Are Those Good Days Really Gone?

[Romia]

I just searched the threads but I couldn't find my question,Probably somebody has asked it before but I couldn't find the thread so far.
I wanna start it in this way:

2010's Music (3 Viewing)

70's Music (52 Viewing)

just what I copied from the home page right now,and I tells all I wanna say,But its reason has a long long story.

I've got a question,Are there still some bands that their songs catch the hearts the way works of those bands of golden era caught?

I'm much into classic music and it's something that I've been living the days of my life with it in the recent years. I can talk on and on about what it means to me,what it gave me and what I felt and saw through the eyes of CR,I just wanna know are there any bands that do the same,the same deep touching songs,the same unique music,the same brilliant melodies and rather soft than with these confusing fast beats?
When I read the news there is always lots of news about famous singers today,But most of what I listen from new singers sing is not the way I expect from music,they usually lack what is in CR material,and I cannot change my taste,like waking up some day and conceiving myself,OK rebel kid,That is what is going on now ,Go and listen the the newest songs,time has changed and you must accept there are no more Pink Floyds',No Elvis',No Beatles' hits,Go and listen to some hip-hop or rap and enjoy what you cannot enjoy!
Musicians that are always in the spotlight and you can know every single detail of their lives are loved by many,But their music usually doesn't touch my heart,it just doesn't happen.I wonder if there are some bands that do the same great job those bands did in the past but they aren't just in the media and since I don't know them,I wonder that is maybe just this and Im missing them because I myself don't know them,and of course I must that there are Great singers that are so famous and they are many of the greatest of all times if wanna mention,like Celine Dion.Andrea Boccelli,Lara Fabian and many others but What I mainly mean is about Rock bands.
I will be deeply thankful for your guidance.

 

[AboutAGirl]

On a classic rock forum, of course more people are going to be looking at the 70s section. And on a horror movie forum, a thread about The Devil Inside will get more posts than one about Titanic, but that doesn't mean The Devil Inside is a better film.

I've been in the same spot as you countless, countless times. When I was 15 I thought I was going to stop listening to music all-together because I couldn't find anything new to capture my heart. Then again at 17, again at 19, again at 20, again at 21... but each time, no matter how bleak and impassable the terrain looked, I always ended up finding something new that moved me. Then when I was 22 the most amazing thing happened... I got into some new stuff that really changed the game and I'm actually more of a music fan, more excited about music than I was when I was 13 picking out my first Zep records and I had the whole world ahead of me. That's the LAST thing I ever expected to happen but it happened for me, so that means it could happen for you too!

You'll find your new muse. You just have to keep trying. There is a LOT of music out there. You might not find a band that captures everything that made the 70s great, but if you keep searching you WILL find a band that moves you again, possibly even in brave new ways you never expected.

 

[Khor1255]

The Sword is quite good. Wolfmother is fine. The Alabama Shakes ain't bad at all. Allison Krause (if you are into bluegrass) etc.

But I know what you mean. I'd truly like to know if there is anything nearly as epic as King Crimson, Zeppelin, etc. I think there quite possibly could be but I haven't heard it.

 

[coltrane2]

There are two important, if inherently contradictory, points at play here:

(a) The decade you're in is always going to 'feel' inferior, because you don't have any distance, hence, perspective on it yet. I grow up in the 80's and most of us spent the best part of the decade declaring it a shambles, despite the triumphs of Guns N Roses, Metallica, U2, Springsteen (phase II), The Smiths, Michael Jackson (whether you rate him or not), Madonna, R.E.M, Prince and a re-booted Aerosmith. Same thing in the 90's with all and sundry being declared sonically rotten, despite Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Oasis, Blur, Massive Attack, Smashing Pumpkins, Red Hot Chili Peppers (phase II) and Alice in Chains.

(b) It's a difficult conversation when it comes to the noughties. Despite a decade's distance, can we really utter the likes of Linkin Park, Creed, Eminem, The Killers or The Black Eyes Peas in the same breath as The Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Dylan and Beach Boys of the 60's or the Zeppelin, Sabbath, Purple, Bowie, The Clash, Joy Division or Patti Smith of the 70's? .

I hope I'm wrong, but I think it may have mostly gone to shit, since the watershed release of shit overrated music that was Radiohead's Kid A. I really do regard that album as the beginning of the end.

Always great music of course (Rival Sons, Avett Brothers, Fleet Foxes, Beach House...I could go on). However, it still feels like a downward slide.

Discuss.

 

[Khor1255]

Well, I really loved the current music in the very early 80s and had quite a fondness for even the minimalist drek of the early 90s. If it ever comes back around (and I'm pretty sure it will) I hope I won't miss the first few years.

 

[AboutAGirl]

I hope I'm wrong, but I think it may have mostly gone to shit, since the watershed release of shit overrated music that was Radiohead's Kid A. I really do regard that album as the beginning of the end.

Always great music of course (Rival Sons, Avett Brothers, Fleet Foxes, Beach House...I could go on). However, it still feels like a downward slide.

Discuss.

Well, I respect your opinion, but since you asked to discuss I might as well throw my opinion of it out there as well.

I find that the 00s seemed bad as they happened but in retrospect they were leading to really amazing things in the 10s, much like the 80s. Whatever we may feel about them personally, artists such as Eminem, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Adele, Arcade Fire, Kanye West, are currently on track to become legends on par with Madonna, Pearl Jam, The Beach Boys and the other classics you listed from other decades.

Interesting that you consider Radiohead overrated, because that's sort of what makes the 00s and 10s great. "Rock" music as we know it may not wield quite as much influence as it once did (despite indie rock being a huge phenomenon), but in its place we have all these artists like Adele and Taylor who in a sense are returning rock to its roots away from what two decades of indie and alt rock have turned it into. Back to the days of "As Tears Go By" and "She Loves You" when it wasn't a sin to sing a love song. Balance that out with indie rock's current prominence and today has pretty much a perfect rock climate.

 

[Powerage]

So in what "sense" would you say that Adele and Taylor Swift are returning rock to its roots?

 

[AboutAGirl]

So in what "sense" would you say that Adele and Taylor Swift are returning rock to its roots?

Compare Do You Want to Know a Secret with Hey Stephen.





Then compare either of those songs to In The Flowers by Animal Collective.



Or We All Die by Cat Power.



Or Kids' by MGMT.



There's definitely plenty of Beatles influence in all these bands. All roads in rock and pop lead back to the Beatles. And it's not a judgment call on my part about which style is better, obviously I love indie rock too. Cat Power happens to be one of my fave artists. The fact that these two styles at opposite ends of the rock spectrum are both so popular right now makes this a perfect climate. But there's no question that Taylor Swift connects more closely with early Beatles and Stones than indie rock bands do, who connect more with latter Beatles and psychedelic mid-period Stones.

Let's compare.

Do You Want to Know a Secret & Hey Stephen
-- Simple, straight forward lyrics about love
-- Terse radio-ready runtime
-- Clean guitar tone
-- Smooth shuffling riff and steady beat
-- Catchy & chorus driven
-- Basic rock band structure (guitar/bass/drums)
-- Straight-forward traditional singing
-- Features scat/humming

In the Flowers, We All Die, & Kids'
-- Abstract poetic lyrics about abstract issues
-- > 5 minute runtime
-- Use of electronic/synthetic elements or feedback
-- Distorted/altered guitar tones
-- Less chorus-driven song structure with emphasis instead on feel/mood
-- Modern singing style

Artists like Taylor Swift and Adele play with a much more traditional style and connect back to rocks roots. The indie bands that dominate what is generally carrying the rock moniker today, connect instead to the psychedelic period of rock and the angular prog music from the 70s. I'm glad that we get to have our cake and eat it too. Because as much as I adore alt-rock (I mean, hello, named after a Nirvana song here lol), after 25 years of the alt mentality taking over rock it's nice to have something return it to its pop roots when writing love songs and singing a chorus were virtues instead of vices.

 

[Big Ears]

I keep trying to listen to new music, but I can't get into much of what I hear. It sounds a bit irratonal, but, back in the days of steam, there was something about hearing music on the radio, or recording it and playing it back on a cassette, and I can't replicate that anymore. If I put an old album on my mp3 player, I can keep playing it to death. With new music, I lose interest, wipe it and I'm on to the next album.

 

[Kuaizi]

Sorry I gotta step in here and say something. All because Taylor swift may have a drummer and guitarist in her band and use a familiar chord progression doesn't mean she draws from The Beatles. That early Beatles song, while simple, has some very interesting elements that separate it by leagues from boring songs like that TS song. Listen to that Paul McCartney bass line! Where is that in any of those other songs? Not there - the bass line is not interesting, it's just flat out loud and boring. Also, the Beatles voices meshed into many different sounds, and are showcased in the background vocals. Once again, the Beatles show how to use melody in such a simple but engaging way. Also the drumming and production, even though it's older and sounds a bit rough, it sound "real" - an element missing in most modern recordings where the drums sound like I'm banging a book against a wall and it's just way too friggin loud and overmastered.

A lot of the negative elements I mentioned above are why people can't find anything positive about a lot of today's music. It just doesn't sound good once you've heard things like the OP mentioned. It's mastering is utter crap and the artists don't really have anything interesting to offer. (though they are heavily marketed that way) Even those Indie bands - while it may be said that hey - they connect to psychedelic Beatles because they use distortion and weird sounds - that's just not true either. Even The Beatles in their psychedelic years made great songs with melody and coherent singing. That's why a lot of indie bands turn me off - their vocals and general sound are utter crap. Also where is the musicianship in a lot of those bands? Nowhere to be found. Throw on some distortion, play a few chords, yell into a mic and suddenly you're a band.

Anyways, I'm not saying there aren't any newer bands that I do enjoy a lot, but the majority of it is just junk.... I guess people like to think of those years when The Who, The Beatles, The Stones, Zeppelin, etc were in their primes as the golden years - well yeah - when else have we had such a HUGE saturation in great bands, where the saturation in creative song writing was so high - people didn't have to search and search and search to find some decent music. It was everywhere!

Done rambling... just my opinion!