When did mainstream music start to go downhill?

Anesthetize

Harry Palmr wrote: »

When did mainstream music start to go downhill?

I didn't say what I outlined was good or bad, its the mainstream The mainstream does matter - traditionally the big hitters paid for the other stuff. Talking Heads would never have become a success if Sire records not been bought by Warners for example.

Sire Records was already on its way to becoming a successful indie label before being bought by Warners.

This whole thread is pointless because mainstream music today is in no way representive of music today as a whole. The mainstream is more like a vacuum where musical ideas go to die.

JacquesSon

I knew the music world had ended when Bananarama split.

Mr E

Macarena.

Hermy

sxt wrote: »

Mainstream artists today like Kathy Perry, one direction are fine and have great songs here and there and they obviously put on great shows and entertainment, but their albums are not original and will be forgotten in a few years. Kathy Perry is sexy and inspirational and so are one direction but they don't create classic music. They are encouraged not to write their own songs, not to play instruments or have much creative control.

Are you taking the piss?
If you really believe One Direction are inspirational artists with great songs and great shows then you've answered your own question.

SEPT 23 1989

10th August 1996

connacht_man

K4t wrote: »

Not really though considering the early 00s gave us Arcade Fire, The White Stripes, Vampire Weekend, The Strokes, The National, Interpol, Modest Mouse, Arctic Monkeys, The Killers, Fleet Foxes, Sigur Ros, Royksopp who have all created music as good as, and some better, than bands from the decades preceding them.

I don't like any of those all that much

I call them neo indie

RayCon

cml387 wrote: »

What downloading and steaming has done is destroyed the concept of "the album" as a musical artform.
If you heard a song and liked it you might be inclined to by the whole lp it came from.
But no artist is going to sweat blood (as many did in the past) to create a selection of songs that blend together an artistic whole, To give one example "Sgt Pepper's lonely Hearts Club Band" could never be done today because the artist cannot control how the album will be played.

That may not matter any more, but in my opinion it's a pity that young folk will never again be able to "discover" an album like we used to do.

I agree that downloading has made music much more disposable and song orientated, but there are still artists producing "concept" albums which contain songs that could stand on their own as a single (such as Sgt Pepper mention above, or Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon or The Wall etc)


Examples :
Steven Wilson: Hand. Cannot. Erase.
Sound of Contact: Dimensionaut

Fozzydog3

When the Beatles came out, you couldn't hear them play because the noise of teenage girls screaming, the fat cats realised that people pay for the image of a band and everything else is secondary

Rabo Karabekian

Cold War Kid wrote: »

But I started thinking pop/chart music was getting worse in the 90s when I was 13.
It just seems like obtuseness to say pop/chart music (overall - obviously there's always been some crap) has always been of the same standard.

I agree with you (and had pretty much the exact same experience as you: lost interest in (most of) the mainstream around 13 in the early 90s). My comment (not very well written) was more that every generation gets slated by the previous generation.

sxt wrote: »

Firstly mainstream is not indicative of music quality. But if the mainstream of the 60s and 70s is the Beatles, the beach boys, the who, the rolling Stones , king crimson, pink flyod, David Bowie, Bob Dylan etc and the mainstream of today is Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, one direction, Taylor Swift.. how is it a fear of something hard to understand ... I am definitely only referring to mainstream music..

Yeah, I hear you, and I would much prefer the mainstream music of the 60s/70s/80s to nowadays. I would say that it's probably not comparing like with like (choosing the worst of today with the best of yesteryear): plenty of dross in the 60s charts. Kind of linked to this, is that we're looking at mainstream charts from previous decades with a suitable distance. Another thing is that appreciation of music is subjective (although I would have a problem allowing for subjectivity when it comes to Justin Bieber and 1 direction).

Some of the mainstream music that I hated in the 80s and 90s I have come back to now and appreciate that it was far, far better than I allowed for.

ToddyDoody

Earlier again... 1974 is when I can track it going arseways

jaymcg91

Everyone thinks music gets worse but in reality - it's because they're getting old.

speedboatchase

You got old, OP.

Plenty of great music out there and it's never been easier to discover it.

hatrickpatrick

Personally I don't agree with the premise that current music is sh!te. But then I'm probably one of very few musicians who's as happy to listen to Avicii as I am to The Who. Music is music - if it sounds good, do it.

Music is one of those areas of life in which the end justifies the means, to me. It strikes me that a lot of the criticism of modern music is attacking the means - artists co-writing with professional songwriters, using synthesisers and samples instead of playing physical instruments, using particular signature sound effects such as drops and filter sweeps etc.

In my view, all of that is irrelevant bullsh!t - if the end result gets stuck in your head and you find yourself wanting to listen to it again, it's a good piece of music. End of. How it was arrived at is fairly irrelevant to me.

hatrickpatrick

jaymcg91 wrote: »

Everyone thinks music gets worse but in reality - it's because they're getting old.

What is that though, psychologically? As in, why does "getting older" involve becoming less tolerant of newer styles of music? Is it because the style is too different to that which invokes nostalgic memories, and therefore can't be related to?

If that's the case, then the people who stop enjoying modern music because they're getting old, are the people who at some point in their lives stopped making new memories. Sounds fairly bleak to me.

sxt

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I agree with you (and had pretty much the exact same experience as you: lost interest in (most of) the mainstream around 13 in the early 90s). My comment (not very well written) was more that every generation gets slated by the previous generation.



Yeah, I hear you, and I would much prefer the mainstream music of the 60s/70s/80s to nowadays. I would say that it's probably not comparing like with like (choosing the worst of today with the best of yesteryear): plenty of dross in the 60s charts..

The Beatles , rolling Stones, beach boys, Abba etc were the biggest selling mainstream bands in the 60s/70 etc.. The biggest selling mainstream acts of today are one direction, Justin Bieber etc... So it is a direct comparison of the mainstream acts

sxt

speedboatchase wrote: »

Plenty of great music out there and it's never been easier to discover it.

I know there is but I am only talking about mainstream. Acts that are selling millions and millions. The biggest selling artists of the day

foggy_lad

The music was murdered by the likes of Louis Walsh and his boy "bands". They are a pore marketing ploy and have nothing to do with music!

nyarlothothep

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What is that though, psychologically? As in, why does "getting older" involve becoming less tolerant of newer styles of music? Is it because the style is too different to that which invokes nostalgic memories, and therefore can't be related to?

If that's the case, then the people who stop enjoying modern music because they're getting old, are the people who at some point in their lives stopped making new memories. Sounds fairly bleak to me.

As has been pointed out the argument is trotted out as a stock/group think response. It's about 50% valid insofar as people who listen to a particular style of music to be part of a "scene" are concerned or people who simply are close minded (and they would have been like this when they were young as well). It is false to claim that there are no cultural highs or lows, that it is simply a flat plain of history and it is presumptious to the point of falsity to claim, on behalf of the entire human race that once you're "old" you no longer like new music. In fact I seriously doubt the legitimacy of the argument that music has a more euphoric effect on you up to 22 and then you become jaded, I listened to Funkadelic's Super Stupid when I was 28 and had it on repeat for a few days such was the awesome effect of the song. I'm 30 now and there isn't much worth listening to but if something good comes on I don't care what genre it is, I will say it's good. I was similarly dismissive of the mainstream between 1998 and 2000 when it was dominated by dance music, it has nothing to do with age. Music lovers regardless of age will be open to new things if they are good, but frankly what is popular in the mainstream now is trash. In fact the whole age argument is premised it would seem, on the idea that there must be generational conflict as an inherent property of the human race, again as bs as saying human nature must =greed/selfishness/stupidity but you will hear it over and over again. The problem with that assumption is that it applies to say the 50s, 60s and 70s in particular but there seems to be a generational convergence in terms of cultural tastes so that young people today end up liking the same music as their parents. There's no real movement against any previous cultural trend although I would say there is a great deal of indifference to "older" music, rock music for example simply isn't popular anymore but this would also apply to "old" films from the 80s and maybe it's just where I am at the minute where most people are of the uber mainstream and so aren't into anything beyond what's contemporary.

MonkeyTennis

speedboatchase wrote: »

You got old, OP.

Plenty of great music out there and it's never been easier to discover it.

totally correct. Its an amazing time for music. Youtube has opened a whole new corridor of amazingly gifted musicians.

Hand up if you are gong to Thundercat in November :cool: ?

sxt

Here is a rough list of the biggest selling artists of each decade. These are the most mainstream . I think Most people would have to admit there has been a gentle decline in the musical quality of the top commercial artists from the 80 s onwards... and then a steep mount everest decline in the 90s when Maria Carey, Madonna , and Celine Dion are the the most commercialy successful acts

http://tsort.info/music/faq_decade_artists.htm

Kermit.de.frog

sxt wrote: »

one direction are fine and have great songs here and there...

I stopped reading at this point OP.

Cold War Kid

jaymcg91 wrote: »

Everyone thinks music gets worse but in reality - it's because they're getting old.

speedboatchase wrote: »

You got old, OP.

Plenty of great music out there and it's never been easier to discover it.

It's been demonstrably proven a number of times on this thread that chart music (not stuff that's more on the fringes, but commercial/pop music specifically) has actually deteriorated in quality objectively.

end of the road

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

happy to listen to Avicii

he had decent tunes when he first came out. then like others, he sold out. but, if it works for him, good luck to him

Dirty Dingus McGee

After Beethoven.

Cienciano

Into The Blue wrote: »

All music was just a mere prelude to 3n1 Cafe Del Mar and all music since has been an anti climax. (Except for Jamie xx-gosh)

Entire Jamie XX album is amazing. Except good times, god I hate that one.

sxt wrote: »

Not true! The mainstream music of the sixties and seventies make up the brunt of the "best albums ever made" lists everywhere. Beatles, Rolling Stones, Dylan, Velvet underground, Bowie, pink flyod, led Zeppelin, Neil Young etc...

These bands were the Nicky minjas of today. They were mainstream gold

First, my favourite decade for music is the 70s. But lets pick a random year, 1975 and see the top selling albums in the UK for that year.

1 The Best of the Stylistics The Stylistics
2 Once Upon a Star Bay City Rollers
3 Atlantic Crossing Rod Stewart
4 Horizon The Carpenters
5 40 Golden Greats Jim Reeves
6 40 Greatest Hits Elvis Presley
7 Tubular Bells Mike Oldfield
8 Greatest Hits Elton John
9 Venus and Mars Wings
10 The Singles: 1969-1973 The Carpenters
11 40 Greatest Hits Perry Como
12 Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy Elton John
13 Greatest Hits Simon & Garfunkel
14 20 Greatest Hits Tom Jones
15 Englebert Humperdinck: His Greatest Hits Engelbert Humperdinck
16 Rollin' Bay City Rollers
17 The Original Soundtrack 10cc
18 Favourites Peters and Lee
19 The Dark Side of the Moon Pink Floyd
20 Get Dancing Various Artists

It's actually fairly shíte. Dark Side of the Moon being the exception. I think we look back at music with rose tinted glasses. A lot of what we consider classic albums, weren't nessessarly the top selling albums of the time. Hendrix got to 2 and 6 with his 2 classic albums.
I love The Doors, probably one of the best debut albums of all time. Gets to number 43 in the UK charts.

Severard

Mainstream music in the last twenty years at least has been dreadful for the most part. It mostly consists of someone either praising or berating someone else of the opposite sex. The problem ultimately lies with the consumer - the record companies are all too happy to push this stuff out as long as it makes them money - The internet has been a blessing and a curse as well. On the one hand it's great to get new talent noticed while on the other it helps to propagate the low quality stuff that is already out there. In my work place FM104 is usually on and the stuff they put on is absolutely dire. They also have the gaal to state that they "don't repeat songs".

Rabo Karabekian

sxt wrote: »

The Beatles , rolling Stones, beach boys, Abba etc were the biggest selling mainstream bands in the 60s/70 etc.. The biggest selling mainstream acts of today are one direction, Justin Bieber etc... So it is a direct comparison of the mainstream acts

Ah okay, I didn't think 1 direction and Bieber were the bestselling artists of our time.

hatrickpatrick

end of the road wrote: »

he had decent tunes when he first came out. then like others, he sold out. but, if it works for him, good luck to him

I'd have the opposite view tbh, the melding of dance and country a la Wake Me Up, Hey Brother and The Nights are the only recently released dance tunes which persistently get stuck in my head.

To each their own I guess, but IMO that stuff is absolutely class and I really, really wish I knew how to write like that

Rough Sleeper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd have the opposite view tbh, the melding of dance and country a la Wake Me Up, Hey Brother and The Nights are the only recently released dance tunes which persistently get stuck in my head.

To each their own I guess, but IMO that stuff is absolutely class and I really, really wish I knew how to write like that

I think it's pretty much as bad as music gets. It's like something that a hungover Ag. Science student would make up in his head on the bus to UCD, inspired by the tune selection in Quinn's the previous night. If a dance song makes it on to your aunty's iPod, you know it's going to be ****ing stinking.

Panic E

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I don't agree with the premise that current music is sh!te. But then I'm probably one of very few musicians who's as happy to listen to Avicii as I am to The Who. Music is music - if it sounds good, do it.

Do you mind me asking what this type of music that you write is? And do have any examples of such. Thanks.