Well, maybe because new music suxx

[Old_Noob]

you can know the Beatles and absolutely dislike them.

Or....you can like SOME of their stuff and dislike OTHER stuff.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

Somehow I doubt you are qualified to label every piece of music that has been created in the past two decades as sucking. I'd also be willing to bet that the "everyone" you mentioned actually constitutes an insignificant percentage of musical artists.

Oh, I am fully qualified to have an opinion about anything. Just like you're fully qualified to state yours about me. Also, neither of us have to respect it.

 

[BarqsBitMe]

As for the "boomer" hate, let me put it this way... Boomer bought music, went to concerts, supported artists.

Today the only artists making money are the top 40 ones which apparently the gen z's and millennials like myself don't like or listen to. The rest of the supposedly "great amazing" artists out there? They're hurting for a dollar. So maybe before the condescension to people who've lived a little and know what they're talking about, who spent their lives actually supporting artists they love, the new generations should start thinking about supporting the artists they do love. You might have a high horse to ride on then.

Right

Makes sense to me.

Why? Why is using one device to produce a series of sound waves different than using a different device to do the same thing? Is holding a string against a fret while plucking it harder than using software to construct music?

 

[Obese Chess]

Was thinking about responding to a few questions in here and then just got depressed after trying to read the rest. If a bunch of old timers want to jerk each other off about how they're the only people to have REAL talent and understand what REAL music is that's not really my problem.

 

[Killing Floor]

Yeah my mom was aware of the Beatles and their music yet she still didn't like them, that hair!

My mom didn't like the B-52's (I always hated that apostrophe!) but she did have hair like Kate back in the day.

 

[DavidEdenAria]

You guarantee this based on what metrics? I'm not denying that Van Halen have an important place in music history but I just checked on YouTube and Jump has 150 million views while the song Bad Guy from Billie Eilish has over a billion. Spotify: Billie Eilish has almost 50 millions monthly listeners, compared to 9.6 (Van Halen). TikTok (the most relevant platform for young audience today) Billie Eilish has 41.2 million followers and I'm not sure Van Halen even have a TikTok account, at least I couldn't find that would look like it's relevant. The kids don't listen radio and the people who go to Van Halen concerts are mostly not young either so I'm not sure if I consider these two relevant when it comes to inspiring kids.

Now this next one is purely anecdotal but I teach in a music school. We encourage kids to bring the music that they want to learn and that they like to hear and Van Halen is not something they bring. The interest in rock music in general is not that great compared to pop and rap but the rock bands that kids at our school seemed to like are Green Day, Foo Fighters, RHCP and even Nirvana.

Just to be clear, I think that your statement that in 30 years VH are still going to be recognised for what they achieved is perfectly reasonable.

What about Radkey? Ive known them since the St Joseph days and glad to see their success...but im from KC...Puddle of Mudd and now Samantha Fish, all guitar driven bands and yeah VH always were big in KC so i guess i am biased?

VH brought the party and i tell ya i dont think that the number of hits on some stream reflect the record and concert sales of VH back in the day....VH are finished you know.

VH no longer exist so...not entirely fair to compare to a modern artist is it?

 

[buldog5151bass]

There's no real reason to bounce tracks given all those fantastic busses and folders and what not. The problem is too many sounds.

The main thing I do is edit as I go and throw stuff out. For example, I'll record 4 bass tracks, but before I go on to the next stage, I'll get rid of three of them. Or I'll take a couple of guitar solos and if I'm not gonna comp them, I immediately delete one. You gotta commit. Especially when even committing isn't committing unless you're gonna go to the cloud and delete your WAVs. But I frequently let EZ drummer "bounce" my drum tracks down to a stereo mix.

I'm still slovenly as hell compared to how I was when I was recording on analog 8-track.

You used to have to bounce. I remember using a 4 track - record three, bounce down. Record 2, bounce down. Them two more tracks - that was all you had.

The best Motown songs were 4 or 8 tracks. Sgt. Peppers was recorded on a pair of fours. It requires you to to be more economical, and usually better

In the interests of "perfect time" all the soul has been sucked out. In most cases studios don't even record an entire part. Get a bar or two of drums and loop it. Listen to Stevie Wonder's drum line on Superstition. Even when he was just playing time, every measure was different, and it had such a groove.

 

[GregC]

My mom didn't like the B-52's (I always hated that apostrophe!) but she did have hair like Kate back in the day.

Good news: In 2008, they dropped the apostrophe!

 

[doran.dragic]

What about Radkey? Ive known them since the St Joseph days and glad to see their success...but im from KC...Puddle of Mudd and now Samantha Fish, all guitar driven bands and yeah VH always were big in KC so i guess i am biased?

VH brought the party and i tell ya i dont think that the number of hits on some stream reflect the record and concert sales of VH back in the day....VH are finished you know.

VH no longer exist so...not entirely fair to compare to a modern artist is it?

I was only replying to the poster that stated that "...there are more kids today being inspired by them than Billie Eilish."

 

[TyBo]

For the record, I did not deny their impact. Neither did the person who disliked Yellow Submarine, and got called out that he HAD to like the Beatles or there was something wrong with him (quoting freely).

All I was saying, and all I am still saying, is: you can know the Beatles and absolutely dislike them. That statement says nothing about how you would value their impact on the music industry/history. It says something about your preference regarding that band.

I don't like Led Zeppelin. Did I just deny their place in history, or impact on music? No.

Mmm, still going on that, eh? You've gone beyond quoting freely, onto misrepresenting what was said. In any case, you're certainly free to like what you want. But it's hard to take opinions seriously that seem to imply a lack of understanding of such signature elements in our musical history by flatly stating, me no likey, same as you no likey (insert little known artist here). No, it ain't quite the same. (Btw, I like a number of other hard rock bands more than Zep, and a number of other genres more than hard rock ... it's not about being required to like them, it's about having some understanding of context, which the original post [which wasn't yours] seemed not to.) But like what you want.

Or, as I put it before, I might not like Barry Bonds, but if I say he ... suxx ... then I would just be lacking understanding of baseball.

 

[Killing Floor]

Good news: In 2008, they dropped the apostrophe!

That is good news. I just knew it wasn't possessive. I still miss Ricky.

 

[WG Plum]

Why does everyone forget about us Gen X'rs...its bad enough that our parents forgot about us.

I'm totally ok with that and shaking my head at the foolishness of it all from the side.

 

[truand85]

Is it being "thin skinned" to tell someone their condescending comment was condescending?

If it's some stranger on the internet, sure.

I have a slight problem with this. To my knowledge there were always alot of artists trying to make a living even in the 60s, 70s... The only difference back then was that they were being paid directly. But nowadays you can write a song, record it, put it on any platform imaginable (without having to pay for anything) and just advertise it EVERYWHERE. I doubt that it is now harder for actually good artists to make money than it was back then.
The market is just way more saturated and I would even argue that many of the older folks are not willing to go look for new stuff even if there's new stuff out there that is in the same style and the same spirit as some of the older stuff.
What is dying however are the traditional record companies. And those that are smart enough branch out into the digital world. But nobody should shed a tear for those companies because they have always been ripping artists off...

The market being saturated means nothing, artists worth a damn are still a rare breed no matter how much you saturate a market, bad's still bad. The difference is back in the 60s and 70s it didn't take 15 minutes on Fruityloops to make a song it then take you days/weeks/months of advertising and marketing on YouTube to make popular, because listeners had some damn sense and didn't buy into anything that wasn't innovative and didn't raise heads whenever it got played.

 

[truand85]

Lemme just tell you, people here have no idea how much money kids you have never heard of are making. Artists like Pierre Bourne and up and comers I know y'all haven't heard of like NFN live a lot better than I do and I'm living on the fancy side of town. Just because Polymer Records doesn't have Artie Fufkin promoting them, just because they aren't on some totally dead end FM station, just because they aren't touring to eat does not mean they are not earning a living with music and selling tens and hundreds of thousands of units. The ones hurting for a dollar are the 70-80 year old rockers who have to tour to make rent. The kids you don't know living on the top floor, they're not hurting and they're not unknown.

Exactly right, and they mostly make crap. It's a sad world we live in, gramps. They live on the nice side of town because Google Adsense is plastered over their millions hits YouTube videos, not because new generations spend money on music. It's you old folks that actually buy music, and it's the clicks and views that pay artists, not the music sales.

 

[Killing Floor]

Exactly right, and they mostly make crap. It's a sad world we live in, gramps.

"Crap" means I don't get it.

 

[truand85]

"Crap" means I don't get it.

Crap means it's forgotten about 5 years later.

 

[wintremute]

Seems to you wrong. As for Van Halen, pretty sure that since it's still on the radio multiple times a day everyday in 2022, 50+ years later, I have confidence it'll still be an icon and reference that is talked about and listened to 30, 40, 50 and likely many more decades after that, but you're free to believe otherwise of course

By the way, Van Halen was still filling stadiums in 2015. I guarantee you there are more kids today being inspired by them than Billie Eilish.

You are solidifying my viewpoint. I appreciate your guarantee, but I'm not sure I agree with the theory that more kids today are being inspired by Van Halen than by Billie Eilish. Oh well, we each like what we like and see what we see, while life moves forward.

 

[GregC]

The market being saturated means nothing, artists worth a damn are still a rare breed no matter how much you saturate a market, bad's still bad. The difference is back in the 60s and 70s it didn't take 15 minutes on Fruityloops to make a song it then take you days/weeks/months of advertising and marketing on YouTube to make popular, because listeners had some damn sense and didn't buy into anything that wasn't innovative and didn't raise heads whenever it got played.

Wait, what? One look at the Billboard charts of that era should swiftly disabuse anyone of this notion. Alongside the legendary material was plenty of trendy piffle.

 

[truand85]

You are solidifying my viewpoint. I appreciate your guarantee, but I'm not sure I agree with the theory that more kids today are being inspired by Van Halen than by Billie Eilish. Oh well, we each like what we like and see what we see, while life moves forward.

Well, I'm 36, how old are you?

 

[truand85]

Wait, what? One look at the Billboard charts of that era should swiftly disabuse anyone of this notion. Alongside the legendary material was plenty of trendy piffle.

Really? Let's look:

Top Billboard Hot 100 hits of the 1960s

• " The Twist," Chubby Checker. ...
• " Hey Jude," The Beatles. ...
• " The Theme From 'A Summer Place,'" Percy Faith And His Orchestra. ...
• " Tossin' And Turnin,'" Bobby Lewis. ...
• " I Want To Hold Your Hand," The Beatles. ...
• " I'm A Believer," The Monkees. ...

Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2010.
No. Title Artist(s)
1 "Tik Tok" Kesha
2 "Need You Now" Lady Antebellum
3 "Hey, Soul Sister" Train
4 "California Gurls" Katy Perry featuring Snoop Dogg

Which billboard chart artist are still relevant and listened to nowadays?