Good to hear, yeah I'll PM you some links. Seems like now that winter's here it's time to record again, We have a studio a few houses away hoping to do the whole Elaphant 6/ K thing , this time in Northern Idaho , this is the deadest scene Ive ever seen.
No, it's Not Just You: Music has Gotten Worse
- Thread starter vosBghos
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Will never understand this mentality.
Good music exists in almost every genre
From 20s big band to Country and Western to modern pop. I can find something I enjoy listening to in almost every genre and decade. Regularly do. The only exception being EDM which I've yet to find a single track that doesn't give me anxiety.
Good music exists in almost every genre
From 20s big band to Country and Western to modern pop. I can find something I enjoy listening to in almost every genre and decade. Regularly do. The only exception being EDM which I've yet to find a single track that doesn't give me anxiety.
it's not a subjective opinion it's objective ScienceWill never understand this mentality.
Good music exists in almost every genre
From 20s big band to Country and Western to modern pop. I can find something I enjoy listening to in almost every genre and decade. Regularly do. The only exception being EDM which I've yet to find a single track that doesn't give me anxiety.
(HELLA SARCASM BTW)
I feel the same way in terms of jazz in the 1960s which saw variations from the 1940s bebop style. The cementing of free jazz (Ascension), modal and hard bop genres steming from the late 1950s cool jazz movement. Jazz also saw decline and by the end of the 1960s jazz lost much of its mainstream popularity post-1969. It just wasn't the same scene. Sure, in the 1990s russ freeman and the rippingtons, yellow jackets, and even chick correa whose 1960s influenced career saw success. There have been revivals in interest since the 1960s. There was Art Pepper, who saw success in the 1950s and 1960s with Chet Baker, and whose work was influencial in 1970s but the Golden Age of jazz for me will always be pre 1969 with few exceptions. Today's jazz just doesn't have the warmth and radiance of that era. Is there such a thing as codger jazz?
For me the issue here is what's considered "good music". Who gets to decide what's good music? Clearly it's rather subjective. Many people consider whatever music they like to be good music, and to them it is. My family are currently obsessed with bluegrass and country music, which I do like, but after awhile it seems all kind of the same with the exception of a few groups. But that is almost all they listen to, and I can't do that. I like variety, I like all kinds of music, but will admit to liking more complex music rather than simple "you can dance to it" types. I've listened to classical music most of my life and have yet to get tired of it. I find that some of the 70s rock music is complex too, like Queen, Pink Floyd, and Genesis. I like heavy metal too as I don't find it just loud, but complex especially groups like Metallica and Evanescence, which remind me of classical in many ways. Hell, Evanescence even used the Lacrimosa movement from Mozart's Requiem for one of their songs. I guess we'll all decide what's good music for ourselves... there's no truth, just opinion. (see, I told you I was a smart ass)
Funny story about Mr.Dolby. There would be these meet and greets at a Digital Distribution Company I worked for and Mr. Dolby would introduce himself and shake hands with everyone in the room by saying " Hello I'm Thomas Dolby, Blinded Me with Science " as if the song title was part of his name. We were just listening to that all night, when went back to the office we would joke around everyone pretending to introduce themselves as different artists with their One hit. " Hi I'm wall of Voddo, Mexican Radio , Oh hello nice to meet you I'm Dexys Midnight Runners, Come on Eileen," It kind of reminded of the end of Feinhiegt 451.
I am not about to read this whole thread... but something to consider when talking about the music of today. No longer do record companies control anything about music. I am just surprised that we still still have companies that are making albums. Hardly anyone is listening to the radio, but most people are using free services to listen to music like Spotify or Pandora. Signing with a label means nothing. Used to, bands made most of their money touring, because their return on an album was pennies on the dollar. Sure, they could buy a big house, but touring bought the boat and kept the lights on. Nowadays, a few goobs can get together in a garage and record them self on a PC, and upload it to Apple music by themself.
Also, hardly anyone that has recorded since 2000 could fill a stadium with fans.
The first head shot to the recording industry was Napster. Then iPhones held a pillow over their heads till they were dead dead dead. Now, we are left with self recorded music, or small studios all over the US, with barely trained producers in charge.
That said, there have been some bands that i really like come about since 2000. Just not very many.
Also, hardly anyone that has recorded since 2000 could fill a stadium with fans.
The first head shot to the recording industry was Napster. Then iPhones held a pillow over their heads till they were dead dead dead. Now, we are left with self recorded music, or small studios all over the US, with barely trained producers in charge.
That said, there have been some bands that i really like come about since 2000. Just not very many.
I get what you say, however I don't think a head shot to the industry is a bad thing. There has always been great music out there, however until recently if you didn't have a record deal and a way to get your music pressed into vinyl or lasered onto cd you could not realistically be heard by a wider audience. Sites like Bandcamp have allowed bedroom based producers of music to get some brilliant music out. I admit, not for fortunes of money but because it's their passion. I feel more akin to a musician making music they love to an audience that 'gets it' as opposed to U2 yelling at that us they can save the planet from itself, from the inside of The Shere in Vegas.
I also think it's wrong to suggest artists producing music post 2000 can't fill stadiums. Many do, however from a live point of view I think artists can make money touring many smaller boutique festivals where customers think having to wad through rivers of excrement is not a good way to spend their money.
I say this as a forty something who doesn't always get youngsters listening taste, but doesn't feel too aloof to think my music was better. I have seen plenty of modern gigs and festival footage of bands I dont like, sending a crowd wild, thinking if I was 20 years younger I would probably lose my shit there.
Have you seen a clean public bathroom? Why look for an innovative pop music? The charm is in the easily recognisable sound to those listening to top 40 stations. I still listen to classic rock stations and find something I like on Internet. Laufey is nice to listen to. So's Tuba Skinny. Nothing new, just something comfortable.
Oliver Anthony is not underground. He's a tiktok sensation, and not even a good one (though that's subjective). He's also working the people with his marketing. A fraud if you will.
Not underground though.
If its aimed at me then yes I have seen clean public bathrooms. Certainly cleaner than any music festival. I am not looming at innovative pop music. My post was in response to cosmicfolklore. Even pop can and does push its boundaries. Pop music of an era draws heavily on influences of the time. Pop music of today sounds different to that of the 90' 80's, 70's or before. Even pop music isn't static.
So, which label is he signed to? Who's his manager/producer? What's his status with ASCAP/BMI? Making your name outside of the music industry is a big part of what underground music is. What you seem to be implying is that anybody who has some limited self-drivien success is no longer underground.
EDIT: If he "sells out" then I'll take him off my list.
Last edited:
Yes, there is such a thing. Today's jazz is wants to be what late 60s Avant-garde was. I appreciate some of it- Avashi Cohen, Bob Reynolds, Dr. Lonnie Smith, and so many more - even though many are fusion, blending genres and jazz being just a part of their sound (Snarky Puppy comes to mind).
But yeah, as a jazz fanatic, I'll take 40s-60s (even some early 70s) all day.
The same could be said for bluegrass. There's great acts today, but I'll take 70s-90s any day over what we have now (of course there are exceptions).
My question is - where have all the virtuosos gone? It's like being a B- musician now earns you a top spot on the charts and sold out tours.
Last edited:
He acts like he "didn't know tickets were so expensive" yet he's been a performer for 10 years. He's playing his audience. You think just because he turned a deal down he's not making any money? He's playing a role and people are eating it up - just like politics these days. The signs are all there (and so is the money whether you believe that or not).
Nothing grassroots or underground about the guy and his less than mediocre bar tunes.
You still haven't addressed the main things that make a musician "underground." 10 years of performing with only a few months of temporary fame does not by any stretch of the imagination erase an accepted definition. I repeat the things that make a musician "mainstream" vs "underground." Which label is he signed to, which producer does he have and what is his status,with ASCAP/BMI? Temporary fame made on your own does not make you mainstream.
If you don't think he's mainstream, there's nothing more I can say to convince you. Read about his history in the industry and his current standing (his manager is a big red flag).
Agree to disagree seems appropriate in this situation.
I agree to disagree. We seem to be going by different definitions.
I generally believe the time of virtuoso is a thing of the past. Not because people aren’t talented, but there’s just so much talent at a high level. You have a generation or two of kids that have grown up with very high quality audio, HD video of everything and just time learning whatever they can for years. I’d argue todays B musician is likely more talented than yesterdays.
It’s so difficult to stand out from a pure talent standpoint.
Even look at recording facilities. I had a brief chat earlier this year with a partner facility on how one of their stages was built and funded specifically for an album several decades ago. That type of thing just doesn’t happen anymore. You can set a rig up in a house somewhere and produce a record winning album and rip it all down when it’s done.
Things are so incredibly efficient, it’s difficult to realize just how much that impacts everything else.
This is a great point and I agree with it. There are many great musicians today, a wealth of them. However, I believe many are technical players. That's not their fault, they grew up in the age of technology and had a wealth of information at their fingertips.
I think back to who I see as a true virtuoso and they grew up listening and trying to figure out intricacies by ear. By the time they found "their sound" and developed, there was such a depth to their playing. Soul, emotion, you could feel the intensity in their music. It seems now I'll see a really technical player that can play anything and everything perfectly, yet they lack that intensity that made the greats of the past so great. Now of course I'm speaking generally, I still hear modern artists with that effortless soul and intensity. But it seems more of what gets big is the illusion of one feeling the music and not one that is actually feeling the music.
In short, the greatest players I see today could barely tote water for the great players of the past. That's just my (maybe skewed) opinion. I'm very passionate about music from the pre-digital era