what do the people here think? it seems everything has gone downhill

Would you like me to make you few Spotify playlists or would you like to continue making these threads every 2 months for the rest of your life?  :)

Would you like me to make you few Spotify playlists or would you like to continue making these threads every 2 months for the rest of your life?  :)

What if those songs get taken down, or what if his connection is too slow for Spotify?

Bashing todays music is wasting energy, man. Just start collecting or downloading your favorite songs to a music storage device and your free.

Bashing todays music is wasting energy, man. Just start collecting or downloading your favorite songs to a music storage device and your free.

I recommend this, especially if the owners of the content decide to stop making their content available to the general public.

what do the people here think? it seems everything has gone downhill


Doubtful that it will ever stop sucking.  Today's music is a real stinkeroo.  8-P

Bashing todays music is wasting energy, man. Just start collecting or downloading your favorite songs to a music storage device and your free.


or just stop listening to the radio altogether.  ::)

or just stop listening to the radio altogether.  ::)


You totally misread my post. Haha Once you read it again its going to hit you.

The great thing about modern technology is that you don’t have to listen to the music you don’t want to listen to. You have the choice of every song ever recorded, at your fingertips.

This complaint is as old as time, and it has never made sense. It makes even less sense now, when you can do more to filter out music you don’t like than ever before.

The great thing about modern technology is that you don’t have to listen to the music you don’t want to listen to. You have the choice of every song ever recorded, at your fingertips.

This complaint is as old as time, and it has never made sense. It makes even less sense now, when you can do more to filter out music you don’t like than ever before.



What if you can't listen to the music you want to because of streaming where you can't own the songs again?

What if you can't listen to the music you want to because of streaming where you can't own the songs again?


Not sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that you can’t stream the music or that you can’t own it?

The great thing about modern technology is that you don’t have to listen to the music you don’t want to listen to. You have the choice of every song ever recorded, at your fingertips.

This complaint is as old as time, and it has never made sense. It makes even less sense now, when you can do more to filter out music you don’t like than ever before.


I do listen to whatever music I want. It doesn't mean I can't complain or wish for something new and good at the same time

I truly hate how the era I live in is such a dark age for music, yet television is more of a thriving business than ever. Sorry to say, but I'm just far more of a music person, certainly right now at least.

Music's been in a weird dark age since 2000, or whatever.  :P

Latin pop is slowly rising.
If that's not your thing, I understand.
I too want this trap-rap-and-teen-pop phase to end. I'm not convinced it will last forever. People aren't THAT crazy.

Not sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that you can’t stream the music or that you can’t own it?


This is the "access vs. ownership" debate. As a person from the 60s and 70s you can bet I fall on the side of ownership. As long as I have an album, CD or even, yes, a cassette (stopping just short of the ghastly 8-track), and can find the technology to play them on, I will have the music forever. But as long as someone is trusting the big "overlord", be it Spotify or whomever, we are at their mercy. Do you think Spotify is gonna be around forever? Especially in this day and age when these companies merge and get bought out and come and go with he frequency that I change my socks? Sure, something will come along and take it's place, but it's all so uncertain. Streaming is a bit too ephemeral for me, it's like a house built on sand. It could vanish or change technologically in the blink of an eye. And not to be all conspiratorial, but when you stream they are keeping TRACK of everything you listen to. Just more information the overlord has on you. Of course I do stream, as well as my other options. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in that one basket. And as far as them keeping track of me, I do have to give credit that some of the Spotify algorithms "picked out just for me" are actually quite accurate.

I know I'm showing my age with this rant.  ;)

I truly hate how the era I live in is such a dark age for music, yet television is more of a thriving business than ever. Sorry to say, but I'm just far more of a music person, certainly right now at least.


What I hate most about this era is everyone is complacent about the music just because they can listen to other things.

This is the "access vs. ownership" debate. As a person from the 60s and 70s you can bet I fall on the side of ownership. As long as I have an album, CD or even, yes, a cassette (stopping just short of the ghastly 8-track), and can find the technology to play them on, I will have the music forever. But as long as someone is trusting the big "overlord", be it Spotify or whomever, we are at their mercy. Do you think Spotify is gonna be around forever? Especially in this day and age when these companies merge and get bought out and come and go with he frequency that I change my socks? Sure, something will come along and take it's place, but it's all so uncertain. Streaming is a bit too ephemeral for me, it's like a house built on sand. It could vanish or change technologically in the blink of an eye. And not to be all conspiratorial, but when you stream they are keeping TRACK of everything you listen to. Just more information the overlord has on you. Of course I do stream, as well as my other options. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in that one basket. And as far as them keeping track of me, I do have to give credit that some of the Spotify algorithms "picked out just for me" are actually quite accurate.

I know I'm showing my age with this rant.  ;)

Thank you for explaining this to them.

I truly hate how the era I live in is such a dark age for music, yet television is more of a thriving business than ever. Sorry to say, but I'm just far more of a music person, certainly right now at least.

Same sentiments here.

What I hate most about this era is everyone is complacent about the music just because they can listen to other things.


No one knows what kind of music you even want to be popular. Who knows what you even consider good? We just know you don't like today's pop music.

Guess what? You may never like mainstream music even again. You may live to 90 never, ever liking mainstream music since you last liked it. Especially when you seem to have little desire in discussing what mainstream music should be like. 


I hate to be a jerk, but how many of these threads do you plan on making?

I truly hate how the era I live in is such a dark age for music, yet television is more of a thriving business than ever. Sorry to say, but I'm just far more of a music person, certainly right now at least.


I can relate. I know that it's entirely subjective, but it sort of makes me depressed knowing that I was born when music started to go downhill (1999) and I've never got to experience a time when music was truly great.

This is the "access vs. ownership" debate. As a person from the 60s and 70s you can bet I fall on the side of ownership. As long as I have an album, CD or even, yes, a cassette (stopping just short of the ghastly 8-track), and can find the technology to play them on, I will have the music forever. But as long as someone is trusting the big "overlord", be it Spotify or whomever, we are at their mercy. Do you think Spotify is gonna be around forever? Especially in this day and age when these companies merge and get bought out and come and go with he frequency that I change my socks? Sure, something will come along and take it's place, but it's all so uncertain. Streaming is a bit too ephemeral for me, it's like a house built on sand. It could vanish or change technologically in the blink of an eye. And not to be all conspiratorial, but when you stream they are keeping TRACK of everything you listen to. Just more information the overlord has on you. Of course I do stream, as well as my other options. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in that one basket. And as far as them keeping track of me, I do have to give credit that some of the Spotify algorithms "picked out just for me" are actually quite accurate.

I know I'm showing my age with this rant.  ;)


I dislike streaming as much as the next person, for the same reasons you described. I don’t actually think we have fundamentally different views on this. I’m just tired of the people who proclaim that modern music roundly sucks because what they happen to like isn’t popular at the particular moment—popular, mainstream music is almost always derivative, because it’s an attempt to make the most non-intrusive, marketable, inoffensive product possible. This isn’t a huge revelation, and it’s just the argument, like the one in the OP, that I find boring.

I dislike streaming as much as the next person, for the same reasons you described. I don’t actually think we have fundamentally different views on this. I’m just tired of the people who proclaim that modern music roundly sucks because what they happen to like isn’t popular at the particular moment—popular, mainstream music is almost always derivative, because it’s an attempt to make the most non-intrusive, marketable, inoffensive product possible. This isn’t a huge revelation, and it’s just the argument, like the one in the OP, that I find boring.


Your point is valid and completely understandable, it's the definition of popular music as "popular, mainstream music is almost always derivative, because it’s an attempt to make the most non-intrusive, marketable, inoffensive product possible" that I find troubling. While you are correct that the mainstream music of today fits that definition to a T, I come from the 60s and 70s when there was an embarrassment of riches of unbelievable, incredible, fantastic, CHALLENGING music pouring forth on a daily basis. So your definition does not apply there. Not to say that there wasn't a lot of what you describe back then as well. Hence the recent thread elsewhere on this board about "Sugar Sugar" and other such silly fluff songs from the late 60s. Unfortunately, younger people who have come up in the very recent era may indeed only know popular music as "the most non-intrusive, marketable, inoffensive product possible", because that's basically all there is right now in the mainstream. The 60s and 70s era I was lucky to inhabit with it's brilliant music now seems to have been an anomaly in the scheme of things.

Your point is valid and completely understandable, it's the definition of popular music as "popular, mainstream music is almost always derivative, because it’s an attempt to make the most non-intrusive, marketable, inoffensive product possible" that I find troubling. While you are correct that the mainstream music of today fits that definition to a T, I come from the 60s and 70s when there was an embarrassment of riches of unbelievable, incredible, fantastic, CHALLENGING music pouring forth on a daily basis. So your definition does not apply there. Not to say that there wasn't a lot of what you describe back then as well. Hence the recent thread elsewhere on this board about "Sugar Sugar" and other such silly fluff songs from the late 60s. Unfortunately, younger people who have come up in the very recent era may indeed only know popular music as "the most non-intrusive, marketable, inoffensive product possible", because that's basically all there is right now in the mainstream. The 60s and 70s era I was lucky to inhabit with it's brilliant music now seems to have been an anomaly in the scheme of things.


Yeah, there's a bit of a tradeoff here, which, boiled down, is good for business and bad for creativity. Since the '60s and '70s, it's become fairly well-documented on how to create a kind of "formula" for a decently successful song, and so labels and producers will pursue that formula and fit it to the trends of the day. At the same time, that means that there's less of a desire for mainstream artists to more liberally experiment, and that's where the "explosion of riches" came from. The art of creating populist pop music has been perfected, which in turn has made it a science instead.

The art of creating populist pop music has been perfected, which in turn has made it a science instead.


You got that right. Music is now created by committee, headed up by middle aged men like Max Martin and Doctor Luke who pull all the strings and fronted by nominally talented (if that) cute, young pop stars who are often airheads. And everybody is in it for the bucks. It sounds like a cliche, but a lot of the people in the 60s and 70s making great music were in it for the actual art of it before the big bucks took over. People were truly seeking a higher consciousness for a while there. That's one of the reasons there was so much fantastic, honest, heartfelt, well performed music created then. It's also notable how intelligent so many of the rock stars were back then and the variety of amazing topics covered in the music.

Your point is valid and completely understandable, it's the definition of popular music as "popular, mainstream music is almost always derivative, because it’s an attempt to make the most non-intrusive, marketable, inoffensive product possible" that I find troubling. While you are correct that the mainstream music of today fits that definition to a T, I come from the 60s and 70s when there was an embarrassment of riches of unbelievable, incredible, fantastic, CHALLENGING music pouring forth on a daily basis. So your definition does not apply there. Not to say that there wasn't a lot of what you describe back then as well. Hence the recent thread elsewhere on this board about "Sugar Sugar" and other such silly fluff songs from the late 60s. Unfortunately, younger people who have come up in the very recent era may indeed only know popular music as "the most non-intrusive, marketable, inoffensive product possible", because that's basically all there is right now in the mainstream. The 60s and 70s era I was lucky to inhabit with it's brilliant music now seems to have been an anomaly in the scheme of things.


Yeah, I don't buy this whole idea that businesses just want to make things inoffensive for the purpose of marketing. It applies to music today but not to other things, and doesn't apply to music of the past, either. For example, shows like The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and on and on are not inoffensive but they've been hugely successful.

I think music has been neutered because it helped give rise to the counterculture of the 60s and 70s and so was seen as a threat to the status quo. Music can provide the soundtrack to protests whereas TV doesn't.

Now I'm not saying that some people are twisting their mustaches and planning how to make music tame, but I do think there's a strong sentiment in people's attitudes toward music for the past twenty years or more that looks down on music that's aggressive, wild, or has much of a social statement.

Even in the 80s hair metal and pop were big, and those were non-threatening. In the 90s grunge came along, and while it wasn't protest music it was still a statement of angst and alienation, and it didn't last long. Gangster was replaced with bling rap in the late 90s or early 2000s.

It seems to me that music has been sanitized.

The great thing about modern technology is that you don’t have to listen to the music you don’t want to listen to. You have the choice of every song ever recorded, at your fingertips.

This complaint is as old as time, and it has never made sense. It makes even less sense now, when you can do more to filter out music you don’t like than ever before.


just like computer internet radio stations.

I do listen to whatever music I want. It doesn't mean I can't complain or wish for something new and good at the same time



I listen to iHeartradio, accuradio or Spotify to name a few.

You got that right. Music is now created by committee, headed up by middle aged men like Max Martin and Doctor Luke who pull all the strings and fronted by nominally talented (if that) cute, young pop stars who are often airheads. And everybody is in it for the bucks. It sounds like a cliche, but a lot of the people in the 60s and 70s making great music were in it for the actual art of it before the big bucks took over. People were truly seeking a higher consciousness for a while there. That's one of the reasons there was so much fantastic, honest, heartfelt, well performed music created then. It's also notable how intelligent so many of the rock stars were back then and the variety of amazing topics covered in the music.

TV killed the rockstar, but hopefully the internet will democratize music again. It's because they thought that corporate needed a bigger say than everyone else,

Yeah, I don't buy this whole idea that businesses just want to make things inoffensive for the purpose of marketing. It applies to music today but not to other things, and doesn't apply to music of the past, either. For example, shows like The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and on and on are not inoffensive but they've been hugely successful.

I think music has been neutered because it helped give rise to the counterculture of the 60s and 70s and so was seen as a threat to the status quo. Music can provide the soundtrack to protests whereas TV doesn't.

Now I'm not saying that some people are twisting their mustaches and planning how to make music tame, but I do think there's a strong sentiment in people's attitudes toward music for the past twenty years or more that looks down on music that's aggressive, wild, or has much of a social statement.

Even in the 80s hair metal and pop were big, and those were non-threatening. In the 90s grunge came along, and while it wasn't protest music it was still a statement of angst and alienation, and it didn't last long. Gangster was replaced with bling rap in the late 90s or early 2000s.

It seems to me that music has been sanitized.


You are onto something. You can count on two hands the corporations and powers that be running the music business and the mainstream media outlets, and the last thing they want is socially conscious, rebellious protest music or even music with any real feeling that gets people thinking for themselves or stirred up in any way. A similar thing happened with the news media. The powers that be learned from the example of the Vietnam War where we daily saw reports of body bags of American soldiers being unloaded, conveyor belts of coffins coming off planes, a Pulitzer prize winning photo of a naked Vietnamese girl badly burned with napalm running hysterically, and so on. In subsequent wars in the 90s and on to today one does not see this. Hmmm....

You would think with the internet people could bypass the mainstream and just get the music out there. But if there is anyone out there today making music with the power of "Give Peace A Chance", "Ohio", "Revolution",, "Like A Rolling Stone", "What's Going On" and so many others, not many people are hearing it.

You are onto something. You can count on two hands the corporations and powers that be running the music business and the mainstream media outlets, and the last thing they want is socially conscious, rebellious protest music or even music with any real feeling that gets people thinking for themselves or stirred up in any way. A similar thing happened with the news media. The powers that be learned from the example of the Vietnam War where we daily saw reports of body bags of American soldiers being unloaded, conveyor belts of coffins coming off planes, a Pulitzer prize winning photo of a naked Vietnamese girl badly burned with napalm running hysterically, and so on. In subsequent wars in the 90s and on to today one does not see this. Hmmm....

You would think with the internet people could bypass the mainstream and just get the music out there. But if there is anyone out there today making music with the power of "Give Peace A Chance", "Ohio", "Revolution",, "Like A Rolling Stone", "What's Going On" and so many others, not many people are hearing it.


I think this is a big part of why so many mainstream songs are of the "my boyfriend dumped me" or the "that girl is everything" variety nowadays. It's not to say that songs of this type can't be good, but we're not getting much social or existential insight in such music.

I think this is a big part of why so many mainstream songs are of the "my boyfriend dumped me" or the "that girl is everything" variety nowadays. It's not to say that songs of this type can't be good, but we're not getting much social or existential insight in such music.

I believe that some of those who happen to be religious fundamentalists that run these corporations would not only do it for themselves, but also under the guise of it being for the greater public good. Even though the music of the 2000s doesn't deal with controversial themes as much, the dark sound would be enough to piss these guys off because it would be deemed "satanic".

I believe that some of those who happen to be religious fundamentalists that run these corporations would not only do it for themselves, but also under the guise of it being for the greater public good. Even though the music of the 2000s doesn't deal with controversial themes as much, the dark sound would be enough to piss these guys off because it would be deemed "satanic".


I think a dark sound or look among musicians would irritate executives - and many consumers who are just conservative in the sense of being very mainstream and satisfied with the way things are, therefore wanting to preserve them - because it registers discontent with something or other. There could well be cultural bias that's rooted in religious sensibilities also.

I have encountered some evangelicals who absolutely despised rock music because they deemed it Satanic. One guy I met talked about how he grew up on it in the 70s and 80s but after he found Jesus in the 80s started getting away from it. Occasionally he'd talk nostalgically about rock songs he liked, but then he'd go into religious mode and start denouncing rock music. I got the impression that he's grown more fanatical over the years and is often thinking about un-Christian influences in his personality in an attempt to get rid of them.

One thing I feel confident in saying is that the evangelical movement likely didn't have a good effect on rock music because it supported the more straight-laced yuppie component of society, whose values have been influential since around the 80s.

I think a dark sound or look among musicians would irritate executives - and many consumers who are just conservative in the sense of being very mainstream and satisfied with the way things are, therefore wanting to preserve them - because it registers discontent with something or other. There could well be cultural bias that's rooted in religious sensibilities also.

If that were the case then emo wouldn't have existed.
I have encountered some evangelicals who absolutely despised rock music because they deemed it Satanic. One guy I met talked about how he grew up on it in the 70s and 80s but after he found Jesus in the 80s started getting away from it. Occasionally he'd talk nostalgically about rock songs he liked, but then he'd go into religious mode and start denouncing rock music. I got the impression that he's grown more fanatical over the years and is often thinking about un-Christian influences in his personality in an attempt to get rid of them.
Ugh, I hate these sort of people. It's like Iran from around the same time. I kind of like the 80s aesthetic, just not how everything got conservative, such as with the AIDS epidemic among gay and bisexual men making conservatives look rational.
One thing I feel confident in saying is that the evangelical movement likely didn't have a good effect on rock music because it supported the more straight-laced yuppie component of society, whose values have been influential since around the 80s.

Please explain this more if you can.

I think a dark sound or look among musicians would irritate executives - and many consumers who are just conservative in the sense of being very mainstream and satisfied with the way things are, therefore wanting to preserve them - because it registers discontent with something or other. There could well be cultural bias that's rooted in religious sensibilities also.

I have encountered some evangelicals who absolutely despised rock music because they deemed it Satanic. One guy I met talked about how he grew up on it in the 70s and 80s but after he found Jesus in the 80s started getting away from it. Occasionally he'd talk nostalgically about rock songs he liked, but then he'd go into religious mode and start denouncing rock music. I got the impression that he's grown more fanatical over the years and is often thinking about un-Christian influences in his personality in an attempt to get rid of them.

One thing I feel confident in saying is that the evangelical movement likely didn't have a good effect on rock music because it supported the more straight-laced yuppie component of society, whose values have been influential since around the 80s.


Evangelical opposition to rock music was probably the biggest deal in the '90s, around the time of shock rockers like Marilyn Manson and nu-metal like Korn and Slipknot were popular.  I remember that entire culture being blamed for the Columbine shootings as well as the general rebellious nature of teen culture.  The Christian Right were furious about Eminem during the Marshall Mathers LP era but it seems that after that, things quieted down a bit.  It's also probably not a coincidence that was around the time music started to become more sanitized.

It started to suck in 1974 when disco started to become popular. Just kidding.

There has always been 'commercial, happy, singy, poppy' songs in the music industry. There were sugary pop songs in the 1950's too. It's just that pre-2000, there was always adult contemporary, rock, and other types of music to make up for it!

Honestly, I think that the 80's was when image started to dominate talent.

Evangelical opposition to rock music was probably the biggest deal in the '90s, around the time of shock rockers like Marilyn Manson and nu-metal like Korn and Slipknot were popular.  I remember that entire culture being blamed for the Columbine shootings as well as the general rebellious nature of teen culture.  The Christian Right were furious about Eminem during the Marshall Mathers LP era but it seems that after that, things quieted down a bit.  It's also probably not a coincidence that was around the time music started to become more sanitized.


Some of those Christians protested Marilyn Manson and Eminem too. I thought the Left were the ones supposed to be Snowflakes!  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

I think a dark sound or look among musicians would irritate executives - and many consumers who are just conservative in the sense of being very mainstream and satisfied with the way things are, therefore wanting to preserve them - because it registers discontent with something or other. There could well be cultural bias that's rooted in religious sensibilities also.

I have encountered some evangelicals who absolutely despised rock music because they deemed it Satanic. One guy I met talked about how he grew up on it in the 70s and 80s but after he found Jesus in the 80s started getting away from it. Occasionally he'd talk nostalgically about rock songs he liked, but then he'd go into religious mode and start denouncing rock music. I got the impression that he's grown more fanatical over the years and is often thinking about un-Christian influences in his personality in an attempt to get rid of them.

One thing I feel confident in saying is that the evangelical movement likely didn't have a good effect on rock music because it supported the more straight-laced yuppie component of society, whose values have been influential since around the 80s.


Where did these so-called evangelicals suddenly come from and when did they get so much power? They couldn't touch us in the 70s. Even in the 60s. (John Lennon's "Beatles are bigger than Jesus" flap notwithstanding).  It wasn't until 1981 that they started analyzing rock music lyrics and playing records backwards and coming up with all sorts of inaccurate interpretations. Jim and Tammy Bakker started all this interpreting of records on their TV show in 1981 (and we saw how ingloriously HE fell from grace). I had to laugh when they "warned" us in 1981 how "Stairway to Heaven" was "Satanic" and "dangerous to our youth". A song that came out ten years before! They were a little late to the party, wouldn't you say? They even said "Hotel California" was Satanic! The 80s is when all this nonsense started and it grew from there. In the 70s these people were pooh-poohed, written off as fanatics, and now all of a sudden it's like their word is law. It's like they want to make sure the 60s and 70s never happen again, a time of great progressiveness and enlightenment in many ways.

If that were the case then emo wouldn't have existed.
Ugh, I hate these sort of people. It's like Iran from around the same time. I kind of like the 80s aesthetic, just not how everything got conservative, such as with the AIDS epidemic among gay and bisexual men making conservatives look rational.Please explain this more if you can.


That's why I don't think it was a conscious thing - like evil people twisting their mustaches. Executives would push music they find distasteful because it's their job to turn a profit. What pushes such music to the mainstream, for a while, is popular demand. Emo was an extension of music styles that began in earlier decades, like with The Cure and later on the goth scene, and still had some juice left.

What I think is most responsible for sanitizing music is public sentiment, specifically a fear of kids getting rowdy or weird or nonconformist. Movements like the Christian Right and conservatism and yuppie-ism and all that affect the culture such that what was tolerated in music in the 60s and 70s and even as late as the 90s is now considered too edgy. Even kids pick up on this and many will conform. Give this cultural shift a few decades to incubate and you see just how much it's chipped away at music as a vehicle to express dissatisfaction with society.

Personally, as a young person (I think I still count?), I was never a huge follower of the charts. I only listened to the Top 40 to hear songs that will become 'popular' and be played at parties, so I don't look clueless and embarrass myself.

But songs I actually care about and find meaning in? It was first Yahoo! Music, then YouTube, and now a mix of Spotify and YouTube. Basically, the Internet. You won't ever see those songs on the charts.

Hearing all the inoffensive electronic party songs on the radio, I don't think I'm alone in how I use the Top 40.

Actually, with my interaction from people a few years younger than me (the main target audience of the Top 40), most people just listen to Disney Stars, or Disney Star-adjacent. Pop idols basically. Being an inoffensive airhead with no real opinions is part of the appeal.

Where did these so-called evangelicals suddenly come from and when did they get so much power? They couldn't touch us in the 70s. Even in the 60s. (John Lennon's "Beatles are bigger than Jesus" flap notwithstanding).  It wasn't until 1981 that they started analyzing rock music lyrics and playing records backwards and coming up with all sorts of inaccurate interpretations. Jim and Tammy Bakker started all this interpreting of records on their TV show in 1981 (and we saw how ingloriously HE fell from grace). I had to laugh when they "warned" us in 1981 how "Stairway to Heaven" was "Satanic" and "dangerous to our youth". A song that came out ten years before! They were a little late to the party, wouldn't you say? They even said "Hotel California" was Satanic! The 80s is when all this nonsense started and it grew from there. In the 70s these people were pooh-poohed, written off as fanatics, and now all of a sudden it's like their word is law. It's like they want to make sure the 60s and 70s never happen again, a time of great progressiveness and enlightenment in many ways.


When I was writing my earlier comment on this thread, the lyric "We haven't had that spirit here since 1969" popped into my head. Funny you should mention "Hotel California."

We have to bring back emo or something else as edgy if we want to make music great again. Start to question the increasingly neoliberal neoconservative culture we're beginning to have that's making our aesthetic look ancient and our music sterile.

We have to bring back emo or something else as edgy if we want to make music great again. Start to question the increasingly neoliberal neoconservative culture we're beginning to have that's making our aesthetic look ancient and our music sterile.


What if you're neoliberal, what music should you listen to? :P I can only barely tolerate all the anarchist metal and metalcore that's been coming out in 2017. ;D

What if you're neoliberal, what music should you listen to? :P I can only barely tolerate all the anarchist metal and metalcore that's been coming out in 2017. ;D

Anything that makes money. We need to make music about the aesthetic or the message.

What if you're neoliberal, what music should you listen to? :P I can only barely tolerate all the anarchist metal and metalcore that's been coming out in 2017. ;D


Music will stop sucking once it starts blowing.....

Anything that makes money. We need to make music about the aesthetic or the message.


What do you think of all the anarchist metal(core) that's come out the last year?

This one is straight up American anarchist socialist

eH6tqXQNWUA

This one is Australian eco-anarchist. I just heard it today, it's a bit on the nose. ;D

eH6tqXQNWUA

What do you think of all the anarchist metal(core) that's come out the last year?

This one is straight up American anarchist socialist

eH6tqXQNWUA

This one is Australian eco-anarchist. I just heard it today, it's a bit on the nose. ;D

eH6tqXQNWUA

I hope they offer download links to Google Play Music. I just need spare time, and for some reason I'm getting the same song twice on mobile; it might fix itself in time, but I can't guarantee it.

What do you think of all the anarchist metal(core) that's come out the last year?

This one is straight up American anarchist socialist

eH6tqXQNWUA

This one is Australian eco-anarchist. I just heard it today, it's a bit on the nose. ;D

eH6tqXQNWUA


I don't understand the difference? It's the same music video.

We have to bring back emo or something else as edgy if we want to make music great again. Start to question the increasingly neoliberal neoconservative culture we're beginning to have that's making our aesthetic look ancient and our music sterile.


If you want to blow the general population away, come up with something fresh...
A fresh new sound that maybe combines popular subgenres of rock with, say, electronic or jazz. Make the message(s) profound and engaging, socially conscious, etc. Eg: the plight of the working poor, war, etc.
It shouldn't be a resurgence of interest in "emo" or "grunge" or "thrash metal", it should be something new entirely IMO.

I hope they offer download links to Google Play Music. I just need spare time, and for some reason I'm getting the same song twice on mobile; it might fix itself in time, but I can't guarantee it.


I don't understand the difference? It's the same music video.


Whoops! My bad. This is the video I meant to link.

Mn1YhWfY_L4

If you want to blow the general population away, come up with something fresh...
A fresh new sound that maybe combines popular subgenres of rock with, say, electronic or jazz. Make the message(s) profound and engaging, socially conscious, etc. Eg: the plight of the working poor, war, etc.
It shouldn't be a resurgence of interest in "emo" or "grunge" or "thrash metal", it should be something new entirely IMO.


I think this is the recipe. Something new is needed that captures some emerging spirit of the times, so to speak, in its sound and meaning. It can draw inspiration from styles of the past but it has to be novel.

Music hasn't been this bad in a long time. 2017 is actually considerably worse than 2016 in terms of mainstream music. But I don't know when it will stop sucking, I listen to more underground music than the mainstream stuff.

Latin pop is slowly rising.
If that's not your thing, I understand.
I too want this trap-rap-and-teen-pop phase to end. I'm not convinced it will last forever. People aren't THAT crazy.

I don't think there is enough evidence to say latin pop is slowly rising. It could just be a 2017 fad like disco was in 2013. There are only two or three songs of latin music on the charts and that can go away in 2018.

The musical dark age will last 700 years, like the real Dark Ages.  :-X  :-X  :-X  :(  :(

The musical dark age will last 700 years, like the real Dark Ages.  :-X  :-X  :-X  :(  :(

I wouldn't be surprised. Imagine if in the year 2700 people would actually like listening to mainstream music.  :o

I wouldn't be surprised. Imagine if in the year 2700 people would actually like listening to mainstream music.  :o


Music was so good from 1955 to 2000.

How about music like this? (Jazz Fusion Hard Rock/Metal)

dv1ypynSLzY

Music was so good from 1955 to 2000.


and after 2000, it went downhill.

music will stop sucking is the day when musicians and artists starting putting out good music that contain real instruments from way back in the day.

If you want to blow the general population away, come up with something fresh...
A fresh new sound that maybe combines popular subgenres of rock with, say, electronic or jazz. Make the message(s) profound and engaging, socially conscious, etc. Eg: the plight of the working poor, war, etc.
It shouldn't be a resurgence of interest in "emo" or "grunge" or "thrash metal", it should be something new entirely IMO.

It should sound good as well. Arguably, some of the songs from the 2010s sound radically different from the past, but they sounded mediocre; an example of this in my opinion is some of Imagine Dragons' songs.

How about music like this? (Jazz Fusion Hard Rock/Metal)


Not bad! A 7 minute song probably won't get any radio play though.  ;D

I love the song Feels by Calvin Harris/Pharrell Williams/Katy Perry.

When the powers that be wake up!  :P

Spotify in 2017 is mandatory.  Not having it is like not having Netflix. :P

Spotify in 2017 is mandatory.  Not having it is like not having Netflix. :P

I don't have Spotify or Netflix. I never had them and I never will.

I don't have Spotify or Netflix. I never had them and I never will.


How do you Netflix and chill without Netflix? :o

Also, why don't you want Spotify? I thought you'd be one of the more open-minded people about that on this board ;D

How do you Netflix and chill without Netflix? :o

Also, why don't you want Spotify? I thought you'd be one of the more open-minded people about that on this board ;D

Netflix and Spotify were never worth the price for me. I never felt the need to have them. I find it a waste of money when there are cheaper ways to get music and movies without a subscription. I am not a fan of subscription-based services as I like to pick and choose what I want and pay for it then, not on a monthly basis.

When the powers that be wake up!  :P


and make good music like they did during the early 80's.

Spotify in 2017 is mandatory.  Not having it is like not having Netflix. :P


I listen to Spotify once in a while.

I don't have Spotify or Netflix. I never had them and I never will.



Why not?

I don't have Spotify or Netflix. I never had them and I never will.

Good move. You can't keep the content you pay for on a monthly basis with them, anyway.


I only plan to reopen my Netflix account to watch this cartoon from the 2000s.

Spotify in 2017 is mandatory.  Not having it is like not having Netflix. :P

Spotify and Netflix are extortionate if you have bad internet or capped internet, and you can't guarantee that the stuff you pay for will be available forever even if you can store them offline (which will just be cached and can't be accessed via a file explorer like with digital downloads since last decade when that's how you could access films and music, from legitimate sources or otherwise); what if, for instance, you had to miss out on a payment?

People in developing countries have to miss out on this and resort to the old school way of CD and DVDs, tapes or digital downloads.

People in developing countries have to miss out on this and resort to the old school way of CD and DVDs, tapes or digital downloads.

I still don't believe digital downloads are old school yet and I don't believe streaming will replace it. It is always more convenient having stuff without needing an internet connection, even if the internet is ubiquitous these days.

I still don't believe digital downloads are old school yet and I don't believe streaming will replace it. It is always more convenient having stuff without needing an internet connection, even if the internet is ubiquitous these days.

Our access to content will be further compromised if they kill off net neutrality. Now is a bad time to go streaming-only. I'm already pissed by how the content is not yours forever because of not only the whims of the content owners, but also the service providers, whose priorities may be out of sync with ours who are still struggling to find stuff from earlier on in the information age.

Our access to content will be further compromised if they kill off net neutrality. Now is a bad time to go streaming-only. I'm already pissed by how the content is not yours forever because of not only the whims of the content owners, but also the service providers, whose priorities may be out of sync with ours who are still struggling to find stuff from earlier on in the information age.


Bingo! With streaming you get basically what they want you to have and nothing more. What if your taste is more esoteric than that and you are dying to hear a song that was the B side of a rare old 45 or something? You can always manage to track down the 45 whether via Ebay or searching in used stores, etc (and sometimes the search is half the fun!), but it's not likely such a song would show up on streaming services. Its amazing to me how so many people just settle for what is spoon fed to them. It's the same with apps. Sometimes it's better to free search on Google or whatever for what you want than just use the app, which patterns you into doing certain things like rats in a maze. People have to wake up and realize convenience isn't everything.

Good move. You can't keep the content you pay for on a monthly basis with them, anyway.


I only plan to reopen my Netflix account to watch this cartoon from the 2000s.


My Father And I have Netflix.

Netflix and Spotify were never worth the price for me. I never felt the need to have them. I find it a waste of money when there are cheaper ways to get music and movies without a subscription. I am not a fan of subscription-based services as I like to pick and choose what I want and pay for it then, not on a monthly basis.


I don't really use Netflix either since I don't watch much tv, but you can use Spotify for free, that's why I've done. I discover a ton of music through Spotify, it's awesome.


Bingo! With streaming you get basically what they want you to have and nothing more. What if your taste is more esoteric than that and you are dying to hear a song that was the B side of a rare old 45 or something? You can always manage to track down the 45 whether via Ebay or searching in used stores, etc (and sometimes the search is half the fun!), but it's not likely such a song would show up on streaming services. Its amazing to me how so many people just settle for what is spoon fed to them. It's the same with apps. Sometimes it's better to free search on Google or whatever for what you want than just use the app, which patterns you into doing certain things like rats in a maze. People have to wake up and realize convenience isn't everything.


Spotify actually has quite a lot of obscure old songs, I'm listening to a 1932 song right now that I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't know, 30s-50s Jazz is some of my favorite stuff to listen to, and Spotify has plenty of it.

I don't really use Netflix either since I don't watch much tv, but you can use Spotify for free, that's why I've done. I discover a ton of music through Spotify, it's awesome.

Spotify actually has quite a lot of obscure old songs, I'm listening to a 1932 song right now that I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't know, 30s-50s Jazz is some of my favorite stuff to listen to, and Spotify has plenty of it.

The age of the content doesn't matter as much as the availability and the guaranteed accessibility of the content for the entire time the user can access the service does.


I'm worried that this soundtrack for a children's TV show will get taken down; there's already no way to watch that show through legal means unless you buy physical copies online, which will also become unavailable.

I don't really use Netflix either since I don't watch much tv, but you can use Spotify for free, that's why I've done. I discover a ton of music through Spotify, it's awesome.

You can't use Spotify for free. It's a paid subscription service like Netflix.

You can't use Spotify for free. It's a paid subscription service like Netflix.


I use Spotify for free. I think the only difference between free Spotify and paid Spotify is that free Spotify has commercials.

You can't use Spotify for free. It's a paid subscription service like Netflix.


There's a free ad-supported version of it. I heard it sucks on mobile though, because they don't let you pick specific tracks,, only to shuffle albums and playlists.

Netflix and Spotify were never worth the price for me. I never felt the need to have them. I find it a waste of money when there are cheaper ways to get music and movies without a subscription. I am not a fan of subscription-based services as I like to pick and choose what I want and pay for it then, not on a monthly basis.


There are cheaper ways to get music/movies than Spotify or Netflix? Do these perchance involve going on a particular Swedish website? ;D :P


Good move. You can't keep the content you pay for on a monthly basis with them, anyway.


I only plan to reopen my Netflix account to watch this cartoon from the 2000s.


I never had a huge obsession with keeping movies. Even before Netflix, I rented my VHS and DVDs, so collecting movies was never a thing for me. $10/mo is a lot lower than what I was otherwise paying when those video stores were still in business. Netflix also has a great library of TV shows, it's not only movies.

When it comes to music, I would say I discover about ~100-150 new songs a month that I like on Spotify. If I paid $1 (actually $1.30 over here) for all those songs, it would be $100/mo. The $3/mo (family plan, $15/mo split between 5 people) I pay right now is a huge saving. For that remaining $97, I could buy any albums or singles if they weren't available, like I did with Beyonce's Lemonade. You can upload your own songs that are on your computer to Spotify, and it syncs with all your devices*. I think it's a steal! Although, like Voiceofthe70s said, there's a free tier you can use too. The main draw of Spotify for me is the music discovery, and that stuff's free.

*Do you know how I was dying for a service like that in the earlier part of this decade? Instead of plugging my phone into my computer all the time just to add one or two songs! Then running into problems with the USB, then making sure it all properly assorted into one album, then making sure the album art was imported correctly etc. What a headache ;D

There's a free ad-supported version of it. I heard it sucks on mobile though, because they don't let you pick specific tracks,, only to shuffle albums and playlists.


I've only used the free Spotify (I would never pay for it) and I've only used it on desktop and on tablet, but it lets me pick whatever I want. Who knows for how long though? Streaming is so unpredictable and ephemeral, they could change everything right out from under us tomorrow. That's why I prefer ownership.

There are cheaper ways to get music/movies than Spotify or Netflix? Do these perchance involve going on a particular Swedish website? ;D :P

I never had a huge obsession with keeping movies. Even before Netflix, I rented my VHS and DVDs, so collecting movies was never a thing for me. $10/mo is a lot lower than what I was otherwise paying when those video stores were still in business. Netflix also has a great library of TV shows, it's not only movies.

When it comes to music, I would say I discover about ~100-150 new songs a month that I like on Spotify. If I paid $1 (actually $1.30 over here) for all those songs, it would be $100/mo. The $3/mo (family plan, $15/mo split between 5 people) I pay right now is a huge saving. For that remaining $97, I could buy any albums or singles if they weren't available, like I did with Beyonce's Lemonade. You can upload your own songs that are on your computer to Spotify, and it syncs with all your devices*. I think it's a steal! Although, like Voiceofthe70s said, there's a free tier you can use too. The main draw of Spotify for me is the music discovery, and that stuff's free.

*Do you know how I was dying for a service like that in the earlier part of this decade? Instead of plugging my phone into my computer all the time just to add one or two songs! Then running into problems with the USB, then making sure it all properly assorted into one album, then making sure the album art was imported correctly etc. What a headache ;D

All you need these days for correct album art is a connection. I just can't stand not being able to keep my music. I'd be willing to pay more for a service that allows me to store music locally into my computer and use a file manager to access these files. Sadly, the big guys and even some small guys want to kill off offline downloads as long as people can upload them online for someone else to download again for free.

Oh I didn't know there was a free version of Spotify. But I still wouldn't use it, streaming is not my thing.  :P

There are cheaper ways to get music/movies than Spotify or Netflix? Do these perchance involve going on a particular Swedish website? ;D :P

Haha no it is actually cheaper in the long run to buy a movie/song and keep it forever rather than stream it. Plus you have to factor the streaming costs as well.

Haha no it is actually cheaper in the long run to buy a movie/song and keep it forever rather than stream it. Plus you have to factor the streaming costs as well.

That's why they believe online downloads should be phased out as it makes them more money in the long term (constant stream of income for each time content is played as opposed to a single payment for a song that can be played for an infinite amount of times for free), although most of the money you're paying may be for internet access.

2050. http://www.kanyetothe.com/forum/Smileys/default/HWaQd6Z.png http://www.kanyetothe.com/forum/Smileys/default/HWaQd6Z.png http://www.kanyetothe.com/forum/Smileys/default/HWaQd6Z.png

I've only used the free Spotify (I would never pay for it) and I've only used it on desktop and on tablet, but it lets me pick whatever I want. Who knows for how long though? Streaming is so unpredictable and ephemeral, they could change everything right out from under us tomorrow. That's why I prefer ownership.


I don't think they would change it. They could lose business to their competitors.


All you need these days for correct album art is a connection. I just can't stand not being able to keep my music. I'd be willing to pay more for a service that allows me to store music locally into my computer and use a file manager to access these files. Sadly, the big guys and even some small guys want to kill off offline downloads as long as people can upload them online for someone else to download again for free.


I was talking about 2010-2013, back when iPhone still required iTunes, and Android needed local music files to be in an arranged folder structure (and there was no way to send folders to it remotely except using AirDroid, which wasn't the easiest thing to set up).

Google Play Music has what you're looking for. They let you upload 50,000 of your own songs for free and it syncs across all your devices. It came out in 2014, I wish that existed 2010-2013. ;D


Haha no it is actually cheaper in the long run to buy a movie/song and keep it forever rather than stream it. Plus you have to factor the streaming costs as well.


How much do you pay for music a month? :o

By cost of streaming, do you mean Internet? I have unlimited data for $29/mo :P I have unlimited bandwidth too. I think it costs us $100/mo but this includes cable and home phone.


That's why they believe online downloads should be phased out as it makes them more money in the long term (constant stream of income for each time content is played as opposed to a single payment for a song that can be played for an infinite amount of times for free), although most of the money you're paying may be for internet access.


They're pushing streaming because it's killing their main competitor (piracy). I think digital download makes more money for record companies than streaming. I think Spotify pays companies 0.4 cents per stream. You'd need to stream a song 250 times for them to pay out the $1 to the company that you would've paid if you digitally downloaded it.

I don't think they would change it. They could lose business to their competitors.

I was talking about 2010-2013, back when iPhone still required iTunes, and Android needed local music files to be in an arranged folder structure (and there was no way to send folders to it remotely except using AirDroid, which wasn't the easiest thing to set up).

Google Play Music has what you're looking for. They let you upload 50,000 of your own songs for free and it syncs across all your devices. It came out in 2014, I wish that existed 2010-2013. ;D

How much do you pay for music a month? :o

By cost of streaming, do you mean Internet? I have unlimited data for $29/mo :P I have unlimited bandwidth too. I think it costs us $100/mo but this includes cable and home phone.

They're pushing streaming because it's killing their main competitor (piracy). I think digital download makes more money for record companies than streaming. I think Spotify pays companies 0.4 cents per stream. You'd need to stream a song 250 times for them to pay out the $1 to the company that you would've paid if you digitally downloaded it.

And everyone loses except the Internet service providers if the content owners decide to take down their music from streaming services.

In an extreme case, the ISPs will lose because people will get fed up of not being able to access the content they want, which would make them resort to piracy and get the ISPs sued, and the cycle then continues as people find ways to get around piracy blocks.

I don't really use Netflix either since I don't watch much tv, but you can use Spotify for free, that's why I've done. I discover a ton of music through Spotify, it's awesome.

Spotify actually has quite a lot of obscure old songs, I'm listening to a 1932 song right now that I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't know, 30s-50s Jazz is some of my favorite stuff to listen to, and Spotify has plenty of it.


I have Spotify Free.

You can't use Spotify for free. It's a paid subscription service like Netflix.


I have Spotify Free and never have to pay a single dime.

Oh I didn't know there was a free version of Spotify. But I still wouldn't use it, streaming is not my thing.  :P


Why not?

Music was so good from 1955 to 2000.


Music was good in the 2000s, too. You just had to dig just a little bit deeper.

Netflix and Spotify were never worth the price for me. I never felt the need to have them. I find it a waste of money when there are cheaper ways to get music and movies without a subscription. I am not a fan of subscription-based services as I like to pick and choose what I want and pay for it then, not on a monthly basis.


Spotify makes it incredibly easy to find awesome lesser known artists. I truly believe you're missing out.

Spotify makes it incredibly easy to find awesome lesser known artists. I truly believe you're missing out.

What if they start to take down their own music, because they wanted to, or as of right now, because of piracy?

I've only used the free Spotify (I would never pay for it) and I've only used it on desktop and on tablet, but it lets me pick whatever I want. Who knows for how long though? Streaming is so unpredictable and ephemeral, they could change everything right out from under us tomorrow. That's why I prefer ownership.


Why not...both?

My new favorite band, Vinyl Williams does subscriptions through bandcamp where I pay 3 or more dollars a month and I get access to all his music including the option to download all his songs, plus, he also shares the music he's in the process of working on. Maybe this is the future?

What if they start to take down their own music, because they wanted to, or as of right now, because of piracy?


Then I guess your choices are either buying their music or stealing.

If they want to go farther and eliminate all traces of their music's existance, then screw em.

Then I guess your choices are either buying their music or stealing.

If they want to go farther and eliminate all traces of their music's existance, then screw em.

Using someone's Apple TV, a little more pissed off that you can only watch two of the seven seasons of Winx Club, one of three of the films from the same franchise and only the movie for Phineas and Ferb. Teen Titans was also nowhere to be seen. Suck it to Netflix.

I have Spotify Free and never have to pay a single dime.


Same with me. I never pay for it.

Yeah I also use Spotify free on my laptop. One cool feature is you can control it from your smartphone, so what I do at home is I have my bluetooth wireless headphones connected to my laptop and control what's playing with my iPhone. I can listen to what I want and have full control of what's playing anywhere within my home. So at home I don't have to worry about the free version limitation of being shuffle play only. In the car shuffle is fine because I need to pay attention to the road and not the phone. I've thought of paying but really looking at my use it's just not worth it. I guess sometimes when walking or exercising it would be nice to be able to select whatever song I want, but still shuffle is acceptable enough for those situations.

I wonder why Spotify Free acts one way on a desktop or tablet (ie one can listen to whatever one wants) and another on a mobile (ie shuffle play only)? Just another example of the vagaries and inconsistencies of streaming! You are at their mercy.

I wonder why Spotify Free acts one way on a desktop or tablet (ie one can listen to whatever one wants) and another on a mobile (ie shuffle play only)? Just another example of the vagaries and inconsistencies of streaming! You are at their mercy.


It's all about money of course...restricting free smartphone streaming to shuffle only acts as the main incentive for people to pay the $9.99 a month for premium.

When George W. Bush went into office, music sucked! Just kidding!  :-X

I wonder why Spotify Free acts one way on a desktop or tablet (ie one can listen to whatever one wants) and another on a mobile (ie shuffle play only)? Just another example of the vagaries and inconsistencies of streaming! You are at their mercy.


You're only at their mercy as much as you allow. It's not even like you are an employee and you have to choose between your job and uprooting your stability to find another job. It's just a program to find music easily. Just about every artist on there sells physical copies of their music.

I think most of the hate against streaming is due to it being something new that got popular without your consent. I've found so much more new music through the streaming services than I ever have before and I don't want to go back.

Spotify makes it incredibly easy to find awesome lesser known artists. I truly believe you're missing out.


and plus Spotify also keeps track of the music you listen to and creates a mix just for you.

Spotify makes it incredibly easy to find awesome lesser known artists. I truly believe you're missing out.

YouTube is good enough for me to find good lesser-known artists.

oVME_l4IwII

Screw you, consumer psychology! You were helpful then, but now you're not: https://youtu.be/oVME_l4IwII


I think that the downfall of music can be attributed to record labels attempting to monopolize their sound in a defense against piracy. That's not the way to do it. Nor is taking down music that gets pirated also the way to do it.


I commented on here about how I found the Beatles old and boring, and if Avril Lavigne and Taylor Swift had the same songwriters with derivative styles, how come I like "Girlfriend" but not "Shake It Off"?

I really like that song Slow Hands!  :P

Screw you, consumer psychology! You were helpful then, but now you're not: https://youtu.be/oVME_l4IwII


I think that the downfall of music can be attributed to record labels attempting to monopolize their sound in a defense against piracy. That's not the way to do it. Nor is taking down music that gets pirated also the way to do it.


I commented on here about how I found the Beatles old and boring, and if Avril Lavigne and Taylor Swift had the same songwriters with derivative styles, how come I like "Girlfriend" but not "Shake It Off"?


maybe it's also because there's no energy in the music anymore.

Music will stop sucking once it starts blowing.....


iHYpFaWkDlM

RIP The Pirate Movie 1982-2015 (Remixed In Puppies)

oVME_l4IwII


I couldn't disagree more with 17:58-18:12 but the rest is interesting.

iHYpFaWkDlM

RIP The Pirate Movie 1982-2015 (Remixed In Puppies)


Kinda homoerotic, the song and images.  :P

YouTube is good enough for me to find good lesser-known artists.


Alright. If it's enough for you.