Customer Discussions > Music forum

Today's music is better than it was 40 years ago

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1301-1325 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 4, 2012 8:34:06 AM PDT
R. Seter says:
Nice assortment of good music listed....but I don't see much of anybody on your list that is selling music right now. I miss rock n roll!

Posted on May 4, 2012 9:22:00 AM PDT
Rock 'n' Roll will exist as long as some punk kid is willing to smash his/her guitar!

In reply to an earlier post on May 4, 2012 8:56:19 PM PDT
You are full of yourself, aren't you?

Posted on May 5, 2012 4:28:40 PM PDT
E. Dill says:
@Gary D. Mucho:

<<You are full of yourself, aren't you?>>

Hmmmm. Let's see. I've been listening to rock era music since it's inception. At least that gives me some historical perspective. I've never, ever suggested that anyone should like or dislike what I do. It's all subjective. If I WAS full of myself, as you suggest, I'd give you a list of what music YOU should like. Instead, I only argue that the general notion that all music today is worthless and that it's worthless because of the big corporations is worth discussing instead of accepting without question. Lots of great music (my opinion) are made on indie labels. They get little promotion and, consequently, not a lot of attention except from those who are looking for something outside the commercial realm.

After looking at your id page and seeing your whopping 4 reviews, 1 of which was for a slick cigarette case, I'm guessing you may be more upset about my comments about how corporations are ruining our economy which should concern us more than what influence they have on the music. 2008 was not a fluke and the only criticism I have of Obama is with the fact that the Dept. of Justice hasn't taken steps to put the perpetrators in prison.

BTW, I noticed that of the 3 reviews that WAS about music, 2 of them were negative ones about Rod Stewart and one about a fusion band of sorts. I saw that the lead singer is coincidently of the same last name, Mucho, as yours. Ok by me. If you can't do a little spamming for a relative, what can you do anyway.

ed (my wordiness has little to do with ME but much to do with music....and a bit about priorities and justice for the poor and the disappearing middle class)

Posted on May 5, 2012 6:17:36 PM PDT
Hinch says:
>corporations are ruining our economy........and the only criticism I have of Obama is with the fact that the Dept. of Justice hasn't taken steps to put the perpetrators in prison.<

Lol! Im not even going to go there.


Posted on May 5, 2012 6:32:24 PM PDT
LMAO no way no how!!Todays music doesnt even come close.The 60s were the best then the 90s followed by the 70s.The 80s were bad but the 2000s were worse. no soul or balls in todays music.

In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2012 6:48:06 PM PDT
Hinch says:

I agree the 1960s were the best and the 2000s were the worst but I would say


getting progressivly worse....The 20s through the 50s each fit in there somewhere before the 90s. The first decade of the 21st century is the worst ever for me. We shall see what the present decade presents, but so far......nothing much.

In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2012 6:57:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 5, 2012 6:59:07 PM PDT
barbW says:
heh, Hinch, it might be just your maturation. I don't know, because I agree with you, and that makes me delve deeper like ed does.

When I purchase a book of popular scores, because I'll need to be familiar with what's selling if we have audience requests, I immediately go to hear what creative value resulted in the inclusion of this song and that. I'm embarrassed to admit that I rarely know more than a few songs of the current greatest hits books. Not long ago, I knew them all! What is going on? Is it in our stars, or in ourselves?

In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2012 7:37:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 5, 2012 7:39:46 PM PDT
Hinch says:

Sometimes I think Im just getting old. lol!

I do hear some good new music now and them. It's not that I'm not interested in new music. I love to hear good new(and old) music. And Im not lazy as someone suggested. I do admit I dont make a big search for music. I never had to in the past, and I never had a problem finding good music from either the radio, television (music on tv ended in the 80s) or suggestions from friends.

Im sure there's never been a time when everything on the radio was great, or even good, but most of it was listenable. Most of the new music on the radio now is unlistenable for me.

Maybe all the good music is hidden....or maybe it's just so hard to find I'll leave it to those who have the time to search far and wide to find it. I work at least 40 hrs a week and dont even have the time to listen to what I already own(5000 albums and way too many cds). And I dont have the time or the money to buy and listen to hundreds of albums a year to find something I MIGHT like. Almost everything Ive ever bought in the past, I was pretty sure I liked before I bought it....because I had heard it where? On the radio or maybe I saw the artist on tv.

Also I dont have a problem easily finding good older music Ive never heard, so it cant be just me. This week I've been listening to Complete on the Corner Sessions by Miles Davis, which I checked out from the public library. It's awesome!

In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2012 8:50:55 PM PDT
Lori Volkers says:
Can you give us the station with no talk or ads, Please??!! Thanks!!

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 12:51:00 AM PDT
Lori Volkers says:
E. Dill,
You are right on, I have several degrees in Psychology....and you said it better!! Many people confuse left-brain technical thinking and speech with emotion, feeling, and art, which are all functions of right-brain!! You can evaluate anything after the fact, but for artists of all kinds, it just seems to "happen" in a state of non-thinking meditation. At least for me, as a music lover and an artist and a writer and a learner and a meditator, it is harder to techically plan simply have to DO it and explain it later. I have written poetry and musical lyrics, do most of my artwork in Pastels because it "feels" and better than any other media. I have won many, many awards and ribbons for my works, as well as awards for my printed columns in newspapers and magazines. I have written many articles on psychology and mental health, and both myself and the newspaper got a major award from a Mental Health agency. As psychotherapist, I find the discussion you are having to be the most difficult to explain...for most people. If you like it, you like it...if you don't you don't...and that CAN change over time. Other people can disagree, but nobody can really say what "popularity" is, hundred years from now!!

Posted on May 6, 2012 1:42:43 PM PDT
Hinch says:
This morning I was watching a half hr commercial for some multi cd set of 60s music. One segment was on Motown. It occured to me if Motown had been the only music in the 60s, the 60s would still have been way better than anything today. I don't see how anyone can listen to the great music of the 60s and think music today is as good. There may be a few artists who put out great music today, but most of the music today pales in comparison.

I'd like to be around 40 years from now and see what kind of compilations they sell of the great music of 2000-2009 decade.

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 5:59:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 6, 2012 6:20:50 PM PDT
E. Dill says:

<<I'd like to be around 40 years from now and see what kind of compilations they sell of the great music of 2000-2009 decade. >>

That will depend greatly on how you define "the great music of 2000-2009". Even in the "fabulous 60's", the greatest hits were not necessarily the greatest music, at least in my opinion. I've surely seen compilations of 60's and 70's music that I wouldn't brag about in defending the superiority of those decades. But once in awhile you will find a label (Motown) or a band (The Beatles, Stones, CCR) who can be both critically acclaimed AND have great commercial success. When I talk the 00's and 10's up, I seldom bring up hits or commercial appeal. I talk about the number of albums released that I think are worthy of the attention of anyone who is truly looking for interesting music and NOT interesting music of an era gone by. So as long as you're not looking for a 010 version of Mavin Gaye or Stevie Wonder or the Supremes, you could do quite well. I often thing those who make that arguement don't realize they're not looking for good new music but good updated old music. Frankly, since we both mentioned Motown, I'll admit that I haven't followed new versions of r&b/soul music in the past few decades. I've been quite busy elsewhere but when I do hear about something of interest, I'm often blown away completely and need not make comparisons between them (re: Antony & the Johnsons) and the 60's. I'm not looking for the new 60's. Maybe that's why I never quite "got" Sha Na Na...I wasn't looking for the "new 50's" either and if I was, I wouldn't be looking for musical mockery but someone who did it out of love.

I'm guessing I won't be around in 40 years and if I was, I'd be drooling all over the place singing "Abba Zabba" to the bemused nurses. But instead of lovers of the 60's asking why the music of today is so inferior, people 40 years from now will be saying, "why were we listening and crying about all the crappy pop music instead of the stuff put out by labels like "Matador" and "Bloodshot" and "Kranky" and hundreds of others that the weirdo from the amazon message boards used to rave about. He may have been a blowhard, but he surely found better music than we did. We thought it all sounded like bad rap and bad dance music.


Posted on May 6, 2012 6:15:20 PM PDT
Hinch says:
Music I like from the 50s wasnt "the new 40s music". Music I liked in the 60s wasnt "the new 50s". 70? Not the "new 60s". Same with the 80s and what little good music there was in the 90s. A band like Yes wasnt the "new" anything. They were unique and unlike anything before. Each decade had new and great music with a new sound. I dont expect "new" old music when I'm wanting new great music. Most of the artists and bands I've ever been drawn to had a unique sound of their own. Maybe it's just more difficult to come up with a new sound now, or maybe Ive listened to so much great music I'm just hard to satisfy.

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 6:29:03 PM PDT
E. Dill says:

<<or maybe Ive listened to so much great music I'm just hard to satisfy.>>

That's probably it. When I began listening in earnest around 1954, I gravitated to the worst music possible and have doing it ever since. Anything will please me, musically speaking. If only I'd listen to those with taste back then when they'd tell me that the Rolling Stones were much better than the Singing Nuns. I wouldn't listen (headstrong as ever) and went another way and now I have to pay for it. I'm 65 and don't know what good music is supposed to sound like. But whatever it is that I listen to, it keeps me busy in my old age.


In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 6:44:45 PM PDT
Hinch says:
E. Dill


That is certainly not what meant. My taste or preference in music has nothing to do with your taste or preference. It's good you still find music you enjoy.

Posted on May 6, 2012 8:00:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 6, 2012 8:08:56 PM PDT
E. Dill says:

<< My taste or preference in music has nothing to do with your taste or preference. It's good you still find music you enjoy. >>

And that's the crux of my mantra. Why is it that those of you who find the music of today (ok, based on your recent post, "today" goes back at least to the 90s with "little good music")progressively worse must say it as if it IS FACT, not YOUR opinion. If you tell me you love the music of Neil Diamond (and you probably do), I will tell you WHY I don't like him but that's MY reaction to his music and his persona. The "haters" of today's music seem to have a need to say it goes beyond personal taste....the music is the worst ever, compared to those glory days of old (the 60's).....and we often get reasons WHY it's worse....big labels, idiot audiences, money over art, technical do-dads over art, etc. etc. That surely doesn't sound like a simply statement of personal taste. Music SUCKS today and this is why. THAT is what bothers me and, I guess, it always will. It's insulting to me and everyone today who feels differently.

I'm guessing you and I are probably as far from each other as is possible, politically speaking. You (and possible others) don't like talking politics on music boards. Ok. But why is it ok to insult my taste in music but not ok for me to insult your political viewpoint? (I'd never try to do that, but I'm sure I would). You and most others who feel the way you do never make it sound like a personal reaction to a certain style of music. It's all crap and its getting worst by the minute. And those of us who think the music is quite wonderful should take THAT as a personal opinion with no attempt to insult anyone elses.

With most people like you, I'll begin with a sense that perhaps they've quit looking/listening prematurely. They like what they like(d), they're happy with it and they don't seem to feel a need for anything new. But, invariably, they will say they HAVE looked and the look was a waste of time and, besides, when things were right in the musical world they most cherish, they'd simply snap on the radio and hear music they loved, period. No looking, no was just there for the taking. And then, all discussions of what IS worthy to some is lost, except to those of us who might share something with someone who HAS an interest in today's music.

So, I get it. You don't have that interest. You've given up if you ever even tried much. It's not for you and more importantly (and my problem) it's because music has gotten progressively worse since the 60's (or at least since the 90s).....

I was about to crank out one of my infamous lists of, say, 200 artists whose music in the 1990's was, to me, quite good. (Yes, some of them may have originally recorded before the 90s but we've been thru that one before). Then I began to think of individual years and realize I could easily name 200 artists/albums from EACH YEAR of the 90's and I began the list and Ed, not again. No one will read it that doesn't already know most of them and have them in their collection and the others will say crap like "you're trying to mention a non-talent like Radiohead in the same breath as The Who?"

So no lists this time. So you and your cadre of music bashers say what you will about the condition of our musical universe today and it will anger me only if it influences young people who are still looking for "THEIR" musical universe (not all of those teens are running back to the 60's as has been suggested a few times here) and being told it's Justin Beiber, Lady GAGA and nothing much else. It reminds me of my classical music teacher, W., who bashes most pop/rock music as being for lazy, anti-intellectual morons who want their music to be of a non-thinking type....simple lyrics and simple musical arrangements for simpletons. Frankly, I think both camps are wrong....dead wrong. With each passing year and decade, more ingredients are added to the "mix" and you can find varying shades of all of them. And, even the good ones are no more "copies" of what came before them than the Beatles, Stones, The Who, or, yes, YES is/was. NOTHING is originial and that's why I've said before, mostly to be provocative, that my favorite musical year is the next one.....because with each year, more is added to the mix, not less. All one has to do is find the right ingredients for their musical stew. Or at least stop trying to discourage others from finding theirs.


Posted on May 6, 2012 8:39:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 6, 2012 9:19:50 PM PDT
Hinch says:
E Dill

I dont think I've ever stated my opinion as fact and it was never my intention to insult your musical taste. I thought my last post was quite cordial, after your sarcastic post. I've always said I'm happy you can find music you like, and I meant it.

You seem to get a little defensive when people disagree with you on the state of today's music. Maybe you're the one who is thinking in terms of your opinion on music being fact.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from searching for new music they like. I didnt know I have that much influence. I just give my opinion. That's the purpose of forums.

As far as giving up, I havent given up. I dont search for new music any less than I ever did, and I never spent more time than I do now searching for it.(I guess that covers it)

I've stated I work at least 40 hrs a week and dont have the time to spend searching for new music. I've always worked that much or more and never had a problem finding lots of great music, old and new, without a search party<joking) "hardee-har-har"...right??

If music I like comes my way I'll welcome it, if it doesnt that's ok too. If I started listening to all the music I already own and like, I'd never have time to listen to every album more than once....and if I bought 100s of albums a year(which I dont have the money to afford) I'd have a hard time listening to them all enough to know whether I liked them or not.

Oh well! Like I always each his own.

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 9:36:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 6, 2012 9:42:37 PM PDT
E. Dill says:

<<You seem to get a little defensive when people disagree with you on the state of today's music.>>

Maybe I do. Look, I've been through this before....this notion of the difference between opinion and fact. Yes, I realize that everything one says can't always be prefaced with "that's my opinion". It would get cumbersome for me, too. But, it would seem to me that you discussing the time in the day to search for new music, your work schedule, your lack of success in finding music you like, etc. would be enough. I'd GET IT! You've tried as much as you choose to and haven't given up.

But why oh why does it have to go further, i.e., that the music since XXXX has gotten worse and worse, etc. Isn't that a far cry from saying, "the music I hear today doesn't appeal to me. No one has the time to listen to it all but what I've tried I don't much care for." (no, I'm not writing you a script.). Yes, you've said you're glad I've found music I like, or something like that. But, in saying that and then saying that all of the music today is the worst it's been is kind of insulting, isn't it?

For many months (years), I've been reviewing albums from a "Best Ever" list created by a radio station in Mass.(?) 89.7fm based on votes from their listeners. We'd done a similar exercise with the 897 best singles and had some others who mostly stuck with it. In the case of the 897 albums, we've been mostly doing it alone. It's been both fun and difficult at times (I'm behind Mark by about 100 albums!). While Mark and I seemed to have a lot of similarities with the singles (maybe 60-65% agreeement or more), our album similarities are less frequent. To make it a bit more squirrely, some of my favorites are albums he dislikes and vice versa. Also, our rating schemes are quite different with me judging the first 750 albums or so with about 45% 10's, the highest rating. Mark maybe gave 5 or 10 albums 10s. But if anyone read our ratings, they'd be hard pressed to find anything hurtful about our rankings....suggesting that the other one was "off" for liking such trash. We went into it giving our honest opinion about the albums and perhaps a bit of history of our personal history with the album. But no acrimony. Mark, btw, decided from the beginning, not to rank albums where he was previously familiar with all or most of the songs. I, on the other hand took the position that I could honestly rank the songs, even if I didn't know or remember them and I've done just that. So we're ranking the same albums and doing so in our own way. It's been great to hear those albums again, find a few new ones and discover some changes in my opinions of some of them. And, while this would blow some people's minds, when I finish with my 600 out of 897 albums ranked 10 (I think most people like the highest ratings to be reserved for the monster of all monster albums.....I've never known what that means to me, I'll be working on my OWN list and as positive as I've been about most of the 897 albums listed, I'll probably need to drop at least 200 of them for choices of my own not on the list. I say that because some of those dropped will be "lower 10s". (Wow, is this guy positive, or what?)

Ok, enough already. A lot of this goes back to the opinion/fact business and, again, some people find the need to always clarify things which are clearly opinions, as opinions. Then you find out that they don't THNK their opinions ARE opinions. Just ask any classical music fan if Beethoven's greatness is an opinion? Why do you think we have thread after thread questioning the worth of the Beatles or Springsteen, or someone else? They may be trolls or they may simply be testing the waters....finding out how many will simply suggest that certain talent is NOT opinion. It's FACT and if you can't see it, you're the moron.

I guess I just like to keep my facts and my opinions straight.

(And my posts very, very long....)


In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 10:06:08 PM PDT
Hinch says:
>(And my posts very, very long....)<

Hey! At last.....something we can both agree on.



The subject of this thread is "music is better now than 40 years ago". That's the only reason we're discussing it on here. In the big picture it doesnt really matter. It's just a discussion. Maybe it would have been better if we had all come on here and just agreed with each other. That would have made a really interesting discussion.

Hinch says:

E. Dill

You are right!
E. Dill says:


No! I was wrong, you're right.


Hinch says:

E. Dill

You certainly have right to your opinion, but so do I, and I say you're right.

Well, on second thought.....maybe it's just as good the way it went.

Have a great upcoming week!

Posted on May 7, 2012 7:17:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 7, 2012 7:41:14 AM PDT
Stratocaster says:
E Dill - regarding there being music around today that's just as good as in the past - which I don't totally disagree with - I have found a few great new bands over the last few years that I am listening to on a regular basis. But let me emphasize - a FEW. Very few. And if it weren't for Philly's NPR station, I most likely would have never heard them at all!

But for today's artists and the wealth of talent you claim is out there:
When was the last time you heard a "new music" drummer the likes of Neal Pert, Carl Palmer, Bill Bruford, Phil Ehart, Billy Cobham, Chester Thompson....?
When was the last time you heard a "new music" guitarist the likes of Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Gilmour, Page, Knopfler, Clapton, Holdsworth, Howe, Hackett, Allman, Stevie Ray, Garcia......?
When was the last time you heard a "new music" keyboardist the likes of Keith Emerson, Wakeman, Elton John, Billy Joel, Chic Corea, Billy Payne, Garth Hudson....?
When was the last time you heard a "new music" vocalist the likes of Marvin Gaye, Elton John, Bryan Ferry, Stevie Wonder, Elvis, Billy Joel, Steve Walsh, David Pack......?
When was the last time you heard a "new music" bassist the likes of Entwistle, Chris Squire, Jaco Pastorius, Tony Levin, Phil Lesh, Greg Lake, Geddy Lee.........?
When was the last time you heard "new music" powerhouse singer/songwriters/bands like Lennon/McCartney, Elton John/Taupin, Knopfler, Clapton, Dylan, Robbie Robertson, Garcia/Hunter, David Byrne, Robert Plant, Sting, Bono, Neil Young, Springsteen, Jagger/ Richards, Hendrix, Daltrey /Townsend, Genesis. These are to name but just a few who could fill entire stadiums not one, not two, but even three nights in a row (and some of them STILL do!). When was the last time we've seen that kind of enthusiasm and adoration for any single artist/band of the last 15 years? Were we just delusional back then? And we're "just lazy" now?

I'm sure others could fill in the blanks with DOZENS more of the great names. And you know, with all of your long winded responses, some of which could fill a book, I've never seen you put up ANY examples of exactly what you're comparing. Which also doesn't leave your argument holding a lot of water. Who are these mystery artists that you are loving so much???????

These artists mentioned are not figments of our imaginations. They did for a FACT exist. And now you can sit there with a straight face and argue that there is still just as much talent out there now? Yes, there are still some very good talented musicians out there today, IF you can find them (that's a whole other topic). But as a general comparison of the amount of musical talent/artists compared to the 60's 70's and even part of the 80's, I'd say the ratio is about 1/100th. As the lawyers say, I rest my case.

Shoot away

Posted on May 7, 2012 7:32:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 7, 2012 7:36:58 AM PDT
Stratocaster says:
Hinch - LMAO! -----------

Hinch says:
E. Dill
You are right!
E. Dill says:
No! I was wrong, you're right.
Hinch says:
E. Dill
You certainly have right to your opinion, but so do I, and I say you're right.

*******Great stuff. I was very close to posting the same type of response on another thread a couple months ago when some asked "why does everyone have to argue on these threads"?? LOL - why would we come here if not to argue our points based on the names of the threads that we see? It's in our basic human nature to stand up for what we believe in. Personally, I can't stand people who are like "oh, I'll just keep my mouth shut and go along with the rest of the sheeple. That's where life is safe". Maybe someone should start a whole new forum for those poor saps. Here are some OPs they can start with:
The sky is blue:
Water is very wet:
Ever notice how Tuesday always comes after Monday?
Electric guitars don't make much sound unless they're plugged in:
"Tax and Spend" is a great policy that has worked very well so far:

Posted on May 7, 2012 11:54:02 AM PDT
China wants their money back so lock yer' doors....

In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2012 2:13:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 7, 2012 2:31:13 PM PDT
S. Rice says:
But is that really something to brag about? I hope the music I love is never featured on an infomercial. I'd rather it fade further into obscurity. Maybe 40 years from now it'll get rediscovered by a music fan looking a little deeper, or maybe not. Either way would be better than "Timelife" music presents, Sigur Rós...

Posted on May 7, 2012 3:02:06 PM PDT
I listen to a lot of music from the 30´s and 40´s and I find myself pulling away from the stuff that is new or "newer". I am not comparing or saying what is better. ¿Anyone else in that situation?
[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

Recent discussions in the Music forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
The Music Of Our Lives 7067 1 hour ago
Song Game...10 songs where.... 5003 1 hour ago
Musical Mt. Rushmore 72 2 hours ago
What The Hell, Who Cares! 529 2 hours ago
My Let It Bleed 13 3 hours ago
Why Pat Boone is Better than Elvis 307 3 hours ago
Zappa artists 20 4 hours ago
What Are You Listening To? (Volume Three) 4095 8 hours ago
Long Careers in Music 63 8 hours ago
What were the Last Five CD's You Purchased...(Be Honest). 4451 12 hours ago
Obamas war on women 1069 13 hours ago
who was john belko? 0 15 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  215
Total posts:  1496
Initial post:  Dec 16, 2011
Latest post:  Mar 11, 2014

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

Search Customer Discussions