Music: Yesterday... or Today!

[pompayyy]

(sorry, couldn't prevent myself from using a Beatles joke :3) So the idea behind this thread is pretty simple. Which is better? New music or old music? Support your answer with some reasoning. (For ex: I like older music better since I feel it conveys an atmosphere better than the mostly electronic music of today. Also 'lectric guitars are just plain flat-out awesome :P)

 

[Nolafus]

I find myself listening to older music. I just think the quality is better and it used to take talent to be a musician. Not like the auto-tuned "singers" of today. Sometimes I feel like with some luck I could make it as a singer, and let's just say I was in band, not choir, for a reason. I don't mean to hate, but I get very annoyed when people say that the modern pop singers were better than the singers before auto-tune. Some people might like it, but not me.

I do listen to some electronic music, however, my favorite new stuff being dubstep. I don't necessarily listen to it for fun, but I like dancing to it. There are only a few select electronic songs I like to listen to.

 

[pompayyy]

I can't help but agree. I bet the popular singers of today would sound way better without autotune. It just sounds so unnatural and annoying. As for opinion on dubstep, I'm meh on it. If played in club or party, and if I were with friends, I'd probably dance to it. Otherwise I just find it a tad to weird for my taste. I do like some techno-like stuff though, such as chiptune.

 

[Ari Niko]

My two favorite artists are on opposite ends.

Kanye West represents creating innovative and artistic music that pushes the boundaries of music TODAY

The Beatles did the same in their time.

Overall, though, I'd have to give the edge to modern music. Older music was a bit too monotonous. Every band was just jumping on trends and there weren't many styles. Nowaday you have artists spanning so many genres and constant innovation and perfection in each.

 

[Sandshrew4]

Old old old old old!
Nowadays, music is MOSTLY about the money. Back in the day, people made music because they loved it. Now, not so much.

MOST music nowadays is either about parties, perverts, or plain nonsense. Some modern music doesn't even make sense. Yes, there were old songs that didn't SEEM to make sense, but there were hidden meanings. Please someone tell me the hidden meaning in that unbearably stupid fox song? They don't want it to mean anything, they just want it to get stuck in people's heads, so they can make money.

This in not true about all modern music, but it is about techno. If I had enough lust for money, all I would need is a recording studio and some technology. Then just spit out random crud for lyrics and bam. I don't need to spend years learning an instrument, I don't need to spend years becoming a good singer, I just need technology. That's what angers me the most. You don't need skill to be a popular "artist" (I use that term so loosely it's pathetic). Plus what's so great about music that sounds like a robotic broken record? Besides, it all sounds the same to me. And it's not like they use different instruments and techniques, they use computers.

Old music required skill, was nice to listen to, it had heart, it had soul, it had meaning. You had to be talented to make it. It was plain good.

 

[Ari Niko]

Old old old old old!
Nowadays, music is MOSTLY about the money. Back in the day, people made music because they loved it. Now, not so much.

MOST music nowadays is either about parties, perverts, or plain nonsense. Some modern music doesn't even make sense. Yes, there were old songs that didn't SEEM to make sense, but there were hidden meanings. Please someone tell me the hidden meaning in that unbearably stupid fox song? They don't want it to mean anything, they just want it to get stuck in people's heads, so they can make money.

This in not true about all modern music, but it is about techno. If I had enough lust for money, all I would need is a recording studio and some technology. Then just spit out random crud for lyrics and bam. I don't need to spend years learning an instrument, I don't need to spend years becoming a good singer, I just need technology. That's what angers me the most. You don't need skill to be a popular "artist" (I use that term so loosely it's pathetic). Plus what's so great about music that sounds like a robotic broken record? Besides, it all sounds the same to me. And it's not like they use different instruments and techniques, they use computers.

Old music required skill, was nice to listen to, it had heart, it had soul, it had meaning. You had to be talented to make it. It was plain good.

As a producer, I would have to disagree. It isn't simply picking up a computer and making music. You actually have to learn some music theory and practice making beats, EQing, compressing, etc.

It's just as hard if not harder than learning an instrument (I play guitar, piano, and ukulele)

There is a reason that there are only so many producers who are successful. It's a hard business and only those who have truly mastered the art can do it.

Some popular artists may be popular because they are attractive or had connections, but there are also some who genuinely have talent and are looking out for the future of music. Take Kanye West for example--in 2010 he created what many people consider to be the magnum opus of hip-hop music. The album had brilliant samples, stellar production, and great lyricism. It was an instant classic.
Or you can take the 12-week #1 song "Blurred Lines." Sure the song itself was made in half an hour by Pharrell and Robin, but the two artists who made it are far from untalented. Pharrell is an award-winning producer known for his incredible drumwork. It's often considered to be some of the best in hip hop/R&B. Robin Thicke on the other hand is a trained soul singer who also plays guitar.

I hate the misconceptions that modern musicians aren't talented and only have looks/connections. Quite a few of them actually have immense talent.

 

[Rest]

snip

Probably the biggest and most unfortunate misconception about music today is that people think it's "easy" to produce music when it comes to techno. Far from it.

 

[Sandshrew4]

Ok, fine, it's not easy, but there are still other points I brought up in my post that are a larger part of my argument.

 

[Rest]

Popular music doesn't equate to the entirety of music today.

 

[Esper]

Older music that still gets listened to today is of course better than all of today's music being listened to because it's the old things that have survived. Look back and you'll see a lot of crap not worth listening to.

That said, I can't help also feeling like there was less music being produced in the past. Not to say it was harder to produce music, but the population was smaller and the number of people with disposable income, with the means of listening to music beyond the radio was smaller so there was less call to make music and therefore a greater need to be choosey. Fewer niche genres in the past as well.

I could way off, but that all kind of points me to the idea that there was a bigger percentage of old music that was good compared to today.

Oh, and I listen to a mix of old and new, however you'd like to define "old" and "new."

 

[pompayyy]

Popular music doesn't equate to the entirety of music today.

Same goes for the music of the past: Sure, you might find some annoying poppy stuff, but if you look towards the classic rock bands of the 60's and 70's (like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin) you'd see some good stuff. Sure they are popular, but so was disco. Ugh.

 

[Fire Flyy]

yeah this whole 'le born in the wrong generation' thing is pretty stupid, it's already been said that today's music is more than what's played on the radio. I prefer modern music simply because there's a lot more genres that have formed and evolved and a lot more musical acts in general, but I think anyone who genuinely appreciates music will tell you that they listen to the best music they can find, regardless of what year it came out in.

Old old old old old!
Nowadays, music is MOSTLY about the money. Back in the day, people made music because they loved it. Now, not so much.

MOST music nowadays is either about parties, perverts, or plain nonsense. Some modern music doesn't even make sense. Yes, there were old songs that didn't SEEM to make sense, but there were hidden meanings. Please someone tell me the hidden meaning in that unbearably stupid fox song? They don't want it to mean anything, they just want it to get stuck in people's heads, so they can make money.

This in not true about all modern music, but it is about techno. If I had enough lust for money, all I would need is a recording studio and some technology. Then just spit out random crud for lyrics and bam. I don't need to spend years learning an instrument, I don't need to spend years becoming a good singer, I just need technology. That's what angers me the most. You don't need skill to be a popular "artist" (I use that term so loosely it's pathetic). Plus what's so great about music that sounds like a robotic broken record? Besides, it all sounds the same to me. And it's not like they use different instruments and techniques, they use computers.

Old music required skill, was nice to listen to, it had heart, it had soul, it had meaning. You had to be talented to make it. It was plain good.

lol

 

[Mysonne]

Definitely old music! I am 12 years old and only listen to GOOD bands like The Rolling Stone, The Beatle, and Lead Zeplin! I have somewhat of a reputation among my peers for being a "Music Defener" because I would defen my taste in music to the death. I feel that I was born in the wrong generation. I am an old soul at heart. Music used to take TALENT. Nowadays anyone could make music and be popular. Let me ask you this: in 50 years, will people reminisce about the techno of the 2000s? NO! They will reminisce about the truly good bands such as The Radio's Head, Imagining Dragons, and Mumford and Son.

 

[Fire Flyy]

also daily reminder that riding dadrock makes you this kid

 

[pompayyy]

yeah this whole 'le born in the wrong generation' thing is pretty stupid, it's already been said that today's music is more than what's played on the radio. I prefer modern music simply because there's a lot more genres that have formed and evolved and a lot more musical acts in general, but I think anyone who genuinely appreciates music will tell you that they listen to the best music they can find, regardless of what year it came out in.

I do like music if it's GOOD and there are some modern bands I like (Tame Impala just sounds a ton like The Beatles), but it seems to me that most of the good music I heard came from the 60's through 70's. Most popular songs of today focus on catchyness rather than how good it actually is. And like Rest said: Pop music doesn't equate to all of today's music. I just don't have the patience to wade through this annoying pop stuff.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Old, koff~

You don't find Gary Numan or the Talking Heads in this new sea of trash. Ozzy is still around, and several other older bands and artists. They're getting older and I really don't like the fact that they might keel over. Adam Yauch's death really hurt me. If these new bands can ingrain their style so they can last longer than some others (Michael Jackson has done more for you than you'll know) I'll be the King of England. And I'm not going to be. This music can be likened to a large fad and nothing more. While I agree that producing music through the computers can be difficult, I would say that it takes far less effort than what Frank Sinatra or Lou Rawls had to go through. When you write stuff, you have to write out everything, not just move and shift notes around on the computer. Rewriting is tedious, and I believe it has gotten easier as technology goes along. Also, the lack of musical soul is disheartening, koffi~

 

[Fire Flyy]

I do like music if it's GOOD and there are some modern bands I like (Tame Impala just sounds a ton like The Beatles), but it seems to me that most of the good music I heard came from the 60's through 70's. Most popular songs of today focus on catchyness rather than how good it actually is. And like Rest said: Pop music doesn't equate to all of today's music. I just don't have the patience to wade through this annoying pop stuff.

https://pitchfork.com/
https://www.spin.com/reviews/albums/
https://hypem.com/popular
https://pigeonsandplanes.com/
https://www.youtube.com/theneedledrop

there you go, now you don't have to sift through the annoying pop stuff

 

[pompayyy]

https://pitchfork.com/
https://www.spin.com/reviews/albums/
https://hypem.com/popular
https://pigeonsandplanes.com/
https://www.youtube.com/theneedledrop

there you go, now you don't have to sift through the annoying pop stuff

Oh my lands, thank you so much!!!

 

[Legobricks]

Most of my preferred music is quite new and relies on relatively recent technology to produce the sounds. It's better because more is possible thanks to technology. Supplant skill, does it? Well, no, it allows composers to do more with their skill.

Let me ask you this: in 50 years, will people reminisce about the techno of the 2000s? NO! They will reminisce about the truly good bands such as The Radio's Head, Imagining Dragons, and Mumford and Son.

Your irrespect for techno is saddening. I expect the bands you listed will be better remembered because they are more conventional, with more widely-appealing music than practically anyone producing EDM. 'Pop' is a relative term after all, no?

 

[«Chuckles»]

New music is all that stuff that stemmed from disco so I would say old music, nothing wrong with a little bit of hip-hop and rap to get you through the day. I love rap and I love hip-hop I also like a little bit of techno but most of it is crap people are still experimenting with all that stuff so it might be a while until its actually good.