Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2023 16:10:59 GMT -5
Teenagers still go to concerts in arenas. Do you all have kids? Ask them if they think their music is disposable. I have a 12 year old that's into music, listening and playing. She digs almost entirely older bands...from the Beatles to Weezer. Not much into 'current' music. Mostly late 90s/early 2000s shit. I agree it might vary a lot based on the influence of the parents. Streaming also gives access to a wider variety of music. They might be more into individual songs rather than specific bands or albums.
|
|
|
Post by Joma on Nov 18, 2023 16:15:06 GMT -5
I have a 12 year old that's into music, listening and playing. She digs almost entirely older bands...from the Beatles to Weezer. Not much into 'current' music. Mostly late 90s/early 2000s shit. I agree it might vary a lot based on the influence of the parents. Streaming also gives access to a wider variety of music. They might be more into individual songs rather than specific bands or albums. She doesn't get the Weezer 90s/00s from me. She found that on her own. I don't hate that music, but it's not something I was into and played around her. BTW, welcome. Cool to have new people here posting. π
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Nov 18, 2023 16:21:36 GMT -5
I agree it might vary a lot based on the influence of the parents. Streaming also gives access to a wider variety of music. They might be more into individual songs rather than specific bands or albums. She doesn't get the Weezer 90s/00s from me. She found that on her own. I don't hate that music, but it's not something I was into and played around her. BTW, welcome. Cool to have new people here posting. π Does she like White Castle because of you?
|
|
|
Post by Joma on Nov 18, 2023 16:36:25 GMT -5
She doesn't get the Weezer 90s/00s from me. She found that on her own. I don't hate that music, but it's not something I was into and played around her. BTW, welcome. Cool to have new people here posting. π Does she like White Castle because of you? Nope. She takes after her mom on that front... Shoulda had another kid...
|
|
|
Post by kissoff on Nov 18, 2023 18:02:20 GMT -5
Teenagers still go to concerts in arenas. Do you all have kids? Ask them if they think their music is disposable. I have a 12 year old that's into music, listening and playing. She digs almost entirely older bands...from the Beatles to Weezer. Not much into 'current' music. Mostly late 90s/early 2000s shit. Who's her fave football team.
|
|
|
Post by Joma on Nov 18, 2023 18:33:07 GMT -5
I have a 12 year old that's into music, listening and playing. She digs almost entirely older bands...from the Beatles to Weezer. Not much into 'current' music. Mostly late 90s/early 2000s shit. Who's her fave football team. Bills...but she doesn't really care about football other than stealing my hoodies.
|
|
|
Post by kissoff on Nov 18, 2023 18:38:08 GMT -5
Who's her fave football team. Bills...but she doesn't really care about football other than stealing my hoodies. NICEπ
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Nov 20, 2023 2:21:42 GMT -5
I don't think there is any debate that music today is disposable; the question is, how many years has this been the case? This thread is twelve years old, and I'd date it back about 15-20 years. Not coincidentally, that's when rock seemed to have run its course artistically and when the business of music was completely disrupted. It's bizarre to me. I'm 55 and attend lots of sporting events; when they announce upcoming concerts during commercial breaks, I feel like I'm in high school - Bon Jovi, U2, Metallica, Def Leppard/Motley Crue, Guns N Roses, Madonna, etc. I have wondered if after the game I need to study for a biology test the next day. My nephew was in school in the 2000's and 2010's. I asked what bands he felt defined his youth, that would be playing arenas and stadiums in 40 years. He chuckled. I know the intention of this thread was geared toward pop music; but the same can be said for rock. Whether music is good or not is subjective; but the reality is this: I have numerous compilation CDs of 80's rock, filled with songs that are now deemed classics. Most people know these tunes, even those not even born when they came out. So what's on a "Best Of" compilation from the 2000's? The 2010's? The 2020's, as I can make a killer Best Of from 1980 to '83? How many songs has Frontiers released over the years? If we divide into that the number of songs anyone remembers, like a batting average, What would that number be? .000? A common copout is that this is just a byproduct of nostalgia, and that time filters out the good and bad. If that's the case, since music has been disposable for so long, let's make a thread titled "2008" and discuss all the "new" music from that year anyone cares about, 15 years later. (I'm choosing 15 years because that's the amount of time that transpired between Dr. Feelgood and Crue's triumphant reunion.) I bought the 'new' Extreme album that year; even got it autographed. I felt young again, reveled in the hype, got excited over 'new' music, etc. Fifteen years later, I can't name a single song on it. In other words, it was disposable. There are lots of "whys" to this, but for starters, there is simply too much music (and yes, I acknowledge I am part of the problem, as I release music frequently). No one has the time to sift through all of it, and by the time someone lands on a song they like, there are thousands more new ones to sift through. Even the cream of the crop from past decades would have difficulty rising to the top above that cacophony.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Nov 20, 2023 13:29:06 GMT -5
I don't think there is any debate that music today is disposable; the question is, how many years has this been the case? This thread is twelve years old, and I'd date it back about 15-20 years. Not coincidentally, that's when rock seemed to have run its course artistically and when the business of music was completely disrupted. It's bizarre to me. I'm 55 and attend lots of sporting events; when they announce upcoming concerts during commercial breaks, I feel like I'm in high school - Bon Jovi, U2, Metallica, Def Leppard/Motley Crue, Guns N Roses, Madonna, etc. I have wondered if after the game I need to study for a biology test the next day. My nephew was in school in the 2000's and 2010's. I asked what bands he felt defined his youth, that would be playing arenas and stadiums in 40 years. He chuckled. I know the intention of this thread was geared toward pop music; but the same can be said for rock. Whether music is good or not is subjective; but the reality is this: I have numerous compilation CDs of 80's rock, filled with songs that are now deemed classics. Most people know these tunes, even those not even born when they came out. So what's on a "Best Of" compilation from the 2000's? The 2010's? The 2020's, as I can make a killer Best Of from 1980 to '83? How many songs has Frontiers released over the years? If we divide into that the number of songs anyone remembers, like a batting average, What would that number be? .000? A common copout is that this is just a byproduct of nostalgia, and that time filters out the good and bad. If that's the case, since music has been disposable for so long, let's make a thread titled "2008" and discuss all the "new" music from that year anyone cares about, 15 years later. (I'm choosing 15 years because that's the amount of time that transpired between Dr. Feelgood and Crue's triumphant reunion.) I bought the 'new' Extreme album that year; even got it autographed. I felt young again, reveled in the hype, got excited over 'new' music, etc. Fifteen years later, I can't name a single song on it. In other words, it was disposable. There are lots of "whys" to this, but for starters, there is simply too much music (and yes, I acknowledge I am part of the problem, as I release music frequently). No one has the time to sift through all of it, and by the time someone lands on a song they like, there are thousands more new ones to sift through. Even the cream of the crop from past decades would have difficulty rising to the top above that cacophony. It just occurred to me that you might have been the kind of person greatest hits packages were made for. Even with bands you love. What I mean to say is - a lot of rock fans including myself often prefer the deep cuts over the singles released for the album. Now sure they are exceptions where the single really is the best song on the album, but in my view - that is generally not the case. So for me and I think a lot of others who are still buying new albums - where as you are not, we are getting a lot of strong "deep cut" quality songs still, but maybe not that song that was manufactured to be a hit single like they were in the 80's and that you seemingly love the most. So for someone like you if you were interested in reliving the past of a certain band, the greatest hits seems to be all you would want. For those that are enjoying the new albums with strong deep cut type of songs - that is the reason some of these albums get ranked higher than past albums from the 80's and 90's, because they are not as calculated at trying to get a hit single vs. just writing good songs. Not to mention newer bands that are making great music as well. Rival Sons is an amazing band. There is no question. So much so - Atlantic Records gave them a record deal after they were on a indie label prior. So even the big labels that you seem to love and praise felt they needed to get on the Rival Sons train, because they are crushing it. I just find this odd as a music enthusiast - we should be passionate for beyond what is sold to the general public like a McDonalds hamburger. That we should be above that and recognize the worth of an artist or band beyond the label pushed hit single. That often their best work are songs that the general public doesn't even know about. Interesting that you bring up Extreme's Saudades de Rock, because it was a disappointment, but their new album Six is so beyond that, that if you were/are an Extreme fan - I can't see how you would think it is worse or even be a further disappointment, but you should dig much of it. People are calling it a comeback album for them and they are getting praise and attention, because they delivered on this album. I challenge you to listen to it - not with mindset of looking for the hit single, but the mindset of young Blackwell who just bought the albums in the 80's and appreciated them as they were. Great music is still being made today and Extreme is just one of many still killing it.
|
|
|
Post by Joma on Nov 20, 2023 15:46:13 GMT -5
The Extreme album is a disappointment because the sound of it is terrible while the songs are excellent...
|
|
|
Post by acefrehleyrules on Nov 20, 2023 18:00:13 GMT -5
I agree with your username...
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Nov 20, 2023 19:30:27 GMT -5
I don't think there is any debate that music today is disposable; the question is, how many years has this been the case? This thread is twelve years old, and I'd date it back about 15-20 years. Not coincidentally, that's when rock seemed to have run its course artistically and when the business of music was completely disrupted. It's bizarre to me. I'm 55 and attend lots of sporting events; when they announce upcoming concerts during commercial breaks, I feel like I'm in high school - Bon Jovi, U2, Metallica, Def Leppard/Motley Crue, Guns N Roses, Madonna, etc. I have wondered if after the game I need to study for a biology test the next day. My nephew was in school in the 2000's and 2010's. I asked what bands he felt defined his youth, that would be playing arenas and stadiums in 40 years. He chuckled. I know the intention of this thread was geared toward pop music; but the same can be said for rock. Whether music is good or not is subjective; but the reality is this: I have numerous compilation CDs of 80's rock, filled with songs that are now deemed classics. Most people know these tunes, even those not even born when they came out. So what's on a "Best Of" compilation from the 2000's? The 2010's? The 2020's, as I can make a killer Best Of from 1980 to '83? How many songs has Frontiers released over the years? If we divide into that the number of songs anyone remembers, like a batting average, What would that number be? .000? A common copout is that this is just a byproduct of nostalgia, and that time filters out the good and bad. If that's the case, since music has been disposable for so long, let's make a thread titled "2008" and discuss all the "new" music from that year anyone cares about, 15 years later. (I'm choosing 15 years because that's the amount of time that transpired between Dr. Feelgood and Crue's triumphant reunion.) I bought the 'new' Extreme album that year; even got it autographed. I felt young again, reveled in the hype, got excited over 'new' music, etc. Fifteen years later, I can't name a single song on it. In other words, it was disposable. There are lots of "whys" to this, but for starters, there is simply too much music (and yes, I acknowledge I am part of the problem, as I release music frequently). No one has the time to sift through all of it, and by the time someone lands on a song they like, there are thousands more new ones to sift through. Even the cream of the crop from past decades would have difficulty rising to the top above that cacophony. It just occurred to me that you might have been the kind of person greatest hits packages were made for. Even with bands you love. What I mean to say is - a lot of rock fans including myself often prefer the deep cuts over the singles released for the album. Now sure they are exceptions where the single really is the best song on the album, but in my view - that is generally not the case. So for me and I think a lot of others who are still buying new albums - where as you are not, we are getting a lot of strong "deep cut" quality songs still, but maybe not that song that was manufactured to be a hit single like they were in the 80's and that you seemingly love the most. So for someone like you if you were interested in reliving the past of a certain band, the greatest hits seems to be all you would want. For those that are enjoying the new albums with strong deep cut type of songs - that is the reason some of these albums get ranked higher than past albums from the 80's and 90's, because they are not as calculated at trying to get a hit single vs. just writing good songs. Not to mention newer bands that are making great music as well. Rival Sons is an amazing band. There is no question. So much so - Atlantic Records gave them a record deal after they were on a indie label prior. So even the big labels that you seem to love and praise felt they needed to get on the Rival Sons train, because they are crushing it. I just find this odd as a music enthusiast - we should be passionate for beyond what is sold to the general public like a McDonalds hamburger. That we should be above that and recognize the worth of an artist or band beyond the label pushed hit single. That often their best work are songs that the general public doesn't even know about. Interesting that you bring up Extreme's Saudades de Rock, because it was a disappointment, but their new album Six is so beyond that, that if you were/are an Extreme fan - I can't see how you would think it is worse or even be a further disappointment, but you should dig much of it. People are calling it a comeback album for them and they are getting praise and attention, because they delivered on this album. I challenge you to listen to it - not with mindset of looking for the hit single, but the mindset of young Blackwell who just bought the albums in the 80's and appreciated them as they were. Great music is still being made today and Extreme is just one of many still killing it. I have bought and listened to more albums than anyone I know. So forget the greatest hits example. Since we have time as a filter, what are the 'new' releases of 2008 I should care about 15 years later? We can easily identify the sound of rock in the 60's, 70's, 80's, even 90's? What is the sound of rock in the 2000's? 2010's? 2020's? To my ears, it's all redundant. I did hear one new Extreme song, and it was a dead ringer for Silvergun Superman by Stone Temple Pilots; which was thirty years ago. I have a stack of Shrapnel CDs I never listen to with every guitar trick in the out-place-solo. I get it - our world is hostile and divided. If rock bands releasing music that sounds like the past brings people together, great. I did that many times in the last 20 years - Iron Maiden (A Matter of Life and Death), Journey, Foreigner, Extreme, Kiss, the Eagles, Chickenfoot, etc. Got excited, bought the CDs, made myself like them, etc. But years later, realized it was all disposable. Remember, no one at the time said Saudades de Rock was a disappointment. It was hailed just as the new one is now. I know, I did some of the hailing! But now it's a disappointment? My bet is the new album will fare the same. That's why these discussions are circular. You say modern pop music you dislike is disposable, despite it having a large cultural footprint. Then say modern rock music which hasn't produced a classic track in years, isn't disposable because you like it. It's like the debate over surpassing past greats. I don't even have a starting point since I think Ringo Starr sucks and Black Sabbath is overrated.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Nov 20, 2023 20:01:58 GMT -5
It just occurred to me that you might have been the kind of person greatest hits packages were made for. Even with bands you love. What I mean to say is - a lot of rock fans including myself often prefer the deep cuts over the singles released for the album. Now sure they are exceptions where the single really is the best song on the album, but in my view - that is generally not the case. So for me and I think a lot of others who are still buying new albums - where as you are not, we are getting a lot of strong "deep cut" quality songs still, but maybe not that song that was manufactured to be a hit single like they were in the 80's and that you seemingly love the most. So for someone like you if you were interested in reliving the past of a certain band, the greatest hits seems to be all you would want. For those that are enjoying the new albums with strong deep cut type of songs - that is the reason some of these albums get ranked higher than past albums from the 80's and 90's, because they are not as calculated at trying to get a hit single vs. just writing good songs. Not to mention newer bands that are making great music as well. Rival Sons is an amazing band. There is no question. So much so - Atlantic Records gave them a record deal after they were on a indie label prior. So even the big labels that you seem to love and praise felt they needed to get on the Rival Sons train, because they are crushing it. I just find this odd as a music enthusiast - we should be passionate for beyond what is sold to the general public like a McDonalds hamburger. That we should be above that and recognize the worth of an artist or band beyond the label pushed hit single. That often their best work are songs that the general public doesn't even know about. Interesting that you bring up Extreme's Saudades de Rock, because it was a disappointment, but their new album Six is so beyond that, that if you were/are an Extreme fan - I can't see how you would think it is worse or even be a further disappointment, but you should dig much of it. People are calling it a comeback album for them and they are getting praise and attention, because they delivered on this album. I challenge you to listen to it - not with mindset of looking for the hit single, but the mindset of young Blackwell who just bought the albums in the 80's and appreciated them as they were. Great music is still being made today and Extreme is just one of many still killing it. I have bought and listened to more albums than anyone I know. So forget the greatest hits example. Since we have time as a filter, what are the 'new' releases of 2008 I should care about 15 years later? We can easily identify the sound of rock in the 60's, 70's, 80's, even 90's? What is the sound of rock in the 2000's? 2010's? 2020's? To my ears, it's all redundant. I did hear one new Extreme song, and it was a dead ringer for Silvergun Superman by Stone Temple Pilots; which was thirty years ago. I have a stack of Shrapnel CDs I never listen to with every guitar trick in the out-place-solo. I get it - our world is hostile and divided. If rock bands releasing music that sounds like the past brings people together, great. I did that many times in the last 20 years - Iron Maiden (A Matter of Life and Death), Journey, Foreigner, Extreme, Kiss, the Eagles, Chickenfoot, etc. Got excited, bought the CDs, made myself like them, etc. But years later, realized it was all disposable. Remember, no one at the time said Saudades de Rock was a disappointment. It was hailed just as the new one is now. I know, I did some of the hailing! But now it's a disappointment? My bet is the new album will fare the same. That's why these discussions are circular. You say modern pop music you dislike is disposable, despite it having a large cultural footprint. Then say modern rock music which hasn't produced a classic track in years, isn't disposable because you like it. It's like the debate over surpassing past greats. I don't even have a starting point since I think Ringo Starr sucks and Black Sabbath is overrated. It's one thing to actually listen to albums from the last 15+ years and be critical, however I think it is a weak argument to have not listened to actual full albums like you used to do to any real great degree out of a few example and just dismiss the quality of music in general simply because you checked out. That is on you in my view - not the state of music quality today, because I get excited about new music from bands/artists today as I did when I was a teenager and there is still great music being made. I think you over analyze things as well. Just go on the musical journal that the band/artist created. Don't pick apart how this song may have aspects of another song or isn't mind blowingly original or creative. Is anyone really expecting that from a new album by a hair metal band or just more of the same from what they love from that band with excellent new songs. Saudades de Rock didn't get the praise of the new album and videos for pretty much every songs like the new album. I was certainly disappointed, but good on you for checking it out. Despite the one song you have heard, you really should check out other stuff on the album. I just don't understand not wanting to listen to albums of bands you loved at one point. Look I don't like what KISS has become, but even I would still listen to a new KISS album with Thayer and Singer, because I have an invested interest in all these bands from my youth that are still making music. The problem with your argument is that all those big hits back in the day - wouldn't be hits if rock was ignored back then too as it is now with marketing and promotion. The world would not know Pour Some Sugar On Me and Living On A Prayer today if the record labels weren't whoring out those songs with MTV and radio. They would be ignored then as rock songs are mostly ignored today with no real push from the labels and even rock stations not willing to play new songs. So it isn't at all an apples to apples comparison. There are great songs today that SHOULD be big hits, but the music industry machine isn't behind those songs like they used to be.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Nov 21, 2023 0:16:08 GMT -5
Is anyone really expecting that from a new album by a hair metal band or just more of the same from what they love from that band with excellent new songs. Judging by the reaction of some, I'd say yes. And that's part of what's off-putting about people hyping these new releases. You'd think by the way some carried on about the Extreme album, it was an unearthed Tenth Symphony by Beethoven. And the solo? C'mon, if that came out in 1988, no one would've blinked an eye. I'm ok with flashy guitar playing; but a solo is supposed to elevate the song, and that giant flurry of notes didn't do that. They would be ignored then as rock songs are mostly ignored today with no real push from the labels and even rock stations not willing to play new songs. So it isn't at all an apples to apples comparison. There are great songs today that SHOULD be big hits, but the music industry machine isn't behind those songs like they used to be. I agree with this and you make a great point - this is not an apples to apples comparison, because everything about music is SO different today*. I simply feel the supply far outweighs the demand. The checks and balances of yesteryear are gone, and I simply don't have the time or desire to click through endless streams of music; especially since to my ears, it's musically redundant at this stage. I've heard repeatedly music of the past is remembered fondly because time has sorted the wheat from the chaff. Since we've had 20+ years of this, why hasn't that happened? Whether rock music from the past 20 years is 'good' is subjective. But the fact we clearly don't have an established 'next chapter' of classic rock does suggest it is indeed, 'disposable.' (*This holds true in other debate areas, as well; Nibbler wasn't necessarily wrong in his assertions about Kiss' attendance and concert grosses. But his wasn't an apples to apples comparison either. What used to be the record business is now the concert business. Kiss can out-gross far more from their concerts, but will never achieve record sales even close to their lowest-selling albums. It's a different world, and crazy to talk about things like it's 1988.)
|
|
*ech*
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by *ech* on Nov 21, 2023 17:57:25 GMT -5
I don't entirely agree. I never thought I'd say this, but I think there is just TOO MUCH MUSIC.
Easy and cheap product + easy and cheap distribution + easy and cheap access means there is just too much out there. The disposable shit is what's more visible, but that was always the case. I really believe that there's the same percentage of disposable, pre-made, easily digestible crap (some of which I don't even dislike). Likewise, there's the same percentage of exciting, demanding, lasting music. The empirical number has just been multiplied by a million.
It used to be that you could turn to magazines, or radio shows, to find stuff that you are into. But even that is too much now. We don't need another fucking podcast on current (or vintage) music. It's information overload. The message and the messenger have become the same and it's fucking overweight.
In the mid-nineties, I was able to listen to EVERY album that came out every week in the genres that I liked. And I already had pretty broad tastes. But I went to a friend's record store and I would listen to nearly EVERY new release. Some underground stuff and local acts didn't reach me obviously. But now? Forget about it.
I'm a nerd. As a nerd, I keep spreadsheets on my music habits. I have listened to 124 albums released this year. I'd say most of them are from artists that have lasting power.. And I know I haven't even scratched the surface, but there are just so many hours in a day.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Nov 21, 2023 19:52:45 GMT -5
I don't entirely agree. I never thought I'd say this, but I think there is just TOO MUCH MUSIC. Easy and cheap product + easy and cheap distribution + easy and cheap access means there is just too much out there. The disposable shit is what's more visible, but that was always the case. I really believe that there's the same percentage of disposable, pre-made, easily digestible crap (some of which I don't even dislike). Likewise, there's the same percentage of exciting, demanding, lasting music. The empirical number has just been multiplied by a million. It used to be that you could turn to magazines, or radio shows, to find stuff that you are into. But even that is too much now. We don't need another fucking podcast on current (or vintage) music. It's information overload. The message and the messenger have become the same and it's fucking overweight. In the mid-nineties, I was able to listen to EVERY album that came out every week in the genres that I liked. And I already had pretty broad tastes. But I went to a friend's record store and I would listen to nearly EVERY new release. Some underground stuff and local acts didn't reach me obviously. But now? Forget about it. I'm a nerd. As a nerd, I keep spreadsheets on my music habits. I have listened to 124 albums released this year. I'd say most of them are from artists that have lasting power.. And I know I haven't even scratched the surface, but there are just so many hours in a day. Despite there being too much music just in general that is put out there - do you agree with the notion that you have to look harder today for great music? Or because you are a music nerd, you have already figured out the paths to look for great new music and people you respect with their reviews and recommendations outside of how you normally buy music?
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Nov 21, 2023 20:06:21 GMT -5
Is anyone really expecting that from a new album by a hair metal band or just more of the same from what they love from that band with excellent new songs. Judging by the reaction of some, I'd say yes. And that's part of what's off-putting about people hyping these new releases. You'd think by the way some carried on about the Extreme album, it was an unearthed Tenth Symphony by Beethoven. And the solo? C'mon, if that came out in 1988, no one would've blinked an eye. I'm ok with flashy guitar playing; but a solo is supposed to elevate the song, and that giant flurry of notes didn't do that. They would be ignored then as rock songs are mostly ignored today with no real push from the labels and even rock stations not willing to play new songs. So it isn't at all an apples to apples comparison. There are great songs today that SHOULD be big hits, but the music industry machine isn't behind those songs like they used to be. I agree with this and you make a great point - this is not an apples to apples comparison, because everything about music is SO different today*. I simply feel the supply far outweighs the demand. The checks and balances of yesteryear are gone, and I simply don't have the time or desire to click through endless streams of music; especially since to my ears, it's musically redundant at this stage. I've heard repeatedly music of the past is remembered fondly because time has sorted the wheat from the chaff. Since we've had 20+ years of this, why hasn't that happened? Whether rock music from the past 20 years is 'good' is subjective. But the fact we clearly don't have an established 'next chapter' of classic rock does suggest it is indeed, 'disposable.' (*This holds true in other debate areas, as well; Nibbler wasn't necessarily wrong in his assertions about Kiss' attendance and concert grosses. But his wasn't an apples to apples comparison either. What used to be the record business is now the concert business. Kiss can out-gross far more from their concerts, but will never achieve record sales even close to their lowest-selling albums. It's a different world, and crazy to talk about things like it's 1988.) I am glad that you agree, because it is true. The hits of the past are only the hits that they are, because the record label pushed the song, there was payola with radio and there was MTV as well. If all of that existed today with rock - we would have hit rock songs today too, because there are songs that SHOULD be hits, but no one knows about them, because it isn't the same music industry today as it was then. That is the only reason why we don't have hit rock songs today. This is a catchy song that would have been a hit if there was the music industry machine behind it. One of the stronger songs on the new album. If the music industry of today existed in the 80's, there wouldn't be all those great rock hit songs to put on those random music compilations either, because the general public wouldn't know they existed. Ultimately the marketing and promotion of a song is a far more important factor than the perceived quality of the songwriting.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Nov 21, 2023 22:07:24 GMT -5
Well I only agree to an extent.
Most of the hits songs of the past are deservedly so.
There may be songs that could be such hits today; but with the excessive amount of songs released, no one will ever know.
And the bigger issue is, stylistically. As I mentioned somewhere, I'm the biggest Gershwin fan on the planet. But if someone was writing similar tunes and they appeared on MTV in the 80's alongside Madonna and Ratt, it would have been extremely bizarre.
So I'm really not interested 40/50 years later in acts trying to recreate that.
Are we admitting rock music has run its course as I believe it has?
Same with guitar - if someone asks me to play a "60's style lead," or 70's or 80's, I know exactly what they are asking for.
What's a 2000's style lead? A 2010's? A 2020's?
I did the math and my folks were my age (55) in 1995. They weren't listening to the same things they were in the 50's, nor doing the same things.
I'm not either.
|
|
*ech*
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by *ech* on Nov 22, 2023 4:20:37 GMT -5
I don't entirely agree. I never thought I'd say this, but I think there is just TOO MUCH MUSIC. Easy and cheap product + easy and cheap distribution + easy and cheap access means there is just too much out there. The disposable shit is what's more visible, but that was always the case. I really believe that there's the same percentage of disposable, pre-made, easily digestible crap (some of which I don't even dislike). Likewise, there's the same percentage of exciting, demanding, lasting music. The empirical number has just been multiplied by a million. It used to be that you could turn to magazines, or radio shows, to find stuff that you are into. But even that is too much now. We don't need another fucking podcast on current (or vintage) music. It's information overload. The message and the messenger have become the same and it's fucking overweight. In the mid-nineties, I was able to listen to EVERY album that came out every week in the genres that I liked. And I already had pretty broad tastes. But I went to a friend's record store and I would listen to nearly EVERY new release. Some underground stuff and local acts didn't reach me obviously. But now? Forget about it. I'm a nerd. As a nerd, I keep spreadsheets on my music habits. I have listened to 124 albums released this year. I'd say most of them are from artists that have lasting power.. And I know I haven't even scratched the surface, but there are just so many hours in a day. Despite there being too much music just in general that is put out there - do you agree with the notion that you have to look harder today for great music? Or because you are a music nerd, you have already figured out the paths to look for great new music and people you respect with their reviews and recommendations outside of how you normally buy music? Yes, I agree that you have to look harder, but again I think that's because of the overwhelming amount of content that's put out. Not only the music itself, but what we use to find music. I don't think the music itself is more disposable. I thought Madonna was disposable, turns out she's been around forty years and is one of the most influential people in the music business. Not just in terms of actual music, but also business, fashion, sexual politics... (still can't stand her shit, but that's beside the point) Unfortunately I have NOT figured out how to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. I have basically stopped going out of my comfort zone years ago, and only listen to things that are easily accessible to me and sound like things I already enjoy. Every once in a while something different finds me by accident, but out of all the new releases I've listened to this year, the overwhelming majority is from established artists or newer artists that play an older style of music. It doesn't make them disposable. And all of the young new hot artists I'm too old to be knowledgeable about, a lot are tomorrow's classics. As an example: I initially dismissed Harry Styles as a fluke, ex-boy band member. But when acts like The Tedeschi Trucks Band cover your songs, there might be a little more to you than meets the eye. It's not my bag, but it's not disposable stuff. Same for Taylor fucking Swift. A phenomenon so huge, that's not to be dismissed. And another thing about "disposable" music: it will be revisited and re-appraised in ten, fifteen, twenty years. Like all those garage rock one-hit (or no-hit) wonders from the sixties were later curated into the influential Nuggets box-set. Motown was a factory, churning out hit after hit after hit, each single being forgotten the week after its release when it was chased out of the charts by another single by another similar artist. It wasn't just perceived as disposable, it was designed this way. Today, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Barrett Strong, The Miracles, etc. are classics. Freddie Mercury said that Queen was designed to be the ultimate disposable pop group, and compared the band to a Bic razor: use it, then throw it away (I'm paraphrasing). It didn't turn out that way. I think history will ultimately decide what was disposable in 2023.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 22, 2023 5:34:38 GMT -5
Not everyone places the same value on music that we do, unfortunately. Playing a song on YouTube or listening to it on the radio doesnβt always lead to buying an album or going to a concert.
My parents were like this. Mum and Dad were in their teens and twenties during the early Beatles era. I once asked the old man why he didnβt get into the later stuff like Revolver or Abbey Road. He looked down his nose at me and said βmaturityβ. π
For Mum it was all just background noise. She didnβt understand or care why I reacted so strongly to music I liked and tried to learn as much as I could about the people who made it.
That worked both ways. Whenever she played Elvis or Whitney Houston and I had to leave the room, she rolled her eyes and told me not to make a fuss.
|
|
|
Post by kissoff on Nov 22, 2023 5:47:09 GMT -5
Not everyone places the same value on music that we do, unfortunately. Playing a song on YouTube or listening to it on the radio doesnβt always lead to buying an album or going to a concert. My parents were like this. Mum and Dad were in their teens and twenties during the early Beatles era. I once asked the old man why he didnβt get into the later stuff like Revolver or Abbey Road. He looked down his nose at me and said βmaturityβ. π For Mum it was all just background noise. She didnβt understand or care why I reacted so strongly to music I liked and tried to learn as much as I could about the people who made it. That worked both ways. Whenever she played Elvis or Whitney Houston and I had to leave the room, she rolled her eyes and told me not to make a fuss. You had to leave the room over Elvis?
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 22, 2023 5:56:07 GMT -5
You had to leave the room over Elvis? I did. Canβt stand the fucker. Elton John and Guns Nβ Roses bring out the same reaction.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Nov 22, 2023 12:47:59 GMT -5
Well I only agree to an extent. Most of the hits songs of the past are deservedly so. There may be songs that could be such hits today; but with the excessive amount of songs released, no one will ever know. And the bigger issue is, stylistically. As I mentioned somewhere, I'm the biggest Gershwin fan on the planet. But if someone was writing similar tunes and they appeared on MTV in the 80's alongside Madonna and Ratt, it would have been extremely bizarre. So I'm really not interested 40/50 years later in acts trying to recreate that. Are we admitting rock music has run its course as I believe it has? Same with guitar - if someone asks me to play a "60's style lead," or 70's or 80's, I know exactly what they are asking for. What's a 2000's style lead? A 2010's? A 2020's? I did the math and my folks were my age (55) in 1995. They weren't listening to the same things they were in the 50's, nor doing the same things. I'm not either. Again, the songs of the past are hit songs because they got the backing to get into the ears of the general public. If Polygram/Mercury was some small indie label with not a lot of money like Shrapnal - even with having Def Leppard and Bon Jovi on their label, the general public would not know about these bands because they wouldn't have the money to push on radio, MTV and other marketing, etc. It is completely irrelevant if you deem the songs are still hit worthy quality. How many times have we seen the same discussion that such and such band should have been been huge? That they have everything - the songs, the production, the talent in the band - they checked all the boxes, but what they didn't have is label support or they didn't get on MTV and radio, etc. Much of 90's rock was just 70's rock in sheep's clothing - ala modern production of the time. It wasn't original. Nothing is original anymore. It has all been done. Your own music while great is retro in it's own way too by your own admission ala inspired by EVH, Al Di Meola, etc. So I am not sure why you are expecting some great originality in rock when it is impossible to do so at this stage in time, so basically everyone today is simply doing their own spin on what came before. But for the smaller demographic of younger people today who follow new rock bands and new rock music in general, they have their modern day guitar heroes too.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Nov 22, 2023 13:20:29 GMT -5
Despite there being too much music just in general that is put out there - do you agree with the notion that you have to look harder today for great music? Or because you are a music nerd, you have already figured out the paths to look for great new music and people you respect with their reviews and recommendations outside of how you normally buy music? Yes, I agree that you have to look harder, but again I think that's because of the overwhelming amount of content that's put out. Not only the music itself, but what we use to find music. I don't think the music itself is more disposable. I thought Madonna was disposable, turns out she's been around forty years and is one of the most influential people in the music business. Not just in terms of actual music, but also business, fashion, sexual politics... (still can't stand her shit, but that's beside the point) Unfortunately I have NOT figured out how to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. I have basically stopped going out of my comfort zone years ago, and only listen to things that are easily accessible to me and sound like things I already enjoy. Every once in a while something different finds me by accident, but out of all the new releases I've listened to this year, the overwhelming majority is from established artists or newer artists that play an older style of music. It doesn't make them disposable. And all of the young new hot artists I'm too old to be knowledgeable about, a lot are tomorrow's classics. As an example: I initially dismissed Harry Styles as a fluke, ex-boy band member. But when acts like The Tedeschi Trucks Band cover your songs, there might be a little more to you than meets the eye. It's not my bag, but it's not disposable stuff. Same for Taylor fucking Swift. A phenomenon so huge, that's not to be dismissed. And another thing about "disposable" music: it will be revisited and re-appraised in ten, fifteen, twenty years. Like all those garage rock one-hit (or no-hit) wonders from the sixties were later curated into the influential Nuggets box-set. Motown was a factory, churning out hit after hit after hit, each single being forgotten the week after its release when it was chased out of the charts by another single by another similar artist. It wasn't just perceived as disposable, it was designed this way. Today, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Barrett Strong, The Miracles, etc. are classics. Freddie Mercury said that Queen was designed to be the ultimate disposable pop group, and compared the band to a Bic razor: use it, then throw it away (I'm paraphrasing). It didn't turn out that way. I think history will ultimately decide what was disposable in 2023. Interesting perspective. While I agree a ton of music is being released, I already have my built in filters so to speak to go through it all and find what I like, so it isn't as overwhelming to me. I think where the disposable factor today comes more into play than the past is that our generation and generations prior were more passionate about and had more time for music. So music is less of a priority with video games, social media and the internet in general. So if some no name artist does happen to have a song that is trending for a couple of weeks with the cool kids, it probably will be forgotten for the rest of time for the most part if they don't continually have songs that trend/are hits. I don't think there is going to be box sets 20/30 years from now - Hits On TikTok. It is interesting you bring up Taylor Swift and Harry Styles, because Mr. Blackwell - also in this thread likes pop more than I do anyway and used to be big on Katy Perry and didn't like Swift, Gaga, etc. He thought her songs were much stronger than other pop stars a few years back that he was critical of and that she would stand the test of time. Now while Katy hasn't been forgotten, she has been reduced to a reality show judge and doesn't have the musical career that lesser pop artists in his view still have. Will people still be talking about Katy Perry's music 20 years from now. I don't think so. Maybe Katy Perry the celebrity like it is now over her music. I do think Swift, Lady Gaga and a few others will have that longevity though like a Madonna, etc.
|
|
*ech*
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by *ech* on Nov 22, 2023 13:27:35 GMT -5
That is yet another debate. Can there be originality? Maybe. But guys like you and me would probably not recognize it.
You're talking about "disposability". Well, I think that even the things that were not hits have staying power. How many soul artists get discovered in their sixties? How many great records bomb on release, only to be rediscovered decades later? KISS was dismissed as a disposable novelty act doomed to disappear the following week every day... for fifty years. Rock n' roll was supposed to be a fad like the Charleston.
And some of the best, most enduring artists were backward-looking, purposely treading water or recreating sounds from decades ago. The Band. The Sex Pistols and the whole punk scene. Stray Cats. Van Dyke Parks. Alt-Country. All intrinsically conservative, borderline reactionary artists and movements.
So I don't think that success or originality are synonymous with staying power. I don't think we're disagreeing fundamentally, but I think perhaps we're not agreeing on the definition and limitations of the term "disposable".
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Nov 22, 2023 13:31:54 GMT -5
That is yet another debate. Can there be originality? Maybe. But guys like you and me would probably not recognize it. You're talking about "disposability". Well, I think that even the things that were not hits have staying power. How many soul artists get discovered in their sixties? How many great records bomb on release, only to be rediscovered decades later? KISS was dismissed as a disposable novelty act doomed to disappear the following week every day... for fifty years. Rock n' roll was supposed to be a fad like the Charleston. And some of the best, most enduring artists were backward-looking, purposely treading water or recreating sounds from decades ago. The Band. The Sex Pistols and the whole punk scene. Stray Cats. Van Dyke Parks. Alt-Country. All intrinsically conservative, borderline reactionary artists and movements. So I don't think that success or originality are synonymous with staying power. I don't think we're disagreeing fundamentally, but I think perhaps we're not agreeing on the definition and limitations of the term "disposable". Oh for sure songs that weren't hits and albums that tanked at the time of release have certainly had staying power or found new life. No argument there from me. Same with movies. Found new life after not initially being successful. I think the view of disposable in our old man view is that music today isn't as good as decades past, so it will be forgotten as quickly as it appeared. That is pretty much Blackwell's view on rock anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Nov 22, 2023 13:58:30 GMT -5
Well I only agree to an extent. Most of the hits songs of the past are deservedly so. There may be songs that could be such hits today; but with the excessive amount of songs released, no one will ever know. And the bigger issue is, stylistically. As I mentioned somewhere, I'm the biggest Gershwin fan on the planet. But if someone was writing similar tunes and they appeared on MTV in the 80's alongside Madonna and Ratt, it would have been extremely bizarre. So I'm really not interested 40/50 years later in acts trying to recreate that. Are we admitting rock music has run its course as I believe it has? Same with guitar - if someone asks me to play a "60's style lead," or 70's or 80's, I know exactly what they are asking for. What's a 2000's style lead? A 2010's? A 2020's? I did the math and my folks were my age (55) in 1995. They weren't listening to the same things they were in the 50's, nor doing the same things. I'm not either. Again, the songs of the past are hit songs because they got the backing to get into the ears of the general public. If Polygram/Mercury was some small indie label with not a lot of money like Shrapnal - even with having Def Leppard and Bon Jovi on their label, the general public would not know about these bands because they wouldn't have the money to push on radio, MTV and other marketing, etc. It is completely irrelevant if you deem the songs are still hit worthy quality. How many times have we seen the same discussion that such and such band should have been been huge? That they have everything - the songs, the production, the talent in the band - they checked all the boxes, but what they didn't have is label support or they didn't get on MTV and radio, etc. Much of 90's rock was just 70's rock in sheep's clothing - ala modern production of the time. It wasn't original. Nothing is original anymore. It has all been done. Your own music while great is retro in it's own way too by your own admission ala inspired by EVH, Al Di Meola, etc. So I am not sure why you are expecting some great originality in rock when it is impossible to do so at this stage in time, so basically everyone today is simply doing their own spin on what came before. But for the smaller demographic of younger people today who follow new rock bands and new rock music in general, they have their modern day guitar heroes too. We do have common ground here; but here's where we are at odds. While true the labels pumped lots of money into the backend (promotion), they also pumped huge sums into the front end (A & R). The front end is nonexistent today. In other words, the labels weren't picking random songs, then writing blank checks. There was enormous financial investment so the stakes were high. Revisit the making of Aerosmith's Pump. Essentially the band busted their asses writing about thirty songs. They flew to Vancouver where Bruce Fairbairn sorted the songs into 3 columns: definitely recording, maybe recording but needs work, and rejects. Two songs made the definite list: Love In An Elevator, Janie's Got a Gun. About six were maybes, and the others rejected. Tyler and Perry wanted to rip Fairbairn's head off. Tyler's ego was bruised and Perry was very candid about the process - he said it was like watching Bruce Fairbairn decide which of his kids got to grow up, and which ones don't. John Kalodner was brought in at various stages, making other adjustments. What we are getting now is essentially the first round of songs, without any checks and balances. Multiply that by countless bands, and as posted above, there is simply too much music. It's complicated by advances in recording technology, so it all sounds very polished. But essentially what you're getting is HITS countless times over. As for artistically, if there were new sounds that as a teacher, guitarist, songwriter I should familiarize myself with, I would. The last time that happened I'd date around the early 2000's. I wasn't a huge fan of Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, Incubus, etc. But what they were doing was connecting with young people, and it wasn't the 70's and 80's rehashed. There's a saying in boxing, "To be the best, you have to beat the best." It's cool all these bands are still recording and fans dig their new music. But with the gatekeepers eliminated, it's simply too much. And it's not beating the best, to my ears.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blackwell on Nov 22, 2023 14:36:40 GMT -5
Yes, I agree that you have to look harder, but again I think that's because of the overwhelming amount of content that's put out. Not only the music itself, but what we use to find music. I don't think the music itself is more disposable. I thought Madonna was disposable, turns out she's been around forty years and is one of the most influential people in the music business. Not just in terms of actual music, but also business, fashion, sexual politics... (still can't stand her shit, but that's beside the point) Unfortunately I have NOT figured out how to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. I have basically stopped going out of my comfort zone years ago, and only listen to things that are easily accessible to me and sound like things I already enjoy. Every once in a while something different finds me by accident, but out of all the new releases I've listened to this year, the overwhelming majority is from established artists or newer artists that play an older style of music. It doesn't make them disposable. And all of the young new hot artists I'm too old to be knowledgeable about, a lot are tomorrow's classics. As an example: I initially dismissed Harry Styles as a fluke, ex-boy band member. But when acts like The Tedeschi Trucks Band cover your songs, there might be a little more to you than meets the eye. It's not my bag, but it's not disposable stuff. Same for Taylor fucking Swift. A phenomenon so huge, that's not to be dismissed. And another thing about "disposable" music: it will be revisited and re-appraised in ten, fifteen, twenty years. Like all those garage rock one-hit (or no-hit) wonders from the sixties were later curated into the influential Nuggets box-set. Motown was a factory, churning out hit after hit after hit, each single being forgotten the week after its release when it was chased out of the charts by another single by another similar artist. It wasn't just perceived as disposable, it was designed this way. Today, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Barrett Strong, The Miracles, etc. are classics. Freddie Mercury said that Queen was designed to be the ultimate disposable pop group, and compared the band to a Bic razor: use it, then throw it away (I'm paraphrasing). It didn't turn out that way. I think history will ultimately decide what was disposable in 2023. Interesting perspective. While I agree a ton of music is being released, I already have my built in filters so to speak to go through it all and find what I like, so it isn't as overwhelming to me. I think where the disposable factor today comes more into play than the past is that our generation and generations prior were more passionate about and had more time for music. So music is less of a priority with video games, social media and the internet in general. So if some no name artist does happen to have a song that is trending for a couple of weeks with the cool kids, it probably will be forgotten for the rest of time for the most part if they don't continually have songs that trend/are hits. I don't think there is going to be box sets 20/30 years from now - Hits On TikTok. It is interesting you bring up Taylor Swift and Harry Styles, because Mr. Blackwell - also in this thread likes pop more than I do anyway and used to be big on Katy Perry and didn't like Swift, Gaga, etc. He thought her songs were much stronger than other pop stars a few years back that he was critical of and that she would stand the test of time. Now while Katy hasn't been forgotten, she has been reduced to a reality show judge and doesn't have the musical career that lesser pop artists in his view still have. Will people still be talking about Katy Perry's music 20 years from now. I don't think so. Maybe Katy Perry the celebrity like it is now over her music. I do think Swift, Lady Gaga and a few others will have that longevity though like a Madonna, etc. I'll share this reluctantly; because when I did this years ago, everything went off the rails, I was seen as some sort of music snob, elitist, and I'm not. But - I am a musician with a degree, and hear music that way. My sweet spot is music that has mass appeal, but has musical depth beneath the surface. The early Katy Perry songs, as well as Britney Spears, have many such musical gestures. Of course that was all Dr. Luke, another trained musician, and I never denied that. Taylor Swift has none of that; this is an age of short attention spans and going viral. I hear people talk about her all the time, but you know what I'm yet to hear? Someone talking about a song of hers. Who cares? It's not about that. So here's where I get in hot water. I Kissed A Girl by Katy Perry was the most rock and roll thing I had heard in ages. It's in compound meter (12/8) which is rare enough. It's built off a linear ascending bass line (a-b-c-d) with a contrary motion counterpoint line descending, creating the dissonant tritone on the downbeat of the second measure. All building to the power chords in the chorus. Then you put the cherry on top - Katy Perry. The irony! Like her boyfriend is going to mind her kissing a girl. It was in a subtle way a spoof on Jill Sobule's hit of the same name. And Last Friday Night - I'll transpose it up a half step for simplicity. The chords are CM - am - em - DM. In theory those are the chords in the key of G Major. But where's the G Major? There isn't one! In theory it could be in the key of e minor, but does the song sound like it's in a minor key? Not to my ears. I found it fascinating, and jazzed up the chords - added some 9ths, 11ths, etc. and wrote my own disco-tinged song and called it So Katy. I recently completed a sermon on avoiding groupthink. I don't care how popular Swift is; I find her songs generic. The fact that's what's popular today doesn't sway me. It's why I'm not all up in arms over AI like some musicians. Does it really matter if a computer rehashes the same three chords instead of Taylor Swift? I lifted this out of Katy Perry song:
|
|
*ech*
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by *ech* on Nov 22, 2023 17:33:21 GMT -5
I'll share this reluctantly; because when I did this years ago, everything went off the rails, I was seen as some sort of music snob, elitist, and I'm not. But - I am a musician with a degree, and hear music that way. My sweet spot is music that has mass appeal, but has musical depth beneath the surface. The early Katy Perry songs, as well as Britney Spears, have many such musical gestures. Of course that was all Dr. Luke, another trained musician, and I never denied that. Taylor Swift has none of that; this is an age of short attention spans and going viral. I hear people talk about her all the time, but you know what I'm yet to hear? Someone talking about a song of hers. Who cares? It's not about that. So here's where I get in hot water. I Kissed A Girl by Katy Perry was the most rock and roll thing I had heard in ages. It's in compound meter (12/8) which is rare enough. It's built off a linear ascending bass line (a-b-c-d) with a contrary motion counterpoint line descending, creating the dissonant tritone on the downbeat of the second measure. All building to the power chords in the chorus. Then you put the cherry on top - Katy Perry. The irony! Like her boyfriend is going to mind her kissing a girl. It was in a subtle way a spoof on Jill Sobule's hit of the same name. And Last Friday Night - I'll transpose it up a half step for simplicity. The chords are CM - am - em - DM. In theory those are the chords in the key of G Major. But where's the G Major? There isn't one! In theory it could be in the key of e minor, but does the song sound like it's in a minor key? Not to my ears. I found it fascinating, and jazzed up the chords - added some 9ths, 11ths, etc. and wrote my own disco-tinged song and called it So Katy. I recently completed a sermon on avoiding groupthink. I don't care how popular Swift is; I find her songs generic. The fact that's what's popular today doesn't sway me. It's why I'm not all up in arms over AI like some musicians. Does it really matter if a computer rehashes the same three chords instead of Taylor Swift? I lifted this out of Katy Perry song: Some of the most enduring songs are just C-D-G over and over. I don't think song quality is indexed on how rich it is harmonically or rhythmically. Why certain songs move us is certainly more mysterious than quasi-mathematical music theory. Taylor Swift does very little for me, but if you're unaware of the effect her songs have on her audience you should pay attention: rarely have I seen such a phenomenon. And it's not (just) image based. It's not (just) celebrity based: it IS her songs. The songs do hit home with her fans, who, granted, are a very specific (yet extremely wide) demographic. I always like to use Tom Petty as an example of this. Some of his most famous songs are just the same three chords over and over. Sometimes there isn't even a bridge. But the beauty of a song like Wildflowers is in its simplicity (G-D-A-D... rince, wash, repeat). My point is that there are many ways to write a successful pop song (and by successful, I don't mean commercially) and to dismiss one as inferior because seemingly less sophisticated is a bit myopic. Katy Perry's hits are the same: if they hit home, it's because of their immediacy. The fact that some of them are built on a more elaborate foundation matters very little, because this is music that's made to dance to, or drink to, or finger your girlfriend to. And I agree, they are GREAT songs. Dr. Luke is a killer songwriter and an even better producer. Let's face it, those songs would never have had the same impact had they been released as acoustic ditties or piano-driven tunes. And to get back on topic ("disposability"), musical "complexity" (for lack of a better word), which is a very relative term in pop music, is certainly not the basis for durability, either. Stevie Wonder's music got increasingly sophisticated and he had some hit records with some truly complex yet accessible songs that have stood the test of time. But so did Queen with We Will Rock You, which is probably the most basic song ever written. Yet it still makes people stomp and clap every night in every stadium the world over. There's a fascinating essay by avant-garde composer Milton Babbitt, whose recorded output is close to unlistenable in my opinion, but whose experiments are certainly intriguing. That type of thought might apply to the music he was writing and championing, but it certainly doesn't apply to KISS, Jennifer Lopez, Blind Lemon Jefferson or anything that falls under the "popular music" umbrella. Signed, Leo Tolstoy P.S.: Your song is great!
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Nov 22, 2023 18:14:45 GMT -5
Interesting perspective. While I agree a ton of music is being released, I already have my built in filters so to speak to go through it all and find what I like, so it isn't as overwhelming to me. I think where the disposable factor today comes more into play than the past is that our generation and generations prior were more passionate about and had more time for music. So music is less of a priority with video games, social media and the internet in general. So if some no name artist does happen to have a song that is trending for a couple of weeks with the cool kids, it probably will be forgotten for the rest of time for the most part if they don't continually have songs that trend/are hits. I don't think there is going to be box sets 20/30 years from now - Hits On TikTok. It is interesting you bring up Taylor Swift and Harry Styles, because Mr. Blackwell - also in this thread likes pop more than I do anyway and used to be big on Katy Perry and didn't like Swift, Gaga, etc. He thought her songs were much stronger than other pop stars a few years back that he was critical of and that she would stand the test of time. Now while Katy hasn't been forgotten, she has been reduced to a reality show judge and doesn't have the musical career that lesser pop artists in his view still have. Will people still be talking about Katy Perry's music 20 years from now. I don't think so. Maybe Katy Perry the celebrity like it is now over her music. I do think Swift, Lady Gaga and a few others will have that longevity though like a Madonna, etc. I'll share this reluctantly; because when I did this years ago, everything went off the rails, I was seen as some sort of music snob, elitist, and I'm not. But - I am a musician with a degree, and hear music that way. My sweet spot is music that has mass appeal, but has musical depth beneath the surface. The early Katy Perry songs, as well as Britney Spears, have many such musical gestures. Of course that was all Dr. Luke, another trained musician, and I never denied that. Taylor Swift has none of that; this is an age of short attention spans and going viral. I hear people talk about her all the time, but you know what I'm yet to hear? Someone talking about a song of hers. Who cares? It's not about that. So here's where I get in hot water. I Kissed A Girl by Katy Perry was the most rock and roll thing I had heard in ages. It's in compound meter (12/8) which is rare enough. It's built off a linear ascending bass line (a-b-c-d) with a contrary motion counterpoint line descending, creating the dissonant tritone on the downbeat of the second measure. All building to the power chords in the chorus. Then you put the cherry on top - Katy Perry. The irony! Like her boyfriend is going to mind her kissing a girl. It was in a subtle way a spoof on Jill Sobule's hit of the same name. And Last Friday Night - I'll transpose it up a half step for simplicity. The chords are CM - am - em - DM. In theory those are the chords in the key of G Major. But where's the G Major? There isn't one! In theory it could be in the key of e minor, but does the song sound like it's in a minor key? Not to my ears. I found it fascinating, and jazzed up the chords - added some 9ths, 11ths, etc. and wrote my own disco-tinged song and called it So Katy. I recently completed a sermon on avoiding groupthink. I don't care how popular Swift is; I find her songs generic. The fact that's what's popular today doesn't sway me. It's why I'm not all up in arms over AI like some musicians. Does it really matter if a computer rehashes the same three chords instead of Taylor Swift? I lifted this out of Katy Perry song: I remember your Katy song. Liked it much more than Katy Perry's music. If I recall correctly, I think people were critical of you right or wrong, because well this is a rock forum for the most part and you were dismissing every rock song/album being released at the time, but praising Katy Perry and even Rebecca Black. Nothing is wrong with loving that stuff, but you were also critical of Lady Gaga, Kelly Clarkson and Kesha and others who were hot at the time/still hot now of not having the goods that Perry had in your view. It seemed to me though that you were actually more of a fan of Dr. Luke and Max Martin over the actual artist themselves. So perhaps that is why were looked at as being snobby because basically you viewed the production/writing team as more important than the talent of the artist, which just seemed odd especially since you are a musician. But everything that was being done in rock was terrible in your view. So I am sure you can at least appreciate that rockers and metal heads on such a forum as this one who are passionate about rock music, were going to take issue with someone shitting on what rock was releasing many years back, but you were praising Katy Perry, Britney Spears and others in the same breath. I do suspect your view of Katy Perry has changed. Not that you don't think those songs aren't still great, but maybe she needed Dr. Luke and Max Martin more than they needed her and she won't have the longevity of other pop stars that do write their own songs, etc. Basically some of the pop artists you dismissed, have a better music career than Perry does now.
|
|