An Oldies Forum?

The worlds are different, certainly. I'm different - once I was young, now I am not so young.

Music appreciation, however? No difference, outside of the tools used. When I was a young tadpole I'd get excited about an album after hearing a single on the radio (or parts of the album), then I'd go buy it if I had the funds, play it to death and then years later I'd wax nostalgic about it. Fast forward to today, replace radio with streaming and basically the same process occurs.

So what's really changed here?

 

well the world is a lot different now. Things have come around to fill the same void that used to be filled mostly by music.

 

I can't tell if this post was serious or well placed satire.

 

...you gotta dig my brother. We're a few pages back, but keep looking and you'll find us.

 

I believe that Gospel music helped fuel the Civil Rights movement, and that CSN&Y's "Ohio" helped mobilize the anti-war effort. But I'm unconvinced that the music revolution you speak of ever changed the course of human history, or American history, or Southern history, or even my family history. I envy your rosy view of the power of song, and your obvious convictions on the matter, but I disagree with that view.

 

The problem here is that any artist that gets posted, you will say no way is it as good, or the perennial "who"?
But I'll take a whack at Court and Spark. The new Aimee Mann, Mental Illness, is every bit as good as that album. Where Joni was more about the social/sexual mores of the time as refracted through the personal, Mann looks at the fallout bedeviling a cast of characters whose lives have somehow fallen short of expectations and don't know what the hell to do with themselves . The lyrics are scalpel like precise and spare no one,not even herself. They could apply to anyone who finds themselves unmoored, no matter their age.The melancholy tone does not detract from the steely resolve of her desire to see and understand her characters. The music is spare and beautiful. I think it's brilliant.

 

It's a tough one to quantify or qualify, but I think music has touched many people personally and they have set about to change the world. The idealism that rock and roll could change the world rose up with the counterculture and died with punk, despite punk being exactly that, an attempt at change: politically, socially, economically, and artistically. We were all pretty cynical by the time grunge reared its head, which grunge also reflected.

The nature of 60s, early 70s rock and roll meant it reflected the youth, its concerns: the war, the draft, civil rights, gay and women's rights, Native American rights, the right to vote, etc., Being in major band was a political act, it made one a target for the police and in some cases the FBI; there weren't any 'Rock for Nixon' factions. Rock served the youth, it was the escape and also the town crier, it was social gathering and a movement. Times are different now, but it doesn't unmake the power of what was.

 

I'm also 65. My father was convinced that all of the "good" music had been released by the end of WWII.

 

Honestly, I don't think you will.

I usually think the same thing about many of those types of posts. Then I realize where I am so I figure they are serious.

 

Does music still change the world? Not the western world. I hear about young artists from countries outside of the west who are excited to be getting their music past their country's censors with the net. So it appears to be changing their part of the world.

I think that people seek too much credit for the music of the 60s changing the world in anything other than culture. It seems to me that the social ideology of the 60s died pretty quick as soon as the teens of the 60s started figuring out how to make a buck. They are who is in charge now and the world is hardly a place without problems.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ..... and right now that generation is the boss.

 

Well said my friend! It was simply magical to behold. My only regret is that I didn't really understand at the time that the magic had a limited lifespan, I thought it was last forever. But at least I got in at its peak and basked in the golden sun.

 

Correct on both points: "Ten" came out about a month before "Nevermind", but it took the album longer to reach a mass audience.

It's still a 1991 album, though!

 

I agree about Mental Illness - a stone cold solid album all the way through.

 

I do agree about Aimee. She has released some wonderful stuff. I have not got her new album yet. But there is some classic stuff in her solo catalogue and 'Til Tuesday were a killer band.
I was being a bit general in my statement I admit.
There are some wonderful exceptions or near exceptions. U2, Nirvana, The Clash & REM stuff is pretty close to being up there.

 

I must admit that some of these posts make me feel kind of sad. I don't seek out new artists because I am happy with the ones I enjoy now, but I refuse to believe that nothing good is released anymore. Saying that it is a fact that nothing good has been released in the last however many years just seems very bitter to me. Maybe I am wrong but that's my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own.

There is nothing wrong with sticking with what you love and there is nothing wrong with finding new things to love. To assume that there simply isn't anything left to love on the other hand is what makes me feel sad.

 

For so many years, we've heard about the usual major label and top 40 artists played to death on commercial radio, but now it's time for Aimee Mann to really shine and to finally receive the high level of attention she deserves.

 

Very true and what many seem to fail to take into account.

Take myself, as a example. Tomorrow I'll probably be buying a number of albums / singles from older artists. I have LP's in flight right now from importCDs (damn that was a good sale) that are mostly catalog items as well. So I am well entrenched in the "old" or "classic" or whatever we call it.

But I have new albums as well. They sound great, I get to play them until I'm literally sick of them and then they go on my real/virtual shelf with all the other music I enjoy. I honestly cannot grasp the whole "music has an expiration date" concept.

Doesn't mean I expect anyone to change what they do, btw (and that's a key point as I believe some get defensive on this). If all you enjoy are jazz 78's from 1920 to 1935, or classical CD's or Dubstep, then that's A-OK. But if you plan to get on your soapbox to try and tell me how my musical worldview is wrong? Then expect a rebuttal and if you get all butthurt from that, then maybe you need to work on your soapbox skills then.

(btw, this wasn't at you - I meant in general)

 

The most recent of these bands was around over 25 years ago. The Clash were around 40 years ago.

 

Given that she's been in the music business for more than 30 years, Aimee Mann would have to be part of the "oldies forum"!

 

True, I was also kind of into to the Madchester stuff of the 90s, but to me very little of it now stands the test of time. maybe a song here or there from Oasis, The Inspiral Carpets. Blur, Bush and Suede, but that's it.
Very little has caught my imagination since then. Amy Winehouse, Adele,, Death Cab For Cutie maybe.

 

I'm surprised this thread is still going and not calcified by now.

 

Go on an adventure! Discovering great music old and new is the fuel.