Will the music of now be classic in the future?

Eggy Baby!

Maybe would have been better in the music forums but anyway....

Back in the day, when Elvis and the Beatles were around, they were viewed by their detractors as either the spawn of hell or a bunch of cocky talentless upstarts. Now the music of the Beatles and Elvis is inseparable with their respective eras.

Likewise, whenever we think of the 80s, "Out of Touch" or Michael Jackson songs come to mind. The 90s, for me anyway, are denoted by "Teenage Dirtbag" and Eiffel 65. Every decade is really defined by the events that happened and the music that was played.

I hate a lot of today's music. It's music snobbery in a waybut its my own taste, and I assure you that I don't simply hate stuff because its modern, if I hate a song, I hate it because I have listened to it extensively prior to making the conclusion that its ****.

I'm finding it really hard to decipher what modern culture really is. I'm sure when I'm 80 I'll look back and hear the music being played now and remember this era and begin to associate so much with it. I know a lot of people may be depressed at this prospect, but what if Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Lil Wayne, Taylor Swift, One Direction, Ke-Dollar-ha et al will be regarded as classic, as music exemplary of this era we are living in? Like the way the Beatles are the living embodiment of 60s music. What if YOLO will be remembered in the future as as much a philosophy of our time as Flower Power was to the 60s?

It's pretty depressing isn't it?

TL: DR? - Anyway, I wanted to ask two questions:

- Objectively speaking, is music becoming worse?

- Will today's contemporary "artists" be regarded as classic in the future and be worshiped as music legends of the Noughties or the New Tens? Because this is something that has been worrying me for a few months now, as 2000 begin to be left further and further behind.

P.S
Do you know the way your parents might have a favourite song as a couple from back in the day, like a romantic Chicago song or something? Imagine the couples of tomorrow telling such stories to their children: "Me and your mother's song goes something like this: "I WOKE UP IN A NEW BUGATTI I WOKE UP IN A NEW BUGATTI YEA YEA". Depressing right?

Anyway, I have to go to bed for an exam in the morning but I'd love to have a discussion on this when I get home tomorrow. Peace guys

PizzamanIRL

Will the present be the past in the future?

I feel like music has reached "end of history" status. The evolution of music has largely stopped.

Too Tough To Die

Yeah it will be to most, unfortunately.

Hotale.com

Some of it.

The vast majority of popular music has been shït for the past 30 years, and there's still some considered "classic" today.

The Backwards Man

Some will, some won't
(some need a little lovin' and some don't)

There was an awful lot of crap years ago too you know.

5starpool

I used to be with it, but then they changed what *it* was. Now what I'm with isn't *it*, and what's *it* seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you...

Mr. Incognito

No.

Music then was played by talented musicians,

Now it's mostly mass produced electronic formulaic garbage.

Some good tunes and musicians will survive like any area but most of it won't.

FearDark

It's harsh to say that today's music is crap, there's a lot of awesome stuff out there. Today's pop music is horrendous stuff though. I don't think there's been a worse decade than the current one we're in.

Sky King

It must have been great when rock music came out first.... and then when electronic music came out first. It must have been so amazingly new and fresh.

It's going in circles now. What was the last big original thing? Dubstep?

catallus

What you talkin' bout OP?

There is more and better music being produced today than ever; classical music is as strong as it has ever been, some of the orchestral arrangements being released are amazing and choral production is enjoying great popularity. There are so many genres being pursued by artists that it is impossible to follow all of the great stuff that's being made.

Music becomes part of each generation's culture, naturally enough, as you said yourself, and who knows what the effects of nostalgia will do to make a song a classic which will be loved by the generations to come?

antodeco

Bohemian Rhapsody will be viewed in 100 years as the way we view Mozart stuff now.

Alf. A. Male

By definition musical choice is always improving as everything is available since the advent of recording in some former or other. Some will stand the test of time, some won't, but it'll all be available if you want it.

fearrua

See this bothers me, is the music of the 70s and 80s considered to be the best simply because that's the era in which the current 30-50 year olds grew up with? When I'm that age will Classic Gold Sunday etc. feature Take That, Spice Girls and Westlife? Or was that era actually music's golden era and will always be remembered as such? These are the big questions in life, folks.

SaveOurLyric

No.

Music has been in steady decline since about 1830. The music of now is ephemeral and of no lasting merit. It will be be forgotten other than by musical historians trying to figure out how writing good music died out.

Hotale.com

antodeco wrote: »

Bohemian Rhapsody will be viewed in 100 years as the way we view Mozart stuff now.

Bohemian Rhapsody isn't even the best Queen song, not to mind the best song of the second half of the 20th century.

PseudoFamous

itt people comparing todays shitty pop music to the highlight reels of other generations

SaveOurLyric

antodeco wrote: »

Bohemian Rhapsody will be viewed in 100 years as the way we view Mozart stuff now.

Not a chance. It is fully understood today how inferior Bohemian Rhapsody is to Mozart stuff.

catallus

Well, there is the argument that a lot of the big media companies who control the "mass-media" have an influence on what people are exposed to; and given that these companies are run by older people, and that they might influence what is played through their own particular tastes, that a biased number of bands from their youthful days would be played; but that's to be expected.

We are no longer a passive captive audience; literally millions of songs of all types are available to us; and the number keeps growing. True artists follow their own path, and thanks to technological innovation we have a way to follow what we like.

SilverScreen

antodeco wrote: »

Bohemian Rhapsody will be viewed in 100 years as the way we view Mozart stuff now.

Come on now, Mozart isn't that bad.

Donkey Oaty

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Some will, some won't
(some need a little lovin' and some don't)

It's something we should talk about.

Just give me time to work it out.

0.53 - 0.59

Jesus, that was horribly dated even back in 1979, even though it was originally written for Blondie.

Obscure fact: the guy who wrote it also co-wrote the Tina Turner hit "(Simply) The Best".

Red21

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

The 90s, for me anyway, are denoted by "Teenage Dirtbag" and Eiffel 65.

Teenage dirtbag wasn't released til 2000 and Eiffel 65 were big in the early 2000's

FearDark

fearrua wrote: »

See this bothers me, is the music of the 70s and 80s considered to be the best simply because that's the era in which the current 30-50 year olds grew up with? When I'm that age will Classic Gold Sunday etc. feature Take That, Spice Girls and Westlife? Or was that era actually music's golden era and will always be remembered as such? These are the big questions in life, folks.

I don't know but my favourite music was made before I was born, 70's and early 80's...

The likes of Westlife and One Direction and even dubstep will become classics at some stage, just take a look around you, the world is getting stupider, there will be enough idiots in 30/40 years from now who will tell you that Ronan Keating is a genius.
But that's pop music, the top 40 is shaped by kids in their bedrooms downloading the latest Harry Styles song even if it's a bag of shite because he's "cool"... talent doesn't matter anymore in the pop world and hasn't mattered for some time, it's all about image, videos and social media, there was a point in the early 90's where people had a problem with boy bands because they weren't writing original material, it's an unheard of argument now, it's just accepted that a talentless DJ like Avicii can churn out no.1's like nobody's business... and he's not the worst offender.

Pitbull.

Donkey Oaty

fearrua wrote: »

See this bothers me, is the music of the 70s and 80s considered to be the best simply because that's the era in which the current 30-50 year olds grew up with?

Remember, the 70s and 80s produced hugely influential groups like Tangerine Dream and Iron Maiden, criminally overlooked in these discussions because they don't fall into the normal categories - but important to remember that they didn't get any airplay whatsoever.

FearDark

Red21 wrote: »

Teenage dirtbag wasn't released til 2000 and Eiffel 65 were big in the early 2000's

Eiffel 65' was definately late 90's... I was still in school.

KeithTS

First off, I hope that most music of today will not be regarded as classic in the future because I couldn't stand to listen to it when I'm old and dont have the energy to throw something at the hover-stereo or whatnot.

For me the real difference lies in the bands themselves and how they learn their craft.

Zeppelin have classic songs but also have a catelogue of more forgettable songs which where written over an extensive career.
Same goes for Michal Jackson, Elton John, the Beatles, Balck Sabbath, Metallica, Sting and the list goes and on.

"Artists" these days don't seem to be given the same chance to learn from mistakes or have a long career and as such I dont see them making as much impact o the music scene. On top of this, a lot of the big names these days don't have the same grounding. You hear stories of many bands in vans touring tiny venues up and down the UK for nothing in the early days, leanring their craft, hearing what people like and honing their skills. Much like standup comedians do today.

One direction don't have that same experience and as such, I can't see them (or their team of writers) creating the same impact with their music, not enough to be able to reach across generations at least.

I can't imagine a standup could learn their craft on a talen show, so how come we can expect a musician to?

mrsdewinter

I think pop & rock music is comparable to folk music of earlier centuries, the main difference being, much of the 'folk' music of the 21st & 20th centuries (jazz, rock, pop, dance) has been committed to tape/digital memory rather than being either passed down through generations by oral tradition or simply forgotten.
I mean, I love me some Abba at a wedding but not even Benny or Bjorn would argue that Dancing Queen is as sophisticated or complex as, I dunno, something by Mozart.

callaway92

Groups like Arcade Fire will be looked back on in 30/40 years time with legend status memories I'd imagine.

SilverScreen

I think that the real difference between now and 30/40 years ago is that major record labels are more afraid to take risks and instead promote artists that will make them a quick buck. Nothing to do with musical artists themselves.

There are also less major record labels today due to mergers and takeovers so you have less people controlling what gets heard.

Agricola

The McDonalds-ification of pop music has now reached its zenith. Brightly and neatly packaged, nutritionally deficient, highly processed garbage is being force fed the masses and they are lapping it up. Most of the "musicians" who are commanding hundreds of millions of views on youtube nowadays couldnt sing a note without electronic aid and the majority of them have probably never actually sat down to write a song. It's depressing that this tripe clogs up the airwaves at the expense of better alternatives.
The common retort I hear is that the good music is out there, you just have to look for it. But that's my problem, Im not a big musichead, I don't want to go looking for it. When I was a teenager it came to me. People with real talent were in the mainstream. Now the mainstream seems to be largely about girls acting like bigger and bigger whores in order to gain more attention and boybands who are assembled from a talent show factory line in order to appeal to teen girls with disposable income.

Red21

FearDark wrote: »

Eiffel 65' was definately late 90's... I was still in school.

I'm thinking that, Blue da da dee ****e, anyways you're right it was no.1 in Ireland in Oct 1999

FearDark

Red21 wrote: »

I'm thinking that, Blue da da dee ****e, anyways you're right it was no.1 in Ireland in Oct 1999

It's also remembered by me for teenage disco's, aftershock, vomiting and shame.

KeithTS

Surely:

Oasis,
Blur,
Ocean Colour Scene,
Bush,
No Doubt,
Ash,
Green Day,
Nirvana,
Stone Temple Pilots,
ROHCP,
Smashing Pumpkins,
Pearl Jam,
Soundgarden,
Alice in Chains,
Feeder,
Garbage,
Hole,
Manic Street Preachers,
NIN,
Placebo,
Radiohead,
Reef

In no particular order, are all more indicative of 90's music than either Eiffel 65 or Wheatus no?




S**t....left out B*Witched

fearrua

FearDark wrote: »

It's also remembered by me for teenage disco's, aftershock, vomiting and shame.

I was 6 at the time, so for me it conjures up memories of summer project trips to the zoo, them discos ya go to when you're that age, and the most almighty of sugar rushes. Good times.

what it takes

A lot of music that is regarded as classic often gets looked over in its time, The Velvet Underground and Iggy and The Stooges barely made a dent in the music charts but now are seen as iconic bands,music history tends to erase the chaff.
There is good music out there even though it doesn't get played on Radio, huge bands like Arcade Fire and The National who are huge yet get relatively little airplay, daytime anyway. Also it's hard to be a classic band when your an young,active band, that comes with time.
Also when it comes to liking bands/music people tend to favour the bands they grew up listening to, peoples favourite bands tend to be the bands they discovered in their teens even if it wasn't from there era because it's your first exposure to it.
To go back to the classic argument, everyone complains about there era of music, and see past music rose tinted. In 1966 one of the biggest selling records was the sound of music. I'm roughing paraphrasing this, it's the book 1001 albums you must listen to, one of the albums in it was the Carpenters and the write up, was, pop journalist would have you believe in 1970 everybody was listening to the Stooges but in reality were probably listening to The Carpenters.
There is a lot of good music out there at the moment but the mainstream channels of distribution are dwindling and a lot of great artists aren't getting a wider exposure unfortunately.

Cienciano

Music from the 60's and 70's is the best from the last 100 years imho. 90's wasn't bad, but I prefer the older stuff.

deadybai

Ah I think music has gotten better at the turn of the decade. From about 2004-2009 we had mostly crap. But when there seems to be a resurgence in bands and generally good songs. Daft Punks album last year, The Arctic Monkeys AM, and Kanye Wests MBTDF have all been personal favorites of mine. There has definitely been alot more one hit wonders in the last 2-3 years. Most of them have been good songs. Pumped up kick- Foster the people and Gotye - Someone I used to know. And lets not forget the best songs of the decade so far Cee lo Green -**** You! followed closey by Get Lucky.

So even though crap bands like One Direction continue to be popular, I dont think they will be looked back as classics. Example would be a band like the Backstreet boys or Spice Girls. Those bands are not looked as classic bands now , rather just a memory of what was popular at the time. Like another poster mentioned, its bands from the same time period like radio-head that are seen as classics

Muahahaha

KeithTS wrote: »

First off, I hope that most music of today will not be regarded as classic in the future because I couldn't stand to listen to it when I'm old and dont have the energy to throw something at the hover-stereo or whatnot.

For me the real difference lies in the bands themselves and how they learn their craft.

Zeppelin have classic songs but also have a catelogue of more forgettable songs which where written over an extensive career.
Same goes for Michal Jackson, Elton John, the Beatles, Balck Sabbath, Metallica, Sting and the list goes and on.

"Artists" these days don't seem to be given the same chance to learn from mistakes or have a long career and as such I dont see them making as much impact o the music scene. On top of this, a lot of the big names these days don't have the same grounding. You hear stories of many bands in vans touring tiny venues up and down the UK for nothing in the early days, leanring their craft, hearing what people like and honing their skills. Much like standup comedians do today.

One direction don't have that same experience and as such, I can't see them (or their team of writers) creating the same impact with their music, not enough to be able to reach across generations at least.

I can't imagine a standup could learn their craft on a talen show, so how come we can expect a musician to?

I think you make a very good point there about how the music industry is today compared to decades past. Since the 90's the big record companies (who largely control radio airplay and can make or break a band) have been putting their entire resources into the generation of profits and absolutely zilch into the development of the artists on their books. One bum album and you're toast in the music industry these days whereas decades ago record companies would stand by their artist, nurture and develop them over time. Nowadays bands have to provide record companies with instantaneous profits or they're out the door.

So because of this what we often see is new bands coming out with an amazing first album because they've had years of writing and rehearsing 20 or 25 songs which the producers eventually whittle down to a 12 or 14 song album. Then immediately they must go on tour extensively for 9 or 10 months to promote the album and back it up in a live sense. The problems then arise when the record company demand a second album in a matter of months rather than the years they had spent honing the first. Record companies demand this as they know that in a marketing and business sense their own interests are best served to strike while the iron is hot, while there is still a buzz about the band from the first album and tour, to then get the second album out as quickly as possible, often within months of a jaded toured out band coming home to write and record again. This is not in the artists interests, albums take time and as we've seen plenty of times before band after band can't produce the goods on the second album and they quickly fade away.

The record companies don't care because they know many fans will buy the second album off the strength of the first, they'll still make plenty of cash. And if the album turns out to be a turkey and the band fade away then so what, they've got another 100 demo cd's in the post this week in any case. I think because of this bands who might have gone on to produce classic albums as they honed their skills and craft more and more instead fall on the scrap heap much too quick. The business model of the record companies and the profiteering they engage in is directly in conflict with the creative process of an artist, who needs to be allowed to make mistakes in the pursuit of their own perfection.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Every year, all forms of art get more and more banal. Most of what is produced is soulless, meaningless, tripe. There are exceptions of course, but by and large, when it comes to art: humans peaked in 1977 and it's just been a steady decline ever since.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRqxoM7iqoY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP_1T4ilm8M

Jesus Wept

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Maybe would have been better in the music forums but anyway....

Back in the day, when Elvis and the Beatles were around, they were viewed by their detractors as either the spawn of hell or a bunch of cocky talentless upstarts. Now the music of the Beatles and Elvis is inseparable with their respective eras.

Likewise, whenever we think of the 80s, "Out of Touch" or Michael Jackson songs come to mind. The 90s, for me anyway, are denoted by "Teenage Dirtbag" and Eiffel 65. Every decade is really defined by the events that happened and the music that was played.

I hate a lot of today's music. It's music snobbery in a waybut its my own taste, and I assure you that I don't simply hate stuff because its modern, if I hate a song, I hate it because I have listened to it extensively prior to making the conclusion that its ****.

I'm finding it really hard to decipher what modern culture really is. I'm sure when I'm 80 I'll look back and hear the music being played now and remember this era and begin to associate so much with it. I know a lot of people may be depressed at this prospect, but what if Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Lil Wayne, Taylor Swift, One Direction, Ke-Dollar-ha et al will be regarded as classic, as music exemplary of this era we are living in? Like the way the Beatles are the living embodiment of 60s music. What if YOLO will be remembered in the future as as much a philosophy of our time as Flower Power was to the 60s?

It's pretty depressing isn't it?

TL: DR? - Anyway, I wanted to ask two questions:

- Objectively speaking, is music becoming worse?

- Will today's contemporary "artists" be regarded as classic in the future and be worshiped as music legends of the Noughties or the New Tens? Because this is something that has been worrying me for a few months now, as 2000 begin to be left further and further behind.

P.S
Do you know the way your parents might have a favourite song as a couple from back in the day, like a romantic Chicago song or something? Imagine the couples of tomorrow telling such stories to their children: "Me and your mother's song goes something like this: "I WOKE UP IN A NEW BUGATTI I WOKE UP IN A NEW BUGATTI YEA YEA". Depressing right?

Anyway, I have to go to bed for an exam in the morning but I'd love to have a discussion on this when I get home tomorrow. Peace guys

Never heard this song. Don't think I'd remember it in five minutes either...
not sure how you you grouped with Micky Jackson.

The Diabolical Monocle

deadybai wrote: »

Daft Punk

They went on my kill on sight list after 'around the world'.



around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world
around the world



- Strauss.

Oblong Gata

Brilliant first album, first two albums, though. and a few not-bad albums after that

Lightbulb Sun

Our Year wrote: »

Never heard this song. Don't think I'd remember it in five minutes either...
not sure how you you grouped with Micky Jackson.

Halls and Oates, very popular 80s duo. One of them has a great web show called Live from Daryls House. They get famous musicians in to play with the house band, doing classic and modern songs. Very good show, would recommend.

Oblong Gata

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhkyAcWLXP4

Yogosan

There is plenty of great music out there if you look (listen!).

I lean towards rock music primarily but I've heard music that in my mind, far surpasses Mozart and Beethovan. Ennio Morricones music from 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly' and 'Once Upon a Time in America' is incredible music and is more emotive than theirs in my opinion. (I know that wouldn't be considered modern day, but I think it's ridiculous that some think we "peaked" in that era)

Jesper Kyds music from the Hitman games is astounding. Listen to the song 'Apocalypse' from Hitman Contracts for an example of his brilliance. Just as good as any classical music that came before in my view.

I'm going to Spain to see a psychedlic rock band this Summer called 'Tame Impala'. There certainly doing more than rehashing music from the last 20 years.

If you think that by listening to the radio you're going to find your next favourite musician then think again. The music on the radio is primarily produced by the biggest record labels in the world and they have ways of getting music on the radio no matter how good or bad it is. For example, there was controversy over labels buying views on YouTube to artificially increase popularity of new song releases. There are programmers in Bangladesh who will do this for you!

On Radio Kerry the other day, One Direction had 3 of their song played consecutively with no ad or break in between, the same 3 songs that they play 5 times a day, 7 days a week. There are great unheard of musicians out there who would kill for that kind of exposure, but the richest, most popular, most attractive artists with the biggest labels have a monopoly over the radio in Ireland, and in many other Western societies too.

Money is the reason that absolutely awful music consistently becomes mainstream.

the culture of deference

I am old school.
I like to listen to real musicians with at least 10 years playing behind them. I hate the idea that talentless dancers / singers can go on a tv show and then instant fame.

We were playing poker one night with some younger fella's listening to Hendrix, and the young lad thought we were listening to lenny kravitz

BetterThanThou

I'll admit, I'm a fan of 70s/80s music myself, despite being fairly young, but I don't think music these days is any worse than music from previous decades. I think it's more to do with the fact that people only remember the cream of the crop. I bought an album on iTunes called "Ultimate 80s", and other than the classics everyone knows, most of the album was horrible. I'm sure in 20 years, music from today will be looked upon more fondly when people only remember the good songs.

whisky_galore

Think music that is 'in' with the young (and by young I mean teens here) is popular largely because parents (as well as people in their 30s and over) will hate it.

snaphook

Nostalgia and rose tinted 'ears' are powerful when it comes to music.

We are in the unique position of having to hear everything, the good and bad, in the here and now.

I am sure there was a lot of trash and crap in the 60s/70s/80s too but they are largely forgotton.

People will always present classics from any decades music as indicitive of it's qualities and merits as todays young will do so in years to come.

Eggy Baby!

Logic dictates (assuming the regular course of history) that the popular songs of the era will be most commonly used to describe that era's music. The Beatles, Elvis, Queen etc. were very very popular and are usually used to underpin who great music was back in the day.

This creates a very worrying, almost apocalyptic like notion where Miley Cyrus songs, Katy Perry songs etc. will be associated with today because the teenagers/maybe young adults who love these guys will grow up and begin to associate these guys with the good old days! It is a really bleak vision.

I'll admit, I'm a fan of 70s/80s music myself, despite being fairly young, but I don't think music these days is any worse than music from previous decades. I think it's more to do with the fact that people only remember the cream of the crop. I bought an album on iTunes called "Ultimate 80s", and other than the classics everyone knows, most of the album was horrible.

But even if some 80s music was horrible, more or less all 80s music had a unique style which we just begin to associate with that era. For example, this awful song from Blood Dragon has a truly unique sound to it, and I can't identify a unique or inspired style to today's music:

Compare this song to a very good 80s song. Both have a perennial, recognisable style, whereas a lot of music today seems to be choppy or erratic, even within genres:

I saw a comment on Cracked a few months ago that described the 2000's as the "cultural overtime" of the 90s. Genius comment. Hell, we haven't even agreed on a proper name for the 2010s yet.

It feels to me like an "end of history" as one poster said earlier, but not just of music, of culture. Even "innovations" like the selfie are based on a narcissistic and shallow foundation. This decade may be one of the most boring decades in terms of culture and music in a long time.

Eggy Baby!

Surely:

Oasis,
Blur,
Ocean Colour Scene,
Bush,
No Doubt,
Ash,
Green Day,
Nirvana,
Stone Temple Pilots,
ROHCP,
Smashing Pumpkins,
Pearl Jam,
Soundgarden,
Alice in Chains,
Feeder,
Garbage,
Hole,
Manic Street Preachers,
NIN,
Placebo,
Radiohead,
Reef

In no particular order, are all more indicative of 90's music than either Eiffel 65 or Wheatus no?

Of course they are, but Wheatus and Eiffel 65 are personal loves of mine. I have very strong memories as a child which I associate with those songs (I was only born in 1993 and such melancholy stuff like Radiohead wouldn't really have been on my playlist back then).

Never heard this song. Don't think I'd remember it in five minutes either...
not sure how you you grouped with Micky Jackson.

Surely you've heard of Hall and Oates? Maybe I just associate that particular song with the 80s so much because of Vice City....