Why does old music equal superiority?

[Fumbleumble]

The medium is getting better as a whole and that's all you can ask for.

Justify that statement.

Most non-instrumented music these days is created by computer, and that goes double for voice...it an almost endless parade of talentless tune chokers... Music certainly is NOT getting better as a whole, it's generally deteriorating, and becoming less skillful to make.

Unique DIED with Stock, Aitken and Waterman.. and no, their influence has never gone away, its still beng done that way.

 

[badgersprite]

I think it's purely the fact that the music you remember from those decades, or the music that has lasted from those decades, is inherently going to be the good stuff. Everyone has forgotten all the crap music that was out back then (although it's fair to say that there was less music made and released in that time, which automatically made it harder to be heard) so everything they remember is likely to be 'superior' to the majority of any music released in that decade or this one.

I mean, it's simple, really. If stuff has staying power, then there's a reason people like it, so they have strong feelings about it. For example, I told my grandmother I listened to Vera Lynn, and it made her smile really brightly; her granddaughter was listening to the same music she'd listened to as a teenager, which brought back a lot of fond memories. So, yeah, people are attached to music their parents played for them, or stuff they grew up on.

In about ten or twenty years, you're going to hear people saying exactly the same stuff about at least some of the music released this year, and they'll say that 2010 was the best year in music, or whatever, because that was a year that defined them. It's the circle of life.

 

[Yureina]

Old music is not automatically "superior" by default. But... it usually tends to turn out that way. I am one of those "older music is better" types, but even then I have likes and dislikes. There is plenty of bad music in the past just as there is in the present. I stick to what I prefer. :3

 

[unoleian]

Today's music is filled with such heavy editing and overdubbing that it hardly sounds the same when heard live. There is a lot of great talent out there now, but unfortunately it's overshadowed by the process.

This certainly carries some merit, especially in the latest waves of pop music. The post-pro is through the roof, and when they "perform" live, there's more of an emphasis on spectacle than actual performance.

But, on the flip, there's also a good number of acts whose studio efforts suffer for exactly the same reason it works for others. A good number of the bands I'm falling in love with (STS9, Lotus, BoomBox, etc.) put out only capable studio releases, but shine brighter than diamonds during their live sets, where the energy is ten times higher, and the varying levels of improvisation just take the music to a whole other level.

So, it certainly functions both ways.

Also, as a general reply to other posts in this thread, I do not think music is suffering as a result of digital composition being so prevalent. A computer is incapable of making music. A computer can generate sounds all day, sure, but it still takes a human ear and sensibilities to arrange those sounds into something like a composition. Also, it's far from "easy" to crank out something even passable. Making music that doesn't make people cringe still takes an ear and true talent. There is no easy button for an automatic composition.

Also, some sounds are not for everyone. By all that is sane, a person shouldn't be capable of even gleaning enjoyment out of the rough, dirty, buzz-laden pips, squeaks, and synthesizer roars of the newest sounds in electro, but god damn....I love that sound. It's so new and different, and really does its job as brain candy for me. It's the least natural sound I've ever heard, but plopping my head in front of my sub and letting these sounds rock through me certainly feels as natural as feeling the rolling wooden timbre of a good acoustic ever did as well.

 

[Nouw]

Because the music industry has taken over largely, making it worse by a.making the vocals sound better, b.sampling more often and c.you can fill in this one.

Of course this is all very surface stuff as the first word that comes to mind when I hear modern music is crap. Modern=Mainstream for me as all the 'modern' stuff is the kind of music that my fellow peers blast.

You really have to define 'modern' music. Hmmm... I'm going to ask this in BonsaiK's thread! If I come back, expect hard facts!

 

[Iron Lightning]

It's a mathematical fact that there is more good old music than new music. This is simply because there is more old music than new music.

Obviously I can't cite exact statistics as none have been collected, so let's just assume for the sake of argument that 100 songs are produced a year. Of those hundred songs 99% are crap (as per Sturgeon's law) and 1% is absolutely mind-blowing. Therefore in the past hundred years there have been 100 absolutely amazing songs, of those hundred songs only those from the past five years can be considered new. This means that we have 95 good old songs to 5 good new songs. Yes, one can certainly argue that there are more songs being produced per year nowadays than in earlier times because of the world's higher population. This is true, however I do not think that it's enough to outweigh all the accumulated old stuff.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Has anyone noticed that noone releases band movies anymore. Last ones I can remember were Spice World and S Club 7 Movie (Though they also had a TV show). The biggest ones are "Tommy" by The Who and "Another Brick In The Wall" by Pink Floyd. I havent seen a band movie in ages though. Maybe modern bands/groups/artists arent interested in that.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Because you young wippersnappers don't have any musical taste nowadays. Music from my days, now that was real music!

People find some music that they like and then limit their taste to only that type of music. Music is subjective but some people take it as objective and don't realize that so long as music does something for the listener (whether that be entertain, encourage, cheer up, whatever) its done what its supposed to do.

 

[xXyZaThEx]

Because the only old songs people remember today are the good ones.

 

[Vohn_exel]

It's all in your own opinions and tastes. If someone acts like their music is superior, they feel that way about all of their choices. It's just like the Xbox vs PS3 debate, Sega vs Nintendo, Star Wars vs Star Trek. People that feel their choice is the only choice will always be there to voice that you're the one thats wrong, even if you haven't tried to assert that in the first place.

I love country music. I know I'm in minority here, but I started out with that and still quite enjoy it. I've never been one to "conform" with music. If someone likes something I don't, then I just ignore it. I'm not gonna change my musical tastes just because someone else thinks thiers is superior. If you like it and enjoy it, what does it matter to someone else?

My friend has (imo) terrible taste in movies and will watch anything, and like anything, so long as it's happy. He hated The Road because it was a sad movie, and adores the most horrible drivel the romantic comedy crowd has to offer. I'll tell him that he has terrible taste in movies and try to show him movies that I consider to be classics or great, and I might make fun of him for his taste, but I don't try to change it or make it like mine is superior for some reason.

Also, as for my taste in music, it's almost anything. I prefer to avoid most rap, pop, hip hop, and like heavy grunge metal, but so long as I think it sounds good, I'll listen to it. I ADORE sad songs, and story songs (which country is full of.) A few years ago, I'd say that country was my favorite, but now I don't really have a favorite and have anything from J-rock to Orchestral music on my ipod.

 

[Jack Nettle]

New music can be good, you just have to look in the right places. I don't like the new style of music because a lot of it sounds so manufactured and fake, just a basic example is auto-tune. That doesn't mean that I don't like "new" music, I just don't like the popular pop music. A lot of good, non-mainstream music, comes out every year. For example, I am a fan of The Black Keys, the Flobots, and Muse (Pre-2008 Muse before they went mainstream).

I wouldn't say music nowadays is bad, but the popular demand is definitely not my cup of tea.

 

[BNguyen]

The way I see it, music from the past contained many original elements and gained a huge fan base without the need of overbearing corporate inclusion in order to get off the ground, also the music itself was mostly written by the bands or an associated writer, however, as I have come to know, listen mostly, it seems as though just about every new musician under the pop/rap/hip-hop crowd utilized segments from much older music and then claim it as original, other than that, and I'm not saying that every group uses it, but all of these new lyrics seem to be watered down and repeated constantly as if it won't be remembered unless it's repeated, case in point Lady Gaga.
It just seems as though older rock and metal possessed originality and freedom without repetition but most new music tries to scrape off older music in order to gain popularity while at the same time using music segments and over repetition.

I do have experience in this in that I constantly have to listen to this new hip-hop/pop/rap crap every time I have to drive my little sister anywhere and while I do enjoy older rock/metal, that is not my main choice. I enjoy too many varieties in order to name them off.

 

[Sandernista]

I listen to most music, but I like 60's-70's rock because it reminds me of a time I never experienced. 60's-70's rock (at least my favorite stuff) is the perfect escape for me. Just me

 

[RootbeerJello]

Although I can generally be quoted as saying that new music is absolutely terrible, that's just me, and it would be more accurate to say that styles shifted. I admittedly dislike the majority of current music, but it doesn't stop me from picking the good out of the bad. For example, just today I've listened to: Benny King (Jazz, 1930s) Foo Fighters (Alt-rock, 1990s) The Pixies (Early Alt-Rock, 1980s) The Beatles, The Shadow of the Colossus soundtrack (Orchestra, recent), Giraffes? Giraffes! ("Math-rock", Current) Led Zeppelin (Classic Rock, 1960s), Cee-Lo Green (R&B, current) and Gorillaz (Fusion of a few styles, 2005) and Skrillex (Dubstep, current).

Obviously, the majority of those are in the rock or alt-rock category, but the point is that I don't care what time period something's from if it's good. I'm all for diversity, and I like to listen to a lot of different styles. While I do believe that more good music was produced in the past, you can't judge music by when it came out. Let's not lie, as long as there's been music, there's been shitty music. It's just had the chance to be forgotten.

 

[Slaanax]

You can hear bad Current songs, but generally only the best music from back in the day is played regularly.

 

[Arsen]

Because rap music didn't come out until the 1990's.

/thread

 

[Fumbleumble]

It's a mathematical fact that there is more good old music than new music. This is simply because there is more old music than new music.

Obviously I can't cite exact statistics as none have been collected, so let's just assume for the sake of argument that 100 songs are produced a year. Of those hundred songs 99% are crap (as per Sturgeon's law) and 1% is absolutely mind-blowing. Therefore in the past hundred years there have been 100 absolutely amazing songs, of those hundred songs only those from the past five years can be considered new. This means that we have 95 good old songs to 5 good new songs. Yes, one can certainly argue that there are more songs being produced per year nowadays than in earlier times because of the world's higher population. This is true, however I do not think that it's enough to outweigh all the accumulated old stuff.

Well this isn't true.

Obviously it has to be determined what constitues old and new music.. but as a general rule of thumb let's take the beginning of the new musical era... the era that changed everything.. the 80's onwards.. very litte, as far as 'creative' ethos has actually changed since then and it was the start of alot of the 'digital' effects that are taken for granted now.. so, 80's seem reasonable?

Not only is there a FAR higher turn over in 'musical' acts in the past 30 years than there has ever been in the preceeding 30 years..which would take up to 1950, and that was mostly the birth of the popular music era (ok you had classical (but not everyone had acess to their own performances), early blues and jazz (which was 'mainly' a live medium, clubs and the such), pre wars, war and post wars camaradarie music, most audio media was news broadcasts or radio plays (anyone still listening to Vera Lynn or The Beverly sisters?).. but it certainly wasn't popular in terms of access to gramaphones and radios, in the same way as it became popular with the birth of the 50's ..but it's also a lot easier to produce so more is getting made in the same time period.. So, NO.... the amount of popular music (which I would imagine is what you are talking about as if you are including ALL of the music ever made then your 'arguement' is very incongruent and superficial) is actually FAR more in favour of 'new' to 'old....

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

Because there are hundreds of classics from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. There was still a lot of crap from those decades, but there was a lot of good music then.
Of course there's quite a bit of good music today, but what gets the most attention is, as stated before, music that's made just to get attention and downloads.