seamus wrote: » I'd like to interject here with a short essay about suvivorship bias and why it leads people to believe that "music/TV/art was better when I was young". Think about all the mainstream stuff being played today. In fact, here is last week's top tenhttps://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/ In a years' time, probably 6 or 7 of those songs will still be getting regular airplay. In five years' time, 3 or 4 of them. By 2030, you might hear two of them every now and again on a "classic hits" station. (I'd go with George Ezra and Calvin Harris) Expand that out across the year and across the decade, and what happens is that you forget about the crap. You forget the other 8 songs because you haven't heard them in 10 years. When you think of "songs from 2018", you only remember the "classic songs" that are being played. Thus, compared against the current chart, it feels like there were more classic songs written in the past; that everything which came out of a particular era was pure gold. Case in point, here is the top fifty from this week, fifty years ago:https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19681009/7501/ Look at that top ten. Two of those bands would still be household names - The Beatles and Status Quo. Even then I imagine plenty of people under 30 would have no idea who they are. The rest are names mostly lost to time. Only one song that your average Joe would recognise and that would get any airplay - Hey Jude. The rest of the songs, which were at one point "mainstream" and no doubt playing everywhere that they could be, you don't hear any more. They're gone and forgotten. I've no doubt someone will go, "Hey, I know who Mary Hopkin is!". But you're in a minority. She was a one-hit-wonder, the "rubbish, manufactured pop music" of her day. This is the survivorship bias - you focus on the songs which "survived" from that era as being representative examples of the whole. When they're not. They're the best of the best from that era of music. 99.9% of the music produced in the 60s, 70s & 80s was at the time also considered "bland rubbish , incomparable to the brilliance of the past", and as a result we don't hear it any more.
MikeyTaylor wrote: » I have heard of the Tremeloes, Johnny Nash, and the Dave Clark Five (and Dave Clark wasn't the lead singer) in addition to Mary Hopkin. I'm 24 by the way.
seamus wrote: » You have, most people haven't. And none of these people get any airplay on mainstream media. Unlike the Beatles.
Harry Palmr wrote: » ****e like Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift can sell out large venues but whether they'll be doing so in 20/30 years is another matter - it feels like there are not many acts and even fewer actual bands of the last 10 years who could sell out a stadium tour.
Dakota Dan wrote: » Sheeran is only a fad and he only has a certain timeframe but he have his money made from people with no ear for music.
loyatemu wrote: » harsh - he's far from the worst. The danger for him is that he'll be a modern Gilbert O'Sullivan; huge for few years then regarded as irredeemably naff afterwards.
leakyboots wrote: » (there isn't a single Irish radio show worth listening to for music in my opinion, but maybe that's just my own taste)
seamus wrote: » Ed Sheeran has been in the charts with new releases pretty consistently for 7 years. The Beatles did the same for about ten years. Now, I'm not saying that Sheeran is comparable quality-wise, but to claim he's a "fad" you may as well have said the beatles were a fad.
Joe_ Public wrote: » If people want to listen to Ed Sheeran that’s fine by me, but I will say if he’s regarded as half as good a songwriter as Gilbert O’Sullivan in 40 years time, then he’ll be doing damn well. Of course the chances of him ever writing a song to compare with Alone Again Naturally are slim to nonexistent to begin with, but that goes for the majority of them in fairness.
seamus wrote: » Case in point, here is the top fifty from this week, fifty years ago:https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19681009/7501/
monkeybutter wrote: » The beatles were a fad, they haven't had a top 10 in years
eviltimeban wrote: » ^^ Steven Wilson is one of those artists who is actually huge but no one has heard of him. He could easily fill large arenas, but the audience would be mostly older and male.
Birneybau wrote: » Would be hard to find a non sold out Radiohead gig.
riclad wrote: » Every generation thinks new music is awful or strange, thats why music is constantly changing, every generation has its own trends and style of music.
sameoldname wrote: » I think what people are saying is that todays music isn't strange and doesn't have it's own style of music. Sigur Rave been mentioned here more than once and is a good example. They formed when I was in primary school and became as well known as they were ever going to be when I reached my 20's. They belong to my generation as much as they do to this one I would say. And my generation didn't exactly do much to move the needle when it came to the musical art-form I'm sorry to say.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » The likes of Sigur Ros always had a ceiling. They were never going to become a global mainstream mega act with their style and use of the Icelandic language.
Joe_ Public wrote: » People complain today’s bands sound unoriginal or derivative but to a certain extent that’s been the case for decades. When it comes to indie or guitar based rock in particular, what’s left to do new anyway? It’s all pretty much a variation on a number of different chord progressions that have been mined and moulded into shape for generations. I loved, still love, punk and people speak about the 76/77 revolution but, as far as the music went, punk could never have existed without the mod and 50s rock that preceded it and to which it owed a huge debt.
