What happened to great music?

[Yakuza Rich]

Corporations and Lawyers. They ruined it like most other things.






YR

 

[iceberg]

Corporations and Lawyers. They ruined it like most other things.

YR

did they? the internet made everything free so maybe that ruined it.

while corps and lawyers were greedy SOB's to be sure - they *did* create and utilize heavily a business model in which a band could:
1) start
2) get better
3) get discovered
4) sign up for backing (pitfalls in its own right to be sure)
5) write music
6) promo'd over places we all listen to on a regular / easy basis
7) hit the road to get live shows and make their money on $40 shirts.
8) repeat from 5 and keep riding the public opinion tide.

the bands of the 80s and 90s while may not have been "great" they were great to us at the time. however, i can go back and listen and almost hear the mullets, spandex and shallow lyrics but hey - it's when i was growing up and it was so bad *** at the time.

today a band can move up to step 2 before confusion sets in on how you can "define" success today.

music of the past is outselling music made today. is that worse music or a lack of a marketing venue? i don't think music has gotten worse but the "us to" sounds of the 80s and 90s where they all sounded alike is gone. the path to follow for us to have these bands "brought to us" is gone. today we have to go find it. finding it is a ***** cause paying the artists is undefined again.

no one wants the responsibility of paying for music, just consuming it. sad trend today but that's the fault of the internet making "stealing" far too easy and even more difficult to prosecute. so since there is no way to recoup the investments of bringing these bands to us, we have to go find them. without that revenue stream, there are simply far fewer bands trying cause they can't afford it and those who try are forced to pay to play live gigs. is that the business model we now are moving to?

bands pay to play and fans get music for free? how long can that last?

so while i agree the RIAA were a highrise full of *******s in their day, they also created the environment we all look back on with pride and happiness for the most part.

just depends on how you look at it.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

did they? the internet made everything free so maybe that ruined it.

I believe that money will not ruin good music. If you look at all of the musicians throughout the centuries, from composers in the 1600's, to jazz greats, etc...money didn't play a factor in them creating great music. If they were broke, it wasn't going to stop them from playing and writing music.

All the corporations and attorneys did was throw money into the situation. Thankfully, some very talented musicians and groups made a lot of money and had more exposure. Unfortunately, that also came at the cost of no talent hacks making money as well. And in the end, you have corporations that have tried to create inorganic music and groups based on what sales trends and market focus groups tell them. And you have attorneys that have filed ridiculous lawsuits against musicians which has prevented musicians from using their artistic license to create great music.

And the fact is that the top bands today are lucky to fill a 10,000 seat arena these days. If 'free internet music ruined it', it still does not explain why people do not go to concerts. If there was free music in the 80's and 90's, people would still turn out for concerts because you could not beat the concert experience. In fact, the only rock bands that sell out bigger than 10,000 seat arenas are the old bands like the Rolling Stones.

So there is a desire to see good music, even if people can get it for free. It's just that most of today's music is horrendous and there is a discernible lack of talent and those top music stars are still prepped up by the corporations.






YR

 

[JoeKing]

Why do people think they own the rights to what music is "great" and what music is not. You have the right to like whatever music you want but stop denigrating other's taste in music by insisting the only "great" music is the stuff you like. If you prefer a type of music that is no longer produced in the abundance it once was then you are only observing a trend that has always existed. The "in thing" will always change, nothing stays on top forever. What you consider "great" will inevitably become out of date and something will replace it... and will be just as great to someone else. The Grammy's are absurd to me. I definitely have my preference in music but I don't considerate it any more worthy of award than any other music that is created by other artists.

 

[bb721]

When you get an hour and a half, click on some of this and restore your faith in some straight up rock and roll. A little of southern flavor but these boys straight up rock!

Blackberry Smoke isn't bad, but I much prefer Whiskey Myers. They have a similar sound but rock a little harder and have two excellent guitarists.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Why do people think they own the rights to what music is "great" and what music is not. You have the right to like whatever music you want but stop denigrating other's taste in music by insisting the only "great" music is the stuff you like. If you prefer a type of music that is no longer produced in the abundance it once was then you are only observing a trend that has always existed. The "in thing" will always change, nothing stays on top forever. What you consider "great" will inevitably become out of date and something will replace it... and will be just as great to someone else. The Grammy's are absurd to me. I definitely have my preference in music but I don't considerate it any more worthy of award than any other music that is created by other artists.

There's a lot of music that I don't particularly care for, but I can appreciate the talent of the performer(s). For instance, I don't really care for Whitney Houston's music, but I can appreciate her vocal talent. The same with Cyndi Lauper or the B-52's.

Without question, there has been a movement in the past 10-15 years where you're simply not going to get a shot unless you look the part. Susan Boyle was considered 'shocking' that she was a great singer all because...she's a horror show to look at.

I don't know where looks ever played a role in vocal talent.

Or when I hear Macklemore clearly writing music to appeal to appeal to the market instead of writing music organically.

So I have a preference when it comes to not wanting to listen to Whitney Houston or Cyndi Lauper or the B-52's, but I can respect their musical ability and respect the fact that this is 'great music' in somebody else's eyes. With no talent hacks like Macklemore, Kanye West, Taylor Swift, etc....I have little respect for their talent and I think the world is missing out on more talented performers.







YR

 

[JD_KaPow]

There is GREAT music in nearly every single genre out there if you dig deep. Some are full of great music in mainstream and underground, while some genres are still producing great music from the indie scene.

Folk music right now is peaking, in my personal opinion. Bon Iver's sophomore album in 2011 is one of the best folk albums I've ever heard. Post-rock is still going strong, Swan's "The Seer" garnered universal acclaim and is a modern classic. Hip-hop just had a juggernaut rise from the underground in Death Grips, a group that took hip-hop and fused it with an industrial sound and punk messages.

Great music is still out there, more than ever actually.

This is true. I'm an old fogey who grew up on classic rock and, though my tastes have evolved, I find no shortage of great music out there. Right now, I'm ODing on Protomartyr's "The Agent Intellect" (post-punk) and Hop Along's "Painted Shut" (indie-rock-freak-folk-whatever), just to name a couple great albums that came out in the last year. It's true that the music that interests me no longer intersects the pop charts at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

One thing everyone seems to forget is that there was a tremendous amount of really crappy music "back then" as well.

 

[iceberg]

I believe that money will not ruin good music. If you look at all of the musicians throughout the centuries, from composers in the 1600's, to jazz greats, etc...money didn't play a factor in them creating great music. If they were broke, it wasn't going to stop them from playing and writing music.

All the corporations and attorneys did was throw money into the situation. Thankfully, some very talented musicians and groups made a lot of money and had more exposure. Unfortunately, that also came at the cost of no talent hacks making money as well. And in the end, you have corporations that have tried to create inorganic music and groups based on what sales trends and market focus groups tell them. And you have attorneys that have filed ridiculous lawsuits against musicians which has prevented musicians from using their artistic license to create great music.

And the fact is that the top bands today are lucky to fill a 10,000 seat arena these days. If 'free internet music ruined it', it still does not explain why people do not go to concerts. If there was free music in the 80's and 90's, people would still turn out for concerts because you could not beat the concert experience. In fact, the only rock bands that sell out bigger than 10,000 seat arenas are the old bands like the Rolling Stones.

So there is a desire to see good music, even if people can get it for free. It's just that most of today's music is horrendous and there is a discernible lack of talent and those top music stars are still prepped up by the corporations.

YR

i believe that also. music has survived with or without money and always will. to the extent it does, or the relevance it plays to each generation will change as the technology around it changes now. however, with the way to make money through being in a band now so minute, the amount of people who will even try is in fact reduced.

do people still go to concerts? the ones that sell today seem to still be aged artists on their final tour. again. very few bands pull like bands in the 80s pulled when as you say, even hack sound alike bands still filled a 10k seat auditorium. today a crap band can't fill a local club. good or bad is perspective i suppose. so we do agree there it would seem, but how we got there - we see it differently and i think we're both right cause we see if from how it happened through our own eyes.

there is not really a right or wrong in how we got here because none of it was meant to kill music. it, like everything these days, is caught up in an entitlement mentality.

i feel the reason the music is horrible is because the business model that brought us both great and bad bands is gone. without a model to follow and go through success is self defined by the artist and the listeners.

inorganic music is alive and well today and regardless of how things change, pop music won't. that vein of music will stay consistent and i can't think of why that woudl change. rock and roll will drop down as a subculture for awhile and that's where it is. if you're into rock, you're into a subculture for new music and an overload of "classic" rock. what most do NOT see today is there is no music being put out today that will sustain classic rock radio in 10 or more years. the few bands out there that are "rock" in deed simply won't be enough.

for whatever reason todays generation is growing up in a far different music environment than we did. good or bad - perspective.

 

[JoeKing]

There's a lot of music that I don't particularly care for, but I can appreciate the talent of the performer(s). For instance, I don't really care for Whitney Houston's music, but I can appreciate her vocal talent. The same with Cyndi Lauper or the B-52's.

Without question, there has been a movement in the past 10-15 years where you're simply not going to get a shot unless you look the part. Susan Boyle was considered 'shocking' that she was a great singer all because...she's a horror show to look at.

I don't know where looks ever played a role in vocal talent.

Or when I hear Macklemore clearly writing music to appeal to appeal to the market instead of writing music organically.

So I have a preference when it comes to not wanting to listen to Whitney Houston or Cyndi Lauper or the B-52's, but I can respect their musical ability and respect the fact that this is 'great music' in somebody else's eyes. With no talent hacks like Macklemore, Kanye West, Taylor Swift, etc....I have little respect for their talent and I think the world is missing out on more talented performers.
YR

I agree one can recognize the talent without liking the music that talent produces, but I also recognize the music without liking the talent that produced the music... Taylor Swift. She belongs in porn.

 

[BigStar]

This is true. I'm an old fogey who grew up on classic rock and, though my tastes have evolved, I find no shortage of great music out there. Right now, I'm ODing on Protomartyr's "The Agent Intellect" (post-punk) and Hop Along's "Painted Shut" (indie-rock-freak-folk-whatever), just to name a couple great albums that came out in the last year. It's true that the music that interests me no longer intersects the pop charts at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

One thing everyone seems to forget is that there was a tremendous amount of really crappy music "back then" as well.

Right there wt you but replace classic rock with Memphis rap (90's kid born in early 80s). Great points of plenty of great music if you want to find it and not let mainstream sway your decisions by accepting what is "Released" as the possible music to select from or advertised by music industry, etc.. (youtube is wonderful in this aspect). Just a side note, classic rock seems to be the only music I can seem to listen to for more than 10 mins outside of the rap/reggae/go-go genre so def. respect what the era and talent meant to those involved w/out personally experiencing it myself.

 

[JohnnyTheFox]

lol
Here's the thing. There is great songs in all generations. That is a great song. Was in gangster movie with Denzel?





Heyyyyyy lol

I remember my parents driving us kids around in the 70s and I was 6-7 years old.

These songs and other 50s, 60s and 70s songs are instilled in my being.

So.... I have been listening to these songs as a teenager. It's not always "old as dirt"

Yes, I think it was also in Jackie Brown.

 

[JohnnyTheFox]

Yes watching the Grammys the other night it dawned on me that Brittany Howard/Alabama Shakes has more talent than Beyoncé/Swift combined. She will never get the accolades though because, the music they play isn't as popular, she isn't as appealing to the eye.

 

[iceberg]

Without question, there has been a movement in the past 10-15 years where you're simply not going to get a shot unless you look the part. Susan Boyle was considered 'shocking' that she was a great singer all because...she's a horror show to look at.

I don't know where looks ever played a role in vocal talent.YR

there is no movement today that i know of that says you must look the part. since there is no "man" to please or put spandex on for, that "image" thing isn't as important as it used to be. but to say 10-15 years ago it didn't exist is to ignore the cookie cutter 80s where band after band must have sounded and looked the part to make it in the machine. marketing is nothing new.

 

[Big D]

You have to be more proactive in finding your music these days. Never depend on the radio or tv to get it right everything there is bought and paid for. Theres more good music out there than ever you've just got to do your homework.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I was listening to "America's Top 40" for the week ending February 12, 1977...

1 1 TORN BETWEEN TWO LOVERS –•– Mary MacGregor (Ariola America)-13 (2 weeks at #1) (1)
2 4 NEW KID IN TOWN –•– Eagles (Asylum)-9 (2)
3 6 BLINDED BY THE LIGHT –•– Manfred Mann’s Earth Band (Warner Brothers)-13 (3)
4 2 CAR WASH –•– Rose Royce (MCA)-17 (1)
5 7 LOVE THEME FROM “A STAR IS BORN” (Evergreen) –•– Barbra Streisand (Columbia)-10 (5)
6 3 DAZZ –•– Brick (Bang)-17 (3)
7 9 ENJOY YOURSELF –•– The Jacksons (Epic)-14 (7)
8 8 I WISH –•– Stevie Wonder (Tamla)-11 (8)
9 12 I LIKE DREAMIN’ –•– Kenny Nolan (20th Century)-15 (9)
10 11 LOST WITHOUT YOUR LOVE –•– Bread (Elektra)-12 (10)

11 13 FLY LIKE AN EAGLE –•– The Steve Miller Band (Capitol)-9 (11)
12 5 HOT LINE –•– The Sylvers (Capitol)-19 (5)
13 14 WEEKEND IN NEW ENGLAND –•– Barry Manilow (Arista)-12 (13)
14 22 NIGHT MOVES –•– Bob Seger (Capitol)-10 (14)
15 20 YEAR OF THE CAT –•– Al Stewart (Janus)-10 (15)
16 19 DANCING QUEEN –•– Abba (Atlantic)-10 (16)
17 18 HARD LUCK WOMAN –•– Kiss (Casablanca)-9 (17)
18 10 WALK THIS WAY –•– Aerosmith (Columbia)-13 (10)
19 15 YOU MAKE ME FEEL LIKE DANCING –•– Leo Sayer (Warner Brothers)-17 (1)
20 28 GO YOUR OWN WAY –•– Fleetwood Mac (Warner Brothers)-6 (20)

21 21 AIN’T NOTHING LIKE THE REAL THING –•– Donny and Marie Osmond (Polydor)-12 (21)
22 25 BOOGIE CHILD –•– Bee Gees (RSO)-5 (22)
23 17 JEANS ON –•– David Dundas (Chrysalis)-19 (17)
24 26 DON’T LEAVE ME THIS WAY –•– Thelma Houston (Tamla)-9 (24)
25 27 SAVE IT FOR A RAINY DAY –•– Stephen Bishop (ABC)-10 (25)
26 23 YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A STAR (To Be In My Show) –•– Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. (ABC)-23 (1)
27 35 THE THINGS WE DO FOR LOVE –•– 10cc (Mercury)-6 (27)
28 38 RICH GIRL –•– Daryl Hall and John Oates (RCA)-4 (28)
29 32 LIVING NEXT DOOR TO ALICE –•– Smokie (RSO)-11 (29)
30 36 CARRY ON WAYWARD SON –•– Kansas (Kirshner)-8 (30)

31 16 SOMEBODY TO LOVE –•– Queen (Elektra)-12 (13)
32 44 LONG TIME –•– Boston (Epic)-3 (32)
33 24 AFTER THE LOVIN’ –•– Engelbert Humperdinck (Epic)-17 (8)
34 29 SATURDAY NITE –•– Earth, Wind and Fire (Columbia)-13 (21)
35 30 TONIGHT’S THE NIGHT (Gonna Be Alright) –•– Rod Stewart (Warner Brothers)-20 (1)
36 31 STAND TALL –•– Burton Cummings (Portrait)-19 (10)
37 39 MOODY BLUE / SHE THINKS I STILL CARE –•– Elvis Presley (RCA)-8 (37)
38 34 LIVIN’ THING –•– The Electric Light Orchestra (United Artists)-17 (13)
39 49 CRACKERBOX PALACE –•– George Harrison (Dark Horse)-3 (39)
40 48 SAY YOU’LL STAY UNTIL TOMORROW –•– Tom Jones (Epic)-6 (40)

My gosh... just look at that list:

-Eagles
-Manfred Mann
-The Jacksons
-Stevie Wonder
-Bread
-The Steve Miller Band
-ABBA
-Kiss
-Boston
-Kansas
-ELO
-Earth, Wind & Fire
-Rod Stewart
-Bee Gees
-George Harrison
-Aerosmith
-Fleetwood Mac
-Leo Sayer
-Daryl Hall and John Oats
-Queen


Yes.



Today's music does suck.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

there is no movement today that i know of that says you must look the part. since there is no "man" to please or put spandex on for, that "image" thing isn't as important as it used to be. but to say 10-15 years ago it didn't exist is to ignore the cookie cutter 80s where band after band must have sounded and looked the part to make it in the machine. marketing is nothing new.

Any person knows that much of the popular music isn't designed to please men as it is to please women. It's much like Jennifer Aniston and her popularity. She's not an A-List celebrity because she appeals to men. She's an A-List celebrity because she appeals to females.

There's always going to be some pockets of cookie cutter musical acts out there. When somebody is successful, others are going to try and re-create that success for their own. But the cookie cutter approach of the 80's only lasted a few years with one certain subset, hair bands. But once Guns N Roses came along who did not wear the mascara and eye liner and played completely different music, the hair band craze started to die off. And once the grunge music groups came along, it completely killed off the hair bands for good (thankfully). Meanwhile, you still had a lot of excellent music acts such as AC / DC, Journey, Van Halen, Metallica, U2, Duran Duran, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, the Beastie Boys, The Pixies, Run DMC, Public Enemy, Michael Jackson, The Clash, Prince, Eric B. and Rakim, Elvis Costello, the Meat Puppets, etc. that were all alive and well in the 80's.

In today's music, anybody with auto-tune, the right look and a little bit of luck can be a music star.







YR

 

[iceberg]

Any person knows that much of the popular music isn't designed to please men as it is to please women. It's much like Jennifer Aniston and her popularity. She's not an A-List celebrity because she appeals to men. She's an A-List celebrity because she appeals to females.

There's always going to be some pockets of cookie cutter musical acts out there. When somebody is successful, others are going to try and re-create that success for their own. But the cookie cutter approach of the 80's only lasted a few years with one certain subset, hair bands. But once Guns N Roses came along who did not wear the mascara and eye liner and played completely different music, the hair band craze started to die off. And once the grunge music groups came along, it completely killed off the hair bands for good (thankfully). Meanwhile, you still had a lot of excellent music acts such as AC / DC, Journey, Van Halen, Metallica, U2, Duran Duran, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, the Beastie Boys, The Pixies, Run DMC, Public Enemy, Michael Jackson, The Clash, Prince, Eric B. and Rakim, Elvis Costello, the Meat Puppets, etc. that were all alive and well in the 80's.

In today's music, anybody with auto-tune, the right look and a little bit of luck can be a music star.

YR

yep. the problem after that is - getting exposure and getting paid. then again cher used autotune for which song long before it became in vogue?

 

[iceberg]

Today's music does suck.

i STRONGLY disagree. it's harder to find because "the machine" that brought all these to light, albiet at a $$$ cost, is gone. it's every man for themselves at this point and no label or financial backing until you can get yourself to the point you more or less don't need it.

great music is still out there but because you can't make a living off producing it cause people are "entitled" to it - there is simply less people doing it.

i search out new music weekly for my radio show and our site focuses on for the most part - out of bounds music. we play "national" when we want but we also support those who simply have no other valid alternative to be heard. local music in dallas has at best 1-2 hours late sunday. where is the support to bring this music to live?

nowhere until the financial ability is there to support it.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

yep. the problem after that is - getting exposure and getting paid. then again cher used autotune for which song long before it became in vogue?

Sonny and Cher were a great duo because Sonny wrote the music and Cher, at that time, had a great voice. Cher went to auto-tune for a reason...her voice...like almost all musicians...was shot due to age. And Sonny was no longer writing music for her.





YR

 

[MichaelWinicki]

i STRONGLY disagree. it's harder to find because "the machine" that brought all these to light, albiet at a $$$ cost, is gone. it's every man for themselves at this point and no label or financial backing until you can get yourself to the point you more or less don't need it.

great music is still out there but because you can't make a living off producing it cause people are "entitled" to it - there is simply less people doing it.

i search out new music weekly for my radio show and our site focuses on for the most part - out of bounds music. we play "national" when we want but we also support those who simply have no other valid alternative to be heard. local music in dallas has at best 1-2 hours late sunday. where is the support to bring this music to live?

nowhere until the financial ability is there to support it.

You're right it doesn't totally suck.

There's no quality collection point for it anymore.

And the artists at the top of the totem pole... just leave a lot to be desired.

Maybe I'm still burned over the ****** way Gaga "celebrated" the music of David Bowie at the Grammys.