Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Much as I hate to say it, the pulp product churned out by the music industry now is no worse than it was "back in the day"....

As in every generation you have to sort the wheat from the chaff. Jimi had lots of off days when he recorded.........so did Janice for that matter. What about the 1910 Fruitgum Company and other bubblegum bands? They were hardly quality.

I do remember the the music of the 60's, 70's, 80's etc all too well. There was a lot of rubbish mixed in with the good stuff on the charts.

winston wrote: I do remember the the music of the 60's, 70's, 80's etc all too well. There was a lot of rubbish mixed in with the good stuff on the charts.

That's true in every genre, Brian. I remember quite a few fiddle tunes I was forced to endure that had not much of a melody, and just seemed to drone on and on and on and on.....back in the days when I was actively playing folk music.
JimK

jingle_jangle wrote: I can't believe how quickly Juliana goes through fads, though she fixates on quality and that slows her down...

Not a bad thing these days. I consider myself lucky because Kevin is the same way. I would say this is a big success check mark for a parent.

antipodean wrote:Much as I hate to say it, the pulp product churned out by the music industry now is no worse than it was "back in the day"....

But the highs back then were exceptional. Don't see anything near those these days!

Back then artists knew their trade, today they only know their software supplier and the guy who operates the software to make them sound good. I once saw Bieber live at the BBC without any computer help. The average choir boy his age could do the same level he showed. His producer can probably even make me sound great

Werner with your Avatar you are half the way there.

sloop_john_b wrote:If you're saying there was more "quality music" in the 60's than there is now I would have to disagree with you.

There's nothing with which to agree or disagree, as I wasn't stating my opinion either way; I was merely asking a question; it was an attempt to facilitate discussion; I made no claims aside from agreeing with your statement about "disposable" music existing in "every generation."

Even if we hypothetically agree that the ratio of musicians to non-musicians has remained the same over the last 50+ years (which seems silly, even only regarding trends in instrument manufacture/distribution), and that the ratio of "quality" music to "disposable" music is the same: there is still more "disposable" (and also more "quality") music "now" just by virtue of the fact that the global population has more than doubled since the 60's. This kind of observation is non-informative; there must be "more" because there are just "more" people making it, whatever "it" may be, and regardless of whether or not it is "quality" or "disposable." This is why I didn't say what you think I was saying: it says nothing other than the fact that there are more people making music than before, which is kind of like ... duh.

(This also begs many questions, including: "who qualifies as a musician?" but I won't touch that one today.)

It seems pretty safe to say that with the proliferation of mass media and corporate take-over of music (and many art forms) in recent decades that it is easier for people to consume "disposable" music (television commercials, retail outlets, YouTube advertisements, FM radio, etc., which are all things which either did not exist in the 60's, or were in their infancy, and were therefore consumed by a smaller percentage of people) than ever before. When people become used to consuming things which are "disposable" they tend to prefer those things, and if they are called to create those things they will probably do so in the same disposable manner. Human beings are creatures of habit, and when disposal and disposability become habitual then Humanity will more easily foster that mentality than reverse it. Despite the recent "green revolution," I would argue that popular culture and modern living trends are (and have been) vastly more "disposable" than they were in the 60's, and (since art generally reflects the state of the society in which it was made) that art overall (among many other things) is probably more disposable. Those "Made in China" guitars aren't built to last like the good ol' Made in USA Fenders and Gibsons of yore, eh John? (That's just one example.) The reason those guitars sell so well, and frequently: meeting demand for higher quantity with less regard for quality, wouldn't you say? This is disposable culture in action, and art reflects culture. (Granted, many of these trends towards disposability started over 100 years ago, with the paper plate being invented in 1904, and that trend certainly increases with an increase of industrialisation.)

Regardless, it's a waste-of-time argument without establishing what "disposable" and "quality" music is, which was really the kind of discussion I wanted to evoke in a thread about "Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Music." We would then have to concoct with a way to measure the presence of each so that we can establish of which there is "more" for us to even begin to establish whether or not we agree, but I doubt we'll succeed in meeting the first set of criteria. (We could still try; I like to be wrong.)

I really just wanted to evoke a discussion about why these facts are "extremely disappointing" by asking a question, but since you have an opinion I would encourage you to start that discussion. Even though I did not make the claim you speculated above: why would you disagree with me if that were my stance?

jingle_jangle wrote:Personally, I feel that the less time something is in the public consciousness, the less time there is to appreciate nuances and subleties.

Bingo! When this is a visible trend, the natural response for those making "something" is (especially when turnaround time/effort/materials/training is important to maximize profit) to remove the things which consumers do not "appreciate," and in this case it happens to be the "nuances and subtleties" Paul mentioned. I don't know about the rest of you all, but after a few decades of being a musician I'm pretty sure that "nuances and subtleties" are what differentiate a "master" from a dabbler. I suspect this is the same for any craft, but when "consumers" are not conditioned to appreciate craftsmanship: craftsmanship wanes. What this portends for musicianship overall and popular music is another discussion. (Is it?)

Wildberry wrote:Back then artists knew their trade, today they only know their software supplier and the guy who operates the software to make them sound good.

Again: bingo.