Scratch

i love that diy is trying to argue that he doesnt hate all modern music he likes one, maybe two bands that still produce music today !!

DIY wrote:

Statistics show for the time period back then, and given the ever-increasing music population these days, it's a marvel that some of the most coveted records are still held by artists from previous eras.

Ha! "Statistics". From whom? Of what? You're being vague here; then I can't determine what you're actually talking about.
And it's not a marvel that some of the most coveted records are by artists from previous eras; some of the most coveted records are by modern (1990s-now) artists: Nevermind, Ten, Loveless, OK Computer, Kid A, The Moon & Antarctica... and countless others. As Sellout pointed out, we are constantly adding to the pile that is classic rock and "legendary" music.

With better communications nowadays, artists are able to get a lot more streaming of their songs via social media, making the world a much smaller place where they have more opportunities. Yet we have failed to see that 'ground-breaking' act today.

Anyone I've ever discussed this with has agreed with me that the answer to that question, why we have no "gigantic" group that everyone likes such as the Beatles in their time, is that there is so much music all over the world and it is really easy to find a lot of it. With the music industry back then, there were a select few on record labels and usually they were the only ones able to make & release recordings (and they had to be on a big one who really liked their music to be sufficiently advertised). Nowadays, anyone, including me and you (and I know we both have), can go on their computer, open up audio software, record a song, and put it on the internet. While occasionally people find things and then the creators become famous (Arctic Monkeys? JUSTIN BIEBER?!?!?!), that is very rare considering the amount of material people have to wade through. I've found plenty of stellar, beautiful music on the internet, even though it's generally unknown.

If there's no heyday, why do we talk of the "Golden Age of Hollywood", etc.? Of course, there can be another peak in the music industry, I never said there wouldn't be.

That comma in that second sentence should be a semicolon 
I know nothing about movies and I've never heard that term. I don't think that the music industry itself will ever reach a heyday, since it looks like eventually all the major labels will buy each other out and I'm guessing suffer some sort of collapse as most artists move to independent labels but it's not the industry that's important: it's the art.

Ask me this question many years down the line and we'll see how many contemporary songs live on to become enduring classic. Fact remains, there have been far too many acts increasingly in the recent years that are a great spin off for their time, but for their time only. Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc. weren't for their time only as time has shown us.

Of course most pop songs fade into obscurity, but that's something that's been happening since the days of "Ringo". I wouldn't be surprised if current songs like "Call Me Maybe" and "Gangnam Style" become ingrained in our culture, like songs like "Fish Heads" or "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini".

And to be honest, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, as well as several Beatles songs, often sound pretty dated to my ears.

backspace_ wrote:

DIY wrote:

The statement in question said, "You say that there is a lot of bad quality music today?" and I was clearly addressing that there, so I kinda have been repeating and over-repeating myself in the last posts. I also raised profanity and song subject matter differently. If I'm frustrated, I'd listen to calm, soothing music still, but that's besides the point. I'm still not agreed on the claim that music is constantly getting better: Statistics show for the time period back then, and given the ever-increasing music population these days, it's a marvel that some of the most coveted records are still held by artists from previous eras. With better communications nowadays, artists are able to get a lot more streaming of their songs via social media, making the world a much smaller place where they have more opportunities. Yet we have failed to see that 'ground-breaking' act today. If there's no heyday, why do we talk of the "Golden Age of Hollywood", etc.? Of course, there can be another peak in the music industry, I never said there wouldn't be.

Ask me this question many years down the line and we'll see how many contemporary songs live on to become enduring classic. Fact remains, there have been far too many acts increasingly in the recent years that are a great spin off for their time, but for their time only. Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc. weren't for their time only as time has shown us.

I could go on too, but I have dinner and a game of snooker planned. Plus I'll probably end up repeating what I've already said anyway as this conversation has deviated in such an awkward manner.

Isn't it a double standard that classic rock bands can make abhorrently violent music and you'll praise and worship them, but as soon as a modern artist devises a song about violence they are evil and vulgar?

And furthermore, the popularity of bands come and go. You refer to your "golden age" like everything popular from that era is beautiful art, yet let's look at a band (The Monkees for example). They were huge back then, rivaling the Beatles in popularity, and yet they could safely be considered a "boy band" and a "TV band", the equivalent of these modern day folk you hate so much, in YOUR OWN golden age of rock 'n' roll!

In fact, weren't The Monkees completely "produced" and not formed naturally? Not even playing their instruments originally?
But, heck, I still like Daydream Believer so I guess I don't have anything legitimate other than subjectivity against One Direction.

And your argument against profanity in today's music is absurd as well. Just because you would listen to calm soothing music doesn't mean everyone would. Music can be used to get you in and out of a mood. Is "Catcher In The Rye" any less of a classic book because of it's profanity?

Maxwell's Silver Hammer was mentioned about the violence aspect, but what they didn't talk about was how it openly mocks murder and uses it to create comedy. That's not a serious or meaningful song that is above the sick twisted violence of todays' - it's black humor.

DIY wrote:

Anyone I've ever discussed this with...

I've made all my points, and repeated a lot of what I've said. If you wanna really overturn this discussion, go ahead.

Well, you haven't said that you've disagreed with that so far so I don't know what to think you think at this point.

Oh, and I don't need English lessons from you; I could point grammatical issues by you if I bother to look into such trivial stuff, but I am fully aware this is casual conversation on the internet. 

Grammar is important anywhere. 

"I know nothing about movies and I've never heard that term. I don't think that the music industry itself will ever reach a heyday, since it looks like eventually all the major labels will buy each other out and I'm guessing suffer some sort of collapse as most artists move to independent labels but it's not the industry that's important: it's the art." -that doesn't answer my question sufficiently at all.

It wasn't intended to, since I don't know anything about movies plus I've never heard anyone say that so for all of my intents and purposes, it's a loaded question.

About stats...

The Beatles are the best-selling musical group of all time, estimated by EMI to have over one billion discs and tapes sold worldwide.
The Beatles have notched up the most multi-platinum selling albums for any artist or musical group (thirteen in the U.S. alone).
The Beatles have had more number one singles than any other musical group (23 in Australia, 23 in The Netherlands, 22 in Canada, 21 in Norway, 20 in the U.S., and 18 in Sweden). Ironically, the Beatles could easily have had even more number ones, because they were often competing with their own singles. For example, the Beatles' "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" were released as a "double A"-sided single, which caused sales and airplay to be divided between the two songs instead of being counted collectively. Even so, they reached number two with the singles.
The Beatles have had more number one albums than any other group (19 in the U.S. and 15 in the United Kingdom).
The Beatles spent the highest number of weeks at number one in the albums chart (174 in the UK and 132 in the U.S.).
The most successful first week of sales for a double album (The Beatles Anthology Volume 1, which sold 855,473 copies in the U.S. from 21 November to 28 November 1995).
In terms of charting positions, Lennon and McCartney are the most successful songwriters in history, with 32 number one singles in the U.S. for McCartney, and 26 for Lennon (23 of which were written together).

And, uh, the list goes on and on and on... Ha, do you get the jist already, or are you gonna deny these are true when no one has been able to come up with a claim against these stats over the past four decades?

I know these numbers as well as anyone; however, I was able to, in my opinion, sufficiently describe my reasoning for why that is and you didn't address it, instead skipping over to less relevant parts of my post. Whoop dee doo.

The point was that profanity in songs is much more common today, which you agreed to: "While I would agree that profanity is often overused in pop & rap music, I don't think it's inherently a sign of badness..." Where did I ask your opinion on whether it was bad? I was stating mine and different people have different perceptions of things. The first post of the topic ironically states: "Keep it Beatle related and don't flame others for their opinions."

I agreed to that, but you're intermingling my posts & opinions with the others in that paragraph as well as the one above and I don't particularly appreciate that.
Also, you didn't ask for my opinion but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to give it. I was stating my contrasting opinion to yours, as far as I can tell, because it appears to me that you think it is. It seems to me that you're the one attacking my opinion; you're telling me that my opinion is wrong, whereas I'm not doing that to you—I'm just trying to validify mine.

Don't omit key phrases just to make your argument stronger; that's not the way to set about it.

If you're going to say that, then please respond to the second half of my first and all of my second paragraph in my last post, because I think that's where the meat of my argument lies.

I'm not generalising modern music or introducing double standards - it's your perception of the statements being made, or willingness to bend certain chunks of text. To those willing to lend their ears once more, I'm not hating on all modern music, and do not try to make assumptions such as I like only 'one or two' modern bands, when in reality none of you have any idea of the many modern acts I take pleasure in listening to as well.

But when you say things like "most mainstream music nowadays don't showcase the talent and message of pop music back then", you make it pretty clear that you don't think it has as much value and make it sound as if (though it may not be true) you don't like it as much.

Seeing as you don't seem to follow your own strict grammar beliefs from what is obvious in a ton of your other forum posts, I'd rate you hypocritical. Pro-Tip™: I am not the founder internet slack. Moot. 

Your uncongenial point about the movies bit (which I still find no relevance at all) is not even a question btw, leave alone 'loaded', heh. So much for your picky grammar ways.

As for records, you asked for statistics "of what?", and I've gave what you wanted. So I did address it indeed. Dum dee dum dee doo.

You're not trying to prove my opinion of music now and then as wrong you say? You addressed me first, trying to instill your pretty opinions in my head. My initial post had nothing to do with you. If after my post you made a general comment on your own opinions without reference to mine, I'd have no business to rant on what you said. This is not the case. Whatever.

Omitting or making up certain phrases or clauses to fabricate some of 'my own apparent statements' in order to build on other arguments (such as "Everything today is profane and explicit and that's bad!") is third grade and languid. I'm not talking only to you here, but to all others who have addressed me previously with regard to the matter at hand. If I haven't directly addressed some of your points, but have left them perfectly unscathed without such 'fabrications', that's another matter. Do keep in mind that I'd be writing much more if I were to address every word. Anyway, I have given evidence, be it stats, records or what-not, to show that even these few modern breakthrough artists you talk of haven't been as successful. There's a reason your Justin Bieber has the most hated fandom in the world. Oh, and did I forget to say he uses pitch correct, another shortcut today that no one here has yet addressed?

Your last statement: That is my exact point! I don't value mainstream music nowadays as well as pop music then, but that's not to say I disregard it altogether, because (for the millionth time) I enjoy tons of modern music as well! Again, this is my opinion and you shouldn't be flaming based on it anyway.

Paddle2See wrote:

Whatever this argument is - it seems to be getting very far removed from the Beatles.  Please return to topic.

Thank you! Took the words right of my mouth, that's just what I was about to post.

Remember guys, keep it Beatle related, not about new and old music.

And the second part I put in, 'Don't flame people for their opinions', I don't know who started this, but this has turned into a very heated discussion. I know it isn't flaming very much, but it feels like it to me.

It's okay to have a debate about the Beatles, but not old and new music on a Beatles topic, even if the Beatles are a pretty old band.

My favourite album is Revolver :p

How many references can you spot?

I've met a lot of people In My Life, but they're nothing like this girl I met, Yesterday. He saw me and told me to Help! him, because he had A Hard Day's Night. She told me about This Boy, Back In The U.S.S.R who cried For No One. His name was Eleanor Rigby, and he had cheated on her with Lovely Rita. This was the conversation she had with him:
'Oh! Darling, I Want To Hold Your Hand'
She got No Reply.
'Well, this is The End for us. You cheated on me with Another Girl, didn't you? It's okay, I'll just move on With A Little Help From My Friends'
He finally replied, 'No, c'mon baby, We Can Work It Out!', but this time HE got no answer. The next morning he awoke to find out She's Leaving Home.

I asked her if he was in our presence. She pointed and said 'Over there! The Fool On The Hill. Will you do something about it?'. I told her I Will, and she said 'That Means A Lot'.

I walked up to him, and shouted 'You Can't Do That, can't you see She Loves You?' and he replied, 'I'm So Tired of her, she's always Here, There and Everywhere. She even calls me when I'm Only Sleeping. Besides, I'm into Sexy Sadie, now.' I responded to him, 'You know what you're going with your life? Nowhere Man. Can't you see that All You Need Is Love? You're a Madman.'

Suddenly, he came out with 'I know. I'm A Loser. I should probably just Drive My Car back home. It's All Too Much, man!'

After a long conversation, I went back up to the girl. 'So? What happened? I can't believe I gave him All My Loving...' I replied, 'Just, Let It Be.'

Suddenly she raged up. 'I thought you were good, but I'm Looking Through You! I'll Get You!'

She chased me down The Long and Winding Road, but I escaped, even though it took me Long, Long, Long. I did it when I followed the sun.

And that, for me, was just A Day In The Life.

Suparing01 wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

Whatever this argument is - it seems to be getting very far removed from the Beatles.  Please return to topic.

Thank you! Took the words right of my mouth, that's just what I was about to post.

Remember guys, keep it Beatle related, not about new and old music.

And the second part I put in, 'Don't flame people for their opinions', I don't know who started this, but this has turned into a very heated discussion. I know it isn't flaming very much, but it feels like it to me.

It's okay to have a debate about the Beatles, but not old and new music on a Beatles topic, even if the Beatles are a pretty old band.

My favourite album is Revolver :p

Revolver's great! My top four fave albums in order are probably Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Rubber Soul and Revolver. 

You should probably stop now...

Uh, no, I've addressed almost every point, not disregarded them. And I wasn't flaming nor did I start this. 

Rubber soul, with the Beatles, abbey road, white album and pepper, and please please me 

White Album, Help, Please Please Me, Magical Mystery Tour, Let It Be.......

What the heck, all their albums are good! 

Pretty nice choices, right there!

Favourites from Revolver:

I'm Only Sleeping
Here There and Everywhere
Eleanor Rigby
And Your Bird Can Sing

I'm also into Happiness is a warm gun, from the white album. I just love how it kind of doesn't sound like it would at the start, and runs right into the chorus? Unexpected, know what I mean?

harry85 wrote:

Good idea to create a topic about the Beatles.    Definitely one of the best bands that have ever existed.
My favorite songs are probably the most popular ones    like Let it Be, Here comes the Sun and Penny Lane.

Thanks         

Nice! What about Hey Jude?