• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Music is dead.

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
A lot of that wouldn't really be my definition of pop, but it's a variable term that means different things to different people. Some of them drift between pop and rock but most of them more the latter. Beatles likely the most Pop but they had some stuff that was so outside the norm.

I agree about people potentially have different definitions of Pop, which is why I asked. For me, Pop is just what is selling the most at the time. Pop is in my view not really a genre, as the genre that is Pop is constantly changing. (Classic) Rock and Pop were once the same in my view, as Rock was the most popular style at the time. Rock is no longer the most popular genre, so I wouldn't define those bands as Pop by today's Pop standards. Pop today is tough to define, but I would kinda define it as mostly hip-hop and/or "singer with synthesized instruments and hip hop elements".
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,493
Thanks
You're the only one who basically agreed with me so far, so thanks :cool:
I'm actually surprised that more people don't feel the same way i do, but no one can give me an example of a recent band that is as good as Radiohead so basically i know I'm right without people agreeing with me

I respect Radiohead's music and their place among innovative artists, but really dude? Radiohead is your gold standard?

Okay, so their peak was OK Computer and Kid A, from 1997 and 2000. I've picked up albums that came out after those from, among others, St. Vincent, .O.Rang, Aimee Mann, Jimmy "Duck" Holmes, Neko Case, Massive Attack, Durand Jones and the Indications, Melanie De Biasio, Aurora, Wolf Alice, Beck, Patty Griffin, Nine Horses, The Avett Brothers, The Shins, Elliott Smith, Beth Orton, Lana Del Rey, and David Baerwald, which I all like better than Radiohead. You don't have to agree of course - it's subjective. And I'm certainly not going to try to argue that some of these albums are objectively better than Radiohead's best or that a broad swath of people would agree with me (although let's not overestimate the size of the music-listening public that loves Radiohead either). But I'll go to the mat on Massive Attack's 2016 Ritual Spirit EP; Nine Horses; the best of St. Vincent's work; Beck's Sea Change and Morning Phase albums; the best stuff Elliott Smith did; and .O.Rang as being easily as inventive, interesting, intelligent, and well-executed as Radiohead.

And I'm a middle-aged dude whose awareness of current-day music is relatively limited compared to someone in, say, their 30s.
 
OP
Pearljam5000

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
Correction offered to avoid what appears to be an objective pronouncement on a subjective matter!

Just out of interest, do you have this same dissatisfaction with other forms of contemporary culture - films, TV, books?
To some degree
But much more with music
It's a consensus or even an axiom that older music is better than the stuff that comes out these days, I'm actually surprised people here don't feel the same but obviously the number of people here is small and doesn't show the big picture.
 

Kegemusha

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
488
Likes
462
These days, what exactly do you mean? Bands with their 1st CDs out or last 5 years?
Can you call Pablo Honey a brilliant CD? I think Ok Computer was better and this was their 3rd CD (I like Radiohead a lot just to clarify and to me their best is Kid A)
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,211
Likes
7,590
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
What do you consider Pop? I would consider The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, The Guess Who, Jimmy Hendrix, Queen, Zeppelin etc. as pop, and those are probably my favorite bands ever. If all that is "crap", then I guess I just prefer "crap" :). For me it's hard to define "good" and "bad" objectively here, as people have very different tastes. IMO, rhythmic/melodic/structural complexity doesn't define "good" or "bad". Neither does how "mainstream" something is. For me, "good" is defined as what I find personally enjoyable to listen to.
Billie Holiday was "Pop" at one time, a jukebox favorite that helped prevent Columbia records from going belly up. Frank Sinatra was the King of his domain, which was pop. The distain for "popular" music sounds classist to me. Again, 95% of everything is crap, but there will always be that 5%.
 

Sukie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
928
Likes
1,467
Location
UK
(I like Radiohead a lot just to clarify and to me their best is Kid A)
An absolute Amen to that! Kid A is a masterpiece that betters even OK Computer (imo).

Can't work out why OP would praise Radiohead as "old music" - A Moon Shaped Pool (2016) is new(ish) and a great listen. I get the feeling that Thom Yorke will always be pushing the boundaries until the day he dies.
 
OP
Pearljam5000

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
These days, what exactly do you mean? Bands with their 1st CDs out or last 5 years?
Can you call Pablo Honey a brilliant CD? I think Ok Computer was better and this was their 3rd CD (I like Radiohead a lot just to clarify and to me their best is Kid A)
An absolute Amen to that! Kid A is a masterpiece that betters even OK Computer (imo).

Can't work out why OP would praise Radiohead as "old music" - A Moon Shaped Pool (2016) is new(ish) and a great listen. I get the feeling that Thom Yorke will always be pushing the boundaries until the day he dies.
Evidence?
That's the whole point, Radiohead is not a new band, there is no new Radiohead of recent years.
I don't have" evidence" but i know a lot of people feel the same way
 

Sukie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
928
Likes
1,467
Location
UK
That's the whole point, Radiohead is not a new band, there is no new Radiohead of recent years.
I don't have" evidence" but i know a lot of people feel the same way
Well there is evidence that suggests the opposite of what you believe is actually true. Streaming is now by far the largest way in which people consume music. Spotify is by far the largest streaming service. Spotify's most streamed artists are not Radiohead, Nirvana, Springsteen or any of your favourites. They are newer artists producing new music.
 
OP
Pearljam5000

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
Whether or not they're a new band is irrelevant. They're producing new music, alongside artists of all ages doing the same.
The whole point of my post is that most new artists creating new music suck.
Obviously Radiohead creating awesome new music is not surprising, they're an old band, and that's exactly my point.
New are artists are forgettable, nothing stands out as truly amazing.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,493
The whole point of my post is that most new artists creating new music suck,

Understood. And your claim is easily critiqued based on two points:

1. Not all post-Radiohead artists suck.

2. The largest population of music fans who think new music sucks would classify Radiohead as new, and therefore sucky, which indicates that your claim is one that is made by every generation as its members get to a certain age - and that it’s about the perspective of the person making the claim, not the actual reality of the current musical landscape.

So to your point in this thread I would say, You’re wrong and I don’t believe you. Not sure what more there is to say at this point.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,211
Likes
7,590
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Understood. And your claim is easily critiqued based on two points:

1. Not all post-Radiohead artists suck.

2. The largest population of music fans who think new music sucks would classify Radiohead as new, and therefore sucky, which indicates that your claim is one that is made by every generation as its members get to a certain age - and that it’s about the perspective of the person making the claim, not the actual reality of the current musical landscape.

So to your point in this thread I would say, You’re wrong and I don’t believe you. Not sure what more there is to say at this point.
William Mann was a UK classical music critic who controversially had nice things to say about the Beatles back in the 1960's. He pops up as a "Talking Head" in the 1987 Beatle Documentary "It Was 20 Years Ago Today" to say: "Music is an encapsulation of time", further going on to say that Sargent Pepper was a perfect encapsulation of its time. If we were to have a similar representation of Radiohead today it would be "It Was 30 Years Ago Today". While Radiohead might not be a perfect encapsulation of the early 1990's, it is representative of that time and always will be. Same with any music.

I think the degree one likes or dislikes the music of their time depends on a number of factors. The first is age: younger people always are more engaged with new music than older people. The second I would call the size of ones' ears, the willingness to listen to something new and strange. Some people can hear things that others don't. Someone like John Hammond of Columbia Records comes to mind, the man who landed music contracts for Billie Holiday, Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen, someone who could hear what musicians were capable of before they would make the music that made them famous. Those are the people who know the next big thing is right around the corner. I think being a parent is another factor that determines one willingness to engage with new music. Child have a magical ability to seek out or create music that drives their parents insane.
 
OP
Pearljam5000

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
William Mann was a UK classical music critic who controversially had nice things to say about the Beatles back in the 1960's. He pops up as a "Talking Head" in the 1987 Beatle Documentary "It Was 20 Years Ago Today" to say: "Music is an encapsulation of time", further going on to say that Sargent Pepper was a perfect encapsulation of its time. If we were to have a similar representation of Radiohead today it would be "It Was 30 Years Ago Today". While Radiohead might not be a perfect encapsulation of the early 1990's, it is representative of that time and always will be. Same with any music.

I think the degree one likes or dislikes the music of their time depends on a number of factors. The first is age: younger people always are more engaged with new music than older people. The second I would call the size of ones' ears, the willingness to listen to something new and strange. Some people can hear things that others don't. Someone like John Hammond of Columbia Records comes to mind, the man who landed music contracts for Billie Holiday, Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen, someone who could hear what musicians were capable of before they would make the music that made them famous. Those are the people who know the next big thing is right around the corner. I think being a parent is another factor that determines one willingness to engage with new music. Child have a magical ability to seek out or create music that drives their parents insane.
Have been waiting for that big thing around the corner for a long time
 
Top Bottom