Society conditions us to like older music.

I'm inclined to disagree since music from the 70's is simply better from both technical and etertainment standpoints. If you can list one modern day album that's better than Permanent Waves or 2112 by Rush then I'll agree.

Also, bands in the 70's weren't in it for the money per say but they actually enjoyed making music. Most artists in today's music industry only care about money, and would explain why most mainstream artists they keep releasing one horrid song after another.

i hate music threadsmrmusicman247

relevant username

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="lonewolf604"] Everyone has their own tastes yes. With the second thing you said, you're almost giving people an excuse to listen to commercialized crap. I don't care if 13 year olds like Justin Bieber, his music is still garbage. lonewolf604

Is there any reason why 13-year olds can't listen to music they like? We were all 13-years old once.

That's your perogative then.

Me? I let my ears decide. If the song sounds good to me, it doesn't matter if it's commercialized or not. 

I never really noticed any societal pressure to listen to crappy music, maybe some friends having me listen to it, but not 'pressure'. The media doesn't seem to cover good music at all anymore, just focuses on the quick buck (beiber, swift 'n such). And MTV/VH1, last I checked, are just shadows of what they used to be, playing reality trash more than music; just as History/Discovery now do instead of their original respective genre.

I just find it rather hard to find music worth listening to, new or old.

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]i hate music threadsInEMplease

I hate bologna.

Bologna is absolutely disgusting.

Well then society is doing a pretty terrible jobn conditioning me.

I'm inclined to disagree since music from the 70's is simply better from both technical and etertainment standpoints. If you can list one modern day album that's better than Permanent Waves or 2112 by Rush then I'll agree.

 

Also, bands in the 70's weren't in it for the money per say but they actually enjoyed making music. Most artists in today's music industry only care about money, and would explain why most mainstream artists they keep releasing one horrid song after another.

QuebecNationale

In my opinion, the best bands (or songs) are the ones that have staying power. Some music makes such an impression on people that they want to continue listening to it year after year. Some bands produce music that appeals to many subsequent generations. Staying power is a quality that is lacking in a lot of modern music. That is why I think so many people turn to older music to get their fix.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"] When I say "respond" I mean: Would you actually debate that the moon is not made of cheese, or would you read the rest of the paper? And I find it incredible how you made it to be a scientist yet you still don't know to read the entirety of something before responding to it. There's also a clear thesis in my post as to what I'm arguing. Just because it's not clearly stated in the first sentence doesn't mean it's not there.Reed_Bowie

I did read your post, and I took away from it something different than you intended, based on the order you put you information. Writing something with a logical order will get you better responses. 

I would, and do, give low marks to a student who does not describe the topic adequately right up front.

A better analogy that "the moon is made of cheese" is "This lab sucked a**" as a first sentence, and then the lab experiment and results were described. Would you read that paper?

Face it dude, your first post was bad. If you have to explain yourself after the fact then it's poorly written. Period.

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I did read your post, and I took away from it something different than you intended, based on the order you put you information. Writing something with a logical order will get you better responses. 

I would, and do, give low marks to a student who does not describe the topic adequately right up front.

A better analogy that "the moon is made of cheese" is "This lab sucked a**" as a first sentence, and then the lab experiment and results were described. Would you read that paper?

worlock77

Face it dude, your first post was bad. If you have to explain yourself after the fact then it's poorly written. Period.

I'm inclined to disagree since music from the 70's is simply better from both technical and etertainment standpoints. If you can list one modern day album that's better than Permanent Waves or 2112 by Rush then I'll agree.

 

Also, bands in the 70's weren't in it for the money per say but they actually enjoyed making music. Most artists in today's music industry only care about money, and would explain why most mainstream artists they keep releasing one horrid song after another.

QuebecNationale

 - "Better" is subjective. If you've got your mind made up that there's nothing better than 'Album X' by Band Y then nothing anyone could cite will dissuade you from that. It's basically an unaddressable premise.

 - No, most artists in music today care about making music. You're conflating the tiny fraction of music artists who appear in the top 40 charts with the whole of the music industry.

They condition us to like lots of things,mate.

All those ppl,being stuck in their ways.

Nothing more pathetic than that.

Like this friend of mine,she has stuck up parents,they wouldn't let her play games when she was little.

She stopped talking to them when she was 16.

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I did read your post, and I took away from it something different than you intended, based on the order you put you information. Writing something with a logical order will get you better responses. 

I would, and do, give low marks to a student who does not describe the topic adequately right up front.

A better analogy that "the moon is made of cheese" is "This lab sucked a**" as a first sentence, and then the lab experiment and results were described. Would you read that paper?

worlock77

Face it dude, your first post was bad. If you have to explain yourself after the fact then it's poorly written. Period.

I guess I don't see what was wrong with his post. I read it, and understood it. No problems here. Now, whether or not I agree with it is something else entirely, but I got what he was saying. Didn't find it all that hard.

But you can say you don't like an older band like the beatles. I don't like them in all honesty, besides like one or two songs, but I cannot say they suck... it's actually objective fact - they don't suck.

Lots of music these days is throw away music that even if it seems catchy, the first 25 times you hear it; in 3 years it will never be played anywhere again unless it's a guess the year radio quiz game even though it is supposedly popular music, and when you do hear it again it's only decent point is that it reminds you of a time when you were 3 years younger. It's actually objective fact; this music does suck.

I hate Pink Floyd.THE_DRUGGIE

>I grew up being told by everyone that "The Beatles are the best band of all time"

>Being a kid, I believed everyone else and listened to The Beatles and I thought that I liked them

>As I got older and discovered music that I never even knew existed, I realized that I never really liked many classic-rock bands

>Society conditions us to like older music

I can work with this.

Many of us develop a soft spot for the music we grew up with. If we were to point our fingers at anyone, it'd be our parents (not that I have anything to blame them for). So it's really more our upbringing that conditions us to like older music. But as we get older, we generally drift off into different genres as we learn to discover music on our own.

We do, however, usually retain some level of of fondness for the music we grew up with... cause that's what nostalgia does.

The Beatles suck. Depending on your music tastes, I may have caused you to have a negative reaction and you may have had the urge to tell me that "I have no taste in music". However, If I said a more modern band with roughly the same popularity like Radiohead sucks, I typically wouldn't provoke as strong of a reaction from people. Now, I think the reasoning behind this is that we're all conditioned to believe that the classic rock bands from the 60's-70's are the best and can't be beat. That's why everyone is so quick to defend classic rock bands from that era. I'm saying this out of personal experience. I grew up being told by everyone that "The Beatles are the best band of all time". Being a kid, I believed everyone else and listened to The Beatles and I thought that I liked them and "they were the best band ever". However, I always found myself not wanting to listen to The Beatles in favor of listening to other bands that I found far more interesting. Another band I had a similar experience with is AC/DC. People always told me they were an amazing band, so I believed them. But whenever one of their songs was being played on the radio, I always had the urge in the back of my mind to change the station. As I got older and discovered music that I never even knew existed, I realized that I never really liked many classic-rock bands to begin with. I was just told by society what was good and went along with it. It's pretty much developed from just individual bands that are "the best" to the music of the 60's to 70's era as a whole. Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz1ex78QeQI It's a pretty bad song, yet it has a lot of thumbs up and positive comments which kind of proves my point. Edit: I don't actually think The Beatles suck. I have to put this because not everyone reads the entire post before responding.Reed_Bowie

I stopped right there.

I immediently knew that this was some thread to garner attention.

Stfu and go away

[QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

I'm inclined to disagree since music from the 70's is simply better from both technical and etertainment standpoints. If you can list one modern day album that's better than Permanent Waves or 2112 by Rush then I'll agree.

 

Also, bands in the 70's weren't in it for the money per say but they actually enjoyed making music. Most artists in today's music industry only care about money, and would explain why most mainstream artists they keep releasing one horrid song after another.

worlock77

 - "Better" is subjective. If you've got your mind made up that there's nothing better than 'Album X' by Band Y then nothing anyone could cite will dissuade you from that. It's basically an unaddressable premise.

 - No, most artists in music today care about making music. You're conflating the tiny fraction of music artists who appear in the top 40 charts with the whole of the music industry.

Wrong, "better" can be objective especially if you're talking about 2112 by Rush. It's a fact that no album by any modern artist can touch let alone be better than 2112 by Rush or Permanent Waves. I'm not even a huge Rush fan but I still acknowledge that 2112 and Permanent Waves are two of the greatest albums ever made, and that no modern day album can come even close.

Not really, you would be surprised at the amount of bands that aren't mainstream that fight over money and such. It's a reality but one has to accept it; most artists today are in it for the money and nothing else. Rush, Arcade Fire, Platinum Blonde, Anvil, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, King Crimson....all bands who played music because they loved it and didn't care about the money, to a certain extent.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

 - "Better" is subjective. If you've got your mind made up that there's nothing better than 'Album X' by Band Y then nothing anyone could cite will dissuade you from that. It's basically an unaddressable premise.

 - No, most artists in music today care about making music. You're conflating the tiny fraction of music artists who appear in the top 40 charts with the whole of the music industry.

QuebecNationale

Wrong, "better" can be objective especially if you're talking about 2112 by Rush. It's a fact that no album by any modern artist can touch let alone be better than 2112 by Rush or Permanent Waves. I'm not even a huge Rush fan but I still acknowledge that 2112 and Permanent Waves are two of the greatest albums ever made, and that no modern day album can come even close.

Not really, you would be surprised at the amount of bands that aren't mainstream that fight over money and such. It's a reality but one has to accept it; most artists today are in it for the money and nothing else. Rush, Arcade Fire, Platinum Blonde, Anvil, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, King Crimson....all bands who played music because they loved it and didn't care about the money, to a certain extent.

How do you measure objectively better? and do you have proof that today's artists are more money-driven and less artistically-driven than before?

[QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

 - "Better" is subjective. If you've got your mind made up that there's nothing better than 'Album X' by Band Y then nothing anyone could cite will dissuade you from that. It's basically an unaddressable premise.

 - No, most artists in music today care about making music. You're conflating the tiny fraction of music artists who appear in the top 40 charts with the whole of the music industry.

one_plum

Wrong, "better" can be objective especially if you're talking about 2112 by Rush. It's a fact that no album by any modern artist can touch let alone be better than 2112 by Rush or Permanent Waves. I'm not even a huge Rush fan but I still acknowledge that 2112 and Permanent Waves are two of the greatest albums ever made, and that no modern day album can come even close.

Not really, you would be surprised at the amount of bands that aren't mainstream that fight over money and such. It's a reality but one has to accept it; most artists today are in it for the money and nothing else. Rush, Arcade Fire, Platinum Blonde, Anvil, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, King Crimson....all bands who played music because they loved it and didn't care about the money, to a certain extent.

How do you measure objectively better? and do you have proof that today's artists are more money-driven and less artistically-driven than before?

He's a troll. Don't feed him.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]I hate Pink Floyd.Zeviander

Careful. You're gonna make Kevlar mad.

There is a reason why classical music is around. It's not nostalgia. It's because it's good. DevilMightCry

But you can say you don't like an older band like the beatles. I don't like them in all honesty, besides like one or two songs, but I cannot say they suck... it's actually objective fact - they don't suck.

Lots of music these days is throw away music that even if it seems catchy, the first 25 times you hear it; in 3 years it will never be played anywhere again unless it's a guess the year radio quiz game even though it is supposedly popular music, and when you do hear it again it's only decent point is that it reminds you of a time when you were 3 years younger. It's actually objective fact; this music does suck.

Leejjohno

 - No it isn't.

 - No it isn't.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"] When I say "respond" I mean: Would you actually debate that the moon is not made of cheese, or would you read the rest of the paper? And I find it incredible how you made it to be a scientist yet you still don't know to read the entirety of something before responding to it. There's also a clear thesis in my post as to what I'm arguing. Just because it's not clearly stated in the first sentence doesn't mean it's not there.Reed_Bowie

I did read your post, and I took away from it something different than you intended, based on the order you put you information. Writing something with a logical order will get you better responses. 

I would, and do, give low marks to a student who does not describe the topic adequately right up front.

A better analogy that "the moon is made of cheese" is "This lab sucked a**" as a first sentence, and then the lab experiment and results were described. Would you read that paper?

Take your topic title and the first sentence. If you add them together, you are preconditioning your audience to expect a complaint about older music, not a critique about the societal pressures to enjoy music. 

I was fully able to understand your overall intent, but frankly, it still comes off as a complaint, not an interesting talking point.

i like 80's pop music.