Discussion of the Week #3 (2011/11/27)

[Champ213 1858]

The Discussion of the Week!

How it works:

- Each sunday a staff member will start a thread with a new music-related question. They can range from broad to specific, but they are usually more in-depth than just asking for your favourite band.

- The discussion will be featured as announcement on the front page to get as many people involved as possible.

- People should put some effort into their posts, ie. not just write a few words and leave, or quote a sentence from a previous poster without adding anything to it. At least 2-3 well-worded sentences are not too much to ask.

- Other than that it's just like a normal discussion: you can discuss posts made by other users, but try to stay on topic and, of course, be civil.

The thread will stay open even after the week has passed, so the discussion can continue, but it will be replaced in the announcement center by the next featured question.

(Btw: you can also submit questions for the Discussion of the Week by sending them to any staff member.)

Got it? So here's the new question:

Do you believe music was really better in the "old days" or has music always been, in essence, the same and older generations are just a bit jaded?

[Jigsaw9 6783]

"Of course, everything was waaay~ better back in the good ol' days!!"

...is what a lot of people say, but I think that's just due to the fact that the bands and artists we first get into when we are kids or teenagers just have a bigger impact on us. Especially because it's a turbulent time, being a teenager, hormones, emotions, etc. You can really connect with music and entertainment stuff in general in that period, and that encourages you to find out more, and then you find another new favorite, and then more, and so on. Music is like a big 'terra incognita' waiting to be discovered according to your tastes. These experiences will always stay with us, and we might look back at some stuff and say "aw man, how could I listen to that crap?" but overall we also tend to preserve some core favorites (is how I see it).

Also, in the past few years I found myself going back to lots of '80s, '90s and early '00s music, and listening to bands that I missed out on (too much great music, too little time! xD), and generally I'm more okay with that kind of sound than the sound of nowadays' music. Of course I have some recent minor-favorites too, but they don't impact me the same way like my old faves, or even these random old bands that I just listened to recently. It's that era, with all of its musical connectedness and intertextuality that I was born into and raised in, that will always sound more special to me than any other music. Yeah, maybe I'm just a nostalgic loser, dunno. xD

So all in all, I think while old music is not essentially better, it is our experiences and attachments that make it seem better. There is good music made even now as we speak, that we might or might not connect with - but it will surely become some guy's or girl's "best band ever" that s/he'll remember fondly in 10-20 years, thinking about "damn, the music of 2011 really had it, not like these new crap bands!" ...and so on it will go, I guess.

[Yasupon 18]

I believe there's both good and bad in both. I'll just state my opinions judging VK. I don't listen to as many old school VK bands as I do bands from recent years, but there are definitely many great old school bands that I would rather listen to than bands from today, and vice versa. For example I would much rather listen to a band like L'yse:nore than a band like Devi+tec, and I'd rather listen to a band like DELUHI than a band like DHIANA. There's good and bad music in every generation. There are many horrible VK bands that are coming out today but oldschool was certainly not perfect either. I can recall listening to a few old school bands with downright horrendous vocals. I wouldn't say that the "old days" had better music and I won't say that modern VK is better either, it's a matter of taste so you can generalize based on your opinion.

I also really agree with Jigsaw, especially in his first paragraph. I would have said something similar to that as well.

[ronluna 17]

it was during 2007 when i tried listening to all modern kinds of music. it was during late 2008 when i started to like bands that are older. almost all the bands that i like became more heavier and or deeper in terms of vocals and music, some became simplier and also their overall sound became louder and clearer referring to the bands that released their remastered albums and best ofs. there are also bands that you can say tried to follow the trend. it really depends upon the band that you are refering. i like some of older bands and i like some of the modern bands of to date, newer favorites became old and some new bands will become my favorite again. i think the advantage of older bands are there are lot more bands that have more originality and the lead of modern bands are they have clearer sound.

[Zeus 7997]

I'm going to be extremely confusing with the answer I'm going to give so I'll understand if people misinterpret what I'm trying to communicate.

Do you believe music was really better in the "old days" or has music always been, in essence, the same and older generations are just a bit jaded?

Both yes and no. Jigsaw summed up my no reason, so no point in rehashing that. I'll tackle the reasons why I think "yes" here.

With the answer "yes", I'm also going to focus mainly on mainstream American music, and of this mostly of the "pop" variety. Pop music sees a major market for commericialization. It always has and it will be because "pop" isn't a genre as much as whatever we decide is in and catchy. The pop music of the yesteryear (I'll refer to the 50's for my example) differs immensely from the pop music of 2011. Let's get some examples:

50's pop (GO FALLOUT 2 WOO):

4sgMjyy7G6w

xx11's pop

mXvmSaE0JXA

Why such disparate examples? Why couldn't I find a xx11 jazzy pop example to go with Louis Armstrong? Well the reason why is because in 2011, there is no such thing as jazzy pop. "Pop" itself has turned into a pseudo-genre of sorts: it's not bound by any constant constraints but rather temporal ones that we as a market define from time to time. The examples for pop music from the 50's range from artists like Elvis Presley to Doris Day to Louis Armstrong to even Morris Stoloff & His Orchestra. Examples for pop music for 2011 show much less diversity: Ke$ha, Lady Gaga, LMFAO, etc. These artists all have their differences but they're all firmly under the same few genres. I think that the major reason for this change in the definition of "pop" music and our perception of what it is is due to the way music is diseminated in the present. Back in the '50's, since that is my example, everyone got a majority of their music from the radio. If they liked something it's because at one point, they heard it on the radio. There was a larger diversity of content being played on the radio as well as radio stations that pandered to that content because all artists had to utilize that medium to get their music out there. Since your listeners could be on any one station at any given time, the perception I get is that there was more competition for the user's attention (and in effect, more diversity in music). Not only did artists have to compete with artists from their genre, they also had to compete with artists from other genres. In that way, I feel that the artists of the yesteryear felt more pressure to be innovative, and that innovation led to a lot of positive developments in the field of music. Due to the way the music was presented, the best artists were the ones that could catch your ears against all of the music that you were deluged in when you turned on the radio by doing something new, but still familiar enough to what you already know to be comfortable with it. Now of course, I'm not getting into the crooked tactics of the record industry (they were just as bad back then) but just keep that in mind for this next part.

In the present, we can find out about almost any band in the world in just a matter of seconds. We no longer need the radio as we did 50 years ago, so companies don't put as much focus on the radio as they used to. Overall, there's less diversity in radio stations because you can't be certain that you'll attract enough of a following to stay in business. As a resident of NYC, I can attest that we have one classic rock station, two hip-hop and rap stations that occasionally play an R & B song if it's popular, one for "contemporary adult music" (which is basically just stuff from the '90's - think Celine Dion and you'll be right on the money) and the rest are an abundance of pop/dance music stations. All similar stations play the same songs in a different order. Now let's try to follow my logic as it pertains to American music - with our portable media players and Internet we don't listen to the radio as often, so there aren't as many different radio stations as there used to be. Because of that, music stations centralize around a few core styles. HOWEVER, the radio is still powerful enough of a force to dictate what is in and what is not because record companies still invest in the radio as their primary means of advertisement. Combine the first part with this part and you have companies faced with few different types of genres to work with to become "popular". Therefore, not as many artists from the yesteryear would be able to get signed today. If we had a Louis Armstrong of today in America, we'd never find out about him. The few artists that do get signed all pander to one of these few genres. The less artists that there are out there, the less "competition" there is in a sense with respect to the amount of artists out there on the scene. Plus, the only competition many artists get is from the other "few" artists that also see airplay that play the same genre of music that they do. Therefore, record companies aren't willing to take a risk on an artist that may not connect with their audience, because they don't have other artists that are guaranteed to bring in the cash to cover whatever they may lose. So they tell artists that they need to do something different but fundamentally everything needs to be the same until a new trend comes along and becomes popular and "the thing to do" (think: dubstep). This is why a lot of artists hopped on the auto-tune train. This is why everyone in rap music started out with a spoken verse before getting a singer to do it before finally attempting to do it themselves. This is where a lot of electronic influence came from. Record companies have always been interested in what would sell, but with the state of music in America today that influence is more pronounced than it used to be. My observations are leading me to believe that it's stifling the creativity of today's mainstream music, which is why I said that the music from long ago can be said to be better than the music of today.

Of course, independent stuff and things from abroad do not apply to this logic and you could even say that because radio is losing it's stronghold on the music frontier that it's allowing even more potential different genres and bands that wouldn't have gained exposure even in the 50's to amass a following now. That's where the "no" strain of logic comes in from this angle.

I suppose most of it has to do with nostalgia more than anything. I've been in the visual scene for a while but I was never "heavy" into it until a few years ago. To me, the bands I found with my very first stint in the scene and then back when I was really getting into it were "amazing" and "the greatest ever"...to my ears at that time. I look back and a lot of those bands now sound like crap to me because my tastes have matured. The music in the scene has been the same as ever (hell, it's been more of the same as ever) but because I've heard it again and again and again I've had enough of it so I get tired. Because the scene isn't changing along with my tastes I tend to combine nostalgia with subjective thinking and say "gee, the music of yesterday was so much better than now". I also tend to do this when I see an especially crappy band that I would have discarded even then as utter crap. Truth is, with respect to the visual scene there is even less change in the music than there is in most other scenes. We just grow into it and grow out of it really quickly. You can blink and those who comprise the fandom change just like that. This forum is indicative of that. A lot of the people that were active when I first came to the forum are no longer here. A lot of the people that are now active on the forum had never heard of visual kei when I was at my peak fandom for the scene. When I first stepped into the scene, no one on this forum save maybe Champ was in the scene and listening to music. The girl that introduced me to Dir en grey doesn't listen to Japanese music anymore, much less visual kei. None of them save Champ probably still listen to this music now. Very few of us can say that the visual kei music of days gone by was better than the music of the now because we haven't been around long enough for there to be a sizable time gap. That's just how fast we've grown out of it.

And yes, I'm terribly guilty of this myself.

So there, I hope I've vomited out my answer and explained it sufficiently.

[LIDL 692]

Got it? So here's the new question:

Do you believe music was really better in the "old days" or has music always been, in essence, the same and older generations are just a bit jaded?

Yes and No.

Yes that we might be jaded.

No because well, like has been said,

Most people only appreciate the music that

they listen to when they are growing up and music that they heard from then on.

And they called those as the best era of music because they were there being a part of the history.

Though in actuality, music has been like fashion, it goes in circles.

There is no new genres being created today, not anymore

and those who say there are must be hallucinating.

Cos the only thing that being created are sub genres that came from one roots or more.

Since what current artists did today is reinvent sounds that exists

and combine it with some other sounds, whether it from the main roots or from another sub genres

and making it sounds unique, "original'" and "new".

And then it became another sub genres from their roots, whether it is rock, folk, pop, rap or disco.

To make it simple, it is like when one making a dough.

It came from the same ingredients, from that dough, we can make it into cakes,

many kinds of cakes with different method of preparation, icing and taste and name.

Which means people will hear or is actually hearing the same old shit with more styles into it.

So that it doesn't sound too basic like when it was originally sang/created anymore.

[Marupinku 7]

No, music was never better or worse. There's a perception of previous generations music being better for two reason. The first is that older generations grew up with it and won't like the newer music. Nostalgia can be very powerful like that.

However, there's also the issue of newer generations only liking older music. I think a lot of that is because time tends to forget bands that aren't good, that didn't appeal to the listeners of the time. Music being produced today can seem worse, because you're surrounded by all of it. Good, bad, forgettable. While even if you look at the '70s or '80s, there will be artists you don't care about or dislike, time has already weeding the selection out greatly.

Those who only like certain genres that were popular during a time period tend to just be using that as an excuse, imo. Whatever genre they like, it is still being produced today. Perhaps not in the same quantity as in the past, but are still bands playing music in that style. Most seem to choose to just focus on the past stubbornly out of nostalgia.

That is not to say every person who prefers a certain time period's music is doing so out of nostalgia, and they could be well versed in many of the bands from that time, both good and bad. There will always be exceptions, especially with personal opinions.

[bonsaijodelfisch 328]

phew, and i thought i would be the one with the massively too long answers xD

sooo as for the question

Do you believe music was really better in the "old days" or has music always been, in essence, the same and older generations are just a bit jaded?

i think the most reasons have already been said, nostalgia, inflexibility to change taste etcetc...

one of the most important things though tends to be forgotten, marupinku mentioned it biefly

I think a lot of that is because time tends to forget bands that aren't good, that didn't appeal to the listeners of the time.

Music being produced today can seem worse, because you're surrounded by all of it. Good, bad, forgettable.

While even if you look at the '70s or '80s, there will be artists you don't care about or dislike, time has already weeding the selection out greatly.

this doesn't only consider those tiny artists from around the corner.

in contrary quite the lot of the successfull artists are forgotten quite easily (and totally with good reason)

of course if i ask my father (1950) about "the time when music was still good" he tells me ledzep, cream, hendrix, deep purple, stones, beatles and perhaps one or two more but thats about it.

thats eight bands (one could perhaps make that 15 or so) over a time of about 10 years (1965-1975).

actually that is a pretty good number and i think one perhaps might have difficulty to name as many outstanding bands in the time from 2001-2011.

this has got a lot to do with what zess explained about the time of the internet.

back in the days (lol, that sounds stupid) you had a handfull of selected massively successfull bands/stars, because one knew what to get, nowadys it's more like

"oh, i like that, lets download the discography+ three to four different bands that make sort of similar music"

so the fame is spread to a large number of bands instead of some selected few.

however, this is not the point i was trying to make (quite a lot of words for not making a point).

i would like to point out, that the bands mentioned of my father (well, those are what he would by my guessing) weren't those days kesha or lady gaga or justin bieber,

they much more compare to the 60s/70s versions of slipknot, manson, korn, metallica and the lot.

quite successfull yes, but not the actual mainstream pop-music!

if you don't believe me (well even if you do) i challenge you to go to the billboard homepage http://www.billboard.com

click on "charts"=>"hot 100"=>"view Chart Archives" and see for yourself.

a good place to start might be your birthday, and then look at the top 10 here...

this was number one, when i was born (got to mention, this was in germany, in the US i would've been better of with something from madonna...)

oGV13lPYLrU

this was number one for 6 weeks!!

suddenly lady gaga doesn't sound so bad anymore does it?

it's just that stupid people, with absolutely no sense for music or beauty and creativity in general will always be the majority, always...

so, go back in time and get desillusioned about the "good old days"

P.S.: i had my personal moment of truth once when there was a concert compilation of i think woodstock / isle of white or the likes festival somewhere 1969-1972-ish on tv,

which i believed to be the absolute peak of quality music.

i had to realise "dammn, 90% of this is just utter garbage and even the acts that i thought i like are weak and or bad performed whatever, couldn't watch the whole show to the end...

[Champ213 1858]

When I first stepped into the scene, no one on this forum save maybe Champ was in the scene and listening to music. The girl that introduced me to Dir en grey doesn't listen to Japanese music anymore, much less visual kei. None of them save Champ probably still listen to this music now.

Why me?

Anyway, recently I was browsing Youtube and somehow stumbled into videos that showed old commercials from the 90s and 80s. The comments on the videos were without exception positive, praising the ads as better, funnier, more tasteful than those today.

However, if I think back, nobody was overly fond of commercials in the 90s either. Somehow those commercials turned from a nuisance into some magical memories from previous days.

I guess it can work the same way with music. Apparently, even something you didn't like 15 years ago can suddenly turn into something cool thanks to nostalgia factor.

Personally I do no see it that way though. I remember a lot of really crappy music from my teenage days. I mean, is this really artistically more profound than something Kesha would put out:

Z6jB1B-VRXA

I cannot comment much on times before I actively listened to music. However, there may be a very good reason for that: the further back you go the greater the likelihood that the really crappy stuff simply gets forgotten. Only the classics remain, so we are inclined to think that everything was golden back then.

Hence it's obviously a bit skewed to compare Kesha to Louis Armstrong. The music of the past already comes to us in a filtered form: the forgetful, generic, volatile and insignificant stuff has already been sorted out, and only the timeless stuff survives, while in the present we get it all at once: the good, the bad, the passing fads and all that.

Now, if Kesha is still being played in 60 years and considered a huge classic, then we have something to compare.

[Zeus 7997]

Hence it's obviously a bit skewed to compare Kesha to Louis Armstrong. The music of the past already comes to us in a filtered form: the forgetful, generic, volatile and insignificant stuff has already been sorted out, and only the timeless stuff survives, while in the present we get it all at once: the good, the bad, the passing fads and all that.

How I ended up comparing the two artists (or even getting all the artists that I mentioned) was by going through and looking at collection CD's of popular artists. I found one that was a release of popular artists from the '50's that were released in the 50's and then one of popular artists of now released...well, now. They're totally skewed though, no way around that one.

[Kaito-sama 1]

I think that older music just leaves something behind so that music as a whole can learn from it, and improve. At the same time, I know a lot of bands claim to take influence from older bands to make themselves look better, but that shouldn't be the point at all. It should be the same as it is with history, learn from your mistakes, to make something truly memorable for this generation, and to be looked back on by future ones. Sure I listen to mostly recent music, but I still see the value and importance of the past, even if its not in my personal preference.

[Number Girl 48]

Every time I come across someone with the "older was better" attitude, it always turns out they listen only to the radio. As Zess said, to depend on the current radio for freshness and diversity is futile. It doesn't give a clear picture of what today's musicians are accomplishing and the Classic Rock/Rap/Pop stations probably don't do the same for their various eras. In the context of the Japanese music fandom, I notice most people who believe the new scene of music "sucks" were only noticing the more popular side of visual kei scene all over the internet and never heard of anything from the thriving indie and underground scenes. Leaning away from only one angle of perspective can really change a lot.

Even though people will always have their personal preferences, I believe people should experience both the old and the new and not jump to conclusions.