Vault101 said:
ok so I was reading a cracked article
That's the first problem.
main point here being that music reached its "peak" in the 60's...that there is less variety and more loudness in songs
That's probably true. At least, in the technical sense. We are talking pop here, and pop has become significantly "safer" over time, with less experimental elements and more "every body play the same phrase in the same key this summer!"
Also, "loudness" is in part a technological issue. but more importantly:
[quote/][i/]"Hence, an old tune with slightly simpler chord progressions, new instrument sonorities that were in agreement with current tendencies, and recorded with modern techniques that allowed for increased loudness levels could be easily perceived as novel, fashionable and groundbreaking."
[/i][/quote]
Cracked is not where you go for science and correlation does not equal causation. It was amusing, but that's all.
so you know its offical that I have terrible fucking taste in music....
You don't have terrible taste in music until you say "hey, howabout some Creed?"
becuase I cant stand classic rock, I fucking hate it
...Of course, we ARE mortal enemies now.
But they weren't right. Unless they were talking datasets specifically. Because lack of variety does not equal bad. More loudness doesn't equal bad.
Also, this would make everything from the 1600s (More appropriately, the 18th century would probably be the actual start of decline) downhill in terms of music, and everything from Marconi to now downhill in the case of loudness. The former due to the fact that a lot of what we do in terms of music started becoming formalised through that (those) period(s) and the latter due to the aforementioned technical limitations.
In short, screw that. Enjoy what you want. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to formally declare war on you. I believe I will decimate you with...QUEEN!