New music isnt doing it for me

Grant, I've had a few threads slamming new music and you're the first guy on the block to say that there's lots of great new music and that I'm just stuck in the past.
What's it gonna be?

 

Not me. I was in high school from 1991-1995 and couldn't have been more out of the loop. My peers were all fawning over bands like Nine Inch Nails, Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins and I was becoming a hardcore fan of Talking Heads, Devo and Elvis Costello. (And I was still obsessed with the Beatles at that point as well.) I felt no emotional connection with most of the current bands of that time.

There were modern bands I did like along the way, but there's no way in heck I'd call the '90s the best era for music.

 

I'd say in the last 2-5 years there hasn't been that much new stuff I've taken a liking to. Very far and few between. Hopefully that will change.

 

You dont need to listen to it over and over just to realize they are great albums. If you dont listen to them, and dont consider them great albums, why are they in your collection?

 

I don't think I ever said they weren't great albums. All I'm saying is that the majority of my listening, probably 70-80%, are albums released this decade.

 

When I was your age my music collection had loads of new stuff in it. Quite a high percentage in fact.

 

I don't seem to have a problem finding a lot of new music to listen to.

 

Yeah, well truthfully it won't.

 

I've probably bought 50 CD's in the last month. 49 were from the '71-'75 era...and 1 was from 2007.

 

In the words of Morrissey, "has the world changed or have I changed?"

Something to think about.

 

I've always been quite picky.

 

You were the exception in this case, while your peers were a true representation of what the majority of kids your age were into.

I'm sure when I was in high school from 1975-1979 there were peers who were into doo-wap, and the platters, but they were not representative of the majority of what teens my age at the time were into.

 

I don't recall saying they weren't. Quite the contrary.

 

I find when I try to listen to stuff I played in my teens, I realize......What the hell was I thinking??????

 

I would imagine it's both.

 

Not sure what you mean.

 

Part of the problem is that artists take more and more time between releases. How is it going to sound fresh to us if it isnt even fresh to them when they're recording it? Its important to just record stuff while its hot. Stop the overproduction, stop making the next perfect album. Just record what you got, when you got it, and get it out there. I realize the artists arent completely to blame here.

 

I believe this was the original post in the thread. You don't like 9 out of 10 new releases. All I'm getting at is that I do enjoy new music, and listen to it a majority of the time. So this means I have different hearing than you. My other point is that people that make blanket statements about how the sky is falling are simply misguided. You have to find new music you like, it isn't going to find you.

If you're content to listen to music from the past exclusively, then that's great. Just don't openly dismiss all of the great bands out there that are producing high quality music that rivals anything that came out of the 60s or 70s.

 

I haven't bought an album / CD from a "new artist" in ages. I usually spend about a few hundred on music per month, but that's now exclusively reissues of '60's music / artists. The last new CD I bought was McCartney's. Yeah, the mastering is aweful, but that's for another thread.

Cheers.

 

Pretty simple, the world changes, people change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but there's change.

 

Actually, I understood that part. I was just puzzled as to why you originally included your own post in a response to mine.

 

To me, it just seems like the bar has been lowered. Upon hearing most of the new records that are critically acclaimed as "the best thing since..." I usually come away very underwhelmed. The White Stripes and The Shins are good examples of this. Everybody had been recommending these bands to me, so I finally checked them out, and while I thought they were good, they were by no means unbelievable. If their albums had been released back in the late '60s/early '70s, they would have been just one of many, many mediocre bands at the time, but the fact that there is so little new music of exceptionally high quality, they stick out in the crowd today.

 

This is another thing my daughter and I were talking about.

As I mentioned, my daughter is 18 and it isn't unusual for there to be 3 or 4 years between albums, which means that an artists she was into at age 13, 14, or 15, she really isn't into at age 18.

I don't want to go into how it was better in my day, but there's no denying it was different. It really wasn't too uncommon for an artist or band to release 2 albums in a 12 month span. At the very least, a new album was expected at least every 12 months.

 

Because I screwed up.

 

This of course is pure opinion, as the bands you mentioned have good followings and critical acclaim. Many of the tunes played on "classic rock" radio are mediocre at best. They're just lucky enough to fall in that category, and are accepted as "good". If someone released a song like AS THE YEARS GO by Mashmakhan today, it would be laughed at.