Music from "the past" better then today's music?

I think it does, I mean, the beatles, Queen, the rolling stones, and heck even the beegies. Todays music sounds to lame, especially with R&B, bad rap and popsongs ruining the music.

Until the 1980's, talent and merit counted for alot more and music was meaningful. In today's world, the music industry has grown too old and stagnant and now terrible "artists" are brought into the cycle, causing misic quality to decrease.

Not to mention the fact radio stations rape those who have potential talent to death and their songs go stale and boring.

It was alright untill the definition of music was changed to "repetitive sound without another content than 'I (don't) love you (anymore)' or, for black music ' get in ma ca'h', brought to you by someone that looks good and not necessarily sings on a nearly decent manner"

You know, there is more music out there than simply what gets played on the radio.


Also, my money is that OP is no older than 16. There was music in the past too. Just look up Jefferson Starship.

Originally Posted by 43rdFoot

You know, there is more music out there than simply what gets played on the radio.


Also, my money is that OP is no older than 16. There was music in the past too. Just look up Jefferson Starship.

Actually I am older than 16 thank you very much

Originally Posted by 43rdFoot

You know, there is more music out there than simply what gets played on the radio.

Yes, and most of it is an immitation of the past or inspired on those artists.
I think it's better to state that "pop" is just terrible, since drawing a line of original and inspirated good music is impossible

Originally Posted by Taxandrius

Yes, and most of it is an immitation of the past or inspired on those artists.
I think it's better to state that "pop" is just terrible, since drawing a line of original and inspirated good music is impossible

What do you think music from the past was?

It always has been past » modern when it comes to The Arts.

I like music from both the past and the present (but NEVER the middle ). Some of today's music isn't that bad.

There's good music out there right now, it's just that most mainstream music is total .

Originally Posted by Abbath Doom Occulta

There's good music out there right now, it's just that most mainstream music is total .

Mostly this. The good music of current times are often on the fringes of the main genres.

Does he really look that bad?

To me, it looks like ol' Jonne just wants to share a bottle of vodka and sing in Finnish all night.

Does Lady Gaga do this? No.

Does T-Paine do this? No.

In other words, mainstream music is . Not all new music.

Originally Posted by cupoftea

I think it does, I mean, the beatles, Queen, the rolling stones, and heck even the beegies. Todays music sounds to lame, especially with R&B, bad rap and popsongs ruining the music.

I disagree, music gets progressively worse as you go back. Today, its true, there are a lot of terrible songs, but in amongst them there are more good ones than ever before. How bad must the 60s have been, that the Beatles were so much better than everyone else that they were the only ones to be remembered?

Originally Posted by Copperknickers II

How bad must the 60s have been, that the Beatles were so much better than everyone else that they were the only ones to be remembered?

Um, they're not?

1969 is my favourite year for music, so many classics.
http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1969


There's still plenty of great music today, but I don't think there's quite as much, especially in the mainstream.

Doesn't really mean much, 50 years from mow people will only remember a few bands as well.

Besides the 60's also have the Stones, The Who, Led Zep, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jefferson Airplane, CCR, Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan, Santana,...

No.

Whilst mainstream music has become more and more commercial in it's form, which is natural considering the expansion of music within society. There are plenty of bands today which musically are much greater than the Beatles and the like. That's not a slur on the Beatles or whoever, as modern bands rely on the music of the past for their own musical development, but just the fact the sheer diversity of musical sounds now accepted in modern music means that modern music can achieve much greater heights than past classics.

It's much the same way you could examine scientific achievement. The achievement of the past of monumental and influential but the splitting of the atom (not a contemporary discovery discovery i know) or cloning of the first animal are far greater in terms of scientific achievement and ability then the science of the 16th-17th century.

There were dozens of terrible bands back in the 1960s and 70s, we just happen to remember those decades as having produced good music for the few bands that could write a decent song. No doubt in ten years from now we will think the same of the noughties.

Originally Posted by Octy

There were dozens of terrible bands back in the 1960s and 70s, we just happen to remember those decades as having produced good music for the few bands that could write a decent song. No doubt in ten years from now we will think the same of the noughties.

Not only were they writing good songs but they were both acclaimed musicians and the popular musicians of the time. Yes, there was a lot of crap then too but I think comparing it to the music scene today the 70's (and far more than just the bands listed by the OP) was better overall.

Not really.

Still lots of good music around.

"Today's music" means what, music from the past 2 or 3 years at most?

While "the past" is all of the decades before.

Not really a fair comparison is it?