Why Music Can Sound Worse Over Time
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Chapters
00:00 - Introduction
03:20 - What is the test of time?
04:30 - Can music be “timeless”?
06:00 - Irrelevant POVs
07:20 - Novelty
10:30 - Timing
13:45 - Masculine & Feminine
21:30 - In Opposition
25:20 - Predictions
Follow me
Patreon: / gee_derrick
TikTok: / gee_derrick
Instagram: / gee_derrick
Newsletter: derrickgee.substack.com/
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/1PfPtHX...
About Me:
Hi there! My name is Derrick Gee - radio host, DJ and creator who likes to talk about music, hifi and ideas. Thanks for reading this - you really didn’t have to. Much love
i think the whole masculine and feminine perspective on music is really fascinating, the Beatles music comes to mind, rob Sheffield has a great take on how the Beatles wanted to write music like the girl groups around that time, they wanted to feel the same kind of feelings they expressed in their songs, and in turn John and Paul's songwriting really reflected that idea of wanting to feel honestly and to express that through their songwriting. love both bandsplain and speaks volumes
Wow that's super interesting. They were into Motown girl groups from memory and makes total sense how they managed to seperate themselves from other bands at the time. Love u back!
As a music teacher, I've noticed a resurgence of interest in RHCP. I hope that you're right about No Doubt and third wave ska comes back in the limelight!
I think you’re spot on with chilli peppers. I’ve been seeing their clips coming back around online.
I think about this topic a lot. It’s hard to tell, but sometimes feels like the people who “shunned” bands for being uncool have grown up a bit and are less judgemental. maybe they/we aren’t trying so hard to be cool ourselves and accept some of the music they chose to dismiss based on image or how uncool the band was.. and now in retrospect realising that some of that music was actually just quite catchy. If that makes sense?
Also a point someone made to me recently; we all saw bands like limp biskit rise to fame and witness them fall.. the people who are really truly bringing back that era of music actually never heard it the first time.. they wouldn’t have been born or were just too young to remember it. So it’s new and exciting for them. That’s how I feel about it anyway..
makes total sense. I also think younger people judge it on face value - music and visuals without the "cultural cringe" they might've gone through as they aged. So they just look at a video and go "hey...this is kinda dope", and we continue.
In order for a band or artist to stand the test of time, is more about the media and how backed they are by the media.
The best example I can give is the Spice Girls, I don’t think their music has aged well at all, in fact I think the ageing process for the Spice Girls was very quick and had aged really bad within a few years after they disbanded. However the Spice Girls were such a huge act at the time and they had such a huge media impact and made all the girls big stars especially Victoria that the Spice Girls will always be talked about for years and years and years to come.
Where to contrast that let’s look at Steps, a UK PoP group around the same time as the Spice Girls, and Steps’s music also hasn’t aged well at all either, and just like the Spice Girls, Steps’s music had already aged very bad by the time they disbanded. But Steps weren’t a huge act, they had 15 minutes of fame and they will never be talked about other then a “remember them” moment here and there.
So it’s all about how big of an artist or band you are that the media pushes you that will dictate how long you last in peoples minds.
But speaking of Spice Girls and Steps, imo they were the only two acts from that late 90’s and early 00’s PoP Group/Girlgroup/Boyband explosion that aged bad imo.
Looking at the others like Backstreet Boys, Nsync, Five, Westlife, Bewitched, Liberty X, Destiny’s Child, S Club 7, I think all of those groups music have aged well I think.
Westlife is a very strange one though, because Westlife are one of the biggest hit makers in U.K. chart history, the amount of number 1 singles Westlife had from their first in 1999 to I think their last in 2009 is ridiculous with so many number 1 singles, yet Westlife is an act that very few people talk about today in the U.K.. From 1999 to 2006 especially Westlife were everywhere in the U.K. media landscape, yet they don’t get talked about much today, which I find strange for such a successful group.
Something about Spice Girls, Steps and you could throw in Take That (an early 90’s group) in there as well that didn’t age well imo, but I don’t fully know what that is why I think those 3 groups didn’t age well like the rest did imo.
Yet because Spice Girls and Take That had such a huge media impact that they will be known for a very long time yet their music has aged the worst out of the rest of the 90’s and early 00’s PoP groups imo.
As for later PoP groups like Pussycat Dolls and later One Direction I don’t think those two groups have aged well at all, like One Direction has aged like milk, and they weren’t good to begin with.
Man, i agree with a ton of what this guy says. Many artists are a parody of the time.
I like this thesis especially because I don’t think enough thought has been given to the subject. Hard to predict what works and what might not persist and I think a lot of that might be generational or what speaks to the current music listeners. I do wonder if some of the peaks and valleys of popularity that you mentioned might be influenced by what kids are subjected to by their parents. I know a lot of what I like was influenced by my parents listening to the golden oldies in the car and at home. Maybe my kid will stumble across the weeknd a few decades from now and it will scratch some nostalgic itch in his brain 😂
Hahahah so true - a parent and MAKE or ruin and artist for a person. Phil Collins was a staple in my house.......
I think some music can age bad, but it depends on that person and taste someone has.
For example the genres that I personally feel have aged really bad are
PoP Punk
Dubstep
Emo/Post Hardcore/Crunkcore
80’s Hair/Glam Metal
70’s Glam Rock
Punk
Crunk Rap
New Wave/Post Punk
80’s SynthPoP
80’s Bubblegum Pop
Disco
00’s R&B
early 2010’s Reggaeton
Two Tone Ska and Third Wave Ska
BritPoP/British Indie
00’s Indie/Garage Revival
I feel those genres have really aged bad, but that’s also because I hate these genres.
I might be listing off some peoples favourite genres here, but I can’t stand them personally.
I also feel time won’t be kind to Trap and KPoP.
But at the end of the day it’s all subjective, so when people say “oh that didn’t age well” basically means they don’t like it.
The only things in music that objectively ages bad is some lyrics concerning the future, like a rapper bragging about things that they later get in trouble for as an example, or lyrics about outdated PoP Culture.
Might be easier to list what genres you DO like.
Also, the philosophy that "I don't like this kind of music, therefore this kind of music is bad" is a rather immature take on the subject, no?
@@ClarenceEwing No, because thats how taste works. Music is very subjective to someone’s personal taste. So “oh that didn’t age well” tends to be because someone doesn’t like it.
The only things that objectively age bad in music is bad lyrics that reference outdated PoP culture or bad lyrics with future consequence.
haha this is a fun and candid take. I think trap and kpop have very much produced quantity/confectionary-type music, so while some songs will be outliers, much of it will be for the landfill
Wow KISS and Weezer touring together, you couldn’t get two bands that are more worlds apart from each other if you tried.
What are you talking about, both are pretty bad lol
@ I’m talking about how Kiss and Weezer are two extremely different bands to be touring together.
Kiss is a band that loves big shows, big pageantry, a grand feel.
Where as Weezer are a much more primitive indie/Emo/Punk type of band that are very stripped back and minimalist.
You always here the phrase “Rock Music is Dead” now over the last 10 years, specifically Hard Rock music.
Now Hard Rock music is supposed to be very macho, aggressive, angry, anti established, and wild music. It’s music that’s supposed to be confrontational to get your adrenaline going.
Bands that would fall under the Hard Rock umbrella would be AC/DC, Guns N Roses, Nirvana, Limp Bizkit, and Nickelback. As examples
But over the last 13 years, the Hard Rock genre has become pretty much extinct in the mainstream zone with very little to no new bands coming up.
And I wonder if this whole Political Correctness and this whole “Toxic Masculinity” shit that these strange people come up with has anything to do with that.
Because there is no such thing as “Toxic Masculinity”. Us humans are an animal species and we have our primal animalistic urges in us, which ultimately comes down to Sex and Violence, humans love those two things so much because it’s in our primitive animal nature as humans.
Nirvana is not macho at all. Kurt was anti-machismo so intensely he would rather have had no one buy his albums than for macho dudebros to buy them.