# new coming bands vs old classic bands



## Seening (May 23, 2011)

I really would like to know what your tastes are. Can you write which of you like more new bands and which old classic bands? and why? Thanks for your replays!


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Ehh, that's kind of a false dichotomy. Hard to split it so evenly with so many genres.

Anyway, anybody who feels like they lean more toward older (by what measure?) bands need to remember that a lot of the old mediocrities and flavors of the week are buried and forgotten by now. The new stuff that's horrible is still in the immediate loudness of its 15 minutes of fame, and constantly in our face, so it's all too easy to pretend "the old days" (relative to any time) were better musically and use that cynicism as an excuse not to seek out the good obscure stuff today.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Yeah, people today just keep pumping out stuff as significant as Axis: Bold As Love and Houses of the Holy all the time these days!...The Wall, Animals and all those Beatles albums are good but if you really want you can find stuff just as good today......give me a break......


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Rock music started to bore me a looooonnnnngggg time ago, so I cant really speak about most new bands, but I will say, most non-classical music nowadays is (and lets face it, its pretty much always been this way) is pretty much equally about the image an artist is selling as much as the sounds themselves being produced therefore 'art music' always wins out for me, and I don't pay much attention to the rest. No false idols or rock gods for me thank you very much.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

I like music of all genres from all time periods, I don't allow simple things such as old and new to prejudice me against them.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Ehh, that's kind of a false dichotomy. Hard to split it so evenly with so many genres.
> 
> Anyway, anybody who feels like they lean more toward older (by what measure?) bands need to remember that a lot of the old mediocrities and flavors of the week are buried and forgotten by now. The new stuff that's horrible is still in the immediate loudness of its 15 minutes of fame, and constantly in our face, so it's all too easy to pretend "the old days" (relative to any time) were better musically and use that cynicism as an excuse not to seek out the good obscure stuff today.


Very insightful. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Every era has its outstanding achievements, often buried and hard to notice in all the latest mediocrity until years or even decades later. It was the same in the "classic" rock period. With very few exceptions, the greatest stuff was seldom played on the radio. Take it from someone who was there.

I think we tend to gravitate toward whatever was the best music when we were between 12 and about 30ish. After that we tend have more and more responsibility and less time to explore to find and appreciate what is really good. So we geezers think the modern pop is garbage. Well, it always was. I can't say Radiohead or Authechre are garbage.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

There's good music being made in each period I think. Having said that, when I see something like top 100 lists of 'the best' albums from each decade I must say that those of the 50's (truckloads of great jazz and traditional pop), 60's and 70's look more impressive to me than those from the 80's, 90's and 00's. That doesn't mean that I'm the kind of old fart who automatically dismisses everything that's new. I'm still capable of getting as excited as a teenager listening to, say, the new PJ Harvey album. But judge for yourself. Below are the top 1000 lists for each decade based on the ratings of the thousands of members from the RYM site. It doesn't really matter if you agree with their ranking order, but when you make an overall comparison of the contents of each list I don't think there can be much of an argument that despite the fact that there's great stuff on each of them, 50's-70's was better than 80's-00's....

Top 1000 for each decade....

1950-1959

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1950s

1960-1969

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1960s

1970-1979

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1970s

1980-1989

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1980s

1990-1999

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1990s

2000-2009

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/2000s

2010-2011

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/2010s


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> ...Anyway, anybody who feels like they lean more toward older (by what measure?) bands need to remember that a lot of the old mediocrities and flavors of the week are buried and forgotten by now. The new stuff that's horrible is still in the immediate loudness of its 15 minutes of fame, and constantly in our face, so it's all too easy to pretend "the old days" (relative to any time) were better musically and use that cynicism as an excuse not to seek out the good obscure stuff today.


Surely the old bands seem greater because we heard them when we were younger, more sensitive and more impressionable, our emotions more volatile and harder to deal with.


----------

