The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Alfred

The past few years has seen music of such quality not known to man since the glorious year of 1998. I completely reject the idea that music was better at a certain time. Music can only get better, as new sounds are explored and new bands are formed.

It sounds more like you embrace the idea of music being better at a certain time, it's just in your case that time is the present instead of the past. At least your perspective is more optimistic than the people who think the best times are past though.

[Meph1986]

[Janszoon]

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Wait, what's written in stone?

Ah nothing, tongue was planted firmly in cheek anyway.

[Alfred]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

It sounds more like you embrace the idea of music being better at a certain time, it's just in your case that time is the present instead of the past. At least your perspective is more optimistic than the people who think the best times are past though.

Yeah, I think I should probably have worded that differently. More like "I completely reject the idea was better way back when". That makes a bit more sense.

[mr dave]

music was so much better in the glorious days off yore because i hadn't been exposed to very much yet and in turn had no idea how crappy some of my tastes actually were.

[The Monkey]

People tend to forget what what we listen to from the 60s and 70s isn't representative of that music scene at all. Most of the stuff from those days are now more or less gone from the consciousness of most people, and only the "best" remain. Oh, and I think there has been vast amount of highly talented musicians in the last 10 years, perhaps more so than in any decade of the past.

[Guybrush]

For the sake of discussion, I'll make an argument of why some music was better back then. Making it up as I go along ..

Music back in the late 60s and 70s (which I like) was not as derivative as it is now. Although the industry goes far back, music as something that really spoke to young people and gained the sort of status it has in our lives didn't really happen on super-large scale until the 60s. I regard the end of that decade and the early 70s to be sort of like a cambrian explosion of different styles. Music freed people in a way that had never been done before and the labels signed on all sorts of strange groups. They did oh so much cool stuff and that newfound passion found it's way into the recordings. You can find a way to get distortion on your hammond organ and play it like it was an electric guitar today too, but it's just not the cool and ballsy move it was back then when noone had done it before.

I also think the genres I like to listen to like hard rock and prog rock which can trace their origins back to that time sounded fresher then. It's not much of a mystery perhaps .. I listen to many of the same bands from later decades, but they're not as good then. Most bands seem to have an expiration date. Yes, Deep Purple, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Gentle Giant, Kate Bush, Frank Zappa and many many more were just better in the 70s than the 80s and later. Fans of such bands and artists' listening habits may be naturally drawn to these more distant times. Many of these bands still gain fans today and some are even still around.

[SATCHMO]

^^^ This.

For my own little peevish rant, I'm getting a little weary of the homogenization of the indie sound. It's gotten to the point where even the genre distinction implies that the purveyors of such music, at one point or another masturbated to a photo of Brian Wilson. Kids put your vinyl copy of Pet Sounds away and go play with some matches.

OK...my Craftmatic adjustable bed is calling me. It's time for Golden Girls.

[Anteater]

As somebody who loves music from all times and genres, I also feel that things were more eclectic and interesting back in the late 60's through the 70's, but not because it was better, but rather in the sense that a lot of musicians back then were just better at melding technical prowess with good ideas than they are now. They also had the benefit of being among the first people to do some serious genre-melding (Ex: before the late 60's the idea of fusing rock and classical music wasn't really considered seriously).

Many people don't consider this relevant though, which is why the majority of people listen to music that is popular within their little generational friend circles; a good many of would-be musicians and established acts alike just seem to revel in whatever influences they list on their MySpace page and could care less about thinking outside the box.

Furthermore, I feel people no longer really recognize something that is both technically amazing whilst doing something intriguing musically, evidenced by how some people here on MusicBanter go nuts over every shoegaze-flavor of the month. Relativity is in full force while people who can actually explain why they like what they like get ignored.

It sort of annoys me, but kids around my brother's age today, especially those without a whole lot of experience or imagination, seem to let their emotional ties to The Smiths, My Bloody Valentine and 90's alt. rock blind them to the fact that there's a hell of a lot more out there. They treat these bands and these eras like they are the pinnacle of songwriting and creative expression WHEN THEY FRIGGIN AREN'T.

Still, every circle of music out there today has something going for it, and maybe we'll live to see the day when something completely new rears its ugly head from the underground to change some people's perceptions about the derivative nature of music post-2000.