Why does old music equal superiority?

[Tipsy Giant]

It seems to me that whenever somebody listens to music (especially rock and metal music) from the 60's, 70's, and 80's they feel the need to be condescending towards people who don't listen to that type of music and say that if they don't listen to it then they "don't know good music". I am not trying to point fingers and I am quite sure not everybody with this music taste is like this but I have seen it a lot including around here to and don't try saying things like "really? I don't see that at all, maybe it's just you".

And maybe it is just me since I am one of those practically inhuman freaks who will "never know good music" since I don't like 60's, 70's, or 80's rock. And I have listened to it and I tried to conform and I tried to like it, I really did. But the truth is I just can't stand any kind of rock music, it's just bland noise with words to me but that's just my opinion just as liking this kind of music is also some other person's opinion but it's treated as fact by a lot of fans who generally identify themselves as nonconformists since they prefer old stuff to new stuff like pop music and rap music which is why it seemed stupid for me to conform to a music taste identified as being "nonconformist".

And I respect those opinions just as I respect anyone's opinion to not have a religion but just like with having no religion, I have trouble respecting those opinions sometimes since they get shoved in my face and treated as fact and if I don't share it then I am inferior which is hypocritical since as a person with religion I am accused of shoving my opinions and beliefs in their face (and I never have and never will).

But anyways, I was just using that as an example; the topic is music taste here so lets not get into religion (there's another place for that). My question is why is it that fans of old music feel the need to act superior based solely on music taste?

EDIT: And I know this might get asked: What is my music taste? The answer is I don't really have any specific taste but I can't stand rock music and metal. Although I would take rock over country music anytime. I don't listen to music much but when I do I might listen to some Indian, Arabic, Persian, or Turkish music. I am of Indian descent and my father listened to it so I picked up on it a bit. I like that music because it's very beautiful, poetic, has good rhythm (I love good rhythm), and tends to even tell stories sometimes. So I guess you could say I like Middle Eastern, Indian, and tribal kind of music (I did grow up in Africa after all), but again I don't listen to music much.

And to add discussion, what is your music taste?

EDIT 2: I am glad to see people presenting good reasons for their arguments, this is what I hoped to see.

Can I ask how old you are

 

[Estocavio]

There is no such thing as Good music.
There is no such thing as Bad music.
All music is a matter of personal taste.
No exceptions

You know this kind of argument gets my goat in ways I find hard to describe. Largely because it can be a creeping justification for ANYTHING.

At some point, you are provably wrong about something.

Now music isn't something I can use science to prove superiority one way or the other so I just roll with the punches.

That said, if I have one more High School student ask me why I'm listening to 'fag music' when they hear Ode to Joy or the 1812 Overture coming from my earphones, I'm gonna choke a *****.

How about: All taste is subjective. Therefore, anything can be inferior or superior to the eye of the beholder; Even if it does not reflect the retrospective idealogy of any members of the general populace.

Also, when i wrote that, i wasnt too terribly awake

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Probably 'cause they think the bad pop songs speak for ALL music of today.

My taste in music is all over the place, rock, techno, some metal, some pop, some rap, comedy songs, and others I don't know the name of the genres.

 

[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 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?

 

[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.