Classic rock/pop music and today's rock/pop music

[faizal_rocks]

Hi all

I wonder if there's anybody here who has the same thinking as me. I listen to a lot of classic rock/pop music and less of today's music. I'm not dissing today's music but from my point of view, today's bands just don't have that special magic ingredient that bands of yesteryears possess. No doubt that the bands that come out from the 50s to the 90s have timeless songs that one will always remember cos of their special melodies and hooks that remain in the minds of listeners.

12 years ago (I guess I gave away my age already!), I started listening to retro rock/pop seriously on a permanent basis when I first got addicted to Led Zeppelin And from there, I discovered a lot of great bands from the yesteryears. The people around me at that time thought I was nuts but I didn't care. I guess reading the history of music books in the library back then opened my world of curiosity I did got back to listening music that was released during my time when I bought the Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory album which was coincidentally during the evening of 9/11. But I only listened to it a few times only and dug more and more into old school music

I met some people who are 10 years (or more) younger than me are listening to the stuff that was released during the time when they were not even born yet. Great to know this.

Today's music is certainly just a remake of the past music but obviously, it has never been bettered, thats for sure

Wanna see how many of u guys here actually has the same thinking like me? ;P

 

[mrforum]

years and years ago.

their mainstream is very memorable unlike nowadays. once its uncool, switch on to a new band.

 

[THOA]

In yesteryears, music is a discovery. If it's not on radio, it's on vinyl, or at huge events like Woodstock.

And that is about all that people can get to hear them from. With the limits of technology, channels of distribution and a huge budget to even have things recorded down, recording/distribution companies often are more selective with who they sign. And in order to get signed, you have to stand out. You have to be really really good. And you will have to have a big budget.

So for the audience, it was easy. Everyone who gets their music down on vinyl deserve that chance for an audience. So it's hard to purchase a vinyl of a crap band.

Then MTV came about. Music has a face. You need to look good as well as play well. Models who can hold a note can now start to be in the music industry.

Then computers become more accessible. You can create music on the computer at a cheaper cost. People with any some of budget can now create music.

Then the internet. We skip the distribution level and go straight to audience.

When we are so spoiled for choice, the music becomes disposable. It's not about making the song last now. It's about making the song stand out first. And to keep up with demand, quantity instead of quality becomes the factor.

2 cents.

 

[soulalt]

Today's music is certainly just a remake of the past music but obviously, it has never been bettered, thats for sure

That is a function of time. After more than 50 years since Elvis, its not possible for today's music not to reference the music of the past. But even the music of the past had a starting point e.g. early Beatles heavily influenced by early rock n roll and Motown etc - so in that sense it has not changed BUT its where you end up that counts...

good subject but I could write a book about this

 

[blank]

You make no sense.
Music now is way more interesting than music back then, just listen beyond the radio. Of course, it's not that artists now have some magical ability but it's because that's how progression works. As for that special magic ingredient, I think that it's just you being sentimental.

 

[teleplayer]

You make no sense.
Music now is way more interesting than music back then, just listen beyond the radio. Of course, it's not that artists now have some magical ability but it's because that's how progression works. As for that special magic ingredient, I think that it's just you being sentimental.

I do agree that music now is more interesting than classic rock but classic rock have those kind of real feeling inside their songs.. Unlike modern rock, classic rock existed in the era where the technology isn't so advanced so there weren't many things which were edited to sound nice. And the list of top 100 guitarist in the world from Rolling stones, many are guitarist from classic rock era right? Are the editors or the people who chose them being sentimental?

 

[faizal_rocks]

Blank: I respect ur opinion but to each his own.

teleplayer: I do agree classic rock has tat real feeling in their songs. It could be that magic ingredient...songwriting/attitude style maybe? As for the Rolling Stone top 100 list, which guitarist from the modern era were u expecting to see?

Anyway I came across this article.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2004-03-29-classic-rock-kids_x.htm

 

[THOA]

Blank: Whether music is way better now than it was before or the other way round is purely a subjective affair. We each interpret what is good and what is bad our own way.

I love my classics as much as I love my modern day songs. I love my hip hop as much as I love my rock. There's a obviously different vibes to appreciate from both era, but there is definitely something in the classics that cannot be emulated today. A few people hit pretty close. Those who can are rarer still.

However, it's not about logic or sense. And it's definitely not about sentimentality. I'm not born of, let alone grow up, in that era, so there's no sentimentality that can be attached to the songs to speak of. I know Teleplayer and Faizal_Rocks appreciates the music for what it has to offer, a part of which cannot be emulated again. So it's not about being sentimental for them either.

Plenty of guitarists are trying to emulate the vintage tone in their set up. Singers like Joss Stone, Amy Winehouse, Duffy are young talented artistes who are very much influenced by an era they are not born from. Even electro musicians can't get enough of 80s synths. So it is really beyond sentimental reasons.

 

[soulalt]

Music now is way more interesting than music back then

Heh!

I would love to know what are your grounds to back this statement up. Or is just a personal opinion without any factual basis.

 

[The_Rover]

The "real feeling" probably comes from social issues they were addressing through their songs. During the 60s-70s, the common themes in Rock music is "Love and Peace".

The emergence of post-war youth and Rock & Roll, counter-cultural ideology and pop rebellion, drug culture and freedom of expression has reshaped the sociological conceptualisations of music, through social change and modernity, Rock music was intended to shock and offend.

1971 was the year Rock & Roll became a living mythology, when Led Zeppelin IV (1971) was released. Rock music died completely in the late 70s when disco and "Saturday Night Fever" took over and today, we're still searching for an identity.

 

[guitarsan]

I'm a big fan of rock and blues from the classic era. Such as...early Clapton, Allman Brothers, Led Zeppelin, early ZZ Top, Mike Bloomfield, Hendrix, Rush, Lynyrd Skynyrd, SRV, etc, etc. To understand what this magic "vibe" actually means, do listen and take a look at those live footages or concerts from those 60's to early 80's eras. If you don't have the DVDs, youtube is a good start.

 

[blank]

I do agree that music now is more interesting than classic rock but classic rock have those kind of real feeling inside their songs.. Unlike modern rock, classic rock existed in the era where the technology isn't so advanced so there weren't many things which were edited to sound nice. And the list of top 100 guitarist in the world from Rolling stones, many are guitarist from classic rock era right? Are the editors or the people who chose them being sentimental?

Your logic is very flawed. Firstly you are implying that modern musicians don't put "real" feeling into their music, which I can't even be bothered to explain why that's really narrow-minded. As for your rolling stone list example, so you're saying that just because a bunch of people on a hype-magazine chose these guys, that these are 100 of the best guitarists in the world? How do you define best anyway? That, again is narrow-minded.

To THOA:
I said "interesting". It's a fact that everything has progressed, music and technology. Whether it's better, as you said it's up to you to decide. You still can't deny that there's way more variation because we have so many things to mess around with now, and people are more open-minded(well,some anyway).

Sentimentality was referring to teleplayer and faizalrocks mentality, which is that led zeppelin puts "real feeling" into their music whereas every single person who makes music in the 21st century are just a bunch of robots. Do you think most people who listen to people like janis joplin or etta james think their modern counterparts are anywhere near them? Definitely not. That is sentimentality. Also just because someone is young, they can't have that "old is always better" mentality.

 

[fhloso]

yes i have the same thoughts as you bro.
abit of sidetrack,i visit beez too,i like the vid of you jamming w him
Anyway,I am still going to listen to guns and roses (original line up with slash,their early days)today,yesterday & tomorrow

Fh

 

[PatheinRaindropMoe]

imho, ultimately, its down to personal preference and perceptions. In which perceptions might be similar with some people, but might not represent all or reflect an absolute truth.

heh, is it so difficult to enjoy music alone instead of trying to find others who share the same view?

 

[dudelove]

first of all. i totally agree with ur first post faizal. music today cannot be compared with the music of the past. i've chatted with many adults who lived during that time. and many of them are actually saddened by the state of music today. one of them was even angry.

well, u're right blank, that we cannot say musicians today have no "feel" in their songs. i'm also not implying that ALL music today is "lousy" or something.

take a good look at the lyrics of songs today. and take a look at the lyrics of the past. songs have no meaning today. again, not ALL. but the majority. music today is heading towards? anger? depression? rejection? hatred? rebelion? all the negatives.

as a guitarist, u cant help but notice, where are the songs, today, with the epic guitar solos that DEFINED and made the song what it is? are musicians today too caught up with fame? or something else that deters them from writing them? OR, even if there are solos today, are they only interested in SPEED, rather than soul and feel. i rather hear one note full of emotion and feel through 4 bars, rather than a hundred notes squeezed into 4 bars. songs back then were defined by the guitar solo itself. little wing, stairway to heaven, just to name a few. noticed, live performances, their solos can extend up to, what? 20 mins?

once again i stress that i'm not implying that ALL music today is nonsense. there are still artists that play good music. guitar aside, i enjoy jason mraz's songs, his lyrics, and his style. john mayer is a reincarnation of SRV,and jimi hendrix. i'm just disappointed where music is heading. so many guitarists today, say their influences are eric clapton, david gilmour, jimi hendrix etc. do u hear their influences in the music they play? i dont.

if i were to play in a band that played led zeppelin, the beatles, pink floyd. when we gig, like lets say live n loaded. will the audience there be screaming and grooving to the music we play? i think not.

 

[dudelove]

imho, ultimately, its down to personal preference and perceptions. In which perceptions might be similar with some people, but might not represent all or reflect an absolute truth.

heh. that statement summed up the whole thread.

 

[THOA]

To THOA:
I said "interesting". It's a fact that everything has progressed, music and technology. Whether it's better, as you said it's up to you to decide. You still can't deny that there's way more variation because we have so many things to mess around with now, and people are more open-minded(well,some anyway).

Interesting it may be, but I sometimes feel that if technology isn't put into the factor, would the music be as interesting?

Granted technology is a tool to help. But technology also made the art be taken for granted by a lot of folks. It's easy to form and shape and force down people's throat (of course, people can always throw it back out). This also has its disadvantages; because rubbish been shoved down people, people have this reflex action to be numb or even reject anything new and interesting that might come up.

Also, maybe cos it's interesting because it's EASIER to discover new styles and sounds nowadays. Back then, people have to go out and look for the interesting things. I'm sure there are plenty of interesting music out there back then that are not known to alot of people cos they're just too obscure, and technology was not advance enough to put them unto a platform that can be easily access eg the internet.

Most of the stuff that get listed as "classics" are in fact considered mainstream back then. Radio stuff. However, there is little known about the few "underground" stuff in that era, unlike now where "underground" is as accessible as the mainstream. Maybe back then it could be just as vibrant.

And the old music.. they can be just as interesting if not more. Hendrix's Guitar Worship routine is interesting (no need to talk about his music. Everyone knows it). Pink Floyd (more so Sid Barrett-era) is interesting. The Doors is interesting. Notice I said "is" and not "was" cos the interest factor still applies till today. How many artistes these days can pride themselves in saying that their music can last far beyond the normal iPod shelf life?

Also, there is no part of Faizal_rocks post that says he thinks that modern music is bad, nor is he dissing the music. He just said that "it was never better". Which is, again, a truly subjective matter. Most definitely that there is something in the old that the modern lacks. Better? Maybe, maybe not.

But his sentiments are pretty much reflected by a lot of folks. Sentimental? No, it's a preference. Not an all out war against modern music, more so a favour shown to the classics.

So quite frankly I don't really know why the need to be worked up about it. If you're not, then I apologize. You just seem that way.

 

[LadyInTears]

it'll all be for the better in music, band A influences band B after 10 years who in 10 years influence band C.

yes, music is subjective, thats why we do not have the right to diss other's choice of music. Although i do agree to a certain extent that those bands like Zeppelin are simply fantastic, i do not understand why the need to show dissatisfaction for today's music, i for one have found bands which i like now, if you dont like it, just shut up, listen to what you like. to each his own.

 

[teleplayer]

Your logic is very flawed. Firstly you are implying that modern musicians don't put "real" feeling into their music, which I can't even be bothered to explain why that's really narrow-minded. As for your rolling stone list example, so you're saying that just because a bunch of people on a hype-magazine chose these guys, that these are 100 of the best guitarists in the world? How do you define best anyway? That, again is narrow-minded.

To THOA:
I said "interesting". It's a fact that everything has progressed, music and technology. Whether it's better, as you said it's up to you to decide. You still can't deny that there's way more variation because we have so many things to mess around with now, and people are more open-minded(well,some anyway).

Sentimentality was referring to teleplayer and faizalrocks mentality, which is that led zeppelin puts "real feeling" into their music whereas every single person who makes music in the 21st century are just a bunch of robots. Do you think most people who listen to people like janis joplin or etta james think their modern counterparts are anywhere near them? Definitely not. That is sentimentality. Also just because someone is young, they can't have that "old is always better" mentality.

Relax relax... I agree that modern musicians do put feeling into their songs but the real feeling i'm saying here is those kind of retro-ish recording and the way they play instruments, the way they sing. Modern guitarist loves to shred and play fast stuff e.g. dragonforce. I didn't say it's good or not good, but in comparison to for e.g. jimmy page, there's a huge difference. Well, it's really narrow-minded to say that the guitarist on the list are the best but there's still some credibility for the list right? If you feel that it's "just because a bunch of people on a hype-magazine chose these guys, that these are 100 of the best guitarists in the world?", I can't stop you. But most people can't deny that many guitarist on that list is good enough to be on a top-100 list.

I don't know what's wrong with sentimentality.

 

[dir]

People tend to put perception and sentimentality before their enjoyment of music. Although there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, in my opinion it's a serious limiting factor.
A real music fan should embrace everything that makes music, and not limit themselves to what they perceive or 'feel' is the right way, be it music that continually pushes boundaries, or music that just plain makes you feel good.

This is the problem most people have with electronic music in general - perception. They don't care for it because what they perceive of electronic music is it's shallow and doesn't require skill or effort or any amount of sincerity, and don't actually care to explore the genre further.

The reason classic/prog rock guitarists are so adored and idolized is because they are the ones that did the most of the experimentation in their time and set the ground rules for millions to follow suit.

For me and lots of others I'm sure, the way of the future for music is the digital realm and everything that encompasses it, including electronic instrumentation/synthesis and software. There's just too much experimentation and sound design to be explored that it's undoubtedly hard to ignore if you really love music.