Customer Discussions > Music forum

Is today's Music really that bad?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 668 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2013 3:10:33 PM PDT
Coltrane says:
I will have to investigate Odds & Sods now...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2013 2:47:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2013 3:12:24 PM PDT
The Who were a 'singles-band' until "I Can See For Miles" didn't do so hot on the charts and Pete went ahead and made "Tommy"

Of the core British bands of the 1960's (The Beatles, the Stones, The Kinks, ETC.) The Who didn't have that much sucess with thier singles. The Who made their reputation through word-of-mouth of their live gigs. "Odds & Sods" is one of my favorite Who albums and I cannot find 'filler' on their records.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2013 2:36:11 PM PDT
stevign says:
re: "I have no problem finding great music from every year"

I don't anymore. I got into Jazz about 6 years ago and there are still lots of great 50s and 60s Jazz I've yet to buy. That doesn't mean that there isn't any new Jazz worth buying, it's just takes a bit more searching.
Same goes for Rock, Blues and Folk-Rock, although nowadays I have to search much hard for any good new stuff in those genres.

Posted on Jul 17, 2013 9:21:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2013 9:30:02 AM PDT
Hinch says:
The music people grew up with is probably going to be their favorite. I turned 13 several days before The Beatles were first on the Sullivan show. My favorite years for rock are about '65 - '75.

I like some music from every decade, even going back to the 20s. I own 5000 vinyl albums and an uncounted amount of cds. I've always loved various genres and had an open mind about new music. I still love the music I grew up with but have never been stuck in one decade.

I'd guess I've bought no more than a dozen cds by artists whose recording career started since 2000. I've bought many more albums recorded in the 40s, so not being the music we grew up with isn't necessarily what it's about when it comes to not liking today's music.

I didn't discover most of the old jazz I love, until the eighties and nineties.

I was on a thread about the top albums of '82. I counted 52 albums I bought from that year. That's probably a pretty good average for most years in the eighties.

Posted on Jul 17, 2013 8:44:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2013 8:52:33 AM PDT
Jay says:
Absolutely not. At least, for me. There are hundreds of metal acts out there right nowthat still put out great material. Some real geniuses, too. Brendon Small is an amazing musician and very creative I think, not only for his creation with Metalocalypse, but also forming a "Fake" band that does live shows and puts out actual albums that are better than a lot of "real" bands. Also, the fact that the first Dethalbum had only TWO people producing and recording it; Brendon doing the guitar, vocal, and keyboard work, while Gene hoglan had drum duty. He also has a solo album that strays away from Dethklok, and it sounds great as well. James Malone, singer and guitarist for Arsis Is exceptional as well. Arsis' debut album only had TWO people; Him and the drummer. He has a very technical playing style, and is probably better than 99% of any non-extreme metal guitarist.

And, of course, Muhammed SuiÁmez.

Hell, look at Dream Theater. LOADS of talent, as well as having arguably one of the greatest guitarists who ever lived - John Petrucci.

Posted on Jul 17, 2013 8:23:22 AM PDT
C. Harding says:
I'll never understand this. I have no problem finding great music from every year. In most cases, I think people just identify more with what they grew up with. As they grow older, they long for the "good ol' days" and nothing can really compare to how they felt in their youth, so most stuff produced in current years does not resonate with them like the stuff of their youth. So, while I understand people's tendency to identify more with music of the decades/time periods in which they grew up and consider it "the best there is," I'll never understand those who say they can't find any good current music at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2013 7:57:50 PM PDT
N. Ying says:
Coltrane: On an Amazon thread about the Who, the majority of the Who fans put Quadrophenia as their best. IMO, it is one of the few rock albums that deserves the tag "All Killers No Fillers."

Posted on Jul 16, 2013 6:42:27 PM PDT
Coltrane says:
<<For every good "Who" song out there, there was about an album-ful of filler material.>>

I disagree. Tommy and Who's Next were solid efforts. Don't know Quadrophenia yet.

Posted on Jul 16, 2013 6:16:40 PM PDT
A lot of music from our times was also plagued with a lot of crap. What you hear on the radio is but the "cream" of what was then known as Top-40 (before it became the utter joke it is today). For every good "Who" song out there, there was about an album-ful of filler material. Many bands wrote singles, but in order to cash in big, they had to write a lot of filler songs to comprise an album and fulfill their contract with the label. Duran-Duran, Depeche Mode, The Who, or The Fixx, for example, are great "singles" bands, but when you buy the album that contains the hit you like, you'll find that the vast majority of the material is just filler. Very few bands such as Paul McCartney, Pink Floyd, or even The Smiths, could pull at most an entire album, of excellent tracks that sometimes would work together. Today's music is mostly crap because it has to follow the corporate formula to sell digital copies, and because it samples shamelessly from older original music. An exception would be Lady Gaga "Born This Way" sampling Madonna "Express Yourself". Now THAT is scraping the bottom of the barrel!

Posted on Jul 16, 2013 6:02:31 PM PDT
Go to your local vinyl record shop. Skip the used vinyl section and the new re-issues section. What do you have left? A pile of LPs from obscure new bands - American and foreign - whose music is not played in the store, whose record sleeve usually is as obscure and more often than not, revolting, that it ends up repelling instead of attracting the curious buyer - plus the obscenely expensive price as it it was a half-speed Japanese import of an established band. And even if you end up buying it - gambling $20- it'll most likely sound like its cover: awfully bad. The joke is on us: the consumer public. But in the lon run, those albums will be either returned to the label, or end up recycled in a vinyl pressing plant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2013 5:57:52 PM PDT
I have to agree with you there. Just go to any used record store and you will find trainloads of awful albums from the 1970s that the cover alone is enough to scare away any potential customer. I bought a 6 month subscription to Sirius XM so that I could hear different music from the 70s, 80s and 90s... but after a few weeks, I noticed that they too keep playing the same "hits" over and over again, just like the FM stations. Once in a blue moon I will hear a song I hadn't heard in 20 years, and even the "dark wave" or "metal" shows tend to repeat the music they play. And it's a pity because there's a lot of good stuff out there - album tracks that were not released as singles, for example - that trump the single released from that album. Whereas in the days before the iPod, people listened to either prerecorded tapes, or home made mixes - which you had to play in its entirely while you recorded it, nowadays people can dump thousands of songs in an inferior MP3 format in a matter of minutes, and even that abundance of music fails to satisfy as songs are not appreciated by the quality of sound or by spending the time to actually enjoy them. Six months ago, I reconnected my old tape deck and made a 90 minute mix tape - the first one in over 20 years - and had a great time doing it. I don't get the same enjoyment out of burning a CD, even thought the digital sound is "superior" (mathematically speaking).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2013 4:37:54 PM PDT
Don't agree with ELVIS FAN as he will come back in one of his other 17 personalities and bug up your world, Zappa!

Posted on Dec 20, 2012 7:14:17 AM PST
vivazappa says:
Elvis Fan:
Hey I finally agree with you...except it should be Chuck Berry not Elvis...

Posted on Dec 20, 2012 4:34:27 AM PST
J. Hand says:
"I wonder if people like him actually like ANY music passionately or if it is only a random subject to use as a front for his nonsense. "

Superb analogy and I think it fits him exactly. Right off the bat, he always lambasts anybody who likes the Beatles and/or any other music from that era or later as "living in the past" (a nod to Jethro Tull). Yet he overlooks his beloved EP was in his prime even further back than that. So who is living in the past? And why does that even matter? He also mentioned in another post once he was a fan of disco. Then he went off over Johnny Cash. A lot of RnR fans, especially younger ones and many not so young ones don't have any real love for EP. The same set is seldom fond of disco. If there's a country artist who has all the RnR creds anyone could want, Cash IS the man! Most older RnR fans are going to like the Beatles. It's like he takes all that stereotypical rock and roll fan stuff and flips it all into hot buttons to tick folks off. He has never posted about music other than putting someone down for whatever they like and a bunch of suspiciously vacant EP crap. If it's anything that isn't his nonsense it's something liftd from some other web page. As someone else mentioned about him, he's conspicuously absent from the Elvis threads. He only lurks around the rock threads and marches out Elvis when he's using something about the man and/or his music to get people agitated, especially Beatle fans.

Every forum, no matter what it's about, has an Elvis Fan or two. The only difference is other forums give space-wasters like him the boot.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 7:35:28 PM PST
E. Dill says:
@J. Hand:

Yeah, I've seen his moniker before and read as much of his posts as I could stomach. I only said "so you're an Elvis fan" to be droll. After all, his board name is Elvis Fan and he's suggesting that every artist after Elvis owes Elvis something. I guess it depends on whether they are influenced by "Mystery Train" or by "It's Now or Never" (the pop version of O Solo Mio).

People often criticize me for making long lists of music I like or have or both. I find it ironic and quite humorous that people like Elvis get less brutal "ratings" than I do and I truly love music. Maybe I should try my hand at trolldom. I wonder if people like him actually like ANY music passionately or if it is only a random subject to use as a front for his nonsense.

ed.

Posted on Dec 19, 2012 7:24:15 PM PST
J. Hand says:
@ E Dill- He's not an Elvis Fan- he is ELVIS FAN, notorious troll of Amazon forums, spouter of nonsense, half-truths, and copy/pasted stuff from Wikipedia (or whatever source Google lists second or third when he wants to throw people off). He isn't interested in any discussion- his purpose is only to start up arguments and then once it's stoked up, he does his best to wreck things. He may vanish for a week or so but then returns to comment dozens of times on old posts just to get things riled up again. Don't expect much from him. Enjoy!

Posted on Dec 19, 2012 5:43:59 PM PST
E. Dill says:
@R. Myers:

Yes, I do believe a lot of it IS pyschological, i.e., reacting to music differently in our youth than as a "seasoned" adult. Not better, but different. Which is why I am bemused by how those same people who admit feeling that way will still suggest that what the next generation of kids liked was all trash but they could grow into THEIR music of choice in the 60's because it was so damn good and even the kids back then had taste. I'm 66 and I find the music today as vibrant as ever. No, I'm not talking the Top 40 but I wasn't talking the Top 40 in the 80s or 90s either. You find it where it is. And with the internet, you surely don't have to break a sweat.

<<Having said that, at least in the past recordings were made by expert musicians playing real instruments and not electronics. Auto tuning and syntho-pop have ruined most modern music. At least it has to those of us over 35. I wonder if the kids growing up now will look back with fondness on the overproduced electronica that forms the soundtrack of their youth. >>

Gee, you must be one of those progressive rock fans. I mean, I loved the garage rock of the 60's and the early punk of the mid to late 70's and no one was suggesting that they necessarily were expert musicians. As for electronics, some of the best music of the 60's and on were chock full of electronics (Suicide in the 60's was a punk group with electronics...was that legal?). Then you had groups like Kraftwerk, Neu, Faust, etc. but that was the good electronics, huh?

All I know is for all the talk about auto-tuning and synth-pop, there were those in the 50's and onward who were bitching about the electric piano and bass (in jazz, some purists are STILL bitching). As for the purity of the good old days, does anyone think that all those great live albums were truly live....I mean, not "fixed" in the studio. Even the Beatles used sped up vocals, etc. for effect. No, it's not the electronics, it's how much of it you like and how much of it you accept as sound vs. a way of hiding talent deficiencies. Look, if I'm a rocker and I'm always talking about instrumental virtuosity and purity of vocals, maybe I should give up on rock or pop and go straight for classical music and opera. There, you clearly have what you seem to want. Trained musicians playing intricate and complex compositions written 200-400 years ago. Or, go half way there and still to jazz.....many of the well known composers/players did have some formal training.

I love jazz but I love rock/pop too and some country, etc. I even go classical sometimes but I find the modern classics are better for me. They remind me of a cross between modern jazz and experimental rock.

For white folks, rock n roll began as a black music (r&b) originally sold as race music but later (thanks to Freed and some open minded southern djs) played on white stations as rock n roll. They liked it! Most of the white parents called it junk or worse yet, N-music. Mine didn't. Eventually similar boilings were going on in the country scene and that led to rockabilly and a true element of WHITE rock n roll. And it grew and morphed into a lot of things and still is. But the original teen rockers grew up and became as closed minded about new rock music as their parents had been in the 50's and part of the 60's. And it is STILL going on today.

Do I like the overuse of auto-tunes? No. Did I like the overuse of violin sections behind the great bluesy country of Patsy Cline? No I didn't. Did I like what Pat Boone did to great songs by Little Richard and Fats Domino? No I didn't. But in listening to such critics of today's music, you'd swear that every song today is autotuned and strictly electronic. If you don't like that sort of thing, go listen to the OTHER 90% of the music being made today. Same with rap. As big as it is, I like maybe 5-10% of it and love even less. But as popular as it is, it doesn't affect my ability to find great music at all. I'm presently working on my Best of 2012 and I've gotten thru my A-B's, about 45 albums. Of those, about 4 are rap and maybe 5 are truly electronic. And of the 5 that are electronic, only one of them is a bit of a disappointment.

Frankly, considering all that was happening in music as I grew up from an 8 year old, listening to the legacy of Alan Freed in 1954, I NEVER thought I'd see a continued pattern of kids growing up to be even worse than MY generations adults were about the music that teens wanted to hear. Yeah, I know, YOUR generation had taste and ALL the teens after were morons and those labels fed them the worst kind of crap and they ate it up. Yeah, like Sugar Sugar, Winchester Cathedral, etc.

ed.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2012 5:27:58 PM PST
stevign says:
re: "Elvis Presley busted down doors"

Chronic diarrhea?

Posted on Dec 19, 2012 5:01:48 PM PST
R. Myers says:
A lot of it is probably psychological. We get older and the music we loved when we were younger is going to seem better because life in general was better. Always exceptions, of course. There's great music and lousy music in any era. Having said that, at least in the past recordings were made by expert musicians playing real instruments and not electronics. Auto tuning and syntho-pop have ruined most modern music. At least it has to those of us over 35. I wonder if the kids growing up now will look back with fondness on the overproduced electronica that forms the soundtrack of their youth. I can't imagine someone putting on Carly Jepsen, Beyonce, or Beiber 20 years from now and thinking- yeah, that was when music really meant something! Don't even get me started on rap. It can't go away soon enough.

Posted on Dec 19, 2012 4:05:35 PM PST
E. Dill says:
@ELVIS FAN:

<<Elvis Presley busted down the doors for EVERY other artist.>>

Oh, so you're an Elvis fan, huh?

Look, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about music and how they personally respond to it......but you must realize that even considering personal choices, the notion that the high point of the 60's was the Beach Boys and the BeeGees and the peak of the 80's was MJ and Journey makes everything else you've said sound just as foolish....

Frankly, I've changed my mind about people like you who want to live in music's past. The more people out there who want crap, the more crap there'll be. While my music of choice seldom reaches the TOP of the Top 40 charts, it usually is included in every critics list if they're not brain dead or deaf. I like it the way it is. I know where to find the stuff I love......it's quite easy.....and there's more of it than I can ever enjoy to its fullest. Frustrating, perhaps, but as each decade goes by, I find more and more great stuff to listen to, easier to find and with more diversity.

If there is a heaven, even Elvis is laughing at you right now. He probably loves listening to Dwight Yoakam and Chris Isaak among others.....

ed.

Posted on Dec 19, 2012 3:52:41 PM PST
ELVIS FAN says:
50's music with Elvis Presley busted down the doors for EVERY other artist.
60's music was a mixture of artists that people could choose from but had a lot of bad music in it. Beach Boys, and Bee Gees saved that decade.
70's music well it speaks for itself. More diversity of quality music than ANY other period.
Great, great decade of music! Too many artist to mention!
80's had its moments. but few. Only certain groups saved the decade. MJ & Journey, being two of them.
90's - No
2000's -not even close.
Now - its such a joke.

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 4:43:50 PM PST
I thought there were some good CD's the last couple of years but can't too much this year. I could easily get a top ten song list of this years best but whole CD's just did not seem to be happening for me this year. I hope I've just missed a few or maybe it means a rebound for next year.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 4:34:42 PM PST
barbW says:
"possible that she was as clueless as posters in Music? I don't think we're getting a fair cross section of the public."

People who are clueless can be endearing, ed. She is in the comics. It was a joke, ed.

But it's true, I don't think we're getting a fair cross section in here, for many of the reasons you bring up.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 2:40:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 6:44:59 PM PST
E. Dill ~

There is still music in 2012 (really)
New music from:
Richard Thompson
Bruce Hornsby
Nils Lofgren (2011)
Plainsong
Iain Matthews & Egbert Derix
Glen Phillips
Ian Anderson
Yo Yo Ma (Goat Rodeo Sessions -2011)
The Re-Issues keep on coming out:
Rolling Stones - Bonus disc from "Exile on Main Street"
Rolling Stones - "Charlie is my Darling"
The Kinks at the BBC - 5 CD's & 1 DVD
"Dave's Picks" - (concert series) - Grateful Dead

In 2013 there will be a new disc from Toad The Wet Sprocket as they should be in the studio this month. Just saw this band play my town on Saturday night.
Neil Young & Crazy Horse are making records and playing shows (saw them in August)

There is a thread to list your top-five (besides "Tempest") records of 2012
and by the 31st I'll post there and add my top-five favorite re-issues as well.

Look, some folks are living longer today and if B.B. King makes it to 100 years of age he is going to be making music from now until then....
"Who needs TV when we got T-Rex?"

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 2:18:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 2:26:04 PM PST
E. Dill says:
@PHILIP S WOLF:

Someone recently (hopefully not regretfully) asked me to give him my Top Ten albums for the year 2012 and 2 weeks later, I'm still struggling. Why? Nothing to list? Why of course not. Instead, it's the usual embarrassment of riches.

So, I'm doing a quick review of the 2012 albums I have and I've sampled at least a hundred so far....I'm on the T's. Of course, they'll be another 20 or so that I want to sample that I don't actually have....youtube will suffice for now. And it will be a tough choice to make, that Top Ten. And, like most years, it will change, as I listen to each more and more or less and less as the case may be.

For 2012, I've approached it as I always do. I use the net to find possibilities that sound interesting to me. Like most avid listeners, I have my own personal genre choices and my own problematic ones. Where I differ from some is that I usually listen to some from the problem group, hoping to be pleasantly surprised. Usually it works.

So, the genres that tend to have a better chance of music I'll find worthy is indie rock/pop, alt rock/pop, singer/songwriter, contemporary folk, dream pop, experimental rock/pop, post rock, art pop, noise rock/pop, progressive rock, jazz, avant garde jazz, free jazz, alt country, roots music....

Those I have less confidence in include metal (all versions from heavy to symphonic death metal), country pop, new age, hip hop/rap, etc.

I find I'm also not too confident in hard rock these days but I have found a few new ones that worked....

I've come to the conclusion (just now) that a lot of people often find a person/band who exemplifies a given style/genre of music and assuming the performer(s) have an extended career, satisfy the listeners wants for that style. So, if they love hard rock and Jimi Hendrix, his albums may do it for them. Everything they wanted from hard rock is there in those half dozen albums. Same with the Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd (different genres). Those kinds of people can easily become "decade embracers" and begin looking at later decades as being superfluous. It was all done before and better.

It's not me. I love(d) the Beatles music and frankly, while I often heard "beatle strains" in the later music I liked and still do, it did NOT make me think that because I heard a "beatles moment" in a song, that the song itself was worthless to me. I guess it's all in what we hear.
(Because "they" lived thru the Beatles rise and maybe NOT the 50's, they did NOT hear the "berry strains" and "little richard strains" and "marvelettes strains" and "buddy holly" strains of the Beatles and Stones, thereby removing their own music from consideration as being mere copies).

But for those of us who DO easily (or with hard work) find new music to cherish, the joy is never ending. I mean, in less than a month, it'll be a new year and I'm bracing myself for a great musical 2013 with old favorites and new blood to keep the magic going.

And, yeah, of course I'll be dipping into the 50's and 60's too. With jazz, maybe a bit earlier.

ed.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 27 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  85
Total posts:  668
Initial post:  Oct 19, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions