Will anything in the future compare to the best ever? - Music

Cryptozoologist

Age: 31

Location: New York

[quote="cartoken"]i'm so sick with all this posts about this fucking old rock complex ![/quote]

You can't seriously say that Justin Bieber is on the same level as anything from the 60s / 70s.

And yes, I know about your precious indie rock, but that's only a small percentage of today's music. Plus it sucks.

40footwolf

Gender: Male

Age: 33

Cryptozoologist wrote:

cartoken wrote:

i'm so sick with all this posts about this fucking old rock complex !

You can't seriously say that Justin Bieber is on the same level as anything from the 60s / 70s.

And yes, I know about your precious indie rock, but that's only a small percentage of today's music. Plus it sucks.

And you can't seriously tell me that the Bay City Rollers are on the same level as The National.

Quit being intellectually dishonest. There was shitty music then and there's shitty music today. There was amazing music then and there's amazing music today. It's a progression of art, it's not a fucking contest, you dopes.
_________________
I love all music. It makes you feel like living. Silence is death.

-John Cassavettes

Applerill

Autistic Princess <3

Gender: Female

Age: 30

Location: Chicago

40footwolf wrote:

Cryptozoologist wrote:

cartoken wrote:

i'm so sick with all this posts about this fucking old rock complex !

You can't seriously say that Justin Bieber is on the same level as anything from the 60s / 70s.

And yes, I know about your precious indie rock, but that's only a small percentage of today's music. Plus it sucks.

And you can't seriously tell me that the Bay City Rollers are on the same level as The National.

Quit being intellectually dishonest. There was shitty music then and there's shitty music today. There was amazing music then and there's amazing music today. It's a progression of art, it's not a fucking contest, you dopes.

Yeah, the thing that you have to realize is that, after a decade or two, the bad stuff is completely forgotten!

I know this because my school curriculum is known for not allowing rock music of any kind into their band. They only play classical, so they think that it's "better" than today's stuff.

The problem is, though, that they've never listened to OK Computer (or even DSOTM) and just judge the stuff that AC/DC spurned out (I'm not dissing them; I'm just saying). At the same time, they realize that, in the 1600s, there was probably just as much crap as there is today, if not more. This is the example I always bring up to them.

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male

Age: 33

Cryptozoologist wrote:

You can't seriously say that Justin Bieber is on the same level as anything from the 60s / 70s.

And yes, I know about your precious indie rock, but that's only a small percentage of today's music. Plus it sucks.

Wow. I disagree with this comment on so many levels.

Firstly, you insinuate that Justin Beiber is a fairer representation of all modern music than the entirety of the 'indie rock' scene.

Secondly, I can guess with reasonable certainty that there are many many failures from the 60s/70s that are worse than Justin Beiber.

Thirdly, you seem intent on pitting the most mainstream examples possible against each other from different decades, as opposed to, say, the best music.
Even so, I recently borrowed an album from the library that accurately compiled the top radio hits of various years from the 60s, and it was HORRIBLE! It made me almost glad for the state of mainstream music. Sure it's horrible now, but it was always horrible.

Freddie55

Gender: Male

Location: Toronto, ON

40footwolf wrote:

And you can't seriously tell me that the Bay City Rollers are on the same level as The National.
Quit being intellectually dishonest. There was shitty music then and there's shitty music today. There was amazing music then and there's amazing music today. It's a progression of art, it's not a fucking contest, you dopes.

Totally agree with you "there is amazing music today".

Funny thing that you mention Bay City Rollers and their shit music though. For what it's worth, they sold somewhere between 70 million and 300 million albums depending on whose figures you believe. The boys are suing the label because they didn't get hardly any money. Go figure! Our modern day darlings Radiohead have sold about 10 million albums. But they get to see the money because they cut out the label.

40footwolf

Gender: Male

Age: 33

Freddie55 wrote:

40footwolf wrote:

And you can't seriously tell me that the Bay City Rollers are on the same level as The National.
Quit being intellectually dishonest. There was shitty music then and there's shitty music today. There was amazing music then and there's amazing music today. It's a progression of art, it's not a fucking contest, you dopes.

Totally agree with you "there is amazing music today".

Funny thing that you mention Bay City Rollers and their shit music though. For what it's worth, they sold somewhere between 70 million and 300 million albums depending on whose figures you believe. The boys are suing the label because they didn't get hardly any money. Go figure! Our modern day darlings Radiohead have sold about 10 million albums. But they get to see the money because they cut out the label.

I always feel bad for child performers. It's not their fault that the label is forcing them to make shit music and their parents treat them like circus clowns.

Well, with the exception of Bieber. Something about that kid is just...off.
_________________
I love all music. It makes you feel like living. Silence is death.

-John Cassavettes

dp39

Location: Hell

40footwolf wrote:

Freddie55 wrote:

40footwolf wrote:

And you can't seriously tell me that the Bay City Rollers are on the same level as The National.
Quit being intellectually dishonest. There was shitty music then and there's shitty music today. There was amazing music then and there's amazing music today. It's a progression of art, it's not a fucking contest, you dopes.

Totally agree with you "there is amazing music today".

Funny thing that you mention Bay City Rollers and their shit music though. For what it's worth, they sold somewhere between 70 million and 300 million albums depending on whose figures you believe. The boys are suing the label because they didn't get hardly any money. Go figure! Our modern day darlings Radiohead have sold about 10 million albums. But they get to see the money because they cut out the label.

I always feel bad for child performers. It's not their fault that the label is forcing them to make shit music and their parents treat them like circus clowns.

Well, with the exception of Bieber. Something about that kid is just...off.

His haircut
_________________
And I stare at the sun.
And it leaves me Blind.

dp39

Location: Hell

40footwolf wrote:

Freddie55 wrote:

40footwolf wrote:

And you can't seriously tell me that the Bay City Rollers are on the same level as The National.
Quit being intellectually dishonest. There was shitty music then and there's shitty music today. There was amazing music then and there's amazing music today. It's a progression of art, it's not a fucking contest, you dopes.

Totally agree with you "there is amazing music today".

Funny thing that you mention Bay City Rollers and their shit music though. For what it's worth, they sold somewhere between 70 million and 300 million albums depending on whose figures you believe. The boys are suing the label because they didn't get hardly any money. Go figure! Our modern day darlings Radiohead have sold about 10 million albums. But they get to see the money because they cut out the label.

I always feel bad for child performers. It's not their fault that the label is forcing them to make shit music and their parents treat them like circus clowns.

Well, with the exception of Bieber. Something about that kid is just...off.

You do gotta give it up to my man Bieber though, he is a playa. Anybody who can take the world in a strangle-hold and extort millions of dollars from them is a straight up baller. You can't hate the man for getting paid millions and having his little weiner played with by the hottest 16 girls on Earth.

Where it comes down to is yes the parents are all crazy, but it's mostly the parents of the child who are allowed to buy the records and watch the videos. Again Bieber's parents are putting their own child out there to dance like a clown so they can sip margarita's and get happy ending's on some island off the coast of Tahiti. But think about these buffoon parents who let them 14 year old daughter buy these records because 'he is a good influence'.

People said OJ Simpson was a role model (I'm from LA and went to SC and that mofo is no role-model, maybe for the next Hitler Youth). But come on you can't idolize a celebrity, these people are candy and don't have real emotions. If people idolize someone, their hero will either one by in jail or two be giving BJ's down on the corner of 45th & Watson for $3 a dick because their record label dropped them because they kid grew up and puberty was not kind to him and the ladies were not jocking his shit anymore.

I say shame on parents and society for allowing this to happen. There is still good music out there, but it is so hard to find because of society, not the record industry. They are having a hard enough time with illegal downloading, you do gotta feel kinda bad they lose so much money from that crap. So I don't blame them for putting out a little dorky kid in corduroys to tap dance and sing some bubblegum pop song for the 15 year old girls. Everyone has to eat.

Besides, I own My World 2.0 and want to have some sort of justification for it creeping into my top 20.
_________________
And I stare at the sun.
And it leaves me Blind.

rilex

Gender: Male

Location: Suwon

maxxy wrote:

I don't think any bands today can be anything like the Velvet Underground, Clash, Beatles, etc. Music is too stale these days. Especially the mainstream stuff. It's been the same shit for, like, 10 years. Rap is dead. No room for new stuff. Know what I mean?

Maybe I'm wrong. Please tell me why :lol:

I know what you are saying. I feel the same way.

What I want to know is if anyone is old enough to remember if people knew that that stuff (VU, Clash etc.) was classic at the time. I mean these bands were just people, famous people, but you know humans, not gods.

I like some 21st C. albums, but very little. Maybe it was just a bad decade (i.e. the 80s). The way I look at it is a 30 year cycle. 60s and 90s are my favorite, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Maybe we are starting a better decade. Maybe not.

People tend to idolize the past (myself included) because fantasy is better than reality and the reality of the 60s is gone.

Some 21st C. bands that I like, Built to Spill, Stephen Malkmus, Sonic Youth, Flaming Lips, are unfortunately 80s or 90s bands still playing, but still good.

I agree with your point, but I think that I am just getting old and my tastes are becoming more refined (snob).

I would say mainstream stuff has been the same for like 20 years, though. Haha...

dfulfo01

Gender: Male

Location: Toronto

maxxy wrote:

I don't think any bands today can be anything like the Velvet Underground, Clash, Beatles, etc. Music is too stale these days. Especially the mainstream stuff. It's been the same shit for, like, 10 years. Rap is dead. No room for new stuff. Know what I mean?

Maybe I'm wrong. Please tell me why Laughing

Kanye! he's all raps got going for it.
_________________
peace.