Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Pop (https://www.musicbanter.com/pop/)
-   -   The Pop of Today Vs Pop Of Yesterday (https://www.musicbanter.com/pop/70178-pop-today-vs-pop-yesterday.html)

djchameleon 06-17-2013 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea (Post 1333124)
@djchameleon,

You know what? I still like the 1974 song better. Why? Because both sound like a hundred other songs that had already been written by their time, but at least the 1974 song came first. :laughing:

And The Band Perry song still can't even remotely come close to Faithless Love. I mean, it's like ... no contest! I'd still like to hear any song in the past 10 years that can approach it.

I figured you would! The 1974 song has too much "twang" for me. Also, I wasn't pitting Thr Band Perry's song against Faithless Love. I'm sure there is song out there in more recent years but the fact that you have such a hard-on for that song will blind you from recognizing a superior song as such.

Wolfi65 06-17-2013 07:01 AM

Pop music is, by definition, bland, repetitive, very basic lyrics set to a catchy dance beat. "Oooohh, babee.....' etc.
I'd say the main difference between Pop (or any other genre, for that matter) in the 1920's - 1970's and thereafter might be that in the 'Good Old Days' (......), it was MUCH more difficult for anyone to a) become a musician and b) get noticed beyond a small town/circle of friends.
Today, we have several hundreds of Teach-Yourself paks most people - at least in the developed world - can afford, and we have You Tube......
We also have thousands of different items of electronic wizardry that can make any doofus with enough money to buy them or enough connections to borrow them sound like Spandau Ballet meets 50 Cen'.

Ninetales 06-17-2013 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfi65 (Post 1333254)
Pop music is, by definition, bland, repetitive, very basic lyrics set to a catchy dance beat. "Oooohh, babee.....' etc.

This must be from the new websters dictionary that hasn't been released yet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfi65 (Post 1333254)
I'd say the main difference between Pop (or any other genre, for that matter) in the 1920's - 1970's and thereafter might be that in the 'Good Old Days' (......), it was MUCH more difficult for anyone to a) become a musician and b) get noticed beyond a small town/circle of friends.

I think you are confusing difficulty with capability. Because there was no Internet of course you couldn't possibly reach an audience as large as now, but on the flip side there is much more competition than there was back then. And competition breeds quality. How are you supposed to make it big if there are hundreds of people in your neighborhood alone that are trying to be the same thing? Answer: by being better, more creative, and by having some degree of luck. There are an almost infinite amount of bands posting on YouTube, band camp, etc trying to get there music to the masses. I fail to see how that makes it easier for one to actually make it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfi65 (Post 1333254)
Today, we have several hundreds of Teach-Yourself paks most people - at least in the developed world - can afford, and we have You Tube......
We also have thousands of different items of electronic wizardry that can make any doofus with enough money to buy them or enough connections to borrow them sound like Spandau Ballet meets 50 Cen'.

How is a doofus with a computer different than a doofus with a guitar?
And connections? Um networking is how you get anywhere in any profession, how can you possibly think having connections is a bad thing?

Justin Bieber started out with a guitar and a YouTube channel. He didn't just throw money at big wig execs until they gave him all the fame and power that his greedy fingers could hold. Is bieber great? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not arguing that he's amazing but I'm arguing that people should be able to believe he is. Personally ill listen to Boyfriend if I want to get in the party mood much like the way ill listen to Harold Budd if I want to relax or Gorguts if I want to rip someone's head off.

Hey some people like listening to chart pop. Why others constantly cry about this and then try to justify how all modern music is **** and that real music died in the 70s blah blah blah boo hoo is beyond me. Music, like everything, is constantly evolving. If you don't like Rihanna's music that's cool but don't patronize those that do just because you have extreme tunnel vision.

But then again what do I even know I'm just a god damn pokemon

Surell 06-17-2013 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea (Post 1332571)
In fact, come to think of it, I'll extend that challenge one step further: Find me any recent song of any genre that can compete with Faithless Love in terms of beauty and songwriting prowess. :ar_15s: I'm all ears.



is four years recent enough? I've got one from last year:


Eq McFly 06-17-2013 05:04 PM

everyone loves to reminisce about the golden years, but they had their fair share of bad music. have to take the good and the bad , some of the most remembered tracks weren't nearly as big as when they were released. Every generation had their 'soulja boy'

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-17-2013 07:01 PM

@Surell,

Those are definitely interesting songs. That said, it's pretty much what I would expect of "progressive" pop/rock nowadays - lots of electronics, de-emphasis on melody. "Interesting," but not "beautiful" or what I would call "emotionally moving." I'd give them credit for technique/technical prowess, but lacking emotion/passion.

I found myself listening to the 2nd song more intently. Hard to tell, but it sounded like some interesting time signature changes were going on - like, 3/8 with interruptions of ... something else.

If pop music were to go in this direction, I would consider it a step in the right direction, but would still yearn for the 1960-1990 years.

Urban Hat€monger ? 06-17-2013 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea (Post 1333553)
@Surell,

Those are definitely interesting songs. That said, it's pretty much what I would expect of "progressive" pop/rock nowadays - lots of electronics, de-emphasis on melody. "Interesting," but not "beautiful" or what I would call "emotionally moving." I'd give them credit for technique/technical prowess, but lacking emotion/passion.

I found myself listening to the 2nd song more intently. Hard to tell, but it sounded like some interesting time signature changes were going on - like, 3/8 with interruptions of ... something else.

If pop music were to go in this direction, I would consider it a step in the right direction, but would still yearn for the 1960-1990 years.

The stuff you yearn for is still around, it's just not in the pop charts.
And nor should it be.
If the current generation of kids were interested in listening to 40 year old country ballads I would be seriously worried about the future of music.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea 06-17-2013 07:45 PM

Perhaps I should have said, "I would still prefer the 1960-1990 years." ;)

As an aside, I'm surprised at how many teenagers and 20-something I encounter not only like, but prefer that 40-year-old music. When I was a teenager it was almost unheard of to prefer 40-year-old music. The fact that so many young people these days like this stuff, is one more reason why I suspect there really is something to the notion that popular music then had something today's music lacks.

Urban Hat€monger ? 06-17-2013 07:50 PM

I remember people saying the exact same thing in the 80s and in the 90s.
It's not unusual at all.

When you first start to look at music past what's in the charts the big names from the past are nearly always your first reference to non chart music.
Some people stick with that, others decide that they don't want to listen to old music all the time and then go out & find music that appeals to them that's being made today.

sopsych 06-17-2013 10:13 PM

None of these points are new to me, and all have some validity.

Here's my position: there was always low-quality pop, but great stuff (mostly with regard to lyrics) rarely is made anymore. There has been a noted decline in the percentage of ballads among hit songs in the past decade or so (compare Katy Perry and Lady Gaga with Madonna), and ballads in my opinion comprise most of the great pop songs of all time. The loss of great pop includes reasons mentioned by others, along with the MTV-fueled increase emphasis on appearance, (research-demonstrated) greater narcissism among today's young people (I mean fans and musicians, with less of an ability to go emotionally deep), the replacement of rock with rap on major stations and channels, more emphasis on the not-very-fluent-in-English part of the international market (which almost automatically limits lyrical complexity), and the decline of quality musicians among male pop stars. I'm not going to open one can of worms from that list. Instead I will expand on the male thing with the risqué point that men generally write better love songs than women do, probably because men 'need' women more than women 'need' men and male pop artists have trouble getting fan loyalty without strong ballads - but the industry has shifted toward the other way male artists can get loyalty (albeit not as much as female pop stars can), which is through widespread sex appeal. I am oversimplifying things, because it's a complicated subject and I don't have enough free time.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:49 PM.


© 2003-2022 Advameg, Inc.