Gee, I Guess Music Actually Is Better Today

Or....there is something fundamentally wrong with the universe


http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/12-extremely-disappointing-facts-about-popular-mus

 

I'll say it again, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

 

I'm sure years ago people were upset that the Beatles were more popular than Frank Sinatra.

 

When I think about Back in Black, Dark Side of the Moon, Thriller, The White Album I'm happy and my faith in humanity is somewhat restored.

The thing is, most of these artists (from that linked list) are concentrated on hit singles and immediacy. Oh I'm sure they sell records with skyrocketed numbers but I'm pretty sure that after a certain time people stop buying them.

Whereas classic album keep being bought.

 

I don't find that at all depressing. When all those classic bands were around and active, there was also loads of shitty pop music that was equally popular, but has not had the staying power.

No different to now, there are plenty of talented artists who are extremely popular and selling well that will be remembered in 20 years time, just like there are still loads of throwaway pop acts nobody will remember as well. This is just more of the same old "things were better back in the day" attitude that every generation seems to suffer from, people have just forgotten that there has always been shitty music.

 

It seems near the end there the article was grasping at straws considering Billy Ray Cyrus, Shania Twain, Barbara Streisand, Celine Dion and the Black Eyed Peas are all pretty good musicians/groups in their own right, popular and lauded in their respective genres.

Anyway, it is hardly indicative of anything considering the differences in the times. Today everyone has multiple devices through which to listen to music and depending on the area a number of popular music radio stations to listen to. Not to mention multiple stores selling CDs and devices to play them at cheap prices.

That's a bit different than when in the 1960s maybe your home had a record player and to buy one or even a record itself was a bigger purchase.

It's impossible and silly to compare the two.

A Ke$ha album may have sold more copies than any Beatles single but 40 years after they were popular people STILL listen to The Beatles and regard them as one of the best groups of all time. Do you think people will still listen to and rave about Ke$ha's album in five years let alone in 30 or 40?

Hendrix is considered a god among men in terms of his talent and what he brought to music. He's a legend. In 30 years is anyone going to even know who Creed is?

 

Simply put, there is a difference between being popular and being good.

 

In regards to the last one on that link, you know, for the couple of years all I ever see and hear about is Justin Beiber, Justin Beiber this, Justin Beiber that, Justin Beiber, Justin Beiber

Usually how people hate him. And yet honestly I couldn't name you a single song he's ever done, or sing any of his lyrics, or even hum one of his songs (I would presume he does basic pop music.) Seems to me a lot of people just hate him for the sake of it. I couldn't really care less.

 

Most of these can be put down to how music is sold now. When I was a kid, if you wanted a single, you had to go out, find a shop that actually sold singles, and get it on CD. Before that, it would've been cassette tape or 6" vinyl. Now, I can go to the iTunes store and buy any song I want for 79p, and all those iTunes sales count towards the modern singles charts.

 

Popularity does not equate to quality.

The real test of the quality of the music is not how much it is listened to today, but how much it is listened to in 20, 30, 40, 50 years time.

As others have mentioned the likes of the Beatles, Elvis etc.. are still widely listened to decades later.

 

The guy is aware that there are almost four billion more people now than when The Beatles and Elvis started out, and that the internet and downloadable content completely changed the way those people bought music and the number of people who had access to it, right?

In light of that, I didn't find anything "disappointing" about any of those facts.

 

The difference being that one can be demonstrably proven and the other is entirely subjective.

 

People tend to forget that Elvis and the Beatles were the Justin Beibers of their day. They managed to transcend that and become more than teen idols. Will Beiber make that transition or will be be the next Shaun Cassidy?

 

It's not about popular vs. good. It's simply a matter of accessibility. It's just a lot easier and cheaper to buy music now than it used to be.

 

The Beatles in the "Beatlemania" period were liked by boys/girls/young/old alike. They weren't just teen idol stars, although it was a major part of their appeal for a while. Their music was popular across the board, and they were respected as a band. True, they did outgrow that phase to become more mature as songwriters and musicians, but it was never as simple as being just teen idols in the beginning.

 

Speaking of population, the population of the US alone has gone up by 50% since 1970, so you'd have to take into account the significantly larger consumer base in terms of which sold more. And, as stated above, the distribution system for music is utterly different than in days past, which certainly is a game-changer. For instance, you can buy a single of any song off an album, whereas in the past you could only buy singles that were released as singles.

It's really an Apples and oranges (pun intended) comparison.

 

I guess I remember it differently. There seemed to be a large number of teen/preteen grls screaming/dreaming/coming over the Beatles, at least in the US. Which isn't to say that males and adults didn't like them. There was also the usual dismissal of them by adults and "serious" critics.

Is "Baby, Baby Baby" a better song than "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"? As a Beatles fan, I wanna say no.

 

There's a bit in one of the early Bond films, where Bond has a dig at the Beatles' expense, the attitude of the film clearly being that the Beatles were just teenybopper junk and not real music. Bond, of course, is too cool and sophisticated for that faddish kid stuff. (Imagine Daniel Craig making a snide remark about Justin Bieber and you've got the idea.)

Needless to say, that bit hasn't aged well and now just makes Bond seem somewhat unhip and out-of-touch.

 

There was shit music in the past, there is shit music now, there will be shit music in the future.

There was great music in the past, there is great music now, there will be great music in the future.

Enough said.

 

Very true, but all I was saying was that their early appeal transcended mere teen idol-ness even though it played a huge part in their early success.