Why does old music equal superiority?

Recommended Videos

Kirch Libre

New member
Jun 22, 2010
122
0
0
It's just plain old nostalgia for me since I grew up in the early eighties. But I don't go around shoving my tastes down peoples throats. Music is music, as long as it moves you it's cool.


As for what are my favorite genres they vary a lot. But I like rock, acid jazz, 80's, and J-pop the most.
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
Snake Plissken said:
*sigh*

Justin Timberlake > John Lennon
Disprove. GO.

Hint: You can't. Subjective. Get over it.
i can, everyone remembers John Lennon and everyone remembers the Beatles.

how many people will remember Justin Timberlake's "music" 10 or 20 years from now? does he even still make music? i dont remember, id even forgotten about him until you mentioned his name. this is why old-school music is far superior to any of the processed shit of the 90s until now.

see? i proved you wrong.
 

PeePantz

New member
Sep 23, 2010
1,100
0
0
Novskij said:
Standard hasnt fallen its the same, just maybe not in your genre, and not to your tastes.
I definitely think it has. Certain genres, I can agree that it hasn't. However, I feel that music as a whole, has. With mass production of anything, standards will get lowered.

Most of my favorite music has been put out within the last ten years and I believe it to be superior than most music of the past. This does not sway my opinion that music has declined though.
 

Ham_authority95

New member
Dec 8, 2009
3,496
0
0
Because people are stupid and believe that because they like something better, it's completely superior.


Now excuse me while I laugh at the "BAWW MUSIC ISN'T THE SAME" comments....
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
In order to fail at not coming off as an elitist jerk, I will not use the term "good" in this thread since each listener determines what music is good on their own. I will say, however, that there is plenty of well written, expertly played music available today by modern bands and artists. You just rarely hear it on the radio (this is the part where I fail). Most radio friendly music is designed to be sold, consumed, and then discarded when the next "big thing" comes around. In that capacity, it mostly works.

But then again, this is nothing new. The majority of people who tell you that the music was better in their day are talking about the same shrink wrapped, by-the-numbers bullshit that is prevalent today, just from a different era. Don't listen to them. There is nothing inherently superior about their consumerist crap than yours. And I mean that. I don't listen to most radio friendly music (because I have a passion for music) but I do watch bullshit throwaway movies. I'm a consumer at heart too.

As for the blandness of rock and metal, well you've got two things contributing to that:

1) Like I said, shrink wrapped, by-the-numbers bullshit. There's diverse, well-written music out there, but you aren't going to hear it unless you search for it because it sure as hell isn't being broadcasted on the airwaves (well maybe on XM/Sirius). Instead, you get music aimed at a demographic, which means that the studios find a band that can sell and then imitate, imitate, imitate! Is it any wonder that most rock/metal sounds the same?

2) The Loudness War. Since the 90s there has been a trend among the studios of mixing music louder as a way of standing out and grabbing your attention when it plays on the radio. Unfortunately this is a horrible thing to do, as you have a limit on how loud music can be mixed, as there is a "ceiling" of sorts that the waveform will eventually bump against. When it does that you get something known as "clipping." Add to this that the studios started mixing even the soft parts of a song louder and you get the audio equivalent of squeezing play-dough through a tube. There are no highs or lows, just a long, boring wall of sound. Goodbye dynamic music.

Regrettably, there are very few bands today that do anything about the second problem (Thank you Porcupine Tree), but the first is easy enough. Don't look for bands to listen to solely by listening to the radio. Yes, you can listen to radio friendly music; I've already said that there's nothing wrong with being a consumer (if there is, then I am equally wrong). Just look for something more as well. I watch throw away action movies, but I also enjoy movies like A Beautiful Mind, Let the Right One In, and anything by Akira Kurosawa.

I'm Scars Unseen, and I am an (occasional) elitist jerk.
 

Ham_authority95

New member
Dec 8, 2009
3,496
0
0
Azaraxzealot said:
insaneHoshi said:
Because most 'Music' Today is manufactured, auto-tuned crap
^this
if you think modern music is superior, simply put: fuck you. anyone who makes that claim "you just dont appreciate other genres of music" or "everyone has different tastes" is just using a wishy-washy cop-out to make the other person look like a jackass while making themselves look like the "intelligent" one.

you wouldn't say Transformers 2 is better than Citizen Kane or The Matrix would you? it's the same thing with music. don't try to act all high and mighty by putting us down for hating those who buy into that auto-tuned electronic bullshit that tries to pass for music.
ITT: Idiot who can't accept that people jut have different tastes and is probably also a 15 year-old trying to look cool.
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
Dango said:
It doesn't, because J-pop only really developed in the '90s...
j-pop is the anti-christ of music and should be destroyed. it's the epitome of all that is wrong with music in that it is unmemorable, processed, can be done just as good by a machine (as evidenced by Miku), and all the music is completely indistinguishable from itself (seriously, EVERY VOICE SOUNDS THE SAME! i can't tell if i'm listening to Hirano or another Anime intro! all the songs saound exactly the same, are put together exactly the same, and never break away from that even for a moment.)
 

Snake Plissken

New member
Jul 30, 2010
1,375
0
0
Azaraxzealot said:
Snake Plissken said:
*sigh*

Justin Timberlake > John Lennon
Disprove. GO.

Hint: You can't. Subjective. Get over it.
i can, everyone remembers John Lennon and everyone remembers the Beatles.

how many people will remember Justin Timberlake's "music" 10 or 20 years from now? does he even still make music? i dont remember, id even forgotten about him until you mentioned his name. this is why old-school music is far superior to any of the processed shit of the 90s until now.

see? i proved you wrong.
No, you didn't. I fucking hate John Lennon. My opinion of how good or bad Justin Timberlake's music is is meaningless if John Lennon will always be at the bottom of my preferences list. Even If JT is stuck somewhere between listening to Roseanne Barr talk and the sound of a million dying babies, it's still better to me than John Lennon ever will be. Hence, TO ME, JT > John Lennon. This is not debatable. This is subjective.

Again, subjective. What so-and-so remembers in 20, 30, or a 100 years doesn't make it BETTER. The Hindenburg disaster is more remembered than anyone who volunteered time in a soup kitchen from the same era. Which is BETTER?
 

ElTigreSantiago

New member
Apr 23, 2009
875
0
0
Novskij said:
ElTigreSantiago said:
The answer is quite simple: music back then was made for music, music today is made for money and popularity, which leads to more money.

If I were a cheesy kind of guy, I would say that todays music lacks any soul, because it does and in the past it used to have it. I will say, however, that today's mainstream is a bunch of talentless, emotionless trash that has somehow has got girls loving songs that are completely degrading towards them.
Yes thats why metal musicians are making music, because its gonna make money? Hell no, alot of metal bands can take on peaceful jobs at home and earn more than their band, same for other genres most likely.
My apologies, good sir, if I was not entirely clear. I meant today's mainstream music. I speaking more of the Lady Gagas, Justin Biebers, and Lil Waynes. I fucking love metal.
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
In order to fail at not coming off as an elitist jerk, I will not use the term "good" in this thread since each listener determines what music is good on their own. I will say, however, that there is plenty of well written, expertly played music available today by modern bands and artists. You just rarely hear it on the radio (this is the part where I fail). Most radio friendly music is designed to be sold, consumed, and then discarded when the next "big thing" comes around. In that capacity, it mostly works.

But then again, this is nothing new. The majority of people who tell you that the music was better in their day are talking about the same shrink wrapped, by-the-numbers bullshit that is prevalent today, just from a different era. Don't listen to them. There is nothing inherently superior about their consumerist crap than yours. And I mean that. I don't listen to most radio friendly music (because I have a passion for music) but I do watch bullshit throwaway movies. I'm a consumer at heart too.

As for the blandness of rock and metal, well you've got two things contributing to that:

1) Like I said, shrink wrapped, by-the-numbers bullshit. There's diverse, well-written music out there, but you aren't going to hear it unless you search for it because it sure as hell isn't being broadcasted on the airwaves (well maybe on XM/Sirius). Instead, you get music aimed at a demographic, which means that the studios find a band that can sell and then imitate, imitate, imitate! Is it any wonder that most rock/metal sounds the same?

2) The Loudness War. Since the 90s there has been a trend among the studios of mixing music louder as a way of standing out and grabbing your attention when it plays on the radio. Unfortunately this is a horrible thing to do, as you have a limit on how loud music can be mixed, as there is a "ceiling" of sorts that the waveform will eventually bump against. When it does that you get something known as "clipping." Add to this that the studios started mixing even the soft parts of a song louder and you get the audio equivalent of squeezing play-dough through a tube. There are no highs or lows, just a long, boring wall of sound. Goodbye dynamic music.

Regrettably, there are very few bands today that do anything about the second problem (Thank you Porcupine Tree), but the first is easy enough. Don't look for bands to listen to solely by listening to the radio. Yes, you can listen to radio friendly music; I've already said that there's nothing wrong with being a consumer (if there is, then I am equally wrong). Just look for something more as well. I watch throw away action movies, but I also enjoy movies like A Beautiful Mind, Let the Right One In, and anything by Akira Kurosawa.

I'm Scars Unseen, and I am an (occasional) elitist jerk.
no, you're an intelligent individual who puts together your argument in a logical and well-done way.

yes, most popular music IS "by the numbers bullshit", and that's why i don't see why it should be appreciated :/
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
Snake Plissken said:
Azaraxzealot said:
Snake Plissken said:
*sigh*

Justin Timberlake > John Lennon
Disprove. GO.

Hint: You can't. Subjective. Get over it.
i can, everyone remembers John Lennon and everyone remembers the Beatles.

how many people will remember Justin Timberlake's "music" 10 or 20 years from now? does he even still make music? i dont remember, id even forgotten about him until you mentioned his name. this is why old-school music is far superior to any of the processed shit of the 90s until now.

see? i proved you wrong.
No, you didn't. I fucking hate John Lennon. My opinion of how good or bad Justin Timberlake's music is is meaningless if John Lennon will always be at the bottom of my preferences list. Even If JT is stuck somewhere between listening to Roseanne Barr talk and the sound of a million dying babies, it's still better to me than John Lennon ever will be. Hence, TO ME, JT > John Lennon. This is not debatable. This is subjective.

Again, subjective. What so-and-so remembers in 20, 30, or a 100 years doesn't make it BETTER. The Hindenburg disaster is more remembered than anyone who volunteered time in a soup kitchen from the same era. Which is BETTER?
if you remember it, then it is more significant and relevant to history, if you don't then the "contribution" wasn't as meaningful.

simple as that. memorable = significant and im pretty sure you just compared volunteering and death with picking up an instrument and playing music... there really is no comparison there and your argument is idiotic at best.

this thread is about MUSIC and why older music is usually better, not about comparing burning zeppelins and people serving food.
 

Snake Plissken

New member
Jul 30, 2010
1,375
0
0
Azaraxzealot said:
Snake Plissken said:
Azaraxzealot said:
Snake Plissken said:
*sigh*

Justin Timberlake > John Lennon
Disprove. GO.

Hint: You can't. Subjective. Get over it.
i can, everyone remembers John Lennon and everyone remembers the Beatles.

how many people will remember Justin Timberlake's "music" 10 or 20 years from now? does he even still make music? i dont remember, id even forgotten about him until you mentioned his name. this is why old-school music is far superior to any of the processed shit of the 90s until now.

see? i proved you wrong.
No, you didn't. I fucking hate John Lennon. My opinion of how good or bad Justin Timberlake's music is is meaningless if John Lennon will always be at the bottom of my preferences list. Even If JT is stuck somewhere between listening to Roseanne Barr talk and the sound of a million dying babies, it's still better to me than John Lennon ever will be. Hence, TO ME, JT > John Lennon. This is not debatable. This is subjective.

Again, subjective. What so-and-so remembers in 20, 30, or a 100 years doesn't make it BETTER. The Hindenburg disaster is more remembered than anyone who volunteered time in a soup kitchen from the same era. Which is BETTER?
if you remember it, then it is more significant and relevant to history, if you don't then the "contribution" wasn't as meaningful.

simple as that. memorable = significant and im pretty sure you just compared volunteering and death with picking up an instrument and playing music... there really is no comparison there and your argument is idiotic at best.

this thread is about MUSIC and why older music is usually better, not about comparing burning zeppelins and people serving food.
Boy, it must seem like I have egg all over my face...
/sarcasm

I'm pretty sure YOU were the one who brought up the idea of "that which gets remembered is better than that which doesn't."

You cannot possibly present a convincing argument against my original statement. "The Beatles make really good music" is not a statement of fact, it's a statement of opinion. Just because they get remembered doesn't make them good. It may make them any number of other things: nostalgic, important, influential, etc., but they will never be my definition of "enjoyable".
 

TitanAtlas

New member
Oct 14, 2010
802
0
0
Well music nowdays is too capitalized, too much coming out, and its oriented to teens, and because they want more money, the boybands, pop bands and the "rock" bands of nowdays have beats but have no soul.... too mechanized, theres no passion, theres no feeling in the beat... and the awfull singing, i guess anyone can be a singer these days....

But in the old days, there wasant technology crap, no auto-tuning, you had to be fierce, you had to give your heart in the song, and thus many great bands were born, and single-handled, they shapeshifted theyre generation....

the music of nowdays will never have the same impact has the 60's - 90's.....
 

Rewdalf

Usually Sacrastic
Jan 6, 2010
769
0
0
Novskij said:
Rewdalf said:
In my opinion, "music" today isn't music. It's manufactured more than played.
This is just my opinion though.
Im afraid you havent heard much of modern music yet, well done for judging something based on the top 40 charts.
It's just an opinion, I even stated that openly so people wouldn't criticize me...
You know, an opinion. A statement that isn't based on facts, and doesn't have to be true...
Just because I feel that music nowadays is manufactured doesn't mean I'm taking a literal standpoint either. Maybe I was being too vague, in which case it's my fault...
I may also mean that today more and more forms of entertainment are fashioned based on what people want, and not what the artist feels...
Problem is people want money. It's true for almost everyone, and you can't blame 'em either. I prefer something made for the pure joy of making it, not to please others...
Anyway, that also doesn't mean I'm saying that all old music wasn't made for money, but you find more traces of people writing something to state a point, or just to express themselves rather than please people who want to hear a specific thing.
Closing statement, these are all opinions. Combating them with facts is not going to be effective in the least. I post my opinions to hear other opinions.
 

PeePantz

New member
Sep 23, 2010
1,100
0
0
Novskij said:
PeePantz said:
Novskij said:
Standard hasnt fallen its the same, just maybe not in your genre, and not to your tastes.
I definitely think it has. Certain genres, I can agree that it hasn't. However, I feel that music as a whole, has. With mass production of anything, standards will get lowered.

Most of my favorite music has been put out within the last ten years and I believe it to be superior than most music of the past. This does not sway my opinion that music has declined though.
Mass production of what? the dying CD?

Bands need to be able to play live properly to be successful and to have good income.
Using his or her computer, one has access to more music then ever. I personally love this accessibility, especially because a lot of bands I love will share their music for free. This does lead to a total saturation of the music industry and has led to a lot of bands that twenty or thirty years ago would be relegated strictly to their garage (with good reason) to gain a following. Yes, this has led to a lot of gems getting their due but overall it's like pissing in well water.
 

Berethond

New member
Nov 8, 2008
6,474
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
2) The Loudness War. Since the 90s there has been a trend among the studios of mixing music louder as a way of standing out and grabbing your attention when it plays on the radio. Unfortunately this is a horrible thing to do, as you have a limit on how loud music can be mixed, as there is a "ceiling" of sorts that the waveform will eventually bump against. When it does that you get something known as "clipping." Add to this that the studios started mixing even the soft parts of a song louder and you get the audio equivalent of squeezing play-dough through a tube. There are no highs or lows, just a long, boring wall of sound. Goodbye dynamic music.
The loudness war started in the 60s. And the loudness war only applies on the radio, and most CDs will retain their dynamics.