What do you consider “oldies?”
Oct 11, 2009 at 12:30 AM Post #16 of 32
I'd also go with anything much before the Beatles. They changed everything.

But today, I see people referring to 1990s music as "old school," whick kinda freaks me out. It wasn't that long ago, was it?
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 12:37 AM Post #17 of 32
it is a bit scary considering that 1980 is getting on 30 years ago :S

My definition of 'oldies'? Hmm... Proportional to my age (19), it could very well be the 80s, but the 50s to the 70s are what I consider to be oldies, I've heard a lot of music from that era at my house when I was a kid.
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 12:43 AM Post #18 of 32
Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif
In the early 90s, with the death of glam metal, a lot of metal stations changed format to "Classic Rock" stations. I can't stand that stuff. At first I didn't mind it much, but over time the constant rotation of Southern/Country Rock, Progressive, and Arena Rock, and the almost complete lack of any interesting 60s stuff that we haven't already heard a billion times just really grates on me. In my neck of the woods Classic Rock stations are the epitome of sort of a good ol' boy thing. I'd much rather the Oldies stations over the Classic rock ones now. Odd thing is happening now though, a lot of the Classic rock stations are now playing later and later music. Its not too surprising to hear early 80s rock on a Classic rock station... I'm wondering if that means we'll be hearing later 60s stuff on the Oldies stations then...


I consider "oldies" to be a static genre. There are no more songs with the oldies sound being made.

Classic rock, on the other hand, is a growing genre. There continues to be music made that fits with the classic rock style and sound. So the genre continues to grow. For example I would consider The Allman Brother's album "Hittin' the Note" to be classic rock even though it was released in 2003. I wouldn't be surprised to hear it on a classic rock station. I don't consider the classic in classic rock to mean that the music has to be a certain age like the classic in a classic car.
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 12:46 AM Post #19 of 32
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
But today, I see people referring to 1990s music as "old school," whick kinda freaks me out. It wasn't that long ago, was it?


The early 90s was before the loudness wars. Of course that sound sounds dated and old school to the young'ns.
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 12:48 AM Post #20 of 32
50's and early 60s are oldies to me.
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 12:50 AM Post #21 of 32
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'd also go with anything much before the Beatles. They changed everything.

But today, I see people referring to 1990s music as "old school," whick kinda freaks me out. It wasn't that long ago, was it?



Old School doesn't mean 'oldies' to me. I think of it as early rap.
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 12:56 AM Post #22 of 32
Double-double post? There's the first time I've seen that :S
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM Post #23 of 32
Growing up in the 70s, 60s music was old to me. So using the same yardstick I will define anything made before 2000 as belonging to the oldies category (and in my case not listened to as much as new material).

Come to think of it maybe I should use 2005.....
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 2:04 AM Post #24 of 32
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The early 90s was before the loudness wars. Of course that sound sounds dated and old school to the young'ns.


You know, I've always wondered who and what exactly started the loudness war...
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM Post #25 of 32
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I consider "oldies" to be a static genre. There are no more songs with the oldies sound being made.

Classic rock, on the other hand, is a growing genre. There continues to be music made that fits with the classic rock style and sound. So the genre continues to grow. For example I would consider The Allman Brother's album "Hittin' the Note" to be classic rock even though it was released in 2003. I wouldn't be surprised to hear it on a classic rock station. I don't consider the classic in classic rock to mean that the music has to be a certain age like the classic in a classic car.



Yeah... maybe so.
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 2:07 AM Post #26 of 32
Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You know, I've always wondered who and what exactly started the loudness war...


I never realized there was a "loudness war". What does that refer to exactly?
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 2:13 AM Post #27 of 32
Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I never realized there was a "loudness war". What does that refer to exactly?


You can always refer to good old Wikipedia!

But in case you don't want to, I'll tell you a summary. It has been known that artists increasinlgy make their music louder in order to compete with each other. However, in Rock and Pop music, the Snare drum/drum effect is always the loudest sound, at 0. In order to increase the loudness of the track, you must decrease the dynamic range of the song, that is, making everything quiet loud, so that there is no difference between the twio. However, when listening to the music, the brain automatically because bored of it, and all the intricacies of music is lost. You can no longer tell one drummer from the other, and evertyhing is just loud and obnoxious. Many have begun to digitally clip their music, which is unobservable in lossy, but sounds horrible in lossless. Many albums are great musically, but just suffer in their dynamics(Death Magnetic comes to mind).
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 3:36 AM Post #28 of 32
I just thought of another turning point, kinda like the Beatles mentioned several times. Get ready, 'cause this will scare some of you. I grew up in SoCal near the beach. The only radio was AM; what we're now calling the "oldies". There were 3 at the time - KRLA, KHJ, and KFWB (now all news, actually the first all news in LA). After that came "underground" radio (FM). They first started playing 'rock', as opposed to rock and roll. They had few if any commercials, and played no more "oldies" . . .
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 4:05 AM Post #29 of 32
Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You can always refer to good old Wikipedia!

But in case you don't want to, I'll tell you a summary. It has been known that artists increasinlgy make their music louder in order to compete with each other. However, in Rock and Pop music, the Snare drum/drum effect is always the loudest sound, at 0. In order to increase the loudness of the track, you must decrease the dynamic range of the song, that is, making everything quiet loud, so that there is no difference between the twio. However, when listening to the music, the brain automatically because bored of it, and all the intricacies of music is lost. You can no longer tell one drummer from the other, and evertyhing is just loud and obnoxious. Many have begun to digitally clip their music, which is unobservable in lossy, but sounds horrible in lossless. Many albums are great musically, but just suffer in their dynamics(Death Magnetic comes to mind).



Huh. That's pretty weird stuff. I'm going to have check out the wiki article you're talking about.
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 4:09 AM Post #30 of 32
Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Uthadude /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I just thought of another turning point, kinda like the Beatles mentioned several times. Get ready, 'cause this will scare some of you. I grew up in SoCal near the beach. The only radio was AM; what we're now calling the "oldies". There were 3 at the time - KRLA, KHJ, and KFWB (now all news, actually the first all news in LA). After that came "underground" radio (FM). They first started playing 'rock', as opposed to rock and roll. They had few if any commercials, and played no more "oldies" . . .


Well there were pirate radio broadcasts popping up around that same era wasn't there?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top