches i get have big ass and big titties

*random rapper pops up mid song* "titties, smitties, little itty bitties. me and my home boy Trey, showing these bitches that we aint fecking gay"

that's all I hear these days. I'm only 26 and I already listen to the "oldies" channel on the radio where they play shit from the 70's, 80's and early 90's. The overall quality of the songs trumps what is out now, it's not due to getting older. It's obvious in the lyrics and in the instrumentals. Even if there's a song I don't like much, like something from Kiss.. I'll think to myself "feck, that's a well put together song". Yeah, there's some good songs that come out every now and then these days, but in general music's going the way I listed above and it's all to do with money.
Click to expand...

In the same week that Starman debuted in the charts, the number one single was...Puppy Love, by Donny Osmond.

Shit music has been around for ever. There's certainly a lot more shit nowadays, but then there's a lot more music full stop.
 
I think it's easy to take for granted what an incredible time it is to be alive as a music listener. To the point where (this is obviously an aside to the main discussion and not meant to detract from it) in terms of listening enjoyment, it doesn't even have to mean anything if you do think the quality of music is declining. There’s always so much new stuff to listen to. Even for someone with as ostensibly boring tastes as mine (I don’t listen to much outside of rock), it’s hard to see myself coming close to hearing everything I might like from stuff that’s already been made.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
What are the best albums you've heard this year?
Click to expand...
Haven't listened to any this year. I used to listen to an alternative radio station in Australia where I used to get my new music from... it used to be great back in the day, always introducing quality new acts. But it's getting worse as the years go on and they're just playing stuff that they know will go mainstream eventually. Still some good stuff gets played, but not as consistent as it used to be. So I just listen to the old stuff. From Cold Chisel, Elvis and Billy Joel to NWA and Tupac. A wide variety of genres, but just older stuff
 
You could say all music is plagiarized to an extent, but the lack of originality these days is staggering in my opinion.

That's why I love bands like Pink Floyd, they really have a very unique sound, very expressive and often haunting music, with fantastic lyrical content too.

 
LoveInTheAsylum said:
I think it's easy to take for granted what an incredible time it is to be alive as a music listener. To the point where (this is obviously an aside to the main discussion and not meant to detract from it) in terms of listening enjoyment, it doesn't even have to mean anything if you do think the quality of music is declining. There’s always so much new stuff to listen to. Even for someone with as ostensibly boring tastes as mine (I don’t listen to much outside of rock), it’s hard to see myself coming close to hearing everything I might like from stuff that’s already been made.
Click to expand...
I agree that's it's a great time. I feel there's so much unique stuff being made. There's an album I heard recently called psychic by a band called darkside. It's something I could never imagine myself listening, so far adrift from the fairly expected stuff I'd listen to some years back. Very innovative, very creative.
 
bishblaize said:
In the same week that Starman debuted in the charts, the number one single was...Puppy Love, by Donny Osmond.

Shit music has been around for ever. There's certainly a lot more shit nowadays, but then there's a lot more music full stop.
Click to expand...
Yeah there are exceptions in all eras, that's for sure. 'Dancing in the street' is an example :lol: I just meant across the board it was higher quality if you had to compare it to the last 10-15 years
 
You know, the more I think about this, the more I reckon it comes down to how we listen to music and the fact we are less likely to listen to good music repeatedly.

So many brilliant songs and albums take a bit of listening to, in order to really appreciate them. That Tame Impala album might be amazing but I listened to it once and might not ever again. There's always something else new to try out and the opportunities to listen to music - without distractions - are less and less frequent. You can feck about on your iPhone, surf the web, whatever. I mean, a lot of the time I listen to new music on Spotify or youtube I'm distracted by yet more new music!

Couldn't be more different to an era where you save up for an album brought it home and played it dozens, or even hundreds, of times from start to finish. I think you sometimes need that sort of immersion to appreciate great music. It's not that long ago that the best musicians around were so prevalent that even if you didn't own the album you couldn't help but be exposed to their music, to the extent where you might end up loving their music without making any effort. The quantity and variety of music nowadays is so overwhelming that each artist seems much less substantial, individually, and doesn't make the same impact as great artists of the past. Lost track of the amount of times I ended up telling friends, "I heard this great tune by... hold on... can't quite remember". Obviously, that's mainly my raddled brain but it's also part and parcel of the transient, flitting relationship we seem to be having with contemporary music. If you're trying to make a living off music in this era, isn't it natural that you'll try and appeal to the lowest common denominator? Can you afford to relase slow burners?

I'm aware I'm extrapolating from individual experience here, so could be wrong. Could be just my current circumstances. As a dope-smoking student I had so much more time to wallow in music and now I don't, so am drawing false conclusions about the way everyone listens to music. I dunno. Be interested to hear if anyone feels the same way?
 
I still think that looking through the lens of singer-songwriters being the peak form of music is a flawed concept in the first place. Someone who likes classical music to the exclusion of all else for example is unlikely to see much difference between David Bowie and David Gray.

And its not like the 60s to 80s were exclusively singer songwriters anyway. Electronic music these days owes its existence to Krafwerk, Steve Reich, Neu!, Brian Eno and Tangerine Dream, all of whom were generally well received in their day.

If the argument is that singer songwriters these days don't tend to be as talented and popular and with as broad an appeal as before, I can get that. But that's not the same as saying all current music is inferior, which is a pretty big stretch.
 
Haddock said:
Anyone here: I got a copy of London Calling by the Clash. Should I bother listening or are they one of those bands who smash metal as a substitute for making music? The only song of theirs I've heard is "i fought the law" which was in the karaoke bar in the video game sleeping dogs, it's a cover of someone else's song apparently.
Click to expand...

London Calling is a mix of punk, rock, pop, ska, raggae, but there's no hint of metal. They are better musicians than your average punk band, you should enjoy it.

For me personally, it's one of the finest albums ever.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You know, the more I think about this, the more I reckon it comes down to how we listen to music and the fact we are less likely to listen to good music repeatedly.

So many brilliant songs and albums take a bit of listening to, in order to really appreciate them. That Tame Impala album might be amazing but I listened to it once and might not ever again. There's always something else new to try out and the opportunities to listen to music - without distractions - are less and less frequent. You can feck about on your iPhone, surf the web, whatever. I mean, a lot of the time I listen to new music on Spotify or youtube I'm distracted by yet more new music!

Couldn't be more different to an era where you save up for an album brought it home and played it dozens, or even hundreds, of times from start to finish. I think you sometimes need that sort of immersion to appreciate great music. It's not that long ago that the best musicians around were so prevalent that even if you didn't own the album you couldn't help but be exposed to their music, to the extent where you might end up loving their music without making any effort. The quantity and variety of music nowadays is so overwhelming that each artist seems much less substantial, individually, and doesn't make the same impact as great artists of the past. Lost track of the amount of times I ended up telling friends, "I heard this great tune by... hold on... can't quite remember". Obviously, that's mainly my raddled brain but it's also part and parcel of the transient, flitting relationship we seem to be having with contemporary music. If you're trying to make a living off music in this era, isn't it natural that you'll try and appeal to the lowest common denominator? Can you afford to relase slow burners?

I'm aware I'm extrapolating from individual experience here, so could be wrong. Could be just my current circumstances. As a dope-smoking student I had so much more time to wallow in music and now I don't, so am drawing false conclusions about the way everyone listens to music. I dunno. Be interested to hear if anyone feels the same way?
Click to expand...
That'd a great point actually. Attention spans, societal clutter etc all make a big difference.

I dunno. Maybe back then the better artists were more at the forefront whereas today the genuine quality isn't recognised as much? That's how it feels for me. I generally follow a few music critics and use them to discover the good stuff. I always feel there's lots of it but it's just not very visible.

For me personally, I'm too intensely nuts about music to have a short attentions pan for it. It's a big part of my life.
 
Mockney said:
Acting and singing are probably the two most over exhalted professions on the planet, considering how ununique or special the skill set required to do them is. There are noteable exceptions, obviously, but writing and creating is where the majority of talent lies IMO. I give rappers or singer-songwriters more credit for their lyrics than their presentation.
Click to expand...


The notable exceptions being singers who can evoke pathos like well...any artist. I used to have the same opinion as yourself, that singing is just a skill...now I think the best are artists and not just mere craftsmen. Al Green, Marvin Gaye, Etta James, Ella Fitzgerald, Elton John, Aretha Franklin et al were brilliant. Amy Winehouse wasn't too shabby either. Nor is Adele.
 
Last edited:
As for music surely Pogue is talking about commercial music? Let's be honest it's shiny, well packaged, well marketed and makes a lot of money. Hardly what I think music ought to be about.
 
Haddock said:
Just listen to the following - see if you like it. Then proceed.

Flashing Lights
Through the Wire
Jesus Walks
Diamonds from Sierra Leone
Runaway(Which is a dig at his own ego)
Love Lockdown
Heartless
Touch the Sky
Gold Digger
Heard 'em say (unfortunately Adam Levine from Maroon 5 is on this)
Devil in a new dress

These are some of Kanye's most popular songs.


Anyone here: I got a copy of London Calling by the Clash. Should I bother listening or are they one of those bands who smash metal as a substitute for making music? The only song of theirs I've heard is "i fought the law" which was in the karaoke bar in the video game sleeping dogs, it's a cover of someone else's song apparently.
Click to expand...

Generally regarded as one of the greatest and most iconic rock albums of all time. It's definitely worth listening to even if you do end up not liking it.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You know, the more I think about this, the more I reckon it comes down to how we listen to music and the fact we are less likely to listen to good music repeatedly.
...
Click to expand...
Maybe the average person does have a shorter attention span, but I feel it's more just down to the individual. I think things get skewed by the fact that more people now listen to music more frequently that anytime in the past, so yes there's many more casual listeners, but the obsessives are still obsessive. I'm sure there's more of them and that they're aware of a much greater amount of music than each previous generation.

Aside from prompting discussion (which I've not managed to add to at all) I feel from a listening perspective it shouldn’t matter if someone does believe the quality of music being produced is in decline. Maybe it comes down to a difference in how music is consumed and enjoyed, but apart from missing out slightly in terms of live music, I can't see how that person would be any happier listening to music in any other time period, as it's never been easier to hear for the first time vast amounts to your tastes. Someone might dislike modern music, but being a modern music listener is something amazing. As they were mentioned, if Led Zep represent the pinnacle of music for someone, there still has to be years worth of music for that person to hear for the first time that they will enjoy similarly. Unless that person is @pillory who I'm convinced has heard absolutely everything.
 
SmashedHombre said:
That's an absolutely mental claim. It'll never be regarded as high as Thriller (which is a better album).
Click to expand...

Thriller will always be a more iconic album but in terms of actual quality I don't think it's even Jackson's best.
 
Music was never in decline. It's just people forgot to research less known but brilliant artists.
 
golazo said:
Digital music and reality TV.

No one needs to get together with a band anymore and jam for hours in their parents' garage (some still do, but a small minority), or learn how to play guitar themselves and plug away at pub gigs until they're finally noticed. All they need is their vocal chords, a beat that someone's made on their computer and mass marketing on social media and TV. There's not much creativity in the lyrics because most singers take their lyrics from songwriters who write songs like 3rd world slaves knit football shirts instead of making songs that mean something to them.

"Semi attractive teenager on youtube with 100k followers, who covers other peoples' songs fairly well? Sign them up and put them on the production line!"

"Young reality star just sang Shake It Up by Taylor Swift without managing to feck it up and they got 98% on a SMS poll nationwide?? sign 'em up! Sia's just wrote a new song that would be just perfect for her. Get Macklemore's mate to drop us a beat and we'll get in the top 10!"

"These 5 lads here... they can't sing for fecking shit, but look how moist they're making these little girls! Let's give them a song from the 80's that none of these little cnuts have heard of and make it triple platinum!"

*radio presenter* "and finally... with the number 1 hit in the nation right now, here is Trey Cumz with his hit single 'ass and titties''

*song plays* "ass, ass, titties, titties, i like ass and i like titties. yeah my home boy's over there and he likes titties. the only bitches i get have big ass and big titties

*random rapper pops up mid song* "titties, smitties, little itty bitties. me and my home boy Trey, showing these bitches that we aint fecking gay"

that's all I hear these days. I'm only 26 and I already listen to the "oldies" channel on the radio where they play shit from the 70's, 80's and early 90's. The overall quality of the songs trumps what is out now, it's not due to getting older. It's obvious in the lyrics and in the instrumentals. Even if there's a song I don't like much, like something from Kiss.. I'll think to myself "feck, that's a well put together song". Yeah, there's some good songs that come out every now and then these days, but in general music's going the way I listed above and it's all to do with money.
Click to expand...

This is such a massive load of nonsense, I'm sure I've seen it before on youtube comments. "im 13 and I love the beatles. yellow submarine lol."

A large amount of the stuff that is now regarded as classics from the 70s and 80s is such self indulgent wankery that it inspired punk and grunge to come in and knock it on its ass.

I'd like to take half the musicians in the rock and roll hall of fame, stuff them into Keith Moon's car and drop it in the middle of the ocean. The amount of talentless hacks who still make a living touring for middle class dads in Hawaiian shirts reminiscing about their childhoods, which were less like dazed and confused than they think, is insane.

Only the incredibly intellectually incurious would pay to see Blue Oyster Cult or Deep Purple in 2014. It doesn't matter how much a band sucked in the beginning, as long as they were around at the right time to get a song on the Classic Rock Radio rotation, they can tour and rake in the cash forever. No wonder the Muslims hate us.
 
Eboue said:
This is such a massive load of nonsense, I'm sure I've seen it before on youtube comments. "im 13 and I love the beatles. yellow submarine lol."

A large amount of the stuff that is now regarded as classics from the 70s and 80s is such self indulgent wankery that it inspired punk and grunge to come in and knock it on its ass.

I'd like to take half the musicians in the rock and roll hall of fame, stuff them into Keith Moon's car and drop it in the middle of the ocean. The amount of talentless hacks who still make a living touring for middle class dads in Hawaiian shirts reminiscing about their childhoods, which were less like dazed and confused than they think, is insane.

Only the incredibly intellectually incurious would pay to see Blue Oyster Cult or Deep Purple in 2014. It doesn't matter how much a band sucked in the beginning, as long as they were around at the right time to get a song on the Classic Rock Radio rotation, they can tour and rake in the cash forever. No wonder the Muslims hate us.
Click to expand...
This is actually very true. Looking back of the rock music I used to love, a lot of it is formulaic and simple. Not that this criticism is specific to that genre, but were talking about an era where this music was regarded very highly.
 
sullydnl said:
Thriller will always be a more iconic album but in terms of actual quality I don't think it's even Jackson's best.
Click to expand...
I must be the only person in the world who likes 'Dangerous' more than 'Thriller'.
sullydnl said:
Generally regarded as one of the greatest and most iconic rock albums of all time. It's definitely worth listening to even if you do end up not liking it.
Click to expand...
Thanks I'm listening to it right now, I guess it will grown on me.

Eboue said:
This is such a massive load of nonsense, I'm sure I've seen it before on youtube comments. "im 13 and I love the beatles. yellow submarine lol."

A large amount of the stuff that is now regarded as classics from the 70s and 80s is such self indulgent wankery that it inspired punk and grunge to come in and knock it on its ass.

I'd like to take half the musicians in the rock and roll hall of fame, stuff them into Keith Moon's car and drop it in the middle of the ocean. The amount of talentless hacks who still make a living touring for middle class dads in Hawaiian shirts reminiscing about their childhoods, which were less like dazed and confused than they think, is insane.

Only the incredibly intellectually incurious would pay to see Blue Oyster Cult or Deep Purple in 2014. It doesn't matter how much a band sucked in the beginning, as long as they were around at the right time to get a song on the Classic Rock Radio rotation, they can tour and rake in the cash forever. No wonder the Muslims hate us.
Click to expand...
I've been listening to "Low" by Bowie from 1977. My god that Album is hard to listen to, with the exception of 'Sound and Vision' which is genuinely great nearly everything else is so...vague. It's like an up and coming rapper's mixtape rather than a polished coherent classic album.
 
First half of Low is more accessible I'd say. Brian Eno did more for second part with mostly instrumental pieces, might that be a part where it was more "hard" to listen?
 
Eboue said:
This is such a massive load of nonsense, I'm sure I've seen it before on youtube comments. "im 13 and I love the beatles. yellow submarine lol."

A large amount of the stuff that is now regarded as classics from the 70s and 80s is such self indulgent wankery that it inspired punk and grunge to come in and knock it on its ass.

I'd like to take half the musicians in the rock and roll hall of fame, stuff them into Keith Moon's car and drop it in the middle of the ocean. The amount of talentless hacks who still make a living touring for middle class dads in Hawaiian shirts reminiscing about their childhoods, which were less like dazed and confused than they think, is insane.

Only the incredibly intellectually incurious would pay to see Blue Oyster Cult or Deep Purple in 2014. It doesn't matter how much a band sucked in the beginning, as long as they were around at the right time to get a song on the Classic Rock Radio rotation, they can tour and rake in the cash forever. No wonder the Muslims hate us.
Click to expand...

Isn’t this just as much of an old man yells at cloud post as the one you feel you’re responding to?
“self-indulgent wankery” = hard rock/prog? whose glory years musically were done before the mid 70s (ELP & King Crimson on hiatus; Wakeman had left Yes; Gabriel left Genesis in 75; Lydon’s beloved VdGG long done for the first time). Sales wise, Rush, Yes & Genesis, all knocked on their arses by punk, went on to sell multiplatinum albums through the 80s.

Punk as the saviour of rock music (and a response to anything but commercial soft pop-rock), is as much a myth as grunge being, er, anything tangible? What was it outside of marketing for a band grab as major labels attempted to cash in on the chart success of Nirvana? Punk was so vital (as opposed to another great, natural off-shoot of the rock before it) that it barely lasted 2 years. The likes of Candlebox then saved us from commercial, indulgent hair metal by spawning...nu-metal.

And I wouldn’t want to see Blue Oyster Cult any time in their existence, or Deep Purple after 73, but that doesn’t lessen the enjoyment from listening to albums or live footage from the era. You're rightly ripping the commercial hangover from those bands & period (the hall of fame, the endless radio play and re-union tours) but by praising two of the most mythic, marketed periods of music there have been.

America is responsible for a lot of unforgivable shit though, agreed.
 
LoveInTheAsylum said:
Isn’t this just as much of an old man yells at cloud post as the one you feel you’re responding to?
“self-indulgent wankery” = hard rock/prog? whose glory years musically were done before the mid 70s (ELP & King Crimson on hiatus; Wakeman had left Yes; Gabriel left Genesis in 75; Lydon’s beloved VdGG long done for the first time). Sales wise, Rush, Yes & Genesis, all knocked on their arses by punk, went on to sell multiplatinum albums through the 80s.

Punk as the saviour of rock music (and a response to anything but commercial soft pop-rock), is as much a myth as grunge being, er, anything tangible? What was it outside of marketing for a band grab as major labels attempted to cash in on the chart success of Nirvana? Punk was so vital (as opposed to another great, natural off-shoot of the rock before it) that it barely lasted 2 years. The likes of Candlebox then saved us from commercial, indulgent hair metal by spawning...nu-metal.

And I wouldn’t want to see Blue Oyster Cult any time in their existence, or Deep Purple after 73, but that doesn’t lessen the enjoyment from listening to albums or live footage from the era. You're rightly ripping the commercial hangover from those bands & period (the hall of fame, the endless radio play and re-union tours) but by praising two of the most mythic, marketed periods of music there have been.

America is responsible for a lot of unforgivable shit though, agreed.
Click to expand...

You're responding to things I didn't say. Yeah hard rock and prog but also classic rock bands with their 15 minute drum solos or whatever Frank Zappa was up to at the moment or hair metal etc.

I'm also emphatically not praising punk and grunge. Of the punk bands of that time, only The Clash have any real musical value and grunge doesn't hold up that well either. I see them as the fringe candidate who challenges someone in their own party in order to keep them honest, but isn't a viable alternative.
 
Eboue said:
This is such a massive load of nonsense, I'm sure I've seen it before on youtube comments. "im 13 and I love the beatles. yellow submarine lol."

A large amount of the stuff that is now regarded as classics from the 70s and 80s is such self indulgent wankery that it inspired punk and grunge to come in and knock it on its ass.

I'd like to take half the musicians in the rock and roll hall of fame, stuff them into Keith Moon's car and drop it in the middle of the ocean. The amount of talentless hacks who still make a living touring for middle class dads in Hawaiian shirts reminiscing about their childhoods, which were less like dazed and confused than they think, is insane.

Only the incredibly intellectually incurious would pay to see Blue Oyster Cult or Deep Purple in 2014. It doesn't matter how much a band sucked in the beginning, as long as they were around at the right time to get a song on the Classic Rock Radio rotation, they can tour and rake in the cash forever. No wonder the Muslims hate us.
Click to expand...
Fair enough if you prefer today's music. I just hate turning on the radio and hearing about big booty bitches, hearing little wayne, drake, etc. There is some good stuff, but not enough of it.
 
Eboue said:
You're responding to things I didn't say. Yeah hard rock and prog but also classic rock bands with their 15 minute drum solos or whatever Frank Zappa was up to at the moment or hair metal etc.

I'm also emphatically not praising punk and grunge. Of the punk bands of that time, only The Clash have any real musical value and grunge doesn't hold up that well either. I see them as the fringe candidate who challenges someone in their own party in order to keep them honest, but isn't a viable alternative.
Click to expand...

It was meant as a similarly glib / non-serious response as I love bands from both too, but apologies if I misrepresented what you said. I feel like we do disagree on it anyway and while I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong, to debate it further in this thread would probably be both less fun and useful than a clip of Carl Palmer using his mouth to ring a bell suspended above his drum kit.

When talking about all the music available, I forgot to say how much cool beat-club & pop2 footage is online. a couple of favourites: atomic rooster - sleeping for years. amon duul - eye shaking king.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You know, the more I think about this, the more I reckon it comes down to how we listen to music and the fact we are less likely to listen to good music repeatedly.

So many brilliant songs and albums take a bit of listening to, in order to really appreciate them. That Tame Impala album might be amazing but I listened to it once and might not ever again. There's always something else new to try out and the opportunities to listen to music - without distractions - are less and less frequent. You can feck about on your iPhone, surf the web, whatever. I mean, a lot of the time I listen to new music on Spotify or youtube I'm distracted by yet more new music!

Couldn't be more different to an era where you save up for an album brought it home and played it dozens, or even hundreds, of times from start to finish. I think you sometimes need that sort of immersion to appreciate great music. It's not that long ago that the best musicians around were so prevalent that even if you didn't own the album you couldn't help but be exposed to their music, to the extent where you might end up loving their music without making any effort. The quantity and variety of music nowadays is so overwhelming that each artist seems much less substantial, individually, and doesn't make the same impact as great artists of the past. Lost track of the amount of times I ended up telling friends, "I heard this great tune by... hold on... can't quite remember". Obviously, that's mainly my raddled brain but it's also part and parcel of the transient, flitting relationship we seem to be having with contemporary music. If you're trying to make a living off music in this era, isn't it natural that you'll try and appeal to the lowest common denominator? Can you afford to relase slow burners?

I'm aware I'm extrapolating from individual experience here, so could be wrong. Could be just my current circumstances. As a dope-smoking student I had so much more time to wallow in music and now I don't, so am drawing false conclusions about the way everyone listens to music. I dunno. Be interested to hear if anyone feels the same way?
Click to expand...

Spot on. We have such easy access to immeasurable quantities of music, so in the little time we have to sit back and listen we're trying to take it all in. One might listen to five tracks of one album then move on to the next. Not necessarily because you don't like it, but the distractions are too much to take and you want to 'sample' it all. I totally get that. I've come back to albums that i've listened to already, and found a new appreciation for them because I didn't give them enough time the first time round to fully get immersed.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You know, the more I think about this, the more I reckon it comes down to how we listen to music and the fact we are less likely to listen to good music repeatedly.

So many brilliant songs and albums take a bit of listening to, in order to really appreciate them. That Tame Impala album might be amazing but I listened to it once and might not ever again. There's always something else new to try out and the opportunities to listen to music - without distractions - are less and less frequent. You can feck about on your iPhone, surf the web, whatever. I mean, a lot of the time I listen to new music on Spotify or youtube I'm distracted by yet more new music!

Couldn't be more different to an era where you save up for an album brought it home and played it dozens, or even hundreds, of times from start to finish. I think you sometimes need that sort of immersion to appreciate great music. It's not that long ago that the best musicians around were so prevalent that even if you didn't own the album you couldn't help but be exposed to their music, to the extent where you might end up loving their music without making any effort. The quantity and variety of music nowadays is so overwhelming that each artist seems much less substantial, individually, and doesn't make the same impact as great artists of the past. Lost track of the amount of times I ended up telling friends, "I heard this great tune by... hold on... can't quite remember". Obviously, that's mainly my raddled brain but it's also part and parcel of the transient, flitting relationship we seem to be having with contemporary music. If you're trying to make a living off music in this era, isn't it natural that you'll try and appeal to the lowest common denominator? Can you afford to relase slow burners?

I'm aware I'm extrapolating from individual experience here, so could be wrong. Could be just my current circumstances. As a dope-smoking student I had so much more time to wallow in music and now I don't, so am drawing false conclusions about the way everyone listens to music. I dunno. Be interested to hear if anyone feels the same way?
Click to expand...

Think this is part of it. The best albums i've ever heard needed multiple listens. However it might be that this is due to their progressive nature. Some albums catch you straight away, although i tend to find their appeal doesn't last as long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.