Why does old music equal superiority?

[Nazulu]

Oh please. Most fans of modern music I encounter tell me it's the best ever and rub it in your face every now and again. I was playing some Rolling Stones and you won't believe how many people, (fans of modern music) come up to me and say "how can you listen to that crap".

If you think it's only fans of classic rock and orchestral that act superior then 'IT IS JUST YOU'.

MY music taste is everything. Literally, I like every different genre of music. However, I do find most famous classic rock and orchestral to be vastly superior to modern music. That's what I believe, and if you don't like it you can go suck eggs.

 

[tunderball]

The reason I like older music is that it's so creative and original. It also inspires all the music that comes after it, and the problem that I have with modern music is that it's just so safe I can't imagine anybody looking back in 20 years and feeling inspired by what they hear.

It's just too much about money these days I really get tired of the big buisness that music has become. For example in the UK we have the Xfactor (our version of American Idol), whoever wins the Xfactor usually (we all got sick of it last year and got Rage Against the Machine to Number 1) gets the Christmas number 1, every week they'll have guest acts on and they'll get the number 1 that week. It's just become so predictable you don't even need to check whats happening anymore.

I really do think something needs to come along and give the music industry a big slap across the face.

 

[Nabirius]

Honestly there are 2 parts to this. The first is that a lot of the music that comes out today is heavily mostly just celebrity and spectacle, Lady Gaga in my opinion is not a particularly good musician but she is popular to an unreasonable degree. I understand that some may like her, but I don't.

The second thing is that it is good to appreciate the evolution of music over time and understand why older musicians were great artists and how they shaped music today.

 

[Iron Lightning]

It's a mathematical fact that there is more good old music than new music. This is simply because there is more old music than new music.

Obviously I can't cite exact statistics as none have been collected, so let's just assume for the sake of argument that 100 songs are produced a year. Of those hundred songs 99% are crap (as per Sturgeon's law) and 1% is absolutely mind-blowing. Therefore in the past hundred years there have been 100 absolutely amazing songs, of those hundred songs only those from the past five years can be considered new. This means that we have 95 good old songs to 5 good new songs. Yes, one can certainly argue that there are more songs being produced per year nowadays than in earlier times because of the world's higher population. This is true, however I do not think that it's enough to outweigh all the accumulated old stuff.

Well this isn't true.

Obviously it has to be determined what constitues old and new music.. but as a general rule of thumb let's take the beginning of the new musical era... the era that changed everything.. the 80's onwards.. very litte, as far as 'creative' ethos has actually changed since then and it was the start of alot of the 'digital' effects that are taken for granted now.. so, 80's seem reasonable?

Not only is there a FAR higher turn over in 'musical' acts in the past 30 years than there has ever been in the preceeding 30 years..which would take up to 1950, and that was mostly the birth of the popular music era (ok you had classical (but not everyone had acess to their own performances), early blues and jazz (which was 'mainly' a live medium, clubs and the such), pre wars, war and post wars camaradarie music, most audio media was news broadcasts or radio plays (anyone still listening to Vera Lynn or The Beverly sisters?).. but it certainly wasn't popular in terms of access to gramaphones and radios, in the same way as it became popular with the birth of the 50's ..but it's also a lot easier to produce so more is getting made in the same time period.. So, NO.... the amount of popular music (which I would imagine is what you are talking about as if you are including ALL of the music ever made then your 'arguement' is very incongruent and superficial) is actually FAR more in favour of 'new' to 'old....

Well it all depends on the time period that you define as "new." I define the period as five years, where you define it as thirty years. My argument can apply to any genre of music unless the genre in question was invented before old stuff had a chance to be developed. The sum of music created in the last five years is not greater than the amount of music created in the fifty five years preceding those five years (if you want to start at 1950.) You are correct in that the amount of music in the last thirty years is greater than the amount of music in the thirty years preceding before the first thirty years. If you define "new" as the last five years as I did then you'll find that my argument is correct. More music happened "back then" then "right now" therefore more good music is old than new.

 

[oblivion220791]

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

True

I still can't believe that some of my uni friends doesn't even know the beatles

 

[psycoturkey]

Technology has always been used to create music, and auto-tune is just one new iteration of music creation technology. If it weren't for technology, we wouldn't have electric guitars or microphones. Saying that auto-tune makes something crap is purely subjective and doesn't contribute to the discussion. Furthermore, there is plenty of classic rock about sex and drugs, so you can't argue the moral high ground in that respect either. Though modern hardcore rappers do objectify women in their lyrics, who is to say that bands such as Motley Crue and Kiss do not also objectify their women? I do condemn hateful language in lyrics, and I will admit that modern music has much more despicable behavior glorified in the lyrics as opposed to the classic rock songs, but when you look at it with an open mind, it all comes down to preference, and some classic rock fans feel that their preference is better than the preferences of people who enjoy modern music.

Elitism can be a real s.o.b.

 

[smithy_2045]

Old music does not equal superiority. It's merely an opinion held by nostalgic douchebags.

 

[Tsaba]

You know, there's music I like from you know.. say Ludwig van Beethoven, and then there's music I like from all points in time, some I like more than others, I know what I like though, and that's all that should freaken matter.

If they want to be controlling, I say, tell them to F*** off and let you enjoy the music YOU like.

 

[Julianking93]

That's why.

 

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

Ok i haven't read any of the thread, but have you tried Pink Floyd. Not exactley "Rock" per say. More of an alternative band. They have some really good stuff. And because back then if you wanted to be good at an instrument you had to work for it (no auto-tune or real synthisers). Take Tony Iommni (the Guitarist for Black Sabbath). He burned off his finger tips at age 17 and he couldn't fret. So do you what he did? He sutured on glass fingertips before every show. You needed dedication to be good. True honest effort. I will never amount to anything musically because I dont try and thats the way it should be
EDIT:But dont let people tell you what to listen to. I listen to all kinds of stuff and if anyone tells you who to be tell em to Fuck the Hell OFF

 

[Rigs83]

Old music is not better so much that the people with money are old and want to hear things they heard when they wee young and could not afford concert tickets or ridiculously expensive memorabilia.

I personally can't stand the Beatles because the boomers won't shut up about them

 

[brunothepig]

As people have said, the "oldies" have withstood the test of time. There's many bands from the 70's that no one has heard of, but the good ones survived.
For some context, I'm only 17, I'm a metalhead, and while I enjoy a lot of new Metal bands, I do think the older ones are better (Dream Theater, Metallica, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Dio, Black Sabbath, Cannibal Corpse etc.)
For me, and it seems a fair few others, my derision with mainstream music today is that it's very manufactured and simple. I have no problem with people who listen to mainstream music, but I like my music to have complexity, without autotuning the vocals, with technical, amazing guitar/bass/drums/keyboard. I'll start criticising if someone starts up with the "Metal is just noise" crap, but otherwise I don't really care, to each their own.
So really, many people (me included) don't like how "fake" mainstream music is becoming, and it makes sense that a lot of people would like old bands since they have fans accumulated over decades, as well as obviously being pretty good/liked since they're still known today.

 

[Rigs83]

That's why.

Kei$ha's white!
I always thought she was beige

 

[Nazulu]

Ok i haven't read any of the thread, but have you tried Pink Floyd. Not exactley "Rock" per say. More of an alternative band.

They are rock, progressive rock, the original.

 

[TeeBs]

Because people are opinionated.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Because people hate the present tense with a passion. The past tense is great, with many people having great memories from it and the future is mysterious, with chances for amazinng things to happen, but everyone hates the present. Also, the generic, bad music gets more publicity then ever before. There is still plenty good music being produced right now, but mediocore music receives more publicity then before.

 

[michael_ab]

It seems to me that whenever somebody listens to music (especially rock and metal music) from the 60's, 70's, and 80's they feel the need to be condescending towards people who don't listen to that type of music and say that if they don't listen to it then they "don't know good music". I am not trying to point fingers and I am quite sure not everybody with this music taste is like this but I have seen it a lot including around here to and don't try saying things like "really? I don't see that at all, maybe it's just you".

And maybe it is just me since I am one of those practically inhuman freaks who will "never know good music" since I don't like 60's, 70's, or 80's rock. And I have listened to it and I tried to conform and I tried to like it, I really did. But the truth is I just can't stand any kind of rock music, it's just bland noise with words to me but that's just my opinion just as liking this kind of music is also some other person's opinion but it's treated as fact by a lot of fans who generally identify themselves as nonconformists since they prefer old stuff to new stuff like pop music and rap music which is why it seemed stupid for me to conform to a music taste identified as being "nonconformist".

And I respect those opinions just as I respect anyone's opinion to not have a religion but just like with having no religion, I have trouble respecting those opinions sometimes since they get shoved in my face and treated as fact and if I don't share it then I am inferior which is hypocritical since as a person with religion I am accused of shoving my opinions and beliefs in their face (and I never have and never will).

But anyways, I was just using that as an example; the topic is music taste here so lets not get into religion (there's another place for that). My question is why is it that fans of old music feel the need to act superior based solely on music taste?

EDIT: And I know this might get asked: What is my music taste? The answer is I don't really have any specific taste but I can't stand rock music and metal. Although I would take rock over country music anytime. I don't listen to music much but when I do I might listen to some Indian, Arabic, Persian, or Turkish music. I am of Indian descent and my father listened to it so I picked up on it a bit. I like that music because it's very beautiful, poetic, has good rhythm (I love good rhythm), and tends to even tell stories sometimes. So I guess you could say I like Middle Eastern, Indian, and tribal kind of music (I did grow up in Africa after all), but again I don't listen to music much.

And to add discussion, what is your music taste?

EDIT 2: I am glad to see people presenting good reasons for their arguments, this is what I hoped to see.

for the love of god, learn some sentence structure. rants are fun but they are damn hard to read.

the reason older music is considered "better" is because it wasnt manufactured. the audio engineers (those are the guys behind the glass you see in recording studios, they are the primary reason what you hear sounds good in the first place) today have so many tools in the studio that they can make ANYTHING sound good. they can move any sound clip from one file to another, taking the best of a 3 week recording process to make a two minuet song. they can use plug-ins to make whole orchestral arrangments when all they got is a mac. and worst of all these tools are being made more and more available for general consumers. assuming im willing to shell out $150 US for a half decent program, i can warble in a mic for a couple seconds and become an internet sensation (see justin beiber).

however audio engineers back in the day needed to modify the music LIVE in the studio. you know stairway to heaven? SEVEN PEOPLE worked the soundboard at the same time to make sure everything was right. engineering was an artform back then, now its just a tool.

 

[WOPR]

I am glad to see people presenting good reasons for their arguments, this is what I hoped to see.

I'm a bit too tired to make real arguments (although my mind is racing)

But with the exception of videogame music, most modern music seems like over synthesized crap with no depth or tone...

On a personal note

If I hear one more Owl City, Hannah Montanan, or Justin Beiber song
I'm going to pull a Richard on this county!

(for people that don't get that joke watch/listen, good music, good animation, GOOD JOKE!)