- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Arcade Fire > anything else made in the past 15 years
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:50 pm to Blue Velvet
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:50 pm to Blue Velvet
So you think music is better now than the 70's?
2
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:52 pm to danman6336
What equals better? More talented musicians, more meaningful lyrics?
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:54 pm to danman6336
There was good music then. There was shite music then. There is good music now. There is shite music now. "Better" is debatable and subjective. All music hasn't become terrible; you may just have to work a little to find it now or avoid some radio stations. I don't think it's some major phenomenon or anything that wasn't already present in the 70's. Have the cultures and movements changed? Sure. I happen to like most of the music from 1960-1970 more than most of the music from 1985-1995. Both had great music & shite music. Luckily, we have the internet to bring music to you now that you wouldn't have had access to 40 years ago. Thank you, Al Gore.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:58 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
Blue Velvet
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:58 pm to Blue Velvet
But record companies in the 60's and 70's were making the bulk of their cash from the sales of LPs of artists we now look back on fondly, which had legitimate artistic ability.
Will we look on so fondly the Youtube videos of the marketable stars of today? I seriously doubt it
The money being put into record execs pockets for the most part is from the sale of vapid music, and probably not music you're listening to.
The market has changed sure, and the availability is much higher, and a band can walk into a room and hit record on a computer and boom, their album is widely available.
But maybe that isn't necessarily a good thing. I dunno, call me old fashioned.
Will we look on so fondly the Youtube videos of the marketable stars of today? I seriously doubt it
The money being put into record execs pockets for the most part is from the sale of vapid music, and probably not music you're listening to.
The market has changed sure, and the availability is much higher, and a band can walk into a room and hit record on a computer and boom, their album is widely available.
But maybe that isn't necessarily a good thing. I dunno, call me old fashioned.
This post was edited on 10/20/14 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:59 pm to Blue Velvet
Blue Velvet has spoken 
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:01 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:The mainstream music has, and while that isn't a new thing, it certainly wasn't totally true until about 10 or so years ago
All music hasn't become terrible
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:01 pm to danman6336
Arcade Fire and Phish is mainstream FYI
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:04 pm to danman6336
quote:I won't argue against that.
But record companies in the 60's and 70's were making the bulk of their cash from the sales of LPs of artists we now look back on fondly, which had legitimate artistic ability.
If your point is that "what was marketable then" > "what is marketable now" then I would probably agree. The point is that what's marketable is irrelevant to the quality of what's not marketable. Jimi Hendrix was marketable then. Bieber is marketable now. There are Jimi's now and there were Justin's then.
quote:Will we look fondly on the widespread sharing of youtube videos of concerts and music videos of great artists? NPR tiny desk concert series on a weekly basis > buying a vinyl album of the band I love every 4 years and seeing their local show twice in my life... which you can still do.
Will we look on so fondly the Youtube videos of the marketable stars of today? I seriously doubt it
quote:Concur. Luckily the internet is here to save us.
the money being put into record execs pockets for the most part is vapid music, and probably not music you're listening to.
quote:It's amazing. Where would we be without it? At the mercy of record execs.
The market has changed sure, and the availability is much higher, and a band can walk into a room and hit record on a computer and boom, their album is widely available.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:07 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:It kinda is
If your point is that "what was marketable then" > "what is marketable now"
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:07 pm to danman6336
I agree that the distribution channels are wildly different and there is definitely a loss in the emotional attachment to physical music, but at the same time, there are many artists out there that are still making a lot of money from physical music sales despite the prevalence of digital music / youtube. Vinyl sales have seen a healthy increase which I think can be somewhat attributable to music blogs and bands having a voice to promote physical music sales on the internet via twitter and facebook. I guess what I'm saying is, the music industry has lost some of its allure and identity that it had in the 70's as it becomes an online entity, but the internet is sort of having a healing effect to the industry now, too.
This post was edited on 10/20/14 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:07 pm to danman6336
quote:Some? Yes. All? No. Most? Debatable. I wasn't around in the 70's to hear all the radio music that was popular then that hasn't had what it takes to still be relevant in 2014.
The mainstream music has
quote:I'd say 20+ years ago the major hits on the radio included tons of shite. Daft Punk > Guns N Roses
it certainly wasn't totally true until about 10 or so years ago
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:10 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:Well there was disco, and the Osmans, and Abba, and so on
I wasn't around in the 70's to hear all the radio music that was popular then that hasn't had what it takes to still be relevant in 2014.
I'm not arguing that music hasn't always had bad stuff in it, and that often the worst of it was the most marketable
I'm just saying there seems to be a noticeable upward trend in the widespreadness of it, and of the American public's desire to hear it
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:11 pm to danman6336
And I could argue that even the non-mainstream stuff isn't as good either, but of course thats pretty subjective
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:13 pm to danman6336
I'm just glad people wanted to argue on here about something for once
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:18 pm to danman6336
quote:
I'm just glad people wanted to argue on here about something for once
Chicago Deep Dish Pizza>New York Pizza
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:18 pm to danman6336
quote:I feel that.
I'm not arguing that music hasn't always had bad stuff in it, and that often the worst of it was the most marketable
I'm just saying there seems to be a noticeable upward trend in the widespreadness of it, and of the American public's desire to hear it
We're probably on the same page.
I just refuse to allow the common "music was better then" argument by the old-timers who base their argument off of popularity/radio-play. There's amazing music now too; just using different channels to find it, thanks to the internet.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:19 pm to Spaulding Smails
Nb4Rohan2Reed
This post was edited on 10/20/14 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:25 pm to danman6336
quote:
I'm just glad people wanted to argue on here about something for once
Is it harder for musicians to do something different/creative now? The later you were born the harder it is? "Simpsons did it!" I've always like those arguments. Pushing envelopes/boundaries getting harder when it feels like everything has been done before? Are there an infinite amount of niches? This post was edited on 10/20/14 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:34 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
Are there an infinite amount of niches?
I imagine there is actually a finite amount of niches.
The types of music throughout history have become so categorized, that it new music will already be placed in to somewhat of a specific genre or sub-genre of that style. However, the fusion part of it is what pushes the number of niches and genres higher.
Not to sound like a homer, but look at the Disco Biscuits. They took jam and electronic, and fused it into something that is uniquely theirs. All others after, that do jamtronica, will be compared to tDb. Same with the Dead>Phish>?. The Meters>Galactic, Allman Bros>WSP. Waylon Jennings>Outlaw Country.
Once the genres have been blended, that is where the niches expand, but their are only so many combinations
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News