Do we need a new song for the Bengals?

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(03-25-2022, 02:31 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: Of course there's a ton of crap now. There's a ton of crap in every era. You don't hear the absolute mountains of crap that existed in the 1970s, because it doesn't get played anymore.

Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with pop music. "rock music good pop music bad" is just as silly as "old music good new music bad"

I never said that; I said the mass-production/rehashing (which I should've written in those words, in my first post) and over-saturation, makes for a ton-more crap.

And yes, I've heard umpteenth amounts of crap from the 60s and 70s (nearly half of all content on Canadian radio stations has to be Canadian; our music scene has been ROUGH for a long time lol), I've consumed a ton of music from those 2 decades, more than any other era.

(03-25-2022, 03:35 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: I wish I could find some 90 year old people who thought new rock music in 1973 was absolute garbage that didn't reflect the culture, musicianship, or class of the music of their time.

The younger people of today are going to be saying the same crap 40 years from now about whatever music is taking hold in 2062. I wish we'd just stop.

As to your first quote, that has more to do with the shift in instrumentation and electronics, than in the 1800s/early 1900s; electric guitars, synthesisers, hell, even microphones, didn't exist back then and the only way you could listen to anything until the 1920s or so, was with a phonograph and finding media/purchasing them would only be for the super-rich/elite.

There was a clear evolution in the 50s with rock 'n roll and people then were curmudgeonly, simply because it was all NEW and different and people don't like new and different things.

Well Pop for the last 25+ years has been largely and *intentionally* formulaic (some rock bands are guilty of this too, like U2, post-Joshua Tree), with little evolution in sound, instrumentation or technology. The only thing that has really evolved are computers and their use in mainstream media, as you can create and manipulate with a simple program.

THIS IS STILL MAKING MUSIC, but it is seemingly done more for the commercialization (ie: to make a quick buck: the industry has always been commericialised)/notoriety, rather than because you were a young boy growing up in London in the 50s and you wanted to expand your artistry into music with a guitar, which was now affordable and no longer only available to the rich.

From classical/opera to rock 'n roll, there was a de-evolution of sorts, since creating music became more simple and mundane, but there still was an evolution when it came to what I mentioned above and barriers were being created/broken that never existed before. With modern pop, it is just stagnant; there isn't a true evolution for anything and the only thing that has improved from an instrumentation/technology POV, is that computer programs have become more user-friendly and efficient. That's it: there's no benchmark to set anymore, nor is there a barrier that can be reached/broken.

FTR, I wouldn't listen to ANY of the 3 you mentioned lol (SRV is one of the other formulaic artists, regardless of how talented he is with a guitar), as I'm sick of SRV and I don't like the other two.

I will say though, Katy Perry is NOT garbage; she is an incredibly-talented singer and knows/thrives in, her genre. Her being nice on the eyes doesn't hurt at all either.

Taylor Swift is a good marketer and seller of herself. If she was a high-class escort, she'd be tops. That's all I'm saying about her.