I was thinking the same thing too, nearly every one of those choices are worded to sort of instigate disagreements. For example if you don't like his music but respect his talent and what he does, you are still forced to chose between "poor" or "mediocre". Really, it is fairly in obvious in retrospect what's up, taking Ed and Adele in a similar thread, and putting this in a forum filled with people decades older than the demo they or their fanbase is overall It would be like going to my grandma's place and asking the residents there, "so do you guys think Led Zeppelin IV is the greatest album ever, or absolute trash" lol
I find the posts that most folks here are older and are stuck in their ways and because of that mindset, they automatically will not take to Ed Sheeran to be somewhat unfounded. Folks like me that were born in the 40s and 50s, grew up first with the crooners and other music from the 40s. Then Elvis came on the scene and I liked him. Then The Beatles entered and blew a lot of folks like myself away. Then Prog and Zep and such in the 70s. Then Hip Hop and Rap. Then New Wave. On and on. This idea that most older folks here are stuck in some music time warp that makes them unable to assess today's music with an open mind is nonsense. I think the majority on this forum have very wide interests that span over decades. In most cases their dislike of Ed Sheeran is a result of comparing him to many artists they have heard over many years.
I disagree. A very narrow-minded view of older music listeners on the forum that might think Ed Sheeran is nothing special.
I’m in my 50’s and find him incredibly talented and thoroughly enjoy his music. Ignorant fools. Too many of those in the world.
Well said. Heck, we can go all the way back to Elvis, who benefited greatly by the way he looked and the way he moved/danced. If he had been some average looking dude who didn't move like that, would we remember who he was? Not likely.
You are confusung your own 'mindset' with my intention, which is to garner the thoughts of others on a musical phenomenomenon called Ed Sheeran. This is a music forum, hence an appropriate place to be asking the question that I am asking. There is no age barrier for membership here. It is one of the things that I like about this place. Your assunption that somehow residents here are all fit for the old people's home is nonsense as it is factually inaccurate. You say 'disagreement' when I say discussion. The difference is mindset. I hope you have read my earlier post about good faith and integrity behind my posts here. As regards Led Zeppelin, they were a highly derivative band, often not acknowledging their sources, with a marked lack of originality in numbering their albums (At least Ed Sheeran has the originality to use buttons on his calculator, although he has not yet used - or log!). They were also one of greatest bands ever, with 4 very talented musicians and with a deserved sales success. One of the greatest bands of all time. But still an enigma in some ways.
Or you could do what I did and explain what your actual position was. I said it was sort of a combination of 3 and 4 and why.
It's arrogant and offensive nonsense too. It's something that socially unintelligent people with no idea how that can affect people post here often across different threads.
Popular chart music has a predominantly young audience, that’s always been the case. Of course there will be exceptions, and in this case you are one of them, more power to you. I have nothing against ES and didn’t trash him. Just because people don’t care for his music doesn’t make them ignorant fools.
Do you see the constant Beatles threads on here… most of what’s discussed is music that’s 30-60 years old on this forum. That is what interests the demographic on this forum the most. Obviously, that doesn’t mean some new music or newer artists are discussed - and let’s remember Ed Sheeran is not someone releasing a debut album, he’s been around for more than as decade. Furthermore, it’s not only expected, but I’m sure there’s some science about liking more the music you grew up with. When I was 17 I saw Radiohead at Glastonbury in 1997, they blew my mind, and when I listened to OK Computer in full it was mesmerising. At that age (for the sake of the example), I had maybe listened to 50 albums - so it was easier to have an effect on me. I lived through it, the hype, Glastonbury, the media Etc. Now 25 years later, having listened to thousands of records, I am certain no record could have the same effect on me. That’s not to say there won’t be better albums - but it’s clearly more difficult for new music to have an effect on me. I don’t find a new record, talk all day at school about it, wait in line for an hour before the shop opens, having saved up my pocket money for 2 weeks to buy the cd, and play it 5 times in a row. New music cannot have the same influence on me. Then obviously add in the nostalgia effect, and the way we look back at history with rose tinted glasses and you really start to see how it’s difficult for new music/ artists to break through to older people. Now I can imagine what I’m like in another 25 years time… I’m very aware of this, and as a result try and listen to new artists and new bands. music is emotional, it elicits memories, and so your age really does have a big effect on what music you like. If you got all of Ed Sheeran’s fans together (sold out Wembley 4 nights in row!!), and asked them which was their 3rd favourite Beatles record, I’m sure you would see a lot of blank faces. Lastly, I bet 99.99% of them won’t have heard of Bad English!
I think you're absolutely right about the music we discover in our teens to early 20s being what sticks - I have definitely read about research that's been carried out on exactly that. Everything you said above rings true for me. What I find odd and struggle to understand (horses for courses though, obviously...) is when people are actually of the belief that the music that was around when they were that formative age is actually quote unquote better than what's around now. I mean, taking what you've said into account up there, this is obviously not the case - it's all about perception and memories and so on. Not everyone (in the world or on this forum) seems to have enough self-awareness or intelligence to understand how this bias works. Even when it's explained to them. Before anyone takes offence at that last point, I'm not going to defend myself for saying it - it's a fact, not an opinion. There is as much good and bad music, art, literature, whatever, today as there has ever been. And it's all available if you are of a mind to seek it out and discover new (to you) music, whether it's new new or old new! Or you can stick with Abbey Road as the best album ever made. I guess there's no right or wrong. TL,DR - why would I waste my time listening to Ed Sheeran when (for me) there is so much out there - more than I will ever be able to hear in my life - that will make me feel glad to be alive.
Mediocre with good marketing. If there was only the music without the hype it would pass me by nearly unnoticed.
Either music is different now to forty years ago or it isn't. If it's different then why should we be judging it as the same?
‘Just how good is…’ Another thread where people are invited to slag off something that’s probably not intended for them in the first place. Even the title - using the sneeringly pejorative prefix ‘just’ - is designed to invite the negative response.
What I would suggest is that people who feel that Ed Sheeran is being disrespected (or overly praised) is provide some specific information to counter such claims. Why not quote from his lyrics or discuss specific songs and their musical structure? One thing that Beatles fans do that should be copied is the way they discuss everything about their heroes in mind numbing detail. Every song and every album is analyzed and discussed in great minutia. They don't simply go around saying The Beatles are great really great and leave it at that. So Ed Sheeran or any other artist's fans should get specific. What precisely is great about Ed's music apart from the sales? Discuss albums, songs melodies and so on and show why he or someone else is better.
I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there... One can always draw comparisons or highlight the differences. Debate is great, as a t-shirt or bumper sticker somewhere surely attests.
The difference, and I think it is a meaningful one, is in what outraged older generations in the past was the music itself, in Ed Sheeran's case is his success. Is there anything innovative in his music so as to be reasonable to attribute the negative comments here to the shock of the new, as was the case with Elvis, The Beatles and so on? Is someone afraid Ed is gonna corrupt the youth?
A friend of mine posted one of those "name your top ten favourite albums!" things on Facebook a couple of years back. 7 or 8 people replied, all but 1 chose music released when they were between the ages of about 16 to 24......1 even said (without the slightest hint of self awareness) "I think 1998 to 2005 was probably the best period in music ever"... what a coincidence that was eh?
If this was TikTok or Instagram - you would no doubt get a good debate. The issue is not that his fans are not arguing his corner (like the Beatles fans do), it’s that his fans are not here. People like me are defending him as an artist, as he clearly has credibility, longevity and has a MASSIVE fans base. I don’t however listen to his music, so can’t analyse his lyrics - and I don’t expect many on here could. You are looking in the wrong place for his fans.
