Did The Music Change?

June 22, 2008, 7:54 PM

I remeber how the 80s and 90s had the best songs ever. The songs were so memorable and sang by the artists with a feeling. They wouldn't let in people who liked singing, but those who were good at it.
Kylie Minogue, Britney Spears, Madonna all lived through 80s and 90s, that's why most of their songs are at top 10 charts these days. But, todays singers are missing that little sparkle of love to music. Many sing because they know they're good at it and they want to get famous. Of course I'm not saying all. The winner of X-Factor Leona Lewis is one of those singers with talent, but some people disagree. They say that she's the modern Whitney Houston...

Take a good look at the words of the today's songs. Almost all are related to love. Do people have nothing else to sing about?

Singers really need to think. Do they sing to entertain or to get big cash and fame?

June 22, 2008, 8:07 PM

Both.

There are two kinds of performers. One of them just has a talent and they use it to accumulate a rather hefty sum in their bank account. They end up milking every bit of press coverage possible, appear wherever they can and eventually end up more rich than before as a result of idiots who run to the magazines and feel the need to gossip.

The other is the talented performer, who really puts so much passion into their work and do what feels right to them, which subsequently turns out to be a big success. They never change, according to their fans - they do what they love and only the true fans matter to them. You'll inevitably see them in the press, at some point, but they don't whore out the press as a means of boosting their career.

At least, this is what I've gathered.

Also, I'd say all three of those women you mentioned come under my former category.

June 22, 2008, 8:16 PM

I think the music changed a lot....way to much to be honest. Now don't get me wrong....I don't like 80's music.....or I like just a few songs....I actually like the 2000's spawn and some 90's here and there. But I must say that the music nowdays phails... with a few exceptions of course.

I think that they play for big cash and fame.....most of them at least....
The best example I can think of is right here in my country: I've seen so many singers, usually 18-22 year old women, who release only one song....ONE blasted song then they "retire" like they're veterans at this or something....not to mention the song sucks big time....and the weirdest thing is that each of these wanna-be singers has the same principles when making their only song: a love-based disco song with a video that shows a lot of girls dancing around with few chlotes on...sheesh....there's nothing wrong about it, but to see it over and over again it's really garbage.

And another example would be the romaninan twins, Indigo, that took place at "America's got talent"....they sucked....
OK.....I ranted enough about this....

June 24, 2008, 10:09 PM

Hmmmm interesting thing your getting at here. I agree the music has changed but I dont really agree that 80's-90's- music is better. I think it depends on the person or band or w/e not the time period. The thing is I think 80's-90's songs have this....thing that I cant really explain that alot of people dont like today. If the 80s and 90's music was as good as you say you would think people would still like it you know?. The thing is 80's and 90's music has a tendancy to be Technoy and just...weird but that is just my what I think. I think music has come along way and as far as muSic goes the instruments and overall sound quality sounds better and there are more effects and sounds that people hadn't invented in the 80's-90's. Love is a populor thing to sing about because its love I mean what else do you expect people to sing about? cars? money? places? I think people sing about love because alot of songs I have noticed were thought up by the writers experiences with love.

June 24, 2008, 10:44 PM

I think that what this all boils down to at the end of the day is passion.

There was a time when the only people who were famous were the ones who had exceptional talent, and they had great passion for music. They did what they loved and they loved what they did.

The 70s is where it starts to get hazy, what with punk bands being signed to major labels shortly after their first gig. The passion was there, no doubt, oodles of it. But as far as raw talent goes, they had slim-to-no talent at all. Not real talent, anyway.

I think these days it's getting ridiculous, I mean, give me a keyboard and a voice synthesizer and I'll be on the next Clubland CD. Anyone can have a top 40 hit with the right technology backing them up now. There's barely any talent there and frankly, no passion for music.

It's quite sad, really.

June 26, 2008, 10:53 PM

Bah, songs in general are usually too generic. I love you this, why'd you break up with me that.

What happened to songs like 'comfortably numb' or 'shock the monkey'? D:

June 27, 2008, 3:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laro♪

I remeber how the 80s and 90s had the best songs ever. The songs were so memorable and sang by the artists with a feeling. They wouldn't let in people who liked singing, but those who were good at it.
Kylie Minogue, Britney Spears, Madonna all lived through 80s and 90s, that's why most of their songs are at top 10 charts these days. But, todays singers are missing that little sparkle of love to music. Many sing because they know they're good at it and they want to get famous. Of course I'm not saying all. The winner of X-Factor Leona Lewis is one of those singers with talent, but some people disagree. They say that she's the modern Whitney Houston...

Take a good look at the words of the today's songs. Almost all are related to love. Do people have nothing else to sing about?

Singers really need to think. Do they sing to entertain or to get big cash and fame?

The irony here, as Riku has said is that Britney, Kylie etc fall under the category of talentless pop singers. I'll credit Madonna as a having a modicum of talent, but not much more.
This irony continues when you seem to suggest that the 80s had the best songs ever. People should really be shot for saying things like that. The 80s has had the shitties musicians ever. Shitty fucking hair bands and useless pop singers.
Moving on, as Riku has said you either are talnted and you become famous for being talented. Or you are pathetic but you have no integrity and sing what you think 12 year old girls like. Case in point, Paris Hilton, or Britney or anyone like that.
There are also the talented who never become famous.
I'll disagree with Casanova as the punk music from the 70s; the Ramones, the Pistols and to an extent the Clash, and more I cba naming, were punks, they didn't become punks just to sell CDs.
However the 80s sees the birth of the Anti-christ, pop music. At first, talent, Michael Jackson, Prince etc. But then people realise we can be pop singers without talent, huge amounts of examples, one will do, Milli Vanilli, they don't even bother singing, and they win an emmy.
Now the vile history of pop has an effect on modern music which you are lamenting. They have heard shitty singers and attempt to emulate them for money. Also people encourage them by buying their albums and by watching shit like 'Name of your country' Idol.
Now that this filthy epidemic has raped mainstream music, to find decent music, you have to listen to indie music.

June 28, 2008, 12:44 AM

I agree with 80's and 90's havig the best songs, but thats in terms of radio music. Radio music today sucks... I have no emotional connection with most of the new songs.

June 29, 2008, 1:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Placebo

I'll disagree with Casanova as the punk music from the 70s; the Ramones, the Pistols and to an extent the Clash, and more I cba naming, were punks, they didn't become punks just to sell CDs.

I'll make it clear now that I have a decent understanding of punk music and what it takes for music to be considered so.

My view on punk music is that bands like the ones you have named would be seen by the mainstream as trying to make a desperate buck, when in actual fact that would be far from the truth in a majority of cases. 70s punk music was all about fighting back and saying no to pop culture, unwilling to conform and being proud of it.

The bands you named were what some would consider to be "true" punks. Not in it for the money, just for the raw music, the freedom of expression that punk provides, the artistic angst outlet that so many teens around the world still cling to. But it's the kids of today that do not have a clear understanding of punk, it's the kids that see punk as an easy way of making music and therein mountains of money, no matter how talentless they may be. That's where there's no passion for punk music. The kids that want to be the next My Chemical Romance are helping to further bastardise punk by flaunting it in the mainstream as a malformed sub genre known as Emo.

And so here is where music has changed as far as punk goes. Though I digress, I hope this still makes my point clearer and also serves to dispell any thoughts you may have had about me thinking of 70s punks as in it for the money, because that is something that I just do not believe.