Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
A vast majority of albums there are made by people 30 plus. Why is that?
Do critics instinctively distrust you people?
Do old people make better music?
and one i can't really talk about since i'm going home in 30 seconds
-some guy: "critics like Elvis Costello cos they look like him" >> similiar in other ways etc. etc.
-maybe already made a name for themselves in music >> such artist get higher ratings in general
i've been smezzer, good night
A lot of my favourite music is made by people over 30 though.
That Field album is ace, btw.
In the fifties and sixties, most great music was made by those under thirty. There were some brilliant songs of startling skill and maturity made by 22 year olds. However, being 22 in 1965 is a different thing to being 22 in 2007. Back then a 22 year old would certainly have a full time job, probably be married and very likely have children. In short, they were 'grown up'.
In 2007, a 22 year old is basically still a kid...thirty year olds today are probably the emotional equivilent of a 21 year old in the sixties.
I think older people DO make better music now. I can't think of many 20 something bands around now who don't sound like brats to me. I like music made by 20 somethings in the sixties and music made by thirty somethings today
ps- note that a few of the older artists on that list have made a shitload of albums already.
I find it utterly amazing that a band like the Futureheads could be dropped after two albums! Imagine if that had been The Beach Boys...
.....The Futureheads are not The Beach Boys.
Have you listened to the first two Beach Boys albums? They are extremely primitive, and there isn't really much in the way of great songwriting on them.
If they had been dropped on the strength of those, we'd never have heard Pet Sounds etc, cos that was like, their tenth album.
Record companies don't want to stick with a talent to see how id develops, which is another part of the big jigsaw puzzle that sees us lumbered with a bunch of emotionally retarded dwarfs in skinny jeans singing about nothing
"Back then a 22 year old would certainly have a full time job, probably be married and very likely have children. In short, they were 'grown up'. In 2007, a 22 year old is basically still a kid"
For fuck's sake. Maybe in your restricted world view? The majority of people leave school at sixteen and get a job!!
58% education participation for 17 year olds at end 2001.
not including those who have gone on to apprenticeships and that, though that probably counts under 'job'.
and that's not all that grockle was saying, if you leave the 'i slept in a flour sack and had to walk seven miles to school without shoes' shit out of it. with your views, you should be picking up on the infantilising effect of consumerism and mass entertainment. 'imho'.
i want an answer to this
Oh Traynor...champion of the working classes, telling it like it is since 2007.
You know full well that what I typed is valid, and you're just being shitty. Tonnes more young people go to university now than did then, if they don't go to university, people will often act like cunts for a few years anyway, because society doesn't expect them to be anything as they are 'young'.
I'm not the first person to have suggested that there is an extended childhood/teenaged period these days. Google it, get over yourself, and tell me why or why not I am wrong for suggesting this is why our record shops are infested with hoards of vacuous 22 year old chimps with all the wit and wisdom of 'just william'
just william is ace.
Because in the 60s rock'n'roll and essentially everything that makes up today's 'modern' music WAS new so that many of the people involved in it were, by default, teenagers or in their early 20s.
I think the difference now is not about maturity in people but that society accepts people over 30 have a lot more to say. Essentially the press and the industry have stopped marginalising over 30s because now being 40 isn't considered 'old' in the way it once was. Society is ceasing to tell people that once they're 30/40/50 they are 'winding down'.
it makes sense that people aren't considered 'old' when they get to 40 now because they reached maturity later.
rearrange that sentence until it makes sense.
I'm not sure you've explained how or why my argument is flawed.
Interested though, so have another crack.
that there are still large numbers of 22 year olds with kids and so forth...and I don't think that 22 year olds are necessarily any less mature.
The difference is that 'old' people are listened to more, not that 22 year olds in 1960 are the equivalent of me now as a 32 year old. The difference is only that a 32 year old in 1960 would almost certainly have been interested in a totally different sort of music.
To parallel, when a new 'scene' has broken out in music it tends to be dominated by very young bands because no one old is still peddling that shit. (I'm thinking here of when synth stuff dominated in the 80s and I guess rave and dance music ideas that came after, not retro 60s/70s type stuff in Britpop.)
The problem we have now is there's little new or innovative in a broad and sweeping way left. This is combined with an acceptance that someone of 40 may still have much to over the media and the world of art. (This isn't the same as 30 year olds still being like kids, just that society is accepting that age isn't a factor.)
I don't really agree with your argument about relative maturity: all that's happened is that there are more people around who are familiar with 'modern' music who are also old...and there's more money to be made if you want to reform a band but that's a different matter.
"The problem we have now is there's little new or innovative in a broad and sweeping way left."
I've always felt this is because record companies have concentrated so much on that which is 22 and skinny, rather than what is good...
I'm surprised you don't agree with the relative maturity thing. It's a wonderful point, if I'm any judge! ;)
The main reason I don't is down to realising how hard it is to tell if you're 'mature'.
I don't think that looking back at the Beatles aged 22 in the Anthology stuff they seem any more or less mature than any other 22 year old I've met.
they are a special case (cuntstwats)- but even they had lived a whole lot more than most 22 year olds I know.
All that shit in Hamburg etc...certain amount of fending for themselves.
I know the maturity thing isn't a measurable thing, so I can't really 'prove it'...which is a shame, cos I think there's something in it.
is relative, but older people have often had more 'life experience' (admittedly, a very ugly phrase). The truth is that older people have generally had more genuine hearbreak; been to more funerals; been dropped by more labels; have read more Dan Brown novels etc.
With age comes wisdom - one of the few things to look forward to as we start to deteriorate. That said, clever and wise songwriting doesn't always make for exciting music. A lot of our best musicians check out at 27. Usually because they were having an 'exciting' time with drugs and alcohol.
No one else think so?
but i'm not gonna write anything in depth now.
i do reckon this is an underrated thread though. Next time you should namecheck Bright Eyes or The Twang or something, might get a bit more interest
"critics are aghast".
I'm sorry, that really is my only contribution at this stage.
Most people prefer the music of their generation. Most critics are in their thirties. So that's why. I guess.
I'm 35 and most of my favourite music at the moment is by the likes of Frank Black, J Mascis, Kristen Hersh, Mark Kozelek etc etc. Ie people I grew up listening to.
I'm sure 17 year olds are making music that is just as good, if not better, but I can't relate to it. If I was the music critic for The Sunday Times I'd give the new Dinosaur Jr album 5 stars, but I'm not sure I'd be right to do so.
if you think it deserves 5 stars then you'd be right to give it 5 stars, as long as thats your honest to god opinion of it.