|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:34 pm
Volvy I just saw a video of Justin Bieber for the first time. sweatdrop I apologize for the language, but HOLY ******** SHITBALLS! WHAT THE HELL KIND OF CRAP IS THAT?! scream I feel like I need to bathe in acid just to burn away the hellish contamination.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Shadowlit Facade Volvy I just saw a video of Justin Bieber for the first time. sweatdrop I apologize for the language, but HOLY ******** SHITBALLS! WHAT THE HELL KIND OF CRAP IS THAT?! scream I feel like I need to bathe in acid just to burn away the hellish contamination. True, but even amongst the horrid crap of these recent years, this stands out as exceptionally horrid crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Digital Malevolence Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:57 pm
Volvy Shadowlit Facade Volvy I just saw a video of Justin Bieber for the first time. sweatdrop I apologize for the language, but HOLY ******** SHITBALLS! WHAT THE HELL KIND OF CRAP IS THAT?! scream I feel like I need to bathe in acid just to burn away the hellish contamination. True, but even amongst the horrid crap of these recent years, this stands out as exceptionally horrid crap. Theres been a lot of amazing stuff as well, I don't see how this decade is any different then any other. Every decade puts out lots of shitty artists and lots of good artists, you seem to remember the good ones more then you do the bad ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:25 am
Digital Malevolence Volvy Shadowlit Facade Volvy I just saw a video of Justin Bieber for the first time. sweatdrop I apologize for the language, but HOLY ******** SHITBALLS! WHAT THE HELL KIND OF CRAP IS THAT?! scream I feel like I need to bathe in acid just to burn away the hellish contamination. True, but even amongst the horrid crap of these recent years, this stands out as exceptionally horrid crap. Theres been a lot of amazing stuff as well, I don't see how this decade is any different then any other. Every decade puts out lots of shitty artists and lots of good artists, you seem to remember the good ones more then you do the bad ones. I think the difference is that, in the past, the good artists gained a certain amount of notoriety. Anymore, the only musicians with talent seem to be relatively unknown to the general public, while the big selling "artists" are generally horrible. I've decided that these days the pop music industry is basically like a giant a**: the only thing it produces is crap, and the harder you see it pushing something, the bigger a piece of crap it turns out to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:35 pm
Volvy I just saw a video of Justin Bieber for the first time. sweatdrop I apologize for the language, but HOLY ******** SHITBALLS! WHAT THE HELL KIND OF CRAP IS THAT?! scream I feel like I need to bathe in acid just to burn away the hellish contamination. I just saw the one for "One Less Lonely Girl". I was confused. Is that a 10-year-old using autotune to poorly serenade someone who could concievably be his aunt? rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:07 pm
@Digi: I was referring mainly to popular music. Though it's entirely subjective and unscientific, it seems that popularity and "quality" are inversely related. Of course there's been some excellent music made in the past four years, but you'd hard-pressed to hear any of it on the Billboard charts.
Perhaps it's just seeing the past through rose-colored glasses, but it honestly seems like popular musical standards have dropped precipitously over the last 25 years. Look at the popular music of the '50s, '60s, and '70s: you don't have to be a fan (I know I'm not overly fond of it), but I would hardly say that these musicians were talentless corporate marionettes. To me, I would say the '80s is when things started to suck hard. I'd say two particular evils of that era are to blame--MTV and the expanded use of electronic/digital equipment in making and producing music (we have this evil to thank for Autotune and ProTools). But again, it's all pretty relative and fuzzy when it comes to stuff like this. Maybe our underground predecessors felt the same way about popular music of their era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Digital Malevolence Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:24 am
What was popular in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's wasn't usually very good, in fact most of it was just popular and seen as good because thats what people were led to believe.
In the 50's Elvis was big and popular, but was he really that great? In my opinion no, he was/is falsely credited as being a pioneer of Rock and Roll, and I suppose it a way he could be, but not to the extent hes given credit to. It was being performed by blacks since the 20's. So out of all those artists performing Rock and Roll, do you really think the first white guy to start performing it was the best? No he was just popular.
In the 60's you had The Beatles and Rolling Stones, they are often credited as revolutionalizing Rock and Roll to what it is today, but usually you only hear about those artists as well as maybe one or two others depending on who you talk to. They didn't do nearly as much as what people say they did, they were just popular, and Rock would never have changed if it weren't from the help of the underground music scene. Black Sabbath were also around in the late 60's but much more underground, and personally I think they are a lot more innovative than The Beatles or Rolling Stones, but I guess thats all opinion.
The same can goes for the 70's, except you have to count the invention of the synthesizers catching on after almost 100 years when Robert Moog created and revolutionized synthesizers with the Moog synthesizer in 1968 which brought on Disco. Disco was very popular and for the most part, it was terrible, which also helps prove my point that popular music has always been terrible. But Rock remained the same as in the 60's, as in you had the really popular bands and the lesser known bands.
I'm tired of explaining this and I only got four paragraphs, so I'm just going to leave it with this last paragraph.
So anyways, the best artist have never been popular, you just remember them. Back in the early days you didn't have so many genre that hold so many artists, so it was easy to sift through all the bad bands and all the good ones. Besides, only the artists that were remotely decent put out albums, so it was a little easier to find good bands, now anyone with a pocketstudio and a microphone can record an album. And there is nothing wrong with pop music, there are plenty of good artists, you just have to look for them like any other genre.
TL;DR
Just read the last paragraph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:23 am
^ I couldn't agree with you more. I never liked The Beetles, Rolling Stones or Elvis. Not saying they didn't make good music, just not my taste, 'cept for Elvis all his music sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:55 am
Digital Malevolence What was popular in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's wasn't usually very good, in fact most of it was just popular and seen as good because thats what people were led to believe. In the 50's Elvis was big and popular, but was he really that great? In my opinion no, he was/is falsely credited as being a pioneer of Rock and Roll, and I suppose it a way he could be, but not to the extent hes given credit to. It was being performed by blacks since the 20's. So out of all those artists performing Rock and Roll, do you really think the first white guy to start performing it was the best? No he was just popular. In the 60's you had The Beatles and Rolling Stones, they are often credited as revolutionalizing Rock and Roll to what it is today, but usually you only hear about those artists as well as maybe one or two others depending on who you talk to. They didn't do nearly as much as what people say they did, they were just popular, and Rock would never have changed if it weren't from the help of the underground music scene. Black Sabbath were also around in the late 60's but much more underground, and personally I think they are a lot more innovative than The Beatles or Rolling Stones, but I guess thats all opinion. The same can goes for the 70's, except you have to count the invention of the synthesizers catching on after almost 100 years when Robert Moog created and revolutionized synthesizers with the Moog synthesizer in 1968 which brought on Disco. Disco was very popular and for the most part, it was terrible, which also helps prove my point that popular music has always been terrible. But Rock remained the same as in the 60's, as in you had the really popular bands and the lesser known bands. I'm tired of explaining this and I only got four paragraphs, so I'm just going to leave it with this last paragraph. So anyways, the best artist have never been popular, you just remember them. Back in the early days you didn't have so many genre that hold so many artists, so it was easy to sift through all the bad bands and all the good ones. Besides, only the artists that were remotely decent put out albums, so it was a little easier to find good bands, now anyone with a pocketstudio and a microphone can record an album. And there is nothing wrong with pop music, there are plenty of good artists, you just have to look for them like any other genre. TL;DR Just read the last paragraph. Led Zeppelin were popular in the '70s, so it's not like disco was the only thing out there. The Beatles were the amongst the first bands to start using numerous different recording techniques and they spearheaded the British Invasion which totally changed the sound of popular music. As for the rock'n'roll origins thing, I laughed when I read "since the '20s". Have you ever actually listened to any of those recordings? They are NOT rock, they're blues. Granted, Elvis didn't invent rock'n'roll, but the birth and development of that sound didn't begin until the late '40s. Also Elvis wasn't the first white rock'n'roll singer. I know Bill Haley beat him to the punch, and there may be others as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:21 pm
Volvy Digital Malevolence What was popular in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's wasn't usually very good, in fact most of it was just popular and seen as good because thats what people were led to believe. In the 50's Elvis was big and popular, but was he really that great? In my opinion no, he was/is falsely credited as being a pioneer of Rock and Roll, and I suppose it a way he could be, but not to the extent hes given credit to. It was being performed by blacks since the 20's. So out of all those artists performing Rock and Roll, do you really think the first white guy to start performing it was the best? No he was just popular. In the 60's you had The Beatles and Rolling Stones, they are often credited as revolutionalizing Rock and Roll to what it is today, but usually you only hear about those artists as well as maybe one or two others depending on who you talk to. They didn't do nearly as much as what people say they did, they were just popular, and Rock would never have changed if it weren't from the help of the underground music scene. Black Sabbath were also around in the late 60's but much more underground, and personally I think they are a lot more innovative than The Beatles or Rolling Stones, but I guess thats all opinion. The same can goes for the 70's, except you have to count the invention of the synthesizers catching on after almost 100 years when Robert Moog created and revolutionized synthesizers with the Moog synthesizer in 1968 which brought on Disco. Disco was very popular and for the most part, it was terrible, which also helps prove my point that popular music has always been terrible. But Rock remained the same as in the 60's, as in you had the really popular bands and the lesser known bands. I'm tired of explaining this and I only got four paragraphs, so I'm just going to leave it with this last paragraph. So anyways, the best artist have never been popular, you just remember them. Back in the early days you didn't have so many genre that hold so many artists, so it was easy to sift through all the bad bands and all the good ones. Besides, only the artists that were remotely decent put out albums, so it was a little easier to find good bands, now anyone with a pocketstudio and a microphone can record an album. And there is nothing wrong with pop music, there are plenty of good artists, you just have to look for them like any other genre. TL;DR Just read the last paragraph. Led Zeppelin were popular in the '70s, so it's not like disco was the only thing out there. The Beatles were the amongst the first bands to start using numerous different recording techniques and they spearheaded the British Invasion which totally changed the sound of popular music. As for the rock'n'roll origins thing, I laughed when I read "since the '20s". Have you ever actually listened to any of those recordings? They are NOT rock, they're blues. Granted, Elvis didn't invent rock'n'roll, but the birth and development of that sound didn't begin until the late '40s. Also Elvis wasn't the first white rock'n'roll singer. I know Bill Haley beat him to the punch, and there may be others as well. The stuff from the 20's wasn't pure Rock but it had the Rock elements. I know Led Zepplin was popular, but Disco had the upper hand in the department of being post 'popular', not in the sense that it was most widely liked but in the fact it was all over television, radio, etc. Just like the 's**t' music of today. But regardless, this isn't a debate about music history, its the fact that whats been popular through out time hasn't ever been good, so todays music is no different from that of any other age except the style of music thats being popular. But even thats a slight change, it was pop stuff back then and its pop influenced stuff now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Digital Malevolence Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:08 pm
Digital Malevolence But regardless, this isn't a debate about music history, its the fact that whats been popular through out time hasn't ever been good, so todays music is no different from that of any other age except the style of music thats being popular. But even thats a slight change, it was pop stuff back then and its pop influenced stuff now. My whole point of contention is that this is opinion, not fact. And that, by and large, the ability of quality acts to gain any level of real popularity is lower now than it ever has been. The music industry has always tended to push second rate material that was "safe", but at least bands that weren't the focus of the pop industry could sell some records in times past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:43 am
Volvy Digital Malevolence But regardless, this isn't a debate about music history, its the fact that whats been popular through out time hasn't ever been good, so todays music is no different from that of any other age except the style of music thats being popular. But even thats a slight change, it was pop stuff back then and its pop influenced stuff now. My whole point of contention is that this is opinion, not fact. And that, by and large, the ability of quality acts to gain any level of real popularity is lower now than it ever has been. The music industry has always tended to push second rate material that was "safe", but at least bands that weren't the focus of the pop industry could sell some records in times past. Bands who aren't the focus of the pop industry do sell sell a lot of records now. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
Digital Malevolence Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:04 am
Digital Malevolence Volvy Digital Malevolence But regardless, this isn't a debate about music history, its the fact that whats been popular through out time hasn't ever been good, so todays music is no different from that of any other age except the style of music thats being popular. But even thats a slight change, it was pop stuff back then and its pop influenced stuff now. My whole point of contention is that this is opinion, not fact. And that, by and large, the ability of quality acts to gain any level of real popularity is lower now than it ever has been. The music industry has always tended to push second rate material that was "safe", but at least bands that weren't the focus of the pop industry could sell some records in times past. Bands who aren't the focus of the pop industry do sell sell a lot of records now. neutral I guess. it just feels like the window is shrinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:42 pm
Volvy Digital Malevolence Volvy Digital Malevolence But regardless, this isn't a debate about music history, its the fact that whats been popular through out time hasn't ever been good, so todays music is no different from that of any other age except the style of music thats being popular. But even thats a slight change, it was pop stuff back then and its pop influenced stuff now. My whole point of contention is that this is opinion, not fact. And that, by and large, the ability of quality acts to gain any level of real popularity is lower now than it ever has been. The music industry has always tended to push second rate material that was "safe", but at least bands that weren't the focus of the pop industry could sell some records in times past. Bands who aren't the focus of the pop industry do sell sell a lot of records now. neutral I guess. it just feels like the window is shrinking. The internet isn't exactly helping things. Plus, most of the best artists do sell records to make money but do it because they love making money so they don't really show it off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Digital Malevolence Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:50 am
Digital Malevolence Volvy Digital Malevolence Volvy Digital Malevolence But regardless, this isn't a debate about music history, its the fact that whats been popular through out time hasn't ever been good, so todays music is no different from that of any other age except the style of music thats being popular. But even thats a slight change, it was pop stuff back then and its pop influenced stuff now. My whole point of contention is that this is opinion, not fact. And that, by and large, the ability of quality acts to gain any level of real popularity is lower now than it ever has been. The music industry has always tended to push second rate material that was "safe", but at least bands that weren't the focus of the pop industry could sell some records in times past. Bands who aren't the focus of the pop industry do sell sell a lot of records now. neutral I guess. it just feels like the window is shrinking. The internet isn't exactly helping things. Plus, most of the best artists do sell records to make money but do it because they love making money so they don't really show it off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
