Page 8 of 14
seriously, does music suck now?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:20 am
by thebookofkevin_Archive
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.
seriously, does music suck now?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:23 am
by Eksvplot_Archive
pesonally, i think rock music has had a good run but its best days are over.
who would agree with this?
seriously, does music suck now?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:26 am
by gjhardwick_Archive
No - there's loads of great new music about at the minute!!!
seriously, does music suck now?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:29 am
by Eksvplot_Archive
but is it truly "rock" music?
is it really balls-to-the-wall?
rock 'n' roll never forgets.
seriously, does music suck now?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:30 am
by Eksvplot_Archive
sorry, i've been drinking.
time to sign off.
salut, etc.
seriously, does music suck now?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:41 am
by M_a_x_Archive
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....
seriously, does music suck now?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:47 am
by Adam CR
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?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:50 am
by M_a_x_Archive
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?
seriously, does music suck now?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:06 am
by Adam CR
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?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:14 am
by M_a_x_Archive
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.