Poll: Old or New? What do you listen to more and why? (electronic, alternative)

Bulldog · 03-08-2009, 01:50 PM

It's predominantly older music for me - of my LastFM top 15 I think only 3 or 4 of them are still making music today. It's just down to the way I grew up musically, as in I've always found discovering classics from the last 60-odd years much more interesting than anticipating new releases. It's just the way I am really.

khfreek · 03-08-2009, 01:51 PM

I'd say around 1989-90 is the cutoff point, for several reasons. You've got Guns N' Roses bringing some grit back to rock n' roll, the grunge scene emerging, and Metallica bringing metal into the public consciousness to bring drastic changes about. I'm sure something was going on with hip-hop too but I dunno

Anteater · 03-08-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

Because new bands have improved upon it, not to mention the production which was non-existent then....

1. Not everything back then had ****ty production values. If anything, people try wayyyyy too hard today, with the results sucking the soul right out the sound.

2. A new band can be great in their own right, but that doesn't mean they are "better" than groups that formed before them. On the contrary, its far easier to place influences nowadays in a time where music is so readily available from so many times and places than groups who had maybe three or four potential sources thirty or forty years ago, which makes their respective sounds from back then all the more impressive today.

Plus, for much of what actually didn't sound steller in its original recorded state, I always look for Remastered editions first and foremost. Works wonders when people actually know what they're doing ya know?

**Janszoon** · 03-08-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swim

I consider stuff before I was born to be "old"

Heh. That's a definition that would certainly vary a lot from person to person here. I have to say I was born in 1977 but I don't consider stuff from thirty years ago to be new by any stretch.

swim · 03-08-2009, 02:02 PM

Just because it's not old doesn't mean it's new. I was born in 91 but I don't consider anything in the 90's to be new. I guess the past decade to fall under the new category. It's kind of weird that it's been said that everyone's musical taste should stretch back at least to the 60's. Considering that that's 30 years before I was born then people who were born in the 70's should stretch all the way back to the 40's. That's unlikely that most people in their 30's are listening to anything that old unless they're folk or jazz fans.

**Janszoon** · 03-08-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khfreek

I'd say around 1989-90 is the cutoff point, for several reasons. You've got Guns N' Roses bringing some grit back to rock n' roll, the grunge scene emerging, and Metallica bringing metal into the public consciousness to bring drastic changes about. I'm sure something was going on with hip-hop too but I dunno

Those seem like really arbitrary reasons to pick those years. Especially when you consider that Metallica's first gold album was in 1986, Guns 'n Roses debut was in 1987 and grunge didn't have any kind of mainstream recognition until 91-92.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swim

Just because it's not old doesn't mean it's new. I was born in 91 but I don't consider anything in the 90's to be new. I guess the past decade to fall under the new category.

That's true. But for the sake of this conversation things are only being broken down into old and new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swim

It's kind of weird that it's been said that everyone's musical taste should stretch back at least to the 60's. Considering that that's 30 years before I was born then people who were born in the 70's should stretch all the way back to the 40's. That's unlikely that most people in their 30's are listening to anything that old unless they're folk or jazz fans.

I'm in my 30s and I like plenty of music that came out 30 or more years before I was born. I don't see any reason to not listen to it just because it came out long before I was born.

adidasss · 03-08-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackhammer

Good production certainly helps some bands but pre computer production is definitely a plus for me. The music sounds so much more organic.

Yes, for you, not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

1. Not everything back then had ****ty production values. If anything, people try wayyyyy too hard today, with the results sucking the soul right out the sound.

See above.

Quote:

2. A new band can be great in their own right, but that doesn't mean they are "better" than groups that formed before them.

I never said they were, I just like them better.

Quote:

On the contrary, its far easier to place influences nowadays in a time where music is so readily available from so many times and places than groups who had maybe three or four potential sources thirty or forty years ago, which makes their respective sounds from back then all the more impressive today.

I'm not contesting that.

Quote:

Plus, for much of what actually didn't sound steller in its original recorded state, I always look for Remastered editions first and foremost. Works wonders when people actually know what they're doing ya know?

As opposed to new bands who don't right? Music and musicianships died in the 90's huh? Or was it the 80's, what are you, a prog-head? *doesn't know you and doesn't really care*

Molecules · 03-08-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

Because new bands have improved upon it, not to mention the production which was non-existent then....

nah man thass ignint!!

Midi and digital production came along but anyone worth their salt will tell you that reel-to-reel production techniques are inimitable. They HAD production in the umpteen decades before fruity loops and pro-tools, it just was just alot more cumbersome

Personally I listen to everything, I love the pop aesthetics from all eras; I thought I'd heard everything pre-80's that was worth hearing at one point but there's always stuff you unearth or a band you come around to (classic 70's rock has kicked off for me in the last year for example).
New musicians I can get really excited about are not as few and far between as they used to be, if it wasn't for the internet (MB, youtube, myspace, last.fm) I would be a bitter old retro junkie right now.

khfreek · 03-08-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Those seem like really arbitrary reasons to pick those years. Especially when you consider that Metallica's first gold album was in 1986, Guns 'n Roses debut was in 1987 and grunge didn't have any kind of mainstream recognition until 91-92.

I've always heard that metal was sort of out of the public eye until the Black Album, and that Guns N' Roses were at there peak in about '89. Grunge is close enough :P

Metal and gritty, alternative rock coming into the mainstream changed a lot of things, in the industry and in new bands' musical directions.

jackhammer · 03-08-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khfreek

I've always heard that metal was sort of out of the public eye until the Black Album, and that Guns N' Roses were at there peak in about '89. Grunge is close enough :P

Metal and gritty, alternative rock coming into the mainstream changed a lot of things, in the industry and in new bands' musical directions.

Metal was massive in the 80's especially in Britain and in America with the thrash movement. It was just more underground that's all.

03-08-2009, 01:51 PM	#32 (permalink)
khfreek What a guy Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Brentwood, TN Posts: 2,123	I'd say around 1989-90 is the cutoff point, for several reasons. You've got Guns N' Roses bringing some grit back to rock n' roll, the grunge scene emerging, and Metallica bringing metal into the public consciousness to bring drastic changes about. I'm sure something was going on with hip-hop too but I dunno __________________ last.fm

03-08-2009, 02:02 PM	#35 (permalink)
swim dontcareaboutyou Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Carolina Posts: 5,188	Just because it's not old doesn't mean it's new. I was born in 91 but I don't consider anything in the 90's to be new. I guess the past decade to fall under the new category. It's kind of weird that it's been said that everyone's musical taste should stretch back at least to the 60's. Considering that that's 30 years before I was born then people who were born in the 70's should stretch all the way back to the 40's. That's unlikely that most people in their 30's are listening to anything that old unless they're folk or jazz fans. __________________ http://nakednaps.bandcamp.com/

03-08-2009, 01:50 PM	#31 (permalink)
Bulldog why bother? Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,840	It's predominantly older music for me - of my LastFM top 15 I think only 3 or 4 of them are still making music today. It's just down to the way I grew up musically, as in I've always found discovering classics from the last 60-odd years much more interesting than anticipating new releases. It's just the way I am really.