• 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?

IMO the quality argument just doesnt really resonate anymore due to the proliferation and descending price of tech. In 1980 you HAD to book studio time to make a record, which meant you really needed to be attached to a label or somehow know engineers that could make your recording sound like a decent master tape.

I again cite artists like Grimes and Washed Out as examples of artists that can produce and sell 100K records with less than 10K of gear. Granted artists today still cant make a Random Access Memories, but few if any major labels let artists spend 1MM on the recording process anyway.
 
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.

But you're making the argument that the Jackson 5 today with a home studio and YouTube wouldn't get discovered and get modern day Quincy Jones and unlimited resources like Jackson 5 with their dad as the manager playing in local competitions and events did back in the day. I don't think that's the case.
 
I really like the Lorde album review on CokeMachineGlow in this context (http://cokemachineglow.com/records/lorde-pureheroine-2013/):

In the ten months since she released her debut single, the insta-classic “Royals,” Lorde has become the latest incarnation of a dying breed: the ubiquitous pop star, the rare 21st-century artist able to hopscotch right across a fragmented media landscape toward an inescapable presence on the top of the hill. This, in itself, is unremarkable. The monoculture may be diluted enough to get industry hyenas drooling over an artist who sells a mere two million records instead of ten, but even in this climate, real pop stars do continue to come along. We’ve got Lady Gaga. Or we did, anyway. Katy Perry. Rihanna (must we?). And have you gone a day in your life these last few years without at least hearing Beyoncé’s name? Lorde’s ascendance isn’t the story. The remarkable thing here, for once, is the music. We, the pop music consumers of 2014, don’t deserve Pure Heroine.

Lorde, bless her, seems to think otherwise. Though her name would lend itself to plenty of easy messianic puns, the lifeblood of a self-pleasuring music writer (ahem), she’s not joking. She wants pop music to do better. Crucially, this doesn’t mean a total rejection of the tropes of 21st century Top 40—after all, Pure Heroine is a pop record through and through, not an angular counter-culture statement piece. Rather than entirely rework the pop paradigm (or even acknowledge the notion a word like “paradigm” belongs anywhere near the word “pop”), Lorde wants to reclaim it from the bawdy, me-first escapism that dominates the genre today. “I’m kinda over getting told to throw my hands up in the air,” she sighs. Yeah, tell me about it. Leave it to a (then) sixteen-year-old to treat you like an adult.

But, listen: Pure Heroine is a fuck of a lot more fun that all of that makes it sound. It’s one of the most effusive, ebullient pop records in recent memory. “Royals” didn’t explode because it tickled American teenagers’ Marxist fancies. It took off because it, like all of Lorde’s music, adopts the best parts of the music it critiques—Lorde’s surprisingly effective pop-rap in the chorus, the song’s perfectly orchestrated harmonies and layered hooks—while painting them in a thrilling minimalist shade almost completely alien to the styles of her peers. “Royals” often gets read as a fuck-you critique to pop musicians living in a fantasia of wealth and excess, but it’s nothing so blunt or black-and-white. Rather, the track gets at the deep ambivalence many of us who don’t live in the Upper West Side feel when listening to pop stars cataloging their bottle service receipts. Sounds fun, but what about, say, human insecurity? The song doesn’t reject that lifestyle entirely—Lorde and her friends are “driving Cadillacs in our dreams”—but it also manages to express pride in an anonymous, unmoneyed existence where your address won’t make anyone jealous. That alone is a revolutionary statement in contemporary pop music, and it remains shocking even the five billionth time it comes through your car stereo speakers. Like “Royals,” Pure Heroine is everything our big, dumb pop culture isn’t: restrained, pristine, patient, self-reflective, managing candor without slipping too far into self-indulgence. Not big, not dumb.

This self-awareness means many of Heroine’s most intriguing moments come when Lorde acknowledges the discrepancies between the outsider stance of “Royals” (released on her debut EP, The Love Club [2013], before Pure Heroine and its life-changing attention) and the fame and success she’s found since the track’s release. Lines like “Pretty soon I’ll be getting on my first plane / I’ll see the veins of my city like they do in space / But my head’s filling up fast with the wicked games, up in flames / How will I fuck with the fun again, when I’m known?” in opener “Tennis Court” sound less like the requisite lip-service paid to “simpler times” by every pop singer in the known universe than an honest, confused reaction to an exciting, frightening, and irrevocable change in their young writer’s life. Elsewhere, on “Still Sane,” she tosses off the observation, “Hey, it’s all cool / I still like hotels, but I think that’ll change,” before circling back to, “Hey, promise I can stay good.” In her hushed, hopeful voice, the doubt lingering in the line is heartbreaking. She does occasionally misstep, with “Glory and Gore”’s unusual lapse into SAT pretension and by trying to convince us she’s not a “White Teeth Teen” herself (girl could sell Crest to a dentist), but even those songs are more musically daring and exciting than anything on the last, whatever, two dozen Rihanna records or, heaven help us, ARTPOP (2013). The sheer idiosyncrasy of her style means even in her lower moments, Lorde comes out ahead of the pack.

And that’s why with all the strengths of Lorde’s wordplay, it’s the music here, not the sharp-toothed lyricism, which sets the record so far apart from the rest of the field. She and producer Joel Little co-wrote the album, and it’s no small compliment to say Pure Heroine sounds more like a Number One Record’s Inevitable Remix Album than the real original. Lorde and Little strip her songs down to their elemental essentials, leaving a stark, evocative palate of sounds more reminiscent of Jamie xx or James Blake than the leaden ProTools bricks weighing down pop radio. “Buzzcut Season” gives a master class in precise production, slinking by on a simple, sultry synth line, single keys plinking out an atmospheric melody somewhere in the haze surrounding the beat, Lorde’s call-response vocals as perfectly placed as a square of primary color in a Mondrian painting. Even a louder, more complex track like “Team” comes together like a piece of origami, with the low-end holding back until Lorde’s vocals—layered only when necessary for the impact of a full choral effect—ratchet up the drama in an endlessly satisfying chorus. Over and over, Little proves he knows how minimal percussion draws so much more attention to itself than layering fat flourish over fat flourish, ad nauseam. Dude probably makes some killer nachos.

All of these ingredients would be more than enough to send Pure Heroine to the pop pantheon, but the record manages true transcendence at least once. “Ribs,” an easy contender for the best song of 2013 or however long you care to count backwards, is magic. Starting with an ambient bed and blooming into a lush, melancholic ballad, the track condenses the build of deep house into an electro-pop masterpiece, all woozy swirl and cinematic sweep. Lorde blends brushwork impressions (“The drink you spilled all over me / ‘Lover’s Spit’ left on repeat”) with matter-of-fact, teenage profundity (“It feels so scary / Getting old”) to mix a potent, bittersweet concoction. The synths push and pull, Lorde’s vocals gain insistence with every verse, and the pay off—the evocation of that sense of nostalgia that comes even before the perfect moment is over—is almost impossibly lovely. That she created this song, and this record, at so young an age is astonishing, yes, but these would be feats for an artist at any point in her career. Other young artists must be taking notes, and we’ll be thanking Lorde for years to come.
 
Movies and television have gotten better, don't know why music would have gotten worse. You can't separate music and musicians from their time period, for example, the Beatles would probably not make a fraction of the cultural and historical impact as a modern group as they did in their time period. The difference that I see is that the audience is much bigger now, so their is greater opportunity for success for many more artists. Artists who may never have made it out of their home towns in the 60's can now reach a global audience.
 
Movies have gotten better? No. The studios are way more conservative because their model is messed up now, too.
 
V movies and music have been trending more conservative for almost forty years. That's about when studio and record company leaders started coming from business schools rather than from the industry.
 
Movies have gotten better? No. The studios are way more conservative because their model is messed up now, too.

Conservative for big budget films. Back when films actually required film, there were a lot less of them made per year, and studios were just as risk averse then, just in a different way then they are now.
 
I can't even begin to argue with someone who thinks that visual media from the time of "Leave it to Beaver" was of better quality and less conservative.
 
Conservative for big budget films. Back when films actually required film, there were a lot less of them made per year, and studios were just as risk averse then, just in a different way then they are now.

Not even close to reality. Studios are far more risk averse today. Even megastar directors have to deal with bean counters. This wasn't the case in long ago past.
 
It's amazing how much obvious crap gets out there despite studios being so conservative.
 
Not even close to reality. Studios are far more risk averse today. Even megastar directors have to deal with bean counters. This wasn't the case in long ago past.

Your black and white world where there is no truth beyond what you just read on the internet or what you experienced 3rd hand through some acquaintances in the 80's is "not close to reality". The reality is mathematics, and there are multiple times more films made per year than there during Hollywood's "golden age", there are many more films released into theaters than there were in the past. Films used to be in theaters for fucking months, now only the highest grossing films stay in theaters more than 3 weeks.
 
Last edited:
These would be great arguments for the "Has the proliferation of media increased with the quality of technology?" thread.
 
It's amazing how much obvious crap gets out there despite studios being so conservative.

Arguably, most of those crap movies you mention are probably some of the safest bets for studios.
 
Your black and white world where there is no truth beyond what you just read on the internet or what you experienced 3rd hand through some acquaintances in the 80's is "not close to reality". The reality is mathematics, and there are multiple times more films made per year than there during Hollywood's "golden age", there are many more films released into theaters than there were in the past. Films used to be in theaters for fucking months, now only the highest grossing films stay in theaters more than 3 weeks.

The market is far larger today than it was in the 30s-80s. There are many times more theaters in the US and even more around the world. Another reason for more movies is direct to video and direct to cable. There are more outlets.

Raw numbers does not mean easier or less hurdles. Investment groups and Wall Street really didn't start getting involved in the film industry until the late 70s or so. Another phenomenon that is relatively new (the past 30-40 years) is state and national run investment pools like those in England, Australia, Ireland and other places.

Thinking that my world is "black and white" is simplistic , lazy and totally inaccurate.
 
Back to the original topic, I wouldn't be surprised to see the 7 pm national news phased out in 5-10 years. By the time it comes, the news is dated. The internet has really killed that model. Growing up, people got all of their news from the day on that show. It seems like the show is anachronistic now though.
 
Twitter is the new Headline News. Esp now that they buzz you 2-3 times a day to give you updated information.
 
Back
Top