However, I suspect many of the more vocal critics of these acts also like AC/DC, who are crass, bratty and sing about heavy drug use and promiscuous sex.*
Now, I'm going to make it clear, I don't own any music by BrokenCYDE, the Millionaires, Ke$ha or any of that lot. However, when I look back at music history and see how pretty much every new genre has been rejected by the "old fogies", I ask, are we really any better than the people that thought rock n roll would be the end of music, because they grew up listening to swing jazz?
So this whole thing is you assuming people like music that older people hated when it was new? Wow. You could have put this at the start so it would be easier to disregard the rest of your post, because you didn't really say much of anything if "You probably like AC/DC, which are just like these bands you hate if you only look at the lyrics and ignore every other aspect of the music, so you should stop hating so much" is your argument here. One, you have no way of knowing if anyone here actually does like AC/DC for your very weak comparison to even hold water in the first place. And two... As I just said, it's a very weak comparison. There is indeed more to music than just the lyrics, and AC/DC sounds a hell of a lot different than that stuff in your spoiler tag.
Although, anyone who thinks that the mainstream crap of today will be the end of music is indeed just as dumb as people who thought that rock would be the end of music back then. Sure, listening to the radio is pretty much intolerable anymore, but all you do is not listen to the radio. Problem solved.
There's absolute balls from every decade, this is no different. If you judge all of music based on what you hear on the radio, well I feel sorry for you. You clearly just don't give a shit about music. And I'm not saying that to be rude, it's ridiculously easy to find good music if you dig in any way. All of my favourite bands started in the last decade, or are still making music now anyway.
Note that I didn't say that Nirvana was absolutely terrible -- although I can't personally stand what their influence did to music for the last 20 years. What I said was that any fan of rock would be able to recognize that Wolfmother was better. Listen to both selections; if you honestly think the Nirvana song is better, I don't know what to say to you.
That they clearly know how to recognize a superior band when they see one. Wolfmother is at best a mediocre band. To top it off the first album they released was absolutely shit quality. Considering how big they were before their first album hit the stores they could have released something that didnt sound like it was recorded in the basement on a tape recorder.
Funny, because I could say the same thing about Nirvana, word for word -- heck, that "recorded in the basement on a tape recorder" thing was part of the appeal of grunge; it's part of why it was called "grunge."
Funny, because I could say the same thing about Nirvana, word for word -- heck, that "recorded in the basement on a tape recorder" thing was part of the appeal of grunge; it's part of why it was called "grunge."
Which is exactly why your arguement and really any on this topic is kind of silly. Its all based on personal opinion, plenty of people absolutely love modern music and plenty more think that it is complete crap. Then there are others that dont give a shit what people think and listen to the music that they like.
Its strange that you said that because I never actually purchased a nirvana album where the sound quality was absolutely terrible. By your comment though im not actually sure if you understood what I meant.
And that's exactly why I'm annoyed that people have been taking one little bit of hyperbole so far out of context. As for the sound quality, I knew exactly what you meant; Nirvana has always sounded really muddy to me.
It's not really the lyrics that bother me, it's the musical end of it that I really can't stand. There is little to no effort put into the rhythm in these songs at all, and there's so much autotune/screamingw/out pitch use that you don't get to hear good clean vocals.
You don't need autotune or pitchless screaming to sound good.
I personally find them both awful.
But OP's right in that there are plenty of bands out there RIGHT NOW which are top notch, it's just that people aren't flocking to them.
I personally am a huge fan of Porcupine Tree, and they're still a contemporary artist.
Modern music sucks because of minimalism, that terrible idea that music needs only one meter repeated over and over. Modern pop just tries to hide this by putting lyrics over the top. Listen to pretty much any given modern pop song and ignore the lyrics, it's all the same. This problem seems mostly endemic to modern pop, even though it was invented shortly after the turn of the century before the previous one. Sure, some of the less popular bands are doing fantastic work, but the widespread use of minimalism has made shitty modern pop music even shittier than shitty old pop music. This is why I believe that the overall quality of music has been decreasing.
To sum, "Afternoon Delight" by the Starland Vocal Group is terrible, but I'd surely take it over anything Ke$ha or Lady Gaga has done.
There's absolute balls from every decade, this is no different. If you judge all of music based on what you hear on the radio, well I feel sorry for you. You clearly just don't give a shit about music. And I'm not saying that to be rude, it's ridiculously easy to find good music if you dig in any way. All of my favourite bands started in the last decade, or are still making music now anyway.
I did state quite clearly that there is an abundance of modern music that I like. Perhaps read the first paragraph again?
This was really about what I call "old fogie" syndrome, which is dismissing specific types of music as "immoral" or "crude", which is pretty much the same as what people have done for a tonne of music now considered classic.
Also "that terrible idea that music needs only one meter repeated over and over".
Firstly, I suspect that you don't know what meter really means in musical terminology. Most music ever produced has 1 meter, most musicians don't even take meter into too much consideration.
Perhaps you are referring to tempo or time signature, but are you really suggesting that a song is crap if it doesn't feature some decelerando or a dabbling in 7/8 time?
Well, if you look at the 1950s up until about the 1990s, while it's true that some older generations tended to disapprove of music of the time, each generation of music reflected the social attitudes and values of its time. From the slow, drawling, drug-induced highs of the 1960s (Beatles) to the outlandish performances of the 1970s (KISS), each artist/band was a living incarnations of what his or her generation stood for.
Sadly, the fact is that Kesha's shit became popular right around the time I turned 18.
Also "that terrible idea that music needs only one meter repeated over and over".
Firstly, I suspect that you don't know what meter really means in musical terminology. Most music ever produced has 1 meter, most musicians don't even take meter into too much consideration.
Perhaps you are referring to tempo or time signature, but are you really suggesting that a song is crap if it doesn't feature some decelerando or a dabbling in 7/8 time?
You are absolutely right, I meant to say "measure" instead of "meter." Please forgive my mistake.
In regards to your examples of famous minimalists Philip Glass and Steve Reich: yes, they are shit. I cannot bear to listen to their recycled bullshit for more than a minute. Their music literally causes me physical pain. Minimalism is little more than a single measure of music repeated over and over. Sure, they have a few tricks (e.g. an evolving score) to disguise the fact that they're only using the same few beats they've been using for the whole bloody song but that just isn't enough.
Good music can not be so shallow. The one thing all great works of art have in common is depth and complexity (even if such complexity is subtle.) Minimalism has neither quality and I can only find it tolerable when I'm not paying attention to it. It's the same reason why people can dance to any shitty techno tune during a rave but you won't see them sitting down and giving the techno their full attention.
Let us compare your Philip Glass & Steve Reich with my Igor Stravinsky & Johannes Brahms.
Truly, it is a sad time when singers no longer sing and musicians no longer play instruments. The incredible ease with which music is made (autotune, synths, etc.) nowadays has allowed the least talented musicians to reach heights which they ought to have never seen. This isn't the first time this has happened. Remember the 80s, when synths had just become practical and popular, they produced pretty much the worst decade in music. Be warned, if the untalented get the means to produce music then their music will be absolutely terrible.
Did you listen to the samples? Nirvana may be more popular, but liking popular bands is not a part of rock cred -- well, at least with bands that formed after the end of the 80s.
What is this "rock cred" you speak of? Also, while Wolfmother may be solid band, they've hardly done anything new or revolutionary. Nirvana, whether you like them or not, shifted the musical paradigm of rock from 80s metal to grunge. I'm not necessarily a fan of grunge, but I agree with Mike Patton's assessment of Wolfmother.
Out of the three "3XXXample5' of what might constitute 'crunk-core', I kinda find the Millionaires to be an interesting artifact.
In a bizarre sorta way, it's kinda refreshing to see a pop band just drop all pretense of being 'clean fun, with a naughty edge' and just get down to the filthy brass tacks of drugs and fucking pivotal to club culture. When is the last time you listened to some sexed up pop music and thought "yep, they're exactly what they say they are". Brazen, unrestrained and obnoxious, BUT - completely and totally honest in being utterly shallow, superficial music about getting high and getting laid, pretending you're rich and wallowing in irresponsible hedonism.
I don't really think that's worth merit-badge celebration on it's on dubious 'strength', but it's nice to listen to superficial music that isn't lying about what it is.
Backhanded compliments aside, out of the three examples given also featuring brokeNCYDE and Ima Monster it's probably got the best composition, textures and hooks, musically. [sub]Though the competition isn't exactly Olympian...[/sub]
the only reason that people consider older music better is that when we look back at the 1960s we remember the Beatles/Rolling Stones/whatever - the artists that have been enduringly popular for 50 years - and largely ignore the lame ones. i love 60s music but for every bad artist nowadays there's a bad one from then, and in 50 years from now we'll remember the Arcade Fires not the Justin Biebers just as no-one remembers Herman's Hermits
Also "that terrible idea that music needs only one meter repeated over and over".
Firstly, I suspect that you don't know what meter really means in musical terminology. Most music ever produced has 1 meter, most musicians don't even take meter into too much consideration.
Perhaps you are referring to tempo or time signature, but are you really suggesting that a song is crap if it doesn't feature some decelerando or a dabbling in 7/8 time?
You are absolutely right, I meant to say "measure" instead of "meter." Please forgive my mistake.
In regards to your examples of famous minimalists Philip Glass and Steve Reich: yes, they are shit. I cannot bear to listen to their recycled bullshit for more than a minute. Their music literally causes me physical pain. Minimalism is little more than a single measure of music repeated over and over. Sure, they have a few tricks (e.g. an evolving score) to disguise the fact that they're only using the same few beats they've been using for the whole bloody song but that just isn't enough.
Good music can not be so shallow. The one thing all great works of art have in common is depth and complexity (even if such complexity is subtle.) Minimalism has neither quality and I can only find it tolerable when I'm not paying attention to it. It's the same reason why people can dance to any shitty techno tune during a rave but you won't see them sitting down and giving the techno their full attention.
Let us compare your Philip Glass & Steve Reich with my Igor Stravinsky & Johannes Brahms.
Musical complexity is neither necessary nor sufficient for great music, especially in popular music.
In other words, I can think of some beautiful songs that use only 2 chords or very sparse instrumentation. It looks like you are more into your classical, so perhaps appealing to, say, punk rock won't be the best idea, but I've got a few examples.
Furthermore, you can have music with great complexity but doesn't really stimulate any emotions beyond the fleeting state of being impressed. Think of say... Dragonforce, who can play their instruments incredibly well, but in the end it just feels kindof vacuous. First time you listen to them you are like "shit thats a lot notes", but I think that state quickly passes.
Also, see my response to the next post as well.
II2 said:
In a bizarre sorta way, it's kinda refreshing to see a pop band just drop all pretense of being 'clean fun, with a naughty edge' and just get down to the filthy brass tacks of drugs and fucking pivotal to club culture. When is the last time you listened to some sexed up pop music and thought "yep, they're exactly what they say they are". Brazen, unrestrained and obnoxious, BUT - completely and totally honest in being utterly shallow, superficial music about getting high and getting laid, pretending you're rich and wallowing in irresponsible hedonism.
I don't really think that's worth merit-badge celebration on it's on dubious 'strength', but it's nice to listen to superficial music that isn't lying about what it is.
Backhanded compliments aside, out of the three examples given also featuring brokeNCYDE and Ima Monster it's probably got the best composition, textures and hooks, musically. [sub]Though the competition isn't exactly Olympian...[/sub]
The way I try to evaluate music is pretty simple: for it to be good, it has to do something well.
It's a simple enough way to do it, but I think a lot of people forget this and try and focus on one thing that music should always do well. Its good as long as it does ANYTHING well. It may be very innovative, it may just really suit a particular mood or situation, it may be very technically challenging, it may have good lyrics, it may just fuckin' rock hard. If the lyrics are what I'm meant to be listening to then I won't care so much about what the instruments are doing. Something thats meant to be blasted in a club has a completely different set of criteria to judge it on compared to something that you listen to at home. If a song is meant for singing along to in a somewhat drunken state, then adding in stuff like unusual time signatures, long and complex instrumental interludes or the like will actually make the song worse.
Do the Millionaires do something well?
The more I think about it... yes. They have taken the hedonism that has pervaded rock music to its logical extreme. While I can't personally sympathise with it, I can imagine that this stuff would be the perfect soundtrack to its target audience. This music makes as much sense to me as most of the music I listen to would make to a young girl who likes to go out and get wasted and laid.
I mean seriously, what would one of the members of the Millionaires think if I played them, say, something by the Smiths or the Cure or some Weezer?
Their music is good for them just like my music is good for me. It would be arrogant for me to assume that one perspective is inherently more valid than another.
When I listen to music, I don't think about the melodical arrangements or lyrical themes, I just listen to the song and sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't.
Music is subjective, I don't think there are many people consciously decide whether to like a song or not.
There's absolute balls from every decade, this is no different. If you judge all of music based on what you hear on the radio, well I feel sorry for you. You clearly just don't give a shit about music. And I'm not saying that to be rude, it's ridiculously easy to find good music if you dig in any way. All of my favourite bands started in the last decade, or are still making music now anyway.
While I agree with the theory, I think perhaps that a lot of modern music is not produced out of a desire to expression one's self emotionally, but out a desire to be filthy stinking rich and 'famous'. A lot of the good music you list above was written by the musicians and produced without the aid of autotuning; furthermore, at the time it wasn't backed by rich producing studios that want to manufacture homogenous 'music', but by a group of people who wanted to do something rebellious and expressive (which gives it a status as art, as opposed to a money making gimmic).
Perhaps I am being overly cynical, and I imagine that in the future a lot of this stuff may be remembered a ground-breaking music. But I hope not.
Did you listen to the samples? Nirvana may be more popular, but liking popular bands is not a part of rock cred -- well, at least with bands that formed after the end of the 80s.
What is this "rock cred" you speak of? Also, while Wolfmother may be solid band, they've hardly done anything new or revolutionary. Nirvana, whether you like them or not, shifted the musical paradigm of rock from 80s metal to grunge. I'm not necessarily a fan of grunge, but I agree with Mike Patton's assessment of Wolfmother.
Mike Patton said that Wolfmother was mediocre; I said that Nirvana was also mediocre, but in the right place at the right time -- not to mention marketed heavily enough -- to be highly influential. They weren't even the revolutionary sound that most people thought they were -- they came out of the Seattle grunge scene, and were neither the first or the last band from that scene. Besides, influence is not everything when it comes to quality.
Now, will you people please quit quoting me on this? It was a minor hyperbole there to make a point, which you people seem to have completely missed because I dared to insult his holiness, Kurt Cobain. I'm really sick of it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
