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

[djchameleon]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Give me a break. I'm not an elitist, I don't demand perfection, I listen to plenty stuff that's not the "creme de la creme", it's just that R&B from the time period in question bores me to tears and always has. The gems in that particular mine are so few and far between it hardly seems worth it to heft the old pickaxe.

I wasn't calling you an elitist. I was more making a general statement about music elitists.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

Music has always been equally fantastic. The way it's advertised/exposed to the youth has been immensely degraded. Due to the fact music is largely sold as commodity first, artistic expression second. Live costs have gone through the roof as everything does, and live music is really hurting. I don't think it's very profitable to tour at all for most bands. A lot of really good bands tank fairly quickly due to these expenses, and since bands themselves don't get as big as they used to, then that's a major issue.

However, the major plus side is that most good bands are not playing in Arenas but bars rather so you rarely pay more than 20$ to see one.

I'd say music itself especially in the underground is fantastic at the moment, though. Just not exposed.

Yeah but its not hurting because people put it on the back burner. Its hurting because people thought we'd pay pre-recession prices in 2010. You can't expect a $65, $78 with fees, ticket to go like it did once upon a time. When every paycheck could be your last, no ones willing to hear U2 or Australian Pink Floyd perform the same show it did 3 years ago.

Still I'm paying to see national acts below $30. This year so far I've purchased tickets for Phoenix and Cold War Kids and I think they totaled to less than what an arena act would charge - baseline - in the summer.

[nbakid2000]

The people who gripe about good new music not being everywhere or not existing are in my opinion:

-Lazy (it's called a Google or YouTube search; these exist for a reason)
-Never adapted to the times
-Expecting everything to be handed to them on a silver platter via corporations or DJs
-Got stuck in a musical rut while the rest of us experienced new sights and sounds with an open mind
-Looking at the past through rose colored glasses while the rest of us live in the real world

[djchameleon]

Originally Posted by nbakid2000

The people who gripe about good new music not being everywhere or not existing are in my opinion:

-Lazy (it's called a Google or YouTube search; these exist for a reason)
-Never adapted to the times
-Expecting everything to be handed to them on a silver platter via corporations or DJs
-Got stuck in a musical rut while the rest of us experienced new sights and sounds with an open mind
-Looking at the past through rose colored glasses while the rest of us live in the real world

I agree with everything you said.

/thread

[zachsd]

I actually have to disagree with the "music is as good as it was, you just have to look around" concept. This is definitely true to a degree, but I view the 60s as being the last large creative explosion. The last couple decades have been creatively stagnant in comparison to the 60s and parts of the 50s and 70s.

[CanwllCorfe]

It depends on what you like. I'm an Electronic music freak, and most of the genres I like didn't even exist until the late 80s. If you like Rock, then I could definitely see that as being possible.

[zachsd]

That's true, but I still feel like in terms of influence and originality, nothing really matches that period. Not only rock, but jazz, minimalism (Terry Riley, A Rainbow in Curved Air, Steve Reich etc.), and the beginnings of synth stuff really leaves me thinking that there's not a decade/era since then that can really compare. There's definitely a pretty large scope to the 60s that often gets overlooked by the great rock stuff that was going on around the same time.

[duga]

Originally Posted by zachsd

I actually have to disagree with the "music is as good as it was, you just have to look around" concept. This is definitely true to a degree, but I view the 60s as being the last large creative explosion. The last couple decades have been creatively stagnant in comparison to the 60s and parts of the 50s and 70s.

I disagree. The creative explosion started with the advent of modern recording. Every decade since has had it's "creative" folks. The 60's is when everyone saw the beginning of "indie cred". Before that, however, Jazz was considered the music elitists genre of choice. Before that it was Blues.

The reason those are remembered yet you can't think of a similar movement today is because those movements had a social stigma attached to them. Jazz was considered the devil's music. The older genreation felt nobody but booze hounds and black people listened to that stuff. With psychedelic rock you had the counter culture movement. Today you have hipsters, I guess, but their whole philosophy is to be completely apathetic towards everything that comes their way and I think that translates to the music.

[zachsd]

I disagree. The creative explosion started with the advent of modern recording. Every decade since has had it's "creative" folks. The 60's is when everyone saw the beginning of "indie cred". Before that, however, Jazz was considered the music elitists genre of choice. Before that it was Blues.

Hm, by modern recording do you mean the development of compact discs and MP3?

Also, I agree that every decade has it's creative types, but the 60s saw a greater audience for those creative types, that's what made the difference. The 60s saw a demand for innovation not only coming from the artistic community itself, but from a greater portion of the general public. After all, art and artists are intrinsically linked to their audiences. The root of that demand for innovation came from the unique time period. Feminism, anti-war protests, etc. all contributed to creating a population that wanted change, including musical innovation. The 60s was an outburst of creative freedom stemming from the restrictive post-war mentality of WW2, and more specifically the restrictive nature of the early 50s. Given the circumstances, it was going to naturally be a period of great change.

I also don't really understand the correlation between "indie cred" and the production of high quality music.

Jazz was considered the devil's music. The older genreation felt nobody but booze hounds and black people listened to that stuff.

This is getting kind of off topic buy I have to really disagree with this. Maybe in the early 50s jazz was seen this way, but definitely not by the early 60s, even late 50s. During that time jazz got a tremendous white following, especially with the introduction of Dave Brubeck. Whites were very active in jazz by that time.

The reason those are remembered yet you can't think of a similar movement today is because those movements had a social stigma attached to them

Well that's sort of jumping to a personal judgment. I can think of a number of movements that were significant in the post 60s/70s music scene. Trip-hop, 90s alternative rock, etc. This list goes on, just doing some quick wikipedia researching will get you hundreds. I agree that such movements existed. But nothing, in my opinion, compares to the 60s in terms of the breadth of musical advancement that happened in such a dense period of time. And I feel like I'm looking at this pretty objectively from any social stigmas that may have been associated with the time period.

[duga]

Originally Posted by zachsd

Hm, by modern recording do you mean the development of compact discs and MP3?

Also, I agree that every decade has it's creative types, but the 60s saw a greater audience for those creative types, that's what made the difference. The 60s saw a demand for innovation not only coming from the artistic community itself, but from a greater portion of the general public. After all, art and artists are intrinsically linked to their audiences. The root of that demand for innovation came from the unique time period. Feminism, anti-war protests, etc. all contributed to creating a population that wanted change, including musical innovation. The 60s was an outburst of creative freedom stemming from the restrictive post-war mentality of WW2, and more specifically the restrictive nature of the early 50s. Given the circumstances, it was going to naturally be a period of great change.

I will agree that it seems that particular decade saw more than most other decades, but even then it might just be because it was highly publicized. My point was that this creativity exists all the time. I mentioned jazz and blues for that reason. It might not have the historical remembrance that the 60's have, but it was there nonetheless.

By modern recording I just meant recording in general. I should have left off the modern bit, sorry.

Originally Posted by zachsd

I also don't really understand the correlation between "indie cred" and the production of high quality music.

I was just pointing out that the 60's was what started the idea that non-mainstream music is better than what's on the radio. The idea obviously persists today, so that might be why a lot of people point to the 60's as starting point for this creative explosion. It doesn't really have anything to do with quality.

Now that I'm on the topic, though, I'd like to point out the 60's had just as much total crap as today. I got really into psychedelic rock recently, and once I wanted to go past the "essentials" it became painfully obvious that I would have to sort through a bunch of bands just trying to sound like Jefferson Airplane. I have just as much of a hard time finding those classic 60's gems as I do finding great modern music. Everyone may have really gotten into music and art in the 60's, but that doesn't mean it was good.

Originally Posted by zachsd

This is getting kind of off topic buy I have to really disagree with this. Maybe in the early 50s jazz was seen this way, but definitely not by the early 60s, even late 50s. During that time jazz got a tremendous white following, especially with the introduction of Dave Brubeck. Whites were very active in jazz by that time.

I was really just referring to Jazz pre-60's.

Originally Posted by zachsd

Well that's sort of jumping to a personal judgment. I can think of a number of movements that were significant in the post 60s/70s music scene. Trip-hop, 90s alternative rock, etc. This list goes on, just doing some quick wikipedia researching will get you hundreds. I agree that such movements existed. But nothing, in my opinion, compares to the 60s in terms of the breadth of musical advancement that happened in such a dense period of time. And I feel like I'm looking at this pretty objectively from any social stigmas that may have been associated with the time period.

I just don't know. I love psychedelic rock, but was it really that innovative? I think the sound got tired fairly quickly and for that reason lead to the progressive rock of the 70's. I just don't see anything that makes me feel the 60's had all that much more creativity than any other time.