- Dec 24, 2001
- Albuquerque, NM
"Music is how we decorate time." And avocado green, shag carpet in the bathroom will always be in bad taste.
Well, the Beatles do suck, at any rate.
But of course.
I've been saying for years that everything I've been listening to is terrible.
Neil Young is a bad singer with an amazing gift for songwriting and music.
Be honest, how far would he get on America Idol after the new millenium @2:20?
Simon Cowell - I'm sorry kid, your voice is too thin and reedy.
Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy has made the cut as has the occasional recent song
Well, I'm guilty as charged, your Honor.
I'm stuck listening to 60s-00s music; Pink Floyd, Led Zep, The Gathering, Kate Bush, Black Sabbath, Bowie, Iron Maiden, Rammstein, Nightwish, Nine Inch Nails, ABBA, Blur, Gasolin...
I hear new music that I like from time to time, but it just doesn't stick with me for long, for whatever reason. I'll be that old lady who will yell at the youngsters from my porch: 'Uncultured punks!' while blasting 'Feuer Frei'.
Song lengths have actually been like that in popular radio for ages due to tape lengths.
Dancing, outfits and music video are all musical. Reducing a piece to material in itself is not sufficient for understanding why it has a draw. Metal fans don't dress the way they do for the heck of it.
This is reasonably true, specifically when contrasting the era you appeal to and stuff today. But, uh. I don't know. There's infact a lot of political signifiers in music today, even if it's phrased on an understandable level most of the time (everything is political, but still). I'm unsure however, even if my favorite bands go there, whether philosophical themes 'objectively' make something better.
Also, the idea of band (ie rock) music being superior was propulsed (and literally propagandized) heavily as part of the prog movement.
IDK, there's a good amount of popular artists today that have a decade or so behind them and are still pumping out stuff. I don't have quantitative numbers on how many fads there are, and I hate to say it, but time tends to wash away the fads, longform bands or musicians stick around and still do their stuff; the current generation has literally no ability to prove it's the case for them, since they're still young. If you've lived for 30 less years, your career is 30 years shorter. You may be proven right in 30 years.
This, I'm not quite sure how to touch on. Musical culture has certainly shifted in the way of industry. But honestly, they are more often than not perfectly capable of playing music, and, uh. What kind of metal do you like? Most of it is really, really corporatized, even if it doesn't seem like it. Even the small bands. It just has a smaller consumer segment and a different sales pitch :l And stuff like Pink Floyd, Elvis, and the Beatles were massive expansions of the music industry in the establishment of stadium rock. It's much more dire in regards to the expansion of the culture industry (if you don't like that) compared to a perfume brand.
I find a much stronger reason for song lengths being the way they are is so people who don't like the song only have to wait a few mins for it to change. When I say "radio" I mean public venues in general like a bar or a hair salon, that may or may not be straight playing the radio.
I don't deny that dancing/outfits/videos are a big part of how most people enjoy music. I am just viciously opposed to it. I'm in it to 'listen' not to 'watch' and not to idolize. Not saying I've never watched attached music/lyric videos, but those that I do see aren't just a bunch of hot, suggestive dancers. KPOP can put out some bangers, but I find that whole act repulsive. I've never dressed in the goth/emo fashion that is common with metalheads. I find that aspect of music to be increasingly distracting.
Many of the sins I've listed are old sins it's true (Elvis dancing), but the degrees to which these dominant have increased. Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Elton John, Mamas & Papas, Kansas, etc., would struggle to be radio hit popular today. I can think of maybe Regina Spektor being an example that got a couple songs on there. That is my basic point. Dance music isn't new, but it's never been as dominant.
Similarly, I don't expect every song to be some intellectual journey, but virtually none are. Artists might release like *one* song in this vein to show that they can, but it's not what dominates (Lil Baby's 'The Bigger Pictire', Taylor Swift's 'You Need To Calm Down') exist, but they're big outliers for those artists and might even be critiqued as hollow virtue signaling. There's also trends in just simpler vocabulary as well (though that's throughout culture). I've heard a lot of cliche metal lyrics, or just pure nonsense that gives the illusion of some deeper meaning. It's still so much more tolerable to me than stuff like "Party in the USA" where the only non-1st-grade words are "cardigan" and "stilettos" because fashion ofc.
As far as some artists still producing music, I'm not saying they up and stopped. I'm really ignorant on Lady Gaga. The only songs I remember of hers though were like the 4 smash hits from her first album. For years it was hard to NOT hear those songs everywhere. She's not retired. I assume she's still making bangers. But her popularity certainly spiked early, and that type of trajectory is what I associate with being fad-like (whether the artist deserves to be a fad or not). Do you think Olivia Rodrigo or Billie Eilish will have multiple radio hits in 10 years? It's not meant as a slight to them, but I sincerely doubt it.
When I say "bands" vs "artists" I'm not saying that bands make better music. It's completely subjective whether Billy Joel is better or worse than Pink Floyd. One-man gigs can be complete, generally when they're playing the piano or the guitar. Record companies have been a parasitic middleman forever. Opportunists have always seen popular acts and wanted to get in on the action. What's different today is that the music industry isn't just trying to profit from artists, it's trying to *create* artists. It can create entire bands too of course, but the path of least resistance is just finding a candidate you like, and then you supply EVERYTHING. They provide the music, the lyrics, supply the necessary band/production, clothes, make-up artists, promoters, choreographer, etc. This confuses the cause and effect of popularity. Are new artists played a lot because they're popular, or are they popular because they're played a lot? Like these singers aren't completely musically ignorant, they often can play an instrument or went through some kind of classic music training. They're not like pulled off the street after all. But still, I think most people would agree that stars aren't born, they're created. You can find that depressing without being a prog head who only listens to songs with at least 4 different time signatures.
My jam is stuff like this for what it's worth: