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 6

post #76 of 92
Look at the Rolling Stone Best 500 albums ever article. The majority of the albums chosen were from the 60s or 70s. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531
post #77 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK1 View Post

Look at the Rolling Stone Best 500 albums ever article. The majority of the albums chosen were from the 60s or 70s. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531

 

IMHO, that's more indicative of bias than anything else. there are at least 2 very important factors to consider.

 

- Perhaps most of the people interviewed had live their early adulthood during that period.

 

- That period is also characteristic for producing super stars.

post #78 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

 

IMHO, that's more indicative of bias than anything else. there are at least 2 very important factors to consider.

 

- Perhaps most of the people interviewed had live their early adulthood during that period.

 

- That period is also characteristic for producing super stars.

Did you see the large number of people who voted on which albums made the Rolling Stone's top 500? I guess some will argue that people under 25 weren't properly represented in the sample.

 

The list of best selling albums ever has more representation in the 80s and 90s than the 500 best list, but is still lacking in representation of albums released after 2000.

 

One other fact. For the first time, units sold of albums older than 18 months has exceeded that of new albums. Many of these are priced under $8 though, so revenue from old albums is lower than for new ones.

 

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-07-11/music/greatests-hit/

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States

post #79 of 92

Is she the one who sings ad nauseum. "rumour has it, rumour has it, rumour has it, rumour has it, etc. etc.  Yes , she is.

http://www.metrolyrics.com/rumour-has-it-lyrics-adele.html
 

post #80 of 92

There is some very good music out there if you want to search it out.  Applies to literature, movies, etc. It is all about the dumbing down of America, and perhaps the world. I blame television.

post #81 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

 

IMHO, that's more indicative of bias than anything else. there are at least 2 very important factors to consider.

 

- Perhaps most of the people interviewed had live their early adulthood during that period.

 

- That period is also characteristic for producing super stars.

Did you see the large number of people who voted on which albums made the Rolling Stone's top 500? I guess some will argue that people under 25 weren't properly represented in the sample.

 

The list of best selling albums ever has more representation in the 80s and 90s than the 500 best list, but is still lacking in representation of albums released after 2000.

 

One other fact. For the first time, units sold of albums older than 18 months has exceeded that of new albums. Many of these are priced under $8 though, so revenue from old albums is lower than for new ones.

 

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-07-11/music/greatests-hit/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States

 

That doesn't really change my point, we aren't in the era of super stars any more, for example, Florence + the Machine is talented, will she sell as much as the Rolling Stones? I think not.

Any album list is not only related to how talented the artists are, it's more a rating that underlines the relative important of the artist relative to its era, since we don't produce super stars any more, all that is left is old album and new albums of super stars in their fifties.

post #82 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

 

That doesn't really change my point, we aren't in the era of super stars any more, for example, Florence + the Machine is talented, will she sell as much as the Rolling Stones? I think not.

Any album list is not only related to how talented the artists are, it's more a rating that underlines the relative important of the artist relative to its era, since we don't produce super stars any more, all that is left is old album and new albums of super stars in their fifties.

 

That is exactly my point. Why aren't there superstars now? Why aren't there groups as good as the Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc. Many old high quality albums are now on sale under $8, with some even $5 or less. These are probably cannibalizing sales of new albums. I am very resistant to paying over $10 for a CD. If it is over $10, I will buy a CD released long ago for under $10 instead, and wait for the $10+ CD to be put on sale for under $10. I am even starting to get resistant to paying over $8 for a CD, as there are plenty of old releases of high quality CDs under $8 that are worth buying instead.

 

With units of old releases outselling new releases for the first time, I would really like to see sales in units for new releases by artists who started their carrers after 2000. This might only be 1/4 of the units sold for older releases or new releases by older artists. I also wonder how the statistics are compiled. If old recordings are remastered, are they then counted as a new release? I guess so? It seems like remastering of old albums seems to be a major part of the CD recently released.

post #83 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

 

That doesn't really change my point, we aren't in the era of super stars any more, for example, Florence + the Machine is talented, will she sell as much as the Rolling Stones? I think not.

Any album list is not only related to how talented the artists are, it's more a rating that underlines the relative important of the artist relative to its era, since we don't produce super stars any more, all that is left is old album and new albums of super stars in their fifties.

 

That is exactly my point. Why aren't there superstars now? Why aren't there groups as good as the Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc. Many old high quality albums are now on sale under $8, with some even $5 or less. These are probably cannibalizing sales of new albums. I am very resistant to paying over $10 for a CD. If it is over $10, I will buy a CD released long ago for under $10 instead, and wait for the $10+ CD to be put on sale for under $10. I am even starting to get resistant to paying over $8 for a CD, as there are plenty of old releases of high quality CDs under $8 that are worth buying instead.

 

With units of old releases outselling new releases for the first time, I would really like to see sales in units for new releases by artists who started their carrers after 2000. This might only be 1/4 of the units sold for older releases or new releases by older artists. I also wonder how the statistics are compiled. If old recordings are remastered, are they then counted as a new release? I guess so? It seems like remastering of old albums seems to be a major part of the CD recently released.

 

My guess is that superstars are only possible in certain environments, I don't think it's a matter of talent, but of the general public prizing itself to have individual tastes, of originality being celebrated. The ease of access of more music than ever is also playing a role, you don't go to the records store to get advised by the shop owner. So getting ultra famous today is harder than forty years ago.

post #84 of 92

OMG that Nicki Minaj song is utter ****. Music is sure in trouble ;). Good thing there's still so much available from yesteryear.
 


Edited by lee730 - 7/25/12 at 1:58am
post #85 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

OMG that Nicki Minaj song is utter ****. Music is sure in trouble ;). Good thing there's still so much available from yesteryear.
 

Starships were meant to fly
Hands up, and touch the sky
Can't stop, 'cause we're so high
Let's do this one more time

(We're higher than a mother*****)

gs1000.gif

post #86 of 92

What next we're gonna hear the "Hoe, Hoe, Hoe, merry X-mas" remix ;).
 


Edited by lee730 - 7/25/12 at 1:56pm
post #87 of 92

I'd like to add a few things. 

The loudness wars have made many awful mixing/mastering tactics become commonplace for the sake of a few decibels. Hard clipping, for one, is adding unnecessary distortion, in the form of clicks and pops, to our music. Overcompression and brickwall limiting have sucked the dynamics out of our music as well.

700<- This is the waveform for Lady Gaga's "Just Dance". Look at how loud it is!

 

 

Something that is of a bit less concern to us audiophiles is stacked file compression. Say person A buys a CD and rips it as a 128kbps MP3. Person B downloads that MP3 and puts it in a lyrics video, and sets the audio bit rate of the video to 128kbps. They upload this video to Youtube. Youtube then adds compression to both the audio and video tracks to make it easier to buffer. Person C rips a 128kbps MP3 off of the Youtube video using a converter website. This unsuspecting person is now listening to an audio file that has been compressed four times since it has been released from the studio. In some instances, producers will send over instrumental tracks for songs as MP3s, meaning that even a lossless version of the song has been subjected to file compression.

post #88 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

 

we aren't in the era of super stars any more

 

Look at The Black Keys. They get constant "alternative radio" airplay and they sell out arenas.

post #89 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feedback View Post

Look at The Black Keys. They get constant "alternative radio" airplay and they sell out arenas.

 

If one of them dies though, will the internet crash?  I think that's what he's referring to.  You can see a similar thing in sports.  When Michael Jordan passes on, the internet will probably crash again.  I wouldn't expect that with Kobe or Lebron.

 

There aren't artists and atheletes like Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan anymore.  I mean, these are people who are well known by children living on the streets in impoverished third world nations, people who can't afford food and don't have TVs.  There's nobody who has that kind of penetrance anymore.

post #90 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by sridhar3 View Post

 

If one of them dies though, will the internet crash?  I think that's what he's referring to.  You can see a similar thing in sports.  When Michael Jordan passes on, the internet will probably crash again.  I wouldn't expect that with Kobe or Lebron.

 

There aren't artists and atheletes like Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan anymore.  I mean, these are people who are well known by children living on the streets in impoverished third world nations, people who can't afford food and don't have TVs.  There's nobody who has that kind of penetrance anymore.

 



Good point, but you're underestimating how popular American athletes are, even today. Kobe and Lebron are absolutely huge figures world-wide. And it's their Nike endorsements rather than their actual affiliation with the NBA which makes them global icons. rolleyes.gif

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