The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

I dont get it people these days are making hits from controlled voices, where did the old school good voices go??

They sound great on a C.D but what happens when they go live?
Quiet a few can't actually sing.....

We need to bring back the old school people who CAN SING!!

We can't enjoy the true sounRAB of music until we here something thats for real not just made!!
 
Urban also brushed upon a good point a couple of pages back. It's not hard to figure out what the classic albums from the past are. Often, it's already well established and has been for years if not decades. You just have to look it up. I tend to like those old albums and think most of them are classics for good reason. Comparatively, discovering new (as in quite recent) music I like usually includes digging through more stuff I don't like.

It doesn't necessarily say anything about the overall quality, but at least it's another possible reason why some people tend to think so.
 
As somebody who loves music from all times and genres, I also feel that things were more eclectic and interesting back in the late 60's through the 70's, but not because it was better, but rather in the sense that a lot of musicians back then were just better at melding technical prowess with good ideas than they are now. They also had the benefit of being among the first people to do some serious genre-melding (Ex: before the late 60's the idea of fusing rock and classical music wasn't really considered seriously).

Many people don't consider this relevant though, which is why the majority of people listen to music that is popular within their little generational friend circles; a good many of would-be musicians and established acts alike just seem to revel in whatever influences they list on their MySpace page and could care less about thinking outside the box.

Furthermore, I feel people no longer really recognize something that is both technically amazing whilst doing something intriguing musically, evidenced by how some people here on rabroad go nuts over every shoegaze-flavor of the month. Relativity is in full force while people who can actually explain why they like what they like get ignored.

It sort of annoys me, but kiRAB around my brother's age today, especially those without a whole lot of experience or imagination, seem to let their emotional ties to The Smiths, My Bloody Valentine and 90's alt. rock blind them to the fact that there's a hell of a lot more out there. They treat these banRAB and these eras like they are the pinnacle of songwriting and creative expression WHEN THEY FRIGGIN AREN'T.

Still, every circle of music out there today has something going for it, and maybe we'll live to see the day when something completely new rears its ugly head from the underground to change some people's perceptions about the derivative nature of music post-2000.
 
"Either we have different tastes, or your music taste is more eclectic than mine"

It's not what I'm into, I personally think all that art rock and synth/electro stuff, for the most part is shite, I'm sure there are some exceptions to that but there you go.
 
Really? Like I indicated in the OP, my position is that music as a whole doesn't really get better or worse, but even if I did think that way I can't imagine holding up most of those banRAB as examples of how great the early 90s were.
 
I would agree, but have you seen the Aeroplane Flies High box set? All those songs came from the Mellon Collie sessions. I think he was going for relevance to the story over quality, honestly. There were so many amazing songs he left off just because it didn't fit all that well with his concept. Set the Ray to Jerry, Aeroplane Flies High, Marquis In Spades, Mouths of Babes...all great songs.
 
This is definitely an important distinction that doesn't seem to be being made much.

I mean, look at, say the Billboard charts for any given year and you'll find a hell of a lot of fluff--"Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies (1969), "Tonight's the Night" by Rod Stewart (1977), "To Sir With Love" by Lulu (1967) were all the #1 songs for their respective years--all music I'd wager that contemporary people complained about the same way we're all bitching now. And a large quantity of music considered the creme of the crop of their era was essentially unnoticed by popular consciousness at the time.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the past dozen or so years have radically shifted the way music is released and absorbed, as well. There's SO MUCH out there now, so much easy access to such a mind-bending array of different musical ideas, that any generalization about the state of modern music, especially to bemoan it for a lack of... well, frankly, anything... just seems like laziness. And not just laziness, but laziness attempting to justify itself with a comfortable elitism.

I wouldn't get on such a high horse about that, except that that kind of negativity in an artistic community makes it that much harder for that community to thrive. If one assumes that good music (however one defines that) isn't being produced, it's that much more unlikely one will find it when it is, that music doesn't get supported and ultimately either flounders, continues to live in obscurity or changes into something else, leading to more people bitching about it not being out there.

End :soapbox:
 
This is all psychological. If you had never heard music before and started listening to stuff that is being put out now, you will think it is ****ing magical. Then, once you crave something new, you will inevitably look to the past for music you have never heard before. It has nothing to do with one decade being better than another, just what your personal tastes happen to be at the time. There was no one period of time where the musicians were much better than the best musicians of today.
 
Back
Top