When we dislike modern music, are we forgetting the lessons history has taught us?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This whole thread is about opinions, so you're being pretty silly by attacking me. As for bland punk inspired bands, try Green Day, Fallout Boy, My Chemical Romance, and basically the entirety of both Pop Punk and Emo music. Even Screamo and Hardcore are nothing but punk mixed with metal. They're all descendants of punk in some form or fashion, and they all share the common ancestor of grunge.

Except Green Day had a lot of much better earlier music. Only with the release of Dookie could you see them being cleaned up, pressed and prepped for the mainstream.

Along comes Waiting and everyone only likes Minority and the Album is widely held as shit (though it's one of my favourites.) Then you have the experimental and fairly sellout American Idiot and now the complete 100% sellout, mainstream, garbage, pop punk/emo, 21st Century Breakdown.

You said that they need to know how to play their instruments and hav th basics then cite Green Day as one of these bland, punk inspired bands lumped in with the rest of the refuse but, they clearly do know how to play their instruments and have that foundation. Anyone who has tried to learn their songs knows that.

Just because Nirvana gave way to the grunge scene (which gave us such great bands as Smashing Pumpkins, Garbage, Alice in Chains, etc, etc) and Punk (which actually pre-dated Grunge anyways...) essentially killed off Hair Metal and Glam Rock (which you stated to be genres you enjoy) is not a reason to state that everything that came out of it was utter trash. It's clearly not as they both also gave rise to the Alternative Scene which gave us many many more new, interesting, and great bands.

Add to the fact that you say Grunge and Punk were systematically created to destroy those is laughable. The Punk movement was alive in the 70's a full decade BEFORE Hair Metal even rose to its heights in the 80's. Sure Grunge made Hair Metal and Glam Rock less popular but, Punk? Give me a break. You sound like a Conspiracy Theorist.

Actually, Punk was around to destroy Prog rock and certain other genres of classic rock. There was a big pissing contest between punk fans and fans of (what was called at the time) heavy metal in the 70s, with punk fans constantly rattling on about how punk killed metal, and metal fans talking about how it would never die.

And maybe Green Day did have some early records that were a bit more raw -- I'd love to hear them, because they didn't get big until Dookie came out, by which point they were definitely pop punk. [edit]Whoah whoah, you honestly think that Green Day is difficult to play, at all? I've seen kids start playing their songs note for note a month after picking up the guitar for the first time -- and that's normal teenagers, not prodigies. Green Day doesn't show much technical skill at all in any of the tracks I've heard from them. And I'm not only speaking from observation -- I play guitar, and there have been times when I've started playing a Green Day song completely by accident, because I was screwing around with power chords and basic progressions, and hit upon one of the ones they used. If they have the foundation, they aren't really using it.[/edit] As for alternative, most of that is bland and punk inspired, like I said. A very small selection of it is different, and that section has been growing in recent years. That "has been growing in recent years" was what was key to my original post -- all I was saying was that music has been getting better in the last few years, and people who are talking about how terrible modern music is have not been paying attention for the last 15 or 20 years. I was effectively agreeing with the OP, but I seem to have struck a major nerve here.

Edit: Read the post that I'm quoting below. He's older than I am, remembers the 90's even better, and is saying the same thing about it.

The fact of the matter is that we've cherry picked every good song from the last 50 years or so and have forgotten the rest. It's not that music was "better" back in the '60's and '70's, there was just as much crap that surrounded and overshadowed the good stuff.

Let's look at 1969 releases:

Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin
The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground & Nico
MC5 - Kick Out the Jams
Leanard Cohen - Songs From A Room
The Who - Tommy
Deep Purple - Deep Purple
The Stooges - The Stooges
The Beatles - Abbey Road
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin II

And plenty more.

Now out of all of these hugely influential albums to be released in '69, many of which still get appraised to this very day, what do you think the best selling LP of 1969 was?

If you said Abbey Road you'd be wrong, it was actually a "best of" album by some Australian folk group called The Seekers. http://www.sixtiescity.com/charts/69chart.htm#bestalb69

Yet do any of us know who The Seekers are or care who they are? I'm sure there are some, but the fact of the matter is that over decades we chose who to keep and immortalize, while forgetting the rest. If you think for one minute that Ke$ha is going to be remembered 10 or even 20 years from now, then you have very low standards of the human race. I'm sure a few fans will cling on, but she will be spat out by the music industry and left to waste away in the memory of time.

Don't believe me? We're already doing it with the '90's. I use to be a moderator on a pretty popular music forum and last year we had a large influx of new members who were born in the mid to late '90's. They thought of themselves as '90's kids and loved every underground album that came out in that decade and were constantly going on about how they wished they could have lived through those times to experience the music first hand. Many of the older members (myself included) who grew up in the '90's kept on trying to convince them that not every high school student in the '90's listened to bands like Slint, Primus, or Faith No More. In fact, none of us could really recall connecting with many of the big name albums at that time like "Blood, Sugar, Sex, Magic" or "Nevermind" (although I think that was more due to embarrassment and the unwillingness to admit we were angsty grunge teenagers), but these new members just could not get around this. We tried to explain that the popular bands of the time were Boyz 2 Men, Whitney Houston, Kris Kross, Garth Brooks, and Shania Twain. How many of these groups are remembered fondly today? Whitney Houston is mostly known for being a coke whore, Kris Kross are remembered for dressing like idiots, Garth Brooks has some following still, but mostly he's known his fans being the "average Americans" that would make Peter Griffin blush. We've cherry picked what we want to remember and left the rest to rot. In a decade or two kids will be talking about how much music sucks in the year 2030 while the music of 2010 and 2011 was where it's at.

Bottom line is that comparing the new music of today to the music of yesterday is unfair because we've carefully selected what we want to remember.

Bolding mine; it's just to highlight the part that most applies to what I'm saying.

 

[Bedewyr]

Actually, Punk was around to destroy Prog rock and certain other genres of classic rock. There was a big pissing contest between punk fans and fans of (what was called at the time) heavy metal in the 70s, with punk fans constantly rattling on about how punk killed metal, and metal fans talking about how it would never die.

And maybe Green Day did have some early records that were a bit more raw -- I'd love to hear them, because they didn't get big until Dookie came out, by which point they were definitely pop punk. [edit]Whoah whoah, you honestly think that Green Day is difficult to play, at all? I've seen kids start playing their songs note for note a month after picking up the guitar for the first time -- and that's normal teenagers, not prodigies. Green Day doesn't show much technical skill at all in any of the tracks I've heard from them. And I'm not only speaking from observation -- I play guitar, and there have been times when I've started playing a Green Day song completely by accident, because I was screwing around with power chords and basic progressions, and hit upon one of the ones they used. If they have the foundation, they aren't really using it.[/edit] As for alternative, most of that is bland and punk inspired, like I said. A very small selection of it is different, and that section has been growing in recent years. That "has been growing in recent years" was what was key to my original post -- all I was saying was that music has been getting better in the last few years, and people who are talking about how terrible modern music is have not been paying attention for the last 15 or 20 years. I was effectively agreeing with the OP, but I seem to have struck a major nerve here.

Edit: Read the post that I'm quoting below. He's older than I am, remembers the 90's even better, and is saying the same thing about it.

The fact of the matter is that we've cherry picked every good song from the last 50 years or so and have forgotten the rest. It's not that music was "better" back in the '60's and '70's, there was just as much crap that surrounded and overshadowed the good stuff.

Let's look at 1969 releases:

Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin
The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground & Nico
MC5 - Kick Out the Jams
Leanard Cohen - Songs From A Room
The Who - Tommy
Deep Purple - Deep Purple
The Stooges - The Stooges
The Beatles - Abbey Road
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin II

And plenty more.

Now out of all of these hugely influential albums to be released in '69, many of which still get appraised to this very day, what do you think the best selling LP of 1969 was?

If you said Abbey Road you'd be wrong, it was actually a "best of" album by some Australian folk group called The Seekers. http://www.sixtiescity.com/charts/69chart.htm#bestalb69

Yet do any of us know who The Seekers are or care who they are? I'm sure there are some, but the fact of the matter is that over decades we chose who to keep and immortalize, while forgetting the rest. If you think for one minute that Ke$ha is going to be remembered 10 or even 20 years from now, then you have very low standards of the human race. I'm sure a few fans will cling on, but she will be spat out by the music industry and left to waste away in the memory of time.

Don't believe me? We're already doing it with the '90's. I use to be a moderator on a pretty popular music forum and last year we had a large influx of new members who were born in the mid to late '90's. They thought of themselves as '90's kids and loved every underground album that came out in that decade and were constantly going on about how they wished they could have lived through those times to experience the music first hand. Many of the older members (myself included) who grew up in the '90's kept on trying to convince them that not every high school student in the '90's listened to bands like Slint, Primus, or Faith No More. In fact, none of us could really recall connecting with many of the big name albums at that time like "Blood, Sugar, Sex, Magic" or "Nevermind" (although I think that was more due to embarrassment and the unwillingness to admit we were angsty grunge teenagers), but these new members just could not get around this. We tried to explain that the popular bands of the time were Boyz 2 Men, Whitney Houston, Kris Kross, Garth Brooks, and Shania Twain. How many of these groups are remembered fondly today? Whitney Houston is mostly known for being a coke whore, Kris Kross are remembered for dressing like idiots, Garth Brooks has some following still, but mostly he's known his fans being the "average Americans" that would make Peter Griffin blush. We've cherry picked what we want to remember and left the rest to rot. In a decade or two kids will be talking about how much music sucks in the year 2030 while the music of 2010 and 2011 was where it's at.

Bottom line is that comparing the new music of today to the music of yesterday is unfair because we've carefully selected what we want to remember.

Bolding mine; it's just to highlight the part that most applies to what I'm saying.

Yeah and I get what you're saying. I understand that people cherry pick the good stuff. It happens with movies, books, video games, and pretty much every single form of entertainment. That's not what I'm disagreeing with.

What I draw contention with is that you're stating Alternative, Punk, and Grunge as crap when they gave rise to many good bands and is simply a genre of music you don't enjoy.

I could say the same of Metal as well (a genre you enjoy). Oh look another solo.. how surprising. Oh gee, yet another Arpeggio and more self aggrandizing guitar solos. Characteristic of many many many metal groups. From the metal I've listened too (admittedly not that much. Pretty much the "Well known good ones.") you'd be hard pressed to find a metal group without the ridiculously long guitar solos in every single track with ridiculous over the top lyrics to boot.

Does it mean I hate metal? No but, I'm certainly not going to be cruising down the street blaring Iron Maiden or Judas Priest.

Also, the only songs I ever hear about kids learning to play form Green Day are the following 3 : Good Riddance (Time of Your Life), Brain Stew, and Minority (minus the intro and outro)

If you want to talk about seriously easy Bands to learn try Nickelback. C, D, G, E. Congrats, you just learned every single Nickelback song ever.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

its not MODERN music. its that stupid party pop music with the autotuneing crap i hate.

listen to queen then these people and lets see whos better.

That pretty much sums up my feeling on the subject.

It's specifically modern pop music that is full of garbage. I'm not going to make a sweeping judgement and say that all modern pop music is bad, but I will say that most of it is. And I would take the same stance with pop music from the 90's and 80's, so this isn't about nostalgia.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Modern music sucks because of minimalism

Spoiler: Philip Glass and Steve Reich: THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT

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.

Spoiler: Igor Stravinsky & Johannes Brahms

Is the music not strengthened by its complexity?

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.

Spoiler

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.

Once again, I agree. I feel that you are misunderstanding me. My exact quote was: "The one thing all great works of art have in common is depth and complexity (even if such complexity is subtle.)" Note the word: "depth." Dragonforce sucks because their music has complexity but no depth. Any blighter can create a song of amazing complexity by writing a random series of notes, but to have depth the song must have structure. Themes, melodies, and what-have-you.

A simple song can certainly have some depth. However, the fact that the song is simple limits its possible maximum of depth. One or two measures repeated again and again have very little room for depth.

As poor as Dragonforce is, I still prefer their music to the shallow and simple stuff that mainstream popular music is nowadays.

In regards to your examples of folksy music, well, I can't really say that they are the best songs ever writ but I can understand your point. I do appreciate some Bob Dyland and Johnny Cash who derive their songs' complexity from their lyrics. A few of their songs come closer to poetry than proper music. They're far from my favorite artists but I can still respect them.

Insofar as the provocation of emotions go I agree that complexity in itself is not sufficient for engendering emotion. Complexity is the basis upon which one can build the depth that so stirs us.

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.

I can respect your stance, however, I have to disagree. Great music demands your attention and can keep it. Music that is played for a situation where you aren't meant to give it your full intention can be successful, but not particularly good. Plus saying your music is not meant to be payed attention to is kind of a cop-out.

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.

Do the Millionaires do what they do well? Yes, but is their music good? I think we know the answer to that question.

What makes art good is not entirely subjective. In all great remembered art I have seen depth and complexity. The Mona Lisa's subtle smile is not only an amazing technical achievement but it adds a fantastic level of depth to the portrait. Without those elements she would've been rightfully forgotten.

What songs will pass the test of time? Only those songs of sufficient beautiful depth and complexity.

P.S. Please excuse the extreme lateness of my reply. Shortly after your last reply I fell ill and was rendered unable to use a computer until just recently. It was quite harrowing.

 

[the Dept of Science]

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.

I can respect your stance, however, I have to disagree. Great music demands your attention and can keep it. Music that is played for a situation where you aren't meant to give it your full intention can be successful, but not particularly good. Plus saying your music is not meant to be payed attention to is kind of a cop-out.

I never said that the music is not meant to be payed attention to. What I meant is that you cannot evaluate music without considering its context and purpose. The most common way people listen to classical music is sat down in silence, if you were to play dance music in this situation, it would fall flat on its face (I don't mean modern electronic Dance either, I mean any genre meant for dancing including swing jazz and folk). Similarly, if you were to play classical music in a club then it would be similarly terrible.
While I do believe that one persons opinion can be more valid than another's when assessing music, I don't believe that there is one context, mood or style that is superior. All genres are good for their given context and every piece of music should be evaluated by the standards of the genre.
I think this is quite an interesting thing to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se8kcnU-uZw

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.

Do the Millionaires do what they do well? Yes, but is their music good? I think we know the answer to that question.

What makes art good is not entirely subjective. In all great remembered art I have seen depth and complexity. The Mona Lisa's subtle smile is not only an amazing technical achievement but it adds a fantastic level of depth to the portrait. Without those elements she would've been rightfully forgotten.

I'm not too hot on my paintings so to describe the way I feel about it, I'll make an analogy with films. Consider the action movie Die Hard.
Die Hard is not a deep or complex film, I don't think I encountered a single challenging thought when watching it. However, its considered a classic because it is very well made by the criteria of action movies. It's well paced, the dialog is punchy and the action scenes are very well done. The plot isn't exactly labyrinthine but everything makes sense and resolves itself nicely in the end. Compare it to a bad action movie like Transformers and its clear that what Die Hard does, it does very well.
Or perhaps compare it to something on completely the opposite end of the film spectrum like Fellini's 8 1/2, pretty much the definition of artsy movie. Both movies are considered classics, but are getting judged using completely different criteria, so its impossible to evaluate them against each other.

What songs will pass the test of time? Only those songs of sufficient beautiful depth and complexity.

Now that's just simply not true. Pretty much the simplest band I can think of are the Ramones, to whom the words "depth and complexity" are completely alien. They still have a massive fanbase nowadays, their early albums are considered classics (their debut is #33 on Rolling Stones top 500 albums of all time).
Ok, thats only 40 odd years ago. However, what about Elvis in the 50s? Or Muddy Waters from the late 40s? These are still widely listened to. I guess only time will tell if these guys have the same longevity as the great classical composers, but they seem to be doing pretty well so far.

 

[Iron Lightning]

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.

I can respect your stance, however, I have to disagree. Great music demands your attention and can keep it. Music that is played for a situation where you aren't meant to give it your full intention can be successful, but not particularly good. Plus saying your music is not meant to be payed attention to is kind of a cop-out.

I never said that the music is not meant to be payed attention to. What I meant is that you cannot evaluate music without considering its context and purpose. The most common way people listen to classical music is sat down in silence, if you were to play dance music in this situation, it would fall flat on its face (I don't mean modern electronic Dance either, I mean any genre meant for dancing including swing jazz and folk). Similarly, if you were to play classical music in a club then it would be similarly terrible.
While I do believe that one persons opinion can be more valid than another's when assessing music, I don't believe that there is one context, mood or style that is superior. All genres are good for their given context and every piece of music should be evaluated by the standards of the genre.
I think this is quite an interesting thing to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se8kcnU-uZw

Well, obviously dance music is not meant to be given much attention. You simply can't pay much attention to music while you're dancing. That includes swing jazz and folk as well as modern techno. People once danced to shitty classical music too. At an affluent enough party you'd usually find a chamber orchestra playing something that wasn't meant to be paid attention. At poorer gatherings you'd just find some dude improvising on a fiddle or accordion. In fact, you still find people dancing to classical music in formal events at ballroom dance halls. Your average dance club works sorta like the poor parties a couple hundred years ago in that the people at those preferred different music.

I think that being able to like a piece of music when giving it your full attention is a fair prerequisite for the musical piece in question to be considered good. Every good piece of art can hold the viewer's attention. Why shouldn't we apply this same standard to music? I could bust out my keyboard, press a random succession of keys, and say "this music is great as long as you don't pay attention to it." Of course, that's hyperbole and not all dance music is bad. However, most dance music is poor simply because it isn't meant to be paid much attention.

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.

Do the Millionaires do what they do well? Yes, but is their music good? I think we know the answer to that question.

What makes art good is not entirely subjective. In all great remembered art I have seen depth and complexity. The Mona Lisa's subtle smile is not only an amazing technical achievement but it adds a fantastic level of depth to the portrait. Without those elements she would've been rightfully forgotten.

I'm not too hot on my paintings so to describe the way I feel about it, I'll make an analogy with films. Consider the action movie Die Hard.
Die Hard is not a deep or complex film, I don't think I encountered a single challenging thought when watching it. However, its considered a classic because it is very well made by the criteria of action movies. It's well paced, the dialog is punchy and the action scenes are very well done. The plot isn't exactly labyrinthine but everything makes sense and resolves itself nicely in the end. Compare it to a bad action movie like Transformers and its clear that what Die Hard does, it does very well.
Or perhaps compare it to something on completely the opposite end of the film spectrum like Fellini's 8 1/2, pretty much the definition of artsy movie. Both movies are considered classics, but are getting judged using completely different criteria, so its impossible to evaluate them against each other.

Die Hard is complex. Sure, it doesn't have a complex plot or complex characters but it is technically impressive. As you said, the action scenes and the dialogue are very good. Now consider a hypothetical action scene wherein the hero walks down a blank white corridor and shoots a few people standing in the open and shooting at the ground. It would be a completely terrible scene, right? Why is it terrible? Because it's simple. Sure, Die Hard is a shallow movie but it's not simple.

Both films are complex, just in different ways.

What songs will pass the test of time? Only those songs of sufficient beautiful depth and complexity.

Now that's just simply not true. Pretty much the simplest band I can think of are the Ramones, to whom the words "depth and complexity" are completely alien. They still have a massive fanbase nowadays, their early albums are considered classics (their debut is #33 on Rolling Stones top 500 albums of all time).
Ok, thats only 40 odd years ago. However, what about Elvis in the 50s? Or Muddy Waters from the late 40s? These are still widely listened to. I guess only time will tell if these guys have the same longevity as the great classical composers, but they seem to be doing pretty well so far.

Who says Elvis or Muddy Waters suck? I wouldn't say Muddy Waters is the best artist of all time but he has a few pretty good songs. I haven't listened to him for a while but I remember him being pretty good.

You are right in saying that the test of time is not so short that the Ramones can be said to have passed it. Something will have passed the test of time if it is still being enjoyed when the everyone who saw the thing in question when it was new have died. Most things big and new will get a substantial following no matter if they're good or not. At least some of the people who enjoyed the piece of art when it was new will continue to enjoy it due to the effect of nostalgia. So when those people die the quality of the piece of art in question can be more accurately determined by its popularity. The Ramones have been decreasing in popularity and will probably not pass this test.

 

[Joyous Insurrection]

I think this argument about the artistic merits of minimalism is kind of off-topic honestly. Maybe that should be a different thread? And in response to the comment that you can't really sit down and listen to dance music. I disagree with that. I've never really danced in my life, and I enjoy a lot of dance music. I've sat down and listened to quite a few dance albums and been pretty satisfied. You don't have to be up and flailing around to appreciate a good groove or an interesting rhythm. I would have to agree with you that music that doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny is basically worthless, but I think there's tons of dance music that you can really sit down and listen to.

Anyway, it seems like the main discussion has pretty much reached it's conclusion here. Pop music in general was never "better" at any point, and it just looks that way because of cherry-picking.

Done, right?

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Well my favorite bands are Megadeth, Iron Maiden and Rammstein, and I enjoy Lady Gaga and Black Eyed Peas
Every generations has it's gems and turds. But I just don't find anything appealing about modern music (save for a few artists). I've tried listening to Rebecca Black, Justin Bieber, Rihana, and other mainstream artists than are on the left of Youtube, and ... I get bored after about a minute in. The voices annoy me, the tunes are ... meh, and the lyrics range from "meh" to "I can't believe people like this sh*t!". I could be wrong, but I don't think a lot of these popular artists teach the kids anything :/ For example, Megadeth have covered themes like politics, sorcery, gambling, love, murder, insanity, metal, war, aliens, etc. You can learn so much from songs, like ... love, peace, relationships, war, death, sadness, agony, insanity, happiness and all other, but I can't seem to find any of that in the mainstream titles. Again, I could be wrong, given the fact that I've heard like 10-12 pop/rap/hip-hop songs at best, so this is just my honest opinion ...

... and Bieber sucks.