General Music Thread

[Caesar 0]

With all the unrest in the Middle East, I am considering a 'day of rage' against all music forms that fall into the category of 'made for the masses for commercial gain'. This will involve a march in Trafalgar Square calling for the slaying of the majority of the parasitic figures in the music industry.

Anyone want to join me?

if "slaying of the majority of...something" is the meaning of protest, then count on me. but don't let this protest turn out to be some peaceful sh*t at the end.

[Argento Reloaded 1]

With all the unrest in the Middle East, I am considering a 'day of rage' against all music forms that fall into the category of 'made for the masses for commercial gain'. This will involve a march in Trafalgar Square calling for the slaying of the majority of the parasitic figures in the music industry.

Anyone want to join me?

Is far but... I´ll send you my pants to make a flag to show I agree with you! I´ve just herad the "new" from Beardy Eye! Those kids live in the 60´s and nobody told them! Boring, unoriginal... bah, a well recorded piece of crap!!!!!!!!!

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Rest in peace Gary Moore!

[Caesar 0]

Rest in peace Gary Moore!

now when he is dead you can hear the whole second beautiful guitar solo of ' Still got the blues' when the song goes on radio, while he was alive they would just fade out it.

i am so sorry that i didn't have opportunity to see(hear) him live in concert.

[Rainmaster 7]

Beady Eye are fairly terrible.

[AleHop 0]

Any kind of art takes a while until humans have explored it completely. Then it becomes absurd. The problem arises when it goes beyond that.

[dribbler 6]

Any kind of art takes a while until humans have explored it completely. Then it becomes absurd. The problem arises when it goes beyond that.

On the contrary, It went beyond that in the late 1960's/early 1970's and has now slipped into mediocrity. Not because ideas have been exhausted, but because they have been stifled and dumbed down to suit the masses for dubious motives.

However, search and you shall find.

[AleHop 0]

On the contrary, It went beyond that in the late 1960's/early 1970's and has now slipped into mediocrity. Not because ideas have been exhausted, but because they have been stifled and dumbed down to suit the masses for dubious motives.

However, search and you shall find.

I don't think it went beyond absurd, it got thereabouts.

Now mediocrity is massive, as always. What has changed from the past are people being so happy in their mediocrity. Eager to bring anybody and everybody into their world of happiness for dubious motives.

However, I agree with you.

[lewisthegreat2 0]

There are 51 artists with multiple songs in my music library. Here they are (didn't include features; ordered by how much I like them when tied; 11-51 are in the spoiler; just wanted to conserve space there):

U2 (15 songs)

Matchbox 20 (9 songs)

Dave Matthews Band (9 songs)

Goo Goo Dolls (8 songs)

Simple Minds (7 songs)

Ke$ha (7 songs)

Mr. Mister (6 songs)

Tears for Fears (6 songs)

Rihanna (6 songs)

Timbaland (5 songs)

Hootie and the Blowfish (5 songs)

Duran Duran (5 songs)

OneRepublic (4 songs)

B.O.B. (4 songs)

Black Eyed Peas (4 songs)

Journey (4 songs)

The Raconteurs (4 songs)

Shakira (4 songs)

The Fray (4 songs)

Taio Cruz (3 songs)

Flo Rida (3 songs)

Daft Punk (3 songs)

Boston (3 songs)

Taylor Swift (3 songs)

Lady GaGa (3 songs)

Usher (3 songs)

M.I.A. (3 songs)

Rush (3 songs)

Phil Collins (3 songs)

Kanye West (2 songs)

Enrique Iglesias (2 songs)

Jay-Z (2 songs)

The Wallflowers (2 songs)

Justin Timberlake (2 songs)

Pitbull (2 songs)

3OH!3 (2 songs)

Def Leppard (2 songs)

Edwin McCain (2 songs)

Thompson Twins (2 songs)

The Cars (2 songs)

Peter Gabriel (2 songs)

Genesis (2 songs)

David Guetta (2 songs)

Jason Derülo (2 songs)

Bon Jovi (2 songs)

Bruce Springsteen (2 songs)

Elton John (2 songs)

Taylor Dayne (2 songs)

Talking Heads (2 songs)

Fleetwood Mac (2 songs)

Counting Crows (2 songs)

There are countless artists with just one song in there, some of whom I'd say I like more than some of the ones listed above, but nevertheless, all else is clearly terrible and recorded with awful motives by miserable people for tasteless consumers.

[Insider 0]

I don't think it went beyond absurd, it got thereabouts.

Now mediocrity is massive, as always. What has changed from the past are people being so happy in their mediocrity. Eager to bring anybody and everybody into their world of happiness for dubious motives.

However, I agree with you.

I have always said that I was one of the 'luckiest sons'. I grew up with the Jack Kerouac, Thelonious Monk, Beatles, Ferlinghetti, Ezra Pound, Elvis, the Stones, Joni Mitchell, the Beach Boys, Neil Young, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf et al. Modern songwriters rarely take inspiration from such a treasure trove of inspiration or at least when they have, only achieved pitiful parodies. Someone once said, 'Genius steals, mediocrity copies'. Listening to the crap that came out in the mid-80's and all through the 90s, you have to say that mediocrity reigned supreme. With the possible exception of Dennis Wilson's Pacific Ocean Blue, early Bruce Springsteen, Audioslave's Revelations and a young man by the name of Ken Will Morton, I haven't heard anything that borders on 'new' from anyone since 1973.

[Rainmaster 7]

Was music genuinely better in the past or are people suffering from DOF syndrome (sorry, the whole "there has been nothing new since the 70's" sounds very familiar)? It seems true that music used to be better in the sense that there was less manufactured stuff around, but I don't believe that 60's, 70's, whatever era of music was completely on a different level to any other, and that level of genius has never been repeated since. Perhaps there are just more artists around now or the public hears about more artists than they did in generations past, the more artists around the more mediocrity you will find as is the nature of any talent based industry (like if you added another 20 drivers to F1 you'd find more Heidfeld's and Massa's than Alonso's and Kubica's). This means that, as Dribs pointed out, you have to look harder for the good stuff.

Point is almost everybody thinks the era of music they grow up listening to is the best (usually 'cos you're out getting laid and having a good time while listening to it..), but it doesn't make it so. It just means it was the best for you. The same arguments apply to a lot of things, I think, including F1. Disclaimer: this is not not an argument saying Westlife are better than the Beatles (felt dirty even typing it..), I just think you have to be careful making objective statements about something as subjective as music.

P.S. Madchester for life

[lewisthegreat2 0]

George is right.

The same people who are complaining about how music isn't what is used to be, were the ones offended by their parents saying the same thing in the 70s. The world changes and it's fine if you don't want to embrace that; there's no shame in listening to old music. But taking a **** on all the new music just because you don't like it is really silly.

[Kopite Girl 0]

With all the unrest in the Middle East, I am considering a 'day of rage' against all music forms that fall into the category of 'made for the masses for commercial gain'. This will involve a march in Trafalgar Square calling for the slaying of the majority of the parasitic figures in the music industry.

Anyone want to join me?

I'll make the butties.

It/them are bringing "music" out aimed at the younger generations, who are highly impressionable. A kid of 12 for instance listening and watching an "artist"like 50cent will view him as "pimp" and "street cool" and either act that way or behave in a manner that is highly disrespectful, and I'm not saying that all kids are the same. Those kids have parents who give a damn about what their children watch and listen to. They take note of the Parental Advisory warming on the CD. Then you have body image. Ask a male - 14 to 17 - what type of female he prefers. Guaranteed whether blonde, brunette or redhead he will describe at least one of the Pussycat Dolls. Why? Because pretty face + boobs + lots of skin showing = merchandise in the form of posters or magazines for the boys to have fun alone with his right hand. Girls. They see these booty shaking skinny tanned and groomed video girls around the main star literally throwing themselves at him. They go out, risk skin cancer using sunbeds, develop eating disorders to become just like Cheryl Cole or whomever is flavour of the week. Then they go out, dressed extremely provocatively and give themselves willingly. This is out of hand. Manufactured music is not only drivel and mind numbingly, devastatingly offending my ears but it is 80% of the music industry that has major influence over the public.

I'm sorry for my rant. That's the way I see things.

[lewisthegreat2 0]

Yeah, too bad the glory days passed, when music inspired kids to be lazy, reject authority, and experiment with drugs.

There are always dumbass youths who do things because they're too easily influenced. There are always youths that aren't dumbasses, too (I listen to Ke$ha; can't say I lead her lifestyle). Every generation of pop culture this happens.

And every generation of pop culture had people who moaned and moaned about the change and people who embraced it. It's just funny to see people who were on the receiving end of the moaning during their time are now the ones doing it.

What's so wrong about respecting the fact people have different tastes in music? I can't stand to listen to The Beatles, but I'm not going to go around saying why The Beatles are talentless or why they're a bad influence or this or that. I just let it be...

I figure...listen to what you like, and be content with that, even if there aren't new songs added to your collection too frequently. So what? For every TImbaland song you don't listen to, there's a Jimi Hendrix song I don't listen to. Seems to me it makes more sense to just enjoy what you do listen to than get riled about what you don't, or have impossible dreams that what you don't listen to will suddenly be replaced with a repeat of days gone by; same in my case, there'd be no sense in wishing that Ke$ha's career had started earlier, or that there were synthesizers in the 1920s, or whatever.

[AleHop 0]

Of course there are eras, decades, centuries, time brackets... where you can find the best pieces of art and all music historians will talk about the 60's and 70's bands. Some 80's and 90's bands are very good but these two decades are not as great as those. That's what our grand grand grand grand childrens will learn from the books.

New doesn't mean better. Sometimes I prefer plagiarism. I'm not an expert so I won't say what bands were both new and good during the 80's and 90's and I was no hardcore fan of any of them. I liked some of them for a while or I liked some of their LPs, CDs, songs and I think some of them were quite good. Many times I heard a song that picked my attention and discovered it was a cover version. It happens more often now, I still discover old songs that way.

I'm not yet 40, I'm from the 80-90's but I have to admit my parents were right about music. I grew up listening to their music in the background and I think it was very important for me to be able to compare between their music and my music. I liked theirs much more eventually.

[Caesar 0]

purpose of music videos in the 70's and 80's was to make public buy more records, main profit was in selling records. today, when you can find any record on the net for free, music industry turned to selling and pushing a specific modern life style. they sell clothes, shoes , hairstyles, parfumes... music is only used as instrumentality of advertising those products by new music stars using them. and they target more younger public, because it is easier to make influence on them, and you can reach them at every place in every moment because they all have i-phone's, i-pad's and other modern gadget's. good music will allways be good music,i mean if it is good to you then enjoy it, if you think that some kind of music isn't good then don't listen it. it is good now that one of the main source of profit for famous musicians are concerts, or live show's, because they really make effort to afford great spectacle for audience. last great show i have seen was AC/DC concert two years ago, during their 'Black ice tour ', it was fvcking amazing.

[lewisthegreat2 0]

I heard my parents' music; still hear it every night, honestly. Doesn't do anything for me, but if they enjoy it, it's their stereo and their free-time. And the "why I am better than you because I listen through headphones so no one else has to hear my music" debate can be saved for later, so I'll stop now as that's where I'm headed.

good music will allways be good music,i mean if it is good to you then enjoy it, if you think that some kind of music isn't good then don't listen it.

Caesar gets it.

To be honest, I don't look for anything in music. I either hear it and like it, or I hear it and don't. Couldn't explain any reasons for why, and I think if you have to explain reasons why, you're forcing yourself to listen to stuff you're not naturally inclined to.

[Insider 0]

With all the unrest in the Middle East, I am considering a 'day of rage' against all music forms that fall into the category of 'made for the masses for commercial gain'. This will involve a march in Trafalgar Square calling for the slaying of the majority of the parasitic figures in the music industry.

Anyone want to join me?

I'm not sure how you are going to identify what artists fall into your, 'made for the masses' category but I'll even come down and play! I'm all for a bit of parasite slaying.

[Insider 0]

Was music genuinely better in the past or are people suffering from DOF syndrome (sorry, the whole "there has been nothing new since the 70's" sounds very familiar)? It seems true that music used to be better in the sense that there was less manufactured stuff around, but I don't believe that 60's, 70's, whatever era of music was completely on a different level to any other, and that level of genius has never been repeated since. Perhaps there are just more artists around now or the public hears about more artists than they did in generations past, the more artists around the more mediocrity you will find as is the nature of any talent based industry (like if you added another 20 drivers to F1 you'd find more Heidfeld's and Massa's than Alonso's and Kubica's). This means that, as Dribs pointed out, you have to look harder for the good stuff.

Point is almost everybody thinks the era of music they grow up listening to is the best (usually 'cos you're out getting laid and having a good time while listening to it..), but it doesn't make it so. It just means it was the best for you. The same arguments apply to a lot of things, I think, including F1. Disclaimer: this is not not an argument saying Westlife are better than the Beatles (felt dirty even typing it..), I just think you have to be careful making objective statements about something as subjective as music.

P.S. Madchester for life

There were far more working bands around in the late '60s and early '70s than there are now. Of course, there were only a couple of TV shows, the radio or live gigs to 'network' your wares. Now, with internet sites like MySpace, [East European Prostitute Exchange], Reverbnation, Facebook and YouTube, you can get your stuff to a zillion people in the shortest time possible. Most new bands can't make a decent second album, let alone a third. The Beatles made a whole bunch of them, as did the Stones, Neil Young, Elvis, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, the Band, the Beach Boys etc, etc. The big 'tell-tale' fact is record sales. In the '50s you needed 1,000,00 sales, in the '60s and early '70s, you needed to rack up 500,000 sales for a Gold record award. Now, 100,000 will do. Mariah Carey and Celine Dion are still probably the biggest-selling artists who evolved in the post-internet, post-MTV period with about 200,000,000 sales apiece. By comparison, The Beatles and Elvis come in with around 1 billion each. Linkin Park and Rihanna have so far managed @ 65,000,000 each. Certification criteria was changed long before MTV and the internet so, though you can blame illegal downloads for a sizeable portion of declining record sales basically, most modern artists are short-lived phenomena, mainly due to a gross lack of talent and creative ability. As Tom Petty said in the recent documentary, 'Damn The Torpedoes': "if you ask kids whether they would rather win American Idol or spend 30 years building a rock sold career in music, the answer is always the same - American Idol". Of course, that is why we have no decent bands around. This is the age of instant gratification and the artist are as short of real talent as the public are fickle. It's the nature of the beast.

[pabloh20 1]

Was music genuinely better in the past or are people suffering from DOF syndrome (sorry, the whole "there has been nothing new since the 70's" sounds very familiar)? It seems true that music used to be better in the sense that there was less manufactured stuff around, but I don't believe that 60's, 70's, whatever era of music was completely on a different level to any other, and that level of genius has never been repeated since. Perhaps there are just more artists around now or the public hears about more artists than they did in generations past, the more artists around the more mediocrity you will find as is the nature of any talent based industry (like if you added another 20 drivers to F1 you'd find more Heidfeld's and Massa's than Alonso's and Kubica's). This means that, as Dribs pointed out, you have to look harder for the good stuff.

Point is almost everybody thinks the era of music they grow up listening to is the best (usually 'cos you're out getting laid and having a good time while listening to it..), but it doesn't make it so. It just means it was the best for you. The same arguments apply to a lot of things, I think, including F1. Disclaimer: this is not not an argument saying Westlife are better than the Beatles (felt dirty even typing it..), I just think you have to be careful making objective statements about something as subjective as music.

P.S. Madchester for life

Well, speaking from experience growing up in the 90s..................ok, ok, I was born in the 70s, but I guess you get influenced a bit more by music when you get a bit older, which would have been the 80s for me. Or so I thought, but I am not so sure early music experiences didn't have a bigger influence than I thought, or whether I would have always migrated to what I like now at some point no matter what.

I liked ac/dc from a young age, I still like them now. I always liked 60s stuff, still like it now. I always liked guitar based stuff, still like it now. I was subjected to country when I was a kid and I used to hate it, but I like it now. I've grown to add a lot to the list over the years, but I don't think the era I grew up listening is the best, if I think of the 80s and later as my growing up years with regards to music. I still think laste 50s and 60s was an amazing time for music, in my opinion, so I don't think it's a case of dof syndrome for me

Don't get me wrong, there's an awful lot of stuff I do like from all eras of music, I even went through a phase of really liking hip-hop because I used to love the breakdancing.....the first time around. Still odd bits of hip-hop I like, but generally I just don't like it now. Again, odd bits of 80s stuff I like, but a lot of it I don't. Though to be fair, I didn't like a lot of it that much at the time either

Possibly, today it may be slightly more a case of record companies pushing what they think the teen generation will or should like, whereas in the past a record producer would either like the sound the person/group was creating or not and sign them up accordingly. Still, everyone has different tastes and music caters accordingly.

[pabloh20 1]

Yeah, too bad the glory days passed, when music inspired kids to be lazy, reject authority, and experiment with drugs.

There are always dumbass youths who do things because they're too easily influenced. There are always youths that aren't dumbasses, too (I listen to Ke$ha; can't say I lead her lifestyle). Every generation of pop culture this happens.

And every generation of pop culture had people who moaned and moaned about the change and people who embraced it. It's just funny to see people who were on the receiving end of the moaning during their time are now the ones doing it.

What's so wrong about respecting the fact people have different tastes in music? I can't stand to listen to The Beatles, but I'm not going to go around saying why The Beatles are talentless or why they're a bad influence or this or that. I just let it be...

I figure...listen to what you like, and be content with that, even if there aren't new songs added to your collection too frequently. So what? For every TImbaland song you don't listen to, there's a Jimi Hendrix song I don't listen to. Seems to me it makes more sense to just enjoy what you do listen to than get riled about what you don't, or have impossible dreams that what you don't listen to will suddenly be replaced with a repeat of days gone by; same in my case, there'd be no sense in wishing that Ke$ha's career had started earlier, or that there were synthesizers in the 1920s, or whatever.

Aye.

[pabloh20 1]

I'll make the butties.

It/them are bringing "music" out aimed at the younger generations, who are highly impressionable. A kid of 12 for instance listening and watching an "artist"like 50cent will view him as "pimp" and "street cool" and either act that way or behave in a manner that is highly disrespectful, and I'm not saying that all kids are the same. Those kids have parents who give a damn about what their children watch and listen to. They take note of the Parental Advisory warming on the CD. Then you have body image. Ask a male - 14 to 17 - what type of female he prefers. Guaranteed whether blonde, brunette or redhead he will describe at least one of the Pussycat Dolls. Why? Because pretty face + boobs + lots of skin showing = merchandise in the form of posters or magazines for the boys to have fun alone with his right hand. Girls. They see these booty shaking skinny tanned and groomed video girls around the main star literally throwing themselves at him. They go out, risk skin cancer using sunbeds, develop eating disorders to become just like Cheryl Cole or whomever is flavour of the week. Then they go out, dressed extremely provocatively and give themselves willingly. This is out of hand. Manufactured music is not only drivel and mind numbingly, devastatingly offending my ears but it is 80% of the music industry that has major influence over the public.

I'm sorry for my rant. That's the way I see things.

I don't know, Steph. That would suggest I could only get a hard on if I saw chuffing big shoulder pads and bollocking big hair

[Kopite Girl 0]

each to their own! I bet you didn't mind a bit of Sam Fox on the TV.

[Caesar 0]

each to their own! I bet you didn't mind a bit of Sam Fox on the TV.

big boobs are some sort of ear plugs, acting through eyes on our hearing (and some part of our reason) and numbing it. i mean, for most men they behave this way, others are gay.

[pabloh20 1]

each to their own! I bet you didn't mind a bit of Sam Fox on the TV.

I didn't mind a bit of Sam Fox at all, although I always preferred Linda Lusardi

Wasn't Sam Fox on one of the celebrity things in the past couple of years and she looked terrible.