Well, maybe because new music suxx

[lermgalieu]

I'm sorry you feel your old age makes you irrelevant, 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/

Fine, but it's still ONE BAND. And I didn't say anything about me being irrelevant. The point is about what is popular today versus some random time decades ago. What I am saying is the reason the Beatles are popular now is because they were popular then. Katy Perry and Snoop Dogg, for example, are both still quite popular today, and I could see that sustaining for quite a while. But none of it is germane to the point, because now as then, being on the charts has very little to do with music quality, which I believe is what this thread is about.

 

[truand85]

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

I don't disagree, you like what you like I like what I like, no point arguing that. Whats more interesting to me is what transcends time, and endures.

 

[Fynn]

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.

Not even sure what you're arguing for anymore. You're basically just insulting today's listeners for being not having a sense of what you would consider to be good music.
The market being saturated means a lot. It means that you can easily find music that you'll like (just gotta look long enough), competition is fierce so the good stuff will actually come out on top (even if you think that the good stuff doesn't sound good to you), and it is an actual industry now meaning you can earn money now. Because of the popularity of music companies actually invest in making it more accessible to newcomers. Never been easier to become a musician than nowadays.
Next up the time it takes to produce a song says nothing about it's quality. You can make correlations to that sure but do you have any idea how many songs in the 60s, 70s were written within tens of minutes? Recording took long because the gear was difficult to work with and you had to play perfectly. Being able to play a song in one take doesn't make the song objectively better though...
There's always someone out there that will enjoy what you do for whatever reason. Why would you be mad at those people for liking something that you don't like?
Why not start a discussion about how no music is real music unless it is written in a sonata form.

 

[truand85]

Fine, but it's still ONE BAND. And I didn't say anything about me being irrelevant. The point is about what is popular today versus some random time decades ago. What I am saying is the reason the Beatles are popular now is because they were popular then. Katy Perry and Snoop Dogg, for example, are both still quite popular today, and I could see that sustaining for quite a while. But none of it is germane to the point, because now as then, being on the charts has very little to do with music quality, which I believe is what this thread is about.

Apologies, I took your post to mean you were 50+. Let me rephrase: people 50+ and their taste in music are still very much relevant today. The point of the whole article in the OP is that kids listen to the same music those generations do, and when you look at streaming numbers, it's a fact that not only ONE BAND The Beatles, but also CCR, Van Halen, The Police, and countless others are seeing plenty of "stream time". The reason for that, is that it's quality music.

 

[doran.dragic]

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

You're just moving the goalpost now. Creating a song that people like in a short amount of time is a serious skill not something that just happens after some random clicking. And the situation now and in the 60s is not really comparable because there wasn't so much music to choose from and how people consume music changed so drastically. Also music played bigger role back then.

 

[lermgalieu]

Apologies, I took your post to mean you were 50+. Let me rephrase: people 50+ and their taste in music are still very much relevant today. The point of the whole article in the OP is that kids listen to the same music those generations do, and when you look at streaming numbers, it's a fact that not only ONE BAND The Beatles, but also CCR, Van Halen, The Police, and countless others are seeing plenty of "stream time". The reason for that, is that it's quality music.

I am 50+. You are reading way too quickly bro. And your point is fine, but it certainly doesn't prove its converse.

 

[Sanshiro]

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

Ricky was such an interesting guitarist, the B-52s lost a lot when he died. There's some good songs in the post-Ricky stuff but the albums with him are really something else.

 

[lermgalieu]

Apologies, I took your post to mean you were 50+. Let me rephrase: people 50+ and their taste in music are still very much relevant today.

I am also apparently not getting through on this part either. I never said what you are ascribing to me. I said it isn't particularly relevant to this discussion, IMO (not that any person's tastes are more or less relevant as some kind of general ethereal concept). Because you have, by definition, NO CLUE what music from today would hold that longevity 30 years from now. Moreover, due to the way the industry has changed, it would be unfair to compare apples and oranges even if you could.

 

[truand85]

Not even sure what you're arguing for anymore. You're basically just insulting today's listeners for being not having a sense of what you would consider to be good music.
The market being saturated means a lot. It means that you can easily find music that you'll like (just gotta look long enough), competition is fierce so the good stuff will actually come out on top (even if you think that the good stuff doesn't sound good to you), and it is an actual industry now meaning you can earn money now. Because of the popularity of music companies actually invest in making it more accessible to newcomers. Never been easier to become a musician than nowadays.
Next up the time it takes to produce a song says nothing about it's quality. You can make correlations to that sure but do you have any idea how many songs in the 60s, 70s were written within tens of minutes? Recording took long because the gear was difficult to work with and you had to play perfectly. Being able to play a song in one take doesn't make the song objectively better though...
There's always someone out there that will enjoy what you do for whatever reason. Why would you be mad at those people for liking something that you don't like?
Why not start a discussion about how no music is real music unless it is written in a sonata form.

You're misunderstanding my opinion, perhaps because I'm not wording it the right way. Let me try again:

Competition for good music isn't fierce. It's all about exposure and marketing. A band that is good with SEO, online promotion and ads, will be more popular. Nothing to do with chops or actual talent.

My point about Fruityloops isn't the time taken to make the song necessarily, but the musical skills. Anyone today using software can quickly make something that is onpar with much of the top selling pop music out there, with very little musical training.

I'm not mad at all about people liking what I don't like. What rubs me the wrong way is not seeing quality music and artists make money (I have no dog in this fight, I'm not a professional musician).

Hope that clarifies things.

 

[GregC]

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?

If I'm reading this right, you're comparing the six top-selling songs of an entire decade to three songs from a single year.

 

[truand85]

You're just moving the goalpost now. Creating a song that people like in a short amount of time is a serious skill not something that just happens after some random clicking. And the situation now and in the 60s is not really comparable because there wasn't so much music to choose from and how people consume music changed so drastically. Also music played bigger role back then.

Of course it's a serious skill, but not a serious artistic or musical skill.

 

[truand85]

If I'm reading this right, you're comparing the six top-selling songs of an entire decade to three songs from a single year.

Would it help to compare to the whole of 2010? Hell, I might have done that decade a favor...

 

[Hummergeist]

Yes!

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

Yes that's it. It's not hurting anybody. Our teenager here

Already argued and proved that wrong 10 posts back.

nope.

 

[DavidEdenAria]

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.

Billie is not that far along in music output....VH were a show band that brought the party with a ton of energy and swagger and basically never did a weak album with DLR...i like Billie but im from the guitar bass crowd though raised on trumpet and around keyboards...so yeah im biased...time will tell about Billie but i'll be taking the dirt nap by then!

 

[truand85]

I am also apparently not getting through on this part either. I never said what you are ascribing to me. I said it isn't particularly relevant to this discussion, IMO (not that any person's tastes are more or less relevant as some kind of general ethereal concept). Because you have, by definition, NO CLUE what music from today would hold that longevity 30 years from now. Moreover, due to the way the industry has changed, it would be unfair to compare apples and oranges even if you could.

Well to be fair, I started my argument by saying "any band after Y2K", so we're 22 years in. So yep, my point on longevity certainly stands.

As for "the industry", quit that blame game. The industry was what it was in the 60s and 60s bands are still listened to in major ways today, that's the bottom line.

 

[Hummergeist]

Yes that's it. It's not hurting anybody. Our teenager here

nope.

Haha incomplete post, apologies!

 

[BarqsBitMe]

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

But you telling me (a stranger on the internet) to not be thin skinned isn't… because reasons.

 

[lermgalieu]

Well to be fair, I started my argument by saying "any band after Y2K", so we're 22 years in. So yep, my point on longevity certainly stands.

As for "the industry", quit that blame game. The industry was what it was in the 60s and 60s bands are still listened to in major ways today, that's the bottom line.

Last I checked, the 60's was 60+ years ago. So yeah, that doesn't make sense.

And your point about the "industry was what it was in the 60s" is quite literally nonsensical. TTYL.

 

[Fynn]

You're misunderstanding my opinion, perhaps because I'm not wording it the right way. Let me try again:

Competition for good music isn't fierce. It's all about exposure and marketing. A band that is good with SEO, online promotion and ads, will be more popular. Nothing to do with chops or actual talent.

My point about Fruityloops isn't the time taken to make the song necessarily, but the musical skills. Anyone today using software can quickly make something that is onpar with much of the top selling pop music out there, with very little musical training.

I'm not mad at all about people liking what I don't like. What rubs me the wrong way is not seeing quality music and artists make money (I have no dog in this fight, I'm not a professional musician).

Hope that clarifies things.

I think you're wrong with that you think anybody can just do produce songs that are on par with what's on the top. If that was the case then those people would be on top. Yet there's a finite amount of people that actually are. And more often than not it's the stuff that was produced by incredibly skilled producers who are sitting on their bums all day working on a seemingly super simple song. I can agree that the artists are not as skilled as they were but thats because the skill requirement shifted. Either way even the best producer can't fix a horrible performance so you must be good at something to even get a chance. And when it's popular because it is heavily promoted then that doesn't mean it's bad either. It won't be popular unless there's people that enjoy it. Has been that way for decades the way of advertising just changed. In the 60s many got popular by playing small gigs doing cover songs of stuff that was already popular and then they just slowly starting introducing their own stuff to the audience and if they enjoyed it the people stayed. If they wouldn't have done anything to promote their stuff they wouldn't be remembered by anyone nowadays.
I usually hate these sort of comments but all I can say to you is if you think it's so easy then do it yourself. Show us how it's done. The skill has just shifted and yes there's no real chops involved with digital music anymore but I would argue it's harder to learn how to create a song digitally then it is to learn how the basics of any instrument.

Feel free to correct me again if I'm misinterpreting your words but it's really late here and I'm bad at focusing on walls of texts...

 

[Obese Chess]

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.

i told myself I wasn't going to come back to this thread but Kesha has written a substantial percentage of radio hits in the past 12 years, even if they were performed by other artists.