Why does old music equal superiority?

[Ickorus]

From what i've managed to glean it goes something like this:

Music from those times was all about fighting the man and doing what you want to do but over time it's become that the very music meant to symbolise freedom from the oppression of the music industry has become the industrys biggest money spinner.

People from those times see all this easy to access modern rock music created by the music industry purely to sell and think back to a time where it meant something different, where music people had known growing up was in turmoil and changing into something new and different.

They often don't see the absolutely amazing music lesser known artists have come up with because it's behind the scenes where their music was right at the front of it all.

EDIT: My taste in music? I like post-rock which has mostly remained outside of the corrupting grasp of the music industry so there isn't really much division between the decades.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Because the older music has the Beatles. And today's music (with it's arsenal of Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber) can't even begin to hold a candle to the Beatles, the Eagles, CCR, and Bon Jovi, amoung countless others.

On the other hand, we have Porcupine Tree, Opeth, The Mars Volta, and Frost*.

 

[Joshimodo]

Technology back in the day was less capable, thus musicians had to rely on skill, not auto-tunes, corrections and effects to mask their bland, boring voice.

Couple that with the music industry being a massive money-driven monster that shits out cookie-cut music, as opposed to genuinely talented/original musicians who worked their ass off and has passion about their sound.

 

[ethaninja]

Because most 'Music' Today is manufactured, auto-tuned crap

Basically this. However, that is generalizing, because not all music is Auto-Tuned.
Some people grew up with certain music, and they are not used to the new stuff because it has, well changed so much.

Me, I'm a good ol Classic Rock/Metal head myself, but usually anybody that is overly aggressive about anything is a major douche. If someone tells you, the music you listen to is shit, they are bashing your own opinion.

My best bet, ignore them. Or if you want to be a douche in return, you might as well deck them.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Because the older music has the Beatles. And today's music (with it's arsenal of Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber) can't even begin to hold a candle to the Beatles, the Eagles, CCR, and Bon Jovi, amoung countless others.

On the other hand, we have Porcupine Tree, Opeth, The Mars Volta, and Frost*.

Is it bad that I've never heard of any of those bands?

 

[DominicxD]

Good music from then is just as good as good music from now. It just so happens that good music from now is rare.

 

[eljawa]

It doesnt per se. A lot of music that has survived since the 60s has survived because it IS good, but a lot disappeared, regardless of how popular it is then (every one hit wonder of the time)and the same will happen to a lot of todays music. in 20 years, the good music of today will be like the good music of yesterday

anyone who makes pretensions about old music being better than modern music who isnt actually from the era is a pretentious idiot

 

[subfield]

The notion that a particular type of music is superior in shape form or function to another is patently ludicrous. I really should not even have to given an example but here is a nice analogy.

Suppose I bang my spoon against my pot and proclaim this "music" to be superior to all other forms of sound arrangements that you have or will ever come up with. Then I am quite clearly mad, as is anyone who would _assert_ (not claim, or opine, or any other form of speech) that any kind of music is superior to another.

Those who would pretend that there is some inherent quality, or feature, that distinguishes their candidate from the spoon bang and that the analogy is therefore false are missing the point - which is that such qualities, or features, are _absolutely_ arbitrary and that furthermore this defines _exactly_ the issue we are debating. It's like saying blue is superior to green, for whatever inane or insane reason.

 

[PeePantz]

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.

Why should this be a problem, youll find what you enjoy.

Myself ive dug through many mediocre bands with boring melodies,uninspired riffs etc, the stuff with originality, style,sophistication still stands out, or atleast stuff to your taste will stand out. Just because there is more musicians now doesnt make music worse, the percentage of shit and percentage of awesome remains the same.

I agree, somewhat. I don't feel that the best musicians of today are worse than the best musicians from the past. In fact, I believe the talent and understanding of music amongst these rare individuals have excelled. However, the shit music has had way too much exposure and this starts a trend of people making more shit. There will always be hacks and the terrible musicians will always outweigh the good ones. It takes elite talent to be a good musician but now more people feel that they can do it and have a means of getting heard.

I HATE to bring this example up, but I'm being lazy and will do it. The Twilight movies are shit. Terrible. Poor acting, writing, photography, and editing (I have seen them just to see if my preconceived notions were justifiable). However, they are beyond popular. I feel that this will just encourage more bad film making due to it's success and being a hit. People will start thinking that "Hey, Twilight is a hit. It's considered good and I could do that! I have talent!" I know this is slightly silly comparison but it goes back to all it takes is shit to become slightly successful and people who are in the same talent pool will be encouraged.

 

[Naheal]

The only reason why the older music is considered good is because most of the shit music that was made in those days has been filtered out by now. Give it about five years and you'll see that happen to the pop scene today.

see you say that but 90's has been remembered just as cheese (which is fun when your out on the town but ultimately not "good")

I counter with Gangsta's Paradise.

 

[ImSkeletor]

It is because looking back people only remember the good bands and songs from that time period and forget about all of the bad because that is more forgetable. So when they listen to todays music they hear both the good music and the okay, bad, and even terrible music that comes out, so they have a far more negative opinion of todays music then that of the 80's and before.

 

[Naheal]

The only reason why the older music is considered good is because most of the shit music that was made in those days has been filtered out by now. Give it about five years and you'll see that happen to the pop scene today.

see you say that but 90's has been remembered just as cheese (which is fun when your out on the town but ultimately not "good")

I counter with Gangsta's Paradise.

true I made a blanket statement, I won't deny there are some gems in the rough but it doesn't redeem the decade.

S&M in the late nineties. I can go on if you'd like. Seriously, though, this is the same phenomenon that I noted earlier.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Because the older music has the Beatles. And today's music (with it's arsenal of Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber) can't even begin to hold a candle to the Beatles, the Eagles, CCR, and Bon Jovi, amoung countless others.

On the other hand, we have Porcupine Tree, Opeth, The Mars Volta, and Frost*.

Is it bad that I've never heard of any of those bands?

Allow me to remedy that for you:

 

[Scars Unseen]

by the way, anyone that thinks that the commercialization of music is anything new should go listen to Rush's Spirit of the Radio.

 

[Caligulove]

It's strange, though, since all of that music from the 60's/70's and 80's are just played like the classics they are everywhere You're hardly being non-conformist if you listen to Classic rock from your parent's childhoods.

Plus, as always, if you look in the same genres that those bands played in then, and see the new generation of bands that were not only influenced by them, but also do their own works, its some amazing stuff.

If anyone ever says that "music these days sucks" they're not looking hard enough, or are too lazy to listen to anything besides what they already listen to.

For example I leave you with The Black Keys, hardly a underground or unknown band, a sample from their 2010 album, Brothers. Very much in the same vane as the music that all those people obsessed with the old stuff listen to.

 

[Estocavio]

There is no such thing as Good music.
There is no such thing as Bad music.
All music is a matter of personal taste.
No exceptions