Why does old music equal superiority?

[Something Amyss]

I love 60s and 70s rock. I also enjoy plenty of modern acts, just not as much. The answer is that older is always better, and someone will always find a justification for why that rings true. With music, you've had decades to filter out the crap and look at only the gems of the decade. Most 60s and 70s fans will groan when you mention John Denver or the singer-songwriter movement in general (I like singer-songwriter music, but what was pushed in the 70s was the wussiest pap imaginable by and large). They will espouse the decade(s) anyways.

On a related note, the whole "autotune" thing annoys me. Not because I like autotune, and I don't, but because it's just a higher tech version of studio tricks from decades past. There were heavily engineered, manufactured pop acts as far back as the 50s, and people act like this is some sort of new phenomenon. So basically, it comes down to "the crappy pop acts of this generation have it easier than the crappy pop acts of my time." And they totally had to do it walking fifteen miles, through the snow, uphill, both ways.

 

[Hosker]

I thought you were talking about classical.
I didn't realise there was classic rock elitist around; I haven't met any anyway.

 

[AceAngel]

Beethoven's music makes plants grow much quicker...so yeah, I feel much superior, because I know something else on me is growing bigger too and I'm listening to a contributing music.

EDIT: I just realized how dirty the first part sounded...

 

[Blind Sight]

I don't really think I'm being superior because of my musical tastes, there was a lot of crap in the '60s, '70s and '80s too. But the majority of the 'popular' music today (specifically hiphop) definitely has less to do with actual artistic creativity and more with selling as many CDs as they can. There's a reason why there's so many hiphop songs about clubs, it's because that's where they're primarily played (on a brief aside, hiphop artists, stop singing about clubs or I'LL BURN THEM ALL DOWN MWAHAHAHAHA). Technology hasn't really helped, allowing people to achieve fame simply due to autotuning and using computers to structure beats and melodies. I think the superiority complex primarily comes from the fact that older artists didn't use technology as a crutch, and were constantly trying to improve their music (good musicians, that is). Not to mention some of those artists didn't even have access to decent recording equipment (listen to some early Bob Marley and you'll see what I mean) yet they were still able to make it work. A lot of music today is simply mass-produced for an audience to get drunk to and watch girls grind. It seems that mainstream music focuses on being catchy and that's it, at least, that's what I get from it.

That being said, there's still plenty of bands and artists producing thoughtful, complex music, but it just doesn't seem to be that popular:

 

[Jaxtor]

With Jazz one is headed for Progressive Rock and Jazz Fusion to the Avant-Gadrde, and can end up in Death Metal lol.

Yeah was thinking mostly of blues there, mostly.

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

Yes, it started on vinyl, but it didn't really take off until CDs became the medium of choice, and that means late 80's to early 90s. And no, most CDs have horrible dynamics. If it was just on the radio, it wouldn't be a problem. Don't believe me? Here [http://www.turnmeup.org/] is a site for you. It has links to several articles concerning the Loudness War, including an article about how Metallica's Death Magnetic was mixed better in Guitar Hero than on the actual CD!

 

[Dango]

It doesn't, because J-pop only really developed in the '90s...

EVERY VOICE SOUNDS THE SAME!)

1. That's for a very simple reason, if you don't speak a language, then pretty much everyone who speaks it sounds the same to you.

 

[Reaper195]

There is some decent modern rock/metal, but it's utterly obscured by the soundtrack of Avatar 2 by Justin Bieber, wirtten by Stephanie Meyer....

 

[blarghblarghhhhh]

giant snip

I tend to see more of "my music is better because its obscure" than what your talking about.

People you say that are being anti-conformist by listening to old music tend to forget that bands like iron maiden, judas priest exc are really popular bands. I think its just nostalgia. A bunch of old guys running around wearing leather jackets playing anarchist before they go back to there desk job in the morning.

As I kind of got into earlier most people are elitist pricks about the music they listen to. Its kind of in the nature of liking things. nobody thinks there taste in music sucks. Its sad to say but the majority of people operate under the assumption that everything they like is awesome and if you dont like it then your obviously not awesome like me.

As far as what i listen to. Most of it falls under the broad category of alternative rock. I dislike most modern country but like bands that incorporate some country sounds into a soft punk mix. the gaslight anthem are a good example of that.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Beethoven's music makes plants grow much quicker...so yeah, I feel much superior, because I know something else on me is growing bigger too and I'm listening to a contributing music.

EDIT: I just realized how dirty the first part sounded...

On a MythBusters episode, death metal worked better for plants than classical.

 

[postalworker147]

Honestly, i like to stay to underground rap. no stupid ass auto tune there. oh and ben folds modest mouse arcade fire the decemberists and whatnot

 

[Polock]

Silly kids. Ska is where its at.

Where's my two tone brothers at?

 

[WolfEdge]

Just wait until you're a little older, and the next generation has its own music for you to hate.

It's a tale as old as time.

 

[Blind Sight]

Beethoven's music makes plants grow much quicker...so yeah, I feel much superior, because I know something else on me is growing bigger too and I'm listening to a contributing music.

EDIT: I just realized how dirty the first part sounded...

On a MythBusters episode, death metal worked better for plants than classical.

To be fair, Mythbusters isn't exactly that scientific, to determine if this is true it'd require a lot more study and research then just one or two tests by Jamie and Adam haha. I'm talking a full lab system with multiple control groups, different kinds of death metal, different kinds of classical, etc.

by the soundtrack of Avatar 2 by Justin Bieber, wirtten by Stephanie Meyer....

Where did you get a time machine?

 

[Eumersian]

I know what you mean. I'm like that too, as in, I stick to the classics, and sometimes argue with people about music. But I don't argue like "My music's better", but rather more in defense. I have to come up with fabricated arguments as to why I don't like heavy metal or hip-hop or what have you. When it becomes obvious to people that I don't know the name of the song that's playing in the background, they will sometimes try to give me a crash-course in the genre, as if I just had never heard that music before.

Trust me, I've heard it before.

I don't like most modern music. Most of the themes are far to extreme for me. Most modern metal I've heard is far too hateful and angry. But then take metal I like such as "Bark at the Moon". It's got a pretty mean sound as far as I can tell, but there's actual tones coming out of Ozzy's mouth, and the theme isn't especially angry either. Then most of that Indie stuff doesn't appeal to me because I can't really relate, and the music is often boring to me. I'll admit, some of it is pretty good. But whatever.

And don't get me started on pop music.

All in all, I think people like me can often just be pretentious. I mean, it's like reading the Illiad or something. If someone went around telling people that they read the Illiad and created some very specific opinions on it, you know you'd probably look at them like they're just a pretentious jerk. But I'm sure they feel pretty fancy because they just read the Illiad. Age in our society tends to equal wisdom and such. They must just do it to feel fancy.

 

[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.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Beethoven's music makes plants grow much quicker...so yeah, I feel much superior, because I know something else on me is growing bigger too and I'm listening to a contributing music.

EDIT: I just realized how dirty the first part sounded...

On a MythBusters episode, death metal worked better for plants than classical.

To be fair, Mythbusters isn't exactly that scientific, to determine if this is true it'd require a lot more study and research then just one or two tests by Jamie and Adam haha. I'm talking a full lab system with multiple control groups, different kinds of death metal, different kinds of classical, etc.

True, but it's something I like to throw out there any time someone tries to use classical music's extramusical properties as a point of superiority. Also: