Why does old music equal superiority?

[Tennou486]

I think that good music today is much more buried behind commercial garbage than it was back in the day, but there's still been good stuff from recently. Animals as Leaders, Blood Stain Child, Sonata Arctica etc.

Animals as Leaders:

 

[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....

Well it all depends on the time period that you define as "new." I define the period as five years, where you define it as thirty years. My argument can apply to any genre of music unless the genre in question was invented before old stuff had a chance to be developed. The sum of music created in the last five years is not greater than the amount of music created in the fifty five years preceding those five years (if you want to start at 1950.) You are correct in that the amount of music in the last thirty years is greater than the amount of music in the thirty years preceding before the first thirty years. If you define "new" as the last five years as I did then you'll find that my argument is correct. More music happened "back then" then "right now" therefore more good music is old than new.

Ah... so whereas I have demonstrated logical justification for the demarkation between new and old.. you're just randomly drawing a line where 'you' think it should be..

Ok.. fair enough.. I can't argue with something that uses self justification as the sole reason for the justification of it's existance... I will say though that your arguement in those terms is pretty piss poor.

 

[carletonman]

The simple fact of the matter is that there will always be good music, but it will be buried in the cesspool of garbage that the music industry cranks out. For those who argue that this is a relatively new phenomenon, Tin Pan Alley pop (circa 1920) was produced in much the same way that one would make a car on an assembly line. Some composers would write HUNDREDS of songs in a year, only to have 1 hit. Go back a few hundred years and you'll find that almost every major composer was churning out piece after piece of music for various courts and benefactors. The only reason that some of this music has survived is that it was created for the most notable nobles.

 

[buddycat]

I'd have to ask how much older music you've listened to, and how old you are. Because here's what happens: You listen to music until you're in your mid-20s. Then you get out of college or get a job or whatever, and you no longer have time to obsess about whatever they play on the radio. Eventually, you tune into the things you used to like. New stuff sounds awful. Then you realize that there's a lot of great music you never listened to, like Bruce Springsteen, Tom Waits, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones...maybe even Frank Sinatra, Rosemary Clooney, Bing Crosby...maybe John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, Art Tatum...maybe Bach, Mendelssohn, Mozart. And you like it. And you realize what you've been missing. Sure, you'll still like what you grew up on, but eventually it won't be new, and "new" music won't sound very good, and you'll have aged, matured; your tastes will have changed and you'll wonder what's wrong with kids today and their crappy music.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

I'm pretty sure YOU were the one who brought up the idea of "that which gets remembered is better than that which doesn't."

in terms of music. pay attention for more than 2 seconds and you would have gotten that. again, stay on topic

memorable music = good music. more than 90% of modern music is not memorable.

 

[Jewrean]

Snip

The same could be said about many other things as well:

- Antique Cars
- Video Games
- Values

Etc

It's a mixture of personal nostalgia and conservatism. It's nothing to be angry at. I mean at some point or another we have all preferred the original of something... I for example am ashamed by newer renditions of Alvin and the Chipmunks and Scooby Doo because I believe they have raped my childhood.

If you are into the 'newer' music then chances are you will also fall prey to the superiority complex of the nostalgic aging mentality that so many of us are victim to. In 50 years I'm certain some old codger is going to tell children that their music is shit and that Fall Out Boy is golden.

It's like a technology professor trying to keep up with today's computers. Unless it's your profession you're not always going to live in the here and now and the future will often appear distant and strange to you. Yes there is a chance that some newer music does suck balls but unless you want to follow suit you should always keep an open-mind.

[/2cents]

 

[THEMANWHOIS]

I try to listen to a lot of music, but the "mainstream" genres I listen to LEAST are rap/hip-hop, country (pretty sure Johnny Cash is the only country on my iPod), reggae (limited to Bob Marley), and most pop music. I like music where people play their own instruments and can do it well. I also say mainstream genres because I don't really listen to any foreign music or things of that caliber.

 

[RandV80]

Well, people have probably said already that the superior attitude is classic rock vs the current industry, not different cultural music. And for the current industry, while people can make many valid arguments that there's plenty of bands & music just as good out there if you bother to look past all the shitty auto-tuned chart music, there's probably something to be said that the classic rock of old was the chart music during it's time.

Personally I'm rather impartial to the whole thing, I've never really listened to musis the way most people do. Songs I do actually like can come from all genre's but they're very few and far between, and the rest I just tune out as background noise. At best over the last year or two if I'm in the car by myself I may turn the radio on to try and find a song that clicks with me. So I'd like to think I'm about as impartial as you can get. Now what I do pick up on if I'm listening to the classic rock station in (and this doesn't include 80's rock), is a lot more creativity and diversity in the music. What I mean is a far wider range of instruments and sounds built into each song, where as chart music from the last 2 decades are more autotuned to create a more singular sound. I'm nto saying this makes it better, it's still just mostly noise to me, but I get a much stronger impression of an actual group of musicians/artist sitting around and creating music from the old stuff while the new sounds much more manufactured. It's over a shorter time frame but there can be a lot of parralels drawn to video games as well.

So from that perspective I can at least understand if fans of the older stuff want to take a superiority stance.

 

[erto101]

New music isn't all bad. You just have to know where to look.The Black Keys is modern blues and it's awesome.

 

[DesiPrinceX09]

I'd have to ask how much older music you've listened to, and how old you are. Because here's what happens: You listen to music until you're in your mid-20s. Then you get out of college or get a job or whatever, and you no longer have time to obsess about whatever they play on the radio. Eventually, you tune into the things you used to like. New stuff sounds awful. Then you realize that there's a lot of great music you never listened to, like Bruce Springsteen, Tom Waits, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones...maybe even Frank Sinatra, Rosemary Clooney, Bing Crosby...maybe John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, Art Tatum...maybe Bach, Mendelssohn, Mozart. And you like it. And you realize what you've been missing. Sure, you'll still like what you grew up on, but eventually it won't be new, and "new" music won't sound very good, and you'll have aged, matured; your tastes will have changed and you'll wonder what's wrong with kids today and their crappy music.

I am 18 years old. My brother in-law is an American guy who grew up in the 80's and his Ipod is full of the music that I refer to in my original post, which is 60's, 70's, and 80's rock, and he is very elitist about it which inspired me to ask this question here on the escapist. But remember, I have an outsiders view on American music since I am not from here originally and as I said I am not big on music to begin with. I would would die of a heart attack brought on by shock if the music I tend to listen to plays on the radio over here (see my original post). Judging from most of the replies I am getting, nostalgia seems to play a big role in the love for old music and the fact that a lot of popular music nowadays is manufactured. The appreciation for musicians back in the day has to do with them putting real work into their music and focusing on what they liked to play instead of being money whores and crowd pleasers (or at least that's what everyone here seems to be saying) which is understandable. Hard work and dedication is admirable.

 

[joshuaayt]

Why do people get angry when I say I thought that the original star wars trilogy had shallow character development and only decent acting? I don't know; I guess it's hard to empathise with people who dislike what you yourself "know" to be great.
I love the Zelda games, and I frequently have to catch myself from the the irrational anger I feel whenever someone states that it is anything else than the epitome of game development. I am, of course, wrong- but I did have a hard time realising this.
I suppose that it might just be in our nature to condemn that which belongs to a different generation- as I grew up with my Zelda, so too did these young rapscallions who love their Call of Duty and whatever the hell.
Those who are younger than the older music and still swear by its superiority? I'd wager they had parents who loved the music enough to play it constantly, and so they did grow up with it, anyway. Why else would I like Silverchair?
'Course, I'm making far too many assumptions here.

 

[Lord RPGs]

Because most 'Music' Today is manufactured, auto-tuned crap

I was basically going to say this, but then I realised that this statement is wrong in one key place.

95% of "Music" today is manufactured, auto-tuned crap. There is some rare stuff being made that's great, but most of it is awful. Still, awful stuff exists amongst the "Old" music as well, but it's overall generally better. Especially compared to what's popular now.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

Because old music have enough time to weed out all the shitty ones, so only the good ones are left behind.

 

[Ldude893]

Because today's music ain't got the same soul. Much of today's popular music consists of auto-tuned voices, stolen parts from old songs (Fergie's "Can't Help It" had parts ripped from an old 50s song while another song "Beautiful Girls" had the tune ripped off from the song "Stand By Me"), only one catchy repeating chorus followed by excessive rap, and all the excessive sexual references. I can hardly find a decent pop song that does't use any part of that formula.

I like that old time rock and roll.

 

[Antidrall]

Because music is dying. case in point: Kanye West, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Ke$ha, anyone who uses an auto tuner, rappers, and all the canadian musicians that we canadians are constantly trying to apologize for. I do admit that the only music I listen to are old NES and Genesis soundtracks, Anamanaguchi and the occaisonal song that I overhear my brother listening to (He's into rock, metal, and R&B". All of the modern artists recycle beats, tones and notes into something that resembles a song, but is ultimately crap. something I don't understand at all is that people who use auto tuners are getting paid to do what they do. back on track, the old ways of music were apparently the right ways as my brother describes it. Music not just conveying emotion and messages through voice, but through instruments themselves. Have you listened to an old glam metal, or queen song and listened to the guitar solo? doesn't it just tell you something or make you feel...something? Do any of those rave or party beats that play at a party or whatever make you feel? I don't go to parties for fear of me killing someone due to their sheer idiocy, but I'm sure some of you do. What I'm saying is that the music in the world right now is a soulless, sterile black hole which vacuums up any thing that conveys emotion. So...go kill all our canadian musicians for us is what I'm trying to drill into your head whilst decapitating Ke&ha.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Pfft, listening to old music doesn't grant you musical superiority, listening to whatever I happen to like does - science fact.

You can tell that must be true because I just invoked the name of science, and nobody who lies ever so much as contemplates doing that, no sirree! Nothing but the pure unvarnished truth for Monseigneur Gildan - I could hardly write a guide to good music [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.244414-Gildans-Guide-to-Good-Music-Nocturnal-Rites-The-8th-Sin] if I didn't know my stuff[footnote]Totally not true, anyone could write one of those - but as it turns out, I do know what I'm talking about in mine. People who are not me have even said so![/footnote].

Alternately, I could just be a snob who likes finding reasons to consider people uncultured philistines based solely on the music they listen to, though I set about the absolutely vital work of being judgmental for silly reasons with a sense of self-deprecating humor. Or possibly all of the above?

But for a serious answer, the most obvious reason that some people have the unfortunate habit of latching onto the musical past to the exclusion of any possibility of enjoying the present is that, in the grand scheme of things, nobody really remembers the crappy old music from those eras - we're surrounded daily by a veritable sea of crappy new music on the other hand; the past wasn't "better", it's just that nobody plays the 'sonic abortions better left forgotten' of the 80s, they play the 'hits'.

So in a nutshell, the folks who lecture whippersnappers on the superiority of "classic rock" are lazy[footnote]A charge one could realistically level at the bulk of the music listening audience, so don't climb up on a high horse just because you like new stuff, especially if that new stuff happens to be music you hear on the radio (shudder).[/footnote], and don't bother unearthing the buried gems the modern era produces, so they're speaking from a position of profound musical ignorance when they say crap like that.

 

[God's Clown]

60's, 70's and 80's? Please, us real men/women listen to music from the 1700's-1800's and stuff. Classical music is for the win, plain and simple. Beethoven would whoop any bands ass any day. Though some of the composers of this century aren't too bad.

 

[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.

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....

Well it all depends on the time period that you define as "new." I define the period as five years, where you define it as thirty years. My argument can apply to any genre of music unless the genre in question was invented before old stuff had a chance to be developed. The sum of music created in the last five years is not greater than the amount of music created in the fifty five years preceding those five years (if you want to start at 1950.) You are correct in that the amount of music in the last thirty years is greater than the amount of music in the thirty years preceding before the first thirty years. If you define "new" as the last five years as I did then you'll find that my argument is correct. More music happened "back then" then "right now" therefore more good music is old than new.

Ah... so whereas I have demonstrated logical justification for the demarkation between new and old.. you're just randomly drawing a line where 'you' think it should be..

Ok.. fair enough.. I can't argue with something that uses self justification as the sole reason for the justification of it's existance... I will say though that your arguement in those terms is pretty piss poor.

World English Dictionary
new (nju

- adj (often foll by to or at )
1. a. recently made or brought into being: a new dress ; our new baby
b. ( as collective noun; preceded by the ): the new

Considering the above-mentioned definition I'm sure you can forgive for using the literal interpretation of the word: "new." Perhaps you would better understand my point if I were to use the word: "modern." In this thread most people choose to use the "new" in the literal sense, so that it is nearly synonymous with "modern." Therefore new music can only be created between now and a short time in the past. I believe five years is still a quite recent time. Since you state that "popular" music has only been around for sixty years it would be unreasonable to say that the last thirty years of "popular" music is new. I'm sorry to have to argue semantics with your fine person but under the literal interpretation of "new" my theory is quite correct.

On another note, please use the inbuilt spellchecker and proper punctuation. Using such poor spelling and grammar really undercuts your arguments.