The downward spiral of taste

mike65

Speaking as an Elder Lemon there was plenty of tosh in the charts back in the 70s and 80s but now it sounds quite good.

Except Stars on 45 of course, but thats Dutch so one might'nt expect any better.

I hav'nt been a close observer of 'pop music' for nearly 20 years so I can't say if the % of sh-i-te is greater or lesser than in 1987 but its a given that 90% of everything is rubbish.

Mike.

lordgoat

mike65 wrote:

Speaking as an Elder Lemon there was plenty of tosh in the charts back in the 70s and 80s but now it sounds quite good.

Except Stars on 45 of course, but thats Dutch so one might'nt expect any better.

I hav'nt been a close observer of 'pop music' for nearly 20 years so I can't say if the % of sh-i-te is greater or lesser than in 1987 but its a given that 90% of everything is rubbish.

Mike.

A second lemon here and i agree with the above. There is great music being made today like there always has been and the reverse of this is also true. There's always going to be **** music. And people will always listen to it.

Karl Hungus

projectmayhem wrote:

i know some big fans of metal and rock generally and they've never heard of him. i rectified that problem though. i don't even think it's his musical talent that's special, it's his hair.

Maybe his hair is the source of his talent?

Honestly though, I don't think there's many people out there as talented as he is, and he's got his fingers in so many pies.

Have you heard any of his Electronic ambient stuff? Because I haven't gotten around to getting any of that yet. I only recently completed my Strapping Young Lad discography.

Karl Hungus

malice_ wrote:

This is very true! Someone made the point in another thread that we don't remember the hair metal from the 80s, we remember Metallica, Megadeth, Testament etc. The hair metal may have been top of the charts but the good music stood the test of time!

Yep, that was me, in this thread.

malice_ wrote:

I have however been exposed to the genius of both Dimmu Borgir and Devon Townsend (cheers Karl!)

Devin!

But seriously, no problem at all. I'm always of the opinion that there's just phenominal music out there, and as I've said in the other thread, it's not even that hard to find it. Anyway, I always like helping people discover some more interesting stuff.

What do you make of Pain Of Salvation anywho?

Malice

Karl Hungus wrote:

I'm always of the opinion that there's just phenomenal music out there, and as I've said in the other thread, it's not even that hard to find it. Anyway, I always like helping people discover some more interesting stuff.

Sorry, I had to do it

Karl Hungus wrote:

What do you make of Pain Of Salvation anywho?

They are highly talented musicians that produce very intricate and interesting songs. They can be a little heavy going in places but they are well worth a listen. I would recommend them to anyone that's interested in non pop music. They're not quite metal, they're not quite rock. In fact some of their pieces are very ambient and they even do some folksy numbers. You should start pushing them as heavily as Dimmu Borgir on this board.

Executive Steve

what are you people on??? fm radio / music video pop music is in a better state than ever i think.

granted i rarely listen to it, and when i do i analyse the hell out of it, but if you don't think that britney spears "slave 4 u" was more musically and sonically innovative than whichever random guitar pop four piece indie band is sending you myspace friend requests then i honestly don't know what you're looking for in music.

justin timberlake? genius.

timabaland, the neptunes, destiny's child, outkast, gwen stefani...

just because they're not dressed head to toe in black leather singing about the desecration of the frozen north doesn't mean they're not pushing the envelopes...

Malice

[cm]tyranny wrote:

justin timberlake? genius.

You were doing so well up to this point

Executive Steve

i dunno - the thing about pop music is that for all it's supposed disposability it outlasts the "high culture" shibboleths by a comfortable margin...

in the same way a plastic razor in a landfill will probably outlast a ballet dancer.

philstar

the rot set in with SAW

Stock, Aiken and Waterman

Dudess

Yeah, that timing is about right. 1991 was when things really started to stink - Bryan Adams being number one for most of the year, people like Color Me Badd (I Wanna Sex You Up), the dross that is Cher's The Shoop Shoop Song being on the radio over and over and over; blandness taking over the airwaves - people like Marc Cohn (Walking in Memphis), Amy Grant (Baby, Baby), Oleta Adams (Get Here).
Only the previous year there were pop classics like Adamski's Killer, Deee-Lite's Groove is in the Heart, Beats International's Dub Be Good To Me.

mike65

Deee-Lite's Groove is in the Heart

I should'nt like it but I do Mind you as its 1968 re-cycled...!

I was flicking through the music cluster on NTL and something struck me rather forcefully - people have given up the tricky business of actualy singing. It really is just a shout now, even when the mood is meant to be slower and quieter its still a forced vocal styling thats used. Screech is a better term for much of it.

It seems melody is the enemy of populist music.

Mike.

Steez

The music in the charts is the music that the majority of people buy/listen to. Unfortunately the majority of people are idiots so it's usually terrible.

Look deeper and you shall find what you seek.

BaZmO*

Steez wrote:

The music in the charts is the music that the majority of people buy/listen to.

That might have been the case over 10 years ago but it's not the case anymore. It takes a ridiculously small amount of sales to get into the charts nowadays.

Rozie

BaZmO* wrote:

That's bullsh1t, music and all arts are subjective. Do you honestly think that you're gonna get a debate about music where the people involved are going to be objective?

The only way you can be totally objective to music is to base your judgments on facts and the only facts would be sales. But if you do do that, well then in the context of the original argument the music being released today, especially in the pop charts in far superior to anything alternative, which is nonsense.

At the end of the day what constitutes as good music, or bad music for that matter, is a totally personal thing. If you don't like an artist's work well then you don't hang one of his paintings in your hall, so therefore if you don't like what's being played on the radio put a CD on that you do like. Simple as.

So what you're saying is; that STEPS are on equal merit with Led Zepplin. It's all down to what people like, there's no objective merit to either one's talent.

Uh-huh.

BaZmO*

Rozie wrote:

So what you're saying is; that STEPS are on equal merit with Led Zepplin.

Did you actually read what you quoted?

Rozie

BaZmO* wrote:

Did you actually read what you quoted?

Absolutely. What you are saying is that music is entirely what someone likes - therefore, as I said, Steps is on equal merit to Led Zepplin. Because only taste matters. What you're saying is that there's nothing, in any capacity, that makes Led Zepplin in any way better than STEPS. One simply cannot be be more talented than the other. You are, in otherwords, forcing equality between them to fit your simplistic way of viewing things.

Yet you yourself find it hard to stray away fully by stating that it's "ridiculous" that somehing in the Pop charts could be better than something alternative, showing how weak the relativist position is, despite it's insane popularity(which is due to to fact that any dumb **** can think in relative terms as it requires no reasoning or measure, no offense).

Relativism is an even simpler way of thinking than black or white - as there is no black, no white, only grey. You don't have to know or care what's good or bad, right or wrong.

It is a very simple way of thinking and those who uphold it cannot understand why it would not be correct. And it is not a correct way of thinking. There is a subjective element in the same way that anyone can like Apples despite there being no real creative merit in those. But that doesn't change the fact that some people are simply more talented and some songs simply inherently more engaging before the current hype of the times kicks in.

Karl Hungus

Yeah Bazmo! Didn't we already quantify that Dimmu Borgir are the greatest band in the world in that other thread, so of course we can be objective about it!

Rozie

Karl Hungus wrote:

Yeah Bazmo! Didn't we already quantify that Dimmu Borgir are the greatest band in the world in that other thread, so of course we can be objective about it!

I used up quite a bit of my 3 Bandwidth downloading their stuff(I have to try multiple threads in DC to make sure it works), so it better not be **** when I try it.

r3nu4l

BaZmO* wrote:

The only way you can be totally objective to music is to base your judgments on facts and the only facts would be sales.

I totally agree that tastes in music are subjective but it is possible to quantify good music based on something other than sales. Mathematics!

Maths is completely objective (unless you're a statistician :rolleyes:) and has been used to determine the musical quality of various pieces of classical music. I'm sure that maths can be applied to all types of music and that the results, while totally objective, would probably surprise everybody. After all a piece that is composed of excellent 'quality' may not sound 'good' to everybody. This is where the subjective element comes into it.

Can we say that what the masses choose to buy is good music? No. We can say that what the masses choose to buy is good marketing, not necessarily good music. On occassion, we do get good music and it is recognised by sales but sadly not very often today!

Rozie

r3nu4l wrote:

I totally agree that tastes in music are subjective but it is possible to quantify good music based on something other than sales. Mathematics!

Maths is completely objective (unless you're a statistician :rolleyes:) and has been used to determine the musical quality of various pieces of classical music. I'm sure that maths can be applied to all types of music and that the results, while totally objective, would probably surprise everybody. After all a piece that is composed of excellent 'quality' may not sound 'good' to everybody. This is where the subjective element comes into it.

Can we say that what the masses choose to buy is good music? No. We can say that what the masses choose to buy is good marketing, not necessarily good music. On occassion, we do get good music and it is recognised by sales but sadly not very often today!

This is pretty much my view too. But I believe in using a more kind of "fuzzy logic" in determining objective quality, as maths only tends to derive chord theory/progressions, etc.(though it's important to note that Bazmo's position of "No objective measure" is defeated alone by this, as it is at least some small objective measure).

Tonal quality is important, too. Some songs will never send shivers down your spine. Others will. Not all songs have to, but it's certainly one good way of having a "good" song.

shane86

DarkJager wrote:

It occurred to me last night while flicking through the music channels, that todays taste in music is possibly the worst of any era. For example, Mika. How this guy even got near a recording studio is beyond me. Its pure camped up, earaching **** at its lowest. Lyrics that don't make any sense, terrible backing tracks and songs that seem to be designed just to irritate anyone who listens to them.

Then you've got your "Indie" bands, who all sound exactly the ****ing same as each other, but it seems to be the cool thing to be into this now. Just look at Pete Doherty. He's a ****ing smack head who makes some of the worst music ever (in terms of both musical and lyrical content) yet people are obsessed with him????

Of course then, there are the likes of Cascada. Bland dance music with no soul whatsoever but it seems to sell by the bucketload.

Agreed on all counts. Did skanger-house/trance like Cascada and DJ Sammy not exist in the early 90s or is it just that the classics have relegated them to the never to be played again list? I have to admit, I was heavy into hip hop only and despised dance until (iirc) the summer of 2001 when Scooter brought out the Logical Song Obviously since then ive outgrown Scooter but back then i thought their music was god-sent (though i have to admit, for old times sake, if im in a club and Logical Song, Posse or How Much is the Fish gets played, I will give it ultimate socks on the floor in respect to the old days and **** whoever says otherwise, McCabes Maniac is and always will be a cheesy classic). These days im into a mix of trance, house (if you told me in 2000 id like house ida said it was for gays, aa you grow older you can appreciate quality ) hip hop and 90s rock like Oasis, and tbh ive heard very little in hip hop to interest me in recent years, nearly everything i listen to on that end is 1992-97 with a few exceptions.

[cm]tyranny wrote:

justin timberlake? genius.

timabaland, the neptunes, destiny's child, outkast, gwen stefani...

Pretty correct. As a hip hop fan ive never rated any of the neptunes work for hip hop artists bar Clipse, which was decent (Busta Rhymes, Snoop, their neptunes produced tunes around 2002 time were awful) but in terms of r&b artists (which, in fairness, Id class Timberlake as, he moved away from the boyband cheese years ago) they have done very good. **** having been in a boyband, Justin and, for example, Robbie Williams, make listenable music. Its not the most profound heart felt stuff ever made but **** it, worth a listen. Even Dr Dre produced what is a banging beat for one of my most hated songs ("If i was a rich girl" by Gwen Stefani. Whatca mean "if" i was a rich girl, you are ya cocky bitch ). Thats what makes Dre so unique, the first time i heard the tune was in Barcode onjce two odd years ago, I heard the beat and, without first hearing Gwen said to my mate "whats this, its a dre track ill bet you anything". Cali Love, In Da Club, Next Episode, Bad Intentions, Encore, Still Dre, most of the Doggystyle album, dudes a genius

munkeehaven

Its a well known fact that most people have a terrible taste in music hence why so much drudge is played on radio television etc.everything is so bland and homogenous these days across all various genres.of course if you look a little under the radar you will find some brilliant music.its still out there just not right in front of your face.

but certainly there are talented mainstream musicians out there....cant forget them..

Anima

Rozie wrote:

Tonal quality

:rolleyes:

Rozie

Anima wrote:

:rolleyes:

What the **** is wrong with you, honestly?

munkeehaven

Life in general is getting more commericial and of course this is going to effect the music industry..in the mainstream music scene image is everything and the quality of the music is always going to be the lowest priority.it also depends what age group is being directed at.obviously anything for the tweens and preadolescents is going to sound like contrived s***.


take for example the music magazine NME..i used to love reading that, i used to be able to read up on upcoming and promising bands but now it is just tabloid fodder hyping the next big thing to the nth degree..radio plays the same goddamn songs over and over...late night radio is the only quality left (cian o ciabhain, donal dineen, leagues o toole)
im going to stop ranting now before i get into a fervour

Tha Gopher

r3nu4l wrote:

I totally agree that tastes in music are subjective but it is possible to quantify good music based on something other than sales. Mathematics!

Maths is completely objective (unless you're a statistician :rolleyes:) and has been used to determine the musical quality of various pieces of classical music. I'm sure that maths can be applied to all types of music and that the results, while totally objective, would probably surprise everybody.

Please. Math equations for non numerical ...eh....subjects are the height of preteniousness.

Rozie

The problem with this, as with many things, is simplistic thought processes.

Default to relativism, because you don't have to think about anything that way.

Someone claims it's objective, oh, there must be a formula for it then.

Maths aren't the only thing that is "objective"...

Stev_o

Todays music is as stereotypical as you can get, its very hard to find songs that have a unique feel about them. The problem is that in todays modern world any tone deaf out of tune person can go out and make a song then do something to get into the media and bang its No1.

*Sigh* music today isnt musical! Its just the same old crap rechurned over and over again with pointless lyrics about loosing a girlfriend.

And i agree with most people here iv ended up looking at bands from different countries and listening to them and its fantastic possibly because the mind cant understand the lyrics so they listen to the harmonies melodies etc. Check out Kent great Swedish band

JC 2K3

Rozie wrote:

The problem with this, as with many things, is simplistic thought processes.

Default to relativism, because you don't have to think about anything that way.

Someone claims it's objective, oh, there must be a formula for it then.

Maths aren't the only thing that is "objective"...

Yes but how do you objectively conclude that one band is better than another apart from "you just know"?

Rozie

JC 2K3 wrote:

Yes but how do you objectively conclude that one band is better than another apart from "you just know"?

I suppose the problem is we haven't really been able to quantify it thus far. It doesn't really seem right to, either, just as long as we realise that some songs have a lot more creativity in them than others.

I suppose it's the same as how you'd quantify a lot of things that don't have direct objective measures - arguing the merits of one band as opposed to the other. Between two equally talented debaters/music critics, whatever, the better band may become evident throughout the argument, analysing their flaws and virtues.