Will the music of now be classic in the future?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Whatever about the quality of modern music, at the rate electronically enhanced music is developing, there will be a whole generation of future "stars" who never played an instrument before or had no knowledge of reading music before. I heard somewhere that popular DJ David Guetta had to cancel a gig recently because he lost the USB stick that contained his entire set. There's something inherently wrong with that.

I went to the Fleadh Cheoil for the first time last year and got stick from my brothers saying that it was for "ould lads" and that traditional music is boring. There was more talent on show in any random pub in Derry City that weekend than the youth today would hear in the charts. But of course, it isn't about the musically talented these days unfortunately.

Never mind now - can you think of any music from the 1990s that is even heading towards "classic" status? I can, but it's slim pickings. Where is the current equivalent of e.g. Nirvana, Pearl Jam, or The Smashing Pumpkins? Radiohead or Blur? Where is the music that you have to hear?