AHC: Keep Music Good

[Superwes]

Funny. I'm black and I have a dislike for rap and hip-hop. I think good music is still being put out but the quantity of it is thinning as quality becomes less mainstream.

EDIT: I think the challenge is impossible. You can't stop music and culture from changing without ASB or a 1984 esque state.

 

[Ofaloaf]

I've already conceded that it was a mistake to say "keep music good". I should have said "keep music from evolving into modern music or make it evolve differently".

Fair enough.

One thing might be to introduce more gadgets and electronic tricks earlier, so that their usage might be guided by an earlier generation. Imagine if Raymond Scott had another ten or fifteen years to establish an "electronic" sound, earlier than his '50s/early '60s experiments! If this sort of thing was a stronger guildline for the development of electronic music, it'd be a lot... a lot spacier, I guess.

Likewise, have some facets of hip hop pioneered by the Rat Pack in the '50s (imagine Sammy Davis Jr. with a turntable!) or some such, and that might divert the development of some of the content you find objectionable in modern music.

 

[Garrison]

People really do have rose coloured glasses when it comes to music of the past. Ask them about big UK acts of the 60's and the Beatles and Stones are going to get mentioned but as this BBC article points out history has drawn a veil over some of the really big acts of the time...

The Unswinging Sixties

The truly great stuff of that era still gets played today but it was never more than a small part of a music scene that had more than it's share of rubbish. Ask about the seventies and you'll get the Sex Pistols and the Bee Gees; while ignoring the likes of The Wurzels and Barron Knights.
And if you hate the current era of boy bands how about the Bay City Rollers? Warning: checking out images of the Rollers may cause permanent damage to the optic nerve.

 

[Armored Diplomacy]

People really do have rose coloured glasses when it comes to music of the past. Ask them about big UK acts of the 60's and the Beatles and Stones are going to get mentioned but as this BBC article points out history has drawn a veil over some of the really big acts of the time...

The Unswinging Sixties

The truly great stuff of that era still gets played today but it was never more than a small part of a music scene that had more than it's share of rubbish. Ask about the seventies and you'll get the Sex Pistols and the Bee Gees; while ignoring the likes of The Wurzels and Barron Knights.
And if you hate the current era of boy bands how about the Bay City Rollers? Warning: checking out images of the Rollers may cause permanent damage to the optic nerve.

Today's simply has more rubbish and less meaningful stuff than that era. And there were simply less boy bands and practically no manufactured tween sensations.

 

[Chipperback]

A quote from one of my favorite music artists is in order here:

"The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems."

-- "Keeping the Faith"/Billy Joel.


There's some good stuff being made today, but its seems there's more than isn't so good...That's why I figure instead of bemoaning the state of the art...I got into my studio and made a little of my own...and bought a guitar and started taking lessons.

I'm also going to do nice spoken word/hip-hop cut for my TL

 

[Macragge1]

Today's simply has more rubbish and less meaningful stuff than that era. And there were simply less boy bands and practically no manufactured tween sensations.

This is objectively, categorically wrong. Please stop adding to this thread if all you're going to contribute is nonsense.

 

[Ofaloaf]

Today's simply has more rubbish and less meaningful stuff than that era. And there were simply less boy bands and practically no manufactured tween sensations.

You're not doing yourself any favors regarding the "I didn't mean for this to be an argument about tastes" statement with stuff like that.

I would agree that we have more convenient access to rubbish nowadays, but that's largely because the rapid expansion of the internet and social media has greatly circumvented traditional media outlets which were usually much more selective in the material they would record and sell. The difference between now and then is that back then, it was much more difficult to get a record deal.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

The theory that 90% of everything (including music) is crap applies across all time periods, no exceptions. As a lover of 60's music, I know for a fact how bad some of it can be. For example, almost everything made by the goddamn Beatles, especially John Lennon.

 

[RGB]

I would agree that we have more convenient access to rubbish nowadays, but that's largely because the rapid expansion of the internet and social media has greatly circumvented traditional media outlets which were usually much more selective in the material they would record and sell. The difference between now and then is that back then, it was much more difficult to get a record deal.

There is also plain more of EVERYTHING these days, because there's more people and more gadgets. Your impression of the period would necessarily depends on your sample selection.

I have no clue why Peter insists on sampling Niki Minaj of all things.

 

[Faeelin]

Today's simply has more rubbish and less meaningful stuff than that era. And there were simply less boy bands and practically no manufactured tween sensations.

Hey, we're the Monkees, and people say we just monkey around, but we're too busy singing, to put anybody down!

 

[Macragge1]

+ Mr Brian Epstein.

In order to sell records to

And this was the best band of the 1960s. A huge part of them, especially immediately on being signed, was manufactured purely to sell records to 'tweens'. They were a boy band.

 

[Mako-Chan]

Guys, I'm not disputing the songs of those days lacked sex, drugs, and violence, but back then, it was far less common. And the songs were still more meaningful. For example, Jim Croce sang about violence, but he gave folk wisdom: "Leroy Brown had learned his lession 'bout a'messin' with the wife of a jealous man". "You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, you don't pull the mask off an old lone ranger and you don't mess around with Jim".

The late 1970s to early 1990s was dominated by things like hair metal, which was basically about nothing but partying and girls. There was also obviously disco from 1974-1980. In a lot of ways right now popular music is basically just a revival of disco and dance, with a significant "soft" folk/indie scene (Bon Iver etc.). In other words, right now has a lot in common with the 1970s so you would probably need a POD before 1974 to really get the changes you're talking about.

Now, that doesn't mean I disagree with you overall about music being bad right now. I really do think overall the current era marks kind of a creative nadir and music historians are probably going to see 1994 as marking the beginning of the "death of rock." But critical consensus and music trends are funny things. Right now music distribution is obviously starting to change radically and there's a lot of independent bands on the scene just waiting to get big. Maybe the next Beatles or Nirvana (not a fan of the former mind you) is just a couple years away.

 

[Chipperback]

Best band of the 60's....I'll put the lads in my top 10 no question...but best?...That's the stretch to me...but that is too me..

And that the key point, everybody's "good" is different.

I'm sure if we all traded iPods/record collections/etc...I'm sure we'd find some things we'd like, things we'd blanche at...and some thing we wouldn't expect to be in our respective collections.

"Keeping Music Good" is in the eye of the beholder.

But here's a thought for a POD...What if Kraftwerk got as big as the Beatles?

 

[Macragge1]

Best band of the 60's....I'll put the lads in my top 10 no question...but best?...That's the stretch to me...but that is too me..

And that the key point, everybody's "good" is different.

I'm sure if we all traded iPods/record collections/etc...I'm sure we'd find some things we'd like, things we'd blanche at...and some thing we wouldn't expect to be in our respective collections.

"Keeping Music Good" is in the eye of the beholder.

But here's a thought for a POD...What if Kraftwerk got as big as the Beatles?

Well, maybe not best, Chip, but as you say they're up there and they illustrate my point quite nicely.

I would love for Kraftwerk to be as big as the Beatles; to be fair though, the level of success that they had was pretty phenomenal given that 'The Model' aside a lot of their stuff was pretty avant-garde and certainly not of the 'pop' idiom. They were certainly as close to electronic music's 'Beatles' as we've come; Man Machine is just a perfect album, for example.

 

[Chipperback]

"I would love for Kraftwerk to be as big as the Beatles; to be fair though, the level of success that they had was pretty phenomenal given that 'The Model' aside a lot of their stuff was pretty avant-garde and certainly not of the 'pop' idiom. They were certainly as close to electronic music's 'Beatles' as we've come; Man Machine is just a perfect album, for example.

Man machine is one of the gems of my collection. Kraftwerk was an influence for so much, including another of my personal fans, Roger Troutman.

 

[Armored Diplomacy]

I have no clue why Peter insists on sampling Niki Minaj of all things.

She's largely responsible for turning me against modern music for the most part.

 

[Armored Diplomacy]

Hey, we're the Monkees, and people say we just monkey around, but we're too busy singing, to put anybody down!

I never said there was none back then, I just said there is more today.

Of course, that's just my opinion. What I meant to ask was how music could basically stay the same or evolve differently.

 

[Macragge1]

She's largely responsible for turning me against modern music for the most part.

I never said there was none back then, I just said there is more today.

Of course, that's just my opinion. What I meant to ask was how music could basically stay the same or evolve differently.

So one artist is largely responsible for turning you against modern music. Presumably if you were living in 1967 you'd be being turned by the Archies' 'Sugar Sugar' or Englebert Humperdinck's cover of 'Release Me' (a song he didn't even write himself!)

There is no more bad music now than there was at any point in history; it is perhaps, more easily accessible, but it's just a fallacy that there's been some unstoppable decline of popular music since Sgt. Pepper's.

Every point you've made has been proven wrong either as a matter of fact or because you've tried to use value judgements to shape historical events. If you've nothing more constructive to add to this thread then there's no point in continuing it.

 

[Chipperback]

What I meant to ask was how music could basically stay the same.

If music "stayed the same", a lot of my favorite artists would have never gotten on the starting grid. Holy Oliver Cromwell, Batman!

A music POD: 1964. The Beatles sign with...MOTOWN!
Paul, John, Ringo, George....and Mr. Gordy?

 

[Ofaloaf]

It was probably just that radio stations were less likely to air this stuff back then.