To that I shall respond thus: Red Scare. Jazz. Rock. Jazz. Marilyn Monroe. Jazz. Disco. Rock. End of war. Rock. Disco. Rock. More Cold War propaganda. Disco.Rock. Disco. Some stuff in between. Rock. Disco. Death. And then the 90s!! The 90s were awesome, though I am biased towards that notion. While I can't deny the supremacy of 20th century rock, I will defend the position that trance music is as powerful a contemporary substitute as rock was for blues and country. You can find examples for a downfall of youth culture in every generation, if you're looking for them. But you can also find examples of the contrary, if you're looking for them. I think it's just a social-cultural thing we have. To quote a famous modification of K. J. Freeman's words (usually misattributed to Socrates): "The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise." I've heard this enough times to see that old people in a very broad general sense will always be skeptical of the new generations, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
I agree. The net has been wonderful in that respect. For so many years, unless I was prepared to really trawl the independent music press, pickings were slim. I like to pay my money to musicians, not to companies. There's nothing quite like accidentally stumbling across an album so immense, you wonder how you ever got by without it. Is the music I find better than the corporate pushed stuff? To me it is, and that's all that matters. Kinda goes back to the earlier points. Each generation is egotistical enough to believe that they have their finger on the pulse. Trance wasn't invented in the nineties, it has always existed in some form or another. To quote David Byrne: 'Same as it ever was.'
I'm 22 so I grew up in the age just before the digital age completely took over. I have to admit that the 90's were the best, especially compared to now if you're a U.S. citizen since it was thriving back then and is in shambles now. All the technology now does make a lot of things easier though.
Personally, I'm of the opinion, good music is good music—the time frame is an irrelevance. Perhaps that's just my 'oldie' take on it. If you gauge music by the state of the industry, perhaps you're a little too expectant that it should just land in your lap. And what's being a U.S. citizen got to with it? The music industry works in much the same manner all over. To me, music is thriving. The very fact that we live in the digital age has opened up a wealth of choice, not all good I grant you, but there are gems to be found. If you want to find good music, you will. Or are you just happy to cherry pick what is forced on you? I'm not meaning to be rude, it's just a subject I'm passionate about. But, I'm further serving to derail the OP's thread. So I'll quit now. Teen angst and music kinda go hand in hand.
Oh I wasn't even talking about music just the 90's in general haha. My response was to the posts saying how the 90's were great. I was also talking about the U.S.'s economy and whatnot, it's terrible now compared to what it was a couple decades ago. In response to the music I'll say that both eras have their strong points. There was always a huge thrill going to the music store and getting a c.d. that I was really hyped about — buying an album off of itunes just doesn't give me that same feeling. Buying albums digitally is very convenient though and it is nice when it's an album that I could never find in music stores. And in response to the OP, I agree with everyone else in that every previous generation always looks down on the new generation.
I've heard this said quite a few times - that of course no music genre was ever "invented" in the period people say it was, and the same goes for all types of music. Actually, that goes for everything. It's an evolution - gradual and transitory, with transitory being a key aspect. You could argue that electronic music from previous generations contributed to the development, and may even sound similar to, trance music, but you can't argue that trance didn't have a historic beginning; a first generation. The first generation was in the 1990s, and that has been recorded. What one may deem as a predecessor of trance is an entirely different subject. It's like arguing that Homo sapiens sapiens has always existed in the form of the archaic bunch, because it's the 'Same as it ever was,' without acknowledging the historical transition between one and the other. It did happen at one point, and I see nothing egotistical about pointing that fact out. People have the right to build some form of unique identity around their generation, and no meagre assault is enough to strip that right away from them. Just as my dad identified with AC/DC, so can I identify with Paul van Dyk.
As a trainee adult literacy and college teacher I come across both teenagers and adults of all kinds almost every day. Teenagers, at least the older ones are (and watch me be really controversial here!) fine, many are hard working, many are polite and neat, many aren't, and many are horrible. But if I was to pass comments on the 50 year olds I meet almost every day then I'd only need to change one word in that last sentence and it would be just as true. I am a 90s kid, and I believe that my generation is the best. Of course I do, I'm a bona fide twenty-something. But if I was being serious then I don't see much difference between my generation and any other, only I grew up with Radiohead and Oasis, so we just had better music.
I liked the 80's it was so much fun. Nothing was taken too seriously, nobody really went out of their way to dress sexy - cute and colorful was more the thing and everyone interacted. Now, everyone seems rather aloof almost antisocial, even when they're with people - they're pulling out phones and texting, or walking with ear phones in - I don't get it. If me and my friend had technology it was shared, we'd split the earphones on her walkman or walk to school with my boom box blasting Tears for Fears Shout Shout - lol.
Ah, I see what you mean. All people here speaking in cryptic 30 year old language, think about the younger generations...
Of course we ddidn't have better music. The current kids have still got all the music we had, plus a whole lot more
Dude, listen to modern hit music now versus hit music then (70s, 80s, a little 90s). The vocals and instrumentation are MUCH worse. Rhythms are much more repetitive. It's all about the hook these days. Vocabulary has gone down the hill as well.
I don't know, people forget about all the crap pumped out during the 60s and 70s, and 80s. I mean, who remembers A Flock of Seagulls later work? No one.
I'm comparing best to the best. Also, yes, there was crap back then, but back then it was original. Now (usually), it's same old same old.
A lot of the good music nowadays is indie/underground stuff. If you dig in the right places, you're guaranteed to find gold.
What I think W.A.C. is referring to is the paradigm that follows the person as he/she ages, not the music as it changes. When we're young, we're attracted to simpler, catchier music (Justin Beiber, Taylor Swift, etc.), as we age, our tastes become more individually refined because we have more exposure, we know more, we have more concepts in our repertoire to bring to bear on what we think of as taste. I loved ABBA and then Rick Astley as a kid. Now they sound a little silly to me.
Very true. Speaking for myself, as I get older, I find myself more and more being forced to go back to older generations to find music worth listening to.
^ I don't know I can still get my groove on with Black Lace's Agadoo. Ag-a-doo-doo-doo, push pineapple, shake the tree Aga-doo-doo-doo, push pineapple, grind coffee To the left, to the right, jump up and down and to the knees Come and dance every night, sing with a hula melody Or maybe, I've just always had rotten taste.
Which is great. Every generation makes great music, but another sentiment WAC expressed is also true. There is great music being made right now, today, you just have to know the venues wherein you can be exposed to it, and that venue is not pop radio. The most popular station in your area is playing music meant to cover a huge audience, so it's going to to be the most generically passable possible. Another example: Ever bought an album because of the one song that's on the radio from it only to find that that song is pretty much the throw-away song, the rest of the album is actually much better than the popular song? Mass appeal.
Yeah very true about that last bit. As for modern venues, let me know where I can find good, modern, rock, because I desperately miss Springsteen, Stones, Zeppelin, etc, you know, larger than life bands that made their fame through talent and not Disney. Maybe the equivalent in musical quality exists today, just not at the same level of fame?
LOL The Disney Machine! I lived 45 min from Orlando for the better part of 20 years, so yeah, I know all about the Disney Factory. I laughed when I read that. You may have to resign yourself to the fact that music like Springsteen, the Stone, and Zepelin isn't happening now. Other music is happening. Just like the threads we occasionally see here about "where's the good new Space Opera?" or "whatever happened to this style of this genre?" It had its day and now something different is happening. For the past 5-ish years the U.K. has been putting out some folk-rock bands that should make Americans feel ashamed at how much better they are doing a genre that was invented here. Mumford & Sons is popular, but popularity doesn't automatically mean crap. I love them and Alexi Murdoch, Dry the River, Damien Rice. The shit is stonkingly good.
Could be me, but I find groups or singers that write music tend to be better. You take even the bubblegum sweeties Debbie Gibson vs Tiffany. Debbie wins hands down, she wrote her stuff. A lot of singers don't bring anything to the game - all their music is manufactured by someone else.
Almost always agree. Somehow, musical talent often appears to be all encompassing. Think about Prince, who can dance, sing, play guitar, and writes his own stuff. There are exceptions. Elvis, Sinatra. They didn't need to write their own music. Whatever anyone else wrote they took it and made it their own. Their vocals were just that good.
Yeah, they're good. Won't know how good until some decades have passed, when they'll be gone for sure and I can complain "What happened to bands like that?!"
I agree that we're turning out some great folk-rock here in the UK, but I don't think the USA needs hang its head in shame just yet, while it has folk-rock bands like the Fleet Foxes and a somewhat better indie scene than we have. I'm sure the reason the music of the past sounds better than the music of today is selective memory. There was just as much cr*p back then, but we've managed to forget it. I mean, the 1980s gave us Springsteen's "Born in the USA", U2's "The Joshua Tree" and Michael Jackson's "Bad", but it also gave us "The Birdie Song" by The Tweets and St Winifred's School Choir singing "There's no-one quite like grandma".
Twilight, read it and thought it was the worst thing i had ever read Justin Bieber, im about the same age as this annoying whiney little [insert string of swear words here] and Nikki whatever her name is isnt much better... I agree that if you dig you find some amazing stuff, Underground especially, there is some cracking music out there, even if the musicianship isnt all that. indie i have always had the perception it was a bit. hmm, "oh look at me im different" like the whole hipster thing, please someone prove me wrong on that one! oh and im not going to lie, Metal is awesome, and i think that more people should at least give it a listen, and not blank it off, there is some awesome music in the genre, and its a shame that many people have all the wrong preconceptions about the genre.
