- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Why is modern pop music so terrible?
Posted on 9/6/17 at 8:52 am to Cdawg
Posted on 9/6/17 at 8:52 am to Cdawg
quote:All of that is better than anything you will hear on Hits 1. That's the point. The shitty pop of yesteryear was gold compared to today.
also had Debbie Boone, Captain & Tenille, and Alicia Bridges as top 40 hits.
1969 Sugar Sugar by The Archies was no. 1. That annoying song alone should negate any music from 1969 being good with that type argument.
quote:It works though because those songs were actually played on the radio.
My original post was the guy in the video was comparing Rock music to todays top 40's pop music. Two different genres and audiences.
1
Posted on 9/6/17 at 10:32 am to AlxTgr
quote:
All of that is better than anything you will hear on Hits 1. That's the point. The shitty pop of yesteryear was gold compared to today.
No, that's a taste issue. What's the difference between Adele and Debbie Boone? Adelle is better. What's the difference between Captain & Tenille and Rihanna and Mikky? Rihanna has a better voice. Alicia Bridges singing about the nightlife and loving to boogie is no better than Ketty Perry singing Firework. See that's comparing similar genres and audiences. Would you compare Taylor Swift to 70's AC/DC? I hear both on the radio.
Those current rock bands I listed, I hear them on the radio.
This post was edited on 9/6/17 at 10:35 am
Posted on 9/6/17 at 11:13 am to miketiger
Comparatively speaking, there were multiple radio formats with larger playlists back in the day, so if an artist had a good song that didn't fit into a specific box, it still had a chance to find its way onto the airwaves. Nowadays, it seems like everyone is chasing each other's tails by re-writing the same song over & over again. Modern Top 40 radio has such a limited playlist now, the labels appear less motivated to go in a unique direction. That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but I do think the "safe bets" take more priority than ever before...
Posted on 9/6/17 at 12:08 pm to BigOrangeBri
Wow, nice rebuttal a-hole. You still haven't been able define good quality music after all these years. You hinted earlier that complexity plays a role. That's laughable.
Go ahead and just define it or shut the hell up!
Go ahead and just define it or shut the hell up!
Posted on 9/6/17 at 1:11 pm to SUB
quote:
Wow, nice rebuttal a-hole. You still haven't been able define good quality music after all these years. You hinted earlier that complexity plays a role. That's laughable.
Go ahead and just define it or shut the hell up!
Get pissy and resort to name calling. It's the calling card of someone that knows they're wrong.
As I stated on the last page, you can't define what makes it good or bad because each sample is different.
This is seriously your argument, if I paint a picture to canvas then it is of the same quality as a Rembrandt, Picasso, Rockwell, Van Gogh because it is all subjective.
Fazollis Italian food is of the same quality as Trattoria Marcella and a Golden Corral steak is of the same quality as a locally sourced steak from Kanye Prime because it's all subjective. It's just a blatantly ridiculous stance to take.
But yeah, every piece of music ever made is of the same "quality"
Ridiculous
This post was edited on 9/6/17 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 9/6/17 at 1:26 pm to Cdawg
quote:Nice cherry picking
No, that's a taste issue. What's the difference between Adele and Debbie Boone? Adelle is better. What's the difference between Captain & Tenille and Rihanna and Mikky? Rihanna has a better voice.
What's better about Adele than Debby Boone? Better voice? That has zero to do with what this thread is about. You might have a good discussion in the right thread. This isn't it.
Posted on 9/6/17 at 1:28 pm to SUB
quote:
Wow, nice rebuttal a-hole.
quote:You go out of your way to be a douche. On the music board no less.
Go ahead and just define it or shut the hell up!
Posted on 9/6/17 at 1:32 pm to AlxTgr
Sia - Chandelier is a fantastic song. As a matter of fact, Sia has a part in writing most decent pop songs on the radio these days. It's a shame, she doesn't perform all of them, because she has a better voice than 99% of pop artists.
Posted on 9/6/17 at 1:34 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Some of you people act like it takes years of research on obscure music blogs on the deep web to find one band you might like. Its really not that hard to step out of the top 40 bubble. Start with a popular blog like Pitchfork or something like that.
Audiotree will expand anyone's musical experience.
Posted on 9/6/17 at 1:39 pm to DannyB
quote:
Almost all of what people have put in this thread to oppose the OP is not "pop" music, which is his point. Pop music is soulless, manufactured shite!!!
Pretty much hit it on the head. There is a lack of diversity in today's popular music....it all sounds the same and is geared towards EDM , or rather is EDM and it's main focus is the 13-17 year old female.
Even up until the middle of the last decade, you still had a diversity in popular music. You could still hear rock, albeit, the guitar solos were starting to be eliminated, and the usual pop schlock of Maroon 5 types and hip hop/rap.
Today, it's pretty much the same old same old of music on the radio....even on the Classic Rock stations. One thing is for sure, if you are a cute female and you have had your own Disney sit-com, you get guaranteed a decent shot at getting a record contract( Lovato, Gomez)
If you want to hear the newer offerings of rock, etc. go to Sirius XM and tune into The Spectrum
Posted on 9/6/17 at 2:06 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Nice cherry picking
What? I took top 40 artist who have had hits from today vs. the 70's.
quote:
What's better about Adele than Debby Boone?
Everything except weight maybe.
quote:
You might have a good discussion in the right thread. This isn't it.
Nope, you are wrong.
Posted on 9/6/17 at 2:12 pm to Cdawg
It's truly entertaining watching you not get this.
Posted on 9/6/17 at 3:53 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
There was a time when you could hear all kinds of musical genres on pop radio. Didn't necessarily mean it was all good, but at least there was an assortment of things to be exposed to. I'd say this started to go away in the early 2000s.
Now everything on pop radio sounds like it was produced with the same formula, at the same garbage dump.
I agree with a lot of this, and this is where I blame music criticism. Poptimism is an empty, vapid theory which involves trying to prop up pop music when it is, frankly, less popular than its ever been.
I feel younger listeners crave the monoculture. Older listeners grew up with the monoculture and rebelled against it. So now, we have this era with tons of great music from varied artists in a million different genres available on a thousand different services... it's overwhelming. It's easier to just listen to the same few songs on a tightly controlled playlist. which is the great irony of Spotify. All of the world's songs at your disposal, and 90% of listeners only listen to about a 100-song playlist. Radio, even top 40 radio, used to have a much wider variety of songs and sounds. Music still has that wide variation, maybe its even wider, but it does not reach the pop audience.
Marketing executives figured out the kids and have scammed the system to lead them back to the same few artists over and over again.
Posted on 9/6/17 at 5:00 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
It's truly entertaining watching you not get this.
If I'm going down with the ship, I'm riding it to the ocean floor.
I can't help it he made the wrong comparisons.
This post was edited on 9/6/17 at 5:02 pm
Posted on 9/6/17 at 5:03 pm to Cdawg
Posted on 9/6/17 at 9:34 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
Get pissy and resort to name calling. It's the calling card of someone that knows they're wrong
And posting insulting gifs is different how? Pot kettle black.
quote:
This is seriously your argument, if I paint a picture to canvas then it is of the same quality as a Rembrandt, Picasso, Rockwell, Van Gogh because it is all subjective
Not my argument. But you want to talk about art? Modern art is polarizing. Many people consider modern art as visionary and high quality. Many also consider it as utter garbage and somebody just painting nonsense on a canvass and calling it art. What do you tell both those sides? One has to be right and one has to be wrong by your logic.
My point is that quality music is in the eye of the beholder. If I remember correctly, rap as a whole doesn't fit your mold of "quality music." Many here would disagree. Your argument appears to be based more on technical skill than end product.
quote:
you can't define what makes it good or bad because each sample is different.
Sample of what? What are you talking about?
You seem to think music quality is objective. Ojectivity involves being able to define sources to reference, which is impossible for you. Your definition of music quality is based on your own opinion, which you are so scared to admit. It's a fruitless argument because it is not possible to define.
quote:
Fazollis Italian food is of the same quality as Trattoria Marcella and a Golden Corral steak is of the same quality as a locally sourced steak from Kanye Prime because it's all subjective. It's just a blatantly ridiculous stance to take.
Your fallacy in your comparison is that quality of ingredients determines quality of end product. It doesn't. I'm talking about end product here. Others have already argued that their opinion of quality music includes those that have been made from shite ingredients (golden coral), such as punk. You can have high quality ingredients / instruments and the end product can be total crap.
This post was edited on 9/6/17 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 9/6/17 at 9:48 pm to SUB
quote:
You seem to think music quality is objective. Ojectivity involves being able to define sources to reference, which is impossible for you. Your definition of music quality is based on your own opinion, which you are so scared to admit. It's a fruitless argument because it is not possible to define.
Yes, music can be objectively good or bad. Or just middle of the road. There are many factors that determine the outcome. There is good and bad music in all eras and genres. It isn't the complexity of music that makes it good, it isn't the production. It isn't just one thing, it is the sum of all the parts that make it good or bad. FACT
Sharknado is not as good as Shawshank, but under your false logic one can't be better than the other because it's all subjective
Posted on 9/6/17 at 10:24 pm to SUB
Good quality music.
Group of musicians who individually are extremely skilled at playing one or more instruments but when fate places them together produce art that is transcendent, original, and able to stand the test of time. Ranging from 4 member power chord groups such as LZ to 12-14 member groups such as Chicago. Complex arrangements played with precision by experts at their craft. Depth in song lyrics that both tell a story and make the mind wander to parts unknown. Steely Dan is a great example. While there are a few who fit the bill in modern music, there is not nearly the number today as there were groups that produced quality music in the past.
Group of musicians who individually are extremely skilled at playing one or more instruments but when fate places them together produce art that is transcendent, original, and able to stand the test of time. Ranging from 4 member power chord groups such as LZ to 12-14 member groups such as Chicago. Complex arrangements played with precision by experts at their craft. Depth in song lyrics that both tell a story and make the mind wander to parts unknown. Steely Dan is a great example. While there are a few who fit the bill in modern music, there is not nearly the number today as there were groups that produced quality music in the past.
Posted on 9/7/17 at 9:24 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
It isn't just one thing, it is the sum of all the parts that make it good or bad. FACT
I agree, but good luck naming all the parts. Your fallacy once again comes to personal taste as being one of those parts. A song can be complex and well produced but you may not like it. Does that make it poor quality? No? Then what?
Your counter argument is always comparing two extremes in your eyes. But you never answer my questions. It's telling. Sharkbado = modern art and Shawshank = classic. So what is quality and why? You are going to label all modern art as non quality when some sells for millions?
Now your argument just seems to revolve around "you know it when you see it."
Posted on 9/7/17 at 10:31 pm to SUB
You're objectively wrong about the quality of music being subjective.
Your stance is ridiculous. Enjoy listening to all the music that exists, it is all equal in quality
Your stance is ridiculous. Enjoy listening to all the music that exists, it is all equal in quality
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News