OT - Worst decade for music?

[BOSSMANPC]

I take it you've never heard the rumor about Bianca Jagger walking in on Mick and David in bed together? Don't know if it's true, but that was the rumor back in the late 70's. I consider myself lucky to have seen the Stones back in the late 80's. Awesome show. Never saw Bowie, but I've been told he's great in concert also.

Yep that was a huge rumor back then. Mick took one hell of a chance if that Bowe sword had a jagged edge. With those lips it could have redefined lip reduction surgery.

 

[TOX1]

I voted the 90s The music in that decade turned me to talk radio. Utter Crap

Likewise

 

[Comeds]

I take it you've never heard the rumor about Bianca Jagger walking in on Mick and David in bed together? Don't know if it's true, but that was the rumor back in the late 70's. I consider myself lucky to have seen the Stones back in the late 80's. Awesome show. Never saw Bowie, but I've been told he's great in concert also.

I have heard that rumor before too. When Freddie Mercury died Bowie said it was just luck that he avoided the same fate as he did everything Freddie did. Or some words to that effect.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

Three people picked the 90's? How can you pick the decade that gave us Sweat Of My Balls?

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

I'll be honest with you, I love his music. I do. I'm a Michael Bolton fan. For my money, I don't know if it gets any better than when he sings "When a Man Loves a Woman".

Did you know Michael Bolton started his career as a lead singer of a Heavy Metal band? Believe it or not it's true. He certainly had the hair for it.:

 

[Nasty_Magician]

Did you know Michael Bolton started his career as a lead singer of a Heavy Metal band? Believe it or not it's true. He certainly had the hair for it.:

On a similar note, Rod Stewart was one of Jimmy Page's first choices as lead singer when he was forming Zep.

 

[SLY]

Bolton is cool. I like some of Rod Stewarts stuff too.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

Bolton is cool. I like some of Rod Stewarts stuff too.

I've never been a Bolton fan. Rod Stewart's voice annoys me. It's like nails on a chalkboard.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Rod Stewart can rot in hell. GRRR.

 

[SLY]

For some odd reason I like that cheesy music. I can go right from that to death metal though.

 

[elocomotive]

For some odd reason I like that cheesy music. I can go right from that to death metal though.

SO YOU CAN ROT IN FUCKING HEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.... Time love and tenderness.

Sly - you never cease to surprise me.

 

[SLY]

lol... Just wait till I expose the next shitty industry.

 

[elocomotive]

lol... Just wait till I expose the next shitty industry.

The port-o-pot industry?

I want to see Tampa's new tourism brochures...

TAMPA BAY
Beautiful beaches... just avoid the gay pirates and low-quality dildos.

 

[elocomotive]

I see what you mean but I think overall the music scene has gotten better because of technology as well. Its cheaper to make and distribute music now than it ever has been before so bands do not need to be signed to large labels in order to be heard. I think there are plenty of creative and niche artists that are being heard now and I am not sure they would have been 20 years ago.

Ofcourse the drawback of that is that plenty of artists who should never be heard are being heard as well.

Yeah, I think it's a double-edged sword as well. On the one hand, you see this new technology tricks explode and get overused. Like synthesizers in the 80s and like auto-tune today. But (a) this is nothing new (guitar distortion is not a naturally-occuring sound) and (b) once things go through an initial phase of "oooo, look what we can do," the sounds tend to be applied by producers and artists in more nuanced and productive ways. I think think you see this in movies as well.

So while some technological breakthroughs might be annoying, you wouldn't have albums like Radiohead's "OK Computer" (which is an experience in aural atmospheres even if there weren't a ton of great melodies layered on top) without it.

And while you might hear some garbage like Ke$ha or Paris Hilton making songs only because there is auto-tune, to quote Seymour Hoffman in Almost Famous, "their art never lasts." The criteria for art that last is the same in every era - good melodies, inventive application of voice and instruments, thoughtful lyrics, evocative moods, and good storytelling, whether by words or just the sound itself.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

Yeah, I think it's a double-edged sword as well. On the one hand, you see this new technology tricks explode and get overused. Like synthesizers in the 80s and like auto-tune today. But (a) this is nothing new (guitar distortion is not a naturally-occuring sound) and (b) once things go through an initial phase of "oooo, look what we can do," the sounds tend to be applied by producers and artists in more nuanced and productive ways. I think think you see this in movies as well.

So while some technological breakthroughs might be annoying, you wouldn't have albums like Radiohead's "OK Computer" (which is an experience in aural atmospheres even if there weren't a ton of great melodies layered on top) without it.

And while you might hear some garbage like Ke$ha or Paris Hilton making songs only because there is auto-tune, to quote Seymour Hoffman in Almost Famous, "their art never lasts." The criteria for art that last is the same in every era - good melodies, inventive application of voice and instruments, thoughtful lyrics, evocative moods, and good storytelling, whether by words or just the sound itself.

When I brought up technology as the death of music I was referring to distribution. Digital music and file sharing has killed the record industry, and as a result the music that is promoted does not have as much creative risk and originality. It is becoming "what is catchy and cost effective?", like reality TV.

 

[elocomotive]

When I brought up technology as the death of music I was referring to distribution. Digital music and file sharing has killed the record industry, and as a result the music that is promoted does not have as much creative risk and originality. It is becoming "what is catchy and cost effective?", like reality TV.

Hmmm. I don't know. I see your point, but less stuff is being "promoted" now that the labels are slowly dying. The labels HAD to make sure that the stuff they made was catchy and perhaps uninventive because they were dealing with huge multi-million dollar budgets in recording, tours, distribution, and advertising. Now you can spend a couple thousand dollars and record something in your basement and computer-based recording software enables you to produce something on par with professional recordings that you can get to the masses through the Internet, YouTube, iTunes, etc.

People are still going to CHOOSE music that is "crap," which isn't to say I don't thoroughly enjoy "crap" from time-to-time. But it isn't controlled as strongly by a few select companies, but more at the mercy of the public and their own devices.

As individuals, we are more free than ever to seek out exactly the kind of music we want and sample/find/buy it easily. I think b/c of that niche genres are stronger than ever and there are lots of indie bands doing better than they would have say 20 years ago. Bands that can stay true to the music they want to make b/c they don't depend on a record label for a living that pressures them to change their music to fit what they think will sell more.

Now that said, where I agree with you is that the labels themselves have narrowed the artists they sign and use b/c they are fighting for an increasingly thinner part of the pie. In that way, yes, it is more formulaic. But I think they will fade away in time as the capital investment for big, lavish studios and the distribution channels to get your CD in a store are just not necessary, so they become obsolete.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

Hmmm. I don't know. I see your point, but less stuff is being "promoted" now that the labels are slowly dying. The labels HAD to make sure that the stuff they made was catchy and perhaps uninventive because they were dealing with huge multi-million dollar budgets in recording, tours, distribution, and advertising. Now you can spend a couple thousand dollars and record something in your basement and computer-based recording software enables you to produce something on par with professional recordings that you can get to the masses through the Internet, YouTube, iTunes, etc.

People are still going to CHOOSE music that is "crap," which isn't to say I don't thoroughly enjoy "crap" from time-to-time. But it isn't controlled as strongly by a few select companies, but more at the mercy of the public and their own devices.

As individuals, we are more free than ever to seek out exactly the kind of music we want and sample/find/buy it easily. I think b/c of that niche genres are stronger than ever and there are lots of indie bands doing better than they would have say 20 years ago. Bands that can stay true to the music they want to make b/c they don't depend on a record label for a living that pressures them to change their music to fit what they think will sell more.

Now that said, where I agree with you is that the labels themselves have narrowed the artists they sign and use b/c they are fighting for an increasingly thinner part of the pie. In that way, yes, it is more formulaic. But I think they will fade away in time as the capital investment for big, lavish studios and the distribution channels to get your CD in a store are just not necessary, so they become obsolete.

I agree and disagree. Recording costs are down so it is easier for people to record music, however without a major label backing that music with touring promos and radio play you don't know it exists unless you know what you're looking for. Example, the Black Keys are one of my favorite bands of all time, I didn't realize they existed until a year 1/2 ago and that was through word of mouth. It's not until recently that they really got noticed.

 

[Comeds]

Hmmm. I don't know. I see your point, but less stuff is being "promoted" now that the labels are slowly dying. The labels HAD to make sure that the stuff they made was catchy and perhaps uninventive because they were dealing with huge multi-million dollar budgets in recording, tours, distribution, and advertising. Now you can spend a couple thousand dollars and record something in your basement and computer-based recording software enables you to produce something on par with professional recordings that you can get to the masses through the Internet, YouTube, iTunes, etc.

People are still going to CHOOSE music that is "crap," which isn't to say I don't thoroughly enjoy "crap" from time-to-time. But it isn't controlled as strongly by a few select companies, but more at the mercy of the public and their own devices.

As individuals, we are more free than ever to seek out exactly the kind of music we want and sample/find/buy it easily. I think b/c of that niche genres are stronger than ever and there are lots of indie bands doing better than they would have say 20 years ago. Bands that can stay true to the music they want to make b/c they don't depend on a record label for a living that pressures them to change their music to fit what they think will sell more.

Now that said, where I agree with you is that the labels themselves have narrowed the artists they sign and use b/c they are fighting for an increasingly thinner part of the pie. In that way, yes, it is more formulaic. But I think they will fade away in time as the capital investment for big, lavish studios and the distribution channels to get your CD in a store are just not necessary, so they become obsolete.

I agree 100%.

That great amount of choices one has musically nowadays is another reason I agree with Nasty's notion that in 15 years there may not be many/any bands that can sell out stadiums. Just like cable tv, internet, and the other options we have have greatly eroded television show viewership the last 30 years - I think the same thing will happen to big label bands. Where once upon a time a lot of people's access to music depended on what their local radio stations played - now people can pick and choose what they want to hear.

 

[elocomotive]

I agree 100%.

I agree about 86% with your 100% agreeance.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

Rod Stewart sucks, Rod Stewart and the Faces kicks ass.