Thursday, March 24, 2005

Music, better now or worse?

Just to get away from the same old reviews, I want to take a look at the quality of music coming out today in comparison to the quality of music being produced in the 60s and 70s, what most people would consider classic rock. In my opinion, music today does not compare to the music of the past. The title of classic rock does not mean that the music is automatically great, but the state of popular music in the past is far better than it is today. There are several reasons I feel this way.
First of all, what is considered the alternative today sounds more like the popular music of the 60s and 70s. Just to compare, groups in the mainstream today bring about very few innovations to music. Look at boy bands, corporate rock and a lot of R and B and hip hop thats out today. Very little of this music is experiental or improves music as we understand it. Compare mainstream music to the mainstream music of the past. Bands like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Allman Brothers, Sly and the Family Stone, and Motown groups were mainstream music. All of these acts were innovative and pushed the creative boundaries of music, and they were considered "pop" at the time. If you think about it, they shaped the sound of today, but it seems like very few popular groups today are trying to expand the musical scene. The music pushing the boundaries today are independent, underground, and alternative types of music. Pop music of today has very little value, musically. I think this is due to the fact that less people play their own instruments, and those that do play their own instruments are no where as near as good as the acts of the past. You won't see another Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, or Jimmy Page anytime soon, and if there are people out there as good as these guys, you'll never hear about them because they would never be popular by todays standards. Music that requires skill is not in the mainstram nowadays. Thats why the popular music of the past was better without comparison.


Blogger Mark said...


I agree that "music that requires skill is not in the mainstream nowadays," and I think that that is sad. I think it stems from the fact that very few of us are willing to put hard work or effort into perfecting a skill or talent or for that matter anything. We are a people that, in general, does not care much to know anything in depth. I look forward to an era when people become more interested in perfecting their talents and producing wonderful works for society to enjoy.

March 25, 2005 at 7:28 PM  
Blogger Latesha said...

Music today perhaps is not as good as music in the past. Yet today's values are different from those in the past as well. Prior to what we have today as mainstream artists the artist of the past received most of their recognition for their talents as musicians; not just singers or not just guitarist. The musicians of the past were honored because of their ability to inspire others with their skills. Today mainstream artists are the product of our current era of greed and technology. I agree that perhaps some of the music of the past is greater but the times were different.

Sunday March 27, 2005

March 27, 2005 at 11:37 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home