Ok...
I agree that the mainstream stuff is rather awful..
And ive tried listening to new stuff, and i just cant get into it, its not me.
Now QUEEN and the BEATLES are WITHOUT a DOUBT MY MOST FAVORITE FLIPPIN BANDS EVER!!!!
But i do like a few newer bands that i dont know how many of you ahve heard of them like KEANE and SCISSOR SISTERS (<-- they're fun to listen to, kinda elton johnish but w/ their own twist)
But outside of that, i cannot get into new stuff, ive tried. I just connect best with 60's/70's stuff.
Now as far as sex is concerned, its a theme of life, music and literature. But its the way that its portrayed in rap/hiphop music today that i have a problem with. I mean its just girls with nothing on shaking everything to appeal to others. Sex is a serious and beautiful thing that should be as such with someone you love.
However, i do agree with the fact that my generation is pretty much out of control. But theres alot of factors adding to that, one for example is that most parents (not all im generalizing here) aren't as in tune with their kids or care about their kids today. Everything is at an outrageous speed in the age of computers and socially it seems as if everyones trying to advace as quick as technology and its not necessary. Everyone needs to slow down and enjoy growing up.
And yes im only 16.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think all decades have got poot bits + good bits. It's unfair to put down everything going on currently just because it's not Beatles or Led Zeppelin.
> 1. to much swearing.
And surely Queen never used bad words...
[/QUOTE]
I don't know if that was sarcasm, considering this is a message board, but *hem hem* Son & Daughter anyone???
> 1. to much swearing.
And surely Queen never used bad words...
[/QUOTE]
I don't know if that was sarcasm, considering this is a message board, but *hem hem* Son & Daughter anyone???
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LadyMoonshineDown wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Sure, the mainstream stuff in which you kiddies hear isn't that great. But don't diss a generation of music if you haven't heard all of it.
Don't even try to disagree with me, because you are wrong.
Why are you wrong? Because you haven't heard nearly a quarter of stuff that's out; there is a lot of music (much of it I have reviewed)that stays underground on indie labels. And for those of you who didn't know, "Indie" isn't a type of music; it's not under a rock catagory, but just a name for independently made music. There's indie rap, indie hiphop, etc; it's not just a "ooh look, indie music must be like an obscure form of rock!"
Wrong, you twit.
Anyhow, most of you (who are young) doubt the talent of music today because of what you hear in the mainstream and/or press. Well try this out for a change: don't base your opinion off of the mainstream and, in place of your dull listenings, hunt for some new music. Trust me, it's there. You know, if you stick with your "golden oldies" of classic rock or whatever, you'll miss out on what YOUR generation has to offer--I hate to break it to you, but if you're only living in a certain era that wasn't even a time you were thought of, then you need to get out more, and discover more; musically, that is.
[/QUOTE]
I agree partly with what you said but being a teenager I have to say I have tried all types of music (and I mean 'all' not just the mainstream) and I came to the conclusion that mostly I prefer classic rock and I don't think that means I have to get out more I think it's just my personal preference. You seem to have the idea that the young ones are just wrong which I find patronising just because a few of the young ones here are completely ignorant and immature doesn't mean everybody under a certain age is.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LadyMoonshineDown wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
It's about having an open mind, not a closed one.
Cheers
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, for teenagers to be into Queen in the first place they obviously have an reasonably open mind to go against what their friends like and what's basically the social norm to like theses days and to have Queen as their favourite band.
Probably most of what I've said doesn't make too much sense because I'm ill tonight but I'm sure you get what I mean to say.
Sure, the mainstream stuff in which you kiddies hear isn't that great. But don't diss a generation of music if you haven't heard all of it.
Don't even try to disagree with me, because you are wrong.
Why are you wrong? Because you haven't heard nearly a quarter of stuff that's out; there is a lot of music (much of it I have reviewed)that stays underground on indie labels. And for those of you who didn't know, "Indie" isn't a type of music; it's not under a rock catagory, but just a name for independently made music. There's indie rap, indie hiphop, etc; it's not just a "ooh look, indie music must be like an obscure form of rock!"
Wrong, you twit.
Anyhow, most of you (who are young) doubt the talent of music today because of what you hear in the mainstream and/or press. Well try this out for a change: don't base your opinion off of the mainstream and, in place of your dull listenings, hunt for some new music. Trust me, it's there. You know, if you stick with your "golden oldies" of classic rock or whatever, you'll miss out on what YOUR generation has to offer--I hate to break it to you, but if you're only living in a certain era that wasn't even a time you were thought of, then you need to get out more, and discover more; musically, that is.
[/QUOTE]
I agree partly with what you said but being a teenager I have to say I have tried all types of music (and I mean 'all' not just the mainstream) and I came to the conclusion that mostly I prefer classic rock and I don't think that means I have to get out more I think it's just my personal preference. You seem to have the idea that the young ones are just wrong which I find patronising just because a few of the young ones here are completely ignorant and immature doesn't mean everybody under a certain age is.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LadyMoonshineDown wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
It's about having an open mind, not a closed one.
Cheers
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, for teenagers to be into Queen in the first place they obviously have an reasonably open mind to go against what their friends like and what's basically the social norm to like theses days and to have Queen as their favourite band.
Probably most of what I've said doesn't make too much sense because I'm ill tonight but I'm sure you get what I mean to say.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=violet>Poppy wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LadyMoonshineDown wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Sure, the mainstream stuff in which you kiddies hear isn't that great. But don't diss a generation of music if you haven't heard all of it.
Don't even try to disagree with me, because you are wrong.
Why are you wrong? Because you haven't heard nearly a quarter of stuff that's out; there is a lot of music (much of it I have reviewed)that stays underground on indie labels. And for those of you who didn't know, "Indie" isn't a type of music; it's not under a rock catagory, but just a name for independently made music. There's indie rap, indie hiphop, etc; it's not just a "ooh look, indie music must be like an obscure form of rock!"
Wrong, you twit.
Anyhow, most of you (who are young) doubt the talent of music today because of what you hear in the mainstream and/or press. Well try this out for a change: don't base your opinion off of the mainstream and, in place of your dull listenings, hunt for some new music. Trust me, it's there. You know, if you stick with your "golden oldies" of classic rock or whatever, you'll miss out on what YOUR generation has to offer--I hate to break it to you, but if you're only living in a certain era that wasn't even a time you were thought of, then you need to get out more, and discover more; musically, that is.
[/QUOTE]
I agree partly with what you said but being a teenager I have to say I have tried all types of music (and I mean 'all' not just the mainstream) and I came to the conclusion that mostly I prefer classic rock and I don't think that means I have to get out more I think it's just my personal preference. You seem to have the idea that the young ones are just wrong which I find patronising just because a few of the young ones here are completely ignorant and immature doesn't mean everybody under a certain age is.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LadyMoonshineDown wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
It's about having an open mind, not a closed one.
Cheers
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, for teenagers to be into Queen in the first place they obviously have an reasonably open mind to go against what their friends like and what's basically the social norm to like theses days and to have Queen as their favourite band.
Probably most of what I've said doesn't make too much sense because I'm ill tonight but I'm sure you get what I mean to say. [/QUOTE]
I do get what you say, and I should really cool down before I make a post because you're right; there are teenagers who limit their music intake, but not ALL teenagers. However, I do feel a bit justified in saying that their age has a lot to do with their acceptance of music, or lack thereof, because I am talking to THEM about their statements. But thanks for the heads up---I know you're not like that, and I ought to clarify that. :)
Sure, the mainstream stuff in which you kiddies hear isn't that great. But don't diss a generation of music if you haven't heard all of it.
Don't even try to disagree with me, because you are wrong.
Why are you wrong? Because you haven't heard nearly a quarter of stuff that's out; there is a lot of music (much of it I have reviewed)that stays underground on indie labels. And for those of you who didn't know, "Indie" isn't a type of music; it's not under a rock catagory, but just a name for independently made music. There's indie rap, indie hiphop, etc; it's not just a "ooh look, indie music must be like an obscure form of rock!"
Wrong, you twit.
Anyhow, most of you (who are young) doubt the talent of music today because of what you hear in the mainstream and/or press. Well try this out for a change: don't base your opinion off of the mainstream and, in place of your dull listenings, hunt for some new music. Trust me, it's there. You know, if you stick with your "golden oldies" of classic rock or whatever, you'll miss out on what YOUR generation has to offer--I hate to break it to you, but if you're only living in a certain era that wasn't even a time you were thought of, then you need to get out more, and discover more; musically, that is.
[/QUOTE]
I agree partly with what you said but being a teenager I have to say I have tried all types of music (and I mean 'all' not just the mainstream) and I came to the conclusion that mostly I prefer classic rock and I don't think that means I have to get out more I think it's just my personal preference. You seem to have the idea that the young ones are just wrong which I find patronising just because a few of the young ones here are completely ignorant and immature doesn't mean everybody under a certain age is.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LadyMoonshineDown wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
It's about having an open mind, not a closed one.
Cheers
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, for teenagers to be into Queen in the first place they obviously have an reasonably open mind to go against what their friends like and what's basically the social norm to like theses days and to have Queen as their favourite band.
Probably most of what I've said doesn't make too much sense because I'm ill tonight but I'm sure you get what I mean to say. [/QUOTE]
I do get what you say, and I should really cool down before I make a post because you're right; there are teenagers who limit their music intake, but not ALL teenagers. However, I do feel a bit justified in saying that their age has a lot to do with their acceptance of music, or lack thereof, because I am talking to THEM about their statements. But thanks for the heads up---I know you're not like that, and I ought to clarify that. :)
well music has sucked ever since after 91.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]firefox-inqueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i hate music now ,i really ,really do. REASONS:
1. to much swearing.
2. not as much happy music
2. you dont have to do anything to get number 1 in
the charts.
3. No inspiration.
4. no effort
5. live concerts are rubbish.
there my top 5 dislikes of music today.
yes im' 14
queen=perfection[/QUOTE]
I agree! "artists" if they even deserved to be called that don't put effort in their music at all, it's terrible.
1. to much swearing.
2. not as much happy music
2. you dont have to do anything to get number 1 in
the charts.
3. No inspiration.
4. no effort
5. live concerts are rubbish.
there my top 5 dislikes of music today.
yes im' 14
queen=perfection[/QUOTE]
I agree! "artists" if they even deserved to be called that don't put effort in their music at all, it's terrible.
> I don't know if that was sarcasm
Of course it was ;)
> I have tried all types of music (and I mean 'all' not just the mainstream) and I came to the conclusion that mostly I prefer classic rock
It's impossible to try out 'all' types... anyway, if you prefer classic rock it's all right, but it doesn't mean it'd be fair to put down a song or album just because of its issuing date. I'm sure many people would have loved any of the new Backstreet Boys' singles if they'd been written or sung by Brian or Roger.
> and I don't think that means I have to get out more I think it's just my personal preference.
It doesn't.
> because a few of the young ones here are completely ignorant and immature doesn't mean everybody under a certain age is.
Agreed. Likewise, just because some recent releases are mediocre it doesn't mean every album of this century is. American Idiot, for instance, is marvellously written, very well played, well sung, notably well produced, then why is it put down so much by classic rock fans? Surely everybody's entitled to their opinion, and it's completely respectable if somebody still prefers Dark Side or Led Zeppelin II over American Idiot (or Monkey Business), but still it doesn't mean that everything recent has to be shit.
> To be fair, for teenagers to be into Queen in the first place they obviously have an reasonably open mind to go against what their friends like
That's sort of a rushed conclusion imo.
Of course it was ;)
> I have tried all types of music (and I mean 'all' not just the mainstream) and I came to the conclusion that mostly I prefer classic rock
It's impossible to try out 'all' types... anyway, if you prefer classic rock it's all right, but it doesn't mean it'd be fair to put down a song or album just because of its issuing date. I'm sure many people would have loved any of the new Backstreet Boys' singles if they'd been written or sung by Brian or Roger.
> and I don't think that means I have to get out more I think it's just my personal preference.
It doesn't.
> because a few of the young ones here are completely ignorant and immature doesn't mean everybody under a certain age is.
Agreed. Likewise, just because some recent releases are mediocre it doesn't mean every album of this century is. American Idiot, for instance, is marvellously written, very well played, well sung, notably well produced, then why is it put down so much by classic rock fans? Surely everybody's entitled to their opinion, and it's completely respectable if somebody still prefers Dark Side or Led Zeppelin II over American Idiot (or Monkey Business), but still it doesn't mean that everything recent has to be shit.
> To be fair, for teenagers to be into Queen in the first place they obviously have an reasonably open mind to go against what their friends like
That's sort of a rushed conclusion imo.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]firefox-inqueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]if you compare queen to bands now you will see that the crowds just dont have a real good time anymore. in a queen concert people would sing out and have the time of there life - power and inspiration
queen=perfection[/QUOTE]
My dear, exactly what concerts are you referring to?
queen=perfection[/QUOTE]
My dear, exactly what concerts are you referring to?
>"Totally agree - I'm 14 too, and 'music' nowdays is rubbish - I agree with every point!!!"
I'm sorry, but any 14 year old that uses the word 'nowdays' doesn't deserve to like any of the brilliant music that exists today.
...and for the rest of you apathetic lot- go out and buy yourself a TOOL or Tea Party album and start looking beyond the charts (oh, and listen to Triple J- an Australian non-commercial radio station- 30% of the music is quite average, but the rest is gold)
I'm sorry, but any 14 year old that uses the word 'nowdays' doesn't deserve to like any of the brilliant music that exists today.
...and for the rest of you apathetic lot- go out and buy yourself a TOOL or Tea Party album and start looking beyond the charts (oh, and listen to Triple J- an Australian non-commercial radio station- 30% of the music is quite average, but the rest is gold)
I agree....I'm not even sure that you can call it music. I mean I even talk about this topic in my profile. I REFUSE to listen to modern day "hip-hop" and "rap" and most "rock" bands. I have found interest in a few modern day artists like James Blunt. Laugh at me if you will..this guy has put effort into his work obviously has a passion for it and I think he's got a great voice, especially when you compare him to other stuff produced these days. Pick up his album and see why.
Alot of people give me shit about not listening to this...I am a musician and I know good music when I hear it.
Cheers
Alot of people give me shit about not listening to this...I am a musician and I know good music when I hear it.
Cheers
This is obviously a heated topic, and I am very interesting in sharing what I have to say.
I agree with everyone who has said that music these days is not worth listening to. Sure, it's popular, millions of people are buying into this new music, but where is the essence?
The power that fueled such bands as Queen, Led Zeppelin, Rush, ACDC, Def Leppard, etc., no longer exists in today's music. It is now all about popularity and sex appeal, and talent is no longer a factor.
Rap has become insanely popular because we have accepted it. Actually, we didn't accept it; it was forced down our throats and now we have to suffer. I don't really like rap; at least, not the new rap. Old school rap was pretty good, because it wasn't all about women and money and 22-inch rims on Escalades, or whatever the hell they rap about these days.
Back then it was all about respect, power, and the struggle to make it in this world. That was what it is all about. Now it's all money and crap like that, and it's not worth listening to.
And rock music these days? it's mainly commercialized rock: stuff that's played every day on MTV or heard four times in one hour on the radio. It's not the same, and I despise it.
I'd much rather jam to classic Queen or pop in my fave Zeppelin album than put my money towards the soft-ass cheesefest that we call 'modern rock'.
I agree with everyone who has said that music these days is not worth listening to. Sure, it's popular, millions of people are buying into this new music, but where is the essence?
The power that fueled such bands as Queen, Led Zeppelin, Rush, ACDC, Def Leppard, etc., no longer exists in today's music. It is now all about popularity and sex appeal, and talent is no longer a factor.
Rap has become insanely popular because we have accepted it. Actually, we didn't accept it; it was forced down our throats and now we have to suffer. I don't really like rap; at least, not the new rap. Old school rap was pretty good, because it wasn't all about women and money and 22-inch rims on Escalades, or whatever the hell they rap about these days.
Back then it was all about respect, power, and the struggle to make it in this world. That was what it is all about. Now it's all money and crap like that, and it's not worth listening to.
And rock music these days? it's mainly commercialized rock: stuff that's played every day on MTV or heard four times in one hour on the radio. It's not the same, and I despise it.
I'd much rather jam to classic Queen or pop in my fave Zeppelin album than put my money towards the soft-ass cheesefest that we call 'modern rock'.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]me_and_my_innuendo wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This is obviously a heated topic, and I am very interesting in sharing what I have to say.
I agree with everyone who has said that music these days is not worth listening to. Sure, it's popular, millions of people are buying into this new music, but where is the essence?
The power that fueled such bands as Queen, Led Zeppelin, Rush, ACDC, Def Leppard, etc., no longer exists in today's music. It is now all about popularity and sex appeal, and talent is no longer a factor.
Rap has become insanely popular because we have accepted it. Actually, we didn't accept it; it was forced down our throats and now we have to suffer. I don't really like rap; at least, not the new rap. Old school rap was pretty good, because it wasn't all about women and money and 22-inch rims on Escalades, or whatever the hell they rap about these days.
Back then it was all about respect, power, and the struggle to make it in this world. That was what it is all about. Now it's all money and crap like that, and it's not worth listening to.
And rock music these days? it's mainly commercialized rock: stuff that's played every day on MTV or heard four times in one hour on the radio. It's not the same, and I despise it.
I'd much rather jam to classic Queen or pop in my fave Zeppelin album than put my money towards the soft-ass cheesefest that we call 'modern rock'.[/QUOTE]
If you don't like the mainstream music (in which, for the most part, I do not blame you), then don't lump all music into that catagory. People are so quick to jump on the ball because of the latest rap song on the radio, or Jessica Simpson parading her no-vocal talent on the radio and being so popular. I suggest you look for music that isn't commercialized, since you are so keen on hating everything else that is.
Again, my point is proven.
Cheers
I agree with everyone who has said that music these days is not worth listening to. Sure, it's popular, millions of people are buying into this new music, but where is the essence?
The power that fueled such bands as Queen, Led Zeppelin, Rush, ACDC, Def Leppard, etc., no longer exists in today's music. It is now all about popularity and sex appeal, and talent is no longer a factor.
Rap has become insanely popular because we have accepted it. Actually, we didn't accept it; it was forced down our throats and now we have to suffer. I don't really like rap; at least, not the new rap. Old school rap was pretty good, because it wasn't all about women and money and 22-inch rims on Escalades, or whatever the hell they rap about these days.
Back then it was all about respect, power, and the struggle to make it in this world. That was what it is all about. Now it's all money and crap like that, and it's not worth listening to.
And rock music these days? it's mainly commercialized rock: stuff that's played every day on MTV or heard four times in one hour on the radio. It's not the same, and I despise it.
I'd much rather jam to classic Queen or pop in my fave Zeppelin album than put my money towards the soft-ass cheesefest that we call 'modern rock'.[/QUOTE]
If you don't like the mainstream music (in which, for the most part, I do not blame you), then don't lump all music into that catagory. People are so quick to jump on the ball because of the latest rap song on the radio, or Jessica Simpson parading her no-vocal talent on the radio and being so popular. I suggest you look for music that isn't commercialized, since you are so keen on hating everything else that is.
Again, my point is proven.
Cheers
An interesting topic indeed!
Ive long struggled with the question of whether there is an objective standard of music, or whether its entirely personal taste - can we ever say one thing is better than another?
I cant answer the question - no one can. To say its preference is something a lot of people might struggle to accept, because it basically means the crazy frog could be considered a classic, marvellous piece of music....I cant deal with that for one.
To say there is an objective standard of "good music" is easy, but then what falls in it, and who gets to decide?
Its an impossible debate - but it doesnt mean we shouldnt discuss it, because it's very
interesting.
People get very defensive of their personal taste, which is why they often group together with people who agree with them - theres nothing worse than being ridiculed for liking Queen in a room full of people who completely disagree with you.
I once recall as a teenager having an argument with about 5 other drunken teenagers about who was better - Queen (as argued by me) or Queens of the Stone Age (As argued by the others). I learnt then that, even if there were some standard of music, or way of saying one thing is better than another, it would still be disputed due to the force people place behind their own music taste and beliefs.
So we hit a brick wall.
I once had the idea that an objective standard of music should be completely separated from taste, as people are absolutely entitled to enjoy what they like.
More controversially, I also thought that if we were to establish an objective way of assessing music, only people of a certain age and intelligence should be allowed to decide; people of lesser intelligence are incapable of appreciating music on the same level - recognising the skill involved, appreciating the difficulty in producing something, understanding the emotion, meaning and beauty to the extent some others are. Its a bold statement I know.
But these people are, furthermore, unable to listen to and take on board the views of others, and consider changing their opinions, or adapting them appropriately - they instead tend to stick to their guns, blindly insisting that theyre right, and everyone else is wrong.
As far as age goes - I'll be careful here, because I used to hate people taking a pot shot at anyone else for their age, and suggesting that this should disadvantage someone, but Ive come to the slow conclusion that generally, although by no means all, people below a certain age have not listened wide enough music wise, and are particularly closed minded to other types of music - even if they havent heard them. They are also stubborn and quick to defend their own beliefs without considering that they may not be correct, or that other views are just as valid.
Im only 20, and Im happy to admit theres a world of music, some of it probably wonderful, that I havent yet heard, but until I was about 16 I was extremely closed minded, and stuck very rigidly to what I liked - at the time basically Queen, Aerosmith and Genesis, without considering other types of music. In the intervening period I hope Im a little bit wiser, and Im starting to discover some fantastic music I never considered listening to before, but also appreciate music Ive liked for years in a whole new way.
While I still broadly like rock, that covers a million different styles in itself, and Ive also branched in to some popier music, some classical, I can appreciate funk, jazz and yes, even SOME rap.
But its still not a satisfactory answer, because I appreciate that saying someone is not old, or intelligent enough to say that one type of music is better than another is very judgemental, and prejudicial - so there are difficulties there, and even if we can get past that - intelligent people can disagree as much as unintelligent ones, older as much as younger. (Although I have noticed that, while some bright, older people appreciate certain
Ive long struggled with the question of whether there is an objective standard of music, or whether its entirely personal taste - can we ever say one thing is better than another?
I cant answer the question - no one can. To say its preference is something a lot of people might struggle to accept, because it basically means the crazy frog could be considered a classic, marvellous piece of music....I cant deal with that for one.
To say there is an objective standard of "good music" is easy, but then what falls in it, and who gets to decide?
Its an impossible debate - but it doesnt mean we shouldnt discuss it, because it's very
interesting.
People get very defensive of their personal taste, which is why they often group together with people who agree with them - theres nothing worse than being ridiculed for liking Queen in a room full of people who completely disagree with you.
I once recall as a teenager having an argument with about 5 other drunken teenagers about who was better - Queen (as argued by me) or Queens of the Stone Age (As argued by the others). I learnt then that, even if there were some standard of music, or way of saying one thing is better than another, it would still be disputed due to the force people place behind their own music taste and beliefs.
So we hit a brick wall.
I once had the idea that an objective standard of music should be completely separated from taste, as people are absolutely entitled to enjoy what they like.
More controversially, I also thought that if we were to establish an objective way of assessing music, only people of a certain age and intelligence should be allowed to decide; people of lesser intelligence are incapable of appreciating music on the same level - recognising the skill involved, appreciating the difficulty in producing something, understanding the emotion, meaning and beauty to the extent some others are. Its a bold statement I know.
But these people are, furthermore, unable to listen to and take on board the views of others, and consider changing their opinions, or adapting them appropriately - they instead tend to stick to their guns, blindly insisting that theyre right, and everyone else is wrong.
As far as age goes - I'll be careful here, because I used to hate people taking a pot shot at anyone else for their age, and suggesting that this should disadvantage someone, but Ive come to the slow conclusion that generally, although by no means all, people below a certain age have not listened wide enough music wise, and are particularly closed minded to other types of music - even if they havent heard them. They are also stubborn and quick to defend their own beliefs without considering that they may not be correct, or that other views are just as valid.
Im only 20, and Im happy to admit theres a world of music, some of it probably wonderful, that I havent yet heard, but until I was about 16 I was extremely closed minded, and stuck very rigidly to what I liked - at the time basically Queen, Aerosmith and Genesis, without considering other types of music. In the intervening period I hope Im a little bit wiser, and Im starting to discover some fantastic music I never considered listening to before, but also appreciate music Ive liked for years in a whole new way.
While I still broadly like rock, that covers a million different styles in itself, and Ive also branched in to some popier music, some classical, I can appreciate funk, jazz and yes, even SOME rap.
But its still not a satisfactory answer, because I appreciate that saying someone is not old, or intelligent enough to say that one type of music is better than another is very judgemental, and prejudicial - so there are difficulties there, and even if we can get past that - intelligent people can disagree as much as unintelligent ones, older as much as younger. (Although I have noticed that, while some bright, older people appreciate certain
I think specifically concerning modern music, my own view is that there is some great music out there, although I do think it was in greater supply in the sixties, seventies and even the eighties to an extent.
The reason modern music is perceived as being rubbish, particularly by people who like rock music - in all its forms, is that pop music is now aimed at a younger, less mature audience, and as a result is dominated by what my mum has always called "bubblegum pop". This audience certainly buys more singles than any other demographic, and probably albums too (although the mega selling music these days tends to be that which attracts other demographics ASWELL - and this is the type of music some people call "commercial" - e.g. Commercial rock/punk/rap, Coldplay).
In previous eras rock, punk, funk, dance WAS pop music - no one cared if it was commercial or not (e.g.Bohemian Rhapsody - about as uncommercial as they come; Youre my best friend (maybe WATC etc also - quite commercial), and it seems to me it was aimed at anyone who would listen and enjoy on any level, be it a shallow, or deeper one, but this is no longer the case on the whole.
That doesnt mean that there isnt any fantastic music being made, its just it doesnt sell on the same level as modern pop music, or gain as much media focus.
Rock wise I think Audioslave, Velvet Revolver, The Darkness, Dirty Americans, Muse and others are all making some fantasic music; you just have to look more carefully to find a lot of it.
Finally, I do also think that since the 90's rock music has taken a turn, on the whole, to become a little bit more depressing, and less uplifting or about fun things like sex, drugs and rock n roll (LOL), but again I think this situation is made to look worse by the fact there is an entire genre of rock, most of which is quite popular, and sometimes makes the charts, dedicated to a particularly depressing and poor outlook on life. The thing that is sad is that because it sells so well it breeds more bands whinging about how sad things are - I prefer happier, or straight out more rocking music personally!
I'll shut up now. lol
The reason modern music is perceived as being rubbish, particularly by people who like rock music - in all its forms, is that pop music is now aimed at a younger, less mature audience, and as a result is dominated by what my mum has always called "bubblegum pop". This audience certainly buys more singles than any other demographic, and probably albums too (although the mega selling music these days tends to be that which attracts other demographics ASWELL - and this is the type of music some people call "commercial" - e.g. Commercial rock/punk/rap, Coldplay).
In previous eras rock, punk, funk, dance WAS pop music - no one cared if it was commercial or not (e.g.Bohemian Rhapsody - about as uncommercial as they come; Youre my best friend (maybe WATC etc also - quite commercial), and it seems to me it was aimed at anyone who would listen and enjoy on any level, be it a shallow, or deeper one, but this is no longer the case on the whole.
That doesnt mean that there isnt any fantastic music being made, its just it doesnt sell on the same level as modern pop music, or gain as much media focus.
Rock wise I think Audioslave, Velvet Revolver, The Darkness, Dirty Americans, Muse and others are all making some fantasic music; you just have to look more carefully to find a lot of it.
Finally, I do also think that since the 90's rock music has taken a turn, on the whole, to become a little bit more depressing, and less uplifting or about fun things like sex, drugs and rock n roll (LOL), but again I think this situation is made to look worse by the fact there is an entire genre of rock, most of which is quite popular, and sometimes makes the charts, dedicated to a particularly depressing and poor outlook on life. The thing that is sad is that because it sells so well it breeds more bands whinging about how sad things are - I prefer happier, or straight out more rocking music personally!
I'll shut up now. lol
I would put like this. Music that is "in" today is crap. Almost all of the music in the charts MTV top 20 etc, etc is crap. It's commercial rubbish, and I hate it. But not ALL MUSIC TODAY is crap. 'Lifehouse' is an excellent example of a good band today. But... I mean, Black eyed peas, Pussycat dolls, Kelly Klarcsson (sp?), Green Day, 50 cent, CRAP.