Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"Music in the past was sooo much better than it is now" watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    will the real slim shady please stand up
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It really depends on your personal taste. I usually listen to older music (AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Lynyrd Skynyrd, ZZ Top etc etc...) but I listen to lots of new artists as well (for example Eric Church, Brad Paisley, Zac Brown Band) as there are lots of very talented people out there who make awesome music.

    To be perfectly honest, I don't care how old a band is. If I like their music, then I will listen to it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The reason music from the past sounds good is because we only hear the famous stuff now. I'm sure there was as much plastic and temporary trash in the 60's, 70's and 80's as there is now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    The reason music from the past sounds good is because we only hear the famous stuff now. I'm sure there was as much plastic and temporary trash in the 60's, 70's and 80's as there is now.
    I don't understand why someone would give this post bad rep. :confused:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not taking this.

    The very best music in the past really WAS better. Significantly in some cases.

    I'll qualify that - by 'past' I mean anything up to around 2005. That's fairly contemporary enough not to make people too annoyed.

    But I realise that , in the grand scheme of things, to many people this will be like arguing that Victorian architecture was rubbish compared to Georgian architecture. Buildings and songs are both kinds of 'structures' (at their best).

    If anything 'you kids' have returned to the kind of drearily popular music that a grandma not particularly in to music might have liked way in the 1940s. Many of you are listening to the modern day equivalents of Vera Lynn's 'We'll meet again' and thinking it to be the anthem for your generation. Acts like Paloma Faith even dress up in this Carmen Miranda way to give that 40s vibe. Maybe the economy crashing was partly to blame. You think there's some kind of war on...

    Let's take a stoll down memory lane. The 50s had a handful of greats like Bobby Darren's Dream Lover but I'll start at the 60s because I could practically end there too because some genres had their full blossom early on there.

    1960s- The Beatles , The Beach Boys / Brian Wilson, The Byrds, The Doors, Marvin Gaye , The Hollies, The Kinks, early Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones , Simon and Garfunkel, The Small Faces, The Who.

    So what happened there? In Britain, mostly the confidence of talented groups in London, Liverpool (a few in Manchester) and San Franscisco / Los Angeles / a few in New York.

    Psychedelic, classical , folk, barber shop quarter harmonies. It was experimental but, at the same time, it was generally very tasteful, sincere and high quality. By the time of LA Woman, The Doors were even doing something far more associated with the 70s- The Changeling sounds a bit like early disco. And the Americana road songs of the 70s, like Sweet Home Alabama, had their roots really in the work started in the 60s.

    I'll skip to the 80s then - powerful production but also great artistry. Ironically, artists, even the ones regarded as mainly fun (to start with) like George Michael, were more authentic than the ones who jab themselves in the eye to look 'sensitive' now. There was Michael Jackson, Prince, Kate Bush , Peter Gabriel, The Smiths , the start of R.E.M. and The Stone Roses. It was a time of shifts in Thatcher's Britain and television was the stage to make a very personal or very political point.

    Obviously the 90s was a heyday as well and I won't go in to that apart from to say - R.E.M. continue to be great, Radiohead, Pulp, Supergrass, Oasis, Nirvana, Tori Amos, Alanis Morrissette, even Pink Floyd release a great album (The Division Bell) , The Beatles release 2 new songs (Free as a Bird and Real Love) and Kate Bush continues.

    The music of the beep beep age almost entirely does not compare! Perhaps it's because your musicians were born in less idealistic times. Perhaps it is because they have so many virtual distractions that make concentrating their mind less possible. Perhaps it is because the 'best' of them seem so content to just be old style throwbacks appearing on Jools Holland. What was even Amy Winehouse but Nina Simone?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    I'm not taking this.

    The very best music in the past really WAS better. Significantly in some cases.

    I'll qualify that - by 'past' I mean anything up to around 2005. That's fairly contemporary enough not to make people too annoyed.

    But I realise that , in the grand scheme of things, to many people this will be like arguing that Victorian architecture was rubbish compared to Georgian architecture. Buildings and songs are both kinds of 'structures' (at their best).

    If anything 'you kids' have returned to the kind of drearily popular music that a grandma not particularly in to music might have liked way in the 1940s. Many of you are listening to the modern day equivalents of Vera Lynn's 'We'll meet again' and thinking it to be the anthem for your generation. Acts like Paloma Faith even dress up in this Carmen Miranda way to give that 40s vibe. Maybe the economy crashing was partly to blame. You think there's some kind of war on...

    Let's take a stoll down memory lane. The 50s had a handful of greats like Bobby Darren's Dream Lover but I'll start at the 60s because I could practically end there too because some genres had their full blossom early on there.

    1960s- The Beatles , The Beach Boys / Brian Wilson, The Byrds, The Doors, Marvin Gaye , The Hollies, The Kinks, early Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones , Simon and Garfunkel, The Small Faces, The Who.

    So what happened there? In Britain, mostly the confidence of talented groups in London, Liverpool (a few in Manchester) and San Franscisco / Los Angeles / a few in New York.

    Psychedelic, classical , folk, barber shop quarter harmonies. It was experimental but, at the same time, it was generally very tasteful, sincere and high quality. By the time of LA Woman, The Doors were even doing something far more associated with the 70s- The Changeling sounds a bit like early disco. And the Americana road songs of the 70s, like Sweet Home Alabama, had their roots really in the work started in the 60s.

    I'll skip to the 80s then - powerful production but also great artistry. Ironically, artists, even the ones regarded as mainly fun (to start with) like George Michael, were more authentic than the ones who jab themselves in the eye to look 'sensitive' now. There was Michael Jackson, Prince, Kate Bush , Peter Gabriel, The Smiths , the start of R.E.M. and The Stone Roses. It was a time of shifts in Thatcher's Britain and television was the stage to make a very personal or very political point.

    Obviously the 90s was a heyday as well and I won't go in to that apart from to say - R.E.M. continue to be great, Radiohead, Pulp, Supergrass, Oasis, Nirvana, Tori Amos, Alanis Morrissette, even Pink Floyd release a great album (The Division Bell) , The Beatles release 2 new songs (Free as a Bird and Real Love) and Kate Bush continues.

    The music of the beep beep age almost entirely does not compare! Perhaps it's because your musicians were born in less idealistic times. Perhaps it is because they have so many virtual distractions that make concentrating their mind less possible. Perhaps it is because the 'best' of them seem so content to just be old style throwbacks appearing on Jools Holland. What was even Amy Winehouse but Nina Simone?
    This proves the point I made in the post you negged, that people only remember the good music. You've covered 40 years of music in, what, 45 bands? For every good artist there must be dozens and dozens of bad ones – rip-offs and copycats, trends that didn't lead anywhere and fads that lasted a couple of months. Not only do the rose-tinteds kick in, you've also got the blinkers on as well. We are nowadays bombarded with a similar plethora – most bad, lots good –*but it's more immediate so you get the rough with the smooth, rather than some nostalgic greatest hits collection.

    If you're instead just talking about the trends, and the quality of the good music then related to the good music now, then I'm afraid summing up the last eight years as the 'beep beep' age is woefully inadequate. While I simply cannot be bothered to make a list as extensive as yours, one thing I would mention is that – given the advent of the digital age, and the ease with which we can now access music from any time in the past (something that existed at no other time) – the number of artists and bands that draw influence from previous trends now is so great that I would contend we have a lot more variety in the 21st Century than there was in any individual decade of the 20th. While you might think that this makes a lot of great modern music derivative, I would say that it's great nonetheless. And the whole spectrum of different genres and styles that we have today allows a lot more creativity through adaption and the combination of disparate influences, and we've seen the rise of many sub-genres and trends that have grown out of older ones as a result.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How does one judge what is better or worse if its all down to opinions? record sales? well beiber ruins that one.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Not all of today's music is "crap" as you put, it just has a different sound than music a decade ago. I know what you mean about artist's today who have a lot of passion for their music, it's just that most artists in the top charts follow patterns of music if you know what I mean. For example, when one artist brought out a certain type of music like house music, all of the other big artist started to be influenced by it, it's like they don't have their own voice anymore, but it's still good music to be honest.

    My favourite era of music is the 90's and the early 2000's, people like Aaliyah, Ashanti, tupac, destiny's child, pink, lil Kim, Christina aguilera, gwen stefani, missy elliot, eminem, TLC, tupac, notorious BIG, nelly, r Kelly, busted, April lavigne, spice girls, oh my there's so many...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For a start most of them are manufactured rubbish who cannot even play their instruments / sing to a high enough standard live, so how can they compete with great bands like GnR ?

    Check out their live performances - just unbelievable, which rock band today can match them ?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    For a start most of them are manufactured rubbish who cannot even play their instruments / sing to a high enough standard live, so how can they compete with great bands like GnR ?

    Check out their live performances - just unbelievable, which rock band today can match them ?


    This is an example of a live performance of a song that has been produced by an extremely successful band. If you are concerned with the music in particular I would suggest listening to the album version for a more accurate representation of what the people in the room heard balance-wise. The microphone in this recording has picked out some parts much more than others. In relation particularly to your post, though, I think you would be hard pressed to say with any degree of conviction that these people cannot play their instruments.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Possibly, but it varies by genre. 2013 is set to be one of the biggest and most exciting years for Hip-Hop, seeing some incredibly high profile artists releasing highly anticipated albums that will instantaneously go platinum and become 'classics'.

    As a Hip-Hop fan, I'm very much looking forward to the near future, not the past.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    its gas, the uk rap scene right now yh, ite grime is dead still but the underground rap scene right now and for the past few years has been hard still... best music in the world right now and better than past music. personal opinion i think bands like beatles and ting are moist.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Queen, Led Zeppelin, etc. will all be remembered for decades to come.

    I severely doubt Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj (whatever her name is), One Direction, Lady Gaga, etc. will. And if they are, it'd be for the wrong reasons most likely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jabberwox)
    Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Queen, Led Zeppelin, etc. will all be remembered for decades to come.

    I severely doubt Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj (whatever her name is), One Direction, Lady Gaga, etc. will. And if they are, it'd be for the wrong reasons most likely.
    Such a bad argument. You've taken the biggest artists over a span of 6 decades and compared them to artists from the past 5 years who are well known as not being the most musically talented artists around right now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    which wasteman negged me?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jabberwox)
    Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Queen, Led Zeppelin, etc. will all be remembered for decades to come.

    I severely doubt Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj (whatever her name is), One Direction, Lady Gaga, etc. will. And if they are, it'd be for the wrong reasons most likely.
    Probably, but you're not comparing old good bands with new good bands. People remember the good music.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)


    This is an example of a live performance of a song that has been produced by an extremely successful band. If you are concerned with the music in particular I would suggest listening to the album version for a more accurate representation of what the people in the room heard balance-wise. The microphone in this recording has picked out some parts much more than others. In relation particularly to your post, though, I think you would be hard pressed to say with any degree of conviction that these people cannot play their instruments.
    Naah Guns n roses = 10 x better

    HA!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=bestofyou;42032066]

    However Bruce Springsteen's album in 2011 (**** two years already) was just as good as his older stuff, that says a lot considering just how good his older stuff was.

    Couldn't agree more - Springsteen is my absolute favourite and he still plays proper set. I saw him at the Stadium of Light last summer and he played a solid three and a half hours followed by an encore. Best concert I've ever been to! There's only a few bands nowadays that I'd rate - The Killers/The Fratellis, because after seeing the likes of Blink 182, Paramore and My Chemical Romance, I was left massively unimpressed! Music too loud for the vocals and a measly set of an hour and fifteen minutes. Not worth the time, the effort or indeed, the money.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I always used to say that - being of a certain age. We often look at the past with rose tinted glasses and remember only selectively. However following the combination of a box set of 70s hits and a long car journey in France with no english radio, ( French music is worse) I can honestly say that a load of the music from then was poo. It was banal and repetitive - saccharin - sweet.

    But I think if you look at the albums from then - there were many many classics - namely all of Pink Floyd; Sabbeth; Stones; Who etc.

    Some of the music from now is brilliant. I love Lady Gaga - she is incredibly talented.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    I'm not taking this.

    The very best music in the past really WAS better. Significantly in some cases.


    I'll qualify that - by 'past' I mean anything up to around 2005. That's fairly contemporary enough not to make people too annoyed.

    But I realise that , in the grand scheme of things, to many people this will be like arguing that Victorian architecture was rubbish compared to Georgian architecture. Buildings and songs are both kinds of 'structures' (at their best).

    If anything 'you kids' have returned to the kind of drearily popular music that a grandma not particularly in to music might have liked way in the 1940s. Many of you are listening to the modern day equivalents of Vera Lynn's 'We'll meet again' and thinking it to be the anthem for your generation. Acts like Paloma Faith even dress up in this Carmen Miranda way to give that 40s vibe. Maybe the economy crashing was partly to blame. You think there's some kind of war on...

    Let's take a stoll down memory lane. The 50s had a handful of greats like Bobby Darren's Dream Lover but I'll start at the 60s because I could practically end there too because some genres had their full blossom early on there.

    1960s- The Beatles , The Beach Boys / Brian Wilson, The Byrds, The Doors, Marvin Gaye , The Hollies, The Kinks, early Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones , Simon and Garfunkel, The Small Faces, The Who.

    So what happened there? In Britain, mostly the confidence of talented groups in London, Liverpool (a few in Manchester) and San Franscisco / Los Angeles / a few in New York.

    Psychedelic, classical , folk, barber shop quarter harmonies. It was experimental but, at the same time, it was generally very tasteful, sincere and high quality. By the time of LA Woman, The Doors were even doing something far more associated with the 70s- The Changeling sounds a bit like early disco. And the Americana road songs of the 70s, like Sweet Home Alabama, had their roots really in the work started in the 60s.

    I'll skip to the 80s then - powerful production but also great artistry. Ironically, artists, even the ones regarded as mainly fun (to start with) like George Michael, were more authentic than the ones who jab themselves in the eye to look 'sensitive' now. There was Michael Jackson, Prince, Kate Bush , Peter Gabriel, The Smiths , the start of R.E.M. and The Stone Roses. It was a time of shifts in Thatcher's Britain and television was the stage to make a very personal or very political point.

    Obviously the 90s was a heyday as well and I won't go in to that apart from to say - R.E.M. continue to be great, Radiohead, Pulp, Supergrass, Oasis, Nirvana, Tori Amos, Alanis Morrissette, even Pink Floyd release a great album (The Division Bell) , The Beatles release 2 new songs (Free as a Bird and Real Love) and Kate Bush continues.

    The music of the beep beep age almost entirely does not compare! Perhaps it's because your musicians were born in less idealistic times. Perhaps it is because they have so many virtual distractions that make concentrating their mind less possible. Perhaps it is because the 'best' of them seem so content to just be old style throwbacks appearing on Jools Holland. What was even Amy Winehouse but Nina Simone?
    From the bolded line it is clear you don't really understand how music develops and the quality of music today. Albeit you do make some interesting points historically, it is quite clear after your naming of mainstream bands from the 90s you really are very muddled.

    For me there is no band better than Radiohead ever. Not even Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and other great bands of the past. Why do I say this? Well, the jump from OK Computer - one of the greatest rock albums ever - to Kid A - which is one of the best electronic albums ever. I marvel at how they did that, and how they had the guts to do that. Not to mention since then their albums have been incredibly high quality with the incredible ethereal In Rainbows, combined with the underrated Amnesiac and HTTT. For me they are as unique and quality as it gets and as it goes they're from the 90s/00/ and still going in the 10s. Anyway that's just an observation from me that the greatest band ever was after your so called Golden Age.

    I think one of the key reasons many people believe music was better in the past was that now we have a different culture where bands aren't mainstream and you don't get big bands with huge levels of popularity today like you had in the 60s/70s. Music is now more accessible to be made by anyone in their bedroom. This magnifies that more crap music gets made for sure, and I believe this is a key reason why people believe music is worse today. But i saw a piece by the legendary producer Giorgio Moroder only yesterday where he said now any creative person with any talent/desire can get into music easily, and this is something

    My point is that music has gradually become into something which is more densely made. This can only be a good thing, i can not see how this can be argued against. People on a whole don't suddenly become less creative with each passing generation, that style of thought is from the person who lacks intelligence in terms of creativity and logic at least in my opinion.

    There's a difference between preferring old music to new music but for me music can only get better logically, and subjectively for me i believe this is the case. There is just a huge amount of quality music today and it's impossible to get through it all, as it is just so concentrated now, whilst before you had the comfort of the same bands and the general same sound and it was just unaffordable for the average person to buy old records, instruments etc.

    I forgot to mention that it is so easy now to listen to anything from Bach to Gershwin to The Beatles to Daft Punk to Radiohead etc. The internet is a wonderful thing and this broadens ones taste (I know it has for me, and without it i wouldn't have such an interest in music, not to say it wouldn't be at all broad). It just all points logically that music is better today, and i will disagree to anything said otherwise though of course it still is very much easy to prefer a distinct sound and say you prefer 70s rock for example!

    I want to also say a point to those that believe music has to be made on instruments. I've met a few people who believe you have to play an instrument and it's real then. This is also contrived nonsense and defeats the whole object that music is meant to sound good, how it's performed should not matter, as long as it sounds good to you then that is music's purpose.

    That's my take on it, i could have said a whole lot more on it. It's a very interesting subject for sure and i love talking about it as it does provoke interesting discussion.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 3, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Articles:

TSR wiki music section

Quick link:

Unanswered music threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.