Has the music died?
David P Chabot
bad times"... or something like that. Certainly the GREATEST pop/rock music
came during the turbulent 60's... lots of stuff going on at the time...
I have a hard time today enjoying anything "new"... mostly corporate crap...
stuff they want to shove down my throat... (except for Tom Waits). I listen
to "oldies" radio... I really do try other music but I just don't get it...
Has pop/rock run it's course? Is there nothing new? Is it all down from
here?
PROZAK ANYONE?
--
Peace...Dave www.Shemakhan.com
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast."
Lewis Carroll
Ivan Piperov
"David P Chabot" <shem...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:thvI9.155434$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Mister Charlie
"Ivan Piperov" <ivani...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:asu0lv$bjh$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Eminem is really good, believe me!
An acquired taste to be sure.
He's a punk, but at least he's a *real* punk, not some suburban rich
wannabe faking it for attention.
And oddly enough he does have a discernible talent. Of course, the genre
itself is tough for people like me to listen to as I don't care for it
at all musically or lyrically (tho his producer Dr. Dre does some -very-
nice production) but Em has a good ability to put words and images
together.
It remains to be seen what he decides to do with this talent.
paramucho
<shem...@attbi.com> wrote:
>I believe I read somewhere on RMB a post stating that "good music comes at
>bad times"... or something like that. Certainly the GREATEST pop/rock music
>came during the turbulent 60's... lots of stuff going on at the time...
>I have a hard time today enjoying anything "new"... mostly corporate crap...
>stuff they want to shove down my throat... (except for Tom Waits). I listen
>to "oldies" radio... I really do try other music but I just don't get it...
>Has pop/rock run it's course? Is there nothing new? Is it all down from
>here?
>
>PROZAK ANYONE?
I've notice that most people tend to think the music has died as they
get older. They sure did when I was a kid so I made a promise to
myself never to believe that. I don't listen to much radio but I like
a lot of what I hear these days, which is something I couldn't always
say in the late seventies or eighties.
Ian
Dee
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, David P Chabot wrote:
> I believe I read somewhere on RMB a post stating that "good music comes at
> bad times"... or something like that. Certainly the GREATEST pop/rock music
> came during the turbulent 60's... lots of stuff going on at the time...
> I have a hard time today enjoying anything "new"... mostly corporate crap...
> stuff they want to shove down my throat... (except for Tom Waits). I listen
> to "oldies" radio... I really do try other music but I just don't get it...
> Has pop/rock run it's course? Is there nothing new? Is it all down from
> here?
If you think that the music has died, it's because you're not listening.
Dee
Danny
"Mister Charlie" <smoker...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:asu10b$uba7q$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
Danny
"paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
news:3dfd8fc5...@news.supernews.com...
I watched a bit of that record of the year malarky on itv tonight.
Gareth Gates won. Says it all.
The soul seems to be ripped out of music, but there are enough good acts out
there to keep me from going insane: System of a Down, Rob Dougan, Muse, and
others make you remember quality is still there.
Mister Charlie
"Danny" <danny__grant///@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:asu48c$v0s2j$1...@ID-149535.news.dfncis.de...
As himself. No sign of great abilities yet. But again, time will tell.
>
>
Barnaby207
there to keep me from going insane: System of a Down>>
oh yeah, they just OOZE quality now don't they? i don't care how complex their
songs are......there's not an ounce of melody or beauty in any of their
music....and the "singer" has natural disaster for a voice.
marcus
> I believe I read somewhere on RMB a post stating that "good music comes at
> bad times"... or something like that. Certainly the GREATEST pop/rock music
> came during the turbulent 60's... lots of stuff going on at the time...
> I have a hard time today enjoying anything "new"... mostly corporate crap...
> stuff they want to shove down my throat... (except for Tom Waits). I listen
> to "oldies" radio... I really do try other music but I just don't get it...
> Has pop/rock run it's course? Is there nothing new? Is it all down from
> here?
>
> PROZAK ANYONE?
Listen to Avril Lavigne, and you'll realize there might still be
hope(notice I said "might be")
marcus
Eminem is a legend in his own mind.
Jeff Troutman
True. A lot of movie stars, though, have gotten by doing variations on one
character.
Jeff Troutman
big easy
"AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:asuhu...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On 7 Dec 2002 18:44:15 -0800, in article
> <23a32109.02120...@posting.google.com>, marc...@yahoo.com
stated:
> >
> >"David P Chabot" <shem...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:<thvI9.155434$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
> >> I believe I read somewhere on RMB a post stating that "good music comes
at
> >> bad times"... or something like that. Certainly the GREATEST pop/rock
music
> >> came during the turbulent 60's... lots of stuff going on at the time...
> >> I have a hard time today enjoying anything "new"... mostly corporate
crap...
> >> stuff they want to shove down my throat... (except for Tom Waits). I
listen
> >> to "oldies" radio... I really do try other music but I just don't get
it...
> >> Has pop/rock run it's course? Is there nothing new? Is it all down from
> >> here?
> >>
> >> PROZAK ANYONE?
>
time as
> dynamic, diverse and just plain amazing in the area of pop music as there
is
> now
LOL! please trish, stop with the eltist crap.
you and i both know that when something with even a suggestion of musicality
hits the public arena, it is reason for great rejoicing in this age where
the mass media is inundated with crap.
the other glaringingly obvious thing is that good music is predominantly
happening in an underground cultures these days , and NOWHERE near the "top
40"scene.
which is so far removed from the earlier days of pop, where a larghe part of
the innovative stuff made its way to the mass media pop scene.
in the meantime, sure, theres heaps of good stuff still happening, but its
not happening in the "area of pop music".
>>>>> cue trish's gratuitous "i'm gonna list as many "hip" acts as i can"
routine.........:)
> remember when Allan Kozinn listed the 100 greatest pop albums of the 20th
> century in a magazine a while back.... He listed not a single hip hop
record,
> which to his credit, he admitted, and then kind if fudged his reasons for
not
> doing so, by saying that rock was so diverse. And it was a good list.
But the
> omission was telling. There is just so amazingly much going on --
still -- in
> the hip hop, DJ, electronica, indie pop scene -- we actually have an
> embarassment of originality and talent around, and with digital technology
more
> and more people can make the music and send it around. It's around
everywhere
> you look -- Wilco, Her Space Holiday, Natalie MacMaster, Alison Krauss,
> Morcheebah, Beck, LeAnne Womack, Mogwai, Autechre, Stereolab, Tosca, Steve
> Earle, Telepopmusick, Bjork.... there's so much its literally hard to know
where
> to begin. I was listening to the last Beastie Boys record yesterday --
the one
> with "Intergalactic"? That's an absolutely amazing record -- diverse,
amazingly
> produced, funky as shit, avant garde, culturally aware, polyrythmic,
catchy,
> funny, lyrically incredible, possibly even more diverse and eclectic than
the
> White Album .... What more do you want?
yup, i was right..:)
> >Listen to Avril Lavigne, and you'll realize there might still be
> >hope(notice I said "might be")
>
> Jeez, I envy you -- the fact that you've singled out Avril means you can't
be
> aware of so much of the truly great stuff going down right now
gee, what a condescending little prat.....
big easy
"AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:asuib...@drn.newsguy.com...
> That may mean that Beatles fans, as a group, are less capable of getting
> anything that's slightly less obvious.
gee, so nice of you to rubbish beatles fans in one fell swoop.....
Mister Charlie
"big easy" <wecant...@becauseiloveyoutoomuchbaby.com> wrote in
message news:asun2b$qak$0...@pita.alt.net...
worthy since the OP said there was nothing out there, she's providing
her personal back-up. Nothing at all wrong with it.
Not that I've ever heard of any of them (well, except Beck who is ok;
Steve Earle who is pretty good and Bjork...ork!)
Mister Charlie
"Jeff Troutman" <yourhe...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:asui43$6ve$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
True. But they were generally actual actors. Like Prince, the first
film was semi-autobiographical, the next one dropped like a stone.
Mister Charlie
"AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:asuib...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 16:35:34 -0800, in article
> <20021207163459...@really.miserable.com>, Dee stated:
that the
> Beatles were so damn good, that the quality of the music hit you over
the head
> like a 2 by 4 -- it was impossible to miss.
>
> That may mean that Beatles fans, as a group, are less capable of
getting
> anything that's slightly less obvious.
>
exceptions, it seems
> a lot of rmb is musically reactionary. In real life, nothing is off
topic.
>
For me it's the same aural calcification most adults seemed to have when
I was a kid.
And I don't care. I don't care about being hip enough to know the
latest; I have more music in the house than I can ever listen to as it
is.
My kids keep me plugged in to a lot of what's happening and a bit of it
filters down into my fallow musical fields.
J C
>>I believe I read somewhere on RMB a post stating that "good music
comes at bad times"... or something like that. Certainly the GREATEST
pop/rock music came during the turbulent 60's... lots of stuff going on
at the time... I have a hard time today enjoying anything "new"...
mostly corporate crap... stuff they want to shove down my throat...
(except for Tom Waits). I listen to "oldies" radio... I really do try
other music but I just don't get it... Has pop/rock run it's course? Is
there nothing new? Is it all down from here?<<
It cracks me up when others say all the good tunes have already been
written.
No way in hell can that ever happen.
David P Chabot
hear her... BJORK... extraordinary!
--
Peace...Dave www.Shemakhan.com
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast."
Lewis Carroll
"J C" <music...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21010-3DF...@storefull-2277.public.lawson.webtv.net...
David P Chabot
--
Peace...Dave www.Shemakhan.com
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast."
Lewis Carroll
"J C" <music...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21010-3DF...@storefull-2277.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Sixties Gen
> "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
> wrote in message news:asuib...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 16:35:34 -0800, in article
> > <20021207163459...@really.miserable.com>, Dee stated:
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
that the
> Beatles were so damn good, that the quality of the music hit you over the head
> like a 2 by 4 -- it was impossible to miss.
We were spoiled by greatness. Nothing can ever equal, or come close,
to the level of excellence displayed by The Beatles. We're like the
astronauts who walked on the moon...after that, can a walk through the
park ever hit the same level?
Bob
wrote in message news:asvr3...@drn.newsguy.com...
> I agree that it seems that there are many who feel that way. But it's
just not
> true that "nothing can ever equal or come close". The Beatles worked a
> fundamental change because they were instrumental in changing the role of
the
> popular musician from "performer" to "artist". They also displayed a
remarkable
> consistency in the quality of their work. It's unreasonable to think that
any
> new artist in the foreseeable future will match their impact, but I think
it's
> unreasonable to think that no artist has matched their quality, or that
some
> artists will not continue to do that. It's happening all around you.
>
> interstate5
> let it roll for all its worth...
Right. It's just the next wave in a never ending ocean of music.
--
Peace,
Bob
Mister Charlie
"AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:asvr3...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On 8 Dec 2002 06:36:39 -0800, in article
> <4734803e.02120...@posting.google.com>,
sixti...@yahoo.com stated:
> >
>
>
> >We were spoiled by greatness. Nothing can ever equal, or come close,
> >to the level of excellence displayed by The Beatles. We're like the
> >astronauts who walked on the moon...after that, can a walk through
the
> >park ever hit the same level?
>
just not
> true that "nothing can ever equal or come close". The Beatles worked
a
> fundamental change because they were instrumental in changing the role
of the
> popular musician from "performer" to "artist". They also displayed a
remarkable
> consistency in the quality of their work. It's unreasonable to think
that any
> new artist in the foreseeable future will match their impact, but I
think it's
> unreasonable to think that no artist has matched their quality, or
that some
> artists will not continue to do that. It's happening all around you.
>
know if that were true.
Certainly the Beatles were not the end of anyone ever achieving
greatness in music again, they were just the ones that happened along in
our lifetimes. There will always be peaks and valleys in any human
endeavor...the peaks get higher, the valleys lower.
BlackMonk
"Sixties Gen" <sixti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4734803e.02120...@posting.google.com...
> "Mister Charlie" <smoker...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:<asupmt$u14lm$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
> > wrote in message news:asuib...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > > On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 16:35:34 -0800, in article
> > > <20021207163459...@really.miserable.com>, Dee stated:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> That is so true. One of the bad things about a Beatles news group is
> that the
> > Beatles were so damn good, that the quality of the music hit you over
the head
> > like a 2 by 4 -- it was impossible to miss.
>
> We were spoiled by greatness. Nothing can ever equal, or come close,
> to the level of excellence displayed by The Beatles.
This attitude is part of why a lot of rock isn't as interesting as it was
several decades ago. If you start out by believing that you can never be
anything more than ok, and The Beatles or any past musicians are untouchable
icons, then you're not going to have any ambition. You're limited to
mediocrity from the start.
Personally, I'd say that any rock musician who doesn't think he can do
better than The Beatles is in the wrong line of work.
Mister Charlie
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:at0l4g$v5f1h$1...@ID-133514.news.dfncis.de...
Well, there's confidence and then there's folly.
Anyone who thinks they will be beter than the Fabs is in for a
disappointment.
Someone who wants to be like them is more realistic, and that's still a
huge goal.
>
>
>
>
Mister Charlie
"nowhere man" <nom...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92DEF26F46...@130.133.1.4...
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Personally, I'd say that any rock musician who doesn't think he can
do
> > better than The Beatles is in the wrong line of work.
>
>
>
> Could you mot have said 'better than the Rolling Stones' or 'better
than
> Oasis' or summat!
So long as he doesn't get truly blasphemous and say the Drunken
Failures!
>
BlackMonk
You've got it backwards. Anyone who sets out to be like them is going to be
a second-rate copy. Anyone who sets out to be better than them is going to
find their own path and have a shot at pulling it off.
Why do you think there was so much good music during the sixties? Because
the Beatles weren't mythic gods from the past, they were contemporaries and
rivals to beat.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
BlackMonk
"nowhere man" <nom...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92DEF26F46...@130.133.1.4...
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > better than The Beatles is in the wrong line of work.
>
>
>
> Oasis' or summat!
>
Nope, because that's still settling for second best.
Jeff Troutman
Also true. OTOH, _Under The Cherry Moon_ was pretty ridiculous on it's own
merits, and I never quite found Prince convincing as an actor.
Jeff Troutman
BlackMonk
> "Mister Charlie" <smoker...@myway.com> wrote in news:at0ll8$vke03$1@ID-
> 63206.news.dfncis.de:
>
> > So long as he doesn't get truly blasphemous and say the Drunken
> > Failures!
>
>
>
>
> the band that gets really pissed if there is less than two beers left in
> the fridge.
>
A whole band can get pissed on less than two beers? Wimps.
Rich Forman
> "Ivan Piperov" <ivani...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:asu0lv$bjh$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > Eminem is really good, believe me!
>
> An acquired taste to be sure.
>
> He's a punk, but at least he's a *real* punk, not some suburban rich
> wannabe faking it for attention.
>
> And oddly enough he does have a discernible talent. Of course, the genre
> itself is tough for people like me to listen to as I don't care for it
> at all musically or lyrically (tho his producer Dr. Dre does some -very-
> nice production) but Em has a good ability to put words and images
> together.
>
> It remains to be seen what he decides to do with this talent.
I don't know...I don't like rap at all, but I think I see that what
makes the best of it good, besides the attitude and message, is
cleverness, effectiveness and originality of the rhymes and rhythms.
And in the case of some of Eminem's stuff that I've heard, a lot of
his rhymes, one of the most important technical elements of rap if I
understand correctly, are just awful, clumsy, farfetched, they don't
even come close to rhyming. (I'm familiar with his big hit, "Without
Me," 'coz we do it in the top 40 cover band I play in.) So in my
completely unqualified opinion (as in, I am not qualified to have
one), he doesn't seem like a very good rapper to me.
richforman
Tom Hartman
likes great harmony can hear it, likewise great guitar sounds, great
and innovative synth stuff, super production, bare bones production,
great singers, bad singers.....there's everything...if you can't hear
anything you like out there now then you're listening with a jaded
ear.
I grew up in the Sixties, have played music since 1962, was in bands
all through the Sixties, and while I have many great memories of many
terrific songs, the idea that they stopped writing good songs or
making good records over 30 years ago is ridiculous. The Sixties had
MORE than it's share of pure, unadulterated bad singing, bad playing,
bad writing, just plain crap, along with it's treasures. Just like
now. Nothing has changed. But some listeners have sure gotten older,
and grouchier;)
And PS....the idea that the only good music is on "underground" radio
is elitist nonsense.
As always, JMHO.
brinkm311
>I believe I read somewhere on RMB a post stating that "good music comes at
>bad times"... or something like that. Certainly the GREATEST pop/rock music
>came during the turbulent 60's... lots of stuff going on at the time...
>I have a hard time today enjoying anything "new"... mostly corporate crap...
>stuff they want to shove down my throat... (except for Tom Waits). I listen
>to "oldies" radio... I really do try other music but I just don't get it...
>Has pop/rock run it's course?
it's pretty bad right now, but there are some pretty cool things happening in
soul/hip-hop/r&b, and a few fringe artists are also worth checking out as well.
Is there nothing new? Is it all down from
>here?
i don't know if another vietnam is worth it for great music. actually, if
peace and relative prosperity is the price for disappointing art, i'll take
disappointing art.
>PROZAK ANYONE?
thanks, already had mine.
Sixties Gen
I am in my early 50s, and live in an area with a diverse radio
audience. I listen to classic Rock, classical music, folk, college
music stations, and my daughter's rap. I can say, without
equivocation, that I find nothing remotely the same in quality,
harmony, and melody in most of today's new music as there was in the
music from 1955-1985. I try to listen to new things with an open ear
and mind. Occasionally, I'll hear something good, but songs like that
are few and far between.
I know what I like, and I like what I know, and do not view that as an
old codger's or grouch's statement.
Strabbo
news:4734803e.0212...@posting.google.com:
> I can say, without
> equivocation, that I find nothing remotely the same in quality,
> harmony, and melody in most of today's new music as there was in the
> music from 1955-1985.
Ick.
I'd say that there's a lot more worth buying today than there was between
1975-85. That's just my opinion, of course.
Marty
ali assa seen
sixti...@yahoo.com (Sixties Gen) wrote:
>
> I am in my early 50s, and live in an area with a diverse radio
> audience. I listen to classic Rock, classical music, folk, college
> music stations, and my daughter's rap. I can say, without
> equivocation, that I find nothing remotely the same in quality,
> harmony, and melody in most of today's new music as there was in the
> music from 1955-1985. I try to listen to new things with an open ear
> and mind. Occasionally, I'll hear something good, but songs like that
> are few and far between.
>
> I know what I like, and I like what I know, and do not view that as an
> old codger's or grouch's statement.
Keep listening to that shitbox they call the radio and you'll never
have the chance to hear *any* of the hundreds of utterly fantastic
musical artists out there today.
- Dr Strangemonde
Sixties Gen
Put on your glasses, Marty. ;-) I said 1955-1985, not 1975-1985.
Strabbo
>> I'd say that there's a lot more worth buying today than there was
>> between 1975-85. That's just my opinion, of course.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Marty
>
> Put on your glasses, Marty. ;-) I said 1955-1985, not 1975-1985.
Oh, I know.
I wouldn't have argued with you if you'd said 1955-1975. But you included
ten pretty dire (to a large extent) years in there - years that I think
have been bettered, at least in the past six-seven.
IMO, of course!
Marty
ali assa seen
<str...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Man, everything from punk to New Wave to Goth to technopop to...
whatever Devo was, was *born* in that time period - and it was the last
era before the corporations really got the final stranglehold on
keeping good music away from our ears!
- Dr Strangemonde
Strabbo
news:101220021245039324%dancing...@auschron.com:
>> I wouldn't have argued with you if you'd said 1955-1975. But you
>> included ten pretty dire (to a large extent) years in there - years
>> that I think have been bettered, at least in the past six-seven.
>>
>> IMO, of course!
>>
>>
>>
>> Marty
>
> Man, everything from punk to New Wave to Goth to technopop to...
> whatever Devo was, was *born* in that time period - and it was the
> last era before the corporations really got the final stranglehold on
> keeping good music away from our ears!
Yes, but the sheer volume of music out there today is unrivaled by any
prior era. The quality of what you hear on the radio has dropped
significantly, but the volume of great albums you can find (if you look),
is much better today.
IMO, again.
Marty
Danny
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021207210429...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> <<The soul seems to be ripped out of music, but there are enough good acts
out
> there to keep me from going insane: System of a Down>>
>
> oh yeah, they just OOZE quality now don't they?
Yup, glad you agree.
> i don't care how complex their
> songs are......
'complex'? I wouldn't say they're complex at all.
> there's not an ounce of melody or beauty in any of their
> music....
You must be mad. Never heard Aerials, or Toxicity then? If you can't hear
melody then your ears are closed.
More to the point, 'beauty'? Does music have to be beautiful to have merit?
Yeah? How did the Sex Pistols, the Animals, The Stones et al make it then?
> and the "singer" has natural disaster for a voice.
His voice might not be the world's most 'beautiful' but it's got plenty of
punch, and compliments the sound perfectly.
eotd System of a Down are a fantastic band who enjoy what they do, which
they get across to us so well it's untrue.
Add to that their sociological and political mickey-takes and they're
clearly a cut above so many other bands.