quote:

Originally posted by BContrat:
Come on, Kelly. It's unwritten, but this is a Modern Rock forum. (1960+)

All things are relative; that's all I'm saying.
If the discussion is on copying the things that came before (and feeling that the things before are superior) why not take it back a few cycles?

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:

quote:

Actually, I still pull out Architecture in Helsinki.

Bright Eyes and Sufjan Stevens are still in frequent rotation with me... so, yeah.

Sorry for triple posting.

I'm not really so much mocking your taste (I may jest ) as I am the fact these artists—with the exception of Sufjan—have been derided...and not even defended. It strikes me that if popular opinion isn't behind a particular artist or group in a pronounced way, most would rather not stick their neck out there to risk whatever credibility they think they carry.

So much derision was directed at The Hold Steady here last year it kept them out of the collective consciousness. I think more than a few people needed to be told it was OK to like them. P4K obliged.

And I like you, so nothing I say applies to you specifically. The zero in your name could go, though. :P

That lil zero in my name I hold quite dearly, haha. My first screen name on AIM- 9years ago?- was b0arder753.. and it still is, haha. So, yeah. Don't ride on my zero.

the hold steady are still overrated and annoying

quote:

Originally posted by tinyspecksofmanythings:
the hold steady are still overrated and annoying

Heh.

Fin.

haha, i haven't actually even heard the new record.. just thought i'd fuel the fire

Well, personally I think m.leland and philosopherEric are wasting their time. Nobody here has renounced the old masters, it just seems like a straw man until you have an example*. The "kids" here have more in-depth musical appreciation than %90 of the people you'd talk to on the street -- what more can you ask? Give it a rest.

*^That example, in case you're wondering, isn't me -- my favorite song of all time was recorded almost 40 years ago.

This is really bothering me... I feel there a good amount of kids on here (myself included) who have a pretty damn good musical history.

Whenever you older folks throw some albums out there (whether they're from the 50's or the 80's), I either own them or my parents do... so I'm generally pretty familiar with them (but maybe I'm just way superior to these other youngins... kidding kidding).

quote:

Originally posted by kelly 1l1:

Nice; Very original. It is great to see TV on the radio and the hold steady NOT on a top ten (although I am a fan of cookie mnt.)
My friend is a huge Scritti Polliti fan.
I noticed in your comment for the tim hecker about the glitch between tracks--it's not like that on the album. If you have a burning/editing program on your computer you can smooth the seques over (Roxio's 'Jam' is what I use) for tracks you purchase/download online.

Firstly, great to hear that Harmony... doesn't have the glitches. I'll probably just go out and buy the actual album. I should qualify my list by saying that it represents ALL the '06 releases I listened to. TVOTR and The Hold Steady might have made it. I LOVE Desperate Youth... so RTCM is on the list.

Apropos of other posts: I thought I had a pretty good musical knowledge and fairly insightful views until I joined this forum. I'm constantly impressed by the depth of a lot of the regular (and much younger) posters' knowledge and subsequent replies. In the relatively short time I've been a member I can't say that I've noticed many young 'uns refusing to listen to certain types of music or dip into different musical eras. And I reckon most of us have made unsustainable claims about music we love. I know I have (although I am right )

I heard Architecture in Helsinki (In Case We Die for the first time yesterday - loved it.

It is particularly condescending to generalise about "the kids" and their ability to critically assess today's music because they haven't heard every album released since the War. It's a bit like confusing general knowledge for intelligence.

I certainly have vastly more knowledge about music, and have listened to 100 times the number of albums I had when I was 21. But to say that when I was 21 my ability to ascertain whether I liked artist X or album Y was lesser because I hadn't listened to every album by every artist that had influenced X+Y(not Coldplay) would be wrong.

It's a fairly arrogant view to hold. I know people around 18-21 that are really into music. I know some that think Ronan Keating or Westlife are the greatest. Likewise, I know very few people my own age who have knowledge or even an interest in music outside what's in the Top 40 on Radio 1. It's wrong to generalise about someone's taste in music based on their age.

For the record, I still love Illinois, In Case We Die, and listened to Arular last week. In general though, I'm ususally so busy with the new (and old) stuff I buy that I probably don't listen to last years albums that much, unless they appear on random on my mp3 player. Doesn't mean I suddenly regret liking them a year ago though.

quote:

Originally posted by kelly 1l1:

What's your favorite album of music from the 1800's?

Well, since recording technology wasn't invented until the early-to-mid 1900s, not too many people were releasing albums in the 1800s. Stephen C. Foster doesn't exactly have a discography.

Admittedly, the bulk of my musical knowledge is 1960+, although I do know a little bit of 1900-1960 stuff. Earlier than that, it's pretty sporatic. There's some classical works written in the 1700s that I enjoy, but the recordings of them I'm familiar with are all from the 20th century, obviously.

How about you?

RE: kelly 1l1

quote:

Originally posted by kelly 1l1:Your list is inspiring.

Thank you!

RE: m. leland

quote:

So much derision was directed at The Hold Steady here last year it kept them out of the collective consciousness. I think more than a few people needed to be told it was OK to like them. P4K obliged.

This is kind of silly. You do know the last two albums got an 8.1 and 8.9 (w/ Best New Music), right?

RE: the kids
I heard they were alright.

Man, you take a break from this forum for a week and you've got to spend 3 hours catching up on all of the hissy fits....
I guess I fit into the older population of this thread (I'm 28), and I agree with most of what my fellow geezers have said. But it took me a long time to even give some classic artists a chance because their more mainstream songs (ie: Beatles "I want to hold your hand") didn't hold up with me. Only after listening to their entire catalogue did I realize that their music is, in fact, timeless and better than most of what's released today.
But I think the perspective argument can only go so far. I love a lot of the Rolling Stones albums (Exile, Let it Bleed, Beggar's), and I consider them revolutionary records in their own right. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go track down a lot of their blues influences to see if I'm out of line in dubbing them so. There's only so much I can retain at one time.... Senior moments?

i want to say 2 things.

1. Age is irrelevant, it means you have had more opportunity to listen to more albums, but doesn't mean you have done so. I'm sure I'll already know more music than many people will ever know in their lifetimes, and I'm only 23. Similarly there'll be people younger than me who know more than I do (my so-called 'musical awakening' was only 6 years ago, but I've acquired almost 700 albums in that time). Personally, I don't really buy the new/old music differential - I want to listen to GREAT MUSIC, whenever it's come out, and I consider the previous 3 months music as no more or less important than March-May 1981, or Sep-Nov 1968, or Jun-Aug 1993 or whatever (in fact the only reason I do hear more recent stuff proportionally is I get given recent things to review). People who focus too much of their listening time on NEW music miss out on a hell of a lot IMO.



2. WHERE THE BLOODY HELL'S THIS FINAL LIST?!?!?

quote:

Originally posted by kelly 1l1:

All things are relative; that's all I'm saying.
If the discussion is on copying the things that came before (and feeling that the things before are superior) why not take it back a few cycles?

I don't think anyone made the claim that "all things before are superior". There's a lot of crappy music from the 60s-90s, just as there's a lot of terrific music from the 00s. I'm just in agreement with pE that younger posters have a tendancy to overhype new artists as being revolutionary, when often times, they're not. I don't necessarily equate uniqueness with quality, but if your sole reason for liking Sufjan Stevens (random example) is that he's doing something that no one's ever done before, maybe you should look back a few years.

quote:

Originally posted by Borachon:
It is particularly condescending to generalise about "the kids" and their ability to critically assess today's music because they haven't heard every album released since the War. It's a bit like confusing general knowledge for intelligence.

To clarify two points:

1. The 'kids' became the issue because someone called out Mark F for putting Dylan and other old fogeys on his list. When you arrogantly take a shot at someone's age and ask them to justify why they didn't include YOUR favorite younger artist, you've committed the same fallacy.

2. I never, personally, took any shot at 'the kids' or the people on these Forums. What I said was that I find obnoxious those people who make ridiculous statements about music history but who have no knowledge of music to back it up. That has no bearing on the aesthetics. If you like only records made from 2000-forward, fine. I think you're missing out, but you've got your taste and I have mine. But if you think that folk music started in 2003 with Devendra Banhart, I'll call you on that. And, I noted, that those kinds of comments TEND to come from less knowledgeable music fans who are often younger. But older folks make errors, too. I called Timbaland "Timberland" in one posting.

I will tell you that my responses come from personal experience of years working as a college radio DJ, an indie record store clerk, and a record label employee. I've been confronted with numerous people ('kids') who made big statements but were musically ignorant. In particular, there's often the attitude of "if that was out when my dad was my age, I won't listen to it because it sucks!" I'm not saying the majority of 'kids' are like that, but I've personally run across a lot who were. One example: I was once chastized about my lack of respect for the Sex Pistols by a kid who couldn't tell me one thing done by any of the members of the band after they split. I don't think that impacts his LOVE of the music, but I think it affect his ability to criticize ME for my lack of affection for his favorite band.

Part of leland's general point was that there is an obvious derision by SOME younger folks about the attitudes of older folks. That's just a bullshit as deriding someone just because they're younger, and deserves the same critique.

I thought old folks didn't even know how to use computers.

I hope I didn't have that attitude when I was in my late teens. I'm only 28, but I try to give respect where it's due.

Here's an easy one. We always joke (and complain) that this is nothing but Radiohead forums and forums about different artists that turn into radiohead forums. I know there are many Radiohead fans on here, some who think that the Beatles suck. I bet those same people claim that Paranoid Android is the best (or one of the best) song ever. I also bet those same people don't know that Paranoid Android came to fruition because Thom Yorke loved the Beatles "Happiness is a Warm Gun" and wanted to make a song with extreme dynamic shifts.

Lastly, I bet those people who claim the Beatles suck don't even know there's a song called "Happiness is a Warm Gun". Happiness is an amazing song btw.

So, without all of the old fogey music, the second coming of Christ (aka Radiohead) wouldn't even exist. It's nice to be here today, but you have to aknowlege and respect what it took to get here.

Also they'd have to rename themselves, and some of their songs ("Subterranean Homesick Alien"...).

quote:

Originally posted by Vykromond:
Also they'd have to rename themselves, and some of their songs ("Subterranean Homesick Alien"...).

Exactly. There's the Dylan nod I forgot about! Cheers.

I'm not even really sure how this argument got started - nothing seemed particularly offensive or antagonistic to me. But I will weigh in on it in this way...

To the younger folks:

You've gotta have respect for the older music fans because they've been doing it since before the internet was even around, and it was a lot harder back then. I've got love for anyone who's devoted enough of their life to music to be enthrolled with it for ten-fifteen years, and some of our member have more then that.

To the older folks:

The young kids are truly what the music community thrives on. Without opinionated, ambitious kids, new music would seize to exist. Anyway, It's OK to be opinionated when you're young because you haven't been confronted with how much you don't know yet. Just give them some time to figure things out, and if they say something that's clearly false, kindly correct them.



As far as I can tell, none of the members of Metacritic are beyond learning and listening about music. Most seem to be excited about listening and learning about the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, hell...even the 90s and 00s.

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
I called Timbaland "Timberland" in one posting.

I love his outdoor gear!