# Lookist Mediocracy



## superodalisque (Jun 3, 2011)

lately i've been thinking about how the recent lookist society has affected our quality of life in terms of music. the television show "The Voice" gave me hope that my thoughts were not off in left field somewhere. i had always tended to think that the quality of music had gone down since looks seemed to have become more important than lyrics and execution. i mean, can you picture Elton John or Stevie Wonder ever winning something like American Idol? i can definitely see them competing but i'm not too sure about winning. what do you think about the whole talent v looks thing? where do you think its taking music in particular? are there still musicians who reach the level of celebrity because of their artistry that there once was? what do you think this has meant for the talented and fat in particular?


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 3, 2011)

I think the quality of music has been plummiting since the late 70s. No doubt that is part of the reason.


----------



## imfree (Jun 3, 2011)

I think music, as a whole, has profoundly gone down hill in quality over the last 20 years, or so, partly because the public's use of music is for background sound, rather than critical listening, with full attention, as it was in years past. In technical terms, the volume level of modern music is electronically compressed to sound about 3 times as loud as it would be in "nature", causing the music to sound as interesting and dynamic as monotone speech. In my opinion, modern recordings with high audio compression discourage critical listening and give artists little inspiration to perform.

Drums are supposed to go "bang-bang" and not ":fap-fap".

Here's a piece I wrote on the subject for one of my Yahoo groups.

Music Listening

There two ways we listen to music in our modern age. We 
hear music as we are engaged in other activities and not really 
paying too much attention to what we hear. People who listen
to music in this manner usually listen from FM, CD's, or some 
other source that uses heavy audio level compression to 
assure that the music stays above background noise, yet will
not interfere with conversation. A wave display on your computer
of such a recording will have the shape of a cigar because the
level or amplitude of the signal has little change.
Sit still and listen to a beloved song, play it loud, and 
listen, concentrating on the sound of each instrument as it 
blends into the texture of that musical piece. Compressed level
sound will be nearly unbearable when listened to with fully
concentrated attention! We need to have music presented with
dynamic range, soft passages to contrast with loud passages,
giving them room for expression. Level-compressed music 
sounds very much like monotone speech and has the same
property of losing one's interest.
One major reason that Analog Recordings on Vinyl Discs,
Records, are making such a strong comeback, is that these
recordings were mixed in an age before extreme Level
Compression was common. Records require higher volume
settings and more powerful amplifiers for good reproduction of
sound. Here's an example: A listening situation in which a 5 watt
amplifier is adequate with heavily compressed music will require
10db more amplifier power, which is 10 times as much power,
with uncompressed music, as from old records! The wave display
of such a recording will resemble a sideways pine cone, showing
the contrast between loud and soft passages. A 10 times power
ratio shows as a 3.3 voltage ratio, a 3.3 height ratio on a wave 


display. A heavily compressed song with a peak height of, 5mm
on the wave display sounds the same loudness as a 15mm peak
level uncompressed song.
Bottom line: heavily compressed music is good for 
background, requires little amplifier power, and modestly priced 
audio equipment will be adequate. Serious, concentrated, music 
listening requires time, more expensive audio equipment, and a 
quiet place to listen, as a noisy listening environment can drive 
sound levels into highly non-linear and even painful parts of the 
hearing response. Make an informed choice, listen, and enjoy!


----------



## Saoirse (Jun 3, 2011)

you all sound way fucking old with your "back in my day" spiels.


----------



## CleverBomb (Jun 3, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> you all sound way fucking old with your "back in my day" spiels.


My lawn! Young lady, remove yourself from it post-haste, lest I needs resort to fisticuffs and cane-brandishings!

-Rusty


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 3, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> you all sound way fucking old with your "back in my day" spiels.



yeah it does kinda sound like that. thats why i'm asking your opinion too. i'm not embarrassed about being older than anybody though. the shut up cuz your older thing doesn't work . so what do you think anyway?


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 3, 2011)

CleverBomb said:


> My lawn! Young lady, remove yourself from it post-haste, lest I needs resort to fisticuffs and cane-brandishings!
> 
> -Rusty



*adds her toothless cackle*


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 3, 2011)

imfree said:


> I think music, as a whole, has profoundly gone down hill in quality over the last 20 years, or so, partly because the public's use of music is for background sound, rather than critical listening, with full attention, as it was in years past. In technical terms, the volume level of modern music is electronically compressed to sound about 3 times as loud as it would be in "nature", causing the music to sound as interesting and dynamic as monotone speech. In my opinion, modern recordings with high audio compression discourage critical listening and give artists little inspiration to perform.
> 
> Drums are supposed to go "bang-bang" and not ":fap-fap".
> 
> ...



watch it or people will accuse you of writing like me


----------



## cinnamitch (Jun 3, 2011)

Yes i think looks have become the main player in the music game. You can listen to some of the artists who have come out in the last few years and hear that they just don't cut it talent wise but because of their looks and some amazing mixing on recordings you can put out something that will sell. People like Patsy Cline or Roy Orbison would not have a prayer trying to break into the industry today. Look at KD Lang and Lyle Lovett. Both have the voice yet neither are considered "good looking" and have had to find a niche in some of the less publicized avenues of the music industry.


----------



## LalaCity (Jun 3, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> you all sound way fucking old with your "back in my day" spiels.



Haha, just you wait!

You'll be banging the whippersnappers on the head with your cane in no time. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJBjXi3MetE&feature=related


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 3, 2011)

Yeah, music these days does not inspire me to do anything but throw the radio out the window. Some of the singers out there are the real deal but they are so loaded down with commercialism that their talent is drowned out by cliche. When I first heard Lady GaGa I thought, "Come on, it's just another house music rag. What's the big deal?" When I saw the videos with the suggestive lyrics, kooky costumes and partial nudity I thought, "Oh."

Then on the other hand maybe Saoirse has a point. Once you've been here long enough everything begins to insult your intelligence. Everything seems overdone, contrived, regurgitated platitudes whereas to someone younger it's new to them. Justin Bieber is super cool unless you were here when the Jackson 5 came out. People have been copying the Jackson 5 ever since and to people who've seen it all, Bieber is a joke. "40 years later?? Come on!! Are you serious? " If it weren't for my profession I would have completely dropped out.


----------



## Saoirse (Jun 3, 2011)

I dont care about what people like and dont like. Just accept the fact that as time goes on, shit changes. Big deal.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jun 3, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> you all sound way fucking old with your "back in my day" spiels.



Don't be so quick to dismiss the views of the older members. They can teach you a few things if you would just open your mind. 

The quality of music has gone down since the 1990s. If you take the time to listen to music from the 1960s-1980s, you will find that a lot of the artists sang about love. Many of today's artists sing about using people to get money and sex. Honestly, I would much rather listen to contemporary Christian music or to new age because the pop and R&B is just crap! 

And by the way, I'm only 35.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jun 3, 2011)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yeah, music these days does not inspire me to do anything but throw the radio out the window. Some of the singers out there are the real deal but they are so loaded down with commercialism that their talent is drowned out by cliche. When I first heard Lady GaGa I thought, "Come on, it's just another house music rag. What's the big deal?" When I saw the videos with the suggestive lyrics, kooky costumes and partial nudity I thought, "Oh."
> 
> Then on the other hand maybe Saoirse has a point. Once you've been here long enough everything begins to insult your intelligence. Everything seems overdone, contrived, regurgitated platitudes whereas to someone younger it's new to them. Justin Bieber is super cool unless you were here when the Jackson 5 came out. People have been copying the Jackson 5 ever since and to people who've seen it all, Bieber is a joke. "40 years later?? Come on!! Are you serious? " If it weren't for my profession I would have completely dropped out.



Looks should have nothing to do with a person's ability to sing good music. What is amazing to me is this drive among some people in our culture to find some group to discriminate against. Since it is unacceptable to discriminate by race and gender, the perps want to discriminate by looks. Things would be a lot better in America if the lookism would stop!







Saoirse said:


> I dont care about what people like and dont like. Just accept the fact that as time goes on, shit changes. Big deal.



You will begin to see the wisdom of caring as you get a little older. Besides, history is not a straight line. Oftentimes, it is a circle.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 3, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> you all sound way fucking old with your "back in my day" spiels.



I am old...and with age comes experience.



Saoirse said:


> I dont care about what people like and dont like. Just accept the fact that as time goes on, shit changes. Big deal.



And there is no guarantee that the change is for the better.


Every generation thinks they have it all over those that came before...some yes, most no.


----------



## CleverBomb (Jun 3, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> I dont care about what people like and dont like. Just accept the fact that as time goes on, shit changes. Big deal.


Just because it changes, doesn't mean it's improved. 

Imfree's discussion of compression, well, here's a place to start: Loudness War.

Yes, it really did get worse, and to some extent the old vinyl was better. 

On the other hand...
Back in my day (sigh) the ranting was that synthesizers and samplers removed the musicianship requirement from performing -- all you needed was This Week's Haircut, an interesting voice, and a video camera and MTV would give you your 15 minutes of fame. The benefit of this was that a lot of unskilled but entertaining groups received a break into the big time that they might otherwise never have gotten (The Clash, for example). 

Pre-fab pop-stars date back at least to the Monkees. That said, they were at least put through auditions for talent. What disconcerts me is that nowadays with Autotune, it's no longer necessary to actually be able to sing -- so all they need to sort for is looks. The rest can be taken care of in post-production. 

-Rusty


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 3, 2011)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yeah, music these days does not inspire me to do anything but throw the radio out the window. Some of the singers out there are the real deal but they are so loaded down with commercialism that their talent is drowned out by cliche. When I first heard Lady GaGa I thought, "Come on, it's just another house music rag. What's the big deal?" When I saw the videos with the suggestive lyrics, kooky costumes and partial nudity I thought, "Oh."
> 
> Then on the other hand maybe Saoirse has a point. Once you've been here long enough everything begins to insult your intelligence. Everything seems overdone, contrived, regurgitated platitudes whereas to someone younger it's new to them. Justin Bieber is super cool unless you were here when the Jackson 5 came out. People have been copying the Jackson 5 ever since and to people who've seen it all, Bieber is a joke. "40 years later?? Come on!! Are you serious? " If it weren't for my profession I would have completely dropped out.




yes there is a lot of eye candy going on. i do love eye candy. i won't lie. i'm very visual. also i think the focus of media has changed. its more visual. the music business has become more of what opera is like to music as a whole. the only problem i have with it is that the music is not as stand alone. i do want to be able to just listen sometimes and have that be enough and even overwhelming. what you said about lady gaga is dead on.


----------



## MissKat (Jun 3, 2011)

Most mainstream artist can't sing now days. Like I'd only go to a live concert of someone who I know can sing. I do think that these shows like AI and the Voice find better talent than the ones that just pop on the scene simply because they audition without the help of computers. However, a couple of seasons ago, there was this chick on AI in a bikini and she wasn't really that good at all. But she was in a bikini. 

Adele is an amazing singer and folks still talk about her looks like that matters more than her voice. Kelly Price (before she lost like 300lbs) used to just sing background vocals because they didn't want to put her in a video and her voice is insane. 

And maybe it's because they were before my generation, but the guys that my mama used to listen to (Teddy P, Barry White, Lutha...RIP) weren't really my cup of tea in the look dept...Well, old school Al. Green was pretty decent actually, but yeah, I wouldn't think of them as super attractive, but their songs and their voices and their stage presence is what made them sexy. Artist today are just about their looks, IMO. 

Some have talent though. LOL! Don't like Beyonce but she can sing.


----------



## ConnieLynn (Jun 3, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> I dont care about what people like and dont like. Just accept the fact that as time goes on, shit changes. Big deal.



If you don't care, why participate in the discussion? Those of us who are "old" know it without being told 

SuperO, I've watched every episode of The Voice just because I wanted to see if they would really base it just on voice. What I've seen is that in a number of cases the judges turned around and were obviously startled by what the folks they picked based just on voice looked like. And then when it came to the stage of picking between two contestants once it was no longer a blind contest, looks were definitely in the mix. Has been disappointing.

As far as musical talent and the quality of recordings via whatever media, I rarely listen to recorded music anymore. It all sounds pretty much the same to me. Every now and then one artist stands out that I'll listen to for a while, but they usually start to blend in with the rest before long. 

I love live music of just about any genre in a smallish venue.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Jun 3, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> Just accept the fact that as time goes on, shit changes.



For one thing, it gets a lot deeper.


----------



## FatAndProud (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm young and I appreciate older music. In fact, I prefer older music, older men, older movies, older, older, older...lol

I think modern society is too concerned with the mass production/industrialization/capitalistic nature of today's commodities (including pop singers/singers) that quality is definitely thrown out by the wayside. We're more about quantity than quality (look at all those shit reality shows on tv....do any of them make you go "Wow, that's a quality production, right there! I learned so much from that!").

Such is life. When technology makes life easier/more interesting, we abuse the technologies until people start calling us out on over-using technologies (the anti-autotune movement...it was "cool" at first, no? ...not to me lol).


----------



## JulianDW (Jun 4, 2011)

FatAndProud said:


> I'm young and I appreciate older music. In fact, I prefer older music, older men, older movies, older, older, older...lol
> 
> I think modern society is too concerned with the mass production/industrialization/capitalistic nature of today's commodities (including pop singers/singers) that quality is definitely thrown out by the wayside. We're more about quantity than quality (look at all those shit reality shows on tv....do any of them make you go "Wow, that's a quality production, right there! I learned so much from that!").
> 
> Such is life. When technology makes life easier/more interesting, we abuse the technologies until people start calling us out on over-using technologies (the anti-autotune movement...it was "cool" at first, no? ...not to me lol).



I agree with that technology and mass production statement. Its interesting to hear what the older people have to say, like how stuff just repeats. I started noticing how most popular singers that people my age listen to are usually just famous for some gimmick or a just use the regular old 'formula' of: club, clothes, cars, and women. I must say it gets monotonous


----------



## luvbigfellas (Jun 4, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> I dont care about what people like and dont like. Just accept the fact that as time goes on, shit changes. Big deal.



The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

Do you think you're "different" from any other what we call in the South "youngins"? I mean, damn, I used to think that way and then I realized that older people were once young and stupid, too. And hopefully learned from it.

Your INT may be high, but your WIS sadly is not. Listen to the "old folks" sometimes. You'll be old and set in your ways soon enough.

And now I realize my age. Someone was singing "Video Killed the Radio Star" the other day and I joined in without thinking about it.

And I absolutely love the oldies station. It plays the stuff my mom says she listened to as a kid and I love all of it.


----------



## kioewen (Jun 4, 2011)

Zandoz said:


> I think the quality of music has been plummiting since the late 70s.



True, if by that you mean the late *18*70s. Late Romantic music (Wagner, Bruckner, etc.) was the apogee of music, after which it has suffered a slow and steady decline. What we have on the radio today can only tenuously be called "music" at all.

To speak of the degrees of awfulness of modern "music" is like arguing whether one strip mall is even more of an eyesore than another strip mall. It's all part of the same postmodern blight.


----------



## Tracyarts (Jun 4, 2011)

" what do you think about the whole talent v looks thing? where do you think its taking music in particular? "

From what I am noticing, there are two different types of popularity in the music world. 

- There are the mass media stars, who have a broad appeal amongst the general public. They may or may not have actual talent, but nonetheless have a look or personage that allows them to be packaged up in a really slick and marketable way. 

- There are the musicians who fly under the mass media radar but still have a strong fan base. You may not see their faces on posters and t-shirts at the mall, but they sell albums and fill seats at shows. 

But I think that is true across the board, and not just with music. You have two different levels. What might be the big thing on the surface, and what people are into if you dig just below it. 

Tracy


----------



## daddyoh70 (Jun 4, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> you all sound way fucking old with your "back in my day" spiels.





CleverBomb said:


> My lawn! Young lady, remove yourself from it post-haste, lest I needs resort to fisticuffs and cane-brandishings!
> 
> -Rusty



Or in simpler terms...Get off my lawn!!!

On topic, I tend to agree with Zandoz and Imfree on this. 40's, 50's, 60's and early 70's produced some great music. I'm talking Rock, Blues, Pop, Country, Punk etc. I feel like I'm turning into my parents, but...this stuff they play on the radio today makes me so thankful for the iPod. Top 40, the stuff they call Country music, Rap and Hip Hop just makes my ears bleed. Look at bands/singers such as Lemmy, The Ramones, AC/DC, Elton John and George Jones. I agree with superodalisque and believe that most of the musicians who were considered pioneers of there genre would never win competition today like American Idol. 
Now excuse me while I wander down to the local speakeasy for a couple of Tom Collins', then I'm going to take a nap on my Davenport.


----------



## bigmac (Jun 4, 2011)

Zandoz said:


> I think the quality of music has been plummiting since the late 70s. No doubt that is part of the reason.




Arrrrg! Commercial music from the 70s was some of the worst ever!!! There was lots of excellent proto-punk music being played in clubs in the UK and NYC but the airwaves were creative deserts.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 4, 2011)

bigmac said:


> Arrrrg! Commercial music from the 70s was some of the worst ever!!! There was lots of excellent proto-punk music being played in clubs in the UK and NYC but the airwaves were creative deserts.



And on the other hand there are those who see punk as the beginning of the steep decline.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Jun 4, 2011)

Tracyarts said:


> This is probably the best definition of niche marketing I've ever read. And it's true! No matter how bland and characterless the mass markets get, there are people out there producing excellence: small presses, independent filmmakers, mom and pop restaurants, :happy:you name it -- you just have to hunt until you find it.


----------



## bigmac (Jun 4, 2011)

cinnamitch said:


> Yes i think looks have become the main player in the music game. You can listen to some of the artists who have come out in the last few years and hear that they just don't cut it talent wise but because of their looks and some amazing mixing on recordings you can put out something that will sell. People like Patsy Cline or Roy Orbison would not have a prayer trying to break into the industry today. Look at KD Lang and Lyle Lovett. Both have the voice yet neither are considered "good looking" and have had to find a niche in some of the less publicized avenues of the music industry.



I'm going to have to disagree. There have always been formulaic acts where the pretty boys/girls in the spandex suits are basically interchangeable. Likewise there have always been more serious acts. Indeed, I'd argue that focus of music has moved away from the formulaic (i.e. studio/corporate controlled) toward the more esoteric acts. People like KD Lang are todays superstars (she's been a top level international performer for almost 30 years -- not bad for a butch lesbian vegetarian from a small town in Alberta). The music being pushed by corporations is increasingly irrelevant (who the hell cares who the next American Idol will be).


----------



## bigmac (Jun 4, 2011)

Zandoz said:


> And on the other hand there are those who see punk as the beginning of the steep decline.



Lets see _The Clash_ v _REO Speedwagon_. I'm pretty confident I'll have history on my side.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 4, 2011)

bigmac said:


> Lets see _The Clash_ v _REO Speedwagon_. I'm pretty confident I'll have history on my side.




Or, The Clash against...hmmmm....Pink Floyd, Genesis, ELP, Blood Sweat & Tears, Yes, The Who, The Eagles, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Steely Dan, Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie, The Doors, Rush, Eric Clapton, War, Santana, Bob Marley.....If you can't pick one, I can keep going

I don't recall ever hearing anything by The Clash that I'd put on repeat. But in the end, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 4, 2011)

daddyoh70 said:


> Or in simpler terms...Get off my lawn!!!
> 
> On topic, I tend to agree with Zandoz and Imfree on this. 40's, 50's, 60's and early 70's produced some great music. I'm talking Rock, Blues, Pop, Country, Punk etc. I feel like I'm turning into my parents, but...this stuff they play on the radio today makes me so thankful for the iPod. Top 40, the stuff they call Country music, Rap and Hip Hop just makes my ears bleed. Look at bands/singers such as Lemmy, The Ramones, AC/DC, Elton John and George Jones. I agree with superodalisque and believe that most of the musicians who were considered pioneers of there genre would never win competition today like American Idol.
> Now excuse me while I wander down to the local speakeasy for a couple of Tom Collins', then I'm going to take a nap on my Davenport.



I've been really hooked on a Bill Withers performance on youtube with James Gadson on the drums. My gawd. They don't dance, they don't wear desinger costumes, they aint pretty, only one of them is even standing up and they're all stoned out of their friggen minds but the music... hot damn, that music. They could never be famous by today's superficial standards but by god, I want a pair of plaid bell bottoms SO bad right now you just don't know. That's how you play the drums. You could time a watch to that rythm. :wubu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3hBYTkI-sE


----------



## bigmac (Jun 4, 2011)

Zandoz said:


> Or, The Clash against...hmmmm....Pink Floyd, Genesis, ELP, Blood Sweat & Tears, Yes, The Who, The Eagles, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Steely Dan, Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie, The Doors, Rush, Eric Clapton, War, Santana, Bob Marley.....If you can't pick one, I can keep going
> 
> I don't recall ever hearing anything by The Clash that I'd put on repeat. But in the end, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.



I'm forwarding your list to US Army Psyops -- a few hours of Genesis, followed by Steely Dan, and then Emerson Lake and Palmer (had to look up ELP) should break Al Qaeda's toughest in no time.


----------



## CleverBomb (Jun 4, 2011)

My favorite band is better than your favorite band.

If you happen to know about my favorite band, it must mean they've sold out and I don't like them any more. 

Any music that wasn't created when I was between the ages of 14 and 24, sucks. 

-Rusty


----------



## imfree (Jun 4, 2011)

LillyBBBW said:


> I've been really hooked on a Bill Withers performance on youtube with James Gadson on the drums. My gawd. They don't dance, they don't wear desinger costumes, they aint pretty, only one of them is even standing up and they're all stoned out of their friggen minds but the music... hot damn, that music. They could never be famous by today's superficial standards but by god, I want a pair of plaid bell bottoms SO bad right now you just don't know. That's how you play the drums. :wubu:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3hBYTkI-sE



Oh my, I forgot just how delightfully *FAWNKY* that song was!!!


----------



## bigmac (Jun 4, 2011)

CleverBomb said:


> My favorite band is better than your favorite band.
> 
> If you happen to know about my favorite band, it must mean they've sold out and I don't like them any more.
> 
> ...



Yes, I'm hoping no one is taking this part of the thread too seriously.


----------



## randomjenerator (Jun 4, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> I dont care about what people like and dont like. Just accept the fact that as time goes on, shit changes. Big deal.



Despite the grief you are getting from some, I do actually share the sentiment to a degree. 

All things change and evolve and we like to stay in our comfort zones. Change is scary and it is often easier to dismiss something newer because "back in the day" syndrome is flaring. 

I listen to a wide range of music, old and new. My life is too short to spend time caring what others think of what I listen to. If I like it, I'm going to listen to it.


----------



## aocutiepi (Jun 5, 2011)

randomjenerator said:


> I listen to a wide range of music, old and new. My life is too short to spend time caring what others think of what I listen to. If I like it, I'm going to listen to it.



Agree. Times a million.


----------



## Lamia (Jun 5, 2011)

I remember when I was a teenager and was consumed with music and I had a great deal of contempt for adults because they didn't make music the focal point of their world. I said I would die if I ever just used music as background noise. I would listen intently for hours to my favorite music.


Now I am 41 and I find myself only listening to music to and from work. I just stopped caring which kills me. 

I swore I would never be that person..yet here I am.

So here is my gross generalization and opinion based solely on antecdotal evidence, my own. 

I think the music industry is doomed to be vapid and superficial as long as older wiser individuals cling to the oldies and don't bother to buy anything new or involve themselves anymore.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 5, 2011)

i'm not afraid of change. i love music i always have. i don't hate all new music. its just that even the people who are talented are commercialized and not allowed to show their full talent. a few years ago when John Legend came out i felt he was amazing but by the time they finished hip hopping him to death his music had become pretty mediocre and run of the mill. thats why i tend to love the new underground artist most because the music companies have too many people with no imagination influencing artists to be just alike. they have to be the same size and pattern their music after the biggest trend even though their originality is exactly what attracted them in the first place. timeless music isn't a trend. its an art form. when you hear it ten twenty or thirty years on its just as powerful. its just that the music companies are selling very forgettable artists--why? because they can control them better because they are so replaceable. thats exactly what music company strategy is about now. they aren't willing to pay an Elton John, a Snoop Dog a Prince etc... anymore. they want to take the lions share of the profits for themselves and have all of the power and control.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 5, 2011)

Lamia said:


> I remember when I was a teenager and was consumed with music and I had a great deal of contempt for adults because they didn't make music the focal point of their world. I said I would die if I ever just used music as background noise. I would listen intently for hours to my favorite music.
> 
> 
> Now I am 41 and I find myself only listening to music to and from work. I just stopped caring which kills me.
> ...




I don't see it as a matter of us consuming what we are served, and the good stuff will come. It's a matter of serving up the good stuff and we will consume. 

Up until a few years ago, we put in a lot of miles on the road. During those travels we were constantly leaving the ranges of radio stations. When we did, we'd scan the stations for something that sounded good, and rarely did we ever end up coming back to a station playing current music. When we did, the station was usually changed before long.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 5, 2011)

If your main source of music is from the radio and reality tv that's your main problem.

There is SO MUCH music out there that will never see the light of day in either of those mediums. If you really wanted something better or different, you'd dig deeper. Trust me. 

Check out somafm or The Hype Machine or NPR or Pitchfork. Turn off your damn radio. Quit watching American Idol. Visit your local independent record store and support local artists. Get out of the house and go see some live shows or a festival where a lot of bands are playing.

For a start...


----------



## JulianDW (Jun 5, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> If your main source of music is from the radio and reality tv that's your main problem.
> 
> There is SO MUCH music out there that will never see the light of day in either of those mediums. If you really wanted something better or different, you'd dig deeper. Trust me.
> 
> ...



I agree with that, theres a ton of good artist that could definitly show up the mainstream musicians, but will also never be on the radio (and perhaps better for it). I used to think hip-hop today was a waste of time, till I turned off the radio and began finding artists who still had a real passion for what they did through internet sites such thewordisbond.com and even youtube. So, theres still hope.. you just gotta find it


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 6, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> If your main source of music is from the radio and reality tv that's your main problem.
> 
> There is SO MUCH music out there that will never see the light of day in either of those mediums. If you really wanted something better or different, you'd dig deeper. Trust me.
> 
> ...



thats pretty much my point. why should we have to dig so hard to find really good music? those types of artists were much more accessible to the average person in easier ways in the past. i think maybe oldsters aren't digging deeper because they never had to to find some decent bands in the past. its a shame. part of the joy of really good music is being able to share that with a whole lot of people. then you have a whole group of people to remember sound experiences with. what were you doing the first time you heard stairway to heaven?

thx for the tip! i already knew about NPR but not the others


----------



## Pitch (Jun 6, 2011)

Am I the only one that finds the "Good old days" music thing to be complete horse shit?

Here's where it's wrong: The Good Old Days had its 'hits' swimming in a sea of shit just like now. Yeah, there were more than, say, ten bands playing 20-30 or even 40 years ago. What you remember and what is presented as "Golden Oldies" are all the good stuff. Creme de la creme. And in 20-30 maybe 40 years? The same thing will happen again. No one is going to remember Nickelback or Brittany Spears and all that, they will remember the awesome stuff. And this will be lauded as "The Good Old days" of music and pop culture as well.


Here's where it's "kind of" right: Lookism and international popularity of American stars riding on the back of the Iron Maiden, the white beauty standard has made it very important for those stars currently in the limelight to fit the thing, long straight hair, big boobs or tall, broad shouldered and etc thing very important. Its all marketing. Star power.


Why that's still wrong, because music is not "mediocre" right now. Music never stopped being amazing.

Case in point:

Adele
Monday Michiru
Nine Inch Nails
The Dead Weather
Aphex Twin
Flying Lotus
Wagon Christ
Gil Scott-Heron's new album
The Mars Volta
Tool
Philip Glass
The Knife
Espers

All legendary, creative, unique and amazing. Maybe not the tastes well known amongst the generation or ANY generation yawping about "The Good Old Days" of music, but still what my generation will remember as art just as good as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Eurythmics. And even similar in some ways. Not famous because of how they look.

Just as creative, just as powerful.

Just saying, Lookism is real but the "Good Old Days" crap is just sort of ignorant and ageist in my eyes. Please just...log into Pandora or something and try to discover some new things before insulting all of modern music when some of it is right under your noses.


----------



## Orso (Jun 6, 2011)

Most people will agree that the best rock was made between 1965 and 1975, or, being more generous, between 1960 and 1980.

I do not have children but I see that when my nephews and nieces listen to my collection of vinyls from the '60 and '70 they are just awed. Those people were giants and the kids of our days, who *can *go beyond fashion, understand this the first moment they listen.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 6, 2011)

Pitch said:


> Am I the only one that finds the "Good old days" music thing to be complete horse shit?
> 
> Here's where it's wrong: The Good Old Days had its 'hits' swimming in a sea of shit just like now. Yeah, there were more than, say, ten bands playing 20-30 or even 40 years ago. What you remember and what is presented as "Golden Oldies" are all the good stuff. Creme de la creme. And in 20-30 maybe 40 years? The same thing will happen again. No one is going to remember Nickelback or Brittany Spears and all that, they will remember the awesome stuff. And this will be lauded as "The Good Old days" of music and pop culture as well.
> 
> ...




i agree with a lot of that. all i'm saying is that i'm lazy. good music used to flow out over my life with no effort on my part from everywhere--in my car, at home on t.v. at the local teen joint. i didn't have to find it or even buy it. it was just there. i did not have to do any real research or look anything up. i couldn't if i wanted to. there was no internet now i have to pay so much attention just to find something decent unless its old. i have other things i'd like to do other than having to research my music so hard.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 6, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> i agree with a lot of that. all i'm saying is that i'm lazy. good music used to flow out over my life with no effort on my part from everywhere--in my car, at home on t.v. at the local teen joint. i didn't have to find it or even buy it. it was just there. i did not have to do any real research or look anything up. i couldn't if i wanted to. there was no internet now i have to pay so much attention just to find something decent unless its old. i have other things i'd like to do other than having to research my music so hard.



Exactly. And it doesn't have anything to do with being lazy really. Why DON'T these groups get top billing and regular airplay? This discussion was never about the lack of good musicians. This was about the fact that good musicians are being passed over in favor of musicians who are not AS good but happen to come in a pretty package. This is a thread about lookism and unfortunately the concept of 'the good old days' is relevant to the topic. There's no sense getting mad at people from bringing it up. Go ahead and listen to Beiber, we don't care.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 6, 2011)

LillyBBBW said:


> I've been really hooked on a Bill Withers performance on youtube with James Gadson on the drums. My gawd. They don't dance, they don't wear desinger costumes, they aint pretty, only one of them is even standing up and they're all stoned out of their friggen minds but the music... hot damn, that music. They could never be famous by today's superficial standards but by god, I want a pair of plaid bell bottoms SO bad right now you just don't know. That's how you play the drums. You could time a watch to that rythm. :wubu:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3hBYTkI-sE




THAT'S what I'm talk'n about! I really was amiss when I did not include more soul artists in my list.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 6, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> i agree with a lot of that. all i'm saying is that i'm lazy. good music used to flow out over my life with no effort on my part from everywhere--in my car, at home on t.v. at the local teen joint. i didn't have to find it or even buy it. it was just there. i did not have to do any real research or look anything up. i couldn't if i wanted to. there was no internet now i have to pay so much attention just to find something decent unless its old. i have other things i'd like to do other than having to research my music so hard.


 

Justin Beiber sells. Tool will never sell like JB. Tool does not appeal to the crazy spending Tween money machine. Over-exposure makes music easier to find. And with the culture of music changing so much with digital downloads, it's even harder. If you go to a box box store like Best Buy, their music selection is pretty much limited to Top 20 now. 

Sad but true.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 6, 2011)

randomjenerator said:


> [snip].
> 
> I listen to a wide range of music, old and new. My life is too short to spend time caring what others think of what I listen to. If I like it, I'm going to listen to it.



And to that I'll add....and I'm not going to listen to what I don't like.


----------



## butch (Jun 6, 2011)

well, let me ask a question: if lookism wasn't so prevalent in the past, and better music was more about quality than package, then why did Elvis have a hit with "Hound Dog" and Big Mama Thornton didn't, even though she recorded it first? is it just racism, sexism, and/or homophobia, or is it lookism, too, since Big Mama Thornton was 300 pounds?

I don't have an answer to that myself, but I'm guessing that lookism in music started when musicians started being seen in movies and on TV, and not just in our current era.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 6, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> If your main source of music is from the radio and reality tv that's your main problem.
> 
> There is SO MUCH music out there that will never see the light of day in either of those mediums. If you really wanted something better or different, you'd dig deeper. Trust me.
> 
> ...



Turned off the radio except for when a captive audience member years ago...now days I'd rather take a sledge to the TV than watch un-reality TV...watched about a half season intermittently of AI, back during season 2 I believe.

Check out ______? Why should I need to? During the 70s I worked no less than 2 jobs and was a full time student....I did not have the time to go on music quests...but I had no problem encountering great music. Enough to justify spending the $$$ building a sound system that would make a club operator drool. Plus, almost every time I've encountered something that I liked by a current artist, and took the time to research the other stuff they have out there, to my ear they've been one hit wonders. I do not doubt there are some acts out there that have the potential to create great music...but what ever the reason, living up to that potential is almost nonexistent.

Local artists? They are not in the picture here...they are not the ones being presented to us during our everyday lives....what this thread is about.


----------



## Saoirse (Jun 6, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> Justin Beiber sells. Tool will never sell like JB. Tool does not appeal to the crazy spending Tween money machine. Over-exposure makes music easier to find. And with the culture of music changing so much with digital downloads, it's even harder. If you go to a box box store like Best Buy, their music selection is pretty much limited to Top 20 now.
> 
> Sad but true.



Justin Bieber is legit talent. Have you heard the boy sing? I was all anti-JB for the longest time, but then my friend made me watch his performance on SNL and I was blown away. Been a fan ever since.


And thats coming from someone who lives for bagpipes and banjos.


----------



## imfree (Jun 6, 2011)

Hayseed Dixie does some fun and interesting things with classic stuff on banjo.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 6, 2011)

butch said:


> well, let me ask a question: if lookism wasn't so prevalent in the past, and better music was more about quality than package, then why did Elvis have a hit with "Hound Dog" and Big Mama Thornton didn't, even though she recorded it first? is it just racism, sexism, and/or homophobia, or is it lookism, too, since Big Mama Thornton was 300 pounds?
> 
> I don't have an answer to that myself, but I'm guessing that lookism in music started when musicians started being seen in movies and on TV, and not just in our current era.



I'm not certain. It could be any number of the reasons listed but I'm going to guess that it was because she was black. Black artists were routinely descriminated against during that time and Elvis was disliked by many within the black community for copying songs that were hits on the R&B charts and repackaging them. Thornton's was one. 

Incidentally Thornton's "Hound Dog" was number one on the R&B charts for several weeks. This would never happen today. The R&B charts of today have fallen victim to this same lookism.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 6, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> Justin Bieber is legit talent. Have you heard the boy sing? I was all anti-JB for the longest time, but then my friend made me watch his performance on SNL and I was blown away. Been a fan ever since.
> 
> 
> And thats coming from someone who lives for bagpipes and banjos.


 

No no. I didn't discredit his singing ability...I was really just mentioning his popularity and market.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 6, 2011)

Zandoz said:


> Turned off the radio except for when a captive audience member years ago...now days I'd rather take a sledge to the TV than watch un-reality TV...watched about a half season intermittently of AI, back during season 2 I believe.
> 
> Check out ______? Why should I need to? During the 70s I worked no less than 2 jobs and was a full time student....I did not have the time to go on music quests...but I had no problem encountering great music. Enough to justify spending the $$$ building a sound system that would make a club operator drool. Plus, almost every time I've encountered something that I liked by a current artist, and took the time to research the other stuff they have out there, to my ear they've been one hit wonders. I do not doubt there are some acts out there that have the potential to create great music...but what ever the reason, living up to that potential is almost nonexistent.
> 
> Local artists? They are not in the picture here...they are not the ones being presented to us during our everyday lives....what this thread is about.


 

You don't NEED to check anything out. If you're content to live in a small world, that's all fine and good. To me finding new music is a fun hobby and total enjoyment. If it's too much work for you, by all means don't. But don't complain that there aren't outlets anymore. And these artists ARE presented to ME in my everyday life. It's not hard to click a link if you're interested. If not, listen to your rock opera circa 1973. That's the joy of music...you can like whatever you want.


----------



## Saoirse (Jun 6, 2011)

My point is that you cant pigeonhole music (or art in general). Its all subjective and what you may think is complete shit might be someone's favorite band. I listen to the radio quite regularly. I LOVE pop music. I love J-Biebs and Gaga. During my middle/high school I considered myself the #1 Backstreet Boys fan... at the same time I was listening to Janis Joplin and the Allman Brothers (thanks to hippie parents!) 

THINGS CHANGE. Each generation has its top bands, popular songs and one-hit wonders.

Im listening to Katy Perry right now. Fucking love her stuff. Next up is Ray LaMontagne. His voice does things to me.


eta: And dont even get all snooty about looks. Good looks have ALWAYS had an influence on music. Do you HONESTLY think the Beatles would've had such an amazing career if they didnt start off as 4 young cute guys with accents? Hell no.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 6, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> My point is that you cant pigeonhole music (or art in general). Its all subjective and what you may think is complete shit might be someone's favorite band. I listen to the radio quite regularly. I LOVE pop music. I love J-Biebs and Gaga. During my middle/high school I considered myself the #1 Backstreet Boys fan... at the same time I was listening to Janis Joplin and the Allman Brothers (thanks to hippie parents!)
> 
> THINGS CHANGE. Each generation has its top bands, popular songs and one-hit wonders.
> 
> Im listening to Katy Perry right now. Fucking love her stuff. Next up is Ray LaMontagne. His voice does things to me.


 

Total agreement. I was using him more as an example.


----------



## bigmac (Jun 6, 2011)

Saoirse said:


> Justin Bieber is legit talent. Have you heard the boy sing? I was all anti-JB for the longest time, but then my friend made me watch his performance on SNL and I was blown away. Been a fan ever since.
> 
> 
> And thats coming from someone who lives for bagpipes and banjos.




The world is full of people with good voices. That alone doesn't even come close to making someone a legitimate artist. Indeed some of the best have rather sketchy voices. Tom Waits and Mike Ness are artists -- JB is a prepackaged commodity.


----------



## bigmac (Jun 6, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> If your main source of music is from the radio and reality tv that's your main problem.
> 
> There is SO MUCH music out there that will never see the light of day in either of those mediums. If you really wanted something better or different, you'd dig deeper. Trust me.
> 
> ...



Yes!!! Even in Fresno there are actually a few live music venues -- if you're in town check out the _Olympic_ on Van Ness. Nothing like the choice you have in Vancouver, however (I always check out the _Yale_ when I'm in BC -- hope its still there).


----------



## Saoirse (Jun 6, 2011)

bigmac said:


> The world is full of people with good voices. That alone doesn't even come close to making someone a legitimate artist. Indeed some of the best have rather sketchy voices. Tom Waits and Mike Ness are artists -- JB is a prepackaged commodity.



How is he "prepackaged" when he was discovered on Youtube? He's written the majority of his songs and he plays a few instruments. Just because he's young and cute and swooned over by millions of preteen girls doesn't discredit him as an artist.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 6, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> You don't NEED to check anything out. If you're content to live in a small world, that's all fine and good. To me finding new music is a fun hobby and total enjoyment. If it's too much work for you, by all means don't. But don't complain that there aren't outlets anymore. And these artists ARE presented to ME in my everyday life. It's not hard to click a link if you're interested. If not, listen to your rock opera circa 1973. That's the joy of music...you can like whatever you want.




Yup, you can like what ever you want...that's a given. But my world for not liking most of the last decades music is no smaller than any one who thinks if it's not recent or if it's a commercial success, it's not good.

BTW....you mentioned Tool. As usual for me, given time I check it out when someone recommends an act. I listened to a half dozen or so cuts. FOR ME, I heard potential talent, but potential not performed up to. I lost interest by half way through every cut. To my ear, they need to hire a new producer...the vocals vs instrument tracks mix is really bad...and that's not the band's fault. This is a band that may well be better live than they are after the producers played with their work. If you like it, great...ENJOY! To each their own.

I'm off to listen to some Big Bad Voodoo Daddy


----------



## rg770Ibanez (Jun 6, 2011)

Pretty much this, except the list could be wayyyyy bigger  
It's all about looking in the right places. Not the radio or the TV. 



Pitch said:


> Am I the only one that finds the "Good old days" music thing to be complete horse shit?
> 
> Here's where it's wrong: The Good Old Days had its 'hits' swimming in a sea of shit just like now. Yeah, there were more than, say, ten bands playing 20-30 or even 40 years ago. What you remember and what is presented as "Golden Oldies" are all the good stuff. Creme de la creme. And in 20-30 maybe 40 years? The same thing will happen again. No one is going to remember Nickelback or Brittany Spears and all that, they will remember the awesome stuff. And this will be lauded as "The Good Old days" of music and pop culture as well.
> 
> ...





Saoirse said:


> How is he "prepackaged" when he was discovered on Youtube? He's written the majority of his songs and he plays a few instruments. Just because he's young and cute and swooned over by millions of preteen girls doesn't discredit him as an artist.



I'm not going to argue with this kid's talent. As for his ability to compose; you'd be surprised how many well paid ghost writers there are out there.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 6, 2011)

Zandoz said:


> Yup, you can like what ever you want...that's a given. But my world for not liking most of the last decades music is no smaller than any one who thinks if it's not recent or if it's a commercial success, it's not good.
> 
> BTW....you mentioned Tool. As usual for me, given time I check it out when someone recommends an act. I listened to a half dozen or so cuts. FOR ME, I heard potential talent, but potential not performed up to. I lost interest by half way through every cut. To my ear, they need to hire a new producer...the vocals vs instrument tracks mix is really bad...and that's not the band's fault. This is a band that may well be better live than they are after the producers played with their work. If you like it, great...ENJOY! To each their own.
> 
> I'm off to listen to some Big Bad Voodoo Daddy


 
Haha. Wow.

I have no more words.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 6, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> Justin Beiber sells. Tool will never sell like JB. Tool does not appeal to the crazy spending Tween money machine. Over-exposure makes music easier to find. And with the culture of music changing so much with digital downloads, it's even harder. If you go to a box box store like Best Buy, their music selection is pretty much limited to Top 20 now.
> 
> Sad but true.



they might if the record companies put the same effort into their public relations for Tool. but they don't want to. if you had kids listening to the Stones as their first music experience why can't we have something comparable now? its because the business doesn't want it. its a shame because you guys are being cheated out of your personal time and overall enjoyment. they're making you do ALL of the work instead of bringing it right to your door. unfortunately they are talking down to the tweeners too. i know they can like and appreciate good music. they only need the exposure. but record companies are better off the longer they can keep them from knowing the difference. i get tired if people treating us all like we are too dumb to ever know or discern the difference just so they can own music and keep most of the profit for themselves. they don't want the funny looking highly creative fat girl who sings like a champ. she's too unique. she's irreplaceable. when it comes time to make a music deal they can't threaten her with a whole string of folks who can look and sing just like her. they don't want that.


----------



## Jes (Jun 6, 2011)

I remember reading a blurb in Rolling Stone years ago about how rock and roll used to be rebellious--it was shocking and in-your-face and not for the 'squares.' Definitely not your parents' music, in other words. How true was that? B/c what would be more rebellious than a fat (or whatever else) person making it big, really big, in music right now? And that's the point Rolling Stone was making, btw. Elvis' revolutionary gyrating pelvis has given way to carbon copies and mediocrity. The revolution was televised... and then ignored.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 6, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> its a shame because you guys are being cheated out of your personal time and overall enjoyment. they're making you do ALL of the work instead of bringing it right to your door


 
I like to think i'm not that lazy. Why would I want someone to spoon feed me what I 'supposed' to like? 

And music like the Rolling Stones and the Beatles that took the world by storm were new and fresh because society was still very modest up until then. Barriers were broken. Now, half the shows on tv are half porno/half complete nonsense. We're all totally desensitized. So if you're waiting for the new coming as far as music's concerned, I think you're going to be waiting a long time. Did you blink twice when you heard Lady Gaga wore a meat dress to an awards show? I sure didn't.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 6, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> I like to think i'm not that lazy. Why would I want someone to spoon feed me what I 'supposed' to like?
> 
> And music like the Rolling Stones and the Beatles that took the world by storm were new and fresh because society was still very modest up until then. Barriers were broken. Now, half the shows on tv are half porno/half complete nonsense. We're all totally desensitized. So if you're waiting for the new coming as far as music's concerned, I think you're going to be waiting a long time. Did you blink twice when you heard Lady Gaga wore a meat dress to an awards show? I sure didn't.



so you'll accept lower quality than can be easily provided for what reason? you will spend hours looking for stuff that you could be using to explore other parts of your life. in, for instance, the couple of hours you might spend researching music you could be getting paid somewhere,taking a college course, working in starting a business, spending time with your kid, showing someone you love them and working on YOUR dreams. time is money, relationships, self fulfillment. time isn't free and its not cheap. it belongs to you and people are taking it for granted and wasting it unnecessarily. along with that they are assaulting your ears with cheap bs you don't generally want to listen to and excluding people who look like you and sound better from participating. thats just messed up. there's nothing that could make me feel its okay or like it. i deserve more.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 6, 2011)

Jes said:


> I remember reading a blurb in Rolling Stone years ago about how rock and roll used to be rebellious--it was shocking and in-your-face and not for the 'squares.' Definitely not your parents' music, in other words. How true was that? B/c what would be more rebellious than a fat (or whatever else) person making it big, really big, in music right now? And that's the point Rolling Stone was making, btw. Elvis' revolutionary gyrating pelvis has given way to carbon copies and mediocrity. The revolution was televised... and then ignored.



yes, there is something i can't put my finger on in society now that seems regressive and compliant. its moved forward in many ways but individuality is not one of them. there is such a big emphasis on sameness and homogeneity thats totally acceptable to a lot of folks. its hard for them to see that they should/could fight it even if they suffer from being on the downside of it.


----------



## Jes (Jun 6, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> yes, there is something i can't put my finger on in society now that seems regressive and compliant. its moved forward in many ways but individuality is not one of them. there is such a big emphasis on sameness and homogeneity thats totally acceptable to a lot of folks. its hard for them to see that they should/could fight it even if they suffer from being on the downside of it.



I'm somehow reminded of that quote from T. Thomas Fortune, prominent in the American Civil Rights movement: 

"Let us no longer allow ourselves to be amenable to the just reproach that though we have the strength of a giant we use it like a child."

We really do seem to seek and enforce mediocrity so often and it's a shame. Doing so brings out the best in no one.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 6, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> so you'll accept lower quality than can be easily provided for what reason? you will spend hours looking for stuff that you could be using to explore other parts of your life. in, for instance, the couple of hours you might spend researching music you could be getting paid somewhere,taking a college course, working in starting a business, spending time with your kid, showing someone you love them and working on YOUR dreams. time is money, relationships, self fulfillment. time isn't free and its not cheap. it belongs to you and people are taking it for granted and wasting it unnecessarily. along with that they are assaulting your ears with cheap bs you don't generally want to listen to and excluding people who look like you and sound better from participating. thats just messed up. there's nothing that could make me feel its okay or like it. i deserve more.


 
Haha. Who said anything about hours? I'm a bit more savvy than that.

And why would that be taking away from anything anyways? Music is a passion of mine. A love. It's not a time waster. I make time for the things I love, don't you?

I honestly don't know what you're getting at. But it sounds like you don't think music has much value. It does to me.


----------



## Tad (Jun 6, 2011)

Some quick thoughts:

1)	It was obvious right away—video killed the radio star! ;-)

2)	There has been mindless pop music at all times. But the mindless pop music of times past doesn’t get played so much now, so we don’t remember it as much.

3)	There is plenty of fantastic music being made right now, and with this wonderful thing called the internet it has never been easier to find that music, or to support those bands. 

4)	Even on radio there is plenty of great new music, if you go looking for it. Once there was pretty much only one or two styles of music playing radio stations, so you got exposed to &#8216;everything’ (or at least everything that was remotely a hit) by listening to a generic station. Not so much these days. If what you are listening to isn’t playing any good new music….change the station! And accept that a lot of the good new music may not be the genres to which you listened when you were growing up….just because it is different doesn’t mean it isn’t good.

5)	Looks have always mattered in pop music. Did the Beatles break musical ground? I suppose, in pop music terms, a bit, maybe. However I’m pretty sure that an awful lot of Beatlemania was based on their looks and charisma, not their music. Musicians have managed their appearance for an awfully long time. I’m sure it has intensified since video became so important, but the change is in degree, not in novelty.

6) People in general--me included--tend to be pretty sloppy in their language. We say "good music" when we mean "music that I like."

7) Personally, I fully intend to keep enjoying good new music for a lot of years yet. I'm pretty psyched to have passes for a big music festival in town this year, but it is not a few big name older groups that I'm excited to see, it is Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes, Cage the Elephant, The Black Keys, Tegan & Sara, Mother Mother, Death Cab for Cutie..... but I don't expect that a decade from now I'll be listening to the music they are performing this summer, I certainly hope that I'll have found more new music that appeals.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 6, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> Haha. Who said anything about hours? I'm a bit more savvy than that.
> 
> And why would that be taking away from anything anyways? Music is a passion of mine. A love. It's not a time waster. I make time for the things I love, don't you?
> 
> I honestly don't know what you're getting at. But it sounds like you don't think music has much value. It does to me.



Show me how this savvy thing works because for me is feels like spending hours being Rick rolled till you find an actual gem. I love music too but that doesn't mean I love everything that I hear. I have to sift through a lot of crap and it IS a time waster. That doesn't mean I don't think music has value.


----------



## Zandoz (Jun 6, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> Haha. Wow.
> 
> I have no more words.





Maybe some Be Bop Deluxe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViXmyIJbJF0

 ..........


----------



## ConnieLynn (Jun 9, 2011)

LillyBBBW said:


> I've been really hooked on a Bill Withers performance on youtube with James Gadson on the drums. My gawd. They don't dance, they don't wear desinger costumes, they aint pretty, only one of them is even standing up and they're all stoned out of their friggen minds but the music... hot damn, that music. They could never be famous by today's superficial standards but by god, I want a pair of plaid bell bottoms SO bad right now you just don't know. That's how you play the drums. You could time a watch to that rythm. :wubu:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3hBYTkI-sE



They don't dance, but sure makes me wanna. Damn that's good. Thanks for sharing


----------

