Members grace_slick Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 My theory is that it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stackabones Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 The majority of new songs SUCKS no matter what day it is. True yesterday, true today, true tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members orangesix Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 you probably aren't listening to the right stuff. some of the best music ever has been made in the last 8 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chicken Monkey Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 The majority of new songs SUCKS no matter what day it is. True yesterday, true today, true tomorrow. +1. Listening to the oldies channel can skew your perception, because they never play Ballad of the Green Berets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rockinrobby Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 My stuff's pretty good? OHHHH! You mean the crap on the radio? Yeah, I'm not sure how they manage to both suck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stackabones Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 Yeah, I'm not sure how they manage to both suck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members grace_slick Posted January 4, 2010 Author Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 Really? 8 years, eh? I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OAFCORE Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 This topic is explored quite often in this forum, and I have been keeping away from it recently, until you started bashing the 90's which is when I started playing guitar and started really getting into music (born in '84). I'm not going to defend everything that came out of the decade but I will point out that it most certainly has to do with what you grew up listening to, and to paint a decade as all crap is a very dangerous thing to do. And don't forget....a LOT of terrible music came out of the 70's and 80's also, (disco, new wave, and hair metal just to name a few) And while I can go on and on about all the terrible songwriters and horrible popular music from the 70's and 80's, I can also name loads of popular musicians from the 90's and 00's that will go down in history as being prolific writers (Nirvana, Tool, Timbaland, John Mayer, again just to name a few). Whether or not YOU like the music is a different topic completely, but my point is that there are plenty of great songwriters out there making music now, you just might need to open your mind a bit to see it...... .....it all comes down to personal taste really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OAFCORE Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 Yeah......so I checked out your twitter page grace.....You follow Katy Perry? Really? Is that not the same 'crap' to which you refer?:poke: I'm confused now:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members grace_slick Posted January 4, 2010 Author Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 Oh, OAFCORE. You have found me. My dirty laundry of Katy Perry. LOL. I don't care for her songs. I just find her vaguely interesting in terms of her personality and find her fairly attractive. In looks alone, she reminds me of a modern young Grace Slick. lol I do see your point. I should clarify again that the 90s for me represent MY OWN distaste in music at its highest point. I hate rap, techno, dance, grunge...I associate all of those things with the 90s. But yes, everyone has their own tastes and it's all valid. Edit - I'm also a total Twitter whore. I don't care for Katy Perry. I don't care for...half the people on there! I think I've got Portia De Rossi on there for god's sake! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dannysigma Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 The difference between music of the 60s and 90s is perspective. Generally speaking, the more time passes the more of the lightweight ephemeral (ie pop) stuff we forget. There was a lot of abject rubbish in the 60s and 70s, we just don't hear it any more. I remember the 80s (my formative period) as being utterly without any saving grace in terms of pop, but at least this spawned a vital indie scene... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OAFCORE Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 Oh, OAFCORE. You have found me. My dirty laundry of Katy Perry. LOL. I don't care for her songs. I just find her vaguely interesting in terms of her personality and find her fairly attractive. In looks alone, she reminds me of a modern young Grace Slick. lol I do see your point. I should clarify again that the 90s for me represent MY OWN distaste in music at its highest point. I hate rap, techno, dance, grunge...I associate all of those things with the 90s. But yes, everyone has their own tastes and it's all valid. Edit - I'm also a total Twitter whore. I don't care for Katy Perry. I don't care for...half the people on there! I think I've got Portia De Rossi on there for god's sake! lol Haha! I did catch you with your hand in the cookie jar didn't I! In all fairness though Rap started in the 80's (some would say even earlier than that)! and Techno and Dance are both very much children genre's of Disco and New Wave with their focus on synthesizers and club music you can dance to. So you originally asked the question "Why do the majority of new songs SUCK these days?" and I shall answer that question with another question.... ....Why are you so stuck in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rockinrobby Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 Really? 8 years, eh? I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rockinrobby Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 The difference between music of the 60s and 90s is perspective. Generally speaking, the more time passes the more of the lightweight ephemeral (ie pop) stuff we forget. There was a lot of abject rubbish in the 60s and 70s, we just don't hear it any more. I remember the 80s (my formative period) as being utterly without any saving grace in terms of pop, but at least this spawned a vital indie scene... Quote:Originally Posted by djowens123 I'ts a thing i've never tried. Ever tried having a random thought and NOT starting a thread on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dannysigma Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 Quote: Originally Posted by djowens123 I'ts a thing i've never tried. Ever tried having a random thought and NOT starting a thread on it? I didn't start this thread good buddy And this is a good thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LeonardScaper Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 What sucks and blows and still sounds good? A harmonica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mockchoi Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 I tend to agree. And another problem is that there is so much more music clogging things up these days what with the proliferation of independent home studio artists. Makes it a bit more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. It will stay the same as it ever was, though. The cream will always rise to the top. Can't think of any more enigmatic metaphors to describe this situation at the moment so suffice it to say that there will always be something good to listen to if you look for it, but you might have to kiss a few frogs to find the real prince. I think people have said 'Why does the music of today suck' for as long as there has been music. I know they've said it as long as I've been alive. What I think GS is saying though, is that the cream now is NOT rising to the top. And I kind of agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted January 4, 2010 Moderators Share Posted January 4, 2010 My lot in life is to sand against the grain. Why does it suck? You may not like it. You may think it's for kids. You may want to cover your ears and run for cover but... Suck? Can you do it? I stand by the idea that if they're doing it and you're not, how can they suck? So you can do better? I think that's what a lot of great songwriters felt coming up. But they followed through and proved it. Are you ready to do that? Slinging mud does not make anyone a better songwriter. You just get mud on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteinbergerHack Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 I think that the death of the album format has a lot do with it. In today's market, sales are moving towards downloaded singles that don't even have a "B" side anymore. Thus, the kids who buy that "hot hit" for their iPods don't ever hear anything outside of the song that the ClearChannel radio programmer told them they should like. The good stuff is still out there; it's just harder to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted January 4, 2010 Moderators Share Posted January 4, 2010 The death of albums is a part of it, yeah. Short attention spans. I mean, I remember being a 12 year old kid and having an issue with hearing a whole symphony. "How long is this thing?" By 13 I loved the long form. And now we have pop songs. I love pop songs but I agree that the death of the album is a shame. Still... ...this whole notion that something sucks. I've heard all my life with musicians. Artists is general. Vonnegut sucks. Kerouac types, that's not writing. Dylan croaks. Tchaikovsky's simple minded. Bach can't write melody. The Beatles are pop idols with cute haircuts. Beyonce is all hair, glitter and booty. And why do we care? They suck! Nickleback are morons with a Molson. Shouldn't the emphasis be on you as an artist. Where are YOU right now? Where is your standing in suckdom? Do you suck less or more that Nickleback and Creed? Staind and Hoobastank. And really, who cares? Show me how good you are. And worry less bout the sucking. Note: None of this is pointed at the OP. Just at the idea of "suck". The idea sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members benagain Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 it seems as the instrumental parts of music become more perfect ( computers ) it lays way for some really bad vocal stuff ... with or without auto tune.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members easilyspooked Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 think albums will come back? can we conceive of a medium that would facilitate a solid, lengthy listen? maybe not a physical medium, but an art of creation? more rock operas? there was a canadian band called the Gutter Demons, broke up recently, but put out 3 albums, the last 2 of which were both complete plays that told one solid story (each capped by a fun and non-related hidden track). it took a few listens to get which songs were told by which character and how the action was progressing, but we would get in the car and listen over and over again, driving around like when we were teenagers, it was great and i wish more bands would do it. also, someone needs to write a Dead Horse song. not it: currently working on a Giant Spider song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteinbergerHack Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 The death of albums is a part of it, yeah. Short attention spans. I mean, I remember being a 12 year old kid and having an issue with hearing a whole symphony. "How long is this thing?" By 13 I loved the long form. And now we have pop songs. I love pop songs but I agree that the death of the album is a shame. Still... ...this whole notion that something sucks. I've heard all my life with musicians. Artists is general. Vonnegut sucks. Kerouac types, that's not writing. Dylan croaks. Tchaikovsky's simple minded. Bach can't write melody. The Beatles are pop idols with cute haircuts. Beyonce is all hair, glitter and booty. And why do we care? They suck! Nickleback are morons with a Molson. Shouldn't the emphasis be on you as an artist. Where are YOU right now? Where is your standing in suckdom? Do you suck less or more that Nickleback and Creed? Staind and Hoobastank. And really, who cares? Show me how good you are. And worry less bout the sucking. Note: None of this is pointed at the OP. Just at the idea of "suck". The idea sucks. Some really good points. However, I would submit that in any time period, there is a fairly small percentage of the total artistic output that will stand the test of time. Most of the rest is derivative without meaningful development or blatant "wave-riding". [FWIW, I have to honestly put my own compositions into these categories.....] The real question, I think, is this: Why is it that today's media don't seem to make room for anything that isn't totally "pop"? For example, I can honestly say that I don't think I have EVER heard a Porcupine Tree song on the radio. Why not? I have no problem finding any number of replays of the latest Katy Perry, Daughtry, or Nickelback singles, but the deeper material just doesn't get exposed in the same way. Remember AOR as a station format? How do we re-create something like this to shake things up and get some of the more adventurous material out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 I was going to point out that every era has its unmitigated crap, just as it has its highlights. But that's been pretty well covered. That said, there are definitely periods when a lot of music that grabs a lot of people reaches the public in one time frame and they become excited by it... and that tends to foster even more spin off creativity -- but it also generates a lot of activity in the corridors of power in the music biz as the suits and lawyers and bean counters try to find an angle where they can co-opt, corrupt, and cash in. I'm pretty convinced that there's always interesting, potentially moving music bubbling under -- but it's the industry gatekeepers that work overtime making sure that they keep their cartel-grip on the music biz, through everything from threats to bribery and every dirty business in between. The marketers (and I'm a marketer, in a sense, in real life, I'm not against business and businessmen -- I'm against crooks and thugs and cheats -- and that's who runs the music business in large part) in the 70s and 80s -- all those 'bright young' MBAs and such -- applied modern demographics analysis to compartmentalize and control the music market. In the 60s, you would hear Jimi Hendrix on the AM Top 30 radio right next to 1910 Fruitgum Company [who infamously gave us "Yummy Yummy Yummy (I Got Love in My Tummy]" next to Dianna Ross & the Supremes. Everyone heard a little of everything. But demographic analysis allowed marketers to 'divide and conquer' the once-musically integrated pop scene. In fact, they manipulated 'social movements like the supposed "anti-disco backlash," which was a highly orchestrated effort to simply generate more income in the flagging dinosaur rock sector by creating a false competition between old line rock bands like Boston or Deep Purple and disco (at a time when mainstream rockers were terrified by the onslaught of punk and rap and other new music). And the perception in the halls of the labels -- who served both sectors -- was that this competition would be as good for music sales as phony sports rivalries were (and are) for the sports-entertainment complex. BTW... some of the bands that folks above cite as "exceptions" to supposed current crap would be principal among some of the people I would put at the top of the crap list. It's all subjective, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members easilyspooked Posted January 4, 2010 Members Share Posted January 4, 2010 "1910 Fruitgum Company" is the Greatest Band Name Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.