Go Back   Electric Mole Forums > Other > Off-Topic (Music)
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2007.10.02, 09:22 PM   #11
Kasanagi
Senior Member
 
Kasanagi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Yumiko's Kitchen
Posts: 589
Kasanagi has had more than 15 seconds of fame
Default

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.
__________________
Kasanagi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007.10.03, 07:22 AM   #12
HEDOfloe
Senior Member
 
HEDOfloe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,671
HEDOfloe puts considerable thought into their posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tokyo Jihad View Post
It has alot to do with the mindeset of what is popular.
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.
Originally Posted by justriiingo View Post
No one's stopping you but yourself.

So do we agree that music that's most accessible are horrible and the godly stuff is hidden in an obscure corner of the music sphere that very few have access to? If the music is actually good, why aren't the broadcasting media (TV/Radio) actually broadcasting them, making them accessible to the general public? What is it that changed in terms of the way we receive music?

Maybe we can also think in terms of the environment for making music. The price of recording technology quite a lot lower than before and you do get a number of musicians who released CDs recorded at home. How much are people willing to pay for these recordings? Can it be comparable to similar releases from record companies with proper recording equipment? Are people more or less willing to pay for music these days?
I can't agree that the good stuff is hidden because there is some mainstream groups that I think are really good but just might not appeal to your particular tastes. I think there has always been music that has been accessible to the masses and others that are more niche, but today it seems like we are overwhelmed with the former. This overwhelming wave of watered down music seems to stem from the fact that it IS easier to record things in your home and people get left without learning the classics before moving on. I can't think of any band that's in the mainstream that actually has a permanent piano like TJ. Anyone who I've ever met that played classical instruments, such as the piano, just worked on playing the classics and not really making their own music. Nowadays, everyone just want to pick up a guitar and make something catchy instead of really trying to do something new or just worthwhile.

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.
HEDOfloe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007.10.03, 07:40 AM   #13
madpawn
Senior Member
 
madpawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 154
madpawn pleased at least somebody
Default

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.)
madpawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007.10.03, 07:45 AM   #14
fluffiethesock
Senior Member
 
fluffiethesock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,793
fluffiethesock puts considerable thought into their posts
Default

Originally Posted by madpawn View Post
(E.g. Spirited Away, Shiina Ringo, Radiohead, Beatles, Pan's Labyrinth, etc. etc. etc.)
Hmmm, the fact that I love the first four examples you provided makes me think I should watch Pan's Labyrinth.
fluffiethesock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007.10.03, 08:32 AM   #15
bebio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 139
bebio is an asset to this community
Default

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
bebio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007.10.03, 01:27 PM   #16
HEDOfloe
Senior Member
 
HEDOfloe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,671
HEDOfloe puts considerable thought into their posts
Default

Originally Posted by madpawn View Post
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?

(Hedo—some bands with a permanent piano in the mainstream right now are Coldplay and Keane. I hate them, but there you go.)
That's interesting. Although I don't lower my expectations or standards for the music I like, I do sometimes feel that critics take some aspects too seriously. Not that some things should not be criticized, but a lot of times people try to dissect pieces of music to the point where they can't even enjoy it because of a measly little thing in a song that bothers them or they think is wrong. It's entertainment first, art second. While I obviously want my music to be good and full of great ideas, the main purpose of music has always been to entertain. People started making music out of boredom or leisure time and it has evolved into a great artistic form. I'm not telling everyone to lower their standards on music, but sometimes you have to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

And I hate those bands too
HEDOfloe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007.10.07, 04:05 PM   #17
HEDOfloe
Senior Member
 
HEDOfloe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,671
HEDOfloe puts considerable thought into their posts
Default

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?
HEDOfloe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007.10.07, 08:04 PM   #18
Kasanagi
Senior Member
 
Kasanagi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Yumiko's Kitchen
Posts: 589
Kasanagi has had more than 15 seconds of fame
Default

^ 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.
__________________
Kasanagi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:11 PM.