Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › 12 Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Music
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

12 Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Music - Page 4

post #46 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK1 View Post

Almost all of the CDs I buy are of music from the 60s and 70s. Most of the music produced after 1985 is imo rather bad. What happened? Why is there so much good music from the 60s and 70s, and so much awful music after that?


I don't know, I think that there is great music to be had past the 60s and 70s. I can see where some people might think that 'music was better then', but honestly I feel that there's great stuff now. I do think that you might have to look a bit harder though, because a lot (not all) of what is being pushed by the big labels might not satisfy many listeners with regards to music quality. And it's all subjective, really. Music is an aural art, a taste that is very personal. What one thing is to one person can be totally different to another.

post #47 of 92
I think the number of good musics hasn't changed alot, the point is becoming a singer , composer, etc. is getting so easier for beginners or the people which they don't own a geat talent in music , so the filtering process which only motivated people and talented ones could pass is not as strong as before.
this kind of sing to get famous process wasn't ruling the market or the music(i'm not talking about traditional music.)
about the traditional ones the best persons in playing their instrument were regarded as an important person even by the imperial systems....
about the classical music pay attention it was a music for people payed much and wanted sth great(even if they weren't understanding what they listent to). even in the past musics like classical musics were not interesting to the people which they got lots of financial problems. but when people have their financial needs satusfied then mental needs show up....


im too tired now to continue my writing so i stop here....
thnx for reading my opinions
post #48 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siavosh View Post

I think the number of good musics hasn't changed alot, the point is becoming a singer , composer, etc. is getting so easier for beginners or the people which they don't own a geat talent in music , so the filtering process which only motivated people and talented ones could pass is not as strong as before.
this kind of sing to get famous process wasn't ruling the market or the music(i'm not talking about traditional music.)
about the traditional ones the best persons in playing their instrument were regarded as an important person even by the imperial systems....
about the classical music pay attention it was a music for people payed much and wanted sth great(even if they weren't understanding what they listent to). even in the past musics like classical musics were not interesting to the people which they got lots of financial problems. but when people have their financial needs satusfied then mental needs show up....
im too tired now to continue my writing so i stop here....
thnx for reading my opinions

I didn't get what you were trying to say but I think it was on that becomming a singer and really the whole audio process has become easier due to cheaper equipment and the ability to sustain oneself easier.

 

Although that may be true to an extent, would the ones that were able to sustain themselves back then necessarily be better than the ones who wouldn't back then?

post #49 of 92

Right when I read the title I knew what I was getting into. Some middle aged guy comparing the terrible pop music of today to the typical Nirvana, Beatles, Beatles, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beatles, etc. This mindset is getting sickening. There was awful music back then, too. It just got forgotten because it was god-awful. Do you really think there will be people praising Niki Minaj in 20 years? She will be mentioned on some VH1 special and that will be it.

 

There is an incredible number of great artists making music today. Some are relatively mainstream, too. Take the nostalgia goggles off and try something new.

post #50 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feedback View Post

Right when I read the title I knew what I was getting into. Some middle aged guy comparing the terrible pop music of today to the typical Nirvana, Beatles, Beatles, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beatles, etc. This mindset is getting sickening. There was awful music back then, too. It just got forgotten because it was god-awful. Do you really think there will be people praising Niki Minaj in 20 years? She will be mentioned on some VH1 special and that will be it.

 

There is an incredible number of great artists making music today. Some are relatively mainstream, too. Take the nostalgia goggles off and try something new.

I listen to Minaji...but I don't really mind her really. I listen to whoever has a song that fits my tastes(although it may not be written by them).

 

Some artist I frequent:

Eminem

Lil Wayne

Drake 

nicki minaji

Rise Against

Linkin Park

Disturbed

Owl city

Nickleback

Daughtry

Slipknot

Dragonforce

Nightwish

Lady Gaga

Katy Perry

Poison

Avenged SEvenfold

Beastie Boys

Queen

Beatles

Michael Jackson

Bon Jovi

Beethoven

Mozart

and some Jazz artists in albums.

 

I don't really know the name of the jazz or classical artist I listen to as they are in the demo albums I have on jazz and classical and in stax and ultrasone CD's

post #51 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feedback View Post

Right when I read the title I knew what I was getting into. Some middle aged guy comparing the terrible pop music of today to the typical Nirvana, Beatles, Beatles, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beatles, etc. This mindset is getting sickening. There was awful music back then, too. It just got forgotten because it was god-awful.


Yeah. This. I've seen this so much lately. I wasn't alive then, but I would imagine there was plenty of less than desirable music being made then. There is music out there being made today that is great. I don't think you can just look at what is blindingly popular and judge 'music today'.

post #52 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowei006 View Post

I listen to Minaji...

 

Stopped reading there!

post #53 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feedback View Post

 

Stopped reading there!

Now that's also bias on your own part. Going with the "I'm different" and not like those guys train of thought that are usually found at niche sites like these. 

post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feedback View Post

 

Stopped reading there!

 

I actually have two albums of hers in my library. Some of the stuff isn't that bad really. It shocked me because when I first heard Stupid Hoe I was taken aback with the poor quality (in my opinion) of the song. But others on the album, like Girls Fall Like Dominoes, aren't all that bad.


Edited by BrownBear - 7/6/12 at 9:54pm
post #55 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

Thank you. Seems people like to turn a blind eye to all the music of past eras that didn't survive the ages. 20 years down the road people won't look back at the 2000s and praise the Biebers and Rihannas. They'll be praising the good music, the music people still care about, and comparing it to the pop music of their era, and asking "Why does music suck now?"

 

I can count myself lucky that I didn't get into music until a few years ago. I don't have this intense blinding nostalgia. At most it's only preferential for me (my overall favorite music era is probably the 90s, the era I grew up in).

 

A lot of the points of this article are pretty obvious. Any of the "sold more" ones, for example. How many more people buy music now? How much easier is it to buy that music?

+1

 

I don't know how many times I've heard a friend say "music was better in the 70's, etc."

I always point out there was alot of crap in the 70's too:   lots of cheesy pop songs, disco, lots of forgottten, crappy punk bands, etc

post #56 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK1 View Post

Almost all of the CDs I buy are of music from the 60s and 70s. Most of the music produced after 1985 is imo rather bad. What happened? Why is there so much good music from the 60s and 70s, and so much awful music after that?

 

what happened was you stopped caring enough to look for the good stuff, because it's much easier to just complain on forums?  It exists.  Anyone who says "music after x year is bad" is oblivious, didn't try, or is closed minded.

post #57 of 92

There's another aspect to this argument that hasn't been discussed yet, probably because this is an audio forum and not a chart forum ;).  However, it's important to point out that not every year is the same in pop music.  If you examine the charts, you'll find that there are some years where the radio is very open to new ideas, and other years where they basically play the same song over and over.  We are currently in the latter.  Airplay and Billboard charts were basically frozen for the first half of 2012.  Now that they are finally moving, it's only changing to allow another single from the same artist to fill it's space!  It also needs to be noted that people aren't interested in versatility in the top 40.  It would be easy to explain this by an example: Rihanna totally smashed last year with We Found Love.  Normally, an artist like her could release total garbage for the next single and still have it become a hit.  She didn't release Garbage though, she released You Da One.  This song is highly regarded by fans, everyone thought it would also smash.  It flopped, though.  The same thing happened to the third single, Talk That Talk.  The problem was that You Da One and Talk That Talk are sonically different than We Found Love.  People aren't interested in artists changing their style.  Once they hear one hit from them, they want their second, third, and fourth hit to sound exactly the same. She is finally reaching success Where Have You Been, a carbon copy of We Found Love.  Her chart run shocked many of us pop fans.  Under normal circumstances, all four singles would have ruled the charts.  However, the music industry is only interested in copy after copy right now.

 

This trend happens in music every few years.  Radio's have their select few artists and only play their songs that have a certain sonic quality to them.  Anything that varies from the status quo even a little bit doesn't become a hit.  There are also times in pop music, though, where consumers are interested in something new and innovative. It's a cycle really.  So pop doesn't always sound the same.  There are times when it can be creative and different.  We have just been in a cycle where everything has to sound the same over the past few years.  If I had to guess, it's because the recession has people craving happy party music.  Basically the same reason why bright neon colors have came back in fashion. 


Edited by elegantlie - 7/7/12 at 8:34am
post #58 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

+1

 

I don't know how many times I've heard a friend say "music was better in the 70's, etc."

I always point out there was alot of crap in the 70's too:   lots of cheesy pop songs, disco, lots of forgottten, crappy punk bands, etc

 

Yeah, this happens a lot with younger people, too. These "I was born in the wrong generation" types... I don't get it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownBear View Post

 

I actually have two albums of hers in my library. Some of the stuff isn't that bad really. It shocked me because when I first heard Stupid Hoe I was taken aback with the poor quality (in my opinion) of the song. But others on the album, like Girls Fall Like Dominoes, aren't all that bad.

 

You might be right, but I'll never be bothered to listen to her. There is so much incredible music being made these days that I feel it's a waste of time to listen to a manufactured pop artist who "isn't all that bad".

post #59 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feedback View Post

You might be right, but I'll never be bothered to listen to her. There is so much incredible music being made these days that I feel it's a waste of time to listen to a manufactured pop artist who "isn't all that bad".

 

I understand where you're coming from. Don't get me wrong, I don't spend hours listening to Nicki Minaj. Lol. But I guess what I meant was, is that I wasn't expecting to like a single song of hers, and it turns out there's a few that I actually enjoy listening to. Which surprised me quite a bit. To me, I don't really care if an artist is 'manufactured'. Honestly, for me, all that matters is if I find something in a song or piece of music that I can enjoy.

post #60 of 92
Some of the music in the 60s and 70s was bad, however there was so much good music made then. While not all the music after 85 is bad, so much of it is rather poor. See which albums are listed as the 100 best of the 2000s. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_albums00s.html See which they list as the best rock albums. Notice that most are from the 60s or 70s. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_albumsddd.html
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › 12 Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Music