nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

is it just me, or is most modern music crap?

Banjo String

Today's music for the most part seems to be full of manufactured pop groups, all pumping out the same cheesy trash.

We need a new guitar based rock band revolution.

Can anyone recommend me a band that have emerged in the last few years to listen to?

I'm convinced talent has dried up :mad:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Madam_X

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Come on, the "every generation says the next's music is crap" is a really simplistic one...

Therefore, comparing the way a 35 years old reacted to "new music" in 1970 and 2013 is quite a futile exercise.

The Beatles, The Queen, Kate Bush, Nirvana (just plucking random names across different types/genres through the decades) were chart hits in their times just as much as the likes of Justin Bieber, One Direction and Rihanna are nowadays. Does really anybody think they are, in any way, comparable?

Spot-on. If this argument relates just to the charts/pop/radio-friendly music, well there has always been crap, but always good stuff too, however since the early 90s (IMO - and I was only 12/13 then, so I wasn't becoming "old") the crap has gradually eclipsed the good.
I love, and have always loved, a catchy pop tune and there'll always be something in the charts I like, but such instances are becoming fewer and fewer.
The flipside though is, as said, with the internet, any music you want is just a click away - you don't have to rely on the radio anymore.

Andersonisgod

I thought the same, that talent had dried up and that was that. I was naive and foolish.

Just scratch a bit beneath the surface, beneath the generic stuff on the radio that all sounds nearly identical. It's stuff that has been dumbed down and "samesy" because it is marketed to the masses. Look a little deeper and you'll find a world of talent and great music.

SeanW

Zero1986 wrote: »

It's funny how "today's music" always refers to chart crap despite being only a tiny percentage of the music that's out there at the moment...

Yes, but the stuff on the charts was way better, even in the 1990s than today, let alone the music from the '70s and '80s.

The OP is far from alone. I recently went to an old school mates birthday bash (hes a DJ) and the party was dividied into two parts, the main part where the man himself partied with almost everyone under 40 in a function room, and a second part in the bar, for the old fogeys. Most of the people were the parents and grandparents, but not all. There was also myself and about 2 other young-ish people, with DJ setup including a broad variety of music much of it from the 20th century. Why?

Because the main party music was absolutely dreadful! Droning, repetitive, loud, utterly pointless garble with no melody or lyrics. I left wanting to cry not because the music was weepy sad, but rather than it was sad that such music could be produced and sold in the firstplace, let alone that anyone might actually like listening to it!

Then I heard the ****ing "Harlem Shake" and I actually had to look up the original (i.e. not a flash mob dance version) to realise that it was actually supposed to be a song. And I mean "supposed to be" a song, to call it music would be an insult to music.
"Colo terrorita ... Zoop Zoop zoop, zoop, zoop zoop zoop zoop, zoop ... thump thump thump ..."

Well F@#% me. Is it any wonder some of us think music died at the turn of some given decade? Some of us might hope that the crap today called music will eventually die, but crap like the Harlem Shake makes me think it will just continue to plumb new depths of inane pointlessness.

GLaDOS

Some really excellent albums released last year imo, and this year Steven Wilson's new solo album is amongst the best I've heard. I disagree anyway.

Steve O

The best thing about this gen is that music is more freely available, you can avoid the absolute cacky chart bull**** that 99% of the population listen to.

SilverScreen

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, but the stuff on the charts was way better, even in the 1990s than today, let alone the music from the '70s and '80s.

That may be true, but I don't see how music charts are really relevant in an argument like this. Why should the music tastes of 14 year-old girls be a reflection of our current musical climate? The reason the charts are the way they are now is because major record companies are hell bent on pedaling the lowest common denominator bullshit possible in order to make a few bucks. It has nothing to do with the quality of music being made at the moment.

SeanW wrote: »

The OP is far from alone. I recently went to an old school mates birthday bash (hes a DJ) and the party was dividied into two parts, the main part where the man himself partied with almost everyone under 40 in a function room, and a second part in the bar, for the old fogeys. Most of the people were the parents and grandparents, but not all. There was also myself and about 2 other young-ish people, with DJ setup including a broad variety of music much of it from the 20th century. Why?

You're hanging out with the wrong people man

SeanW wrote: »

Because the main party music was absolutely dreadful! Droning, repetitive, loud, utterly pointless garble with no melody or lyrics. I left wanting to cry not because the music was weepy sad, but rather than it was sad that such music could be produced and sold in the firstplace, let alone that anyone might actually like listening to it!

Sounds like Sunn 0))) to me, must have been some party

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_TFC2y-H44

SeanW wrote: »

Then I heard the ****ing "Harlem Shake" and I actually had to look up the original (i.e. not a flash mob dance version) to realise that it was actually supposed to be a song. And I mean "supposed to be" a song, to call it music would be an insult to music.
"Colo terrorita ... Zoop Zoop zoop, zoop, zoop zoop zoop zoop, zoop ... thump thump thump ..."

Haven't even heard the Harlem Shake so I can't comment. I'm not exposed to this type of music.

SeanW wrote: »

Well F@#% me. Is it any wonder some of us think music died at the turn of some given decade? Some of us might hope that the crap today called music will eventually die, but crap like the Harlem Shake makes me think it will just continue to plumb new depths of inane pointlessness.

People think music died at the turn of the decade because they don't know how to look for music themselves and/or their taste in music is very limited. The game has changed; the radio and club DJs are not the source for finding good music, it's the internet. People seem to be just slow at learning how to use the internet to find music. Once you know where to look you will see that music did not die at the turn of the decade, it is alive and kicking.

af_thefragile

Madam_X wrote: »

Spot-on. If this argument relates just to the charts/pop/radio-friendly music, well there has always been crap, but always good stuff too, however since the early 90s (IMO - and I was only 12/13 then, so I wasn't becoming "old") the crap has gradually eclipsed the good.
I love, and have always loved, a catchy pop tune and there'll always be something in the charts I like, but such instances are becoming fewer and fewer.

Backstreet Boys and N'sync were the **** in the 90s!!!

Herb Powell

What a load of shiite.

Music now is probably better than it's ever been. Turn off your radios, and actually listen, if you don't believe me.

Greentopia

Mainstream chart music, yes undoubtedly. Abysmal manufactured pap for the most part.

I find it easy enough though in the genres I like to find wonderful music being produced today-PJ Harvey, Y La Bamba, Sóley, Joanna Newsom, Sigur Ros

Pug160

Most modern pop isn't great but there's good music out there if you look hard enough.

Prettyblack

SeanW wrote: »

"Colo terrorita ... Zoop Zoop zoop, zoop, zoop zoop zoop zoop, zoop ... thump thump thump ..."

Well F@#% me. Is it any wonder some of us think music died at the turn of some given decade? Some of us might hope that the crap today called music will eventually die, but crap like the Harlem Shake makes me think it will just continue to plumb new depths of inane pointlessness.

You could tell the same story and base it 10 - 15 years ago, and substitute the song for Whigfield's "Saturday Night" or "Macarena" or "Cotton Eye Joe" or "Barbie Girl" or any of the similar chart pap of the 90s. But that's what people were buying, and radios were playing, and people were dancing to, while in the meantime Nirvana and Oasis etc were doing their thing. Same goes for now, just with different bands. OK, there isn't a "scene" like with grunge / Britpop (emo perhaps?), but that's because music is so much more freely available and widely distributed through the web that nothing can really be the centre of things any more.

I remember that Take That were pretty much considered the way One Direction are now, but now most people fondly remember Take That and they are generally regarded now as having been a "good" band. I suppose the main difference is TT for the most part wrote their own songs. But that doesn't change the music - whether it was one guy or a team of people, a pop song is still a pop song.

And the naff stuff will always be around. Someone mentioned Bay City Rollers - they probably sold more records than Led Zeppelin did at some point. The 70s was filled with rubbish music - get any hoary old rock fan talking about disco in the 70s and you'll hear the same kind of opinion.

The 80s is the one decade for me that hasn't improved over time - I think all the 80s influences now are partly ironic and partly an idealised version of the decade - it wasn't all cool stuff like Depeche Mode and The Cure - it was Bon Jovi and Phil Collins and Mr Mister and Dire Straits and Mel & Kim and Bananarama so on. The kids playing in "80s influenced" bands today are only doing part of the story - OK, they are doing the good part, but they don't know what it was really like then! It was awful!!

But anyway, the point is you could substitute now for any time from the last 30 years and make the same argument, but that is because you are focusing on the stuff you wouldn't like anyway, rather than the good stuff that's out there.

COYVB

Most music in the 10s is crap. most music in the 00s was crap. most music in the 90s was crap. most music in the 80s was crap. most music in the 70s was crap. most music in the 60s was crap. most music in the 50s was crap.

Nature of the beast - absolutely nothing unique about modern music in that respect

af_thefragile

COYVB wrote: »

Most music in the 10s is crap. most music in the 00s was crap. most music in the 90s was crap. most music in the 80s was crap. most music in the 70s was crap. most music in the 60s was crap. most music in the 50s was crap.

Nature of the beast - absolutely nothing unique about modern music in that respect

I know, ever since Romanticism music has been pretty crap...

af_thefragile

^Phil Collins is brilliant! I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist.

Prettyblack

Don't get me wrong - I was a big Dire Straits fan in the 80s and still consider their first three records to be excellent and well worth checking out. Its just that the landscape then was dominated by a lot of music that today is not regarded so well - the manufactured stuff like Rick Astley and Jason Donovan etc.

So its the same story as our friend the OP stating that "modern" music is crap. Crap music is crap, and that hasn't changed since the first days of rock n' roll.

Madam_X

And Whitney Houston, Robert Palmer, Huey Lewis & The News... they made the music that mattered.

SilverScreen

Madam_X wrote: »

And Whitney Houston, Robert Palmer, Huey Lewis & The News... they made the music that mattered.

Not sure if sarcastic.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

Dear music business

1/ autotune warble vocals

2/ rap middle verses

SHOVE THEM BOTH UP YER HOLE

Prettyblack

Rap middle verses are the guitar solos of the modern era...

Colonialboy

your right MOST modern music is crap.

for instance Maggie Thatcher passed away today yet we have the legacy of The Beat and 'Stand down Margaret'

and lots of modern bands are bad copies of that great sound , from No Doubt up to Paramour... writing love tunes , but not writing songs.

lets compare 20 years from now when some despot statesman passes away .. what will we have musiclaly to mark their era, the soundtrack to their dictatorship .. One-D

SilverScreen

Colonialboy wrote: »

Pete Wylie can top that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXi-VYy_Yw

Jimmy Iovine

af_thefragile wrote: »

Modern hip hop is absolute ****e! Can't compare it to 80's and 90s hip hop...

Of course you can't. They are decades apart. Pretty much everything, bar the economy, has changed since the '80s. To try and compare them would be a retarded move.

Modern hip hop isn't "absolute ****e". Modern music isn't crap either. If you genuinely think that then it's all your fault because you're looking in the wrong places.

The internet has given rise to a lot of terrible songs over the past few years but it has also given unheard of artists in America and other countries a chance to get their music heard.

Kendrick Lamar, Big K.R.I.T., Joey Bada$$ and others are the future of hip hop. Kendrick, in particular, is probably the one to take it on for the next 10 years or so.

There are plenty of other rappers out there who won't sell as much as the above artists or be featured in any music magazine. It doesn't mean that they are poor rappers. STS, Emcee Jermaine, Koncept, SIMS and Fashawn are as good as anyone out there at the moment.

If you want to draw a comparison, then look at Freddie Gibbs. He's the only credible gangster rapper in the industry as of now. Switch back 15 or 20 years and he'd be able to stand beside any of gangster rappers from that era and not look out of place.

He's another who you can put down with Lamar, KRIT and Joey Bada$$ as the future of hip hop. The chap is so talented it's ridiculous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbxcPy1qJTU

Madam_X

Zero1986 wrote: »

Not sure if sarcastic.

It was a loose reference to:

af_thefragile wrote: »

^Phil Collins is brilliant! I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist.

Prettyblack wrote: »

Don't get me wrong - I was a big Dire Straits fan in the 80s and still consider their first three records to be excellent and well worth checking out. Its just that the landscape then was dominated by a lot of music that today is not regarded so well - the manufactured stuff like Rick Astley and Jason Donovan etc.

So its the same story as our friend the OP stating that "modern" music is crap. Crap music is crap, and that hasn't changed since the first days of rock n' roll.

But IMO the crap has gotten more plentiful. And crappier.

SilverScreen

Madam_X wrote: »

It was a loose reference to:

Gotcha

Jesus I can't stand that egg-head Phil Collins. Has contributed absolutely nothing worthwhile to music apart from his early days with Genesis.

MonkstownHoop

SamHall wrote: »

Today's music for the most part seems to be full of manufactured pop groups, all pumping out the same cheesy trash.

We need a new guitar based rock band revolution.

Can anyone recommend me a band that have emerged in the last few years to listen to?

I'm convinced talent has dried up :mad:

Sound Of Guns

Capt'n Midnight

Zero1986 wrote: »

Pete Wylie can top that

Don't forget the Blow Monkeys album She Was Only a Grocer's Daughter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Wedge

Red Wedge organised a number of major tours. The first, in January and February 1986, featured Bragg, Weller's band The Style Council, The Communards, Junior Giscombe, Lorna Gee and Jerry Dammers, and picked up guest appearances from Madness, Heaven 17, Bananarama, Prefab Sprout, Elvis Costello, Gary Kemp, Tom Robinson, Sade, The Beat, Lloyd Cole, The Blow Monkeys and The Smiths along the way.

af_thefragile

Zero1986 wrote: »

Gotcha

Jesus I can't stand that egg-head Phil Collins. Has contributed absolutely nothing worthwhile to music apart from his early days with Genesis.

I like In the Air Tonight.
Its a great song to drive to...

Against all Odds is good too albeit a bit emo for the lack of a better word!

30txsbzmcu2k9w

A lot of folk seem to put this down to aging/generational thing,
which is far too easy an answer.
When you look back to the waves of creativity in previous years (early 90s for example) and look at today´s crop it´s not hard to see what´s more progressive, (i do concede the early 90s were certainly not perfect, rose tinted specs are off).

To people complaining that hipsters moan about cheesy pop stuff -
here´s the thing about hipsters, they don´t complain about it,
they love that crap (or at least pretend to love/tolerate it)..

This article absolutely NAILS the hipster psyche.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/how-to-live-without-irony/

(TLDR - they use irony as a sort of defence mechanism in order to avoid expressing any personal belief and leaving themselves vulnerable to criticism)

I personally believe it´s one reason why music is a bit castrated at the moment, people/bands are too afraid to express any form of sincerity.
A lot of stuff bands produce these days is layered in a ironic bubble wrap.
Punk for one couldn´t possibly be successful in today´s environment.

For the record I don´t think music is THAT bad nowadays.
There are interesting things happening in electronic music and hiphop in particular.

When I think back to the period of 1998 to 2001, sweet jesus.
Truly the doldrums.

kwestfan08

It always gets me when people say that music was much better back in the day. It wasn't. Your parents were probably saying the same thing back in the 50's and 60's. As always Cracked pretty much debunked the myth that every record released way back when was a Sgt. Peppers'

"Today's Music Is All Derivative Trash."

The Complaint:

"Two words: 'Justin Bieber.' Turn on a classic rock station and you can listen for hours without hearing one bad song. Now turn on a Top 40 station and try not to gouge out your ears. Today's music is just a bland product mass-produced by corporations. Don't take my word for it -- ask any music critic. They'll tell you the stuff that sells today is generic garbage. Not the music back in the day, like Zeppelin, Elvis, The Beatles, Pink Floyd ... bands like that would never top the charts today."

The Reality:

There are two things that skew our cultural memory on things like music.

First of all, you have the fact that the crap from previous eras gets forgotten, leaving only the great stuff behind. Those songs on classic rock stations are obviously cherry-picked as the best and most indicative of an entire era; it's not a random sampling of all the music available at the time. Modern rock or pop stations, on the other hand, have to play whatever's come out in the past six months or so.

So there is a filter applied to the old stuff. Even most of the music in Mozart's day was bull****. And because it was bull****, nobody felt the need to keep copies. And what was preserved isn't played today. Because it's bull****. So it's easy to look back at Mozart's era (or the 1960s, or whatever) and assume that because only the classics survive in our memory, everything made back then was a classic.

The other problem is we assume that what gets remembered over time is whatever was the most popular. Not true.

For instance, what survives from the Vietnam era (thanks mostly to Vietnam movies) are songs like the badass protest song "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival and "Gimme Shelter" by the Rolling Stones. Both were released in 1969, after the war started going bad.

Now look at the Billboard year-end singles charts from 1946 to today. The top song in 1969? "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies

"Fortunate Son" got no higher than No. 14 on the charts. "Gimme Shelter"? It was never released as a single at all.

Go ahead, look down the list. There is some great music on there, but it's mixed in with a lot of stuff you've probably never even heard of. And do you know what you don't see on there? Queen, Led Zeppelin and a lot of other great musicians.

Groups that are well-remembered now, when classic rock radio stations wouldn't be caught dead playing some of the **** that outsold them. Even Elvis and The Beatles are only on there twice, tying for the most No. 1 year-end singles with none other than George Michael.

And as for the critics, you have to keep in mind that there will always, always be critics who hate whatever the latest trend is. Rock music as a whole was blasted pretty harshly when it first got popular. Melody Maker called it "one of the most terrifying things to have ever happened to popular music."

The Daily Mail decided to up the ante by mixing in some good old-fashioned racism: "[Rock music] is deplorable. It is tribal. And it is from America. It follows ragtime, blues, jazz, hot cha-cha and the boogie-woogie, which surely originated in the jungle. We sometimes wonder whether this is the negro's revenge."

Why? Because it's easier to be negative. That part will never change.

TLDR: Only the best stuff from any era gets remembered, not whats most popular

Custardpi

kwestfan08 wrote: »

It always gets me when people say that music was much better back in the day. It wasn't. Your parents were probably saying the same thing back in the 50's and 60's. As always Cracked pretty much debunked the myth that every record released way back when was a Sgt. Peppers'

TLDR: Only the best stuff from any era gets remembered, not whats most popular

I'd agree with this to a certain extent, the dross from previous eras does tend to be filtered out. That said, simply looking at the singles charts isn't a particularly good way of seeing what people were listening to, you're often looking more at what 14 year old girls are spending their weekly pocket money on. Bands like the Beatles (in the later part of their career anyway) & Led Zeppelin were always more focused on albums rather than singles anyway. Aside from that the "every record was a Sgt Pepper" argument is one I've never heard anyone seriously make, so it's a bit of a strawman really, an argument that you're more likely to hear is that while there was certainly (possibly just as much) crap music being made in the past there was also some incredibly exciting, innovative & timeless stuff being made once one looked beyond the singles charts.

I really don't think the same is true today, partly because of the way the music industry works now. Taking a chance on an artist/band & giving them creative freedom to develop was far easier when record companies were awash with cash. Bands are far more tightly controlled these days & more slickly marketed than ever before. If the Beatles emerged today they'd have made 6 albums of Love Me Do & I Want To Hold Your Hand before splitting up to work in children's television & occasional judges on the X-Factor.

There is good music being made these days but with a very few exceptions I don't think there's really much ground breaking stuff, possibly because of the amount that was achieved in the golden era of the mid 50s to late 70s. Bands of the stature of Thin Lizzy, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, don't exist at the moment. To sum up, while I'd agree that the musical lows were just as low (possibly lower) in the past I still think the highs were higher than is being achieved today.