Current pop rock vs classic rock

[Big Ears]

It must be just me then.

 

[Aero]

Sad and Deep As You

I didn't quite connect with this, but I will say I did like the piano in this song. At least there's quality there.

 

[Aero]

***:


'twas my intention......I want to hear more about what people think is wrong with today's pop stars

Today's pop stars don't have the same quality of music behind them as yesterday's pop stars. In fact the music has been shifted to the background, almost entirely so we now just hear the singer's voice. Obviously they do this because the music in the songs is weak.

In short, they've killed the melody in pop songs.

Take a listen to the following 2 songs:



I shouldn't have to write up an explanation of why one song is better in quality than the other but here goes anyway...

ABBA uses real drums while Kate Perry uses what sounds like a drum machine. 'Winner Takes It All' has a beautiful piano melody that is accompanied by some very melodic singing. It doesn't piggyback off someone else'***** pop song. The singing is completely unique in every way and it's boosted by some well written lyrics.

The Kate Perry song uses a simple piano riff that adds nothing to the song and sounds like it was created in under 5 minutes. As in all other crappy pop songs of today like hers, the melody is generated from the singing only which gives the song a really thin sound. To hide the fact that there's no real music in the song, the drum machine is turned up to 11. This song also sounds almost exactly like every other pop song out there today. They all sound the same.

Winner: ABBA

 

[Jake T]

One of the most beautiful songs that actually exemplified an emotion was this one by Dave Mason:

Sad and Deep As You

I really like this one.

I'm sure there is plenty of great music out there to be discovered. But the topic is current pop like Beyoncé, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Selena Gomez, etc. Maybe you really love those artists, but they're not my idea of quality music.

 

[oscar gamble]

If a picture paints a 1000 words ....

Sorry pop fans, but this was too good to NOT share. ***:

I think it all depends on your perspective. My little twist on this would be that crappy songs can come from a single source or many different ones. I guess at least Queen was more efficient in its crappiness.

 

[Jake T]

I think it all depends on your perspective. My little twist on this would be that crappy songs can come from a single source or many different ones. I guess at least Queen was more efficient in its crappiness.

A bold statement Oscar, considering all the Queen fans on this board. But I do have to agree that a lot of the so called "rock classics" are pretty crappy. For example, "All the Young Dudes" is considered the definitive Mott the Hoople classic by many. I'm a Mott fan, but I've always disliked that song. "Blinded by the Light" written by Bruce Springsteen, is considered by many to be Manfred Mann's Earth Band's best song. I consider that douchebag of a song an all-time low for MMEB, and for Springsteen. So there you go, fire away people.

 

[oscar gamble]

A bold statement Oscar

Not really, there is no right or wrong when it comes to this kind of stuff. That's one of the reasons I found the original post to be funny. I can't think of too many songs I dislike more than "Bohemian Rhapsody". I couldn't even tell you what the other tune sounds like.

 

[Jake T]

Not really, there is no right or wrong when it comes to this kind of stuff.

I totally agree. But the way everyone is so offended by every statement throughout this thread, I thought there might be repercussions to your statement.

 

[oscar gamble]

I totally agree. But the way everyone is so offended by every statement throughout this thread, I thought there might be repercussions to your statement.

Possibly but, if you check out some of my other posts, you'll see that repercussions don't phase me much.

 

[Khor1255]

Well I'm glad you used some restraint before posting man! What I asked specifically about the music was going back to the Damien Rice:

Tell me what's weak, generic, commercial, uncreative and what makes him less of a performer, musician or artist?

I thought I already answered that I didn't really find anything fundamentally wrong with that. It was a little boring for my taste but so is a lot of what is considered great classic singer songwriter stuff.

I commented because the criteria of what's popular ten years from now never entered into my dialogue for what I consider quality. You have no control over what's popular.

Popularity has no bearing on quality. Crap always seems to be more popular than really great stuff. However, in the agregate quality USUALLY prevails. I'm not talking a mere ten years though.

For the same reason I don't get mad that Justin Bieber is a top selling artist I don't qualify The Beatles as a must hear because their brand name will always be marketable. I love "Eleanor Rigby". "I" think it's brilliant and fits in with my musical vacuum alongside my other favorite modern artist. Lightning struck for a lot of these artist and the business model built around them will keep them around for years. Comparatively that doesn't stop someone like me from throwing a lot of their stuff out like bathwater because it lacks qualities I latch onto.

Me too. I didn't become a real Beatles fan until I heard entire albums of theirs. My favorite song from them is Within You Without You. I doubt that has ever been a real hit. In fact, I used to rag on them for their 'simplistic' approach.

To me music kicked in on a really emotional base starting in the 90's and really kicking in. The cynics call it whiny and emo for slang but I love how instead of sludgy guitar chords, constant guitar masturbation, excessive use of organs, etc. they play on soft/loud dynamics, have more piano rock, add more orchestration and just have a more emotional approach in their vocals. If you take folky for example I don't mind tunes by James Taylor (actually not a fan),

With a statement like that I find it hard to believe you've heard a lot of classic rock. soft/loud dynamics, piano, orchestration (sometimes using actual orchestras) has been in popular music since the 60s and widely used by many artists.

Cat Stevens or Jim Croce (hate him) it's just so dry and characterless IMO. Their is just a lot more life in folk today and the 2,000's made me such a fan.

How so? I have a sneaking suspicion you are talking about production value (that's an element I care almost 0 about), but correct me if I am mistaken.

Even Simon and Garfunkel with the beautiful harmonies almost played it too straight. Folk is about displaying emotions with the simplest of accompaniment. I think some artists like Harry Chapin match what I like about today's intensity in folk.

Could you elaborate (maybe give an example) how 'bent' or whatever sounds like? I'm not trying to poke fun. I really don't know what you mean by Simon and Garfunkel 'playing it straight. I get that with Croce (who I really dig) but can't follow what you mean in regards to S&G.

"Sniper" was amazing.

?

To me these examples are outnumbered by today's artist in which you have the most perfect voices, harmonies and artist that sound like they mean every note.

Well, now maybe we are getting somewhere. Perhaps you don't like 'rough' sounding vocals at all? As a fan of Corgan's voice I find that a little amusing but is that maybe what you are getting at?

Then again we have our sleepers like Jack Johnson, John Mayer, etc.

Not familliar with the first guy but at least we can agree that Mayer is boring personified.

My point is in just this one genre I can pull out what I like from the vacuum and have legit reasons between the quality of one and the other.

You might, but I am totally not following what you mean. Sorry. I read this post several times to try to figure it out but when you call a group like Simon and Garfunkel 'straight' you lose me. I really don't know what you mean.

I don't want any of the music too die but I also want shit to keep continuing.

Couldn't agree more. I don't want anyone to stop what they are doing. I just want to see people start to 'rise through the ranks' again. I think if music was infused with people who actually had to make a living at it BEFORE becoming famous we might see a return to the kind of music I really like.
Look what happened in Seattle. There was this town with a lot of semi pros that not only jammed at the same venues but had to spend years perfecting their sound before one group came along, shine attention on the whole scene and suddenly big business came in and we all heard it. What I am saying, is that there was a similar dynamic in every city at one time. Even my humble home town of Baltimore had really great 'amature' bands producing 'originals' and playing off of each other and the once great music scene as well. They could do this because there was no shortage of paying gigs for live performers. Now it is reduced to hobbyists and that sort of player. I have nothing against that but don't see anything really great comming from a scene that is so compartmentalized.

I don't see how that can happen by putting ideals on an altar. I've never questioned the quality of any genre through a blanketed point of view but I do think that alongside musical quality there are a ton of other factors why anything succeeds or remains. I still stand by people going by what's familiar and comfortable more than anything.

Some folks play best in their comfort zone, others have to be sort of prodded along. It all depends on the artist. And I don't think anyone wants any musical style or idea on a pedestal. We aren't done using them after all...

As for variety Khorr, my listening last year spanned almost any genre imaginable or included elements of it from Rock, Hard Rock, Metal, Progressive Metal, Pop, Country, Folk, Electronic, Rap/Hip-Hop, Alternative, Adult Alternative, Classical, Soul, Funk, Indie, Classical, Celtic, etc.

If you are referring to what is being produced under those labels today we will have to agree to disagree. Everything is becoming increasingly homogenized. Take a 'country' song of today (for instance) and try to find qualities that seperate it from pop rock of the 80s. 'Southern' sounding singing? Really? Is that all it takes to be considered a 'country music star'?

All I'm saying by this is I have no problem finding a wide range of artist for every mood I'm in. My proof is in my 2011 thread. My question is why do we keep saying there's a definitive 70's sound yet say there's so much variety. I don't feel there's a definitive sound today which is a factor I love. I go browsing Spotify and I find all sorts of shit and even the stuff I hate I hear as something different.

I never said there was a definitive 70s sound. I am sometimes surprised by the date something was actually produced. I think to a degree there was a 70s sound but that isn't a quality but rather a by product of various factors.
Again, I envy you for being content with today's music. I am not. That's not to say there isn't anything I don't like. Hell, I even like a few Adelle songs for God's sake. The Alabama Shakes seem pretty cool, how could you not like WOLFMOTHER....sorry I get giddy just saying the name. It's....comic but in the good way.

You miss the point that not once have I stated a dislike for these bands. They are within my realm of listening. I just don't put them on pedestals. It'd be stifling and sad for me to hang on the Pumpkins as Gods and be like "Oooooooh God, the music today can't compete. Where are the drummers like Chamberlain? Where are the epic double albums and the constant shifts in styles?"

That's great. With any luck you will always have this attitude. It's really no fun disliking 99.99999999% of what is popular.

I love them but not enough to castrate myself for something I hold dear. I love seeing what bubbles up and what the evolution is even if it's tiny bubbles in a ton of different directions.

Yeah, me too. I actually sort of follow what is going on. I'm waiting for it to come around and for a time I thought it might. After metal got castrated in the 80s I was happy to hear something that grew a pair in the early 90s. Now that this has passed, I'm waiting for the next thing. It might be good blues based rock (Black Crowes and a few others did this), might be a return to cool progressive, might be good jazz (doubtful since it's mostly vocal drool now), etc. I have never ruled out the possibility that the next great thing might be just around the corner. I'm actually pretty sure it is bound to happen.

I'm not offended by any of this by the way. I find nothing unsettling or upsetting about this convo. It's just an attitude that's centered here because of it's targeted demographic.

That's great. Me neither. If something like this could offend you you really need to grow a thicker skin. It's just opinions after all.
As for the targeted demographic, that is why I'm here. If it were a general music forum I wouldn't waste my time because of what I've heard that's out there I don't have many good things to say.