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

The Batlord · 02-28-2016, 11:38 AM

Lol @ Smashing Pumpkins being good music.

Paul Smeenus · 02-28-2016, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Lol @ Smashing Pumpkins being good music.

I'll always like (not love, but like) Gish, mainly because of the uber-thick production, aside from that tho, ick

sidewinder · 03-12-2016, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

I'll always like (not love, but like) Gish, mainly because of the uber-thick production, aside from that tho, ick

Gish and Siamese Dream are really great records. Mellon Collie was half great. Adore was pretty great, underappreciated. Beyond that, I don't care.

Tristan_Geoff · 03-13-2016, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sidewinder

Gish and Siamese Dream are really great records. Mellon Collie was half great. Adore was pretty great, underappreciated. Beyond that, I don't care.

Zeitgeist is decent Sabbath worship at least. From what I've listened to their newest project isn't terrible either. But yeah, still nowhere near their early output.

**Frownland** · 02-28-2016, 11:44 AM

With an entirely sober fanbase, no less.

OccultHawk · 02-28-2016, 11:45 AM

Siamese Dream is great record, imo. Good on ya if that gets a giggle. Is it because they did a Peel Session that brought on this comment?

**Frownland** · 02-28-2016, 11:50 AM

It's a masterpiece of a post tbh. "No more jazz", insinuating that Dave Grohl is a good musician, media whores Oasis apparently "not giving a **** about what the media or anyone else says," "real music," etc. It's more than anyone could ask for.

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 02-28-2016, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's a masterpiece of a post tbh. "No more jazz", insinuating that Dave Grohl is a good musician, media whores Oasis apparently "not giving a **** about what the media or anyone else says," "real music," etc. It's more than anyone could ask for.

I'd give it a 9/10 tbh, he left out the obligatory "where are the bands like Led Zepplin?" so I had to dock a point.

MusicNewb1981 · 05-09-2016, 04:18 PM

This isn't a rant thread, I see things getting better in the future. I just wanted to throw this out there to see if people have concluded the same thing and for feedback.

In doing an online search there are several Youtube videos and online articles basically arguing mainstream music has gone downhill. I think a few even referred to Academic and Scientific articles basically arguing the same point. So, a lot of people agree mainstream music has gone downhill. While I've read quite a few different reasons people have postulated as to why this is the case, the reason I haven't seen is the Economic reason i.e. good music is expensive to make with the risk of not reaping ideal returns.

Ever since Napster in the late nineties people in the internet age have been demanding free music. Prior to Napster and the internet age it was difficult to pirate music; going back to Vinyl, tape, and CD each medium of music required a physical medium. With the internet age you could get any song free from home without any effort or expense and many people largely did. The demand for free music started by Napster culminated in the streaming free music model of Spotify.

Now, now the downside of the free music model is, essentially, you get what you pay for. Meaning, you are going to get record companies producing the most inexpensive music and trying to sell it strictly on volume--number of plays. So, it is not that the public demands electronic drum kits, autotune, synthesized bass, appealing lyrics; it's that percussionists and drummers, qualified singers, bassists and horn parts, lyricists actually cost quite a bit of money to use. Under the free streaming model, where no on is paying, the record company can't make money on expensive music.

Another drawback, is the Economic model of the record company has inverted. Before the internet age, the artist would create music and the record company would distribute it and promote it. But that model is too expensive and risky. So now, the record company is charged of putting producers, writers on salary to make music and the goal of the, "artist," is just to sell it; the artist now is a commissioned salesman putting a face and charisma on the record companies music. Again, the danger in this is the record company has making and selling cheap music down to a science and, and, and they are also the gatekeepers keeping other artists out whose music is too expensive to produce.

In this model, the radio station isn't independent. It used to be radio was just funded by advertisement. Now, radio is solely advertisement...for the record companies, which share media parent companies. So, whereas the goal of the radio station was to discover and expose new music now there whole goal is to promote the cookie cutter music the record companies make.

I'll stop there for now, but I see a silver lining or hope. I'll post that later because this getting too long as it is. Please do read and give feedback.

**Janszoon** · 05-09-2016, 04:24 PM

I don't think the mainstream is worse now than decades past. Things that appeal to the broadest possible audience are, by their very nature, on the tame side.

02-28-2016, 11:44 AM	#5 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	With an entirely sober fanbase, no less. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

02-28-2016, 11:50 AM	#7 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	It's a masterpiece of a post tbh. "No more jazz", insinuating that Dave Grohl is a good musician, media whores Oasis apparently "not giving a **** about what the media or anyone else says," "real music," etc. It's more than anyone could ask for. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

05-09-2016, 04:18 PM	#9 (permalink)
MusicNewb1981 Groupie Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 12	Why good music is not mainstream...Napster and the Great Recession This isn't a rant thread, I see things getting better in the future. I just wanted to throw this out there to see if people have concluded the same thing and for feedback. In doing an online search there are several Youtube videos and online articles basically arguing mainstream music has gone downhill. I think a few even referred to Academic and Scientific articles basically arguing the same point. So, a lot of people agree mainstream music has gone downhill. While I've read quite a few different reasons people have postulated as to why this is the case, the reason I haven't seen is the Economic reason i.e. good music is expensive to make with the risk of not reaping ideal returns. Ever since Napster in the late nineties people in the internet age have been demanding free music. Prior to Napster and the internet age it was difficult to pirate music; going back to Vinyl, tape, and CD each medium of music required a physical medium. With the internet age you could get any song free from home without any effort or expense and many people largely did. The demand for free music started by Napster culminated in the streaming free music model of Spotify. Now, now the downside of the free music model is, essentially, you get what you pay for. Meaning, you are going to get record companies producing the most inexpensive music and trying to sell it strictly on volume--number of plays. So, it is not that the public demands electronic drum kits, autotune, synthesized bass, appealing lyrics; it's that percussionists and drummers, qualified singers, bassists and horn parts, lyricists actually cost quite a bit of money to use. Under the free streaming model, where no on is paying, the record company can't make money on expensive music. Another drawback, is the Economic model of the record company has inverted. Before the internet age, the artist would create music and the record company would distribute it and promote it. But that model is too expensive and risky. So now, the record company is charged of putting producers, writers on salary to make music and the goal of the, "artist," is just to sell it; the artist now is a commissioned salesman putting a face and charisma on the record companies music. Again, the danger in this is the record company has making and selling cheap music down to a science and, and, and they are also the gatekeepers keeping other artists out whose music is too expensive to produce. In this model, the radio station isn't independent. It used to be radio was just funded by advertisement. Now, radio is solely advertisement...for the record companies, which share media parent companies. So, whereas the goal of the radio station was to discover and expose new music now there whole goal is to promote the cookie cutter music the record companies make. I'll stop there for now, but I see a silver lining or hope. I'll post that later because this getting too long as it is. Please do read and give feedback.

05-09-2016, 04:24 PM	#10 (permalink)
Janszoon Mate, Spawn & Die Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Rapping Community Posts: 24,593	I don't think the mainstream is worse now than decades past. Things that appeal to the broadest possible audience are, by their very nature, on the tame side. __________________ A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man Time & Place 25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die last.fm

02-28-2016, 11:45 AM	#6 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,006	Siamese Dream is great record, imo. Good on ya if that gets a giggle. Is it because they did a Peel Session that brought on this comment?