Album Rating: 5.0
lol
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Eh, it's probably a 5. I'm just a stingy ass...
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
"if Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd existed in modern times, they would be a niche band probably no more popular than like Muse or Foals or something"
lmao what
what difference does it make WHEN they came out, someone can still listen to those bands for the first time NOW and think highly of them, just because fucking foals came out more recently doesnt mean theres some part of one's brain that gives extra credence to the fact the music came out more recently
ur a good dude talons but just no
good art transcends time and space, art 101 mate
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Chuck that’s obviously not what he means, what he’s saying is that those bands if first entering the scene today wouldn’t be as widely listened and enjoyed as they were at the time. As he said though, it’s kind of a moot point but the fact is that there are very few artists these days who have both widespread popularity and universal critical acclaim like many bands did in the 60s and 70s. That’s not necessarily because the music was better back then but just because the nature of music consultion was different back then.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
i disagree as there arent any modern examples that compare to say peak floyd or zeppelin, fine theory but i dont agree at all
using muse and foals as examples doesnt help support the argument very well, but then again i allow you to choose any band
the only band the last 20ish years that put out as much consistently good music was probably radiohead and yeah they were/are fucking huge
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
the world's changed - anything on terrestrial British TV was hugely popular among the populace of the UK when I was growing up because...there was little to no choice! Then satellite TV arrived, cable TV, the internet, broadband, etc. Suddenly not everyone in the country is watching the same show at 9pm on Saturday night.
Music was similar to how cinema still is, you had the big releases - the big bands, near enough everyone listened to them - or at least knew of them and heard them on the TV or radio. The underground was hard to get massively into without a huge amount of effort and word of mouth connections. You couldn't just download Comus, or Doc Corbin Dart, or the equivalent of something as off the radar as Swarms or whatever, pick your sput favourite.
So a Led Zeppelin arriving today would 100% not have the same impact as any huge band in the '60s-90s. It just doesn't work like that anymore.
Choice and access have diluted the impact, the excitement of buying that ONE NEW ALBUM you were going to spin for two or three months. Even CDs cost the equivalent of £30 (35-40 dollars?) now back in the mid '90s
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Here’s the thing though, chuck.
You can’t guarantee to me that you would feel the same way about Floyd or Zep if they were putting out their classic stuff today. You just can’t. That’s not to say you wouldn’t, though.
Again, it’s a different musical environment today. The insane amount of stuff being released and the much greater variety of styles and the ease of accessing it all have decreased our attention span for any individual artist as well as the ability of any single artist to completely dominate the public attention. Not to mention that every individual artist releases music way more frequently back then so I’m not sure the fact that they released more high quality music actually sets them apart from the best current artists either. Plus it’s just your bias that there are no bands as consistently great as the guys of the 60s/70s were - I highly disagree with that statement.
The point is not that there hasn’t been anything as good as OK Computer or Dark Side of the Moon in the last two decades but that nothing has quite been as hugely monumental in its combination of both critical and public praise since then. That’s product not of the quality of the music but rather of the musical landscape.
You’re just making yourself sound like a hopeless dad rocker.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
heres the thing T B K TBH, you condensing tone speaking fuckin loser
i wasnt born such that i heard the music when it first came out yet love it anyway so your argument fails
i wasnt born when davinci was painting the sistine chapel but can still appreciate it so your argument fails
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
You’re just making yourself sound like a hopeless child without any sense of logic
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
"So a Led Zeppelin arriving today would 100% not have the same impact as any huge band in the '60s-90s. It just doesn't work like that anymore."
theres a difference between a band putting out great music and becoming an international force like peak zeppelin and "being a niche band" like talons said which is what the argument is about
again, radiohead denies that claim
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
chuck, your argument isn't really an argument, it doesn't even stand up as hypothetical - could a band release a 'Dark Side of the Moon' now?
No - the whole nature of that album is it's a product of its time.
No one would paint the Sistine chapel today...and if they did the context would transform it into something different
I maintain - a band releasing something as perfect as Dark Side will still not create the impact (esp lasting impact) that album made in its own time becase things are so fundamentally different today. Thjs is why Ok Computer neatly became something of a full stop on the 'traditional important 'proper' album'.
There hasn't been another one because the potential quality of music isn't out there - it's because the audience, the world, has changed totally.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
if you guys were correct radiohead would be a "niche" band
keep trying though
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
if davinci painted the sistine chapel today hed be a niche painter
must be tuesday morning debates with absolute tards on sputnikmusic.com
im out
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Radiohead in 2018 are pretty niche compared to Michael Jackson in 1986, or Guns n' Roses in 1988, or Nirvana in 1992, or Oasis in 1995, or Radiohead in 1998
Your 'kid in the street' doesn't give a monkeys about the last three Radiohead albums...probably not the last five.
Why aren't QOTSA, Arcade Fire, Modest Mouse and The National as big as Guns n' Roses, R.E.M, U2 or Nirvana? They hit peak popularity in the 00s instead of the 80s/90s - that simple.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
I'm saying davinci would be up against Tracey Emin's 'My Bed' or a Banksy, and it would be put in the context of:
'COMMENT 32,417: User 'ArtLuvvaMan101 - also, this dude did this, think it took him a long time. Not sure 'bout it, religion sucks anywho'.
The impact and appreciation isn't the same
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
i wasnt born such that i heard the music when it first came out yet love it anyway so your argument fails
That's not incompatible with my argument at all, in fact I even addressed that very point. The point has nothing to do with how any individual, in the 2010s or in the 70s, feels about the music in question but rather with how the music is accepted and appreciated by the culture as a whole. In fact even Radiohead themselves are pushing it somewhat as even an album like OK Computer doesn't have the same universal name brand as something like DSOTM or The Wall of Led Zep IV (or at least Stairway to Heaven). There's nothing wrong with enjoying that music but it's pretty objectively true that music made today doesn't have quite the same widespread cultural impact. Even modern albums by Taylor Swift or Beyonce or Kendrick or whomever do not and arguably cannot have the same impact or ubiquity. This has nothing to do with quality. That's just not really how music consumption works anymore.
I'm sorry for being a "condensing tone speaking fuckin loser" but the point seems self-evident to me and it's frustrating when you come to the rabid defense of bands whom I'm not in any way insulting or trying to negate. Again, the belief that they would not be as big if released today is not because I think they aren't good but because the landscape is fundamentally different in 2018. than it was in 1970.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.3
nothin like a bad thread to start the day
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Nostalgic about the days when I had to hear an album until I liked it, because I had spent $20 on it.
Now if I don't like an album the first time, I move on to something else. I may suspect its qualities would appear over time, but aint nobody got time for dat.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
chuck Doof's got it right too and I said it before that it's something of a moot point because the artists/albums in question were products of their time...but again that only goes to further my point, not contradict it.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
protip - if you use anything doof has to say as justification for your argument 10/10 your argument is (pretty) O B J E C T I V E L Y shit
|
| |
|
|
