[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by baka1969 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I must diagree with you. Disco didn't really explode until the late 70's. Rock most certainly outsold disco during that entire decade. Only a few of the groups you've listed have any real impact in today's music. Groups such as Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Clapton, Dylan, Hendrix, Boston, The Eagles, Lennon, Allan Brothers, Neil Young and a list at least twice or three times as long as you've mentioned have had a greater influence on music. Album sales for the individual groups of the 70's are also greater. Not that sales are an absolute indicator but it's part.

I love the Allman Brothers. They weren't commercially popular at all in the 70's. They couldn't sell out large venues even though they were primarily a live band. They had one top 10 hit (ironically one of their worst songs) after the death of their best musician, etc etc

What influence did Boston wield on other groups? They had one significant album that was admittedly gigantic (one of my favorite albums of all time). Clapton was putting out absolute crap for the majority of the 70's, Dylan wasn't nearly the cultural icon people ascribe him to be and couldn't really be heard on the radio outside of a short two year period.

You are making a great case for what I'm talking about. If someone puts the Allman Brothers out there like they were "important" in the 70's, they are MAKING STUFF UP. They were important in retrospect, but they were a cult type band in the 70s. I know because my father was a roadie for them. They gained their greatest fame because Cher married Greg Allman. They then later became a staple of classic rock radio, but that doesn't mean they were actually big in the 70s.

WHich would be fine, but you then criticize bands I mentioned, who all, as in every single one, have sold more albums than the allman brothers did in the 70s as not being mainstream or significant enough. And if you're stating influence, you can't gauge influence until YEARS later. Again, nobody thought the velvet underound would even be moderately influential in the 70s. Same for the Sex Pistols and The Clash.

And yes, total album sales are great for those 70's bands, but not IN THE 70s. You're including sales for the 30 years since. Who knows how many albums MGMT will sale in 30 more years, or even if the album will be an art form by then. The only bands you listed that sold a ton of albums in the 70s was Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, The Eagles (though they sold ady albums in the 80s as they did the 70s) and Clapton (and most of Clapton's commercially succesful albums are looked down upon and not played today).

In the 30 years since the 70s, we have come to believe that the radio was classic rock radio. That the Allman Brothers Band were commercially successful, that Dylan was all over the radio in those golden years. That every kid or even half of them was listening to Black Sabbath. None of it is actually true.

 

[fjrabon]

If you need further proof that the Allman Brothers weren't commercially popular in the 70s, how about the fact that Eric Clapton knew Duane Allman as the guitarist who played on Wilson Pickett's cover of Hey Jude, and not as a member of The Allman Brothers.

 

[baka1969]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I love the Allman Brothers. They weren't commercially popular at all in the 70's. They couldn't sell out large venues even though they were primarily a live band. They had one top 10 hit (ironically one of their worst songs) after the death of their best musician, etc etc What influence did Boston wield on other groups? They had one significant album that was admittedly gigantic (one of my favorite albums of all time). Clapton was putting out absolute crap for the majority of the 70's, Dylan wasn't nearly the cultural icon people ascribe him to be and couldn't really be heard on the radio outside of a short two year period. You are making a great case for what I'm talking about. If someone puts the Allman Brothers out there like they were "important" in the 70's, they are MAKING STUFF UP. They were important in retrospect, but they were a cult type band in the 70s. I know because my father was a roadie for them. They gained their greatest fame because Cher married Greg Allman. They then later became a staple of classic rock radio, but that doesn't mean they were actually big in the 70s. WHich would be fine, but you then criticize bands I mentioned, who all, as in every single one, have sold more albums than the allman brothers did in the 70s as not being mainstream or significant enough. And if you're stating influence, you can't gauge influence until YEARS later. Again, nobody thought the velvet underound would even be moderately influential in the 70s. Same for the Sex Pistols and The Clash. And yes, total album sales are great for those 70's bands, but not IN THE 70s. You're including sales for the 30 years since. Who knows how many albums MGMT will sale in 30 more years, or even if the album will be an art form by then. The only bands you listed that sold a ton of albums in the 70s was Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin and Clapton (and most of Clapton's commercially succesful albums are looked down upon and not played today). In the 30 years since the 70s, we have come to believe that the radio was classic rock radio. That the Allman Brothers Band were commercially successful, that Dylan was all over the radio in those golden years. That every kid or even half of them was listening to Black Sabbath. None of it is actually true.

Ask Nirvana what influence Boston had. LoL. Tom Scholz did have influence in the way he looked at producing albums and the Rockman. I really wasn't trying to insult any band you've mentioned. I have more than a few albums from some of them. Of course in retrospect it's easy to see the influences of everyone (and many more) I've mentioned. To add, The Eagles sold a few platters in their day too. I also said sales were only a part of the equation. Not that list's are the end-all-and-cure-all, but when there are lists of the best or people's favorite albums are taken, look how heavily weighted the lists are from the 70's. Also I cheated a few years in my initial post by reaching back to '67 and gave the same to '97 to be fair. Adding those few years opens up a lot more music. However, 'Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs' was released in 1970, 'Blood on the Tracks' released in 1975 making Clapton and Dylan still very relevant. The Beatles were still putting out music from '67 (Sgt. Pepper). You'll have to put up a different argument to say that 1997-2009 can rival 1967-1979 in terms of music.

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by baka1969 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ask Nirvana what influence Boston had. LoL. Tom Scholz did have influence in the way he looked at producing albums and the Rockman. I really wasn't trying to insult any band you've mentioned. I have more than a few albums from some of them. Of course in retrospect it's easy to see the influences of everyone (and many more) I've mentioned. To add, The Eagles sold a few platters in their day too. I also said sales were only a part of the equation. Not that list's are the end-all-and-cure-all, but when there are lists of the best or people's favorite albums are taken, look how heavily weighted the lists are from the 70's. Also I cheated a few years in my initial post by reaching back to '67 and gave the same to '97 to be fair. Adding those few years opens up a lot more music. However, 'Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs' was released in 1970, 'Blood on the Tracks' released in 1975 making Clapton and Dylan still very relevant. The Beatles were still putting out music from '67 (Sgt. Pepper). You'll have to put up a different argument to say that 1997-2009 can rival 1967-1979 in terms of music.

my point was that it's impossible to argue the point because you can't guage how "important" an act is until well after the fact. If I listed a current band that has roughly the same level of sales as the allman brothers did in the 70s, you'd just laugh and say "them? Nobody listens to them."

 

[HipHopScribe]

Just to add on, regarding 97-09

The National
Stereolab
Yo La Tengo
Built to Spill
Neutral Milk Hotel
The Magnetic Fields
Okkervil River
Broken Social Scene
Animal Collective
Modest Mouse
Los Campesinos
Deerhunter
The Mountain Goats
Silver Jews
The Apples in Stereo
The Shins
Belle & Sebastian
Phoenix
The New Pornographers
Sigur Ros
The Decemberists
Interpol
The Kills

 

[joelpearce]

This has been an interesting discussion.

I just wanted to toss this in quickly as an interesting addition:

gladwell dot com - The Formula

Here, Malcolm Gladwell explores why it is that music (and movies) feel like they are getting more generic over time. If he's right, this is pretty chilling.

 

[salannelson]

I agree with you 125%. Finally there's someone else who thinks this.

 

[eucariote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by salannelson /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree with you 125%. Finally there's someone else who thinks this.

x2. But as pointed out three posts up, there is amazing (but not at all popular) music being produced now. But most people can't wrap their minds around true art. Who has the time and inclination to cultivate their minds any more?

 

[semisight]

Without trying to defend some mainstream acts like Lady GaGa or Black Eyed Peas, I feel like I have to throw my 2 cents in here as a dissenter. To say that popular music today has no class or talent is complete BS. Up until a few years ago, I didn't even really listen to music. My library on my computer was pitiful. One artist that really changed my mind was Lupe Fiasco. Say what you will, he's got some talent, and he is (or was for a time) fairly popular. Listen to his freestyle stuff on youtube, or his first two albums. Some of the material there is deep.

The idea of the auto-tune voice thing reminds me of the electric guitar vs acoustic; it's distorted, it's overdriven (sometimes), but damn it's hard for me not to like.

 

[keanej6]

i think that as technology improves and as a result it is cheaper and easier for people to record music, then only naturally will there be a larger contribution of 'terrible' music. even before music was recorded it was impractical to be a musician unless you were good enough to a large enough audience to make money. i guess it does suck that it makes it more difficult to find 'good' music, and some genres are way more contaminated than others, (rap, pop). however the benefit of this is that as a result of technology, there is an unbelievable spectrum of genres and niches. most of the stuff i listen to would be considered 'independent (indie

) ' and the record labels that release these albums never could have existed 30 years ago. the internet and the improvement of recording technology has allowed this happen, yes at the cost of bands like brokeNCYDE!

 

[Cianyx]

There has been a thread on this on every music forum I've been so initially, I was reluctant to put in my 2 cents. However, since there are actually some discussion, albeit a lot of moaning as well, I'll cough something up.

Most people already covered or are aware on how pop music is relatively stagnant and since the music doesn't concern me (nor should it anyone else), I see no point in adding anything more to it. However, contrary to belief, David might be quite right in saying that there is a fall in music for the past decade and I believe that it has to do a lot with the growing technology.

Looking back on the past 30 years or so, we can see that there were huge amount of genres popping up every decade. The 70s saw the rise of Punk, Ambient, Industrial, start of metal along with countless others I probably missed out on. The 80s had Hardcore, Thrash, Synthpop, Post-punk Noise Rock, Electro, Hip-hop, and so on. 90s countered with Post-Hardcore and Emo, Metal's glorious era, Alternative Hip-hop, Trance, Powerviolence, Shoegaze. By now I think I would have made my point clear. Looking back to the past decade or so, we really don't have much to show. I'm not denying that there weren't any good music but most of it are just rehashes of old genres. The majority of electronic music has lost its integrity, the best thing going for metal right now is the OSDM revival, Hardcore is seeing a rise in generic melodic hardcore and metalcore, Hip-hop appears to have rid themselves of that pop filth and embraced Alt Hip-hop. Problem is, they all end up rapping about the same thing and none of it comes close to Mos Def. Alternative has always been about the same for me; I'd take The Smiths over it any day. Post-Rock is something new, but most of it rips GSBE anyway.

There are a lot of reasons but I see technology as being one of the main causes for it. It'd probably could go both ways, but I see more harm in it than good. Recording and producing is indeed cheaper with more bands are springing up than ever and there a lot of labels that are ran by a single member. While it could be argued that crappier bands will result out of this, bands, who are actually passionate about their music will now be able to persist for a longer amount of time as opposed to the past when legitimately good bands only manage to produce a demo or a single due to money constraints. With the internet around, these good, unknown bands are being regularly discovered and promoted so by that logic, music should be on the rise.

That's all and good but the rise of the internet also brought forth downloading (can't see what they are complaining about since tape-trading has been going on for a while). Prior to downloading, labels were making money by signing up bands who were part of the next big thing. Since music downloads mean a loss of revenue for them, major labels became a lot more conservative, signing on bands who were extremely accessible and appealed to the underground popularity (an oxymoron, I know but it exists in every genre); milking the scene for every dollar it's worth. Let's face it, to be successful, most bands need a label backing hence why, the great bands go unheard of these days.

Another one I would like to quickly touch on is the apparent rise in quirky or "progressive" music. In other words, music made solely to differentiate themselves from each other. In my opinion and I'd probably get flack for this: almost all of these bands are terrible. They lack the refinement in adding subtleties to their music to stand out. I know people would call me a hypocrite for previously praising and welcoming experimentation but this is not the future of music. Genres and sub-genres grow from a general idea being cultivated in a scene. This type of music is not sustainable because it really only restricts the music to one band. That's not progression, in the slightest. So yeah, there are a lot of ideas but not very good ones nor is it smart ones. There are good bands, don't get me wrong, but they build upon the existing genre but not try to separate themselves from it.

There also a huge amount of variables which I didn't touch on such as perhaps the rise in living conditions, greater use of media brainwashing, schools placing smaller emphasis on the arts, internet removing the lack of physical interaction with a scene, Sturgeon's law, among countless others. However, right now, it's all speculation. Too hard to tell

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just to add on, regarding 97-09 The National Stereolab Yo La Tengo Built to Spill Neutral Milk Hotel The Magnetic Fields Okkervil River Broken Social Scene Animal Collective Modest Mouse Los Campesinos Deerhunter The Mountain Goats Silver Jews The Apples in Stereo The Shins Belle & Sebastian Phoenix The New Pornographers Sigur Ros The Decemberists Interpol The Kills

These lists are cool. I can't say I dig everyone on them, but that's beside the point. What I think is missing, though, is a little something that tells us why you like them, and by extension why we should like them, too. I realize that this may not be the appropriate place to get all in-depth like that, but it's always what I'm after. I guess I'm that guy who could spend days thinking and talking about music…

I'm amazed and delighted that this thread is still alive and kicking…

 

[Feanor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbacic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Music now is better than it has ever been. It's just not mainstream.

I agree, I really enjoy recent artists like Sufjan Stephens or Joanna Newsom.

hiphopscribe's list is also sweet.

As for rap or hiphop, artists like Scroobius Pip and YouTube - Sage Francis - Climb Trees]Sage Francis are still doing good stuff.

 

[mbhaub]

There has always been junk music, and the "great" tunes from the 20's to the 60's are the cream of the crop that have lasted. What has changed is that too many composers today are writing formulaic music that is missing the great artistic qualities. There is NO one today who should even be mentioned in the same breath as Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, George Gershwin and many other past masters. To me, as a performing musician, its obvious: the "standards" that we are expected to just know off the top of our heads are all getting old. In fact, other than a few tunes by Andrew Lloyd Webber, I can't think of any addition to the standard canon in the last 30 years. Not one. Consider Christmas music. Do you realize that the last standard added to that list was from the 1950's -- and it was the Christmas Song by Alvin and the Chipmunks. There are reasons: a standard requires a rare combination of a great tune, flawless harmonies, a great lyric and a certain something that is undefinable. And frankly, between the lack of genuine talent, and the loss of American Top-40, I doubt that we'll have many standards ever again. It's very sad. And even sadder is that the vast majority of Americans under age 40 don't even know the standards anymore. Just ask any 20 year old to sing "Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean" or hum the tune from "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes". When I was growing up in the 50's every kid knew those tunes. Today - nothing.

 

[semisight]

Quote:

There has always been junk music, and the "great" tunes from the 20's to the 60's are the cream of the crop that have lasted. What has changed is that too many composers today are writing formulaic music that is missing the great artistic qualities. There is NO one today who should even be mentioned in the same breath as Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, George Gershwin and many other past masters. To me, as a performing musician, its obvious: the "standards" that we are expected to just know off the top of our heads are all getting old. In fact, other than a few tunes by Andrew Lloyd Webber, I can't think of any addition to the standard canon in the last 30 years. Not one. Consider Christmas music. Do you realize that the last standard added to that list was from the 1950's -- and it was the Christmas Song by Alvin and the Chipmunks. There are reasons: a standard requires a rare combination of a great tune, flawless harmonies, a great lyric and a certain something that is undefinable. And frankly, between the lack of genuine talent, and the loss of American Top-40, I doubt that we'll have many standards ever again. It's very sad. And even sadder is that the vast majority of Americans under age 40 don't even know the standards anymore. Just ask any 20 year old to sing "Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean" or hum the tune from "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes". When I was growing up in the 50's every kid knew those tunes. Today - nothing.

I have to disagree again. There is plenty of great music out there. In fact, the new music distribution systems have in a way been a boon in lowering the entry cost and ease of distribution to the intended audiences. This works both ways. It's easy to write formulaic music nowadays, and it's just as easy to slap a face on it (think of all those disney channel "stars") and sell it. At the same time, through various means like (legal!) torrents I've found music I'd never have found otherwise.
 
Why is it important that music be remembered to be great? Sure, being remembered almost always indicates great talent. But the converse isn't necessarily true - great talent isn't always remembered.