I am getting really sick and tired of nostalgia over the past, especially in relation to music. All the time online on forums and youtube comments, and sometimes in real life as well, I hear kids and older people talking about how much better music was in the 90s or the 80s or the 70s. They then go on to trash music of today, and talk about how all of it sucks and they wish they were back in the past.
That is a stupid and illogical position and I will prove it. First of all, I will assume that these people are correct. All music after the 90s (you can insert your own decade here) sucks. Every single song after 1999 is terrible and does not deserve to be listened. So what does that leave us with? It leaves us with a bunch of terrible new songs, and all of the old songs that people still enjoy. It's not like musicians in the 2000s are going around burning old songs so that no one can listen to them ever again. You can still listen to all of the old songs, no one is stopping you. So to point out that new songs suck right now is pointless since you do not have to listen to them. So even if these people are 100% correct, their position is illogical since old music has not stopped existing.
But they are not 100% correct. They are completely ignoring the fact that they only remember the songs that they like. It's not like only their 5 favorite bands and 100 favorite songs existed in the 90s. There were many, many bands in the past that just plain sucked, and many songs that were terrible, and many people complaining about those songs. Nothing has changed in that regard. Of course in the present you are going to be noticing more bad songs; when you go to listen to songs from the past, you are not being bombarded by random songs. You go to search for past songs that you liked, thus giving you an inherent bias when considering the past.
I don't even believe that these people hate all modern music. I have yet to meet a person that hates every single song in the last decade. In today's internet driven world, we have access to more bands than anyone has ever had access to in history. There might not be more bands than there were in the past, but the internet allows you to listen to a small, local indie band from a different country that you would never have been able to listen to before. I highly doubt that you cannot find something you like today that is new if you take the time to look rather than just listening to the radio. The real issue here is that most people are lazy and it is easier for them to listen to the top40 and complain, rather than take an hour out of their day to look for music they like. Never mind that is insanely easy to hook up an ipod to your car so you never have to even listen to the radio.
The issue is not even one of "you don't have to listen to what you don't like" although it is true to an extent (it is sometimes difficult to avoid bad music in say grocery stores). It is an issue of "your position is illogical because you have not been prevented from listening to music you do like."
EDIT: I am including this since some people are not reading what I am writing carefully. I nowhere stated that your musical preference should that todays music is equal to the past or better or worse than the past. If you like music from the 1800s better than today, then good for you. I have no issues with you. If you start insulting music of today, however, then I have issues with you. There is a huge difference between have a musical preference, and making a blanket statement about the relative worth of different musical eras.
1) The classic music I love is actually from before I was born. So memory or nostalgia doesn't really have that much to do with it. I listened to modern music like everyone else until someone I knew turned me on to older music.
2) Of course when people say modern music sucks, it is a generalization. It's not about hating every single song. There are a handful modern groups that are decent, but for the most part modern music is shallow corporate garbage made with little actual talent.
3) I don't personally care that I "haven't been prevented from listening to music I like," it is still sad to me that so many people only like modern music because that is actually all they know. Most kids growing up simply listening to what is popular at the time. This was true for me, my wife, my brother-in-law, and many others. Someone got me hooked on older music and I got the people around me hooked as well. I don't care if people have different tastes, so long as those tastes aren't based on ignorance. If it is, I try to provide I different perspective.
I don't mind if someone likes older music better than modern, it's just a matter of taste. Though I do hate it when people make broad generalizations about modern music and are pessimistic about the state of music today, which is what I guess you are getting at your rant.
If anything right now is the best time in history for music because we have easy access to a ton of music from today as well as music from the past.
On May 05 2011 03:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
2) Of course when people say modern music sucks, it is a generalization. It's not about hating every single song. There are a handful modern groups that are decent, but for the most part modern music is shallow corporate garbage made with little actual talent.
I agree this is true for most pop music, but honestly it's always been that way. You have to remember when people who only listen to "older" music are listening to music from a much broader time period and when you compare it to the music of right now, of course it's going to be better because you have more to choose from. You take any week from the past and I bet you most of the songs on the radio at that time are no good.
Did you know Jimi Hendrix had only 1 top 40 hit? The Monkees were much more successful than him, but today he is regarded as the best guitarist of all time while many of his contemporaries are for the most part forgotten. The same will happen with music of today. Justin Bieber will not be remembered for his music, while those who make music of substance will be.
The problem is that the mainstream sucks and always have. Noone is hyping up the trashier kinds of 70's pop music these days, because they can't make any money doing so. All the old music that are hyped up today is genuinely great music. I think that anyone who is interested in music should start looking 10-30 years back, because it's easier to find great music there. It was very hard for me personally to find music from the 00's that I really liked, but I got there, but I found most of those bands because they sounded similar to other bands I liked. I will remember the 00's for Post Rock and the British Radiohead-school alternative rock bands.
On May 05 2011 03:42 jdseemoreglass wrote: 1) The classic music I love is actually from before I was born. So memory or nostalgia doesn't really have that much to do with it. I listened to modern music like everyone else until someone I knew turned me on to older music.
2) Of course when people say modern music sucks, it is a generalization. It's not about hating every single song. There are a handful modern groups that are decent, but for the most part modern music is shallow corporate garbage made with little actual talent.
3) I don't personally care that I "haven't been prevented from listening to music I like," it is still sad to me that so many people only like modern music because that is actually all they know. Most kids growing up simply listening to what is popular at the time. This was true for me, my wife, my brother-in-law, and many others. Someone got me hooked on older music and I got the people around me hooked as well. I don't care if people have different tastes, so long as those tastes aren't based on ignorance. If it is, I try to provide I different perspective.
3) That as well is a position I do not understand. How do you know they have not heard older music, but choose to listen to newer music? There is no reason why any one musical choice is better than other. Justin Bieber is not particularly interesting me, but I don't think it is stupid that someone else listens to Justin Bieber. That is what they like, and good for them. It doesn't bother me the way it seems to bother so many others. And complaining about Justin Bieber isn't going to get his fans to stop liking Bieber, it just makes the complainer feel self-righteous and angry.
On May 05 2011 04:21 happyness wrote: I don't mind if someone likes older music better than modern, it's just a matter of taste. Though I do hate it when people make broad generalizations about modern music and are pessimistic about the state of music today, which is what I guess you are getting at your rant.
If anything right now is the best time in history for music because we have easy access to a ton of music from today as well as music from the past.
I completely agree with this statement. I wasn't saying at all that someone should like modern music better than older music. I was talking to the idea that all modern music sucks. The reverse is not true either. I listen to plenty of old music, I just don't go around saying that modern music is the worst ever.
On May 05 2011 05:20 Empyrean wrote: Of course the stance "all music made today is terrible" is unreasonable.
So is the stance that people being nostalgic of music of past eras are being stupid.
Perhaps you should title your threads in ways that don't immediately make readers have a poor opinion of you.
I don't understand. I have no problem with older music, but I have a problem with the irrational nostalgia that people have of older music. Why is stupid to ask people to approach history objectively rather than with nostalgia? It's not like I am asking them to stop liking the music they like. I am asking them to stop negatively criticizing modern music for having the same problems music has always had.
I also do not care if my "readers" have a poor opinion of me from my title. If they do not care to read my blog and judge me not just based on the title but on the content of the blog, then they are not readers I care much to have.
I agree with Empyrean. Your points aren't necessarily wrong, but you're making a lot of people very angry posting like this and you'll most probably not have the most objective responses there.
Nostalgia is basically a feeling. If you say a feeling is stupid, of course people are gonna get mad. And arguing about emotions kinda hard. Especially when you overgeneralize things.
Like if I state how I feel - that modern artists are generally less talented than before (because they can afford to, people still listen to them and of course, there's autotune); that music is not being reinvented, and only consists of ideas that have been thought before - I can't necessarily PROVE it, so it's just all about "well I think that and if you think that you're stupid" (using the terms of your post title), nobody's getting anything out of this.
On May 05 2011 06:08 Spekulatius wrote: I agree with Empyrean. Your points aren't necessarily wrong, but you're making a lot of people very angry posting like this and you'll most probably not have the most objective responses there.
Nostalgia is basically a feeling. If you say a feeling is stupid, of course people are gonna get mad. And arguing about emotions kinda hard. Especially when you overgeneralize things.
Like if I state how I feel - that modern artists are generally less talented than before (because they can afford to, people still listen to them and of course, there's autotune); that music is not being reinvented, and only consists of ideas that have been thought before - I can't necessarily PROVE it, so it's just all about "well I think that and if you think that you're stupid" (using the terms of your post title), nobody's getting anything out of this.
That is fair. Perhaps stupid was poor word choice and too aggressive, but I hardly think two responses is "making a lot of people very angry".
I also disagree that nostalgia is a feeling. Although it can be a feeling, right now I am more addressing nostalgia as a state of mind. And generally what I am describing is a gut reaction that many people have that I do honestly believe is a poor, or stupid, reaction. Stupid here means irrational. And the thing is, if you cannot prove anything, then you are not going to get anything out of a discussion in any case. The situation you describe is one in which no matter what evidence I give you that artists today are not generally less talented, you won't take it because for you it is just a feeling. (I realize this is just an example and not necessarily your position).
I at least made an attempt at an argument that may or may not be proven false. For example, if someone were to show me that actually finding older songs is now harder than it was before, that would attack one of the points I made in a provable way. That would also attack my general premise that no one is being prevented from listening to music they like since the music they like is more difficult to find.
But there have been no such arguments (largely because there are only three or so responses) so I don't feel bad? I don't know what to tell you. I prefer a logical argument to a "feeling".
Some people prefer the music of the 70s to that of today. Some people prefer the music of today to that of the 70s. You're not changing anyone's opinion :<
On May 05 2011 03:24 flowSthead wrote: I am getting really sick and tired of nostalgia over the past, especially in relation to music. All the time online on forums and youtube comments, and sometimes in real life as well, I hear kids and older people talking about how much better music was in the 90s or the 80s or the 70s. They then go on to trash music of today, and talk about how all of it sucks and they wish they were back in the past.
That is a stupid and illogical position and I will prove it. First of all, I will assume that these people are correct. All music after the 90s (you can insert your own decade here) sucks. Every single song after 1999 is terrible and does not deserve to be listened. So what does that leave us with? It leaves us with a bunch of terrible new songs, and all of the old songs that people still enjoy. It's not like musicians in the 2000s are going around burning old songs so that no one can listen to them ever again. You can still listen to all of the old songs, no one is stopping you. So to point out that new songs suck right now is pointless since you do not have to listen to them. So even if these people are 100% correct, their position is illogical since old music has not stopped existing.
But they are not 100% correct. They are completely ignoring the fact that they only remember the songs that they like. It's not like only their 5 favorite bands and 100 favorite songs existed in the 90s. There were many, many bands in the past that just plain sucked, and many songs that were terrible, and many people complaining about those songs. Nothing has changed in that regard. Of course in the present you are going to be noticing more bad songs; when you go to listen to songs from the past, you are not being bombarded by random songs. You go to search for past songs that you liked, thus giving you an inherent bias when considering the past.
I don't even believe that these people hate all modern music. I have yet to meet a person that hates every single song in the last decade. In today's internet driven world, we have access to more bands than anyone has ever had access to in history. There might not be more bands than there were in the past, but the internet allows you to listen to a small, local indie band from a different country that you would never have been able to listen to before. I highly doubt that you cannot find something you like today that is new if you take the time to look rather than just listening to the radio. The real issue here is that most people are lazy and it is easier for them to listen to the top40 and complain, rather than take an hour out of their day to look for music they like. Never mind that is insanely easy to hook up an ipod to your car so you never have to even listen to the radio.
The issue is not even one of "you don't have to listen to what you don't like" although it is true to an extent (it is sometimes difficult to avoid bad music in say grocery stores). It is an issue of "your position is illogical because you have not been prevented from listening to music you do like."
I'd just like to appreciate how you wrote this entire post without name dropping an entire artist. That takes skill.
On May 05 2011 06:28 Empyrean wrote: Some people prefer the music of the 70s to that of today. Some people prefer the music of today to that of the 70s. You're not changing anyone's opinion :<
Again, you misunderstood me. I never said that either of those positions is stupid or false. I am attacking the idea that the one of these people complains about the other person. If you prefer music of the 70s to music of today, that is fine and dandy. But if you take the next step and say "music if today sucks, music of the 70s is better" then that is where I have a problem. Your own preference in music has nothing to do with what is "better". I myself never gave my own opinion on which music I like because it is irrelevant to the idea of how nostalgia has made people irrational.
The statement "music of today sucks, music of the 70s is better" is an opinion as well, and you have no grounds from which to debate them. If the person makes a statement saying "the music of today is objectively bad, the music of the 70s is objectively better," then you have grounds there.
Until that happens, you're just complaining that other people have different opinions than you do.
On May 05 2011 06:36 Empyrean wrote: The statement "music of today sucks, music of the 70s is better" is an opinion as well, and you have no grounds from which to debate them. If the person makes a statement saying "the music of today is objectively bad, the music of the 70s is objectively better," then you have grounds there.
Until that happens, you're just complaining that other people have different opinions than you do.
It is an opinion made on objective grounds. Using the word "better" automatically makes it seem as though you are making an objective statement. I am arguing that the word better, unless preceded by "for me" as in "it is better for me", is poor word choice and irrational.
On May 05 2011 06:36 Empyrean wrote: The statement "music of today sucks, music of the 70s is better" is an opinion as well, and you have no grounds from which to debate them. If the person makes a statement saying "the music of today is objectively bad, the music of the 70s is objectively better," then you have grounds there.
Until that happens, you're just complaining that other people have different opinions than you do.
It is an opinion made on objective grounds. Using the word "better" automatically makes it seem as though you are making an objective statement. I am arguing that the word better, unless preceded by "for me" as in "it is better for me", is poor word choice and irrational.
Cherry pie is better than apple pie.
Do you honestly think that's a statement made on objective grounds?
On May 05 2011 06:36 Empyrean wrote: The statement "music of today sucks, music of the 70s is better" is an opinion as well, and you have no grounds from which to debate them. If the person makes a statement saying "the music of today is objectively bad, the music of the 70s is objectively better," then you have grounds there.
Until that happens, you're just complaining that other people have different opinions than you do.
It is an opinion made on objective grounds. Using the word "better" automatically makes it seem as though you are making an objective statement. I am arguing that the word better, unless preceded by "for me" as in "it is better for me", is poor word choice and irrational.
I don't know, I'd argue that any statement like "X is bad" or "X is much better than Y" should not be perceived as an objective statement unless said so explicitly.
On May 05 2011 06:36 Empyrean wrote: The statement "music of today sucks, music of the 70s is better" is an opinion as well, and you have no grounds from which to debate them. If the person makes a statement saying "the music of today is objectively bad, the music of the 70s is objectively better," then you have grounds there.
Until that happens, you're just complaining that other people have different opinions than you do.
It is an opinion made on objective grounds. Using the word "better" automatically makes it seem as though you are making an objective statement. I am arguing that the word better, unless preceded by "for me" as in "it is better for me", is poor word choice and irrational.
Cherry pie is better than apple pie.
Do you honestly think that's a statement made on objective grounds?
I think if you said that to me in person I would assume you are talking about yourself. If we were talking about the relative strengths and weaknesses of pie and that was the only sentence you said and offered no explanation, I would be annoyed and I would think that is a statement made on objective grounds.
I find his response rational and theirs irrational. He makes it clear that his is just an opinion, while the people he is responding to are acting as if objectively Community is a great show that he should love (I love the show by the way, so I am not approaching the article as if I do not).
My point in the initial blog post is that I see this happening with even more frequency in music discussions. I have had so many music discussions with people where my music choices are apparently poor because I like a band they do not, or because I do not like a band that they do. That is an illogical statement unless made on objective grounds.
EPT
