Well, maybe because new music suxx

[Killing Floor]

Crap means it's forgotten about 5 years later.

Gotcha, Like Hot Tuna.

 

[5StringBlues]

 

[OptimalOptimus]

Well..

It is a video clip… you can do whatever! Doesn't mean It was real instrument and people playing on the recording

 

[wintremute]

Much as i like Billie, Van Halen turned the world upside down....they had it all, a ground breaking guitarist, a frontman that owned the stage, a bassist with outstanding vocal harmonies, a drummer that got sampled by rappers.....its not even close.

Im seeing very few really good front men (or front women) in music...even Prince admired David Lee Roth and Michael Jackson latched onto EVH....sure a million imitators came along in the 80's but i saw VH 3 times in 78...it was out of this world and the fact i see very young kids in GC and music stores wearing VH shirts says something.

I love Van Halen, too. However, I think you are missing the reason that I was comparing them. While I would agree 100% that VH probably influenced more people in the past than Billie Eilish will now or in the future...the people who are kids and teens today will probably talk about and continue listening to Billie 30 years from now, and probably not talk/listen VH.

 

[lermgalieu]

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?

Not sure this is as telling as you seem to think it is.

 

[EddiePlaysBass]

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

Wise words!!

 

[doran.dragic]

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.

Guys at Motown were recording up to 4 songs per session and did from 2 to 4 sessions per day. And it's not like these al these songs were very original either. Paul McCartney and John Lennon used to write very fast too. Paul McCartney Recalls 'Writing Fast' With John Lennon

 

[truand85]

Gotcha, Like Hot Tuna.

Haha, point taken

 

[Hummergeist]

There's no need to put up a boundary around new or old music, and no need to 'prove' one is better than the other - what a weird thing to want to do.

 

[truand85]

Guys at Motown were recording up to 4 songs per session and did from 2 to 4 sessions per day. And it's not like these al these songs were very original either. Paul McCartney and John Lennon used to write very fast too. Paul McCartney Recalls 'Writing Fast' With John Lennon

Yeah, the difference is that 60 years later they're still being listened to by millions worldwide.

 

[wintremute]

I think there's some truth in that, I don't have an ear for electronic productions ... I usually want to hear more ooomph than I find in those, more of the human element. Yeah, the old music industry model ist kaput, and there are no gatekeepers ... which is both good and bad. Good, because there are no gatekeepers. Less good in the sense that there's not the same focus that there used to be for public consumption of new music. For example, when the Beatles played Ed Sullivan, historic numbers of people were tuned in all across the country. I literally can't count the number of major musicians who cite that single event as the initial inspiration for their musical pursuits. Me too. That kind of platform just doesn't exist today, one reason a Beatles type phenomenon seems unlikely to happen again. But it is what it is,there's still good stuff out there. I encounter much less stuff that lights me up now ... but then, I'm probably not the target audience, and I don't have access to some of it anyway (another difference nowadays).

Something similar to that was mentioned in the article:

"Consider the recent reaction when the Grammy Awards were postponed. Perhaps I should say the lack of reaction, because the cultural response was little more than a yawn. I follow thousands of music professionals on social media, and I didn't encounter a single expression of annoyance or regret that the biggest annual event in new music had been put on hold. That's ominous.

Can you imagine how angry fans would be if the Super Bowl or NBA Finals were delayed? People would riot in the streets. But the Grammy Awards go missing in action, and hardly anyone notices.

The declining TV audience for the Grammy show underscores this shift. In 2021, viewership for the ceremony collapsed 53 percent from the previous year—from 18.7 million to 8.8 million. It was the least-watched Grammy broadcast of all time. Even the core audience for new music couldn't be bothered—about 98 percent of people ages 18 to 49 had something better to do than watch the biggest music celebration of the year.

A decade ago, 40 million people watched the Grammy Awards. That's a meaningful audience, but now the devoted fans of this event are starting to resemble a tiny subculture. More people pay attention to streams of video games on Twitch (which now gets 30 million daily visitors) or the latest reality-TV show. In fact, musicians would probably do better getting placement in Fortnite than signing a record deal in 2022. At least they would have access to a growing demographic."

 

[truand85]

Not sure this is as telling as you seem to think it is.

Well, there's one where the majority are still listened to by millions in 2022, there's another that, well... aren't.

 

[wintremute]

I think too, the amount of music that gets released every second to our devices at the volumes it does, gives no one a chance to explore it or enjoy it.

Remember when you had to wait for your favorite artist to release a new track. You had to hear it on the radio, remember those Or comb the record stores, remember those for the latest cuts.
It was a process that took time. Time to descover, time to listen, time to enjoy. And because of the time involved, people were invested in the art of listen to music. It was a ritual like enjoying a good meal. Now music is like McDonald's, a lot have been served but the memory of it passes after the last bite.

There's a lot of good music out there, you just have to wade through a lot of it to find what you like.


Of course, IMHO...

I like to compare that theory to TV. Remember when you had to wait a whole week before you could see the next episode of your favorite show? There are still some shows that do this, but there are also other shows where they just drop the whole season and let you binge watch. However, I think that TV today is the best that it has ever been. There is just so much great content coming out, with great acting, great writing, and great production values.

 

[BadSanta1281]

There's no need to put up a boundary around new or old music, and no need to 'prove' one is better than the other - what a weird thing to want to do.

Yes!

Even weirder to get offended because someone doesn't like what you like.

 

[lermgalieu]

Well, there's one where the majority are still listened to by millions in 2022, there's another that, well... aren't.

I think you mean the Beatles. Last I checked, the demographic for the Beatles was 50+. So yeah, maybe there are millions of people 50+ who still listen to the Beatles (me included), but that doesn't mean it proves anything you are thinking it does.

 

[truand85]

I think you mean the Beatles. Last I checked, the demographic for the Beatles was 50+. So yeah, maybe there are millions of people 50+ who still listen to the Beatles (me included), but that doesn't mean it proves anything you are thinking it does.

I'm sorry you feel your old age makes you irrelevant (it really doesn't), but even though that's the case, you're still wrong:

According to the Spotify numbers, the age demographics streaming the most Beatles music is not the boomers but much younger: 18- to 24-year-olds account for more than 30% of Beatles streaming this year, the largest of any demographic, followed by 25- to 29-year-olds, who account for more than 17% of the Beatles ...Sep 30, 2019
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.co...ming-the-most-beatles-music-its-the-kids/amp/

 

[Hummergeist]

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



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.

In those days it was about anonymous session musicians (sometimes), and investing huge amounts of money in promotion and paying for tours, and a bit of payola here and there. And a quick look at single/album charts from the 60s/70s will contradict your idea that listeners had more sense than they do now.

 

[Killing Floor]

Haha, point taken

Haha just messing around. There's no good and bad if someone likes it.

 

[truand85]

In those days it was about anonymous session musicians (sometimes), and investing huge amounts of money in promotion and paying for tours, and a bit of payola here and there. And a quick look at single/album charts from the 60s/70s will contradict your idea that listeners had more sense than they do now.

Already argued and proved that wrong 10 posts back.

 

[EddiePlaysBass]

Mmm, still going on that, eh? You've gone beyond quoting freely, onto misrepresenting what was said.

It was not my intention to misrepresent anything. If I did, apologies. I stand by what I said though. But I will leave it at that.