Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
1: Bad production.
2: Rubbish lyrics.
No question about it. This is a fact
id totally agree
but what about The Beatles man! They are the best band that have ever been! Their lyrics definitely aren't rubbish
The Beatles suck.
The Motown repertoire on the other hand...
Also: Every single song released from Jan 1 1980 to December 31 1989 is a crime on the level of the Holocaust and Stalin's purges rolled into one. I blame the reverb snare.
this is the thread of opposites, dude, if you think The Beatles suck, you say 'the were the greatest' and if you think music made after 1980 is generally not worth bothering with, you diss pre-1980 stuff!
I've had it up to here with yer RULES!!
I hate this thread
and maybe three neil young songs. Thats it.
otherwise this is probably the most retarded thing that's ever appeared on DiS
sorry, my bad. Remove the "probably" from that sentence
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Don't mention Pearls Before Swine, dude...don't want none of that sixties shit here. Remember: bad lyrics, bad production, boring.
plus, they put stuff out on a jazz label. jazz! what's WITH that?
and I'd agree. Kinda. Just not interested in it.
that statement wasn't sweeping enough
you've got to wonder what the point of a thread like this is, really. Attention seeking?
Yes they are.
Kurt is a legendary wag
who could forget his "OMG i just won the lottery thread"? JAPESVILLE
And Big Trouble In Little China. Classic flick.
are you joking?
i hope so...
have you even heard every note of music made before the 80s...the jazz from the 30s, 60s girl groups, crazy dances from medievil times????
The 80s had post punk, bowie, talking heads etc etc etc
COME ON! THIS IS A NO BRAINER
No brainer = Pretentious neon garbage.
Because they are hipster bullshit.
Nothing? An entire decade: derided.
King Crimson were good in the 70s. They went ubershit in the 80s. But in the 90s became good again.
That's because the 80s were the worst decade of all time.
Trut So Pure.
good opportunity to talk about good 80s music. I've listened to "dancing in the dark" about 50 times today.
people agreeing with him - fucking hilarious?
yeah...he is obviously taking the piss, but the people agreeing are fucking hilarious
"You have to remember that technology has move on a lot since then. Bands now have more sounds to experiment with and be creative"
This retarded pair of sentences sound sort of like an explanation for why so many less good songs are written today, compared to the sixties/seventies! Fuck writing a good song, we can just go bloop! WHEEE!
I didn't say that you said better songs are written today, I was interested in the idea that the thing you think is good about modern times/making music, is the thing that I think is bad about it
All the gear/equiptment is too accessible for me now. Way back in prehistory, if you wanted phasing, you synced up two taperecorders, and moved one in and out of sync. Now you just buy a pedal or use the same plug in that every other fucker uses, and it sounds exactly the same as every other fucker using a phaser. It's shit. I kinda like the restrictive nature of old gear. That stuff inspires a lot more creativity than off the shelf 'sounds'
Old music isn't dull. www.myspace.com/bunkerhill
I reserve my right to make a little dig for saying that, despite your proviso that no one can hear everything ;)
Yeah, that is what I'm saying. I mean, I've lost count of the threads on here where people want to know what fuzz pedal guitarist A uses, or want people to recommend a flanger etc. Not to blow my own trumpet, but cos I'm influenced by sixties geeks who cobbled shit together, when I want a fuzz sound on a recording, I link a couple of preamps together and distort the fuck out of them, and it sounds like the end of the world, not like a Boss DS-1 ;)
"One aspect of their music may sound similar to the same aspect of another band but that can always happen"
Well, NOW it can, yes, because there is so much stuff available, but in 1965 there was shit all available, so bands had to sink or swim by their songwriting, and their performance. There wasn't the same level of studio trickery available as there is today, bands generally set up, ran through once or twice, overdubbed a lead vocal, and that was it. None of this spending a day on a drum track which is gonna end up chopped to pieces in protools anyway...and when you chop a drum track up and put it in time, you're pretty much removing any personality or individuality the performance would have had. You may as well use a drum machine. Now multiply that by the whole band! I've been into the studio with a guy who literally moved each note of my bass part visually on the screen, so the notes were on the exact same beat as a fucking click track.
THAT is what the potential you're talking about has been reduced to. Cleaning the fuck out of everything 'because we can'
I didn't say that at all. I'm all for studio trickery, but I think there needs to be imagination behind it, not just bunging a load of standard effects on something because it's available to you.
Funny that you should make exactly the same logical fallacy he did then.
I'm not sure what you mean
I was giving you credit.
Simon & Garfunkle
are you on his side?
I'm saying that the above bands are infact good.
Yeah, I know...I was being cheeky- cos of the hot prog action- ;) (which I actually don't mind)
Really? Rush are good? Really?
Was that before the 80's??
were terrific bands. I would certainly hope one the five tune you refer to is the formers "To cut a long Story Short" and shurley "Club Tropicana" by Wham is a classic... or are you just being provocative?
But in fact, I think music sort of died in the 80s.
It seems to me like the time when everyone realised everything had been done, and it was time to just start playing with 'state of the art' technology to make music.
The 80s make me feel sick. The 90s make me feel unhappy, apart from the Verve and Oasis and a bit of Pulp here and there.
I'll be the first to admit my 'knowledge' of 80s/90s music is tiny. But on the whole, they were two awful decades for someone who likes his drums without reverb, his films old and lovely and his clothes thin.
=you are wrong
=you are wrong
=you are wrong
=you are wrong
= you are wrong
cos... y'know, really
but I was just thinking about nearly every single review today depending on genre and whathaveya:
"sounds like the Stooges.. only not as good."
"sounds like Television... only not as good."
"sounds like the Stones/Beatles... only not as good."
"sounds like Bowie circa 107?... only not as good."
For the 80s:
"sounds like EATB/Cure/JAMC/REM/etc... only not as good."
Very occasionally... today's music is as good. In fact, I'm fanatical about today's stuff. But no one takes this seriously, eh.
Uh, he's not serious.
or that young...
I'm young! I like eating Haribo and use the word tinkle instead of piss. I'm young.