Music R.I.P

RB94

I don't know if this has been said already but as you get older, your brain becomes more and more unable to handle dopamine, which is released when your hear fresh, exciting music. Therefore, your musical tastes will stagnate since you won't get that chemical high from hearing new music. It's not necessarily that music is getting worse, people are just getting old. This generation of teens and young adults will inevitably find chart music of the future as terrible as those complaining now.

Cybercubed

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ok and how many people born in the 50s or 60s are users of forums and the internet for that sort of thing, not many , the problem is your dealing with people who were born mostly in the 90s and 80s contributing to results like that and especially considering everyone born in the 90s has a weird obsession with the 80s and the fact that 60s/70s music hasnt been in fashion for a long time now , that the polls would be skewed somewhat

Well I agree with some of this actually. A lot of users on there are born in the 90s, thats why the 00s (and 10s?) have done ok, in other polls the 00s have done awful (the short one on boards last year showed this). Now if you were to say to me that 60s music is the best, you could have a point because some of the greatest and best selling artists of all time came from that era (Beatles/Elvis/Rolling Stones etc). But the 00s?? I just don't see how people can make that claim but I wouldn't criticise or bregrudge anybody's musical tastes. The 00s should be doing a lot better on that poll given the ages, but it doesn't, I go on the online largest student uk forum and the results were even worse there. So the 00s as a legacy? I'm not so sure, time will tell I guess. But their own age groups aren't even voting for it.

Eric Cartman

Cybercubed wrote: »

Well I agree with some of this actually. A lot of users on there are born in the 90s, thats why the 00s (and 10s?) have done ok, in other polls the 00s have done awful (the short one on boards last year showed this). Now if you were to say to me that 60s music is the best, you could have a point because some of the greatest and best selling artists of all time came from that era (Beatles/Elvis/Rolling Stones etc). But the 00s?? I just don't see how people can make that claim but I wouldn't criticise or bregrudge anybody's musical tastes. The 00s should be doing a lot better on that poll given the ages, but it doesn't, I go on the online largest student uk forum and the results were even worse there. So the 00s as a legacy? I'm not so sure, time will tell I guess.

00's are by no means near the greatest decade in music, but the 60s,70s,80s and 90s all had their popular classics that will go on forever, and a load of crap. If disco and the 70s was in fashion at the moment the polls would skew that way, its just that the 80s has become fashionable again in the last 4-5 years with the 'hipster' sub-culture so it distorts a lot of results especially in internet land. If fashion had nothing to do with it and the demographics were balanced id say the 00's would lose and the 70s/80s/90s would all be within a % of eachother

Scubadevils

readyletsgo wrote: »

New album extremely needed!!!!!!

I heard The Black Dog are doing a remix for them at the moment, lets hope its for a 'new' track from a 'new' something!

EDIT: Also, to OP, go to Forbidden Fruit this June and see what your missing....

http://pitchfork.com/news/45754-dont-get-too-excited-about-a-new-boards-of-canada-album-just-yet-everybody/

As has been said, every decade has had it's fair share of shyte - I've experienced 3 decades now and I remember a lot of absolute crap in each of them... I suppose the difference now is a wider reach through so many forms of media compared to previous decades.

I used to consider the 80s to be a pretty poor decade for music with the exception of a couple of groups... completely different view now though, I just didn't discover the amazing music that existed then until recently, nice catching up though all these years later!

Edit - to those saying no good music these days, absolute bollix... again as has been said already, you are clearly not looking or listening in the right places.

anhedonia

if you like electronic music, which has been solid for the past 20 years, then what happens in the charts is completely irrelevant.

candy-gal1

all depends on what you listen to of this decade/generation imho, i mean there is about 90% of entire rubbish in popular music these days tbh, id put on the radio and more often than not have no idea whos singing etc, depending on what station of course!
there are a few actual talented, whatever the fcuk that means today :pac:, about in the music industry today, you just got to keep an ear out.
but seriously, most if not all music types etc have been done and done again before this, not a lot of actual originality left tbh, so anything that resembles being an original il have to have look/listen

4zn76tysfajdxp

carbon nanotube wrote: »

Dave Grohl wonder what he makes of this...

I can imagine him doiing a gig and saying...

'F**k one direction, this is how we do music...........':)

The Foo Fighters are as bland as any boyband. They just have tattoos and long hair.

Irish Guitarist

In my day we had real music. :mad:

LH Pathe

Dravokivich wrote: »

Pop charts are not representitive of music on the whole. There's a lot more out there than the top whatever...

an underground of less sincere, more hardcore boybands is there.. because what's really going on en masse tends to reflect itself in the charts. Albeit watered down

Who's laying what new paving stones there are left to be laid anyhow. Or are people still just pulling up ones previously laid in order to 'progress' .. Or maybe taking defective ones from an old skip, like dubstep

Killer Wench

Mmbop, suckas, mmbop.

guitarzero

5 handsome young lads willing to say anything a girl wants to hear. Somewhere in there there are millions to be made.

People dont know how good they have it. Sure there were no charts in the 1800's, people used to have to just make up a hymn on the spot while digging holes. Then go home and theres your oul lad in a trance, channelling some ancient mantra called sean nós! Sure this was it. Now all these feckers whining cuz some fancy gadget called a stereo plays these young fellahs music every now and then. Back to the fields with ye.

bnt

Bloody hell! The 1800s weren't THAT bad. They did have musical instruments, and sheet music, and musical groups. Oh, wait - are you talking about Ireland specifically? Then you're right, the Brits stole all your music, leaving you none. Sorry. :pac:

The way you guys talk, you'd think the world was invented in the year 2000. A person born in 1965 would be only 47 this year, and the Internet has been available widely (outside academia) for over 20 years. It wasn't fast, but that was fine. And you think people born in the 1950s or 60s can't understand Internet forums? I have one word for you: Usenet.

I know time is a great filter, allowing us to forget the crap and remember the good stuff as "classic". But: look at what is coming out of the music industry today, and try to imagine any of it enjoying classic status in 10 or 20 years. Can you? I can't. You might say that only hipsters are in to the 80s, but at least those hipsters have some good music to latch on to. The difference is: back in the 80s, those of us who were were able to find some good mainstream music to latch on to, and 20+ years later, it's still good. If OMD or Talk Talk were trying to get started today, they'd be ignored by the big labels because they wouldn't sell records quickly enough.

the groutch

music died with the end of the 90s

Crystalset

The Boy Bands Have Won [Explicit Lyrics]

Chumbawamba

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2TuohSsw4k

Blisterman

BBC were doing a great series, Sounds of the 20th Century, each episode featuring the popular music from a different year from 1951 to 2001.

The most striking thing, is that the majority of years had the same ratio of crap to classics. People seem to forget that David Bowie and Led Zeppelin were sharing the charts with the Bay City Rollers and the Osmonds.

That been said, there were a couple of periods where chart music was really good, the mid 60's and early 80's spring to mind. But, as someone said, time is a great filter.

The beauty of living in today's world is that there is way way more music available to discover than any period before. Never before have bands been so easily able to record, release and distribute their own music.

The downside is, that with so many bands out there, it's very difficult to make a living from music.

Hence, why music today is quite polarised between the highly polished and promoted Simon Cowell stuff, and the long tail of smaller bands in it purely for the love of the music.

Captain Graphite

bnt wrote: »

More history: before the mid-1960s it was rare for singers to write their own songs; you had the likes of Buddy Holly, Elvis and the Beatles, but that was about it.

Don't think Elvis ever wrote any of his stuff. And he had people controlling his image and movie appearances etc. Plenty of people manufactured him into a cash cow pop star.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Is everyone forgetting how Stock, Aitken and Waterman virtually took over the British charts in the late eighties? Or that Jive Bunny could go to number one by haphazardly throwing a bunch of fifties and sixties songs together?

Jive Bunny were #1 in the UK charts on the day I was born. I was rather depressed when I found that out.

cloptrop

What you dont realise OP is what charts and what gets remembered arnt always the same.
The spice girls and take that were churning out number 1s when I was growing up but if you think back to the early 90s its all Oasis , Nirvana REM . Blur I think only had 2 number 1 singles . I doubt oasis or blur had 1 US number 1 .
Ever since this same thing has carried on with westlife , x factor people , no way no way man mna , girls aloud , pussycat dolls , rebeca black , justin bieber , n sync , while great bands did their work slightly below the number 1 radar.
Its terrible these dopes bring in more money than Bob Marley would if he dug himself up for one more song , but 14 year old girls buy singles and parents will give up money for a squeeky clean boyband single happy in the fact their daughters arnt dressing like the bride of chucky and buying marylin mansun.

Logical Fallacy

cloptrop wrote: »

Its terrible these dopes bring in more money than Bob Marley would if he dug himself up for one more song , but 14 year old girls buy singles and parents will give up money for a squeeky clean boyband single happy in the fact their daughters arnt dressing like the bride of chucky and dressing like marylin mansun.

This has always been one of the freakiest things about boybands i reckon...the parental endorsement of a grown man singing to your young daughter that he really wants to **** her.

ghostdancer

people who say music is dead are usually just too lazy to bother looking for the vast amounts of great music that are around today.

thanks to the internet, and the ease of access to instruments and production software, there's never been a beeter time to be a music fan IMO.

Dravokivich

LH Pathe wrote: »

an underground of less sincere, more hardcore boybands is there.. because what's really going on en masse tends to reflect itself in the charts. Albeit watered down

Who's laying what new paving stones there are left to be laid anyhow. Or are people still just pulling up ones previously laid in order to 'progress' .. Or maybe taking defective ones from an old skip, like dubstep

Doesn't have to be "underground" either. I listen to stuff such as Gene Pitney, Tom Jones, Elvis Presley, Otis Redding.

Niether hit the charts too much these days, all fúcking brilliant though.

Logical Fallacy

LH Pathe wrote: »

an underground of less sincere, more hardcore boybands is there.. because what's really going on en masse tends to reflect itself in the charts. Albeit watered down

Who's laying what new paving stones there are left to be laid anyhow. Or are people still just pulling up ones previously laid in order to 'progress' .. Or maybe taking defective ones from an old skip, like dubstep

I'm unsure how something like Dubstep is considered a defective one from an old skip to be honest?

At the time of it's initial emergence there was literally nothing like it.

guitarzero

What I've always said, if people arent happy with the music then do something about i.e learn to play an instrument, set up a band, etc. Its no ones responsibility to make music, its often down to things like effort, practice, being inventive and creative, you could at least try.

Or just browse the web until you find something, either way its gonna require a bit more effort.

smokedeels

guitarzero wrote: »

What I've always said, if people arent happy with the music then do something about i.e learn to play an instrument, set up a band, etc.

This.

Click here, now you've no excuses.

guitarzero

smokedeels wrote: »

This.

Click here, now you've no excuses.

It worked for Dylan.

I'll go one better

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68648264

bnt

Captain Graphite wrote: »

Don't think Elvis ever wrote any of his stuff. And he had people controlling his image and movie appearances etc. Plenty of people manufactured him into a cash cow pop star.

Yeah - bad example, I should have looked him up first. Reportedly, he would make a minor change or two and get co-songwriting credit, and the main songwriters would go along with that for the sake of the record sales.

I like the story behind Love Me Tender: it's an old tune (Civil War era) with new words by a guy named Ken Darby. He was forced to give co-writing credit to Elvis, so he put his wife down as the other co-writer, because "she didn't write it either".

fryup

chart pop music died in 1988..with the onset of stock aiken & waterman and a year later with new kids on the block the rot set in there on

EdenHazard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoFXbt2tfbU