Alright. First off, I love classic rock and most music from 20s-present day. Classic rock is what my dad listened to so, naturally, I did also.
Your argument as been used before. You are playing the role of a grumpy old person. You say: "It takes real talent! You have know how to play guitar, or drums, or any
real instrument!". Well buddy, people said that about classic rock. When music from 60s began to get noticed people would claim that wasn't music. They would claim the same stuff you did.
This is going to be difficult... You made many many ignorant and biased claims.
Classic music is good because it takes more skill and experience, unlike today's music which requires the ability to sing and use a beat generator. Classic music is good because there are actual meanings behind the songs that are interesting, unlike today's songs which either don't have a meaning at all or the meaning of the song is something stupid, like a song about doing drugs every day. Classic music is good because people don't listen to it because everyone else does or because the band members look good. This is a really rushed and condensed summary and I suggest you read the whole thing if you have time.
Again, I would love to hear your opinions and arguments. And I will have an open-mind to listen them...
Classic music is good because it takes more skill and experience, unlike today's music which requires the ability to sing and use a beat generator.
How do you define this? Playing an classic band instrument? Having the poetic skills of Shakespeare? Artists today not only have the same god-given talents as older ones, but have the experience and knowledge from older ones to build off of. The majority of today's music is based off music from some previous year. They can take 50+ years of progress add even more to it.
What is wrong with using digital methods? You sound like a cave man who refuses acknowledge the beauty of the Sistine Chapel because Michelangelo used a more advanced fresco technique instead of cave painting techniques.
Classic music is good because there are actual meanings behind the songs that are interesting, unlike today's songs which either don't have a meaning at all or the meaning of the song is something stupid, like a song about doing drugs every day.
Classic, (I think you mean music from 1950-2000), music has had horrible lyrics just like today's music. Ex:) Aerosmith's Walk This Way and Nicki Minaj's stupid Hoe. Classic music also had tons of something stupid, "like a song about doing drugs every day." There are many bands who take their lyrics serious and there are many who don't. Just like older bands.
Classic music is good because people don't listen to it because everyone else does or because the band members look good.
People
did listen to classic music "because everyone else does or because the band members look good." Explain ACDC, Kiss, Pink Floyd, and all hair bands. Successful bands need to have a unique or appealing thing about them. ACDC had cannons and a crazy short guy in a school uniform prancing around stage, Kiss... I don't even need to explain them, Pink Floyd had a loving plane crash onto the stage and stuff exploding while playing live, and hair bands grew their hair out because it made them "look good" and because "everyone else" was.
To be honest you always had to "dig around" for good bands. Over saturation of stuffty acts have always been there, we look back fondly on certain bands because they were ahead of their time/ were doing something better. Then again there well always be the bands that took the world by storm and became instant legends ex. The Beatles.
There were less bands back
and you probably got your selection of music from an older relative or friend so of course digging around is unnecessary. More bands means more stuff to filter through. This is a good thing since there is a much greater variety of music.
Gah. You have to understand that this is a huge generalization. I understand that there are some good bands. I am saying that the majority of the more known bands (if you can call them that) are bad in my opinion.
Your right. That is a huge generalization. Generalizations are often shallow and lack any personal exploration.
Okay, then it's not "today's music", its today's pop music.
This is a better way of wording your topic: Today's Mainstream Music Vs. Classic Rock
Two very different genres. That can be actually compared.
I know this...
I have already acknowledged that there are some good bands nowadays. This entire topic is my opinion and a huge generalization.
Hmmmm...
ugh. i can't stand people/threads like this.
>"no skill."
Quote from: -Blok- on Yesterday at 09:38:16 PM
Just not as many crappy bands as there are now.
...no, there were a similar amount. The only reason why the Beatles were remembered and not the crappy bands is because, to put it fairly straightforward, is because they were actually good.
People need to stop going "omgwtfbbqgangnamstyleaaaaaaa" over any new pop that you can deem as bad. Some [as in most] people like it, others [like you, grumpy mister/miss] can't stand it and are willing to take a shotgun to get rid of it.
seriously, stop.
I think the real problem here is that you are saying older music is better than newer music. No, this is incorrect and extremely vague. Older music is just that. Older. It set the precedent for today's music, allowing it to even exist. You can't even compare the two. Older music should be accepted as the fathers of today's music. They are legends and should be seen only as that. You are frustrated by mainstream music, not modern music.
Oh forget, I wrote a lot. This is an issue that bothers me. But, it would be better to have the problem of thinking older music is worse than new than the other way around.
