This place does have a Soul!

[android]

Music from the past is hugely influential on the music we hear today gee there is no shortage of songs coming out now which contains a sample of a previous song. Some people may call this admiration I call it a lack of originality.

[tdc2000]

Rock music has been declared "dead" many times before (disco era, post-Thriller MTV, 1990) only to roar back yet again. Perhaps it is due for another rise in the new 10s decade. If not, as John pointed out, classic rock is the gift that keeps giving (and earning tons of bucks on the tour circuit every year!).

And, yes, I am just an old nostalgic fan lamenting "days gone by".

Memo to Pop fans of today-- it'll happen to you too. Just wait.

[neoepzilon]

This thread isn't pointless. I just don't think that you have to bash other artists and entire genres to prove that you miss another genre that has drastically faded from the mainstream.

Even a year ago you had a point, this year it's changed enough. Fun and Gotye have both just come off #1 singles, Coldplay, Black Keys and Mumford And Sons have all had a lot of commercial success and Foo Fighters just won a lot of Grammys. Rock is arguably on its way back up in the mainstream after some really bad years.

Mainstream rock just went in a faceless lull for a number of years largely because rock radio kept pushing nu-metal down our throats for over ten years, it's lately been coming out of that with alternative rock returning to the charts. The Black Keys, Mumford And Sons, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Gotye and Fun would all have to disagree with your "rock is dead" mentality. When two of the most recent US #1 singles had their start on rock radio, saying that rock music is dead is an overreaching statement.

I appreciate your passion, but Pop Rock and Alternative bands pale in comparison to the rock artists of the 60s and 70s as the OP mentioned.

I never said rock is dead, I just said it has faded from the mainstream.

[NothingFails]

After all, you lot banned that person who was obsessed with the Sugababe, why not get rid of a few more stans?

Another problem is rather that most people on this site do not seem (to me) to have any will to go and find out about more music than what Radio 1 / TV channels feed down their throats. I can maybe accept that someone prefers Gaga to Zeppelin (and Desperate Housewives to Hitchcock and Jordan's biography to Shakespeare), if the person has listened to a few Zepp songs and makes a compeling argument as to why "Ra-ra-oh-la-la" etc beats a song like Kashmir. I don't think any of the current stans does though

Regarding the first point, he was banned for other reasons. His obsession with Heidi Range was quite creepy though!

In regards to the second point, unless there is a discussion about A vs. B, or a game pitting the likes of GaGa vs Zeppelin, then I don't think anybody on this site should have to listen to anything they don't want to. Most of the stans here (annoying as some of them may be), stick to their own artist's thread and probably never enter other sub-forums, so I don't see why they should need to venture out if they don't want to.

IMO there's nothing wrong with checking out music that isn't in your comfort zone. Many times you'll find crap but sometimes you'll find jewels as well. I firmly believe every artist has at least one good song in them, even people like Bieber

[NothingFails]

And, yes, I am just an old nostalgic fan lamenting "days gone by".

Memo to Pop fans of today-- it'll happen to you too. Just wait.

So true. Sinatra's fans did this when Elvis hit. Elvis' fans did this when The Beatles hit. The Beatles' fans did this when Led Zeppelin hit. And so on and so on and so on... and Rihanna fans will do this when someone newer hits, and then that artist's fans... it's a never ending cycle.

[NothingFails]

This thread isn't pointless. I just don't think that you have to bash other artists and entire genres to prove that you miss another genre that has drastically faded from the mainstream.

Even a year ago you had a point, this year it's changed enough. Fun and Gotye have both just come off #1 singles, Coldplay, Black Keys and Mumford And Sons have all had a lot of commercial success and Foo Fighters just won a lot of Grammys. Rock is arguably on its way back up in the mainstream after some really bad years.

Mainstream rock just went in a faceless lull for a number of years largely because rock radio kept pushing nu-metal down our throats for over ten years, it's lately been coming out of that with alternative rock returning to the charts. The Black Keys, Mumford And Sons, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Gotye and Fun would all have to disagree with your "rock is dead" mentality. When two of the most recent US #1 singles had their start on rock radio, saying that rock music is dead is an overreaching statement.

I appreciate your passion, but Pop Rock and Alternative bands pale in comparison to the rock artists of the 60s and 70s as the OP mentioned.

I never said rock is dead, I just said it has faded from the mainstream.

But the argument is that rock is arguably making a comeback to the mainstream at the present moment. We have to go back to sometime in the 1980's if not earlier to find a time where a "rock" song knocks another out of the US top spot, which is what Gotye just did to Fun (I know neither artist is exactly Nirvana, but rock stations have embraced their singles and they were both getting alternative airplay before pop started playing them). Rock has had some rough years in the recent past but I think 2012 so far has been a really good year for rock in the mainstream and I believe it is on its way back up the ladder after a horrible 2000's decade loaded with nu-metal and emo bands.

[neoepzilon]

This thread isn't pointless. I just don't think that you have to bash other artists and entire genres to prove that you miss another genre that has drastically faded from the mainstream.

Even a year ago you had a point, this year it's changed enough. Fun and Gotye have both just come off #1 singles, Coldplay, Black Keys and Mumford And Sons have all had a lot of commercial success and Foo Fighters just won a lot of Grammys. Rock is arguably on its way back up in the mainstream after some really bad years.

Mainstream rock just went in a faceless lull for a number of years largely because rock radio kept pushing nu-metal down our throats for over ten years, it's lately been coming out of that with alternative rock returning to the charts. The Black Keys, Mumford And Sons, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Gotye and Fun would all have to disagree with your "rock is dead" mentality. When two of the most recent US #1 singles had their start on rock radio, saying that rock music is dead is an overreaching statement.

I appreciate your passion, but Pop Rock and Alternative bands pale in comparison to the rock artists of the 60s and 70s as the OP mentioned.

I never said rock is dead, I just said it has faded from the mainstream.

But the argument is that rock is arguably making a comeback to the mainstream at the present moment.

Okay I had no idea that you changed the topic of this thread.

[NothingFails]

This thread isn't pointless. I just don't think that you have to bash other artists and entire genres to prove that you miss another genre that has drastically faded from the mainstream.

Even a year ago you had a point, this year it's changed enough. Fun and Gotye have both just come off #1 singles, Coldplay, Black Keys and Mumford And Sons have all had a lot of commercial success and Foo Fighters just won a lot of Grammys. Rock is arguably on its way back up in the mainstream after some really bad years.

Mainstream rock just went in a faceless lull for a number of years largely because rock radio kept pushing nu-metal down our throats for over ten years, it's lately been coming out of that with alternative rock returning to the charts. The Black Keys, Mumford And Sons, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Gotye and Fun would all have to disagree with your "rock is dead" mentality. When two of the most recent US #1 singles had their start on rock radio, saying that rock music is dead is an overreaching statement.

I appreciate your passion, but Pop Rock and Alternative bands pale in comparison to the rock artists of the 60s and 70s as the OP mentioned.

I never said rock is dead, I just said it has faded from the mainstream.

But the argument is that rock is arguably making a comeback to the mainstream at the present moment.

Okay I had no idea that you changed the topic of this thread.

You were talking about how rock fans are hung up on the past and lamenting a genre that is no longer commercially relevant. But rock is arguably more popular in the US than its been in ages.

You have a point that today's bands can't compare with Zeppelin or The Stones, but in fairness, can't the same apply to r&b or pop as well? I can't name any contemporary r&b artists who are on the same level as Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Prince or Marvin Gaye. Same with pop artists, how many are on ABBA or The Carpenters' level? Totally different eras IMO.

[toni_pest]

Is there a point to opening a thread just because you got a PM?

[neoepzilon]

You were talking about how rock fans are hung up on the past and lamenting a genre that is no longer commercially relevant. But rock is arguably more popular in the US than its been in ages.

You have a point that today's bands can't compare with Zeppelin or The Stones, but in fairness, can't the same apply to r&b or pop as well? I can't name any contemporary r&b artists who are on the same level as Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Prince or Marvin Gaye. Same with pop artists, how many are on ABBA or The Carpenters' level? Totally different eras IMO.

300%! To R&B, Yes! To pop, never. That's impossible by definition.

R&B was huge around the turn of the millenium and in the 90's. It has since faded from the mainstream. Just like Hip-Hop.

And that's O.K. We are sour, but that's how things happen. I'm sure we will see it fade, and make a slight come back in a few years, but never to it's original decade trumping glory.

When R&B fades from the mainstream completely, I certainly won't be opening a thread to complain about it. I'll simply put on my headphones and listen to the music I like.

[NothingFails]

You were talking about how rock fans are hung up on the past and lamenting a genre that is no longer commercially relevant. But rock is arguably more popular in the US than its been in ages.

You have a point that today's bands can't compare with Zeppelin or The Stones, but in fairness, can't the same apply to r&b or pop as well? I can't name any contemporary r&b artists who are on the same level as Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Prince or Marvin Gaye. Same with pop artists, how many are on ABBA or The Carpenters' level? Totally different eras IMO.

300%! To R&B, Yes! To pop, never. That's impossible by definition.

R&B was huge around the turn of the millenium and in the 90's. It has since faded from the mainstream. Just like Hip-Hop.

And that's O.K. We are sour, but that's how things happen. I'm sure we will see it fade, and make a slight come back in a few years, but never to it's original decade trumping glory.

When R&B fades from the mainstream completely, I certainly won't be opening a thread to complain about it. I'll simply put on my headphones and listen to the music I like.

Everything goes in cycles honestly with music. Today's pop, rock and r&b acts (and country and others too) should be argued on their own merits and not what the legends before them did because those icons are always going to have the upper hand since we have hindsight. No modern rock band will ever have the influence that Zeppelin and The Beatles had and no modern r&b artist will ever break open the doors Stevie and MJ did... but we gotta keep going forward, while also respecting our past and revering the icons of yesterday. Rock probably peaked in the 60's and 70's in the sense of gamechanging bands, but there are still plenty of great groups emerging on the scene today. I can see The Black Keys being a "classic rock" band in 20 years time just like Pearl Jam is today.

[FreakyFlyBry]

The discussion, while still valid, has taken on a Mad About Music kind of tone. So I'm moving the topic there.

Glad to see we, as a community, are discussing the state of music with civility Bringing out opinions like this definitely is a good thing for the forum.

[TiagoRodrigues]

i'd love this forum to have more rock/metal, etc fans...it's all about pop/dance, etc...but it's just me.

[neoepzilon]

You were talking about how rock fans are hung up on the past and lamenting a genre that is no longer commercially relevant. But rock is arguably more popular in the US than its been in ages.

You have a point that today's bands can't compare with Zeppelin or The Stones, but in fairness, can't the same apply to r&b or pop as well? I can't name any contemporary r&b artists who are on the same level as Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Prince or Marvin Gaye. Same with pop artists, how many are on ABBA or The Carpenters' level? Totally different eras IMO.

300%! To R&B, Yes! To pop, never. That's impossible by definition.

R&B was huge around the turn of the millenium and in the 90's. It has since faded from the mainstream. Just like Hip-Hop.

And that's O.K. We are sour, but that's how things happen. I'm sure we will see it fade, and make a slight come back in a few years, but never to it's original decade trumping glory.

When R&B fades from the mainstream completely, I certainly won't be opening a thread to complain about it. I'll simply put on my headphones and listen to the music I like.

Everything goes in cycles honestly with music. Today's pop, rock and r&b acts (and country and others too) should be argued on their own merits and not what the legends before them did because those icons are always going to have the upper hand since we have hindsight. No modern rock band will ever have the influence that Zeppelin and The Beatles had and no modern r&b artist will ever break open the doors Stevie and MJ did... but we gotta keep going forward, while also respecting our past and revering the icons of yesterday. Rock probably peaked in the 60's and 70's in the sense of gamechanging bands, but there are still plenty of great groups emerging on the scene today. I can see The Black Keys being a "classic rock" band in 20 years time just like Pearl Jam is today.

I agree. I think it's more about perspective, because I on the other hand will consider Linkin Park as that classic rock band of my generation. Only because in 2003, I was 13 years old and all I wanted to do is hear about how much my parents sucked and how I don't belong here.

All of their songs we're about that, so they we're everything to me.

[Virgostar]

I personally don't consider myself a fan of any artist/genre/era over any other (though I do have several obvious favourite artists/songs/etc. as does everyone), but more a music fan than anything else.

Me too. Just today I've been listening to Ed Sheeran, Lanie Lane (Aussie rockabilly/blues/country/etc artist) and Kimbra. Now all of them are from completely different genres of music and I enjoy listening to them all.

I apologise if I've ever come across as a music snob, but as I've got older, my tastes have become increasingly discerning & I guess much more indie-fied too. Doesn't mean I can't or don't enjoy the latest pop hit on the radio though - I quite enjoy Call Me Maybe! (I'd so love to sing the chorus to someone. )

[joel77m77]

You have a point that today's bands can't compare with Zeppelin or The Stones, but in fairness, can't the same apply to r&b or pop as well? I can't name any contemporary r&b artists who are on the same level as Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Prince or Marvin Gaye. Same with pop artists, how many are on ABBA or The Carpenters' level? Totally different eras IMO.

I disagree, I think we have R&B artists that have potential to be on the same level, they just need more time to reach that level as their career's are just half of the careers of the names you stated.
For example, today we still have massive R&B talent, as we have Beyonce who can sing and dance amazingly and her performing skills are frequently compared to Michael's proving she must be good at it.
Then we have Alicia Keys, who has a great singing voice but she also has an originality about her, as in she can play the piano and she writes her own songs.
Then we have have artists like Amy Whinehouse, Dionne Bromfield who have extraordinary voices.
Plus, the 4 artists I mentioned have all made real R&B music and have not deviated to the electro-pop craze giving them musical credibility as well.
I think what contemporary R&B music is lacking is male artists who are on course to being on the same level as the artists you mentioned.
But, we have R&B artists who like I said have potential to being on the same level, but their female and not male like the artists you mentioned, but still display the same talents.
But in conclusion to this post I just want to make clear that I can see why rock etc fans can be frustrated with UKmix, but I just don't like it when people generalize that today's music has no legendary artists to say as like I've explained I think we do.

[jio]

Today's stars can't compare to the ones from decades ago not because they can't dance or sing equally good or better but because they lack the talent to be their own acts. Most of them (if not all) are to a great extent (or totally) manufactured, they follow trends (and don't break them) and they look for inspiration in mimicking the past and not in doing something new. Which is not what was the case in the '80s

[joel77m77]

Today's stars can't compare to the ones from decades ago not because they can't dance or sing equally good or better but because they lack the talent to be their own acts. Most of them (if not all) are to a great extent (or totally) manufactured, they follow trends (and don't break them) and they look for inspiration in mimicking the past and not in doing something new. Which is not what was the case in the '80s

But what I said was that the artists I mentioned have potential to be on the same level, I never said they were already on the same level. It would be more fair to compare them when the artists today have had a career as long as the Legends already mentioned.

As its the famous saying of time will tell as for Beyonce's first 3 albums she din't sell out musically but the music scene was still R&B influenced, but now the music scene changed the fact that she produced an album like 4 which was her most critically acclaimed album and most R&B album proves that she wants to make good quality music rather than make music that sells, as she said herself that her thinking behind the music on 4 was that she could make music that she could listen to and sing decades later, so she's proved with 4 that she doesn't follow trends.
I can't speak for Alicia yet as her next album will tell whether she follow trends or not, but the fact that she writes her own stuff and is a musician for me makes her her own act as it sets her apart.
Plus Amy and even Rebecca Ferguson have proved that they aren't following trends as their albums are both different to the music when they released them.
But I LOVE artists like Michael, Prince and I am a stan for artists like Stevie Wonder and Tina Turner, but I just want to prove that their are artists today that have potential to be on their level.

[jio]

Mmm, if any of them had the potential to be as big as the major ones of the '70s or the '80s, at least one would have shown signs of it by now (since most of them have careers exceeding 10 years already) and the sad truth is that no one did.

Beyonce currently is a victim of R&B's decrease of popularity as you correctly said. Her last music (at least the singles) is not radically different or worse than what she has done successfully for over a decade now. Yet what she has done for the past decade is not anything non-mainstream. It is just standard R&B. She is a great dancer and a very good singer but she is not exceptional in either.

Alicia is a talented singer, pianist and composer yet when you compare her with Prince (because he was the most well-known talented singer, instrumentalist and composer in R&B in the '80s) you can clearly see how much she is not on the same level.

Rebecca Fergusson is a newcomer, far from mainstream, her music's good but that's about it for me

Amy Winehouse's value has been inflated because of her death.

I think the last people whom I thought had the potential to be something big as the big people of the 80s were Beyonce and Shakira in the early '00s, yet both of them chose to follow trends. Which is a shame. Yes I agree with you that talent is there (it always is) but everything else is lacking. A great singer and a great musical talent are two different things

[Titan3510]

Today's stars can't compare to the ones from decades ago not because they can't dance or sing equally good or better but because they lack the talent to be their own acts. Most of them (if not all) are to a great extent (or totally) manufactured, they follow trends (and don't break them) and they look for inspiration in mimicking the past and not in doing something new. Which is not what was the case in the '80s

This post.

I think people need to realize that the music industry is dying.

Just like the Classical, Baroque, and Romantic eras of music ended, we are witnessing the end of the rock 'n roll era. That's how severe it is.

The digital era has changed everything.

The ethical and moral codes of the people in Western society have also really changed a lot of things to: I mean look at America which was once the trude pioneer of all things related to music.

But nowadays, the overwhelming majority of stuff that you hear in modern music is about:
1) sex
2) partying
3) drinking
4) drugging
5) sex
6) living it up 24/7/365 AKA "it's your life"
7) partying
8) being independent
9) "doing you"
10) and more sex

Unless we start to draw more from Eastern civilizations (i.e. Arabia, Africa, Asia, etc.), I don't think the state of Western music is going to get better: it's just going to continue to get worse.

But that's just my honest to God opinion.

[Wayne]

I think that each generation has its own front runners; I said some time back that the hierarchy of music looks a little something like this in my opinion...

Elvis Presley / Frank Sinatra / Bing Crosby / The Beatles / Michael Jackson

_____


The Rolling Stones, Queen, Madonna, Pink Floyd, Stevie Wonder, U2, Roy Orbison

.

Mariah Carey, Prince, The Carpenters, Cher, Tina Turner, Barbra Streisand, Led Zeppelin, Whitney Houston, Bee Gees, Fleetwood Mac and dare I say [for fear of offending the rock fans] Celine Dion [and legends of this sort of ilk]

_____


The above list is how I recognise music - you have the five biggest stars in music history at the top, followed by the 7 acts I think are closest to them; and they are followed by more legends of music.

[NothingFails]

Today's stars can't compare to the ones from decades ago not because they can't dance or sing equally good or better but because they lack the talent to be their own acts. Most of them (if not all) are to a great extent (or totally) manufactured, they follow trends (and don't break them) and they look for inspiration in mimicking the past and not in doing something new. Which is not what was the case in the '80s

This post.

I think people need to realize that the music industry is dying.

Just like the Classical, Baroque, and Romantic eras of music ended, we are witnessing the end of the rock 'n roll era. That's how severe it is.

The digital era has changed everything.

The ethical and moral codes of the people in Western society have also really changed a lot of things to: I mean look at America which was once the trude pioneer of all things related to music.

But nowadays, the overwhelming majority of stuff that you hear in modern music is about:
1) sex
2) partying
3) drinking
4) drugging
5) sex
6) living it up 24/7/365 AKA "it's your life"
7) partying
8) being independent
9) "doing you"
10) and more sex

Unless we start to draw more from Eastern civilizations (i.e. Arabia, Africa, Asia, etc.), I don't think the state of Western music is going to get better: it's just going to continue to get worse.

But that's just my honest to God opinion.

+1. Too many artists now follow whatever formula is hot now... instead of being the trailblazers and launching the trends.

There are some great artists out there, and some of them are getting airplay. But so much in the mainstream is homogenized... right now it's electro-pop, a few years ago everyone was doing self-empowerment anthems, a few years before that everyone had a special guest rapper, before that it was Max Martin teen pop, etc... It seems like whenever the industry finds a new trend that can score hits, everyone jumps onboard until it plays out. Now it isn't to say that in the 70s and 80s we didn't have disco and new wave, but for every mainstream pop star who jumped on those bandwagons, there were plenty others who were off doing their own thing as well. People want artists who can establish their own individuality and its kinda hard to do that when everyone is adding dubstep to their latest single.

[NothingFails]

I think that each generation has its own front runners; I said some time back that the hierarchy of music looks a little something like this in my opinion...

Elvis Presley / Frank Sinatra / Bing Crosby / The Beatles / Michael Jackson

_____

The Rolling Stones, Queen, Madonna, Pink Floyd, Stevie Wonder, U2, Roy Orbison

.

Mariah Carey, Prince, The Carpenters, Cher, Tina Turner, Barbra Streisand, Led Zeppelin, Whitney Houston, Bee Gees, Fleetwood Mac and dare I say [for fear of offending the rock fans] Celine Dion [and legends of this sort of ilk]

_____

The above list is how I recognise music - you have the five biggest stars in music history at the top, followed by the 7 acts I think are closest to them; and they are followed by more legends of music.

I would put Zeppelin with the second group when you consider how massive their albums were and how they were still one of the biggest bands in the world when they broke up due to Bonham's death 11 years after their debut, considering the volume of sales and impact they made in their short time together they are definitely on par with Floyd, Queen and Stones IMO.

[Wayne]

Yeah, I think you could make a strong case for Zeppelin being in the second group and [to a lesser extent] Madonna maybe in the top group.

[neoepzilon]

Titan I will have to disagree with your comment about what most of the songs these days are about.

The 70's and 80's saw some prolific drug and sex music. It totally fueled the culture. Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Lynrd Skynrd, the Rolling Stones, The Eagles, Guns and Roses. They all made drug music that puts any of today's smoke weed and get high to shame.

They all spoke about cocaine, and that's all...I loved it!