- 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: Old music is outselling new music for the first time in history
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:59 pm to dagrippa
Posted on 4/28/16 at 1:59 pm to dagrippa
Yes. I buy streaming music. Thus it's selling and not accounted for.
And as I said he's misrepresenting it as some phenomenon of older music being more popular for the first time.
It's just extremely incomplete data.
And as I said he's misrepresenting it as some phenomenon of older music being more popular for the first time.
It's just extremely incomplete data.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:05 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Just further proof that 99.9% of music being made today is pure dog shite...

Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:06 pm to Kino74
quote:
Might explain why 80s and 90s songs are played daily on numerous radio stations that one could be forgiven if they thought they were back in those decades. Meanwhile all 6 songs of the current generation well they tend to suck.

Every one of these past vs. present debates tends to be filled with people who struggle to understand how nostalgia works. You're not dropping some groundbreaking knowledge when you state that the music from the 80s, or 70s, or any other decade is better than what is on the radio today. You're lumping the 20 or 30 songs you loved from 10 years worth of music against music that has come out in the last 1-2 years, of course the old stuff is going to be better.
I'm not sure if I should be impressed or disappointed that there are people who think this kind of information is an indictment of current music.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:07 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
And as I said he's misrepresenting it as some phenomenon of older music being more popular for the first time.
Nearly every article you read today misrepresents facts or spins them to make it more interesting and clickable. I know you know this.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:09 pm to dagrippa
Yeah but the outselling part is disingenuous because of paid streaming and I've had too much coffee and picked this battle 

Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:10 pm to slackster
Also, I'm more partial to older music, so my motivation in this thread is clearly data driven from my nerdy analyst side.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:11 pm to slackster
quote:
don't think "triggered Millennials" are arguing against the quality of old music more than they are arguing with the logic that led you to that statement. Your OP doesn't suggest anything about the quality of current music vs. old music. Furthermore, one of the specific reasons listed in the article suggests that the popularity of vinyl albums has a lot to do with it. Guess who is the most popular connoisseur of vinyl albums? Yep, hipsters, who are almost unanimously going to be millennials as well.
I know this may come as a shock to you but my statement in the OP.....
quote:
Just further proof that 99.9% of music being made today is pure dog shite...
Was meant nothing more than my own opinion. Taste in music is 100% subjective. I personally think 99.9% of the music being made today is indeed pure dog shite. You can't rationalize, quantify, measure, prove or disprove my statement because it's an opinion on a subjective matter.
As for the article, guess what... I didn't write it. Don't like what is says? Want to refute what the author said? Email him.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:13 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I personally think 99.9% of the music being made today is indeed pure dog shite.
I think people who say this, but like rock and roll, just have been overwhelmed by the top 1% of music that plays on radio and TV that is indeed dog shite.
There is a ton of great music coming out these days, its just covered by the stuff the masses like more and as we know the masses in this country are fricking stupid. Look at our presidential candidates.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:14 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
I like old music more.
I only listen to music once it becomes old.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:16 pm to TheCaterpillar
So I am stupid cause I like older music ???? frick off jack hole.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:16 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
There is a ton of great music coming out these days, its just covered by the stuff the masses like more and as we know the masses in this country are fricking stupid.
I'll take your word for it. I'm sticking with sports talk radio and my backup Led Zeppelin II in the cd player for when they are talking about fantasy football or womens basketball.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:17 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
I only listen to music once it becomes old.

Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:18 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:The Beatles, Stones, Dylan all sold millions of records in the '60s
There is a ton of great music coming out these days, its just covered by the stuff the masses like more and as we know the masses in this country are fricking stupid.
the masses had better taste then?
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:19 pm to dukke v
quote:
So I am stupid cause I like older music ???? frick off jack hole.
You're stupid (or drunk again) because you completely misunderstood my very simple post which said the opposite.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:20 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I know this may come as a shock to you but my statement in the OP..... Just further proof that 99.9% of music being made today is pure dog shite... Was meant nothing more than my own opinion.
Proof =/= opinion.
You can say that older music is better than newer music and I won't give a shite because it is subjective.
You cannot say that this article is proof that 99.9% of music today is dogshit. Do you see the difference?
I know it may be semantics to you, but someone like myself or TheCaterpillar are going to call it out because we're into that kind of weird shite and we prefer to use numbers that actually tell the story. I tend to agree with your sentiment that older music is better than most things today, but this article isn't proof of that whatsoever.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:21 pm to Kafka
quote:
The Beatles, Stones, Dylan all sold millions of records in the '60s
the masses had better taste then?
Different times, different technology reaching more people, thousands of radio stations playing tons of different content, etc. But in my opinion, yes.
If Katy Perry sells 60 million albums now and the Beatles sold it then, then yes, the masses of youth had objectively better taste back then.
I don't even think at that point its subjective

ETA:
And I have no idea Kafka
This post was edited on 4/28/16 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Slo you disappoint me. I figgered it was time for one of your "things are better than ever" posts, and you'd have FBI crime stats to back it up
Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:22 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
You're stupid (or drunk again) because you completely misunderstood my very simple post which said the opposite.

Posted on 4/28/16 at 2:24 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
If Katy Perry sells 60 million albums now and the Beatles sold it then, then yes, the masses of youth had objectively better taste back then. I don't even think at that point its subjective
There will be a time in the next 40 years where people will argue that Katy Perry is classic music compared to the shite on the airwaves in 2055. Let that sink in for a moment.

Popular
Back to top
