The 10s are such a fucking shit decade it's unbelievable. Completely insignificant and faceless. Fuck the 10s. I was born too early.
>you will never listen to music intravenously
>meme rap and irrelevant b list pop sluts
Nah, man. The 10's really do suck. It's literally the hipster rock and memerap decade.
And i'm not being a lewronggeneration faggot. I think there are some great artists out there right now. But there's just no real innovation going on.
is the only music you can wrap your head around music that pitchfork and/or fantano give/gives a shit about? what a fucking loser. you're missing out on so much it's not even funny.
I know wrong generation is a meme, but I'm forced to listen to 70s music at work every single day... and I must say... people have just straight up forgotten how to write songs. Even the most vanilla pop songs back in the day had 'something' to make it stand out and stick in your head, y'know? Like, every song has an 'aha' moment where you're like "Yeah, this is a pop song". Music now I just keep listening waiting for that moment and it never comes. Pop artists are content just hearing themselves on a track. They're not songs anymore, just individual commercials with little jingles for pop stars and starlettes
Really because most shit they play on classic rock stations is just incredibly boring to me. Might be because I listened to the stations for forever but most pop and rock from the 60s-80s barely holds my attention. Not that I don't like some older music but I imagine the stuff you're forced to listen to is the stuff I'm talking about.
I don't like what's popular now, but we can't pretend no good music is made anymore. It just doesn't get massive exposure. People tend to like shit. It's been like that for a long time. Remember the doo wop era? Fuck that.
this is supposed to be the best 2010s music that isn't rap or pop, bunch of boring p4k/tumblr garbage. no wonder rap is the leading genere right now
also deerhunter didn't even start in the 2010s
No, not classic RAWK man, 70s FM radio pop stuff.
I'm a musician myself, so I really appreciate the tropes of pop songwriting, and when I hear good pop I can actually envision them in the studio being like "you know what we need here? a good old fashioned ______". There was a more thoughtful approach to making music more digestible. In music now, it's almost like there is no discussion. They don't care whether you can digest it or not, because they know if they keep blasting it into your ears you'll give in eventually. The artists just hop in the studio , bang it out, and when it's over the producer just kinda cringes/shudders and hands the master tape over so it can be marketed to shit.
Also, back to your comment: I realized recently that the hyper-cheese classic rock has actually be deemed 'second wave classic rock', which I guess chronologically would be like 76-89 era. You know, when things got really bluesy, overproduced, and somehow even more white.
>rap or pop, bunch of boring p4k/tumblr garbage
That's literally all that's happening in music in this decade. Although i dont think those artists i listed are revolutionary, i think they're better than most of the rap/pop garbage out there.
You seem to be making assumptions about things that even if you're a musician, you wouldn't know unless you have been to tons of artists' recording sessions.
Also I still maintain that the majority of artists played on classic rock radio stations are incredibly boring to me. I don't care how careful they were with their music when the end result is barely interesting and at best may hold up for a couple listens.
dude, there's nothing secret about using the tropes of pop songwriting. It's just the sonic equivalent of an artists 'flexing their muscles'. There are people that make a living off telling artists which ones to use and where - even small-time youtube-tier (female) songwriters. I personally don't hear any real difference between a traditional guitar/bass/drums band from the 60s-70s than Maroon 5 or Katy Perry or whoever else... at the end of the day their just songs with lyrics and instruments making pleasant sounds in accompaniment. But to make pop music used to mean you had something tangible to show your audience about music and your mastery over it. (Yes, even in POP). We still have good singers, producers and even instrumentalists in pop music, but rarely are they each contributing equally in the way they did in those earlier decades.
>"With this app, this meme generator, because I'm the artist that made memes popular in rap and now the world, I decided to put the generator straight from the source"
He hasn't articulated exactly what he's talking about. He said "70s fm radio pop" which I understand as shit played on classic rock radio stations today. Considering he also refers to this as "pop" in >>55304009 I'm assuming he's using the "everything but classical and traditional folk" definition of pop and so we're thinking of the same thing.
Neither have you, brainlord.
First of all, "Classic Rock" isn't a real thing. Because pop music and rock were very difficult to discern back then. Pop bands played guitars too. Some even had.... guitar solos!
I'm talking about music that was in the pop charts in the 70s. Not everybody smoked joints and rocked the fuck out back then, contrary to popular belief. Yes, bands like Pink Floyd and Zeppelin and whoever else had songs on the charts, and I do include them. But I'm talking about pop music as it has remained (catchy instrumental part, hooky vocals, memorable catch-phrase to be inserted into popular culture) until very recently.
What are you even arguing anyways? You like music today better because old music is boring? We're talking strictly about pop music which was expected to remain constant throughout history and it hasn't. Pop =/= bad man, I feel sorry for you if you feel this way. I actually yearn for a time when it's cool to like popular again music because its good and we all enjoy listening to it and have fun together. Protip: I already told you I'm a musician. You think I don't listen to 'patrician' shit too?
I never said any of the stuff you're quoting me as saying. I wasn't sure what you were talking about but you've made it clear in this post. I don't really have an opinion because I don't know offhand what was on top 40 in the 70s and I was mostly talking about stuff played on classic "rock" stations today. That is the kind of stuff I'm saying isn't that interesting to me, partly through over exposure. I never said pop music was bad. I never said I don't enjoy music from the 60s-80s.
I can't ever tell on /mu/ if people mean top 40 music when they say pop or just everything that isn't folk or classical. Tell people to stop using two definitions (or more) of the same word.
oldfag here. This has been said about every decade back as far as I can remember (80s), and the kids always come up from behind and find something new in the old, so fear not! Either you are very young and inexperienced or you are just old enough that you are past the decade you came of age. In any case that gum you like will come back in style!
here's a quick tip - most music is pop. Other than artists who hate their parents, most people want to create something that is enjoyable to listen to and makes their family proud.
Also, I never said classic rock ISN'T pop. It is. It just wasn't the only kind of music that was popular in the 70s.
>something that is enjoyable to listen to and makes their family proud
This isn't in any of the definitions of pop that I know of. Are you coining a new definition to increase the confusion?
>who have only released music since 1st January 2010 that are actually god-tier
You moved the goalposts to an impossible point before the game even began.
No one releases a masterpiece in just a five year span of releasing anything. A musician would have demos/early solo recordings/failed bands before hitting it big and making something timeless, which in this age, means it was once uploaded to myspace/soundcloud/bandcamp.
do you even listen to music? Genres aren't real man. We lump things into categories to make it easier to discern our tastes.
Sound doesn't follow tempos or 4/4 patterns. We craft it as such. That makes it pop. Bands use chord progressions that 'work' musically. If you play random shit that doesn't work on a technically level, it's still 'music'. But if it all pops, it's pop.
If this was 2005 I could have easily named off god-tier new artists like Sufjan, AnCo, Arcade Fire, Kanye, Broken Social Scene. All true god-tier and that doesn't include artists like Sigur Ros, MF DOOM, The Microphones.. all of whom released material before the 2000s but didn't really get recognition until the 21st century.
The only true god-tier new artists today are Kendrick and Death Grips, and they're both hip-hop to boot.
>Broken Social Scene
Besides Arcade Fire, which I'm sure I would find if I looked harder, all of these acts released music either under different names, or under different projects. It took years to hone their skills, and then individual musicians came together to release different music under different monikers, but they did not emerge on January 1, 2000, ready to create.
No... we made them. Kids in their garages wanted to sound like other bands they heard. Us obsessive music fans made up half the genres we still hear commonly today.
Seriously, pick up an instrument. They're just notes. You can play half the song like disco and the other half folk if you want to. It's still music. In fact, the easier it is to identify as a 'genre' the more 'pop' it is... that's where the notion of something being 'watered down' comes from.
The point of genres is to label sounds and make it easier to share and talk about.
>Hey i like x band you should listen to them.
>what do they sound like
>well you know they frequently uses asymmetrical time signatures such as 7/8, 11/8, or 13/8, or features constantly changing meters based on various groupings of 2 and 3.
you guys play at all? Once you learn how to play a few popular songs and begin writing your own, you realize that genres don't matter and that music is whatever you want it to be.
Most people want it to be pop.
the thing is genres are only there to make it easier to describe things so yes they matter. You might not go in to something making it a genre but its still that. Just because you wanna be pretentious about the music you make and say "well i don't work towards a genre" it doesn't stop others from doing that.
I'm not telling anyone to stop contributing to existing genres, I subscribe to genres just like any other music-lover. I'm just saying that pop music is really a lot easier to identify than you think, and it's not the devil... if a band really wants to blow things wide open, all the power to them. I love to hear fresh interesting things, but I also love tried-and-true pop music (which is 85+% of what we hear in our daily lives). I want to make challenging, interesting intelligent music as well as trope-reliant power pop because I see merit in all of it.
That's because they only play the good shit people remember.
I can assure you that most of what was on the radio in the 70s was shit with only a good track every now and then.
>I can assure you that most of what was on the radio in the 70s was shit with only a good track every now and then.
Not entirely true, the 70s were filled with great disco, funk, and soul records.