An Oldies Forum?

The vibe of this board is what it is. If I'm looking for a long discussion on the artists on the Sacred Bones label I'm not coming here - I can find that elsewhere. And that's fine. I do find the small group that does dismiss newer releases out of hand or seems intent on ranking everything based on if someone is going to be listening to it in 50 years kind of assuming actually - and it also adds to the flavor of the board. Still it is an attitude I can't wrap my head around. Moon Duo sits right along side of the Kinks for me - it's not about the date of release on either end of the spectrum... I just know which one will get traction in these parts of the web.

 

If there was no intention of talking about anything other than reissues,that is a misleading thread title.

 

Yeah, I have no idea why. What was she doing in 2014 (when the article originally appeared)?

 

She had that Candid Camera-like TV show for awhile--it was called Off Their Rockers. It ran from 2012-2014. It was very funny, in my opinion, but I had no idea it would have been that popular with younger generations. (And it couldn't have been that popular in general, otherwise it would have run for more than three seasons.)

 

I dunno. Probably spent $500 on suggestions from this thread alone:

Ok, let's move on to cool new bands mining '67-71

 

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm not a hard core audiophile, but these are some of my opinions on why posts on older music outweigh the ones on newer music:
1. There continues to be an interest in music that's been around for decades (for those who grew up with it and for younger people who are just discovering it) because much of it has a timeless and enduring quality.
2. Although there is still some quite remarkable music happening today, much of it (particularly in the commercial mainstream) is of a trendy and ephemeral nature. Of course, that element has been a part of the scene in every era, but it seems to me to be more prominent now.
3. Due in part to the download culture of today and in part to the escalating ethos of music moguls always looking for the next flavor of the month, music is often treated not as an enduring art form, but as a disposable product. That's one of the major reasons why I feel that a relatively small percentage of today's popular music will still be remembered in a big way in decades to come. In 2037, I believe the forum will still be around and that posts on the Beatles, Hendrix, Clash, etc. will still be abundant, but posts on One Direction and the Jonas Brothers will be virtually nonexistent. As for posts on future new artists, only time will tell. Just my opinion, of course.

 

There's a lot of truth to what you say about older people desperately trying to stay "hip" to the latest whatever, especially music, as some way of denying reality and//or keeping the grim reaper at bay. To me a prominent example of this is Paul McCartney's collaboration with Kanye West.

But I do believe that for many, the relative age of music, and the artist performing it, is a deciding factor for whether or not they will even listen to it once. These tend to be people who have very limited tastes in music/genres of music to start with. I suspect that many of them don't necessarily even "like" music much, but gravitate toward whatever their peer group is supposed to listen to. And no, I don't consider these comments applicable only to generations younger than my own. There are plenty of people in my own generation, and the one which preceeded it, who are perfectly satisified with radio stations in their preferred genre and era (provided there are any still on the air) that play the same 50 or so songs over and over again.

 

This is a very wise post - you must be old!

 

iHeartMedia has actually made a business out of it.

As to the "you're only listening to newer music because you're afraid to get old" argument - I can only speak for myself. And of course I don't like getting old....does anyone?

But does that impact the music I listen to? Not really. I enjoy new books from time to time, and new TV shows and movies as well. Those entertainment channels seem to be permitted by both the general public and this forum membership (mostly). But talk about that new music album you like and somehow that's strange to people. Never understood why.

 

Understood. To clarify, I did not intend to imply that the only reason older people listen to new music is to cheat death. Its a big world and I'm sure that there are older people who like the music they hear on contemporary hit radio (to name one source). I've recently found myself in the position of having to seek out new(er) music (which I'll define as music made within the past five years or so) and I'm genuinely impressed with a lot of what I've been hearing as I comb through Spotify and other sources. There is a lot of talent out there making music that plays very, very compatibly with songs I've come to value over the past five decades.

 

Music changed the world back in the day! It represented the times, what was going on in the world. From the civil rights movement to the VietNam war.

It meant something, what music today means anything?

Also the variety of music and acts was amazing!

Acts back in the day had their own unique sounds. You knew one artist from the other.

Today a lot of the music sounds generic.

 

Yep, just as I said....

 

Simple answer is birds of a feather...

 

It's an extremely disingenuous trend on this site -- and always has been -- to cast a comparison of old vs. new music as Bob Dylan and James Brown vs. Justin Bieber and One Direction, as if there's any kind of a level playing field there in terms of target demographic. All it indicates is that one's sole exposure to modern popular music is what happens to be on the TV as you walk past. The so-called "disposable" pop bands aren't trying to do the same thing as the Beatles; they're trying to do what the Archies and the 1910 Fruitgum Co. did; people who grew up with them will someday be nostalgic for them. Same as it ever was. If you've got no interest in following what serious enthusiasts of new music are listening to that's perfectly fine, but there's no need to deliberately distort the content that's actually under consideration.

Please realize I'm also not saying that Blood Orange or Frank Ocean are on a level with James Brown (at least not yet), but we can at least draw some interesting historical lines from the past to the present there, just like we can with the Beatles into Big Star into the Replacements into the New Pornographers into Whitney, etc.

 

Oops. Thanks for pointing out. Can't edit it now!

 

Check out D'Angelo's Black Messiah, a pretty dramatic background to social upheaval that's only growing more relevant. I could also mention Kendrick Lamar but I'm sure I'd get the usual stock response. But also, who cares about changing the world? My favorite music from the late '60s, stuff like the Kinks and Love, didn't really change ****. I don't listen to music for its revolutionary qualities, not least because the revolution doesn't seem to have gone all that well.

 

Weird, I was just listening to Moon Duo for the first time as I was reading that post!

 

My strategy is to make it their problem, not mine.

 

My objection to D'Angelo is purely about the musical backing, not the message. It's too mellow, smooth, or generic, uninspired funk. Kendrick Lamar's music is much more interesting on all levels, IMO.

I love music that makes a statement. No, the words may not influence change, but at least the writers attempted to.

 

Spose I should've said....you can find almost anything on this forum. At least your mention, L.A. Witch, had been mentioned here. I'm not sure I've EVER seen a post, until maybe I alerted folks to it, of the music of my avatar...the band HONK. This is sort of a country-rock type of band, a sound of which I'm sure many here would like and it came out in 1972, right in line with a lot of the sensibilities here. But alas...not much discussion, if any, about them. So it's not just 'new' stuff that's not on the radar of many, but some older stuff too.

And it is true....the percentage of audiophiles, or at least folks who listen to entire LPs or CDs, are generally the older ones. So it all goes that way mostly. If this place was sparse on the older rock and jazz and blues etc....I wouldn't be here most likely.

Up until their demise, I was a regular on the Sonic Youth site. Granted, they began in the early 80s..but kept putting out astonishingly new sounding music for over 25 years ! The demographics were a bit younger than here, I was among the older ones, but it had lots of folks from their teens thru their 30s for the most part. Some real obscure stuff was talked about there...and stuff like King Crimson (inventive from the late 60s thru today!)...just not like they're talked about here.

 

Listening to and talking about new music or old music or any kind of music is not a problem. Walking into a room where a bunch of people may be talking about old music and saying, "Hey you guys, why don't you talk about new music once in a while? Or are you all just a bunch of old fuddy-duddies?" is the problem.

AGAIN: One's personal taste is NEVER a problem, it's how some people seem to want to direct the conversation is what can be problematic.

 

Anyone can name one or two, but back in the day, it was way more acts into making music that meant something!

And it wasn't just rock acts either.

 

More hyperbole.

"It meant something."

To you it meant something. Just like swing/big band meant something to that generation....the jazz age/roaring '20s meant something to that generation....punk rock meant something to that generation.....50's rock n roll meant something to that generation....

"Today a lot of the music sounds generic. Acts back in the day had their own unique sounds"

A lot of 60s music sounded generic...think back. Every era has unique sounds. Go listen to some Louis Armstrong hot Five and Sevens....Billie Holiday...David Bowie.....

"Music changed the world back in the day! It represented the times"

Music, by itself, changed nothing. Music of any era "represents" that time just as much...you just have a biased opinion of one specific era.

 

Talk about hyperbole!

The music back in the day meant more to way way way more people than just me, so you're totally wrong!

As an African American I can share with you without a shadow of a doubt what music meant to us, it meant our very lives!

I live in a city that has that civil rights history, so I know exactly what those songs meant to many families!

What those songs meant to the workers in the cotton fields, in the prisons, in the churches!

The march from Selma to Montgomery was absolutely filled with songs that helped, inspired, kept, and enlightened!

So you have to talk with someone else, because I know better!