Good Afternoon
 

Hello.........

Forums! What a pain in the arse, but unfortunately theyre mildly addictive, the forum i used to use decided to disappear off the face of the Earth and now here I am, youre the poor unfortunates that will have to put up with me for the forseeable future.

I love music, all music apart from what commonly known as metal, not that rock music from the 70's that metal heads pretend is metal i dont mean that i mean modern day metal, its just music for people who dont like music as far as Im concerned. I can be a sarcy bastard, but im ok.

Right Im off to have a look around.

:wave:

Whats modern day metal? Aye, theres the likes of BFMV and Trivium and a long line of metal-core bands but theres plenty of good modern day metal too.

Anyway, what are some of your favourite bands?

Welcome aboard.

Yeah, I hate music.

Thanks for the welcome mojo, im a Beatlehead and i love the Kinks and Led Zep loads of mid late 60s stuff loads of 70s stuff early 80s is good but the 80s were dire for the most part apart from the Smiths, 90s were an improvement inparticularly the British stuff and the last decade has been the worst era in popular music history apart from the Beta Band and the Libertines and a few other things.

I cant wait for things to change.

I'm starting to become suspicious of this "I love all music" claim of yours. ;)

Anyway, welcome!

We clearly are not going to agree on much, are we? I mean, i dig The Kinks, Led Zep and The Smiths too but I can just tell we are going to disagree at every turn. :p:

Welcome to MB regardless, though.

Haha thanks for the welcome Janz. Its difficult to write every band/artist that i like, its easier to tell you what i dont like, modern metal and modern pop, theres a few things from each that i like but as a rule i dont like it.

If you think Metallica and Trivium are better than Sly Stone or the Allman Brothers your out of your mind.

Hmm... I've never listened to Trivium so I can't really say anything about them one way or the other, but that seems like an odd selection of bands to compare to each other. What was the reason for the comparison?

I think I was comparing era's, I must have been. Maybe I was saying there are no Sly Stones anymore or any Allman Brothers anymore, there doesnt seem to be diversity in music anymore, not like there seemed to be in decades gone by. Maybe todays music world is too media driven and the audience dont get a fair deal, its a case of choose one of thses coz thats all there is.

If i was 14 and just getting into music Id feel ripped off by todays music, and Im pretty sure millions of teenagers agree with me and thats why it'll change, when it does change I think the Triviums and the Muses of this world will be the laughing stock they deserve to be, and forever doomed to the bargain basement bin.

I would say if anything there's more musical diversity now than ever before. Saying there are no Sly Stones or no Allman Brothers in modern music is a bit of a non-sequitur. I could turn it around and ask why there were no Duke Ellingtons or Charlie Parkers in the 70s, but what would be the point? Just because the 70s didn't produce the same kinds of good music as earlier decades doesn't mean that the 70s didn't produce great music. The same is true of comparing the 70s to the present.

The labels had money in the 70s, they could sign many artists and give them time to develop. Nowadays if your first single isnt a hit you're probably dropped, artists arent given the time to develop and that cant help diversity can it.

I think its a widely agreed upon opinion that popular music has never been in as bad a shape as its in now, to say there is more diverstiy now that in the 70s...well thats just plain silly isnt it.

You're talking about two different things. Commercial, major label, chart music and diversity in music overall. Thanks to the internet I think there is more diversity in music now as it's easier for a band to get their music heard, no matter what it is that they do and regardless of whether or not their music is ever going to be mainstream or radio-friendly.

Why is it silly? Recording and releasing music is infinitely more accessible to the average band now than it was in the 70s. Combine that with the way in which the internet has helped expose people to a broader range of music from all across the globe and you wind up with more bands combining more disparate styles into a much broader spectrum of musical output. Compare that to the 70s, an era which you yourself admit was dominated by the limited stable of artists on a handful of large record labels, and it becomes clear that the era of greatest diversity is now not then.

@ mojo and Janz.

Ive taken on board both of your points, and to a large degree youre right, there is however a loop hole in both of your theories if you dont mind me saying. Record sales! If music today is more accesible and there is so much more of it and it is more diverse then why arent people buying it like they used to? Is it because of free illegal downloads or is it because the masses just dont like it as much as they used to, in my opinion its a bit of both.

It is easier nowadays to record your music and get it heard by people thats true, but just because you think youre a musician and you think your band is great doesnt mean they are does it. They do say the cream always rises but that theory has pretty much been proved wrong over the last decade hasnt it, most musicians i know couldnt motivate themselves to sit in front of a computer and plug their myspace or facebook etc etc. I also know musicians that have no talent whatsoever that work on there websites and have a lot of friends online etc and get alot of plays, but never anywhere other than their website. Unfortunately for the real talents they still need discovering and they masses of talentless musicians/artists are just muddling everything up.

I believe there is a young Bob Dylan or a young McCartney sat in his bedroom somewhere undiscovered, humans cant have lost the art of writing and playing can they? But it does appear that way doesnt it. I believe the standard of songwriting and musicianship has gone down heavily over the last decade, only because the real talents havent and arnt been discovered. The internet has its downsides aswell, just like everything does.

Why define anything by record sales? It isn't always down to whether you are talented enough to sell records, some styles of music simply are not ever going to be accepted by a mainstream audience. That's just the way it is.

Also if a band knows what it is they want to do, what direction they want to take and are happy with their output then who cares? There will be a market for whatever kind of music you decide to play, there just might not be much money in it.

However if you want to make as much money as possible then play what everyone else is playing. Play what is currently popular and making money. It might mean there is a lack of diversity in commercial, charting music but there is money to be made there.

If you dont see much diversity in music then you are listening to what others are playing for you. You are listening to commercially accepted music through mediums like the radio or television. Theres nothing wrong with that but if you want to see and hear the diversity in music today then you have to go and look for it yourself.

Its not about making millions, its about having enough to record your music and get out and play it to an audience. Its not about the charts or selling millions either, but like any other business if you have no income/turnover you have no business.

If a band want to have a career in music they have to be able to create income thats just a fact and its always been that way. If selling more doesnt mean better then by the same token having more music avaliable to you via the internet doesnt mean better does it? You cant have yer cake and eat it.

But it does mean that there is more music available to you. I'm not referring to kids who play covers of Led Zeppelin songs poorly on their guitars in their bedrooms and upload them to myspace and youtube or anything like that. In that sense, there is a lot of terrible music out there for you to listen to, yes.

I mean bands. I mean bands who are signed to labels, look to get their music heard and use the internet as a tool to offer their band a greater exposure, to acquire new fans in a much easier way and yes of course, thanks to illegal downloads this bands albums will all be made available to anyone who wants to hear them free of charge. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant at this turn doesn't matter, all that matters is that it is easier for someone like me to look up a kind of music I am in the mood for and find bands who, without the internet, I would never know anything about.

We were only talking about diversity here. I can't see an argument that music was more diverse in the 60's or 70's here. What were your options for discovering music then? Radio? Buying concert tickets? There are so many more ways for a band to get their music heard now and so for the bands that play a style of music that is ultimately going to be accepted by just a small corner of the overall market, they have options available to them to keep going which simply were not there in the 70's.

I think the obvious answer is that you are using an outdated metric to measure people's enjoyment of music. People still enjoy it as much as always, it's just that the method of experiencing it has changed.

Sure, there's a lot of crap out there. There was a lot of crap out there in the 70s as well. At least now you have more options.

No, it doesn't appear that way to me. I don't think songwriting has gone downhill in any way, shape or form in the past ten years. That's my point.

Not to mention that, in terms of stylistic diversity, simple logic would dictate that there's more now than in the 70s, since basically all forms of music that were around in the 70s still exist today while many new forms have been created since.

I think the main difference would be that bands in the 60s and 70s had to go out and play gigs instead of the internet. These bands came though didnt they, the internet isnt a life saving tool when it comes to getting your music heard, at some point you need to develop an audience that will pay money to see you or to buy your album in order to carry on making music professionally.

Getting 1,000 plays a day online doesnt pay the studio does it, if they had to pay to listen how many plays would they get then? Doesnt matter if you want to conquer the world or just have a career in music to a small audience either way you have to create an income or you cant do it. Talent is the key, and talent is a rare commodity it needs to be found and given time to develop and the audience naturally grows with it giving you an income.

I have yet to see any cast iron evidence that the internet has improved the music industry for the talented, which in turn means its improved for the listener aswell.

Nope.

You're shifting the goal post here. The conversation isn't about what's the best business model, the conversation is about whether or not the 1970s was more musically diverse than the present. I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that it wasn't.

But bands do play gigs. Bands do tour. Thanks to the internet I now have the facility to listen to a band and then go and PAY to see them play. In the 70's if they werent on the radio and couldn't get their music to me then I wouldn't go and see them play and ultimately they would be unable to survive, unless they played a style of music that would be accepted by a large commercial audience.

The internet can help these bands survive.

Also whats your definition of talent? Isn't that down to the individual? Isn't it down to the listener? Without the internet how could a band who play to niche markets survive on the scale they do today?

I dont think theres more diversity in music now that the 60s or 70s or the 80s or the 90s. All i hear these days is substandard pop and metal that all sounds the same and fake R&B type stuff. Sure theres always a diamond to be found somewhere in all genres then it gets copied by a bazillion other bands for 10 years, what so diverse about that?

So go look for it. Stop relying on mediums that feed you the same kind of stuff over and over again and use what tools you have available to you to see what else is out there. If you cant be bothered to do this then your opinion on musical diversity is frankly irrelevant.

Just because you haven't heard it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

All you hear isn't all that exists. We could actually turn this into a little game if you'd like: You name a style of music from the 70s and we'll see if it exists today, then I'll name a style of music that exists today and we'll see it was around in the 70s.

So in bygone eras no bands ever sold an album or toured because the internet hadnt been invented yet so they couldnt do it? Is that what your saying. There were more great bands around back then than there are now, if there wasnt then what are todays fakes trying so hard to tap into their audience. Im sure at some point in the future the internet will find its proper use within the music industry but it hasnt yet.

It might come as a shock to you but niche markets have always existed, and so have artists that appeal to niche markets, the internet didnt invent niche markets. Rock n Roll was a niche market in the early mid 50s, long before the internet.

What would be more interesting if it were possible would be to turn the clock forwards to 2030 and see what music that originated between 2000-10 still got listened to, i think that would be a very very short game.

Im basing this opinion on I really cant see it getting any worse than right now surely it can only get better.

Yes, i said that no band before the internet existed sold an album or played a gig.

Discussing this with you is like banging my head against a wall. If you can read my post and take that from it, then I give up.

http://i25.tinypic.com/339lhms.gif

From what I gather, irrational newbie enters the forum.
Only likes bands from the 60s and 70s, like The Beatles, Zeppelin, The Who etc.
And decides all 'modern' (2000s) bands aren't very good and music is in a state, thus prompting rational forum members to put them right?

I'll take this little dodge as an admission that you know you'd lose the game just I proposed. :laughing:

And for the record, I guarantee that people in 2030 will be listening to today's music, much like people now still listen to music from 1990.

Not really Janz, I dont see how you and I proving that 70s music is still alive and well proves that todays music industry is doing fine? All it would prove is that there are millions of people that would rather listen to 70s stuff that modern stuff.


:)

Or it proves that people aren't ignorant to a particular decade and they enjoy good music, regardless of when it was made?

Again, the debate is not about how the music industry is doing, it's about which era is more diverse musically, now or the 70s. The game I proposed would demonstrate which era is more diverse.

Fair comment.

I almost forgot........thanks for the lovely warm wlecome.

:)

I do believe we already met.
Welcome to MB Percy.

This is incredible. Congratulations Percy, I think you have created the first thing that all of MB can Unanimously Agree on.

Welcome, Percy!

Say, you wouldn't happen to be talking about MuzicForums suddenly vanishing, would you, because I've been trying to visit the site for several days and can't connect!!

I'm hoping it is just a temporary issue, but it makes me nervous. I forget that at any moment the owners could pull the plug on a site and so all the connections you build with people would vanish instantaneously, except for when you've shared other ways to connect online. I just assumed I'd be able to pop on over and say hi to people at MF, but for now...they're GONE! :( :(

Thanks for the welcome Moon and Right Track.

Thanks for the welcome and yes Vangelica it was MF, bit strange whats happening there isnt it hopefully it'll reappear at some point.