When did mainstream music start to go downhill?

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118006984#Comment_118006984

No , 1985

seamus

We're in a definite lull at the moment. Look at the upcoming listings for the 3 Arena, it's flooded with artists who became famous before 2000. Gary Barlow, The Offspring, Simply Red, James Taylor, Ozzy Osbourne, Fatboy Slim, Counting Crows.

Most of this comes down to record labels. A&R is expensive. Finding a raw rock band, giving them some support, providing them some equipment, some transport to and from gigs, paying to promote them, having someone babysit them into a studio to record an album, trying to keep them half-sober for five minutes. All very intensive and expensive. A big investment. Especially big when it's likely that the first album will land with a bit of a thud and you'll need to keep pushing them to get a better second album out. That's if you can manage to convince them to stay together, since they've learned to hate eachother after 32 weeks on the road.

Or, you could find a sexy girl who can sing and wants to be star, have a proven songwriter pen some easy pop for her, release a single and then tour her around the place while paying her virtually nothing. Not forgetting that the labels either own or have a strong link to radio stations, so they don't even have to convince DJs to play the single, they can demand it gets played.

Doesn't work? Never mind, there are 10,000 other kids out there that will do anything to be famous, and you haven't spent that much promoting this failure.

The good news is that there's an upswing coming. It's never been easier for a band or even a solo artist to record, master, release and promote their own music without a record label. Especially in a post-Corona world, people are itching for live performances and every venue that can spare a corner will book in anyone who can knock out a few tunes.

Orla Gartland is an Irish artist who has just released an album that's actually independently produced & released (i.e. she owns the "label"), and it's a complete banger. Self-funded through gigging & patreon. I'm sure it's a lot of work, a labour of love. But it can be done, and it paves the way for other artists to do the same.

BrianD3

Stating the obvious here but the landscape has changed massively since the late nineties, are people even interested in the charts these days. Do people become heavily invested in mainstream artists or do they just jump from one song to the next. Like buying a newspaper where previously they'd have bought a book and then more books from the same author.

Top of the Pops finished in 2006. There are far more distractions and sources of entertainment now. Pop music used to be "important" and....popular. There was also more than enough critical mass for various tribes to emerge.

Just thinking back to somewhat recent history - the "Battle of Britpop" or the frenzy around Oasis' third album or Liam Gallagher being front page (tabloid) news for his various antics - I don't think any of that could happen today.

thebaz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118006786#Comment_118006786

Just to be clear I stated that the late 70's were brilliant, it was the other poster (Raylee_Sour_Sailor)who said they were brutal - not sure if it the new boards or a misquote - but to re-iterate the late 70's were brilliant - new board's s not so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118008106#Comment_118008106

Yeah I posted in agreement with you.

bodhrandude

Well back in the 70s you had Top of the Pops, talent shows like New Faces and Opportunity Knocks, but you also had eclectic music shows like BBC's Old Grey Whistle Test, which featured some mainstream but lots of non-mainstream music too, but of course that came to an end too like RTE's No Disco and Under Ether.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWPh4ZnZE1I

riclad

Every era has some awful music that's released , I'm not saying every one must love led zeppelin or the rolling stones but you had to have great musical talent to be in those bands , now all you need is a good singer and a producer who knows how to use a laptop . Bands used to tour for years before they had a hit album or got famous. If you look at the 80s and 80s there' was a wide range of music in the charts some good some bad across various genres pop hop hop rock

Suckit

God love any artist genuinely trying to make it today. Imagine Simon Cowell types telling you your song is great, but it needs a few changes here and there, and maybe to add samples etc.. to sell on a scale that they want.

Effectively telling you what is in their opinion a good song etc. 🤢

Strumms

the charts up to about 10 years ago were a reasonably eclectic mix of everything from Rap/RnB, Pop, indie, soul, Metal and hard rock...

the indie labels have died a death... the charts are by design overloaded by pop music of a manufactured and crap variety... it takes less to invest in a producer, session musicians and a couple of songwriters backed by a media campaign then to headhunt a band of musicians, wait for them to write, record and produce a record, tour it etc, rest, rinse and repeat.

Manufacturing of music, bands, identities etc is where it’s at... record companies want max sales, max returns... they don’t care about anything else.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118012082#Comment_118012082

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Some bands get through by just putting their own stuff together and calling all the shots. I'd say Noel Gallagher is a bit of a tyrant in the studio, for example.

But most bands, even the greats, get where they are through collaboration with composers and engineers who help polish the music and fill in gaps in it.

The Beatles are a perfect example of this. This is a good synopsis of the evolution of Strawberry Fields from a twee few ideas in John's head, to the orchestral piece it eventually became. Without Brian Epstein, George Martin and others, there's a good chance The Beatles would have been a successful rock band in the early 60s who fell out of favour after a few albums because their sound became stale and samey; like The Beach Boys.

Instead they stopped gigging and produced what many people consider to be their masterpieces and some of the greatest albums ever made. But they would never have been made without the interference of other producers and engineers. In fact, the reason they stopped gigging was precisely because most of their new music had become unplayable live; a result of leaning heavily into engineering and collaboration.

Mainstream music was great up until the mid 00s.

Say Your Number

If Boards is still going in 20 years, we'll have the same variation of this thread saying 'Remember 20 years ago when we had real music like Bruno Mars and Billie Eilish in the charts, how can young ones listen to the sh1te that gets played nowadays'

Nostalgia is a powerful thing.

Suckit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118014363#Comment_118014363

But that is an extreme example. I don't mean it can't be done. But when it is and also turns out to be successful is also very rare. Allen Klein being an example of the other way around, where the bands were successful with their own music and songs, and he would purchase all the rights to their already successful songs or legacy with their deaths making him wealthier. Another extreme example.

I am referring to mainly the current generation, where anyone with access to a laptop (as somebody stated before) and a bit of cash and connections, seem to all like and want the same boring tried and tested sound - and can push it on the artist citing bigger sales.

In theory we should see a load of new music being written and produced by artists now after a year and half lockdown for many of them, but no matter what they may have envisaged, their songs will probably all sound the same as each other once they have been recorded, as that seems to be the norm now. There hasn't been any unique sounding bands or artists (in mainstream mainly) for a long time, I can't think of any really since Nirvana. When Oasis started they were more like a continuation of the Beatles sound. Fresh for that era, but not a new sound.

The majority of bands trying to make it today seem easily convinced that the best thing to do is agree with changing their music to sound similar to what is popular, or making it to begin with, Many of the others just seem manufactured.

Sia sticks out in my mind as an example of an artist that was making a name for herself, was doing very well, had a decent (probably older) following, and then completely reinvented herself. She had made changes before, but this time a lot of her online stuff was pulled and her music became similar to a thousand other American artists, but she does it slightly better and stands out more, maybe because she has some control over the writing. There are many examples both directions, I just think for music to stop steamrolling downhill, the majority control of the making of it has to be given back to the artists. Let them have flops, let them experiment. The producers today have far too much influence and are killing it to fatten their wallets. It's okay to have a little influence and throw in an opinion here and there, which is likely more accurately what Epstein, Martin and others had, rather than a dominating the entire process. Back then also, the music was made and people 1 - 100 argued over whether or not it sounded good. Nowadays it seems to be made purely with a target audience of under 20's in mind.

I come across good modern music. Paradoxically despite all the availability, its just harder to find. All the dross and promoted crap drowns it out

Strumms

Re: the live scene....Has it become a thing now where a lot of young people are not all of a sudden really interested in live music, gigs ? not that bothered about seeing their favorite band live...? Happy enough locked away with Spotify, Tidal or Deezer ? Because as pointed out a lot of touring bands now are established and on the scene a number of years ? the ‘up and comers’ don’t seem to have the same appetite to tour... I’ve always had a thing for seeing bands and artists who I love in a live setting whereas my little cousins who are 21 and 23, love their music but don’t see the point, just listening in their room, headphones, or in the car... when I asked one of them if he goes to many gigs, they haven’t the faintest interest in going... in fact wondered why they’d pay 30- 60 quid a ticket each, 40 on taxis, and XX on drinks.... I thought that’s weird..

cant for me beat the excitement of seeing your favorite band live, it’s perfect entertainment, yes it’s an expensive night out but hey...

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118014478#Comment_118014478

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Montage of Feck

Musical taste is becoming more of a fringe activity socially, people are into are sorts of niche music genres nowadays from k pop to dark techno thanks to the internet making it very accessible.

But the downside is that it is no longer a wide cultural phenomenon where you can find common ties to your generation or peer group.

buried

Plenty of good music being made nowadays, alas its not mainstream. For me, the year the mainstream all started to go downhill was 1996. There was moments of total pop music genius in that year, with the likes of 'Firestarter' and DJ Shadow's 'Endtroducing' both hitting high in the pop charts. But 96 was also the year that gave birth to the Spice Girls. That's when it all went to $hit. And it did. It never came back, mainstream-wise anyways, but f**k it.

thesultan

I probably died in 99 when britpop went. You had boy and, girl pop rubbish along with teeny bopper dance rubbish. The saving grace of the 00s were the strokes and the Arctic monkeys.

Now its auto tune pop, rap and to me it appeals to teenage girls.. When teenage boys are putting westlife, backstreet boys and picture this on the jukebox your in trouble.

thesultan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/96603876#Comment_96603876

Wimp music great quote

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118014478#Comment_118014478

Nah there is an objective shift. When it began, can't say for sure. I personally think the first few years of the 2000s was a time for better pop than ten years before that (so in my case that's the very opposite to the "you're getting old" thing) but the televised talent shows, and pop music becoming online marketing, has resulted in a decline of quality. There's no way the charts contain the same amount of quality that they did pre social media/talent shows. And I know, there was always some crap, and there is always plenty of great non mainstream music... but a good pop song is rare. Now it's just mostly generic, bland, over produced sludge.

Absolutely no way will people look back at this time for mainstream music the way people look back at when The Beatles and Motown were in the charts, when Bowie and Roxy Music were, when Blondie and The Jam were, when Public Enemy and Prince were.

Times do change - that's why 50s pop culture is so different to 80s pop culture, which is so different to today.

odyssey06

The same thing is happening with movies. The divergence between what's big in the box office and what's nominated for oscars gets wider and wider every year. A class of movie is disappearing from cinemas, with movies splitting between franchises that dominate the box office and small budget movies that get critical acclaim. The 'serious' big budget film that dominates both box office and awards is an endangered species. At least with drama, some of it at least is migrating to TV \ streaming platforms.

But with music, the gap is getting wider between the equivalents of the franchises and the indies.

The industries are changing fundamentally, the people who say "Everyone says this generation's taste is gone downhill" are just repeating a cliche and missing the point that the terrain is shifting.

"Everyone says this generation's taste is gone downhill" - while not always inaccurate - has become the new "things were better in my day". It neglects changes like... oh I dunno... the Internet?! 😁

And remember, when old people complained about the youngsters' music back in the day, they were complaining about The Rolling Stones and David Bowie and Kate Bush, and R&B in the 50s, and Elvis. Now we're complaining about Ariana Grande and Cardi B.

TV is a good shout. If you're off work sick and browsing through awful daytime TV and catch the 80s/90s repeats... you get to see truly terrible, embarrassing television. It's not enjoyable nostalgia. It's cringe.

Look at TV now - it's probably the best it's ever been. So that's the opposite to "everything was better in the olden days!" 😀

riclad

Anyone can upload music to soundcloud or youtube ,for free, you don,t need to go near simon cowell, cardi b and ariana grande make good pop, rap music , Every era has good ,bad,mediocre music, in the 80s you needed a good music video to have a hit song .theres plenty of good pop,rock music made in the 90,s .its like twitch or youtube, maybe 5 per cent of people make good money by making video,s or by uploading music on soundcloud .I cannnot remember anyone complaining about david bowie or kate bush .People complained about rock and roll, tv, paperbacks , violent films on vhs, comic books ,every new media has people complaining about it.i think its a good time for female singers, eg adele,beyonce, cardi b, billie eilish . probably 50 per cent of tv programs broadcast are awful ,mediocre ,boring , soap,s ,reality tv, in 5 years time they,ll be forgotten .theres plenty of websites for a good musican and singer to promote their music with asking permission from any record company

Hangdogroad

The "charts" have become less relevant with the advent of streaming. I couldn't tell whats No 1 any given week and couldn't care less. The relevance of an act having a number one single diminished when you had the likes of Westlife hitting the number one spot a gazillion times.