Freddie Mercury: "I'm just a musical prostitute"
Madonna: "Hey, that sounds like a solid business plan!"
Sorry, couldn't resist.
thomasquinn 32989
Thread
Posts in chronological order
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]k-m wrote:[/b]She also name-checked FM in one of her recent songs, on her last record. I don't mind Madonna, lots of very good pop songs, her Ray of Light album is mostly great.[/QUOTE]
her Earth Mother album. it certainly improved a very dull decade musically. for me ROL and Like A Prayer are her two great albums.
and the title track is a touch of genius. Having Orbit on board was a clever move.
Don't Tell Me is also a great tune. the fusion electronica and country works well. and Mirwais' employing his trademark (was it called something like "drop beats")?
her Earth Mother album. it certainly improved a very dull decade musically. for me ROL and Like A Prayer are her two great albums.
and the title track is a touch of genius. Having Orbit on board was a clever move.
Don't Tell Me is also a great tune. the fusion electronica and country works well. and Mirwais' employing his trademark (was it called something like "drop beats")?
k-m
Hell yeah, the title track from ROL was brilliant. And so was Like a Prayer. Never listened to her 'Music' album, but the singles and 'Paradise (Not For Me)' were pretty good. Might actually give it a try on Spotify.
Are you referring to the 90s though or just Madonna's 90s as very dull musically? I thought the 90s were really good overall, lots of interesting things happened that decade. I always wonder how Queen would have coped in that decade and I'm pretty sure we all missed out on further classics from them, perhaps with an experimental edge at some point. Such a shame.
Unfortunately, in the naughties, things took a turn, not exactly for the better.
Are you referring to the 90s though or just Madonna's 90s as very dull musically? I thought the 90s were really good overall, lots of interesting things happened that decade. I always wonder how Queen would have coped in that decade and I'm pretty sure we all missed out on further classics from them, perhaps with an experimental edge at some point. Such a shame.
Unfortunately, in the naughties, things took a turn, not exactly for the better.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]k-m wrote:[/b]Are you referring to the 90s though or just Madonna's 90s as very dull musically? I thought the 90s were really good overall, lots of interesting things happened that decade. I always wonder how Queen would have coped in that decade and I'm pretty sure we all missed out on further classics from them, perhaps with an experimental edge at some point. Such a shame.
.[/QUOTE]
90s in general. don't get me wrong - there was good stuff going on, but (as an old sod) i feel music has been in decline decade upon decade:
[b]60s = music revolution[/b] = absolutely brilliant
[b]70s = development and divergence of 60s ideas[/b] = excellent
[b]80s = lots of gimmicks[/b] some great artists, but just as many gimmick/fashion-led bands
[b]90s = derivative[/b] lots of 60s/70s "tribute" acts and pop acts sounded like 70s pop groups - with modern synths/samplers. there were some "great and good" but by and large - it's hard to get into something you know you've heard before.
[b]00s = major decline[/b] the great and the good have become few and far between
[b]10s = awful[/b] shining lights = bands still around from previous decades.
90s music was (largely) very derivative:
70s-style boy bands - far too many.
60s tributes - oasis, blur, shed 7, kula shaker, supergrass etc,
70s and 80s-style pop acts.
as regards "90s classics from Queen": i think the 90s would've been a bad fit for classic rock. the classic rock generation - produced very few (if any) gems during the 90s.
.[/QUOTE]
90s in general. don't get me wrong - there was good stuff going on, but (as an old sod) i feel music has been in decline decade upon decade:
[b]60s = music revolution[/b] = absolutely brilliant
[b]70s = development and divergence of 60s ideas[/b] = excellent
[b]80s = lots of gimmicks[/b] some great artists, but just as many gimmick/fashion-led bands
[b]90s = derivative[/b] lots of 60s/70s "tribute" acts and pop acts sounded like 70s pop groups - with modern synths/samplers. there were some "great and good" but by and large - it's hard to get into something you know you've heard before.
[b]00s = major decline[/b] the great and the good have become few and far between
[b]10s = awful[/b] shining lights = bands still around from previous decades.
90s music was (largely) very derivative:
70s-style boy bands - far too many.
60s tributes - oasis, blur, shed 7, kula shaker, supergrass etc,
70s and 80s-style pop acts.
as regards "90s classics from Queen": i think the 90s would've been a bad fit for classic rock. the classic rock generation - produced very few (if any) gems during the 90s.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
[b]90s = derivative[/b] lots of 60s/70s "tribute" acts and pop acts sounded like 70s pop groups - with modern synths/samplers. there were some "great and good" but by and large - it's hard to get into something you know you've heard before.
[b]10s = awful[/b] shining lights = bands still around from previous decades.[/QUOTE]
The 90s also produced OK Computer - quite possibly the most original and important rock album since Sgt Pepper, and has yet to be dethroned. Like Pepper, it's a sort of Mason Dixon line that separates everything that came before it and after it (and also rendered the majority of rock to be irrelevant).
And the 10s/20s have acts like Snarky Puppy and Jacob Collier who continue to redraw the boundaries of what music can do - both of whom have won Grammys.
No doubt the 1965-75 period was almost certainly the most interesting of the last 150 years, due to the combination of growing technological possibilities and a music business that rarely restricted creativity (largely because FM radio hadn't been bought out by advertisers yet). But overall the last 150 years has seen its good music and bad music no matter which period we zero in on.
[b]90s = derivative[/b] lots of 60s/70s "tribute" acts and pop acts sounded like 70s pop groups - with modern synths/samplers. there were some "great and good" but by and large - it's hard to get into something you know you've heard before.
[b]10s = awful[/b] shining lights = bands still around from previous decades.[/QUOTE]
The 90s also produced OK Computer - quite possibly the most original and important rock album since Sgt Pepper, and has yet to be dethroned. Like Pepper, it's a sort of Mason Dixon line that separates everything that came before it and after it (and also rendered the majority of rock to be irrelevant).
And the 10s/20s have acts like Snarky Puppy and Jacob Collier who continue to redraw the boundaries of what music can do - both of whom have won Grammys.
No doubt the 1965-75 period was almost certainly the most interesting of the last 150 years, due to the combination of growing technological possibilities and a music business that rarely restricted creativity (largely because FM radio hadn't been bought out by advertisers yet). But overall the last 150 years has seen its good music and bad music no matter which period we zero in on.
thomasquinn 32989
There's a warping effect in judging music of the past vs. music of the present, quite simply because most music in any period is lousy and derivative. The thing is, that stuff gets forgotten. Take a random singles top 100 from any date in, say, the early '70s. Most of the tracks on it are virtually or entirely forgotten. The crap disappears, the good stuff is remembered. Making the period look more interesting in hindsight than it would have at the time.
I was a child in the '90s and early 2000s, and I absolutely, thoroughly HATED the music played on the radio and fawned over by my peers. And guess what? Nearly all of the crap I hated so much is entirely forgotten. But, it turns out, there was also quite a bit of good stuff - it just got lost in the sea of crap back in the day.
Still, I think Brenski has a pretty good point, I do think there's something badly wrong with the music of the late '80s and the '90s (and the early '00s). Some of the things I think are responsible for this:
- Engineering and production. It is painfully obvious that the first generation of digital music production was terribly flawed - tinny sound, bad use of compression, misinformed attempts to use analog techniques / apply analog maxims to digital signal processing, etc. etc. Now, this is understandable - in the early days of stereo, people did weird (and with hindsight: silly) things that didn't work too well, in the early days of phonograph recordings, likewise. It takes time to master new technology, but that doesn't change a thing about the fact that early-period digital recordings fall waaay short of the mark (although there are obviously exceptions).
- Laziness and overbearing producers - resulting in a lot of music sounding very much the same. We're talking about the age of Boybands/Girlbands here - manufactured music marketed to people with no opinion of their own who eat up whatever is served up to them as being fashionable and modern. The balance had been shifting from the artists to the record companies for many years before the period we're talking about, but IMHO, it reached its absolute nadir in the late '80s and the '90s.
- Distasteful use of computer generated instruments that, with hindsight, sound very poor and badly dated and were already distasteful to some at the time when they were new.
I was a child in the '90s and early 2000s, and I absolutely, thoroughly HATED the music played on the radio and fawned over by my peers. And guess what? Nearly all of the crap I hated so much is entirely forgotten. But, it turns out, there was also quite a bit of good stuff - it just got lost in the sea of crap back in the day.
Still, I think Brenski has a pretty good point, I do think there's something badly wrong with the music of the late '80s and the '90s (and the early '00s). Some of the things I think are responsible for this:
- Engineering and production. It is painfully obvious that the first generation of digital music production was terribly flawed - tinny sound, bad use of compression, misinformed attempts to use analog techniques / apply analog maxims to digital signal processing, etc. etc. Now, this is understandable - in the early days of stereo, people did weird (and with hindsight: silly) things that didn't work too well, in the early days of phonograph recordings, likewise. It takes time to master new technology, but that doesn't change a thing about the fact that early-period digital recordings fall waaay short of the mark (although there are obviously exceptions).
- Laziness and overbearing producers - resulting in a lot of music sounding very much the same. We're talking about the age of Boybands/Girlbands here - manufactured music marketed to people with no opinion of their own who eat up whatever is served up to them as being fashionable and modern. The balance had been shifting from the artists to the record companies for many years before the period we're talking about, but IMHO, it reached its absolute nadir in the late '80s and the '90s.
- Distasteful use of computer generated instruments that, with hindsight, sound very poor and badly dated and were already distasteful to some at the time when they were new.
MyHumanZoo
I have to agree on Madonna, I enjoy a lot of her stuff. Ray of Light is my very favorite, Express Yourself and Vogue are good for dancing.
I also agree that the best stuff from each decade sticks around and the fluff drops off and is forgotten. So what is considered the best stuff of the 90s that will endure? I’m having a senior moment and really can’t come up with a lot that I loved from the 90s.
I also agree that the best stuff from each decade sticks around and the fluff drops off and is forgotten. So what is considered the best stuff of the 90s that will endure? I’m having a senior moment and really can’t come up with a lot that I loved from the 90s.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]MyHumanZoo wrote:[/b]I also agree that the best stuff from each decade sticks around and the fluff drops off and is forgotten. So what is considered the best stuff of the 90s that will endure? I’m having a senior moment and really can’t come up with a lot that I loved from the 90s.[/QUOTE]
'cept of course - we ALL remember the annoying (sh*t) novelty hits - and probably will forever. it's impossible to shift those songs from the filing cabinet in the brain marked "trivia".
as regards the 90s:
oasis were good - if hugely derivative
madonna was great/very good.
suede, ocs, manics and cast had their moments - if also very much in a "tribute to the past" sort of way.
green day were (and still are) fantastic
RHCP - at their finest
foos - made two wonderful LPs
mccartney, pink floyd, rush also produced some great stuff (macca's "Flaming Pie" is excellent.
'cept of course - we ALL remember the annoying (sh*t) novelty hits - and probably will forever. it's impossible to shift those songs from the filing cabinet in the brain marked "trivia".
as regards the 90s:
oasis were good - if hugely derivative
madonna was great/very good.
suede, ocs, manics and cast had their moments - if also very much in a "tribute to the past" sort of way.
green day were (and still are) fantastic
RHCP - at their finest
foos - made two wonderful LPs
mccartney, pink floyd, rush also produced some great stuff (macca's "Flaming Pie" is excellent.
k-m
Lots of great stuff from the 90s still sticks. Starting from 1990 and Sinead O'Connor, through 1991-92 and bands like R.E.M., Guns N Roses, U2, Metallica through the whole grunge scene and classics from Nirvana, Pearl Jam or Soundgarden, all the way to Britpop and amazing tunes by Oasis and Blur and the whole alternative rock and very interesting acts like Mercury Rev, Garbage or The Smashing Pumpkins. There's actually plenty when I think of it: the Foos, RHCP, Nick Cave, Radiohead, Manics, PJ Harvey, Air and so on, so on. Such a diverse decade too. I agree, the oldies didn't maybe shine through, but bands like Aerosmith and the Stones still managed to produce their last great songs. Queen were younger though, so I assume their creativity would have been higher. Middle and late forties is still not a bad age for musicians.
Queen2thebest
Feel I have to defend the 90s here and say I think it receives plenty of unfair flak. I was born in '76 so entering the mid 90s I had bands and a scene I could follow, Britpop. Ok, lot of it was influenced heavily by the 60s Kinks/Beatles etc. And if OK Computer is mentioned, I'd have to say Dog man star by Suede. Masterpiece. 90s also had good dance tunes, I confess there were awful songs too, but compared to today it was amazing. Loved going to the pub with 50 quid in my pocket and knowing I'd have a great night out, good tunes on the jukebox. That's reason I'll always have soft spot for the 90s
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]Queen2thebest wrote:[/b]Feel I have to defend the 90s here and say I think it receives plenty of unfair flak. .... Loved going to the pub with 50 quid in my pocket and knowing I'd have a great night out, good tunes on the jukebox. That's reason I'll always have soft spot for the 90s [/QUOTE]
i think you've probably (accidentally) hit upon the key to why people prefer/think specific music decades are better. when all is said and done - for most - it's about chronistic relevance. usually this is about our early teens - when we start to appreciate music, or when we first start going out as an adult.
for some (like myself) there's also the influence of what our parents listened to - which can result in two "favoured" periods.
i think you've probably (accidentally) hit upon the key to why people prefer/think specific music decades are better. when all is said and done - for most - it's about chronistic relevance. usually this is about our early teens - when we start to appreciate music, or when we first start going out as an adult.
for some (like myself) there's also the influence of what our parents listened to - which can result in two "favoured" periods.
Queen2thebest
Parents influence can be immense. In my house it was Elvis, Queen, Motown etc. Surprisingly my love of the Doors, Led Zep etc didn't go down well when I blasted it from bedroom, Queen they didn't mind. Guitar bands today are up against it. Looked at the top 10 singles this morning. I've heard of Drake and that's it. Stormzy is an anti white cock, the things he says. And lot of the singles are always 'featuring' another artist
Serry...
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]Serry... wrote:[/b]
[/QUOTE]
excellent spot.
[/QUOTE]
excellent spot.
Queen2thebest
Renegade...what a game on speccy!