Why does old music equal superiority?

[Asuka Soryu]

This thread reminds me of the joke where Homer says that Bart's music is horrible and that his generation had real music, then in a flashback to when he was a kid, his father came in and told him to stop listening to that stuff, since it wasn't real music, like what his father listened to.

 

[Ham_authority95]

I'll leave you with the following ode to sexual currency, materialism and superficial western values:

As usual, thank you for a proper, educated response, Bon.

 

[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.

Of course it's memorable. At least, the 10% difference you claim is, and the memorable stuff is the REALLY SHITTY STUFF. I'm fairly certain that EVERYONE here still remembers the majority of MmmBop, or the Macarena. I sure that you will still remember them in 30 years. Just because you will remember it doesn't make it good.

Again, why does this magic rule that it seems you just invented only apply to music? Are old movies better than new films? Old videogames better than new videogames? ALWAYS?

Are you also SERIOUSLY going to tell me that Jimmy Buffett is better than 90% of what's made today? If you are, apparently you only pay attention to the radio, and even then it would seem that your grasp on quality is tenuous.

I'm done arguing with you. Blankets statements like the one you defend are stupid and pointless. I can think of a hundred musicians from the last 10 or 15 years that I appreciate more and enjoy more than a different set of a hundred from 40 or 50 years ago. I'm not defending pop music, as I generally hate it, but it is totally moronic to claim that ABSOLUTELY NO MUSIC MADE RIGHT NOW WILL EVER BE REMEMBERED. At the point that everything is relatively "old", how do you tell which is better? The one that is SLIGHTLY older, relatively, is better?

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. (again)

 

[Snake Plissken]

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.

Of course it's memorable. At least, the 10% difference you claim is, and the memorable stuff is the REALLY SHITTY STUFF. I'm fairly certain that EVERYONE here still remembers the majority of MmmBop, or the Macarena. I'm sure that you will still remember them in 30 years. Just because you will remember it doesn't make it good.

Again, why does this magic rule that it seems you just invented only apply to music? Are old movies better than new films? Old videogames better than new videogames? ALWAYS?

Are you also SERIOUSLY going to tell me that Jimmy Buffett is better than 90% of what's made today? If you are, apparently you only pay attention to the radio, and even then it would seem that your grasp on quality is tenuous.

I'm done arguing with you. Blankets statements like the one you defend are stupid and pointless. I can think of a hundred musicians from the last 10 or 15 years that I appreciate more and enjoy more than a different set of a hundred from 40 or 50 years ago. I'm not defending pop music, as I generally hate it, but it is totally moronic to claim that ABSOLUTELY NO MUSIC MADE RIGHT NOW WILL EVER BE REMEMBERED. At the point that everything is relatively "old", how do you tell which is better? The one that is SLIGHTLY older, relatively, is better?

derp derp derp durrrrrrr

Ah. Gotcha. Done feeding troll.

 

[PeePantz]

While I agree with some of what you say, I do not agree with most of it. I don't believe that electronic music has no soul. Have you heard Aphex twin? Have you heard of Brian Eno? Caribou? Animal Collective? Go look at those artists and tell me electronic music has no soul.

I wouldn't say that there is too much music technology today, because if you will you allow me to paraphrase Yahtzee: "As technology increases, the potential for a song only gets better". I think what music tech does to people is it makes un-creativity far more obvious. Since people usually have low standards, music tech makes it easier for people to acheive their low expectations. I would say that the problem is not with music technology, but with most of the artists using it. I would not say that a technology, such has autotune is bad, but i would say it has a very specific set of uses, and that when it is as used as it is today, it becomes very tacky. But I wouldn't say that technology has made music worse. I would say it has made the potential for music better.

Also before you say things like what you said, I would suggests listening to more stuff. It's true, there is a fair amount of bad music, but only in certain places. I would listen to more music before you say everything now a days is computerized and autotuned. I would also listen to more music before you say things like music has lost a lot of it soul.

I listen to quite an array of music and my views aren't genre biased. I also agree that the technology presents an opportunity for musical growth and when incorporated correctly, can be beneficial. Sadly, this technology has created an abundance of overuse and bastardization of music.

I personally love the likes of Aphex Twin and Brian Eno. However, they are from being considered new music and have been around for quite some time. Being fantastic composers with amazing musical talent, I would never say that they overcompensate their musical skills with technology.

I was only using the example of actual technology in music as one part of the reason why music has been suffering. There are many other ways technology has helped music decline without actually being directly involved in composition.

Also, remember, for every Aphex Twin, there is one million Pauly Ds.

 

[superbatranger]

music is subjective.

/thread

Don't forget about that little thing called nostalgia.

 

[RushofBlood52]

Because they are looking at only the pop from this generation such as Justin Beiber or Kesha. Just looking one layer deeper than pop opens up tons of great alternative rock acts such as Bloc Party, Arctic Monkeys, The Fratellis, Franz Ferdinand, The Strokes, etc. That's what I think the problem is.

Technically, Hendrix, easily one of the most beloved classic rock acts, was only a one-hot wonder. He seems like he was what The Fratellis are now, to me.

 

[Fraught]

Urgh, I wish the argument "Music today is auto-tuned" would die in a fire. Literally cease to exist. The very concept, the very idea itself would perish forever.

Mainstream music of our time is definitely worse than that which was at the top of the charts decades ago, but god fucking damn it. There is still a lot of other music, and I haven't found a single band from the '80s, '70s or '60s (among the legends, the bands almost everyone knows, and others that weren't as popular, but are still acclaimed), and I haven't found a single one I like more than the artists I listen to, most who've made music only in this decade (yes, this, 2000-2010), and don't really get much mainstream exposure, thus ignored in favour of wasting energy on damning the tweeny-weeny mainstream music scene of today.

So, yeah, I hate people who exude superiority just because they listen to old music (even though I was expecting much older classical music when I read the title of the thread).

 

[Snake Plissken]

Because everyone loves the beattles.

No, they don't. I am quite happy with the fact that half of them are dead and no longer able to make music.

 

[DesiPrinceX09]

Can I ask how old you are

I am 18.

Giant snip

I noticed your thread about the music industry and that you know a lot so thank you for your input in my thread since it was music-related. I myself don't have much knowledge about the music industry.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

Can I ask how old you are

I am 18.

Giant snip

I noticed your thread about the music industry and that you know a lot so thank you for your input in my thread since it was music-related. I myself don't have much knowledge about the music industry.

Your view on music from before you were born will probably change with age, along the years a lot of new acquaintances will influence your taste in music and you will understand why people enjoy it so.

To get you started

<youtube=EgaxYEsEVVY>
<youtube=JkhX5W7JoWI>
<youtube=_dVt11UZ0uA>

 

[QuiB25]

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.

Well just because music is easier to make doesn't mean that the creative aspect is missing.
Just because the musician isn't playing conventional instruments such as guitars doesn't make him/her less profound.

If you're focusing on mainstream hip hop and pop, then ya, I couldn't agree more. Programs like auto-tune are being abused instead of utilized.

But you can't listen to songs like the Gorillaz' Hong Kong and or Justice's DVNO and say all contemporary music is artless and uncreative. Music has become much more broad and encompassing of more styles and emotions then classic rock could have ever hoped.

And that's just non-instrumental music.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think the reason is far simpler than people make it out to be. It has nothing to do with how musicians of a given era approached the task of writing music. It has nothing to do with tastes. Rest assured there were plenty of terrible musical pieces produced in the last century just as there were countless awful bands who tried to hit the big times but never quite made it.
The reason we perceive the past as being a source of so much incredible music is simply because it is the incredible music that is remembered.

Just think about it in terms of video games (since that medium nicely compresses the relevant periods of time). When remembering the 8-Bit era, people certainly remember games like Mario, Zelda, Metroid or Tetris but do you see people bringing up the existence of games like Gilligan's Island or Heroes of the Lance? Look in the last console generation: you'll find beloved games like Halo, Metal Gear Solid or Metroid Prime but people would struggle to recall Fight Club, Miami Vice or Bad Boys: Miami Takedown ever existed.

All the rest is a matter of taste. The Auto-Tuner, like it or not, is leveraged as a instrument in its own right and a great many people hate the device but it is no less an instrument than the Guitar or the Piano. And, when it comes to the complaints regarding "manufactured" music, I find that to be the very height of a silly complaint. Just because a piece of music was created to appeal to a particular audience has no bearing on if the resulting song is any good. The history of art is simply overflowing with masterpieces of every medium that were not created on the whim of an artist but at the request of a patron. Yes, there is plenty of "manufactured" music that I find awful, but that is largely due to the simple fact that I do not care for the musical style I'm presented or I find the song's themes and messages unappealing.

 

[Eponet]

Pfft, I listen to music from the 30s all the way to the 21st century. Each era had its own merits.

 

[Vryyk]

It just seems like all music from those days is good because all that people remember is the cherry-picked cream of the crop. I grew up on 70's and 80's music so I prefer it, but I also think new acts have a lot to offer. Time will sift them down soon enough and we can purvey the music of the new millennium soon from 20/20 hindsight.

 

[carletonman]

Several people have raised the excellent point of "we only remember the best from the past" and they're pretty much right. When Mozart's "The Magic Flute" first premiered, people thought it was garbage. Bach and Beethoven were known to cause mini-riots. Hell, even Shakespeare (yes, Im dragging the bard into this) was thought to pander to the lower classes in his plays, and his theatres were located in the red light district because that's the only place people would let him build them.

As for today's music, it's never been harder to discover new and interesting music. Personal anecdote: I was watching a mountain bike movie, and really liked one of the songs in the segment. After punching it into youtube, I found a bunch of other related artists, and eventually wound up buying a ton of new and interesting music. Sure there is plenty of formulaic garbage out there, and unfortunately most of it is on the radio/television, but ignore the big outlets and there's a cornucopia of awesome to be listened to.

TLR version: Old stuff caused a bunch of people to complain in their day too. Good music can be found, just ignore mainstream garbage and have a look

 

[crimsonshrouds]

i will not even bother to give "pop" music a chance anymore because i have heard some and people started clapping after it was done. Me: What the fucking hell was that?. was that singing or some woman who has no idea how to sing.

on topic i listen to more modern band i like some old music but my tastes are a mixture.

Disturbed FTW

I like orchestra music and some other random music and even a little foreign music