2016 - The Year the Music Died?

Flint Fredstone

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

Hahahaha so what exactly, am I supposed to not mention ABBA, Quo, Queen, Zeppelin, The Stones, Rory etc when I'm asked to define the 70s or pop music at that time, because they were commercial? Nonsense argument there, chief.

I could have said The Raveonettes, Wet, Anna Savage, All Twins, Morrissey and Marshall etc but, the chances of anyone hearing of them on here are slim to none.

And it does actually. It means I've listened to, played and seen more than the vast majority of others. I'm out there, night after night, doing that. I'm not listening to the radio at home. And Ed Sheeran is ****e. The only people who don't know that are teenage girls and single women in their 40s

Yeah because you have any idea of the musical tastes of the people that post here. What a stupid comment :rolleyes:

You might want to lose the superiority complex. You're coming across as some sort of self-proclaimed oracle of music.

batistuta9

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

"Jesus, they sound a lot like Slade, T-Rex and Quo"

Who?

mr_edge_to_you

batistuta9 wrote: »

But what would Mr Edge's father have thought in 94 when he overheard his son listening to Definitely Maybe on cassette?

His exact words were: "I preferred the other one.......something honey by Radiohead"

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Yeah because you have any idea of the musical tastes of the people that post here. What a stupid comment :rolleyes:

You might want to lose the superiority complex. You're coming across as some sort of self-proclaimed oracle of music.

Hahaha and you're not?

I'll lose nothing, smarmy

Anesthetize

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

I've got absolutely nothing to prove to you ffs State of you

28 is not middle aged and I don't like Zeppelin....I told you, learn your lesson and don't assume. Then again, you are 13 years of age so it's understandable

I see you as the sort of person who says he hates U2 and hates their music but, throws a bitch fit and cries when he doesn't get tickets to go and see them play :D:D:D

You're accusing me of being 13 yet you are acting more immature than everyone else in the thread. What point are you trying to make in this thread exactly? Your posts seem nonsensical.

Flint Fredstone

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

Hahaha and you're not?

I'll lose nothing, smarmy

I haven't proclaimed anything. I'm done with this one, you're acting like a child now.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Anesthetize wrote: »

You're accusing me of being 13 yet you are acting more immature than everyone else in the thread. What point are you trying to make in this thread exactly? Your posts seem nonsensical.

Just like your posts on "music in 2016" are nonsensical

Child like opinions will receive childlike responses

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I haven't proclaimed anything. I'm done with this one, you're acting like a child now.

Could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment by not getting involved

Anesthetize

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

Just like your posts on "music in 2016" are nonsensical

Child like opinions will receive childlike responses

But I didn't give any opinions on music in 2016.

Flint Fredstone

Anesthetize wrote: »

But I didn't give any opinions on music in 2016.

And just for the record, I didn't give mine either and I'm definitely not embarrassed :pac:

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Anesthetize wrote: »

But I didn't give any opinions on music in 2016.

It doesn't take a genius to work out you approve of it when someone comes along, criticises it and you jump to it's defence.

As for Freddie Flintoff there, same goes for him

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

And just for the record, I didn't give mine either and I'm definitely not embarrassed :pac:

You jumped to defend it. Pretty embarrassing tbf

Breener122

Music is far from dead depending on what your taste is like.
I love hard rock in the vein of Guns N Roses, Thin Lizzy, Nirvana, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin etc. But most of these bands are either disbanded or on their last legs and in 10 years will all be gone completely. When that time comes rock music to ME will be pretty much dead as there are no bands on the horizon who can touch the ones i mentioned and probably never will be. There are a number of reasons for this - firstly album sales. These bands got huge because millions of people bought their records. That will never happen again so no hard rock act will ever become arena filling superstars ever again. Secondly this kind of music just isnt popular with the majority of young people anymore. They're more into Drake and Twenty one Pilots and Taylor Swift etc. Which means there are less and less young people wanting to be rock stars which means less bands being formed and less quality rock music being made.
Thirdly - maybe all that great rock songs have already been written? Maybe its impossible to top Stairway to heaven, Freebird, Paradise City, Smells like teen Spirit etc.

So thats mainstream rock.. Dead as a doornail essentially.
But then you have more underground less mainstream genres like Heavy metal and Hip Hop. They both had their time in the sun (the 80s for metal was huge commercially, think Metallica etc and late 90s - early 2000's for hip hop Tupac, Eminem, 50 Cent etc) but if you want to find good quality Heavy Metal and Hip Hop you have to look underground where both genres are thriving and bursting at the seems with quality.
So yeah if you're stuck in the 70s and 80s then music probably is dead for you but if you're a little more open minded theres plently of great and innovative music out there.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Breener122 wrote: »

Music is far from dead depending on what your taste is like.
I love hard rock in the vein of Guns N Roses, Thin Lizzy, Nirvana, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin etc. But most of these bands are either disbanded or on their last legs and in 10 years will all be gone completely. When that time comes rock music to ME will be pretty much dead as there are no bands on the horizon who can touch the ones i mentioned and probably never will be. There are a number of reasons for this - firstly album sales. These bands got huge because millions of people bought their records. That will never happen again so no hard rock act will ever become arena filling superstars ever again. Secondly this kind of music just isnt popular with the majority of young people anymore. They're more into Drake and Twenty one Pilots and Taylor Swift etc. Which means there are less and less young people wanting to be rock stars which means less bands being formed and less quality rock music being made.
Thirdly - maybe all that great rock songs have already been written? Maybe its impossible to top Stairway to heaven, Freebird, Paradise City, Smells like teen Spirit etc.

So thats mainstream rock.. Dead as a doornail essentially.
But then you have more underground less mainstream genres like Heavy metal and Hip Hop. They both had their time in the sun (the 80s for metal was huge commercially, think Metallica etc and late 90s - early 2000's for hip hop Tupac, Eminem, 50 Cent etc) but if you want to find good quality Heavy Metal and Hip Hop you have to look underground where both genres are thriving and bursting at the seems with quality.
So yeah if you're stuck in the 70s and 80s then music probably is dead for you but if you're a little more open minded theres plently of great and innovative music out there.

Agree to a certain extent.

The last part, where you say about innovative, I don't agree `100% with.
I listen to U2,Deadmau5, Chain Gang of 1974 etc for that reason alone. Sometimes I'm disappointed but, the quality of track is in general usually good.

In terms of Metal and Hip Hop, I can't see anything about that becoming innovative and introducing something new. Hip Hop has been the same for God only knows how long and Metal, while a few mainstream metal bands have been successful with creative and innovative new ideas, I think it's reached it's limited too.

Although, there's certainly no innovative ceiling on rhythm and beats etc

Flint Fredstone

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

Agree to a certain extent.

The last part, where you say about innovative, I don't agree `100% with.
I listen to U2,Deadmau5, Chain Gang of 1974 etc for that reason alone. Sometimes I'm disappointed but, the quality of track is in general usually good.

In terms of Metal and Hip Hop, I can't see anything about that becoming innovative and introducing something new. Hip Hop has been the same for God only knows how long and Metal, while a few mainstream metal bands have been successful with creative and innovative new ideas, I think it's reached it's limited too.

Although, there's certainly no innovative ceiling on rhythm and beats etc

Are you aware that dance music aficionados would view Deadmau5 in the same way you would view Ed Sheeran?

He doesn't even like his own latest album. Purely, unapologetically in it for the money.

http://edm.com/articles/2016/11/26/deadmau5-hates-his-own-album

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Are you aware that dance music aficionados would view Deadmau5 in the same way you would view Ed Sheeran?

He doesn't even like his own latest album. Purely, unapologetically in it for the money.

http://edm.com/articles/2016/11/26/deadmau5-hates-his-own-album

And are you aware that after ****ting on to me about thinking I know what other people think and like in regards music, you've basically just proved yourself to be a hypocrite?

I listen to his tracks to get a feel of what ground he's trying, or was trying, to break in music. That's it. I've never bought a single song of his, nor have I ever watched or attended one of his sets. Some have been the highest quality, some have been utter rubbish. It happens.

Ed Sheeran is worse than rubbish. He's everything I hate in regards music. I've listened to every single Ed Sheeran song and I can pick holes in them all day long. He offers nothing! Those lyrics are awful. I've no idea why anyone gets off on them. He's one of few things I can't get my head around in music. He's the one man who I cannot understand why he's successful. I've seen countless, more talented singers and musicians, with far better original songs, struggle to even get a gig. Plus, I can see right through him

Now, I'm guessing you're a fan of some sort and this offends you. If that's true, then please don't respond. I'm not one bit arsed discussing him. I don't like him. End of. Happy to discuss anything else

Flint Fredstone

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

And are you aware that after ****ting on to me about thinking I know what other people think and like in regards music, you've basically just proved yourself to be a hypocrite?

I listen to his tracks to get a feel of what ground he's trying, or was trying, to break in music. That's it. I've never bought a single song of his, nor have I ever watched or attended one of his sets. Some have been the highest quality, some have been utter rubbish. It happens.

Ed Sheeran is worse than rubbish. He's everything I hate in regards music. I've listened to every single Ed Sheeran song and I can pick holes in them all day long. He offers nothing! Those lyrics are awful. I've no idea why anyone gets off on them. He's one of few things I can't get my head around in music. He's the one man who I cannot understand why he's successful. I've seen countless, more talented singers and musicians, with far better original songs, struggle to even get a gig. Plus, I can see right through him

Now, I'm guessing you're a fan of some sort and this offends you. If that's true, then please don't respond. I'm not one bit arsed discussing him. I don't like him. End of. Happy to discuss anything else

You couldn't be more wrong. As for the hypocrisy accusation, that's just laughable. I was pointing out your hypocrisy in saying you listen to Deadmau5, some would say the equivalent of Ed Sheeran in dance music terms.

You're changing your tune every time you're called on something. You have mentioned you follow/listen to Deadmau5 twice, what else is someone to think other than you are a bit of a fan or at least enjoy his music in some way?

No doubt you will move more goalposts...

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong. As for the hypocrisy accusation, that's just laughable. I was pointing out your hypocrisy in saying you listen to Deadmau5, some would say the equivalent of Ed Sheeran in dance music terms.

You're changing your tune every time you're called on something. You have mentioned you follow/listen to Deadmau5 twice, what else is someone to think other than you are a bit of a fan or at least enjoy his music in some way?

No doubt you will move more goalposts...

I'm moving the goal posts? Sorry fella but, Deadmau5 is NOT the Ed Sheeran of dance music. Deadmau5 is listenable for a start.

I listen to him, I enjoy quite a few of his tracks and quite a few I don't. It's that simple. I'm not denying it.

The only artists I will defend to the hilt are Quo, Queen, U2 and Rory. The rest, I'm open minded about

Flint Fredstone

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

I'm moving the goal posts? Sorry fella but, Deadmau5 is NOT the Ed Sheeran of dance music. Deadmau5 is listenable for a start.

I listen to him, I enjoy quite a few of his tracks and quite a few I don't. It's that simple. I'm not denying it.

The only artists I will defend to the hilt are Quo, Queen, U2 and Rory. The rest, I'm open minded about

In many people's eyes he is. Deadmau5 = Ed Sheeran. One Direction = Avicii/Martin Garrix.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

In many people's eyes he is. Deadmau5 = Ed Sheeran. One Direction = Avicii/Martin Garrix.

One Direction, yes.

Deadmau5 = Ed Sheeran? Not a hope!

I Remember and The Veldt have better lyrics than Ed Sheeran could ever write for a start.

Flint Fredstone

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

One Direction, yes.

Deadmau5 = Ed Sheeran? Not a hope!

I Remember and The Veldt have better lyrics than Ed Sheeran could ever write for a start.

I grew up on dance music. The way you are talking about Ed Sheeran while lamenting about the good old days of Quo, Queen etc is the very same as how 90's dance music heads would go on about Deadmau5.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I grew up on dance music. The way you are talking about Ed Sheeran while lamenting about the good old days of Quo, Queen etc is the very same as how 90's dance music heads would go on about Deadmau5.

Not really and that doesn't make him Ed Sheeran so you're wrong there

They are my two favourite bands but, I was never around in the 70s or 80s so I ain't got a clue what those times were like. I've seen Quo near 60 times, plus the original line up 4 times so, I didn't miss out or hawk back for the days of the 70s

I miss the 90s and the 00s. They had some great music, songs, bands, singers...Even still, I look forward to stuff in this decade too. U2, Noel Gallagher, AA, some great blues and jazz and there is actually some good pop tunes and singers still about.

The mainstream music world we live in now is grim. That's just a fact. I just hope for a band to come along and blow the scene apart and the excitement can begin again. It needs it.
Ed Sheeran and a loop pedal selling out stadiums? Beyoncé wiggling her arse in a different way for a video? J-Lo grinding some fella in a video? It's grim

In terms of modern (chart) pop music there are much worse out there than Ed Sheeran. I'm not a fan of his stuff generally ("Sing" is a bit of a tune though) but at least he writes his own stuff and got where he is due to hard work. Compared to someone like Rihanna, an admittedly good-looking woman with a very average (and nasal) voice who would be nothing without a studio full of producers, songwriters and choreographers to make her into a star.

Music is far from "dead", the charts may not contain as many artists who'll still be remembered in many years time like Bowie, Prince, Michael Jackson etc. but there's still wonderful music being made if you look beyond the charts. If you find an artist whose work you love, it doesn't matter whether they're mainstream or obscure, whether they'll be remembered by many in years to come or not. All that matters is how you remember and appreciate it. (I know that sounds corny as hell but it's true! :pac: )

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of modern (chart) pop music there are much worse out there than Ed Sheeran. I'm not a fan of his stuff generally ("Sing" is a bit of a tune though) but at least he writes his own stuff and got where he is due to hard work. Compared to someone like Rihanna, an admittedly good-looking woman with a very average (and nasal) voice who would be nothing without a studio full of producers, songwriters and choreographers to make her into a star.

Music is far from "dead", the charts may not contain as many artists who'll still be remembered in many years time like Bowie, Prince, Michael Jackson etc. but there's still wonderful music being made if you look beyond the charts. If you find an artist whose work you love, it doesn't matter whether they're mainstream or obscure, whether they'll be remembered by many in years to come or not. All that matters is how you remember and appreciate it. (I know that sounds corny as hell but it's true! :pac: )

Hard work? I have my doubts tbh.

EIREDriver

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

U2 are STILL the biggest and best band in the world. That's after them even slowing down and putting out 2 out of 3 average albums, without even trying

U2 are not the biggest and best band in the world. Maybe it's your opinion, but definitely not fact.

Rothko

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

U2 are STILL the biggest and best band in the world. That's after them even slowing down and putting out 2 out of 3 average albums, without even trying.

What does that say about modern music? In the 80s and the 90s, they had to fight to be the biggest and they had to fight to stay there. Now, no one is even pushing them ffs. Not even Coldplay.

I know there's much more to modern music. I've followed and listen to Franz Ferdinand, Noel Gallagher, Deadmau5, U2, The Killers, The Courteneers, even the Stone Roses' latest I had a keen interest on to see what they could come up with....

But, for every Chasing Yesterday and Songs of Innocence, there's Beyoncé shaking her arse or Ed Sheeran rapping to little teenage girls or Rappers talking ****e or TV shows assembling manufactured crap and shoving it down people's throats.

There's next to nothing to get excited about anymore in the music world. Sure, I go and see good young bands, with their own material and it is exciting when you hear something that could actually be a hit....But, the bubble bursts when you know they'll never get that chance.


But yeah, lots more to modern music....Rhianna will be coming out with an album about foreplay next. Can't wait :rolleyes:

U2 might be one of the biggest bands out there but they're far from the best. There's more to music than what you hear on the radio. It's not even the tip of the iceberg.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

EIREDriver wrote: »

U2 are not the biggest and best band in the world. Maybe it's your opinion, but definitely not fact.

They are the biggest. No one is bigger or sells more tickets than them. No one!

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Suas11 wrote: »

U2 might be one of the biggest bands out there but they're far from the best. There's more to music than what you hear on the radio. It's not even the tip of the iceberg.

Already stated I don't listen to the radio etc. Not going back over it

Rothko

Kaylee Obnoxious Vegan wrote: »

Already stated I don't listen to the radio etc. Not going back over it

But you keep talking about Ed Sheeran, Rhianna etc. like they are the ones that solely define the quality of modern music.

Rainman16

I think celebrity and popular culture came to rise in the 60's and stars who were in their mid 20's then are in their late 70, early 80's now, and dying out. We have more aging celebrities, so there is bound to be more death