Which decade/time-period had the worst mainstream music/image?

[niemion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bakercj93 /img/forum/go_quote.gif who cares? internet ... mainstream ... obsolete

You nailed it.

 

[catachresis]

I'm going to drag up a dead horse that's already been scavenged a million times before; it's the big fish that the old man brought back to the village that became $2.99 lunch deals at Captain D's.

Anyhow, here it is: our culture is increasingly video-oriented and attuned to the subtleties of dynamic media. That's amazing in a lot of respects: we look at old movies and we're frequently stunned by their simplicity--which might be iconic and sublime or it may be banal and clicheed. *Our* modern movies are masterful lessons in snap-transitions and surprising seques. They are plotted and edited with the fine-toothed combs of innumerable pros. Our 'crap' mainstream music is constructed by hordes of producers and marketers and is preconceived to within an inch of its life. Our *underground* bands who proudly wave the standard of 'Not Selling Out' on their Facebook pages while they look for a major label contract typically do a stupendous job of making musically compelling pieces. The Indieground is probably the best generation of musical innovators that we've ever seen.

But I am convinced that the demise of print culture has meant the collapse of the art of song-writing. There are rare and important exceptions, but you can look at the best 'pop' lyrics of the last seventy years and find powerful, enduring, crafted poetry. Too much of the new avant-garde now seems to subscribe to the old Michael Stipe school of saying a buncha things that are kinda like blank verse with a lot of strong images and really important things that people (who come to your concerts) oughta care about. There are important exceptions but most of the best new musicians now could not write a real song--or for that matter explain what their own songs really mean without starting with, "Well, it's kinda like. . . ." or "Man, I was completely thinking about. . . ."

I notice this blindspot in Stereophile all the time. Those old guys try their wee hearts out to keep hip and current. I'm humbled perpetually by their knowledge of music science and musicianship; a lot of them are serious musicians, and I can't barely hoot something out on a C# harmonica. But for guys who go on about musical artistry and the enduring significance of great classical music, which I confess often flies over my head, most of them don't know a damn about poetry or the art of creating lines and stanzas. Great poems and the best songs may argue one thing or many things, but you can be explicit in claiming what they mean. You don't have to say, "I think it's about" or "It kinda reminds me of." That's why I can sometimes be glad that Green Day is still doing songs with Punk politics, but I can doubt that they even entirely understand what they're Oyy!ing about. I must say, in terms of poetic, lyrical music that goes to the trouble of articulating its actual, definitive meaning, rap remains at the forefront. It's a pity that so much (though certainly not all) that rap says is so empty and superficial.

 

[muxenle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by niemion /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you don't like "now" for it's musical qualities then turn of the radio and listen to the music you like. "Now" has plenty to offer, just like "then" is going to have and "back then" had. I don't care for most of the mainstream music coming out, that's probably why I don't know who Lil Wayne is and so it doesn't really bother me if it's no good. Come on, mention a century without any crappy music? Now mention a century without any good music? I wouldn't be without any of them, that's for sure.

true all time eras have good and bad music, but as many other people have already said currently it is dominated by low quality pop, rap, etc. It is also chalk full of bands that are okay, but way over rated(along with some book series....twilight anyone?)

as to turningon the radio and listning to music I like... do you know of any radio staions that play christian death metal(death for the sound style part, christian for the lyrical style)

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catachresis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm going to drag up a dead horse that's already been scavenged a million times before; it's the big fish that the old man brought back to the village that became $2.99 lunch deals at Captain D's. Anyhow, here it is: our culture is increasingly video-oriented and attuned to the subtleties of dynamic media. That's amazing in a lot of respects: we look at old movies and we're frequently stunned by their simplicity--which might be iconic and sublime or it may be banal and clicheed. *Our* modern movies are masterful lessons in snap-transitions and surprising seques. They are plotted and edited with the fine-toothed combs of innumerable pros. Our 'crap' mainstream music is constructed by hordes of producers and marketers and is preconceived to within an inch of its life. Our *underground* bands who proudly wave the standard of 'Not Selling Out' on their Facebook pages while they look for a major label contract typically do a stupendous job of making musically compelling pieces. The Indieground is probably the best generation of musical innovators that we've ever seen. But I am convinced that the demise of print culture has meant the collapse of the art of song-writing. There are rare and important exceptions, but you can look at the best 'pop' lyrics of the last seventy years and find powerful, enduring, crafted poetry. Too much of the new avant-garde now seems to subscribe to the old Michael Stipe school of saying a buncha things that are kinda like blank verse with a lot of strong images and really important things that people (who come to your concerts) oughta care about. There are important exceptions but most of the best new musicians now could not write a real song--or for that matter explain what their own songs really mean without starting with, "Well, it's kinda like. . . ." or "Man, I was completely thinking about. . . ." I notice this blindspot in Stereophile all the time. Those old guys try their wee hearts out to keep hip and current. I'm humbled perpetually by their knowledge of music science and musicianship; a lot of them are serious musicians, and I can't barely hoot something out on a C# harmonica. But for guys who go on about musical artistry and the enduring significance of great classical music, which I confess often flies over my head, most of them don't know a damn about poetry or the art of creating lines and stanzas. Great poems and the best songs may argue one thing or many things, but you can be explicit in claiming what they mean. You don't have to say, "I think it's about" or "It kinda reminds me of." That's why I can sometimes be glad that Green Day is still doing songs with Punk politics, but I can doubt that they even entirely understand what they're Oyy!ing about. I must say, in terms of poetic, lyrical music that goes to the trouble of articulating its actual, definitive meaning, rap remains at the forefront. It's a pity that so much (though certainly not all) that rap says is so empty and superficial.

Wow, great post. You make some very good points.

I especially agree with you that today, there is an alarming amount of artists that could not give you a clear idea of what they released, but they are certain that what they have to say is important and meaningful. They have to have a cause or message, but they have no way of conveying it.

Having said that, there has never been such a great divide in quality of musical output between the mainstream and underground as there is now. It will only get larger in the future. Thanks to the internet, this is not a problem. Quality of mastering is much more of a problem than crappy mainstream music since it is pervasive in just about all genres regardless of the obscurity of the band.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catachresis /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I am convinced that the demise of print culture has meant the collapse of the art of song-writing. There are rare and important exceptions, but you can look at the best 'pop' lyrics of the last seventy years and find powerful, enduring, crafted poetry. Too much of the new avant-garde now seems to subscribe to the old Michael Stipe school of saying a buncha things that are kinda like blank verse with a lot of strong images and really important things that people (who come to your concerts) oughta care about. There are important exceptions but most of the best new musicians now could not write a real song--or for that matter explain what their own songs really mean without starting with, "Well, it's kinda like. . . ." or "Man, I was completely thinking about. . . ."

Excellent point - I hadn't considered that.

I don't think that print culture is entirely dead, but the written word has mostly moved online and there are far fewer gatekeepers than there used to be. Getting published used to be difficult. Now anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can write as much as they want, without havi g to pass through editors and publishers.

There is still a lot of quality writing out there, but the signal-to-noise ratio has dramatically increased. Exactly as it has with music. While quality text and music used to be easily found, you now have to find a way to cut past the clutter to find it.

The benefit to the way things are today is that everyone with something worthwhile today now has a way to say it. In the past, I am sure a great deal of talent went ignored and unnoticed. Not so today, but the trouble is finding it.

I completely agree that it is difficult to find simple, direct meaning today, as well. I was listening to Lefty Frizzell the other evening and wondered if his songcraft would even find much of an audience today. Simple, direct, unambiguous, and deeply felt.

 

[anetode]

Easy. The 1890s, with them stupid player pianos and music encoded on cylinders. Lyrics were crap too, "Camptown Races" was considered a masterpiece.

 

[Ducks_own]

As a 19 year old, I can safely say I grew up in the worst decade of mainstream music ever. I guess now that I think of it, that's what spurred my hatred for the radio, there's never anything good on! "Today's Best Hits" makes me wanna throw up a little bit.

But at least there's more to music than the mainstream

 

[paaj]

it'll always be 'now', most of the junk from past decades gets filtered and then the better music surfaces. If you think about music from the 70/80/90's the first things you come across are the good things: Beatles, Deep Purple, Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, Nirvana, Kyuss, Rage Against the Machine... you name it.

 

[chud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paaj /img/forum/go_quote.gif it'll always be 'now', most of the junk from past decades gets filtered and then the better music surfaces. If you think about music from the 70/80/90's the first things you come across are the good things: Beatles, Deep Purple, Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, Nirvana, Kyuss, Rage Against the Machine... you name it.

Heh, I dunno. Growing up in the 90's, I sure don't remember saying to myself, "gee, I wonder what Air Supply is up to?"

 

[abellaw]

I would go with now also. It seems like that most mainstream bands just want to have a couple of good singles. Or "club hits" that are immensely popular then fade into obscurity after a couple of months if that.

It just feels like there is no integrity to mainstream music, the music doesn't represent anything about the artist it just has a catchy tune.

Today i got the chance to listen to most of the new black eyed peas album and it is proof positive of what i mentioned. A collection of catchy dance tunes.