Meh. Plenty of great music, just like any era. The whole 'music used to be so great' thing is based on two factors- a) getting older and less interested/able to keep up with younger culture and more importantly b) all the 'great older music' anyone points to is the cream of the crop that managed to survive through decades with some relevancy
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Like what you like and all, there's decent modern pop, the same the there was absolute tripe pop back in the 60s and 70s. However...iInvalid Link Removed
Switched On Pop
This is one of my favorite podcasts. Instead of dismissing pop music they actually take the time to critique it properly. They go into songwriting techniques and how pop music draws from every era of music. I don't often like the aesthetics of the music they talk about, but they are much better informed than the average TBer.
No one is asking you to like pop music. Don't you get bored of discussing what you don't like. I get it; it's a safe way to interact. Pick on an easy target that won't have many supporters. Same mentality as a schoolyard bully.
Yawn.
This is one of my favorite podcasts. Instead of dismissing pop music they actually take the time to critique it properly. They go into songwriting techniques and how pop music draws from every era of music. I don't often like the aesthetics of the music they talk about, but they are much better informed than the average TBer.
No one is asking you to like pop music. Don't you get bored of discussing what you don't like. I get it; it's a safe way to interact. Pick on an easy target that won't have many supporters. Same mentality as a schoolyard bully.
Yawn.
Last edited:
This isn't me at all. Not only am I fully - even sometimes painfully - aware of the awful songs of the '70s (the decade in which I did most of my growing up), I actually embrace them on some level. I've even dared people to come up with a cheesier list of laughable pop tunes and one-hit wonders than can be found in '70s Top 40! Not only that, but the bad songs actually provide me with good nostalgia; my friends and I love to joke about songs we knew were bad when they came out, but even those songs bring back good memories. I don't even try to forget them. It's kind of like watching reruns of "Good Times" or "Welcome Back Kotter." Those sitcoms can't hold a candle to "All in the Family" or "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," but they still bring a big smile to my face!
My question is simple - is there any chance of hearing tunes like Edgar Winter's "Frankenstein," Billy Preston's "Outa-Space" and "Space Race," David Bowie's "Fame," Parliament's "Flash Light," Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody," Bootsy's Rubber Band's "Bootzilla," Paul McCartney's "Let and Let Die," or Dennis Coffey's "Scorpio" (to name just a few) on today's hit radio or any other modern mainstream outlet? And how much digging would you have to do to find recordings that genuinely match the brilliance and creativity of tracks such as these? I'm not saying they can't be found; I'm saying we didn't used to have to find them.
Last edited:
Remember that before Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly and then the Beatles, popular music was written by "professionals" in Broadway offices -- the Tin Pan Alley guys -- who would pitch their songs. Sometimes the same song would be on the charts several times, performed by different singers. Things can be cyclical, and I believe we're back there again.
Late '60s music was phenomenal because the Beatles led the business around on a leash, not the other way around. On every new album, they would innovate something which would spawn new subgenres-- baroque rock, raga rock, etc. The business people were signing new artists all over the place, not necessarily understanding what was happening, but hoping to catch lightning in a bottle. After the corporations seized the reins again (around the time acts became too expensive for Bill Graham to afford booking them at the Fillmores, for example), music got to be about taking the developments of the '60s and perfecting them-- removing the wild experimentation and rough edges and creating formulas which would reliably fill stadiums. That was exactly when I turned to jazz and classical music, for awhile.
The next pop artist who got me excited was Prince-- he was exploring every parameter, finding angles no one else had thought of, and doing great, imaginative, subversive things. For me, he made '80s music listenable; he found a way to use that cold, sterile atmosphere to his advantage.
I don't know when the next Renaissance will happen, but I'm looking forward to it.
Late '60s music was phenomenal because the Beatles led the business around on a leash, not the other way around. On every new album, they would innovate something which would spawn new subgenres-- baroque rock, raga rock, etc. The business people were signing new artists all over the place, not necessarily understanding what was happening, but hoping to catch lightning in a bottle. After the corporations seized the reins again (around the time acts became too expensive for Bill Graham to afford booking them at the Fillmores, for example), music got to be about taking the developments of the '60s and perfecting them-- removing the wild experimentation and rough edges and creating formulas which would reliably fill stadiums. That was exactly when I turned to jazz and classical music, for awhile.
The next pop artist who got me excited was Prince-- he was exploring every parameter, finding angles no one else had thought of, and doing great, imaginative, subversive things. For me, he made '80s music listenable; he found a way to use that cold, sterile atmosphere to his advantage.
I don't know when the next Renaissance will happen, but I'm looking forward to it.
Smooth_bass88
vaxx!
- Oct 31, 2006
- 12,123
- 16,797
- Disclosures
- have been on nationally released albums, charting on the Billboard 200
Yup, this guy is right. You have to look way beyond the top 40/pop garbage to hear good music. I recently played bass on a track written by George Lynch (Dokken, Lynch Mob, Sweet/Lynch) and it's such a great song with a really good riff. His playing on the track is so tasty and musical too. It's the total opposite of what's happening today.
Confession - I haven't read all the posts.
I think that a lot of modern pop music is too formulaic, the songs don't have much to say and many of the artists are devoid of talent. A lot of (not all) of this music is like freeze-dried food: just add water and a little heat and you have beef stroganoff.
Besides singers that can't sing and players that can't play, another reason for this morass is the reliance on software and other quick fixes. Listen to the Beatles, The Four Seasons and many other 50 year old recordings that were done on 4 tracks (some done inono) in a few mostly live takes. The sound has depth, the vocals aren't pitch corrected and everything is beautifully layered.
No click tracks, no drum machines or sampled tracks, recorded on analog tape, and no pitch correction.
How did they do it? Real vocal and instrument chops, catchy songs and engineers that had good ears. Many of the traits lacking in today's music.
Yes - Bruno Mars and his band are good - but lots of others aren't.
I think that a lot of modern pop music is too formulaic, the songs don't have much to say and many of the artists are devoid of talent. A lot of (not all) of this music is like freeze-dried food: just add water and a little heat and you have beef stroganoff.
Besides singers that can't sing and players that can't play, another reason for this morass is the reliance on software and other quick fixes. Listen to the Beatles, The Four Seasons and many other 50 year old recordings that were done on 4 tracks (some done inono) in a few mostly live takes. The sound has depth, the vocals aren't pitch corrected and everything is beautifully layered.
No click tracks, no drum machines or sampled tracks, recorded on analog tape, and no pitch correction.
How did they do it? Real vocal and instrument chops, catchy songs and engineers that had good ears. Many of the traits lacking in today's music.
Yes - Bruno Mars and his band are good - but lots of others aren't.
- Sep 5, 2014
- 5,455
- 4,234
- Disclosures
- None
Because the only good pop was what we grew up on. All prior pop may be used for reference and everything since can be ridiculed, but the stuff we came of age to? No way you are gonna tell there's any better out there.
To be completely truthful the pop music I grew up on well a good amount of it was absolute tripe. Does anyone else here remember I'm turning Japanese?
I call BS on this nonsense... scientific studies my arse... there was plenty of crappy music back in the day. Using the Beatles as a measuring stick for pop music is not fair either especially the Sgt Pepper album which though it was critically acclaimed and topped the album charts, it did not produce a slew of "pop" singles.
People, there is some great music being produced today. Quit your bitchin'.
People, there is some great music being produced today. Quit your bitchin'.
I think some of the facts in the video ARE stunning. For example, I had no idea of the degree to which just two people write today's hits, and also didn't realize the degree to which promotional money dominates the music industry today - Of course, money and promotion have always been important, but this is a different kettle of fish. I was expecting a "Hey you kids get off my lawn" rant, from the video's title, but this is not that at all. Fascinating, Captain.
To paraphrase Bill Burr..
"Why can't they dress up like women and sing about the devil like real musicians?"
25 years from now the cycle will flip and popular music will change again. Then someone will release a video about how music is becoming unnecessarily complicated and how this is a sign of doom for music.
"Why can't they dress up like women and sing about the devil like real musicians?"
25 years from now the cycle will flip and popular music will change again. Then someone will release a video about how music is becoming unnecessarily complicated and how this is a sign of doom for music.
I've seen quite a few of Thoughty2's videos and find him somewhat frustrating. He covers a very broad range of topics, and he's obviously a bright guy, but no one is an expert on everything, yet he makes his arguments as if he is. I find that he often uses a mixture of fact and opinion -- he does this in a way that disguises his opinion as if it were fact. He occasionally references specific studies, but more often he just references ideas/theories which he posits as The Truth. So, I take much of what he says with a large grain of salt.
That said, there's certainly some truth to his remarks in that clip. But so what? I mean, I find this attempt to scientifically prove that music is good or bad to be silly because music, like any art form, is an an inherently subjective experience. Should I expect a 4-year-old to like the same music as I do because it's "scientifically good"? Now just extrapolate that idea. Should I expect a depressed Estonian housewife to like the same music as I do? Hopefully my point is clear: everyone experiences the world in their own unique way, and their experience informs their feelings about art. I can't stand most of what I hear from Justin Beiber, but I totally get why a lot of 12-year-old girls like it.
There certainly are musical trends which many of us would lament, but what conclusion are we supposed to draw? People have been complaining about the pop of the day for decades. But the technology of today makes it easier than ever to hear a broad range of music, and we certainly don't have to listen to whatever is in the Billboard top 20. There's a ton of easily accessible interesting music today if you wanna hear it. I literally can't remember the last time I just turned on some pop station and listened. So, let people who like pop enjoy it -- no skin off my nose.
Yup. Using Sgt. Pepper as the benchmark is just silly. You know what else was at the top of the charts in '67?
"I Think We're Alone Now"
"I'm A Believer"
"Apples, Peaches, Pumpkin Pie"
etc...
Sure, there were some nice melodies, but there was plenty of insipid music & lyrics.
Look at the early Beatles hits -- unremarkable bubble gum, IMO. The teenage girls were screaming about "She Loves You" before there was any inkling of Sgt. Pepper. The Beatles were in the right place at the right time and, with the considerable help of the remarkable George Martin, were able to experiment with new technology in a way that hadn't been done before on Pepper. I seriously doubt that if another unknown band had come out with Pepper that it would have been the success it was.
I mentioned in my previous post that I occasionally find Thoughty2 frustrating, and you've addressed why. Sgt. Pepper was clearly not typical of the era, yet he uses it as if it were the norm.
Remember we will pay 5x and more for what we call vintage( WELL MADE).
Back in the day people made things to LAST.
Our music was mix on very hi end mixing board etc now we have computers 16 bit 44.1 khz (lets just chop up the music)
Hi end stereo was Mcintosh 275 tube amps etc JBL speakers like the SR8 etc.
NOW PEOPLE US MP3 ON CELL PHONE AND BLUE TOOTH TO BOOM BOOM CAR SYSTEMS
NO ONE KNOW ABOUT 20HZ TO 20KHZ AT .OO5 THD ETC
WE ARE NOW GIVE IT TO ME FAST AND IT WILL LAST A WEEK.
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
HELL YOU CAN SELL PEOPLE ROCKS (PET ROCKS RING A BELL)
MY STEREO IS OVER 30 YEARS OLD AND YES I DO LIKE THE SOUND OF THE GOOD STUFF NEW AND OLD(MADE TO LAST.
Now, that's a point I appreciate. Simplicity and homogeneity can be defined and measured. They don't necessarily make music "worse," though they can. The assumption of the first part of the OP's video assumes it does. But simple music can also be powerful.
The other problem is that the frame of reference is misleading. When one frames it as "Beatles to Bieber," you're using an outlier as your starting benchmark rather than a standard. The Beatles were popular, of course - but they were extraordinary. That was the whole point. One can't use them as a starting point of reference. It's rather like talking about the economy using the 50s as the starting point; that wasn't when the economy was "normal," that's when it was in an extraordinary boom that was due to unique circumstances that hadn't existed before or since.
And finally, like I posted earlier, the video relies on "chart-topping music" as though it's apples to apples, as though the top 40 charts today are the direct equivalent in the music world of the top 40 charts of 50 years ago. As I said, they aren't. I was struck by a Chris Squire interview, before he died, where he was talking about how there was so much less music available then than there is today. So the video can assert that they studied half a million songs from the 50s to today, but not point out that so many more songs are released now than in the 50s; the top 40 are a different proportion of the market, and the market itself is entirely different in how music is produced and acquired and experienced.
When the guy in the video does weave that into his argument, he winds up contradicting himself. He argues that back in the day of vinyl LPs and no iPods, you bought an album, took it home, and listened to it over and over until you absorbed all its nuances and came to love it, and that made music better. Later on he argues that part of modern pop's inferiority is in familiarity, that it's bad that people like hearing something they've listened to over and over. So what supposedly made older music great now makes modern music bad?
He's also incredibly naïve about the operating of the classic music industry, as though it were all producers looking for talent and only talent, and as though the public were buying music based on a nuanced appreciation of their genius. That's laughable. And again he contradicts himself, admitting in passing that older record execs would "throw a few thousand pounds" at promoting an artist but then blaming the modern industry for "brainwashing" people into liking bad music by repeated exposure. Payola, anyone?
It's true that modern record execs are more risk-averse than they used to be. But he ignores that it isn't just that artists cost more to promote. It's also that in the age of file-sharing, there's less money to be made if the artist hits it big anyway. The top 40 as a market share has shrunk. People find their music by other means. Creativity isn't "dying" -- it's bypassing the record companies.
Latest posts
-
-
What I am finding out with regards to playing as I grow older
- Latest: BassicJazzy
-
-
