why is music today so ****e

windy shepard henderson · 22-09-2013 03:04PM

NegativeCreep wrote: »

In fairness, the majority of stuff from the 80's and 90's didn't have longevity either.

mabey not as much the 80's but infairness the 90's did with plenty of left overs. 90's was the best era outside the 60's

DamagedTrax · 22-09-2013 03:05PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It's all very well talking about great non-chart music but any era is judged by its famous songs not songs listened to only by a minority. I had minority tastes in the early nineties and if I were to mention the artists or songs their best friends might remember them but that's it.

I too blame reality shows.

Depends on who's judging the era though.

To me the 80's was the cure, the smiths, new order. the 90's- ride, stone roses, techno etc etc

this would be the same of a lot of people i know, still a minority but yet all huge bands.

DamagedTrax · 22-09-2013 03:11PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

To be fair to the labels they used to use successful artists to finance the less successful ones. If the successful artists are dropping sales then....

Its not really 'financing' in the real sense though, the risk was too minimal. Every deal laid on the table was recouped before the artist saw a penny. So in reality, unless the artist was a complete failure, it was only potential profits that the label lost... and even then some artists got suckered into contracts that basically tie'd their hands if sales werent hitting the targets.

Savoir.Faire · 22-09-2013 03:13PM

Big Tom and the Mainliners have a new album out.

Frank Lee Midere · 22-09-2013 03:17PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Depends on who's judging the era though.

To me the 80's was the cure, the smiths, new order. the 90's- ride, stone roses, techno etc etc

this would be the same of a lot of people i know, still a minority but yet all huge bands.

They all charted. I think the smiths always went in at number 1

windy shepard henderson · 22-09-2013 03:18PM

Savoir.Faire wrote: »

Big Tom and the Mainliners have a new album out.

that should be enough to ease people's mind's and close this thread .

DamagedTrax · 22-09-2013 03:22PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

They all charted. I think the smiths always went in at number 1

Exactly, my point was that chart music isnt always what the (overall) majority are listening to. Depending on what's released and what numbers are like, you could get to no#1 one week, but not be top 20 the following.

But im not major label ranting either. The majors have some great music, its just that the generic drivel that they constantly output kinda eclipses anything else due to the financial power behind it.

COYVB · 22-09-2013 05:18PM

fryup wrote: »

no there isn't, there's only a certain amount of keys, notes, chords on any musical instrument

so its not infinite, there is a set scale that musicans have to work within no matter what the music genre

http://www.studybass.com/lessons/harmony/keys-in-music/

There are an infinite number of combinations, by which I mean progressions, not actual notes or chords

arthurday2013 · 22-09-2013 05:23PM

rob316 wrote: »

I swear I have to turn off the radio constantly I cant listen to another fake ass gangsta or depressing indie rock band.
I mean alot of 80s and 90s stuff was cheese but it had character and longevity, I cant see any of the chart stuff today been played 20 years from now atleast I hope not.
Im 26 so not old by any means. You just cant beat the golden oldies and 90's dance anthems imo.

Edit: chart stuff is my gripe

I swear I have to turn off the radio constantly I can't listen to another fake ass gangsta or depressing indie rock band.
I mean a lot of 80s and 90s stuff was cheese but at least it had character and longevity. I cant see any of the chart stuff today been played 20 years from now, at least I hope not.
I'm 26 so not old by any means. You just can't beat the golden oldies and 90's dance anthems imo.

Edit: chart stuff is my gripe

fryup · 22-09-2013 05:27PM

arthurday2013 wrote: »

I'm 26 so not old by any means. You just can't beat the golden oldies and 90's dance anthems imo.

now thats saying something... when someone as young as yourself has to listen to music from yester-year

just glad i grew up in the 80s

Muise... · 22-09-2013 06:37PM

arthurday2013 wrote: »

I swear I have to turn off the radio constantly I can't listen to another fake ass gangsta or depressing indie rock band.
I mean a lot of 80s and 90s stuff was cheese but at least it had character and longevity. I cant see any of the chart stuff today been played 20 years from now, at least I hope not.
I'm 26 so not old by any means. You just can't beat the golden oldies and 90's dance anthems imo.

Edit: chart stuff is my gripe

IKR!!!!
I'm 14 and music sux these days, so I leave comments like this under classic rock vids on Youtube!!!!

Temptamperu · 22-09-2013 06:54PM

There has been some great music released this year and then there is pop music which is on the radio to which i dont listen therefore miss all the crap.

e_e · 22-09-2013 07:03PM

Muise... wrote: »

IKR!!!!
I'm 14 and music sux these days, so I leave comments like this under classic rock vids on Youtube!!!!

tbh I'd go equally mad if I was forced to listen to Radio Nova all day. I never understand why all these classic rock stations pick the blandest and safest music from the history of rock. They'd sooner play rubbish like Chasing Cars or Fix You instead of say, some great punk/metal.

smurgen · 22-09-2013 07:20PM

Some great bands out there that don't make the radio.musicians like tame impala,grimes,twin shadows,future islands ,caribou all amazing and as good as any bands that have been out before

Almaviva · 22-09-2013 08:43PM

Where have you been?

Despite a few sporadic exceptions, music has been going down hill since Schubert died in 1828.

hatrickpatrick · 22-09-2013 08:44PM

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

EdenHazard · 22-09-2013 09:19PM

Justin Bieber has better songs that 90 per cent of the crap music that boards deem 'real' music. I honestly don't think people know what they want. There is no difference between One Less Lonely girl and some cheesy Beatles love song. ''I wanna hold your hand'' is as meaningless or meaningful as 'one less lonely girl'', and he has songs that are so much more meaningful, but then its all subjective and how we interpret each song. I feel nothing listening to the Beatles whereas Bieber's music has really been something that has inspired me at low points.

whirlpool · 22-09-2013 10:12PM

EdenHazard wrote: »

Justin Bieber has better songs that 90 per cent of the crap music that boards deem 'real' music. I honestly don't think people know what they want. There is no difference between One Less Lonely girl and some cheesy Beatles love song. ''I wanna hold your hand'' is as meaningless or meaningful as 'one less lonely girl'', and he has songs that are so much more meaningful, but then its all subjective and how we interpret each song. I feel nothing listening to the Beatles whereas Bieber's music has really been something that has inspired me at low points.

The following "Justin Bieber" lyrics took six people to write:

You know you love me I know you care Just shout whenever And I'll be there
You want my love You want my heart And we would never ever be apart

Are we an item? Girl quit playin' We're just friends, What are you sayin'?
Said there's another as you look right in my eyes, My first love, broke my heart for the first time

And I was like Baby, baby, baby ohh I thought you'd always be mine

Oh oh For you, I would have done whatever And I just can't believe we ain't together And I wanna play it cool But I'm losin' you
I'll buy you anything I'll buy you any ring Cause I'm in pieces Baby fix me
And just shake me till you wake me from this bad dream
I'm goin down And I just can't believe my first love won't be around

I'm sixteen and I thought that you'd be mine,
I used to tweet you and text you and call you and hit you on Facebook all the time, But, but, but now your gone, So far along that I can't even find you,
You know that feeling when you leave your love and it's right behind you,
Can't believe that you did me wrong, We were on i-Chat all night long,
Listening to our favorite songs, She was wrong I am gone,
I thought I loved her, never put no one above her,
Yeah she was my lover, but now onto another like...

That's why.

fryup · 22-09-2013 10:12PM

HansHolzel wrote: »

March 1986 saw a particular low, with the UK top three comprised of Cliff Richard and the Young Ones (Living Doll); Sam Cooke (some jeans ad) and Sam Fox (Touch Me I Want Your Body).

but around the same time this work of utter genius was released, i asked you are there any modern day artists who could come up with something as sublime

rob316 · 22-09-2013 10:40PM

EdenHazard wrote: »

Justin Bieber has better songs that 90 per cent of the crap music that boards deem 'real' music. I honestly don't think people know what they want. There is no difference between One Less Lonely girl and some cheesy Beatles love song. ''I wanna hold your hand'' is as meaningless or meaningful as 'one less lonely girl'', and he has songs that are so much more meaningful, but then its all subjective and how we interpret each song. I feel nothing listening to the Beatles whereas Bieber's music has really been something that has inspired me at low points.

Not sure if serious??

Celly Smunt · 22-09-2013 10:44PM

Fecking loving these three at the moment

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF34N4gJAKE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3i8zU4FFTg

Frank Lee Midere · 23-09-2013 10:59AM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Exactly, my point was that chart music isnt always what the (overall) majority are listening to. Depending on what's released and what numbers are like, you could get to no#1 one week, but not be top 20 the following.

But im not major label ranting either. The majors have some great music, its just that the generic drivel that they constantly output kinda eclipses anything else due to the financial power behind it.

But my point was I could link to artists from the mid-90's which were obscure then and even more obscure now. If they had videos. If i could link to tapes. Bands that got some mention in NME or HotPress. Bands that are forgotten by everybody but the members, some friends and people like me on occasions like this. Some were better than (a lot of ) charting bands but are forgotten now. And nobody is judging the mid-90's by the non charting music. Or even music which scraped the top 40, just. Future generations remember the charting music of any era and this era will be judged on that. The Smiths did chart.

DavyD_83 · 23-09-2013 11:04AM

To quote Grandpa Simpson:
"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, and it'll happen to you, too."

Looks like it's happened to you OP;
Pretty sure it happened to me a good while ago

Plumpynutt · 23-09-2013 11:11AM

returnNull wrote: »

when I hear 'dance anthems' I think of diet trance and all the marketing hype that the big record companys released with gatecrashers 15 and trance anthems 32 :pac:

strangely enough am just reading boards listening to this

Tune!

stateofflux · 23-09-2013 11:13AM

DavyD_83 wrote: »

To quote Grandpa Simpson:
"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, and it'll happen to you, too."

Looks like it's happened to you OP;
Pretty sure it happened to me a good while ago

imo this is the first generation where parents listened/listen to more dangerous, weird and rebellious music than their kids..

BeerWolf · 23-09-2013 11:43AM

All to do with marketing. Prime Example; Justin Bieber - he's absolutely ****... all his music sounds the same, but he's just been marketed so 'well' that he's pretty much got a cult following.

Daveysil15 · 23-09-2013 06:44PM

returnNull wrote: »

when I hear 'dance anthems' I think of diet trance and all the marketing hype that the big record companys released with gatecrashers 15 and trance anthems 32 :pac:

I've listened to a lot of different types of trance over the years, but diet trance?

What the hell is that?

Muise... · 23-09-2013 06:52PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I've listened to a lot of different types of trance over the years, but diet trance? What the hell is that?

Low-Phatt Bass

Daveysil15 · 23-09-2013 07:06PM

A proper dance anthem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBUT0cxtHlg

BlaasForRafa · 23-09-2013 07:16PM

People are kind of looking at this from the wrong perspective, it shoudn't be "why is music today so sh**e?" because there will always be good and bad singers/groups in every era. Instead it should be "why does music today sound so sh**e?"

The reason why a lot of music today sounds like crap is down to how mastering engineers have compressed the hell out of music since around 1990 or so. When music was mostly recorded for vinyl there was more dynamic range ie the difference in volume between the loud parts and the quiet parts was greater so music was easier to listen to for longer times.

Since music has been recorded for cd, during the mastering process the signal has been compressed so everything sounds louder all the time. This can sound more exciting for a few minutes but gets very wearing for someone to listen to for a full cd.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE4wVwoFdYg

Also the use of digital editing suites like protools has been used to eliminate a lot of mistakes that used to crop up in tracks, that sounds like a good thing right? Well maybe not, the tiny, almost imperceptible mistakes are what can give a track spontaneity, you cut them out and then everything ends up sounding bland and lifeless.

why is music today so ****e

Comments