Hit Song Science

On further thought...

Hey, Ric. What'd they teach you about endorphins at Quack School??? :wink:

Cat

There's also the baby boomer phenomenon to take into account. There are a whole hell of a lot of you classic rock guys just based on numbers alone ;)

My bet is you WILL hear rap music in 50 years. There are major players in rap that have been major influences and will probably have their music played for ages. Tupac, Biggie, Run DMC, NWA, Wu-Tang, even Eminem will probably have airplay for decades. Trust me, your parents thought that all the music YOU listened to was a fad too, and their parents before them. Also, your comment on kids dressing like "ganstas" is true. Just like you had a mullet, or the shaggy beatles hair... Kid's fashion has long been dictated by the music industry. This is not a new thing. It's seriously like you hit 40 and completely forgot about your own childhood.

As for the Bruce Springsteen comment... He might fill a stadium pretty quick, but so does Radiohead, Pearljam, Metallica, Britney Spears, Biance, Jay-Z, Eminem, and tons of other bands I may or may not be fond of. Also, good music that came out FIFTY YEARS ago obviously has a massive advantage for ticket sales... They have you classic rock heads, all the way down to 15 year olds who know good music when they hear it. They have an entire 50 year demographic of people to draw from. Good music made in the last little while is at a disadvantage because almost nobody older than 35 even gives it a chance.

Your point is that because there are more age groups at an Eric Clapton concert it means his music is "better" than a band from today. I would contest that it's because the younger you are, the more open your musical tastes are. How many 40 year olds did you see at Beatles concerts 40 years ago? Does that mean their music was worse than Tony Bennett?

There's also the baby boomer phenomenon to take into account. There are a whole hell of a lot of you classic rock guys just based on numbers alone ;).....

.....because the younger you are, the more open your musical tastes are. How many 40 year olds did you see at Beatles concerts 40 years ago? Does that mean their music was worse than Tony Bennett?

Ouch! :shock:

Cat

Funny, my supervisor said I wasn't cut out for my job. Now I am a supervisor.As you get older, you'll understand. Many companies don't fire those, who aren't "cut out for the job", the promote them !! :D :D

As for the "better" / "popular" argument, if music lasts for more than 20 or 30 years, it is "better", because it has stood the test of time.

I think that one of the reasons that young people are still listening to 60's & 70's music is because they become fed up of hearing 20 acts singing 20 variants of what is, effectively, the same basic song. This is the down side of "popular" music - it's copied by every man and his dog. The "classic" stuff, that you hear, today, is what still floats, once the thousands of copies have sunk to the bottom.
The 60's and 70's had copiers, but not in the numbers that you find today. Why? Because, in the 60's and 70's, the kind of digital technology we have, today, was not even being written about in Sci-Fi books. In those days, you recorded on pro-quality tape machines or consigned it to the bin. Recordings were made in pro-studios and it was almost unheard of for a successful record to be made outside of a studio. I remember one - "Johnny Remember Me" by John Leyton - and you could hear that it wasn't best quality (the echo was got by putting a speaker and a mic into an empty metal water cistern). Today, everyone, who has a PC can (which is not, necessarily, the same as "do") make, close to pro-quality recordings - and add a whole battery of effects.

I admit that I do listen to a lot of 60's and 70's stuff, as well as 80's, 90's and 00's. I'll listen to anything, once. I just don't like rap - 99% is just rap with a "c" at the front and I hate the warblers - the singer, who feels obliged to turn a song into scales practice - Mariah Carey being one of the worst offenders, with Leona Lewis not far behind. My MP3 player has everything from AC/DC through The Who, Chris Rea, Gary Moore, Snow Patrol, Bette Midler (and many others) to KT Tunstall. I don't have them there because they belong to a particular genre or to a particular decade - I have them because I like them and like to listen to them. The one common theme is the guitar, so the 80's is pretty under-represented....

I think that one of the reasons that young people are still listening to 60's & 70's music is because they become fed up of hearing 20 acts singing 20 variants of what is, effectively, the same basic song.

Maybe it's just because they like some of those tunes. I don't get this fundamentalism: I can watch a Kubrick movie without people telling me modern movies suck, I can watch a Van Gogh without people telling me Kadinsky sucks but I can't listen to a Beatles song without some old folks using that as proof that 'new music is bad, bland, boring, creativity-less etc etc etc'. I mean, surely you've heared some Swing-era stuff, or some Chopin? Does that mean you listen to it because you don't like classic rock? I doubt it.

I don't know how things went in the good old days, but I'm not really ashamed of admiting good stuff was made in the past. Maybe kids in the 60s only listened to modern music but if so, that doesn;t mean that that music was superior, it means that those darn hippies were stubborn bungholes unable to see the beauty that had been before them. I listen to music of all kinds, of all times and nearly all genres and I refuse to be ashamed about that.

And as for "standing the test of time," how can it be a test if the original listeners are still around? Historically speaking, that's a very iffy statement. You can say Bach or Beethoven has, but not the Beatles. Not even Elvis. Not really. Not yet.

I think it is a bit of a dig to everyone to know that there's no way any of us can know if "our music," whatever that might be and whenever it was first done, will stand the test of time because we won't be there to know. We don't like that fact so we'll argue over and over that "our music is better" when, and again, I really can't stress this enough, "better" is not about the music. It's about us. And again, the whole "standing the test of time" thing also sounds just like our parents, doesn't it?

Peace

The reason these Classic bands and stations are doing well is because people like the music. You seem to have difficulty accepting that.

Let me tell you a little something about myself. I study art, culture & modern media at our local university and I chose American Pop Music as my specialisation. If I wouldn't like older music I probably wouldn't have done that. If I had to quote my influences I would mention Chopin, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Leonard Cohen, Radiohead and Spinvis. SpinVis is a modern act that broke through four years ago or so. However, he's a 40+ year old guy so his sound isn't typically modern. Radiohead is modern in a way, but already started 15-years ago. I was eight years old when they debuted with Pablo Honey.The rest has been around for 40+ years.

But I don't listen to the radio. I agree that the modern music on the channels is boring. But I also believe that the older stuff on the channels is boring. On the classical channels you always here the same-old same-old compositions. Play me Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and I'll shoot you. When I check an classic rock channel I don't hear the experimental creative Beatles but the corny pop-formula Beatles. I don't hear the wicked psychedelica of Syd but they spoonfeed me Wish You Where Here. Again. I love practically everything of Radiohead but you won't hear *anything* of them except their first hit, Creep, which is their lamest song. It's not that Radiohead isn't popular, it's one of the, if not the, biggest modern band. But when the first and third clip on MTV feature a rapper with a gun, a big car and some chicks the higly stylised clips of Radiohead simply don't fit in. So the second spot is filled with a rapper, a gun, a big car and some chicks. I like rap as a form but everytime I hear a hiphop song on MTV I swear I can hear a few dozen of my braincells kill themselves. R.E.M has been a hugely important band for the alternative rock scene but how can I explain my friends when all I can show them on the radio is 'losing my religion' and 'everybody hurts'.

Down here I feel i have to stand up for the creativity and originality that is being put on the table by current artists. I feel I have to defend rap as a form itself. When I'm with friends I'm the one trying to explain that the classic rock is not just kumbaya and saying that rapping 'I'll be slammin' a cap in yo ass' is not an exceptional literally archievement. Music is like a sewer where you have to crawl through thick streams of crap but in the end you'll find some light at the end of the tunnel that'll make you forget the noise polution you suffered on the journey.

Endorphins get credited/blamed for all sorts of things they probably have little to do with.

Endorphins get credited/blamed for all sorts of things they probably have little to do with.

We gotta take your word cauz you are da Doc !

And as for "standing the test of time," how can it be a test if the original listeners are still around? Historically speaking, that's a very iffy statement. You can say Bach or Beethoven has, but not the Beatles. Not even Elvis. Not really. Not yet. We live in a completely different world to Bach or Beethoven. The life cycles of music are much shorter than in their day. There are methods of disseminating music that they couldn't have ever dreamt of. Music has never been so accessible as today, not only on the performing side, but also on the listening. Think about it - what chance did Bach have of hearing Zulu music or Maori music? What chance did Beethoven have of hearing a Balinese Gamelan?
Today, we can have those instruments stored on a MIDI keyboard.

We live in world, where computing has taking over so many facets of life - the internet has become a major source of both information and different sources of music. The computing power of a PC doubles every 18 months, with pricing only temporarily rising. I can download a piece of music, that an Australian wrote, performed and recorded just a few minutes ago.

There are so many different influences and new developments, that music styles have become almost as short lived as high fashion. So, yes, they have stood the test, in that they have survived many more competing influences than Bach or Beethoven ever had to compete with.

Furthermore the contention that the original listener must be dead to stand the test of time is more than iffy. It's like saying Shalespeare's plays were not worth going to see until all those who went to the premier were dead.
Sorry, but that is just not right.

There have been so many developments, in the last 60 years, that people, like myself, have gone through so many musical "eras", that anything which is still being listened to, after several decades, must be accepted as having stood the test of time. Would you also say that Frank Sinatra's music hasn't stood the test of time, just because not everyone, from that era, has died? What about the music of Django Reinhardt or Mario Lanza? Do I (and all my contemporaries) have to die before their music is accepted as having stood the test of time? What about the Karajan's music? What about Benjamin Britten? Or John Barbirolli? I would hazard a guess that you would accept that they have stood the test of time.

I'm not disagreeing at all with what you've just laid out. But I still do think it's very ego-centric to think that "the test of time" is something that can be measure in our own individual lifetime, which is, after all, what you're saying. We're not even to the point of the original creators' lifetime or the listeners. It's all about it being in our lifetime. How small of a focus is that, really? Is the lifetime of this one generation the defining point of humanity?

Now this would certainly work if everyone who is saying this particular music stands "the test of time" was as well-rounded in his or her listening as you are. But you and I both know this is not the case. Most people who sit and say "our music is better" has listened to probably less than ten percent of the music that's out there in the world. How can anyone make a valid judgement based on so small a sampling?

As Arjen says, none of this is meant to be an attack of "classic rock." It is a discussion meant to take such generalized statements as "our music is better" or "this music stands the test of time" and to see how little criteria we use to make such grand statements. I mean, don't you find it kind of ironic that a generation whose music was all about using music to open up the world is using the same music to close it down?

Now, if someone were to say, "I think that this music is better and I believe that it will stand the test of time," then there would probably be little to argue about. But making blanket judgements based on a single lifetime seems more than a little like wishful thinking.

And, for whatever it's worth, I don't think about any music standing the test of time. Truly. Music to me is a thing of the moment. I listen and love and try to give back what I can so that others can do the same. That's kind of shallow, I know, but music to me is simply part of life. If I sing a song from the 1960s or the 1860s, it's just music to me. And it's all beautiful. Sure, some songs I like more than others and I'm finding new ones (from all time periods) to like and learn all the time. It just seems totally against what music is to try to put it in a box and say "this one's better than the one you listen to."

Peace

David

First of all, I am not trying to argue with anyone.

Second, I am not trying to say the music of my generation is better simply because it is the music of my generation.

You see, I would say that the great Classical music of Mozart, Beethoven and the many other great composers is the "best" music. It has proven itself. It has continued to be popular for hundreds of years and I predict it will be popular for hundreds of years to come. I'm gettin' pretty old, but I'm not that old, this is not the music of my generation.

I argue the fact that Classic Rock is still around is proof that it is superior to today's modern Rock. I am not saying the young people of today couldn't make better music, I am saying they aren't allowed to make better music. It fits with the theme of this thread. The thread started by talking about software that would detect hit music scientifically. I am saying that the music industry has been using a method like this for many years and this is why the music today suffers. If the musicians themselves were allowed the artistic freedom they were allowed in the 60s and 70s, you would be hearing fantastic music. I think the Classic Rock stations would quickly fade away. It is the public themselves demonstrating this. Because music is not that good lately, they are falling back on the old Classic Rock.

I have an old issue of Guitar World that claims 1969 as the greatest year ever in Rock. This issue came out in 1999. The editor starts out by saying that this year was not chosen because of nostalgia for the music of his generation, but because the music was more influencial than any other time. I could list all of the great albums that came out that year and I am willing to bet you would probably know and be familiar with each album. And even kids today are familiar with most of these albums. That is why this year was selected.

The editor attributes this to the musicians themselves. Rock was still relatively new, and the record companies themselves did not quite understand it. So they let the artists themselves produce the albums. The editor remarks that it was incredible how many of these great albums (like Led Zeppelin I & II produced by Jimmy Page) were produced by the musicians themselves, something that was not seen before or since. That is the difference.

We judge everything in life. If I am thinking of buying a new guitar pedal, I go to sites and read reviews (that is judging). If 50 people say a pedal is fantastic, I'll take a chance on it, if 50 people say it is horrible, I'll take a pass. People read reviews for movies and restaurants and on and on. It is not wrong to call something better or worse. We just had an Olympics, it is all about judging who was "best". Michael Phelps did a pretty good job of proving he is the "best" overall swimmer in the world at this time.

But he might also have proved he was the best overall swimmer EVER. The Gold Medals are the proof. In this world of Political Correctness I realize it is no longer popular to call anything good or bad. You don't dare hurt anybody's self image. I personally think this type of thinking is ridiculous, pardon me for not being PC. :roll:

Now I know that there is no such think as "the best music". I know people have different tastes and I respect that. When I say best I really mean music that stands the test of time. In the 60's and 70's you didn't have artists from 40 years earlier packing the stadiums like Paul MacCartney and Bruce Springsteen do today. If you bother to look up the highest 100 grossing bands you will find the list dominated by Classic Rock bands. These bands are drawing bigger crowds than the modern bands. Well, just like those Gold Medals of Michael Phelps, that is the PROOF.

Sorry if I've hurt anybody's self image.

And I would like to finish with this. If you go to the Easy Song Database you will see I have posted the tabs for quite a few newer songs. So, I am not some old fuddy -duddy hung up on the music of my generation.

Wes, you're not hurting anyone's self-image. Trust me on this. :wink:

All I'm saying is that the arguments you're using to support your statement "I argue the fact that Classic Rock is still around is proof that it is superior to today's modern Rock" are all based on opinions. Think about it. What is "superior" supposed to mean? It's one thing to prove that rubber is a superior thing to make tires with than, say, doughnuts, but when you're talking about music (or art or literature), there's no such thing as superior. There can't be. Your "proof," whether you want to see it or not, is all based upon opinions. It's not that classic rock is superior, it's that the people who like it support it with a selflessness that's kind of mindboggling. In and of itself, that's cool. But it's also a matter of demographics and marketing. Imagine if everyone in India or China had money like we did in the US and spent it to see the local artists they liked best? All the lists we have now would be out the window.

Anyway, it certainly has been a fun discussion. :wink:

Peace

David

I would agree with everything you say. I like a lot of old music like Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, Dean Martin, etc... I just happen to like this music, I think these guys were great singers and the songs were great. I doubt many people, even my age would agree. So I know everybody has their own personal opinions and I respect that. Man, I hear kids driving around playing these Hip/Hop songs and I really don't get it, to me it is horrible, even worse than Disco. :roll:

But hey, they like it, that's cool.

But everything gets judged. Trust me, the record industry keeps statistics on all this stuff. And as I said, the Classic Rock bands have been dominating the lists of highest grossing bands for quite a few years now. Here is an example.

http://www.examiner.com/p-177719~VAN_HALEN_2007_2008_North_American_Tour_Highest_Grossing_in_Band_s_History.html

Think about it, bands that haven't put out an album sometimes for more than 20 years are making more money than current bands. That means something whether people want to accept it or not. I find it hard to believe that middle-age geezers like me are going to more concerts more than the young people. I haven't been to a concert since the 70s. I know some still do, but I think most people go to Rock concerts when they are young. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Recently here in Connecticut, Billy Joel sold out 9 consecutive shows in just a few hours. No modern band can claim that. There is a reason behind this, people don't shell out $200 or more to see lousy music.