What gives? How come all the "old stuff" from vinyl, cassette, 8-track and etc. sounds so much better to my ears?

What is the reason?

UNLIKE some of what some of you said in my last rant on this subject, I do NOT think I am turning into "my parents"...

Sure, time IS marching on. Audio recording technology has changed/is changing (supposedly for the better...)

...but I am hearing LESS dynamics, feel, soul, detail in the more "recent" mainstream stuff. SURE, the "modern" stuff has undetectable background "hiss" and it all pegs the VU meter...

SOME of it has a recognizable/ez-to-remember melody and awsome music "licks"...

...but a certain SOMETHING very important is missing from nearly all of the charting "hits" these days. Those tunes I play off of my old records and casettes I bought way back when still HAVE that "something" that makes me love the music...

I know I am NOT just "hearing" the transition from the old format to CD. (Well, that is, not from the EARLY mastered CD's that take full advantage of the dynamic range available on a CD...)

=========

OK, I will give you a blunt/blatent HINT at what I am talking about:

The RIAA labels use every OUNCE of audio compression they can to make the tunes sound as LOUD as possible. The QUIETEST sound on the track is likely only 3db less than the LOUDEST sound.

==========

(That's only ONE of the gripes I am putting forth about "todays" music!)

==========

THANK GOD that independent music does not have to follow the RIAA/industry model for mixdown/mastering of audio.

(I wouldn't be able to STAND music at all otherwise!)

==========

YES! MODERN MUSIC FOR THE MOST PART SUCKS COMPARED TO WHAT MY GENERATION AND EVEN MY PARENTS GENERATION HAD!

...but, I want to make SURE that all you folks know that I am NOT including "independent music" in the above capitolized statement!!! (Only talkin' 'bout "famous" stuff on the Radio and/or eMTv, Clearchannel, etc.)

True independent music runs the range from awfulest to best ever!

RIAA music these days is mostly just awful.

Part DEUX!

Folks,

Should I (or should I NOT) put a pic of myself up (or of my band or whatever) whenever I do an article/thread that is of my own original words?

Does my ugly mug scare the children?

Or, it it just a quick and EZ way to identify what your humble Boycott-Riaa admin wrote himself?

Don't worry about my "feelings" (I am so numb from what the RIAA has done to us that I no longer have any. lol.)

"it it" should = "is it"

(I want a damn edit button TOO!)

FROM THE INBOX:

"Message: Hey Mike, you hit it right on the nail about LP's and 8-tracks. LP"s and some 8-tracks had a rich, full, rich, earthy sound. CD's don't sound that good!. It's really great you praised those formats. THey they had their problems, scratchy and breaking and jamming, but still, CD's are no fun. and a hell of a lot cheaper. Their's something cool about being a tracker, and finding all that great music for pocket change and trying to get them going and enjoying them. Al lot these records and tapes had the orginal recording, the way it was suppose to be, all there and sounding great!"


===========

Folks,

I have quite a bit of "training/schooling" in the audio realm.

The "format" is NOT the reason the older stuff sounds better. (Well, an unscratched and previously unplayed vinyl record MIGHT compare to the dynamic range of a Compact Disc AND have the benefit of an ANALOGUE reproduction of the recorded/encoded audio... but EVEN STILL...)


=======

Folks, CD format BEATS even Vinyl in what COULD be there hands down.

========

...but, the PROBLEM has NOTHING to do with the available format/level of recording tech...

========

The PROBLEM is that the crap THESE days recorded on/by AMAZINGLY AWSOME technical media/means does not even come CLOSE to the AMAZINGLY GOOD music from a couple decades ago that was recorded via stuff/means that are very CRAPPY BY TODAY'S standards.

=======


Why the fu*k should that be?

=========

(I blame the labels that make up the RIAA)

Well, I have to say I agree with your argument. I think the majority of mainstream music today is lazy, cookie cutter, corporate rock. However, I was looking forward to YOUR explication of WHY this is true. You only go so far as to mention the mix down policy. While I believe the policy to be outrageous (as you do), it is not responsible for today’s shitty music. Shitty chords and shitty lyrics can be blamed for that. Mix downs simply exacerbate these sonic abominations.

For example:
When I hear a steaming pile from one of today’s latest Teen Angst (though I’m 32 years old and just a shitty singer with the right corporate look) Bands, I manage to see (hear) through the mix down to the core of shite that is the collective song.

So, if you please, please elaborate on your claim.

I personally think that today’s music is a perfect metaphor for the New American (Society). Today’s Pop Music is…

1) SHORT – songs rarely go over 4 minutes these days; yesteryear’s tunes were operatic at times; while Pop music has always been known for its brevity, with out fail, there was always one or two tracks on the disc that bucked the 4 minute trend and took the time to be musical and at least one of those two usually pushed the 10 minute mark.
a. Such is today’s America. No time for quality or originality. Do things the quickest and most proven way and make the most money possible for the least amount of work.

2) STATIC – the RIAA, has spent millions on scientifically deciphering what hooks, crooks, and cowboy chords keep the “average” American aurally addicted. They know they can make more money by milking and Milking and MILKING the same sound until it becomes so played out that the bands of the genre are openly mocked for there capriciousness. But these same people happily dole out their dough for the “next great band” that in 3 years will be revealed as merely a facsimile of the one before.
a. America is all about the manual. We find a method or path to creating or building something and replicate the hell out of it in even in the light of new evidence or techniques. Again, we like the easy road. Less bumps but also less fun.

3) MESSAGELESS – now I would never go so far as to say that all music from back in the day (Vinyl era) had a message. But I will say that a hell of a lot more had messages back then than today. And one shouldn’t point to Vietnam, Woodstock, and the Civil Rights Movement as exceptional subject matter, unequaled in today’s world. To be sure, there are plenty of causes, wars, and (sadly) underreported 3rd World strife to muse the pens of musicians but you have to seek this music out for it can’t be found on Clearchannel.

"So, if you please, please elaborate on your claim."

The EASY and quick answer is:

The PIPELINE/AVENUE between the music and the fan has been RESTRICTED and CONSOLIDATED by a very $$$ powerful conglomerated grouping of extreemly wealthy corporations.

For the most part, you are simply not allowed to HEAR anything else on radio and/or TV (or whatever) that doesn't come from that small minority who has a stranglehold on what the majority gets to pick and choose from.

Sure, the "cream of the crop" should more often rise to the top...

...but it NEVER happens anymore.

(We don't even get to hear the "bad stuff" that WASN'T supposedly good enough/more attractive/better sounding than the Simpson sisters who get allmost every minute of TV and Radio coverage these days.)

==========
+++++++++++

All I can say is:


THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET! (Or we would ALL be in HELL!)

It's about money. A conglomerate of soul-dead brainless corporations have, over the years, flushed out what makes the most buck for the least effort. Like other industries that outsource or downsize, the music industry has done the same. In the past, profit was made by finding new talent. Talent was found by recognizing and trying out bands and artists who displayed innovation. The formula for finding profitable content providers was not cast in stone, therefore, back then, we had a wide spectrum of choice and yes, talent; the music was better. As the years have passed, the Corporations have realized that in order to profit, they don't need to expend energy searching for innovators. That effort is too much of a hit or miss, with too much risk. Instead, they found the easy method of zeroing in on the teen/tween demographic by promoting teen crooners. Crooners didn't need talent, they just had to look handsome or pretty. They didn't have to write songs, hell, they didnt even have to sing. With the right boys or girl shaking ass on stage, the young consumers would become hypnotized by the millions, and profit would roll in. Every few years when the current crop of addicted kids grow tired, a new star can be groomed to re-invigorate the profit stream. Who needs to find talent, when it's easier to create the illusion of it. For the male demographic, the cartel found that the reductionist yammering of angry disillusioned urbanites was the key to easy cash. Why waste time looking to groom artists who create introspective works of high dynamic range? Why even look for creative artists who are simply talented? Because it's easier to focus the music on tits, cars, cash, power, and guns; the lowest common denominator of human desire. If the young crowd have any empathizing to do, they can empathize with the underlying sense of anger infused in most of the music. This match is made more perfect by today's attention deficit society. Today's oversaturated younglings would find a millisecond of silence in a song to be a torturous ordeal anyway. In summation, the music has gone to shite because:
The music industry wants more profit with the least amount of effort. They have found that appealing to teens gets the most profit. They (and promoters) have found that manufacturing talent is easier than finding it. They have found more profit comes from appealing to the crude instinctual nature. Anything that doesnt fit into the above isnt important to the industry, only profit is. Sure, they'll keep around a few Nora Joneses and Yannis for old duffs like you, but if your over the age of profit, the music industry has largely abandoned you.

The music has changed over the years, and it has changed because the new formula makes more profit.

I posted this in the other similar thread.
The quote from Mad Magazine I believe sums up the reasons for the "Shit Factor".

Isaacfeagin said:
"its all a matter of opinion...and here in the united states...its the popular opinion that matters...u guessed it...the opinion of those ppl that like that shitty music "

I replied:

I still think this is a myth.
It only seems that way because the distribution channels are so locked down that we ONLY GET TO HEAR WHAT THE MAJORS WANT TO SELL.

Shitty or not, here it comes.

In an issue of "Mad" magazine I read as
a kid I remember a quote from a "Korporate" character in one of their pieces. Ths suit was a book publisher, but the mindset is EXACTLY how all major media is run now ......

" We're only interested in new stuff that's almost exactly like what they're reading now. We KNOW they'll buy that. "

The majority of music lovers simply are not aware of how much is out there that has nothing to do with the labels, simply because the labels don't allow the competition on the "playground".

I can't blame the sheeple for not wanting what they are not allowed to know exists.

Let's show 'em the way.

Ok...first of I must ask forgiveness for a dastardly sin.

There was this special on TV just a few nights ago and each episode spotlighted various pop idols. Ayup there it was...and there I was...watching it. It's taken me two days to get the stench off me from it.

Anyways..they were spotlighting Jessica Simpson. Now I think the chick can sing..I have nothing against her. I don't listen to her music and I know she is alot T&A...but I think thats mostly the Recording Industries fault because at first she really did not want to dress skimpy (I know...since the "Dukes of Hazard Movie...that has changed...everyone has their price I guess)

What made me sick, and just goes to show you that the RIAA does not care about the art is that they basically told her, "We want to make more money (off you) so we want you to dress showing alot more flesh."

Hey the girl does have nice booty...and regardless if you're like me and can't stand the RIAA roster (for the most part)...she really doesn't need to show any skin..she really can sing. But they just gotta have MORE money.

The RIAA is probably the most money frothing at the mouth bunch there is..and open about it.

Can't stand them.

Fr

I wonder if it's REALLY her singing those songs.

We've seen artists in the past who got caught lip syncing. Seems like they find a face/body they can market and build a product around it.

Or they find a good base to build from, and create a body/face to market. The music is just a fringe effect. Everybody wants to emulate the look or the image.

It's not new. Remember the Beatles? Remember those haircuts and those "beatle boots"?

And Nehru jackets. LOL It's what the public wants/likes.

What the heck, they still buy it.

zxilton

It's worse then you think. Word has it that the record bosses told Simpson to lose "more" weight. The gal isn't what I would call a wide load to begin with. Somewhere in RIAAland you can almost see it's heads sitting around a table, a group of perverted, ugly, bald endomorphs fretting over Jessica Simpson weight. It's almost fiendish. All the while with the help of Papa Joe, pushing his daughter to anorexia. Flesh over talent it seems.

My God we need to stop these people!

The year the Beatles released Sgt Pepper, the album of the year went to the Carpenters. In 1988 or 1989, Jethro Tull won a Grammy for best metal act. Ian Anderson's flute was metal and I like Jethro Tull, but...

Music today is no better or worse than in the past. For every Who or Santana there was a Cowsills or Osmond Brothers, the 1910 Fruitgum Company, and a whole list of other "stars" that I (and just about everyone else in the world) have completely forgotten.

There will always be 3-minute hook-laden cheesy pop music because everyone has to be a teenager for a while and that's where the money has always been, since Bing Crosby and Pat Boone and even before that.

The only people who can change things are the musicians. Someone has to herd the cats.

One word : Soul.

An apt analogy I guess would be TV news anchors. Walter Cronkite was sincere, believable and authoritative and regarded by many as the most trusted man in America. Today we get expressionless robot like pods like John Seigenthaler. (I'd mention Scott McClellan but don't want to set Gadfly off)

The difference is like a soothing cup of hot cocoa before bed and castor oil.

“The year the Beatles released Sgt Pepper, the album of the year went to the Carpenters”

Beings as The Carpenters did not put out an album (which flopped) until 1969, and then did not have a hit until 1970, I think you must be thinking of some other band.

“Jethro Tull won a Grammy for best metal act. Ian Anderson's flute was metal and I like Jethro Tull, but... “

This was an obvious case of the old farts who run the music awards being totally out of it and not realizing that the term “Heavy Metal” did not mean the same thing in the 90’s as it did in the 70’s. It was quite amusing.

“Music today is no better or worse than in the past. For every Who or Santana there was a Cowsills or Osmond Brothers, the 1910 Fruitgum Company, and a whole list of other "stars" that I (and just about everyone else in the world) have completely forgotten.”

Uh, The Cowsills were actually talented and innovative, and they sounded at least as good as The Mama’s and The Poppas. Ohio Express and 1910 Fruitgum Company put out songs that were sugary, but still fun to listen to. It was good pop music. I can even admit to enjoying a tune or two from The Osmonds. Nor did I have a problem with The Partridge Family or even The Archies or The Monkees.

A quote from Tom Leher. “Rock & Roll and other children’s records.”

But you can hardly compare what the kids are listening to today to that joyful, optimistic, childhood brightening music we grew up with in the late sixties. Back then people made music to make kids happy. Today they make music to bring kids into line with a manic depressive world of depravity and corporate subjugation.

When I see kids today turning off VH1 and diving into my old Monkees and Beatles 45’s, it is at once gratifying and sad. At least I know the kids know the joys of real Rock & Roll, but it’s sad that they will have nothing of their own generation to give them such good feelings and memories.

But, as for more serious music, I have to tell you a strange story. There’s this show on PBS called Austin City Limits that comes on after Doctor Who. Sometimes I stick around to see who’s on this show, as I guess I’m a sucker for punishment. Most of their acts add new meaning to the word lame.

But, anyway, one night they introduced this band as “The most innovative band in the world.” And I was like, “Yeah, right.”

Then, on comes The Flaming Lips belting out this really cool tune with Moody Blues Mellotron and a pounding base that put me in mind of Chris Squire. And suddenly I was like, “Geez, how did these guys ever slip through the RIAA’s art blackout?”

After researching them I found out they were not a new band. They have actually been around since the 80’s, but are just starting to get some serious attention. This gives them some serious advantages over other bands fighting for a share in the current market - mainly experience developing their talents and the indoctrination of an era when sophistication in rock wasn’t all but forgotten.

Still, this band is making a splash on the current scene with good music, which I think is a fair indication that young people really want good music, but they want good music they can relate to their own generation. They can’t get it out of the RIAA unless by some fluke like this an older band makes it big on the current scene. The newer bands just don’t have the experience and training, nor the production help to match that kind of quality.

In other countries this is not the case. There is great music coming out of countries like Japan that actually surpasses American or European achievements from the past. Unfortunately most of it is inaccessible to us because it’s in Japanese. But, should you get a chance to scope out some footage of X Japan or Malice Mizer from the late 90’s, you would get an idea of what our music scene could be like without RIAA oppression. And that music from Japan is also being taken to the heart of much of America’s youth.

Basically the RIAA has been dropping stagnation and oppression bombs on our music scene since the late 70’s, progressively allowing young audiences less and less access to the kinds of music they would naturally have gravitated towards and replacing it with lower quality music, which they bombard the kids with until they feel obligated to like it. But in countries like Japan that are more consumer respectful, music has continued to live freely and develop in exciting ways. Even their meaningless pop music, though being more technical because of modern instruments and digital production, retains that joyful uplifting atmosphere of the bubble gum pop of the 60’s. It makes kids feel happy like meaningless pop music should.

I think a comparison to Japan’s living an vibrant music industry to our own living dead/consumer unfriendly music industry would give you a clue as to why our music has not advanced in a direction we can say is better than what has gone before.

"that was recorded via stuff/means that are very CRAPPY BY TODAY'S standards."

Actually, some of that old equipment has not been bested even today. Not crappy by today's standards at all.

You are correct about the abuse of compression and maximization. Just google "Loudness wars" and you should find plenty of info. The reason for the loudness wars is record execs and even artists who think it sounds good. Also, they want their record to stand out when played on the radio.

"and a whole list of other "stars" that I (and just about everyone else in the world) have completely forgotten."

I haven't forgotten them. I love bubblegum! "The Buddah Box" gets regular play around here, as do my Dawn Eden comps that Sony put out, bless them.

np "Magic" - Pilot

"Loudness wars"

Loudness is also a very effective means of copy protection. If the CD is loud enough, it will come out distorted in a standard 128 bit rate MP3. This plays hell with the Live365 broadcast system. The average broadcaster doesn’t know how to prevent this distortion, and it makes their stations sound lousy.

Some of us know how to get around it, but it adds time to the already time consuming procedure of preparing a broadcast.

The only thing worse than this is weak volumed CD’s that are almost inaudible when they follow one of these unnecessarily loud CD’s.

The sad thing is that this is further proof that the RIAA isn’t doing their real job, which is to promote the optimal standards for recording.

In case you can't tell from my screen name, I'm a fan of Corey Hart (not to mention a big 80s fan, in general). While his stuff from the 80s is distributed by EMI, the recordings and copyrights are owned by Aquarius Records, a subsidiary of DKD, which is considered one of the largest indie companies of Canada.

Since I am on the subject of Canada, I did a quick survey recently of The Top 20 Countdown on Musique Plus. There are several songs, which are not part of the majors as we think of them, but many of them are still probably part of CRIA. Here they are:

Artist: Les Trois Accords
Label: Outside Music

Artist: Pépé et sa guitare
Label: Distribution Select

Artist: Marie-Mai
Label: Distribution Select

Artist: eXterio
Label: Pindoff Record Sales Ltd

Artist: Les Pistolets Roses
Label: Outside Music

According to Distribution Select's site, they are an indie distribution company with about 170 labels under their belt. That's right up there with the majors. Even though they are probably a member of CRIA, DS is certainly competition for Sony-BMG and the like. Of course, another thing working in the favor of the Francophone market is the government. They help fund certain recordings as well as encourage, if not mandate certain content restrictions for radio and production. I believe that all Canadian stations have to play a certain percentage of Canadian content and French language stations must feature a certain percentage of Francophone content. Not being Canadian, I'm not exactly sure how it works, especially now, in case there were any changes.

Although I would welcome a better variety on the air for the United States,
and want to encourage more competition, I would certainly not like it to be done by the government.

Now, back to the issue at hand. I had mentioned this to Mike and I thought I would mention it here. I am all for artists being independent where they own and put out their own work (without any label interference) However, if an artist wants to be distributed on a global scale, he/she will probably need to partner with some other entity as not everyone gets their music via downloads. Moreover, there are also tax and legal burdens when you sell your own product, which takes away from making music and the ability to tour. For some artists, maybe it is a good thing for them to do their thing (write, record, and tour) and allow another company handle the business side. A good example is the band Toto, another band I enjoy. To the best of my knowledge, they own all of their post-Sony recordings, and their latest effort is being licensed to various companies worldwide. They are concentrating on what they do and allowing the label to make certain business decisions.

Well, that's my two cents for the moment.

"The year the Beatles released Sgt Pepper, the album of the year went to the Carpenters. In 1988 or 1989, Jethro Tull won a Grammy for best metal act. Ian Anderson's flute was metal and I like Jethro Tull, but...

Music today is no better or worse than in the past. For every Who or Santana there was a Cowsills or Osmond Brothers, the 1910 Fruitgum Company, and a whole list of other "stars" that I (and just about everyone else in the world) have completely forgotten.

There will always be 3-minute hook-laden cheesy pop music because everyone has to be a teenager for a while and that's where the money has always been, since Bing Crosby and Pat Boone and even before that.

The only people who can change things are the musicians. Someone has to herd the cats."

Well said Sir! If the info is correct or not I have no idea....but it's exactly what I was thinking. There has always been a market for it.

Otaku is right. I must have been smoking crack. Sgt Peppers won Album of the Year in 1968 (awards for music released in 1967). Abbey Road was the one that passed the Grammy people unnoticed.

Speaking of crack, according to Wikipedia, 1971's Children's Recording of the year was "Crack Whores and Banana Dildos" by the Muppets.

Which brings us to what I believe is the heart of the problem -- the drugs today are nastier. I'd much rather play to a crowd of pot-smoking beer drinkers than a room filled with stressed, gun-carrying meth freaks.

The music reflects the times. The world is the antithesis of what we hoped it would turn into. Greed and corruption won out in the long run.

On loudness: sampling the new Paul McCartney CD at the library, I find it is more compressed than the old Beatles songs. No loud or soft. Quite awful, really. But the producer was Nigel Godrich, recommended to Paul by Sir George Martin himself. What can you do?

I like to beat up on the RIAA as much as the next man, but my favorite records of the year were the ones by Ivy and Feist, both released on big or semi-big labels. I thought the Coldplay album was very good, too. I'm going to buy the Ivy album used, and Coldplay was given to me on a CDR by a friend. When I see what the MP3 blogs are touting as best of the year in the indie field, I have to shake my head. This was a very sad year in music. Sufjan Stevens? Get outta here. Bright Eyes (Connor Oberst)? Gimme a break. Now there's two folks I'd like to see "blowed up real good" on SCTV. What fun that would be. If only John Candy were here.

Andrew Bird is the only independent musician I can think of that I could praise much this year. (on Ani Difranco's independent Righteous Babe label) But he's classically trained, and really knows how to compose a song that is harmonically interesting.

One major problem affecting both indie and major label music alike is lack of good production. I am from the era of Dark Side of the Moon, Al Stewart's Year of the Cat, and Yes' Fragile. A great effort was made in the studio to add layers and layers to these works, mixed to perfection. Or to do many takes to find the best arrangement. (Some of the tracks on the Beatles Anthology albums are labelled like "take 47"or "take 79") Nowadays, they start the drum machine, a bass line, strum a guitar, sing over it, and that's your production. If the songs/melodies were stellar, perhaps they would overcome the lack of production, but they aren't.

Some modern groups still take a lot of time in the studio and carefully produce their songs. For example take the first cut on the album In the Clear by Ivy. (I wouldn't want you to buy it -- RIAA! Run away! At least get it used.) Multi-layers of keyboards, vocals. The song itself is pretty much nothing. The production itself is the substance of the song. Of course, the band members own a studio, so it doesn't kill their budget for the record to take extra time in the mixing. Probably the major labels are trying to economize by slighting the amount allotted to spend on studio recording.

So generally the base materials (songs) and the manufacture (performance and production) of most modern pop music is substandard. That's why the older stuff endures.

" I think a comparison to Japan’s living an vibrant music industry to our own living dead/consumer unfriendly music industry would give you a clue"

In Sony's home country of Japan, the indies hold more than 50% of the market share.

Top Ten reasons Why MOST of "Todays" Music Sucks?

10) Madonna is no longer being slutty.

9) Big record labels care only about MONEY, not whether an artist develops.

iPods aren't large enough yet to hold all the new stuff, so why bother with new?

7) Hip-hop artists are too busy bangin their ladies...

6) All the great rock artists are too freakin' old.

5) The record labels killed the single.

4) Today's artists can't sing without a backing track, right Ashley and Eminem??

3) If you aren't blond with big tits, you won't get signed.

2) You might get sued for listening to today's RIAA music.

1) American Idol

iPods aren't large enough yet to hold all the old stuff, so why bother with new?

Skipping the other posts, I have this to say:

I, nearing the end of my 26th year on this Earth, tend to like music from the '60s and '70s more than the late '80s and '90s.

Music from the '60s and '70s tended to have a story behind it. I listen to the oldies station at work everyday (part of the job) and while they were doing their annual top 500 countdown, they'd come on every now and then and tell a little about the next song on the list. Things like "Paul McCartney wrote this song while sitting in his apartment after watching a tree fall and smash some poor clods Mini Cooper" or something like that. There was almost always a REASON for the song.

These days? Well, there is no reason behind the songs, mostly since they're not written by the people actually singing them. Sure, there are some artists/groups that do write their own music, but even then you never hear the story behind these songs. What inspired them? That's the ultimate question.

You hear about songs from the '60s and '70s being written in an hour, practiced in two hours and then recorded and mixed at 2am in the lead singer's apartment or basement.

Today? Nope, the songs put out today are written over the course of a few months or years, practiced for a while, then recorded and mixed over a few weeks and/or months.

Most of todays acts put out a new CD every two years. In the '60s and '70s new songs/albums were coming out much sooner.

So you can see why today's music mostly sucks. Usually taking your time ensures you get it down right. Forty years ago you could record a song in one take, make only one mistake and end up with a #1 hit.

"3) If you aren't blond with big tits, you won't get signed."

Append as 3a) If your sister isn't blond with big tits, you won't get signed (Ashley Simpson again).

"7) Hip-hop artists are too busy bangin their ladies..."

Append also as 7a) Hip-hop artists are too busy faking their own deaths so that stuff they supposedly recorded "before" their deaths can sell thousands of CDs.

Append also as 7b) Hip-hop artists are too busy killing each other.

Append also as 7c) Hip-hop artists are too busy "borrowing" the music of other, more successful artists, adding their own vocals to the track, various backbeats, and a woman going "oooooo" a lot and calling it their own song, thus ensuring that people forget the song was written and recorded by the more successful artist!

You rant is on the money. I like the live sound as opposed to the car thumpin sounds pumped over a keyboard hooked up to a computer. Listen to the 60's to 80's....in the background there is subtle sounds. Not everything must be in your face obvious. Why does music suck? cause its mostly on the surface with no depth. its all image and no talent. the choreography if 10 "dancers" as opposed to one or two guys on guitars. every concert is cookie cut perfection with no variations from venue to venue. concerts in the 60's and 70's had personality and connection to the people. and although i am born in 68, i'd love to have been born in 58. live through the 70's as a teen, cause at the end of the 80's beginning of 90's...radio airplay was going to crap. the end of MTV being about music. And now VH1 is the same. it all sucks

NiceGuy2003 wrote, "Hip-hop artists are too busy "borrowing" the music of other, more successful artists, adding their own vocals to the track, various backbeats, and a woman going "oooooo" a lot and calling it their own song, thus ensuring that people forget the song was written and recorded by the more successful artist!"

Even though I will always consider myself a fan of music first and foremost... I am a producer and recording artist and I do have a good insight into music because of that, and I gotta' say that NiceGuy2003 couldn't be more right. Yo, NiceGuy... respect.

And everyone else here is right about what's wrong with the mainstream today. I leave you all with this... *Always-bet-on-the-underground...*

Peace & Respect
Mixer Jaëxx @ http://www.supportUG.com

Why does most of today's music suck?

Maybe because by eliminating the single, the record companies were free to dictate what constitutes a 'hit'.

Maybe because the record companies discovered that with a pitch corrector, William Hung can be made to sound like Enrico Caruso, so who needs talent?

With "talent-in-a-box", an "artist" can't make outrageous (to the record companies' point of view) demands because by having no actual talent, they have nothing to bargain with.

you guys are crazy. there's all kinds of great music being put out now. let's see here, how about this "A List"

lou bega (?) - mambo #5

ashlee simpson - la la (or anything else she puts out)

d4l - laffy taffy

juelz santana - whistle song

then we have the whole cover song thing. some of the very greatest artists ever cover some of the very greatest songs ever..

sheryl crow - the first cut is the deepest

metallica - whatever that song was that that one guy did back in the 80s

jessica simpson - these boots are made for walking

I mean, jeez you guys what more do you want?


sorry, I finally got out of the jug from that little new years incident ...

I think everyone is going to covers now because ideas have practically ran out.

The same can be said of movies, hence the latest trend toward redoing classic '60s, '70s and '80s TV shows as big screen productions. Shoot, Miami Vice is coming out this year. Something I didn't know until two days ago. Guess that one will be frakked up just as bad as they frakked up The Dukes of Hazzard.

I've got ideas that would blow the socks off of people, but since I'm way, way down there below the janitor (that's what we consumers are to the big labels/studios isn't it) I couldn't get my ideas heard even if I gave them to my one friend in Hollywood (which, surprisingly, I do have, though I haven't seen her in about 8 years.)

captdunsel -- Don't forget Crazy Frog and the Hamster Dance.

Quality survives and gets transmorgified.
Crap dries out and is forgotten.
Quality transmorgified into crap is also forgotten.

So when is the x rated version of "I Dream of Jeannie" going to come out on HD already?

iPods aren't large enough yet to hold all the old stuff, so why bother with new?

I just modified my Archos Jukebox Recorder 20 to a 100GB drive and my entire 500 CD collection encoded at 320kbps LAME still has lots of room. Not as sleek as an iPod but still fits in a shirt pocket. Runs on 4 replaceable NiMh AA batteries too.

Given the advances in HD tech it won't be long before we see 200GB, 500GB or even
1TB 1" portable drives.
In ten years I predict portable storage capacity for music will exceed the ability of the user to actually listen to all of it in their lifetime.

My cousin was telling me he thought that Madonna's "Hung Up" was a cool song. Of course, I told him it's an Abba song with different words. It didn't matter to him. Maybe it will spark an interest in Abba (yes, I enjoy them too) among today's youth.

My cousin was telling me he thought that Madonna's "Hung Up" was a cool song. Of course, I told him it's an Abba song with different words. It didn't matter to him. Maybe it will spark an interest in Abba (yes, I enjoy them too) among today's youth.

I will sum up again why todays music sucks IMHO:

#1 - The "loudness war" factor

#2 - The RIAA's continued monopolistic control of the marketplace and "least common denominator" mentality on what gets airplay/promotion.

#3 - Not ENOUGH people yet are seeking independent alternatives (but THIS is changing. Hopefully soon enough folks will be learning and finding out about GOOD music and this will ultimately take care of problems 1 and 2.)

The entire music marketplace needs revised.

(It's what Boycott-Riaa is REALLY all about!)

2b

Yippee!!! My voice is finally heard!! (through another, though)