seriously, does music suck now?

71
unarmedman wrote:Maybe people are trying so hard to write/play something different, they've forgotten how to be good at playing within the confines of modern rock/pop music?


I have gotten this feeling before. It is rather awkward, making one question motives and intentions and whatnot. Definitely a pain in the ass.
Last edited by thebookofkevin_Archive on Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
that damned fly wrote:digital is fine for a couple things. clocks, for example.

and mashups

seriously, does music suck now?

77
M_a_x wrote:
Adam CR wrote:Accepting bland retreads is not what inspired punk, or post-punk, or hardcore, or Supertramp. Or Slint hoodies.


Of course not, these were all spearheaded by 35 year old record collectors!

Oh, wait....


Wowee, talk about a straw-man!

[impressed face]

seriously, does music suck now?

79
M_a_x wrote:Oh, come on. "significant artistic value" just turns into "objective", doesn't it? And....then we're in a whole other argument where there is no winners. You say I attacked a straw man? What was your point, again?


My point is that if R&R is a serious art-form then it can't be tied to age and/or levels of exposure in terms of it's value. What the 'I'm too old for R&R' argument says in effect is that once you are sufficiently au fait with R&R, you will no longer appreciate 'new' R&R. That there is only so much R&R one can appreciate.

I think this is a lazy argument used to excuse R&R of poor quality.

seriously, does music suck now?

80
I'm not singling out R&R; well, maybe I am on the surface. But I'm also talking about music and art in general....those things that propel art are mostly done by very young people. And people usually appreciate the value of art in hindsight...I always picture the 'now' as a blurry mess that's there to be sorted out after the fact and figure out what happened, what was good, whatever.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests