> But isn't there an analogy to the real "classical" music? People still listen to Mozart today and believe he was a genius, but someone who'd write similar music like Mozart in our time would probably not be taken seriously by the classical music scene, because such music is not thought to be progressive anymore.
I agree.
> I guess that there's something like a first mover advantage in the sense that Mozart, Beatles, Kraftwerk etc. will always be remembered (and listened to) for their innovations, whereas composers/bands who would be able to reproduce something similar 50 years later are neglected.
Actually loads of things they did had proto-ideas. It's so hard to draw "innovations" in any field. Remember John Lennon's original line "there's nothing you can do that can't be done" (and even that could have been said before by somebody else!).
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]DavidRFuller wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Most bands these days are a bunch of lazy slags who are uncreative. Music is going in a sad direction.....[/QUOTE]
Thats just bullshit. There's a lot of great musical production out there, but the studio is used in a different way now. It's not worse or something, it's just different.
For example a lot of (good) rap music (like, for example Dr Dre's stuff) is produced really great. Don't forget it's not just a bunch of loops put together to make a song. It's actually choosing a sample, modifying, making new sounds et cetera.
It's not fair to say this is uninspired just because you don't like it. [/QUOTE]
You just mentioned Dr. Dre cause he's gone on record as saying he was heavily influenced by Queen. The Chronic was the best album of the 90's period...did I just diss Innuendo? Because I think that's very good as well. I hope Innuendo doesnt do a drive by on me for that diss but the Chronic is really good.
Thats just bullshit. There's a lot of great musical production out there, but the studio is used in a different way now. It's not worse or something, it's just different.
For example a lot of (good) rap music (like, for example Dr Dre's stuff) is produced really great. Don't forget it's not just a bunch of loops put together to make a song. It's actually choosing a sample, modifying, making new sounds et cetera.
It's not fair to say this is uninspired just because you don't like it. [/QUOTE]
You just mentioned Dr. Dre cause he's gone on record as saying he was heavily influenced by Queen. The Chronic was the best album of the 90's period...did I just diss Innuendo? Because I think that's very good as well. I hope Innuendo doesnt do a drive by on me for that diss but the Chronic is really good.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]DavidRFuller wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You've got it all wrong. Songs are being made on laptops these days, not instruments. And with that, down goes creativity. Modifying and sampling, yes sheer genius. Moron. [/QUOTE]
You're ignorant[/QUOTE]
He's not ignorant, he's right. The thing is a lot of musicians just dont get it. It takes a lot less talent and a lot more luck in breaking through now days. Back then in the late 60's - 70's you almost had to be a virtuoso at something to get over but thats not the case today. A band like Grand Funk Railroad today wouldnt be known as overrated pop rock for the masses, they actually would be the most talented band out there. Anyway to give a bumper sticker, now - less talent more luck - then it was reversed more talent and a little bit of luck was required to get over but you had to be talented and know your instrument and have a vision. I think it comes with everything being fairly new then and no one (record execs) really knew anything so they listened to their ers more, now they go on whats worked in the pass and whats working now and that has hurt the industry. Music is not as good as it was in the past, thats a fact.
You're ignorant[/QUOTE]
He's not ignorant, he's right. The thing is a lot of musicians just dont get it. It takes a lot less talent and a lot more luck in breaking through now days. Back then in the late 60's - 70's you almost had to be a virtuoso at something to get over but thats not the case today. A band like Grand Funk Railroad today wouldnt be known as overrated pop rock for the masses, they actually would be the most talented band out there. Anyway to give a bumper sticker, now - less talent more luck - then it was reversed more talent and a little bit of luck was required to get over but you had to be talented and know your instrument and have a vision. I think it comes with everything being fairly new then and no one (record execs) really knew anything so they listened to their ers more, now they go on whats worked in the pass and whats working now and that has hurt the industry. Music is not as good as it was in the past, thats a fact.
I didn't know Dre was influenced by Queen
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Cygnus X-1 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]People tend to undervalue everything modern, which is pathetic. Just because modern artists use keyboards it doesn't make them lazy or mediocre.[/QUOTE]
Good point! Chemical Brothers for example are true artists. Just loops & programming you think? First, you need the right idea, second : get it all together! I messed around a while with Fruity loops, believe me, its harder than some of you may think![/QUOTE]
Indeed!
And people also did looping, cutting and pasting in the 60's
Brian Wilson did a lot of stuff with cutting and pasting, especially stuff like Good Vibrations (you can still hear the cuts!) and The Beatles used looping. Queen also used cut/paste (although it wasn't a key command back in the day, but still..) and looping.
Good point! Chemical Brothers for example are true artists. Just loops & programming you think? First, you need the right idea, second : get it all together! I messed around a while with Fruity loops, believe me, its harder than some of you may think![/QUOTE]
Indeed!
And people also did looping, cutting and pasting in the 60's
Brian Wilson did a lot of stuff with cutting and pasting, especially stuff like Good Vibrations (you can still hear the cuts!) and The Beatles used looping. Queen also used cut/paste (although it wasn't a key command back in the day, but still..) and looping.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]DavidRFuller wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So what's next then....spoons? C'mon. This is the worst age of music creativity, like it or not.[/QUOTE]At the forefront of the most mainstream of mainstream pop, probably so. However, there are lots of great and creative musicians/bands under the radar. You may have to dig a little deeper these days, but great music is still out there. :)
Also, I saw a video of a guy playing slide guitar with a spoon. It was impressive. ;)
Also, I saw a video of a guy playing slide guitar with a spoon. It was impressive. ;)
"Back then in the late 60's - 70's you almost had to be a virtuoso at something to get over but thats not the case today."
Nonsense. Mediocrity has always been marketable. Sex Pistols, Rolling Stones, U2. No virtuosos in there.
Nonsense. Mediocrity has always been marketable. Sex Pistols, Rolling Stones, U2. No virtuosos in there.
Even Beatles were far from being virtuosos in their early days. I love their first-period tracks, but it doesn't change the fact they were quite rudimentary ... Paul even made some bad mistakes on such easy recordings, mind you!
They improved loads in their ability as instrumentalists, still they were (and are, in the case of Paul and Rich) far from being "almost virtuosos".
About U2, Stones and Pistols - couldn't agree more!
They improved loads in their ability as instrumentalists, still they were (and are, in the case of Paul and Rich) far from being "almost virtuosos".
About U2, Stones and Pistols - couldn't agree more!
i dont thinks its about wizardry, or being a virtuoso, its about having the smarts to connect with the audience. we will rock you, another one bites the dust, yesterday or imagine for example are some of the biggest hits of our time. memorable and fantastic tunes that will be played 100yrs from now, but yet quite simple.
as an aside i also consider bb king, john lee hooker just as virtuoso as anybody. whats the criteria??
as an aside i also consider bb king, john lee hooker just as virtuoso as anybody. whats the criteria??
'Yesterday' isn't THAT simple, even though it's quite easy to play. But on compositional levels it's got some unusual details: prime-numebered phrasing in the verse, bridge starting off on the "vii" function, plus George Martin's string arrangement goes far beyond what 99% of rock musicians can enable.
Also how do you define good music. It's in the eye of the beholder.. Or in the ear, for that matter.
Someone may find a song good when it connects to the audience (like someone said a couple of posts above me). Another person may find a song good when it has difficult shredding guitar.
Another person may find a song good when the artist is able to immitate the Queen sound. :P
There's no such thing as a "good" song. Is a complex song without any feel better then a simple song with 3 or 4 chords which puts the feeling across just perfectly (like Nirvana's Polly for example).
I have more respect for someone who can make a 3 or 4 chord song which augments the lyrics and puts the feeling across then for someone who makes a song that modulates 6 times and uses strange chords just for the sake of being complex
Someone may find a song good when it connects to the audience (like someone said a couple of posts above me). Another person may find a song good when it has difficult shredding guitar.
Another person may find a song good when the artist is able to immitate the Queen sound. :P
There's no such thing as a "good" song. Is a complex song without any feel better then a simple song with 3 or 4 chords which puts the feeling across just perfectly (like Nirvana's Polly for example).
I have more respect for someone who can make a 3 or 4 chord song which augments the lyrics and puts the feeling across then for someone who makes a song that modulates 6 times and uses strange chords just for the sake of being complex
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I have more respect for someone who can make a 3 or 4 chord song which augments the lyrics and puts the feeling across then for someone who makes a song that modulates 6 times and uses strange chords just for the sake of being complex[/QUOTE]
That's why I think Freddie was one of the great writers of rock music. While he could do complex a la Bohemian Rhapsody, he could do a four chord, major key song like CLTCL and have it accepted just as easily as his complex pieces. I've always thought Freddie in particular got short shrift from critics re: his compositional skills. Whereas guys like Elvis Costello get tagged as geniuses, and try to prove it, Freddie wrote what he wanted and didn't try to prove his brilliance.
That's why I think Freddie was one of the great writers of rock music. While he could do complex a la Bohemian Rhapsody, he could do a four chord, major key song like CLTCL and have it accepted just as easily as his complex pieces. I've always thought Freddie in particular got short shrift from critics re: his compositional skills. Whereas guys like Elvis Costello get tagged as geniuses, and try to prove it, Freddie wrote what he wanted and didn't try to prove his brilliance.
And then again, prejudices affect a large part of the public: a song like Backstreet Boys' 'Incomplete' would be worshipped here if it'd been a Queen one; otoh if a post-79 act did 'Somebody To Love', that'd simply be regarded as mediocre.
Not everybody's *that* narrow-minded, but sadly most of listeners fall into that category.
Not everybody's *that* narrow-minded, but sadly most of listeners fall into that category.
I also don't understand why it is so hard to admit that most people in the music industry today are talented people.
And why they don't understand that even the most beloved artists did mediocre things as well.