Young People & Old Music

GoldenBRS said:
Young people in my age likes rap.

otakuNproud said:


I don't understand your reply, sorry. BTW I like your Hastune Miku pic; it's awesome!

GoldenBRS said:


I don't got miku in mine.

You know the genre hip-hop-rap?That's what i talking about.

otakuNproud said:


I get what genre you meant, I'm saying you need to explain your reply. Are you saying that rap music causes your generation not to listen to old music?

otakuNproud said:


I get what genre you meant, I'm saying you need to explain your reply. Are you saying that rap music causes your generation not to listen to old music?

GoldenBRS said:


Well, for me yeah sorta since I was born in the 90's. And many people like it and it is more popular than any old music. Some gerne is good, but that's the first genre i listen to

GoldenBRS said:


Well, for me yeah sorta since I was born in the 90's. And many people like it and it is more popular than any old music. Some gerne is good, but that's the first genre i listen to

otakuNproud said:


Ok, thanks. Do you listen to anything else besides ra

Ok, thanks. If you don't mind answering, what else do you listen to besides rap?

GoldenBRS said:

Sometimes I listen to rock,rarely I also listen to jazz.

AFlyOnTheWall said:
I think perhaps part of the reason why people today listen to a bigger variety of music is because of sites like facebook, youtube, google, etc. I know I have discovered many songs though those sites that I would have never heard otherwise. Back when I was little (in the early 90s) I didn't have that so I listened pretty much to what I heard on the radio and what my friends liked (which happened to basically be pop music). Basically its much easier today to have a different taste in music than it was 10 years ago.

biitchstick said:
well i really like 90's music which may or may not have been before i was born.

Chakaara said:
I listen to the Beatles, and I'm not that old.

Emmrys said:
I listen to tons of motown (about 40 years before me), it's my favorite. I pretty much only listen to oldies radio stations whenever I'm in the car. Besides that.. I also listen to lots of classic rock (anywhere from about 20-35ish years before me), and old school hip hop, but that doesn't predate me by very much.

Chakaara said:
I listen to the Beatles, and I'm not that old.

S4rin3 said:
You don't find any better or more beautiful music then music from the 80s in my opinion.

otakuNproud said:


Yeah, some people listen to just 90s and back now. What artists in particular, if I may ask?

otakuNproud said:
I'm in my early twenties and I've noticed that most of my generation doesn't listen to old music. When I say old, I mean music that came out before you were born.

Three years ago, I discovered old music that I liked thanks to an assignment I had to do for class. My dad also helped expand my taste a little too. Thanks to the assignment and my dad, my taste has been expanded and become eclectic.

These days I notice that the generation coming up are listening to old music. I go on Youtube and see comments from middle schoolers and high schoolers on lyric videos for people musicians like The Beatles. Since my generation never did that, how is that the upcoming generation does it?

Red_Keys said:
This is kind of unrelated, but do you know what I hate?

When people my age say shit like "90's kids" or "So glad I'm a 90's kid".

Bitch, you were born in 1994. When the 90's ended, you were six damn years old. Nobody remembers shit from when they were six.

Bloodcalibur said:

Funny I remember watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles at 1.5 years old.

otakuNproud said:
I'm in my early twenties and I've noticed that most of my generation doesn't listen to old music. When I say old, I mean music that came out before you were born.

3nvy said:

Oops. I meant to link to the article at the end. I forgot because it's copypasta and it's almost always posted without being attributed to the original dude.
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

I selected the best paragraphs and arguments, but the whole thing is pretty good.
Nice avatar btw.

3nvy said:
Rolling stone is just awful. /mu/ sucks too but they've introduced me to some amazing albums so they're cool.

MyLonesomeCowboy said:
I think he meant the magazine not the band and it's crazy that you thought that because you were also talking about the magazine a second ago too.

Ryssen said:

I think it's important to listen to current music so you don't get stuck in the past. Even if you think the past was 'better'. I try my best to keep up to todays music while backtracking.

3nvy said:

A wise man once said:

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.

The Beatles were the quintessence of instrumental mediocrity. George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist, compared with the London guitarists of those days (Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton and Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but no less original). The Beatles had completely missed the revolution of rock music (founded on a prominent use of the guitar) and were still trapped in the stereotypes of the easy-listening orchestras. Paul McCartney was a singer from the 1950s, who could not have possibly sounded more conventional. As a bassist, he was not worth the last of the rhythm and blues bassists (even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary). Ringo Starr played drums the way any kid of that time played it in his garage (even though he may ultimately be the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence). Overall, the technique of the "fab four" was the same of many other easy-listening groups: sub-standard.

Theirs were records of traditional songs crafted as they had been crafted for centuries, yet they served an immense audience, far greater than the audience of those who wanted to change the world, the hippies and protesters. Their fans ignored or abhorred the many rockers of the time who were experimenting with the suite format, who were composing long free-form tracks, who were using dissonance, who were radically changing the concept of the musical piece. The Beatles' fans thought, and some still think, that using trumpets in a rock song was a revolutionary event, that using background noises (although barely noticeable) was an even more revolutionary event, and that only great musical geniuses could vary so many styles in one album, precisely what many rock musicians were doing all over the world, employing much more sophisticated stylistic excursions.

While the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, the Doors, Pink Floyd and many others were composing long and daring suites worthy of avant garde music, thus elevating rock music to art, the Beatles continued to yield three minute songs built around a chorus. Beatlemania and its myth notwithstanding, Beatles fans went crazy for twenty seconds of trumpet, while the Velvet Underground were composing suites of chaos twenty minutes long. Actually, between noise and a trumpet, between twenty seconds and twenty minutes, there was an artistic difference of several degrees of magnitude. They were, musically, sociologically, politically, artistically, and ideologically, on different planets.

Beatlemania created a comical temporal distortion. Many Beatles fans were convinced that rock and roll was born around the early 60s, that psychedelic rock and the hippies were a 1967 phenomenon, that student protests began in 1969, that peace marches erupted at the end of the 60s, and so on. Beatles fans believed that the Beatles were first in everything, while in reality they were last in almost everything. The case of the Beatles is a textbook example of how myths can distort history.

Rather than an album of psychedelic music (compared to which it actually sounds retro), Sgt. Pepper was the Beatles' answer to the sophistication of Pet Sounds, the masterpiece by their rivals, the Beach Boys, released a year and three months before. The Beatles had always been obsessed by the Beach Boys. They had copied their multi-part harmonies, their melodic style and their carefree attitude. Through their entire career, from 1963 to 1968, the Beatles actually followed the Beach Boys within a year or two, including the formation of Apple Records, which came almost exactly one year after the birth of Brother Records. Pet Sounds had caused an uproar because it delivered the simple melodies of surf music through the artistic sophistication of the studio. So, following the example of Pet Sounds, the Beatles recorded, from February to May 1967, Sgt. Pepper, disregarding two important factors: first that Pet Sounds had been arranged, mixed and produced by Brian Wilson and not by an external producer like George Martin, and second that, as always, they were late. They began assembling Sgt. Pepper a year after Pet Sounds had hit the charts, and after dozens of records had already been influenced by it.

The truth is that although it was declared an "experimental" work, even Sgt. Pepper managed to remain a pop album. The Beatles of 1967 were still producing three-minute ditties, while Red Crayolas and Pink Floyd, to name two psychedelic bands of the era, were playing long free form suites - at times cacophonous, often strictly instrumental - that bordered on avant garde. In 1967, the band that had never recorded a song that hadn't been built around a refrain began to feel outdated. They tried to keep up, but they never pushed themselves beyond the jingles, most likely because they couldn't, just as Marilyn Monroe could not have recited Shakespeare.

Sgt. Pepper is the album of a band that sensed change in the making, and was adapting its style to the taste of the hippies. It came in last (in June), after Velvet Underground & Nico (January), The Doors (also January), the Byrds' Younger Than Yesterday (february), and the Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow (February) to signal the end of an era, after others had forever changed the history of rock music. (Several technical "innovations" on Sgt Pepper were copied from Younger Than Yesterday, whose tapes the Beatles had heard from David Crosby at the end of 1966). The uproar generated by Sgt. Pepper transferred those innovations from the American underground to the living rooms and the supermarkets of half the world.

With out a shadow of a doubt, the Beatles were great melodists, but at a time when melody was considered a reductive factor. As a matter of fact their melodies marked a regression to the 50s, to the type of singer the recording industry was desperately trying to push on the audience and against whom rock sought to rebel.

The Beatles tried every fashion exported by the US: Chuck Berry's rock and roll, the vocal harmonies of the Beach Boys, the romantic melody of Tin Pan Alley, the baroque sound of Pet Sounds (Beach Boys), the rock opera Absolutely Free (Frank Zappa), the psychedelic arrangements of the Electric Prunes and the like, the hard riffs of the blues-rock jams (Cream), the synthesis of folk-rock (launched by Dylan and the Dead), and so forth. Yet the audience credited these innovations - brought about by others - to the Beatles. All things considered, their success is one of greatest paradoxes of the century. They Beatles understood absolutely nothing of what was happening around them, but the success of anything they copied was guaranteed. By buying their records, one bought a shortcut to the music of those times.

The influence of the Beatles cannot be considered musical. Music, especially in those days, was something else: experimental, instrumental, improvised, political. The Beatles played pop ditties until the end. Rock musicians of the time played everything but pop ditties, because rock was conceived as an alternative to ditties. FM radio was created to play rock music, not pop ditties. Music magazines were born to review rock music, not pop songs. Evidently, to the kids who listened to the Beatles (mostly girls attracted by their looks), rock music had nothing to say that they were willing to listen to.

They were influential, yes, but on the customs - in the strictest sense of the word. Their influence, for better or for worse, on the great phenomena of the 60s doesn't amount to much. Unlike Bob Dylan, they didn't stir social revolts; unlike the Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead they didn't foster the hippie movement; unlike Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix they didn't further the myth of LSD; unlike Jagger and Zappa they had no impact on the sexual revolution. Indeed the Beatles were icons of the customs that embodied the opposite: the desire to contain all that was happening. In their songs there is no Vietnam, there is no politics, there are no kids rioting in the streets, there is no sexual promiscuity, there are no drugs, there is no violence. In the world of the Beatles the social order of the 40s and the 50s still reigns. At best they were influential on the secret dreams of young girls, and on the haircuts of young nerdy boys.

The Beatles had the historical function to serve as champions of the reaction. Their smiles and their choruses hid the revolution: they concealed the restlessness of an underground movement ready to explode, for a bourgeoisie who wanted to hear nothing about it.

3nvy said:
New school rap>>>>>old school rap

Hydnlife said:
You know nothing of rap music if you can say that with a straight face. everything that out there today is god awful.