The Pop of Today Vs Pop Of Yesterday - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Pop
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2013, 04:30 AM   #31 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea View Post
@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.

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.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 07:01 AM   #32 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 35
Default

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'.
Wolfi65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 11:40 AM   #33 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: livin wild
Posts: 2,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfi65 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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
Ninetales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 12:38 PM   #34 (permalink)
Master, We Perish
 
Surell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Havin a good time, rollin to the bottom.
Posts: 3,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea View Post
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. I'm all ears.


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

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhateverDude View Post
Laser beams, psychedelic hats, and for some reason kittens. Surrel reminds me of kittens.
^if you wanna know perfection that's it, you dumb shits
Spoiler for guess what:
|i am a heron i ahev a long neck and i pick fish out of the water w/ my beak if you dont repost this comment on 10 other pages i will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans
Surell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 05:04 PM   #35 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: New York x Los Angeles
Posts: 22
Default

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'
__________________
[Link removed by mod, put it back in again and you're gone]
Eq McFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 07:01 PM   #36 (permalink)
AllTheWhileYouChargeAFee
 
DriveYourCarDownToTheSea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 1,158
Default

@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.
__________________
Stop and find a pretty shell for her
Beach Boys vs Beatles comparisons begin here
DriveYourCarDownToTheSea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 07:39 PM   #37 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveYourCarDownToTheSea View Post
@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.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 07:45 PM   #38 (permalink)
AllTheWhileYouChargeAFee
 
DriveYourCarDownToTheSea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 1,158
Default

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.
__________________
Stop and find a pretty shell for her
Beach Boys vs Beatles comparisons begin here
DriveYourCarDownToTheSea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 07:50 PM   #39 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

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.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 10:13 PM   #40 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: indoors
Posts: 722
Default

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.
__________________
If you have ideas or feedback for the site, visit The Musicbanter Improvement Thread.
sopsych is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.