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

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

The above is poetry

Taylor Swift's lyrics are poetry as well, no matter how ****ty they might be. Saying it's not is like looking at a poorly made chair and saying "well that's not a chair, look at this, THAT's a chair."

[MusicNewb1981]

Originally Posted by Frownland

You also don't need a big production studio to produce and release your own music anymore, so homogeneous statements like these aren't really applicable.

That proves my point, it is cheaper to make...for everyone. But cheaper doesn't mean good and when cheap means it doesn't take talent to produce it, there is something wrong there. It takes the talent out of the picture, talent is expensive.

There's good music being made still, surprisingly, so your demand is supplied hugely. Also, the blockbuster method does not mean that the films are quality.

But, but, but the externality is that good films are funded through the money made by blockbusters...so, the money spreads into more artistic endeavors.

Expensive =/= good. I've played 45 dollar guitars that sound far better than 3000 dollar guitars. And I'd also like to mention once again that there's too much good music out there to even listen to. You describe a non-issue here.

I play guitar and piano. I am not referring to rock but music in general. My tastes are R&B, Soul, Blues, Funk...etc...a guitar isn't mandatory for good music.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

That proves my point, it is cheaper to make...for everyone. But cheaper doesn't mean good and when cheap means it doesn't take talent to produce it, there is something wrong there. It takes the talent out of the picture, talent is expensive.

Cheap also doesn't mean bad. Your music thinking is extremely music noob, my friend.

I play guitar and piano. I am not referring to rock but music in general. My tastes are R&B, Soul, Blues, Funk...etc...a guitar isn't mandatory for good music.

How wonderful, we agree on something. My point still stands that price has nothing to do with the quality of the music.

[MusicNewb1981]

Well, we are on different wave lengths. I feel no need to be a shill for the record company. Look, something the younger generation doesn't understand is getting ahead doesn't require anyone to sit, down, shut-up and be complacent. There is money to be made and innovation to create in rebelling and fighting against things.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

I feel no need to be a shill for the record company.

Shill is a cute word, reminds me of all the time I've spent reading anti-science articles and comments, who use it as a code word for "someone I don't agree with yet can't prove wrong". You can listen to thousands of releases from this year alone that have no connection to record labels. You're talking about not wanting to be a shill for record companies, yet you still want to turn to them for music?

Look, something the younger generation doesn't understand is getting ahead doesn't require anyone to sit, down, shut-up and be complacent. There is money to be made and innovation to create in rebelling and fighting against things.

And that is something that is more prevalent throughout the music world today than it ever has been.

[Zhanteimi]

Oh, Steinbeck! How I love thee! (I guess it's about time to re-read "East of Eden" for the umpteenth time.)

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

Well, look it's tough to get people to think or to think differently I get that. But, but, but some things to consider:

I agree. There have always been people who try "prove" their opinion that music was better in the good old days.

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

1) In the eighties and nineties, before Internet, a tape or cd cost about 12.00. Well, that is about how much they cost now and inflation has gone up considerably since then. So, an average artist makes a lot less now--not keeping up with inflation--then they did back then. The cut in money comes out of somewhere and that is in the ingredients used, make a product cheaper to make up the loss.

The majority of music purchases these days are downloads and as a result there's far less money lost on production and shipping costs. So this is kind of a non point.

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

2) We repeatedly hear movie block buster costing hundreds of million to make and many, if not most, have a huge payout in terms of billions made off of paying customers. The movie business is still in the business of investing huge some of money to make a good product, the demand is there. Also, movie ticket prices have gone up from around $6.00 in that time to now around $15.00. Keeping up with and surpassing inflation. Why does music not have the same model?

Are movies better now than they were in the 80s or 90s? Is that your argument?

Originally Posted by MusicNewb1981

3) I'm not making an argument of what is good or not. I'm making the argument that it's OK to demand better ingredients to make better product. We, the general public, don't have to be a shill for the record company (shill is an important word to look up because there are a quite a few shills out there.) We don't have to make excuses for them. They want to make music as inexpensively as possible and appeal to less picky children then they want to invest in expensive instrumentation, production value, lyricists, artists and the like. Why is it not OK to demand better ingredients? Its not a matter of tastes but of expense. I don't feel a need to make excuses for the record company.

Excuses for who? If I like music, I listen to it, go see it, and generally support it. If I don't, I don't. It's not very complicated.

[MusicNewb1981]

Well, for anyone still lurking who sympathizes with the idea. I have a feeling the problems with music will be fixed in the next ten years. Here is what I see as the solutions that are going to happen.

1) Greater localization of artists will influence mainstream music. What I mean by this is music will become very regional. If you live in an area with a music scene, the music scene will become ever more vibrant with more and more people seeking it out. This will spill over to the mainstream.

2). The middle class artists will emerge. As music appeals to smaller markets the goal of the musician will move away from making it big to a more reasonable goal of just making a middle class living. This will lead to a greater diversity of artists for the mainstream to use.

3). More and more companies like Tidal will emerge and become competitive. As the trend to pay artists more continues the price of music will increase with the trade-off is that it will be better, more expensive music. This will spill into the mainstream.

[Frownland]

Regionality is definitely not going to become more prominent because of the Internet.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Regionality is definitely not going to become more prominent because of the Internet.

The internet will go out of style in the next five years.