|
Off-Topic (Music) Similar/Non-Related Artists |
View Poll Results: The 00s is a terrible time for music. Do you agree? | |||
Yeah. 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s... music was waaay better. | 10 | 45.45% | |
Not really. There are numerous new acts that really shine. | 4 | 18.18% | |
I LOVE RIHANA KANYE WEST JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE! (Vote this if you like most of 00s music) | 1 | 4.55% | |
I don't think there's a correlation between music quality and the year it was released. | 7 | 31.82% | |
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
2007.10.02, 09:22 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Yumiko's Kitchen
Posts: 589
|
Mainstream, easily accessible music is always about what sells and whats marketable, not whats good. And I think, just like the gaming market, there's always more casual gamer than people who take gaming seriously. So there's the causal listener majority who likes catchy songs, who likes following whatever trends thats being overplayed and overhyped on the radio and TV and teh net, music to them is a product more akin to a piece of fashion item than art. Then there's all you music franatics, who go outta your way to dig up some obscure musician/band in the internet from another country, talk about the music industry, and post up threads like this one here .
world issues do have an impact on music, but I don't think it'll be as direct as making 00s releases "angstier". On the contrast, I think people would want more cheerful music; the media, afterall, is mostly for entertainment. An example of this I reckon is the disband of Rage Against the Machine; I've always suspected their break up was related to 911, and my suspiscion is kinda confirmed when they regrouped this year, with the Iraq war turning sour, US election pending, climate change treaties back on the table etc.
__________________
|
2007.10.03, 07:22 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,671
|
I totally agree with this. Hip-hop has become so popular here that it is what is ruining music in most of our eyes. I know there are some people who like their SR AND hip-hop as well, but there are others that do not like the lack of traditional instruments in it as well as other things. Since this has become so popular, it is what gets most of the play-time. We are in a "club"-centric time right now, where most popular music is stuff what can get the most plays in clubs. There will always be watered down rock or pop that will be mainstream but its this mixed in with the hip-hop, rnb music that is ruining my enjoyment of most mainstream music. Its not just that hip-hop as a music style is bad, but it's what it says and the culture it promotes. Most fans of it look down on education and other values that everyone should have and promote instead sex, drugs, etc. While this may seem like a sweeping generalization, it hits home with most of the stuff that's out there or that I have been exposed to.
A perfect example of the hip-hop rnb influence on mainstream music is shown in Maroon 5. I liked their first album, I didn't praise it or anything, but it was enjoyable to me. Their recent album (that took them like three years to release!) is wayyy more hip-hop and beat oriented, with more typical "club" sounds etc. This totally ruined their style which I had found pretty unique. While it is not completely un-enjoyable to me, I definitely have not heard it in its entirety in one sitting.
Also, our society, in my opinion, is more about mass consumption then it has ever been. With the abilities to get anything you want from any country, it's all about buy buy buy more than it was before. New marketing strategies and such have enhanced the way the companies target the consumer and this has led to bad worked being marketed well and in turn selling well. Plus, MTV doesn't help by turning their station into reality shows instead of devoted to showing music all day long. |
|
2007.10.03, 07:40 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 154
|
Well, I think any big hit by virtue of its being so popular has its own merit and deserves respect, even if by most evaluations of it, it's, well, uh, crap.
This is always a question with all kinds of art--why is the "bad" art always the most popular? Why are the blockbuster movies so stupid when great foreign films/art films never get shown? There is some really cool, cheap, artsy and unique clothing out there--why don't people wear that sort of thing instead of just pulling on a hoodie from Old Navy? Why do people just put up pictures of paintings by Monet and Van Gogh that they probably don't even know the names of instead of delving deeper into the art world? Why does everyone insist on reading Dean Koontz novel after Dean Koontz novel when there's so much more worthwhile reading out there? There are, of course, tons of answers, and no definitive ones. A lot of it strikes me as general laziness, or at least putting art at a low priority in our world. Finding good, obscure artists of any kind takes LOTS of TIME, and it's SO MUCH easier to just put on the radio and pick up the latest Grammy album of the year winner. Instead of shopping for interesting clothing, it's SO MUCH easier to just go to Old Navy and get everything you need there. (Though as a side note, H&M is nicely bringing the more interesting stuff into the mainstream. I think it's done for clothes what the internet did for music, kind of...) The more controversial argument is about the art/entertainment dichotomy--does it actually EXIST? Are they that distinct? Is great entertainment (like, say, The Mummy, or Futurama) art? Is great art (like, say, 8 1/2) entertainment? Can all of the media in our world be put into one of these two categories, and is it something very special indeed when they intersect? (E.g. Spirited Away, Shiina Ringo, Radiohead, Beatles, Pan's Labyrinth, etc. etc. etc.) Do we need to lower our expectations when indulging in "entertainment," like when Roger Ebert decided to take blockbuster movies on their own terms? If the only cause and reason of a piece is to entertain, is it not art? Must art challenge? If we're expecting something to be art, do we heighten our expectations? ...is the cause of the disgruntlement of many fans towards musicians they like because one expects art and receives entertainment, or expects entertainment and receives art? Hm. I'm going to have to think more. But I have to go to my Biology Lecture. That is all for now. (Hedo—some bands with a permanent piano in the mainstream right now are Coldplay and Keane. I hate them, but there you go.) |
2007.10.03, 07:45 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,793
|
|
2007.10.03, 08:32 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 139
|
seriously, huuuge amounts of mainstream music in the 90's, 80's and all were horrible.
...isn't this a little bit of a rose-tainted view of the past decades? I remember having friends who always bought those compilations "Now that's what I call music!" which featured ONLY the best selling UK singles of each semester. It was a double album, and 70% of it was utter crap. Why don't we search for a website that stores chart information of the top selling albums and singles over the decades? I think the results will reveal a large majority of songs and artists that we don't remember quite favourably. Normal radios weren't that interesting as well. Most of their playlists were deplorable, with the exception of a few "author" programs that played more interesting stuff. But now author programs can be heard all over internet radio. Since the death of John Peel, who was an amazing man in it's own right, I don't really see it happening anymore, outside of college radios. Last year, a friend of some uncles of mine passed away. He was maybe 82 years old, and he had a HUGE vinyl collection. It was a collection comprised of top selling singles and albums of the 60's, 70's and 80's from mostly European and American artists. Since the family didn't know what to do with all that vinyl, they started giving it away to other people. My uncles got about 350 random vinyls from that collection, and they didn't know what to do with it, so they gave it to me. From the first moment, I had no idea who these artists were. 90% of the names were totally unknown to me. I started playing them, and most of these artists were just dreadful. After listening to about 200 vinyls, I was just about ready to get a bucket and throw up. Incidentaly, my dad stopped by, took a look at the record collection, and he immediately recognised most of the artists there, and said "wow, these guys passed heaps on the radio when I was younger! They were absolutely famous, everyone knew who these guys and girls were". Shortly after this meeting, a friend of mine decided he wanted to be a DJ and he mentioned he desperately needed vinyls to practice "scratching" with. I readily offer him almost all of the 350 LPs. I only kept about 20 of them for myself. For me, music quality according to date is subjective. But hey, feel free to enjoy each decade of music as you will. Vh1 is just now catching up on the 90's... maybe in 2017 we will all be complaining that the 00's music was much better that the 2010's music?
__________________
*Love yourself first, and everything else will fall into place* - Neale Donald Walsch |
2007.10.03, 01:27 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,671
|
And I hate those bands too |
|
2007.10.07, 04:05 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,671
|
I just had this idea while I was studying for one of my exams, I haven't thought it through completely but I just wanted to throw it out there. Back in the day, the Beatles were very mainstream, while still controversial at times, and now mainly the older generation listens to them and the younger people who listen to them consider themselves elite or that they know a lot about music. Not just the Beatles but many old bands that have stood the test of time, Queen, etc. Do you guys think this will be the case with bands now? While there are not many groups doing groundbreaking things, the ones that are at least good, will they be the voice of the elitists past of the future?
|
2007.10.07, 08:04 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Yumiko's Kitchen
Posts: 589
|
^ Thats a really good point. But I think future 1337ist will still be listening to people like the Beatles and Hendrix because they are the pioneers of what we considers as modern music today. But the 1337ist trend now a days tends to focus more on underground, indie and alternative sounds instead of mainstream and household names like the Beatles.
__________________
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|