You could be right on both counts.
Have you noticed with a lot of the modern music that...?
- Thread starter Quadman2
- Start date
RobertCO
Active Member
There have always been artists that can be repetitive. Inna-gadda-da-vida anyone? 
I do have a point tho, that monotony was a lot more bearable when you could hear the dynamics of a song. These days, the engineers have decided to mix everything into the dynamic range of TV commercials in order to stand out on the radio. It's the worst thing to happen to music since Metallica.
I do have a point tho, that monotony was a lot more bearable when you could hear the dynamics of a song. These days, the engineers have decided to mix everything into the dynamic range of TV commercials in order to stand out on the radio. It's the worst thing to happen to music since Metallica.
Quadman2
Lunatic Member
Every one of the Arts, including music tends to change in time. From the onset of a new style of created to the point that the original movement is no longer recognized. Then, when you throw money making into the equation making it a business, the original "spirit" and sense of direction is lost and the initial essence is lost or is drastically changed.
I think that each following gen wants to put their own stamp on the process, calling it creativity and may this is necessary to keep a certain kind of flow to the whole affair. Something that they can claim is "theirs".
With this change if the mods become too radical or stray from the examples from the past, the newer forms become so unrecognizable that it just doesn't fit the form that was offered before, and a resulting dislike takes place.
In starting this thread, it wan't my intent to indicate that the new isn't as good as it was, only to examine how and in what way the music has changed and wondering if others view it in the same manner as do I.
Change in inevitable, and with it often it's difficult to accept, esp when looking at some of what some of the past efforts in music has produced and is held up as milestones in effort of creativity as both performers and the audiences change as well. I think a great example might exemplify this when you think back to one of Michael T. Fox's short stint on the '50's stage when he went into a future riff wherein the rest of the band quit playing and the audience stopped dancing and was wondering what in the h##l he was playing on stage. He was a man from the future dealing with the past.
Something to "chew" on?
Q
I think that each following gen wants to put their own stamp on the process, calling it creativity and may this is necessary to keep a certain kind of flow to the whole affair. Something that they can claim is "theirs".
With this change if the mods become too radical or stray from the examples from the past, the newer forms become so unrecognizable that it just doesn't fit the form that was offered before, and a resulting dislike takes place.
In starting this thread, it wan't my intent to indicate that the new isn't as good as it was, only to examine how and in what way the music has changed and wondering if others view it in the same manner as do I.
Change in inevitable, and with it often it's difficult to accept, esp when looking at some of what some of the past efforts in music has produced and is held up as milestones in effort of creativity as both performers and the audiences change as well. I think a great example might exemplify this when you think back to one of Michael T. Fox's short stint on the '50's stage when he went into a future riff wherein the rest of the band quit playing and the audience stopped dancing and was wondering what in the h##l he was playing on stage. He was a man from the future dealing with the past.
Something to "chew" on?
Q
likebike23
Addicted Member
In rock music the repetitive, basic drum beat was prevalent in the 80's. If you listen to a lot of the popular rock from hair metal to ZZ Top Eliminator/Afterburner the drumming is uninspired IMO. Maybe it was in response to the popularity of dance music? I don't know for sure.
It all blew up around 1988 when GnR Appetite came out. Like em or not they hit harder than any of the posers that were being force fed to us. The drums became more varied in style and the music just felt harder and more real. I really believe their success opened the door for the Seattle bands that came after. For a while rock was strong.
Now here we are in 2019 and the popular music they are feeding everyone is back to boring, soulless pop. The good news is, thanks to YouTube and others, we don't have to listen to that shit.
Despite what the money grubbing whores are putting put there for mass consumption, there exists a world where people are creating interesting original music and getting it out there.
I really think that we are on the verge of a rock rebirth. I feel that the most exciting of it has an image problem though. A lot of the best rock I'm hearing is lumped into the "Stoner Rock/Metal" catagory. Some of the bands embrace the weed culture and prominently display it on their covers, song titles, group names, etc.
I don't think corporate entities are quite ready to get behind these bands, but cannibis legalization is inevitable. Part of me wants to see these bands hit it big, but as soon as big money gets involved they will **** it up. So I'm just going to keep on telling all the cranky old dudes about it when they complain that rock is dead. They can choose to check it out and see for themselves or stay in their comfort zones.
It all blew up around 1988 when GnR Appetite came out. Like em or not they hit harder than any of the posers that were being force fed to us. The drums became more varied in style and the music just felt harder and more real. I really believe their success opened the door for the Seattle bands that came after. For a while rock was strong.
Now here we are in 2019 and the popular music they are feeding everyone is back to boring, soulless pop. The good news is, thanks to YouTube and others, we don't have to listen to that shit.
Despite what the money grubbing whores are putting put there for mass consumption, there exists a world where people are creating interesting original music and getting it out there.
I really think that we are on the verge of a rock rebirth. I feel that the most exciting of it has an image problem though. A lot of the best rock I'm hearing is lumped into the "Stoner Rock/Metal" catagory. Some of the bands embrace the weed culture and prominently display it on their covers, song titles, group names, etc.
I don't think corporate entities are quite ready to get behind these bands, but cannibis legalization is inevitable. Part of me wants to see these bands hit it big, but as soon as big money gets involved they will **** it up. So I'm just going to keep on telling all the cranky old dudes about it when they complain that rock is dead. They can choose to check it out and see for themselves or stay in their comfort zones.
The music was pretty good but as a half-ass garage band drummer, I can tell you that the drum parts were fairly unambitious.
Rock isn't dead, at least not yet. It's alive and stumbling along in heavy rotation on your country music channel. New Country is where rock'n'roll has gone to die.Part of me wants to see these bands hit it big, but as soon as big money gets involved they will **** it up. So I'm just going to keep on telling all the cranky old dudes about it when they complain that rock is dead. They can choose to check it out and see for themselves or stay in their comfort zones.
Last edited:
likebike23
Addicted Member
That's funny. Maybe the lighter, pop rock went there to die. Good riddance to that. Thankfully there is a thriving hard/psych/acid/"stoner" rock scene at least in Europe. It may not be as mainstream in the USA, but I wouldn't call it dead just yet. My opinion is it is too much for most people to get over the cannibis references, so for now it will remain underground while lightweights like GVF get all the accolades as the saviors of rock.
Quadman2
Lunatic Member
Interesting points that I know I didn't have. TG for AK!
I think as well, as evidenced by other posts in other threads, that listeners are going all over the Globe to discover either new takes on older material or just new takes in general. There are some great bands coming outta Europe right now, way south of the border and even in the med scene.
I know for one, the more mod stuff has driven me from these shores into the various cultures out there, and there's a treasure load of traditional recordings that are great! I may not know the words/language, but the arrangements/melodies are rich in content.
As well, I know of many who have gone the classic route.
Q
I think as well, as evidenced by other posts in other threads, that listeners are going all over the Globe to discover either new takes on older material or just new takes in general. There are some great bands coming outta Europe right now, way south of the border and even in the med scene.
I know for one, the more mod stuff has driven me from these shores into the various cultures out there, and there's a treasure load of traditional recordings that are great! I may not know the words/language, but the arrangements/melodies are rich in content.
As well, I know of many who have gone the classic route.
Q
poppachubby
Boo Yaka! Boo Yaka!
Ok, now I just want to discuss how we can get UncleBingo on camera twerking!!
Johnny B
Well-Known Member
There has been fluffy pop music for as long as there has been pop music. It just changes in the particulars. There was plenty of garbage on the radio when I was a kid in the 1970s. But for every “You Light Up My Life,” there was “Dreams,” “Sir Duke,” “Rich Girl,” “Telephone Line,” “Carry On Wayward Son,” “I Never Cry,” and “Barracuda.”
The real villain here is the 1996 Telecommunications Act. That removed the barriers to radio station ownership, allowing companies to own as many radio stations as they wanted. Before 1996, a company could only own 40 stations total, and no more than 2 FM and 2 AM stations in any one market. Once that was removed, the divisions that had already started in radio formats ossified as big media companies bought most of the radio stations and converted them all to specific genre formats that were centrally programmed.
Where I grew up, there was no such thing as a “classic rock” station until I was probably about 20. There was a rock station and a rock station that played top 40 during the day, an easy listening station, a couple of country stations, etc. In 1994, you could still hear Green Day, Pink Floyd, The Cranberries, Mariah Carey, and Janet Jackson all in the same block. Now? Not so much. I can’t picture hearing Stevie Wonder and Alice Cooper on the same station anymore, either.
The problem with radio is that each station plays a very narrowly defined genre of music, so they’re all bad. If you listen to one radio station, you might think that all new music sounds the same, but that’s completely untrue.
The real villain here is the 1996 Telecommunications Act. That removed the barriers to radio station ownership, allowing companies to own as many radio stations as they wanted. Before 1996, a company could only own 40 stations total, and no more than 2 FM and 2 AM stations in any one market. Once that was removed, the divisions that had already started in radio formats ossified as big media companies bought most of the radio stations and converted them all to specific genre formats that were centrally programmed.
Where I grew up, there was no such thing as a “classic rock” station until I was probably about 20. There was a rock station and a rock station that played top 40 during the day, an easy listening station, a couple of country stations, etc. In 1994, you could still hear Green Day, Pink Floyd, The Cranberries, Mariah Carey, and Janet Jackson all in the same block. Now? Not so much. I can’t picture hearing Stevie Wonder and Alice Cooper on the same station anymore, either.
The problem with radio is that each station plays a very narrowly defined genre of music, so they’re all bad. If you listen to one radio station, you might think that all new music sounds the same, but that’s completely untrue.
You're wrong. Actually listen to YLUML sometime, if you can stomach it. It's admittedly nowhere near my cup of tea, but its basic construction is a lot more painstaking than the two-chord/rhythm track/synthesizer/autotune crap they're relentlessly shoving down our throats these days.
Yes, degree of difficulty counts.
Johnny B
Well-Known Member
I can despise both.
QRanc
Well-Known Member
The only time I listen to the radio is when I'm driving. I listen to CBC Radio 1 for talk. And when I want music, I predominantly switch between the two local university stations. What they play isn't always in my wheelhouse, but at least it's something I haven't heard hundreds of times already. I will tune into the "big stations" too, but by no means am I beholden to them or their formats.
I think a lot of people refuse to step out of their comfort zone of what they feel music should sound like. If it doesn't sound like the beloved music of their youth, it's not any good. I get it, but it's frustrating to continuously read and here people complain about the current state of music. If anything we're in a new golden age. With the amazing algorithms of streaming services, discovering new music similar to your tastes has never been easier. The advent of the internet has also made discovering smaller bands -who would have been regional acts in the past- possible.
Classic rock, which tends to be revered around here, was not the pinnacle of music. The era was arguably the pinnacle for radio, though. Creative, new and original music has continuously been made since, to say it hasn't is a statement of ignorance. People need to stop complaining and start listening, plain and simple.
I think a lot of people refuse to step out of their comfort zone of what they feel music should sound like. If it doesn't sound like the beloved music of their youth, it's not any good. I get it, but it's frustrating to continuously read and here people complain about the current state of music. If anything we're in a new golden age. With the amazing algorithms of streaming services, discovering new music similar to your tastes has never been easier. The advent of the internet has also made discovering smaller bands -who would have been regional acts in the past- possible.
Classic rock, which tends to be revered around here, was not the pinnacle of music. The era was arguably the pinnacle for radio, though. Creative, new and original music has continuously been made since, to say it hasn't is a statement of ignorance. People need to stop complaining and start listening, plain and simple.
Of course not. Everybody knows the true zenith of music was bebop.
c.coyle
Fighting the Dunning-Kruger effect.
True in the 1920s. And the 1930s. And the 1940s. And the 1950s. And the 1960s. Shall I go on?
It's called "popular music", 90% of which in any given era is insipid and forgettable.
