• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Has the quality of media declined as technology has proliferated?

30 years ago, people talked about how music sucked and was awesome back in the day under pretty much the same music industry model as before.
 
30 years ago today the music, by and large, did suck. 80s music is shit.
 
Yeah, dv7 is a perfect illustration. The '80s produced all sorts of music, some good, some bad, wide range of genres. To say that for 10 years there was no good music produced by a human being anywhere in the world is beyond stupid. But the machine made a bunch of commercial themes universal, which produced this idea of " '80s music" that's persisted in the culture. What's '00s music? Or '10s music? Nobody knows anymore, really.
 
That's a good point, bdz. People will say that "80s music" sucked, but will say 80s rap was great. People may say that 80s music was pop, yet Michael Jackson, Prince, and Madonna, among others were dominant in the 80s.
 
Do you like Huey Lewis & The News? Their early work was a little too 'new-wave' for my taste, but when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own - both commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humour. In '87, Huey released this, Fore, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is 'Hip To Be Square', a song so catchy most people probably don't listen to the lyrics - but they should! Because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself! Hey Paul!
 
I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. Sussudio is a great, great song, a personal favorite.
 
PhDeac said:
That's a good point, bdz. People will say that "80s music" sucked, but will say 80s rap was great. People may say that 80s music was pop, yet Michael Jackson, Prince, and Madonna, among others were dominant in the 80s.
Click to expand...

What's changed is that Michael Jackson, Prince, Madonna, etc., all had a lot of money, time, resources, etc., to turn them from talents into global megastars. The mechanisms that made them icons aren't there anymore.
 
bigdoublezero said:
What's changed is that Michael Jackson, Prince, Madonna, etc., all had a lot of money, time, resources, etc., to turn them from talents into global megastars. The mechanisms that made them icons aren't there anymore.
Click to expand...

So how are Lady Gaga and Katy Perry and Kanye and Jay-Z and whoever else global megastars?
 
The machinery is still there and has created stars like Lady Gaga and Miley, who until just recently was a completely corporate product. The trick is that the machinery doesnt work as well anymore because there is so much more choice out there, and therefore it is harder to get people's attention through all the static. You have to be way better than before to sell a million records because there is so much more competition.

Even Gaga and Miley lose fans because tweens on their ipads would rather pay attention to people like Kitty Pryde. In short, harder to get the same amount of people under the same bigtop tent as it was 20 years ago. People would rather farm their own content that speaks more truly to them in their smaller tent.
 
PhDeac said:
So how are Lady Gaga and Katy Perry and Kanye and Jay-Z and whoever else global megastars?
Click to expand...

Jay-Z came up in a different era. Kanye comes from the last gasp of the old model.

Gaga and Perry aren't really analogous with Madonna except for the fact that they're female pop stars. Madonna more influential, more recognition, more money, etc.

I'm not saying it's not possible to become a star in music these days, but way, way harder because the money isn't there anymore. And, much like with print, once you go down a step from the big stars to the second and third tiers, things get really tough. The incubators aren't there like they were before.

Even if some kid with a Macbook and YouTube gets his shit noticed, he's not becoming the next Bob Dylan. Even if some chick wins The Voice, she's not becoming the next Madonna.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Jay-Z came up in a different era. Kanye comes from the last gasp of the old model.

Gaga and Perry aren't really analogous with Madonna except for the fact that they're female pop stars. Madonna more influential, more recognition, more money, etc.

I'm not saying it's not possible to become a star in music these days, but way, way harder because the money isn't there anymore. And, much like with print, once you go down a step from the big stars to the second and third tiers, things get really tough. The incubators aren't there like they were before.

Even if some kid with a Macbook and YouTube gets his shit noticed, he's not becoming the next Bob Dylan. Even if some chick wins The Voice, she's not becoming the next Madonna.
Click to expand...

Sure. But you get Biebs and Carrie Underwood.
 
Yeah, teen idols won't go away. But there are way fewer now than before because nobody really buys their records.
 
So is it a bad thing that there is more music and choice and fewer corporate behemoths?
 
I think, at some level, not having the money, talent, time, energy, resources of the companies fueling creative endeavors could be a loss. The Beatles don't get to make their best stuff without those resources. Neither does Michael Jackson. There's less cultural resonance there, too, which I think is kind of neat. More choice = fewer widespread shared experiences.

Ultimately the information age, the diffusion of media, and the problems that come with it are a net positive, IMO. And someday the corporate behemoths will find a way to make serious money off music again; it'll just take awhile to get back there.
 
OK. I see where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree with respect to quality since the need for mass appeal may water down the music. I do agree about cultural relevance.
 
PhDeac said:
OK. I see where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree with respect to quality since the need for mass appeal may water down the music. I do agree about cultural relevance.
Click to expand...

In many respects it certainly does. But put Michael Jackson in working class neighborhood with a Macbook and no Berry Gordy in 2014 and get back to me on how that turns out. Doubtful he's eventually sitting in the studio with Quincy Jones and unlimited resources.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Jay-Z came up in a different era. Kanye comes from the last gasp of the old model.

Gaga and Perry aren't really analogous with Madonna except for the fact that they're female pop stars. Madonna more influential, more recognition, more money, etc.

I'm not saying it's not possible to become a star in music these days, but way, way harder because the money isn't there anymore. And, much like with print, once you go down a step from the big stars to the second and third tiers, things get really tough. The incubators aren't there like they were before.

Even if some kid with a Macbook and YouTube gets his shit noticed, he's not becoming the next Bob Dylan. Even if some chick wins The Voice, she's not becoming the next Madonna.
Click to expand...

The chick who wins The Voice or Idol aren't likely to become stars like Madonna, because they don't write their own material. Plus next year, there are new people to replace them. The winners of these shows don't often get the time or input to become long range stars. There are many more Clay Aikens and Stubbs than Carrie Underwoods.
 
deacvision7 said:
30 years ago today the music, by and large, did suck. 80s music is shit.
Click to expand...

bigdoublezero said:
Yeah, dv7 is a perfect illustration. The '80s produced all sorts of music, some good, some bad, wide range of genres. To say that for 10 years there was no good music produced by a human being anywhere in the world is beyond stupid. But the machine made a bunch of commercial themes universal, which produced this idea of " '80s music" that's persisted in the culture. What's '00s music? Or '10s music? Nobody knows anymore, really.
Click to expand...

PHEW! Good thing I didn't say what you said I did. Would hate to look stupid in your eyes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top