The Twilight craze and Katy Perry topping the charts proves

[midnightpulp]

What was so great about the 90's? Bands like Smashmouth and TV like TRL was popular.

The 90s was Indie rock's Golden Age. Bands like Sonic Youth, Yo La Tengo, Pavement, Neutral Milk Hotel, and Radiohead were all at their respective peaks then. Not to mention more mainstream bands like U2 cutting classic albums. And the best hip-hop and electronica arguably came from the decade.

Claim to any editor from Pitchfork that the 2000s is in any way comparable to the 90s, and they would

[Höfner]

The 90s was Indie rock's Golden Age. Bands like Sonic Youth, Yo La Tengo, Pavement, Neutral Milk Hotel, and Radiohead were all at their respective peaks then. Not to mention more mainstream bands like U2 cutting classic albums. And the best hip-hop and electronica arguably came from the decade.

Claim to any editor from Pitchfork that the 2000s is in any way comparable to the 90s, and they would

Let me guess: you grew up, or were in your 20's in in the 90's.

[midnightpulp]

How else did you mean to group the Katy Perry and the Twilight series?

You absolutely are referencing pop culture, whether you realize it or not.

Because there's bands in every decade that are compared with the Beatles and are just as loved, including this one. What do the Beatles have to do with Twilight? Or even Katy Perry? And why do you think one popular band proves your point in any, way, shape or form?

Repeat: there were plenty of popular groups and trends in the 60's that were considered stupid, even then. Pill-box hats, for instance.

I don't really know how to get my point through to you with anymore clarity.

I know there has always been stupid trends, music, and cinema, my overarching point is that the trends of today are far stupider and more vapid than the stupid trends of yesterday. A person wearing a pill-box hat still looks a lot less ridiculous than an androgynous emo . And the best selling artists and biggest movies of yesterday, like The Beatles and The Godfather, are better than the best selling artists and biggest movies of today, like Katy Perry and Twilight.

I'm using the comparisons to demonstrate how mainstream tastes have changed for the worse.

What don't you understand?

[JoeChalupa]

I go through the Coac a, ACL, Bonnaroo etc lineups. I go through all the NME, RollingStone, and metacritic reviews and look for good music and its out there.

I think one of the major problems that people have once they get out of high school and college is that the avenues that people have for finding new music just dry up. All your friends are no longer going to concerts all the time anymore and people just have other things take up their attention.

I remember in high school that was what we were all about. Now its fulltime jobs, kids and the like. So people resort to having to look to the radio, MTV and top 40 for music. That has been a ty place to look for music.

As for movies you are going by a lot of false assumptions here. There are very few good movies each year that gross well and are really quality cinema. Sure you have the Departed and LoTR but for the most part its Shrek, Transformers and Spiderman. Its just the nature of the beast. Kids and there parents are the preponderance of who goes to the movies.

Also there has been somewhat of a brain drain from film to TV. Premium cable channels are producing shows like the Soprano's, the Wire, Breaking Bad, and the like. These shows are given budgets like movies and are being shot, written and directed more like movies.

Compare Hill Street Blues to the Wire or Lonesome Dove to Deadwood and you start to get my meaning.

The landscape has just changed. There is still good art out there you just cannot look in the same places necessarily as you used to. Don't get old and in a rut.

I concur. As I got older my priorities changed and I didn't keep with the latest music as I did before. I still enjoy some of the newer music but I never like or got into the whole rap thing. Most of the bands some of you all list I've never listened to so to be honest I may like it I just haven't had the desire to listen to it. Perhaps I am stuck in a classic rock rut.

[midnightpulp]

Let me guess: you grew up, or were in your 20's in in the 90's.

I was a teenager in the 90s. If anything, the 2000s is my formative decade and I just have to shake my head at the amount of crap my generation s out.

I don't see what my age has to do with the argument, although I know you're looking to play the "nostalgia" angle on me and deem my arguments biased.

I wasn't alive in the 60s and I consider it the best period in pop-music history. I wasn't alive in 70s and I consider it the best period in American cinema (with the 40s a very close second).

So, yeah, nostalgia plays no role in my taste or the perspective of my arguments.

[JoeChalupa]

Did anyone get into hip-hop country line dancing?

[mrsmaalox]

Did anyone get into hip-hop country line dancing?

Hey!! My mom is a dance teacher and that stuff is her bread and butter at senior citizens' centers

[Höfner]

I don't really know how to get my point through to you with anymore clarity.

I know there has always been stupid trends, music, and cinema, my overarching point is that the trends of today are far stupider and more vapid than the stupid trends of yesterday. A person wearing a pill-box hat still looks a lot less ridiculous than an androgynous emo . And the best selling artists and biggest movies of yesterday, like The Beatles and The Godfather, are better than the best selling artists and biggest movies of today, like Katy Perry and Twilight.

I'm using the comparisons to demonstrate how mainstream tastes have changed for the worse.

What don't you understand?

I understand exactly, now. You have an opinion that's mostly misinformed and judgmental, and want to get it out there.

Knock yourself out.

[Höfner]

I was a teenager in the 90s.

As I predicted.

I don't see what my age has to do with the argument, although I know you're looking to play the "nostalgia" angle on me and deem my arguments biased.

It's not an angle to "play", as much as it is an easily predicted fact about you. You, like billions before you, hearken back to the "good ol' days" and think those who live in the present and follow current trends are idiotic, "scene", ignorant to the past, or worse, while believing the past was this much better golden age.

The same types of people said the same types of things back then, back forever. This type of opinion is rather common.

And if there's anyone to say this to you, it's me: the 60's and 70's are easily my favorite decades. , we probably share many opinions about some of today's trends and artists.

That doesn't make it okay to generalize an entire generation from your rather small perspective.

[marini martini]

Did anyone get into hip-hop country line dancing?

Hey!! My mom is a dance teacher and that stuff is her bread and butter at senior citizens' centers

That is sooo cool mrsm. you never told me that!!!


Ever since we moved out to the country, all our kids grew up doing this in the Old Dance Halls, Anhalt, Twin Sisters, Community Center's New Years Eve Parties, etc. Now at every wedding reception of our kids, it's just a given that we'll all be doing line dancing.

[midnightpulp]

As I predicted.

It's not an angle to "play", as much as it is an easily predicted fact about you. You, like billions before you, hearken back to the "good ol' days" and think those who live in the present and follow current trends are idiotic, "scene", ignorant to the past, or worse, while believing the past was this much better golden age.

The same types of people said the same types of things back then, back forever. This type of opinion is rather common.

And if there's anyone to say this to you, it's me: the 60's and 70's are easily my favorite decades. , we probably share many opinions about some of today's trends and artists.

That doesn't make it okay to generalize an entire generation from your rather small perspective.

Yawn. Yeah, you might've predicted a fact about me, but I predicted how you'd use that fact just the same. Try being objective and responding to my argument rather than deflecting.

Yes or no: Are modern consumers, namely the 18-35 demo, more myopic in taste and prone to media manipulation than in years past? Are today's trends artistically worse than yesterday's trends?

And as part of today's young "generation," my perspective is anything but small, and my arguments are anything but judgmental and misinformed. My examination of today's trends is done with cold objectivity and not some kind of nostalgic bias. And the fact that I think 60s were music's best decade proves your contention wrong that I desire to hearken back to the good ole days. How the can I hearken back to a time I wasn't even alive during?

The 60s are the best decade in music because they just are. Today is the worst decade in music because it just is. Today's biggest films are mostly piles of , yesterday's biggest films were actually good.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't really know how to get my point through to you with anymore clarity.

I know there has always been stupid trends, music, and cinema, my overarching point is that the trends of today are far stupider and more vapid than the stupid trends of yesterday. A person wearing a pill-box hat still looks a lot less ridiculous than an androgynous emo . And the best selling artists and biggest movies of yesterday, like The Beatles and The Godfather, are better than the best selling artists and biggest movies of today, like Katy Perry and Twilight.

I'm using the comparisons to demonstrate how mainstream tastes have changed for the worse.

What don't you understand?

You mention two of what boil down to be aberrations and then hold current trends up to them as if that proves anything.

The Beatles were a kids band to start off with. Have you seen footage from Shea Staium in the early 60s with all the teenie boppers crying? They were putting out like I Want To Hold Your Hand for christ's sake.

I have talked to my uncles and they both have said that they hated the early Beatles and essentially their at ude towards them was the same as our was towards NKOTB and NSync.

It wasn't until Revolver in the mid sixties with songs like Tomorrow Never Knows that they started doing the strange modes and studio experimentation that revolutionized music.

They were a once in a lifetime phenomenon.

Comparing summer movies to films that come out later in the year right before the Oscars is laughable and shows you know nothing how the movie industry works.

Quite frankly if you look at the top grossing films and top 40 music for the last 50 years its a whole slew of that is just terrible. Pointing out two acts during that time frame doesn't show anything.

[Höfner]

like I said, misinformed and judgmental.

For example, what would it change that I think the 60's was a better decade musically? I still think there's a load of great music from each subsequent decade. And there's plenty (read: majority) of people who don't find the 60's an appealing decade musically, simply because it sounds so goddamn ancient compared with what they've been exposed to and enjoyed their entire life.



I'll say it again: what does Twilight sucking *according to you* or the Beatles being much better than today's hit artists *according to you* mean, empirically? Nothing, because they're puffs of hot, misinformed, judgmental air hearkening back to the good ol' days.

[Höfner]

Quite frankly if you look at the top grossing films and top 40 music for the last 50 years its a whole slew of that is just terrible. Pointing out two acts during that time frame doesn't show anything.

Egg. ing. Zactly.

Why use a couple notable names to qualify such a wide-reaching appraisal? The simple concept behind your "arguments" makes you wrong immediately.

[IronMexican]

I like the 70's better than the 60's for music. So much classic albums in the 70's.


To go completely off topic, my favorite albums by decade:

60's: In the Court of the Crimson King
70's: Animals, Thick as a Brick, or Selling England by the pound. This one is too hard for me to choose.

80's: Joy Division's Closer

90's: OK Computer

00's: Kid A

[midnightpulp]

You mention two of what boil down to be aberrations and then hold current trends up to them as if that proves anything.

The Beatles were a kids band to start off with. Have you seen footage from Shea Staium in the early 60s with all the teenie boppers crying? They were putting out like I Want To Hold Your Hand for christ's sake.

I have talked to my uncles and they both have said that they hated the early Beatles and essentially their at ude towards them was the same as our was towards NKOTB and NSync.

It wasn't until Revolver in the mid sixties with songs like Tomorrow Never Knows that they started doing the strange modes and studio experimentation that revolutionized music.

They were a once in a lifetime phenomenon.

Comparing summer movies to films that come out later in the year right before the Oscars is laughable and shows you know nothing how the movie industry works.

Quite frankly if you look at the top grossing films and top 40 music for the last 50 years its a whole slew of that is just terrible. Pointing out two acts during that time frame doesn't show anything.

Um, early Beatles is some of the best "pop" music ever produced. Every music critic worth his weight would acknowledge that. And how about other pop acts like The Shangri-Las and The Ronettes? Let's compare those "teenage girl groups," who were produced by geniuses like George Shadow Martin and Phil Spector to Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. The former has mood, atmosphere, strong melodies and hooks while the latter is simply a steaming pile of artificial sounding, heavily computerized garbage.

Forget the Godfather, it was an example I used with the intention of showing how a slow moving, 3 hour film with a predominantly middle-aged cast wouldn't pull those numbers in today's theaters. So let's compare Summer movies shall we. Back to the Future better than Twilight. Yes or no? Ghostbusters better than Twilight. Yes or no? Jaws better than Twilight. Yes or no? Raiders of the Lost Ark better than Twilight. Yes or no?

Do I really need to go on?

At least blockbusters had a little bit of artistic merit back then. Since the 90s, outside the Dark Knights, LOTRs, etc, blockbusters are terrible films. You said it yourself in an earlier post.

[Veterinarian]

Höfner's takes in this thread have been consistently re ed.

[Höfner]

Höfner's takes in this thread have been consistently re ed.

Thank you, kind veterinarian, sir.

[midnightpulp]

Egg. ing. Zactly.

Why use a couple notable names to qualify such a wide-reaching appraisal? The simple concept behind your "arguments" makes you wrong immediately.

So you think the acts that occupied the top ten list in 1969 are no better than acts that occupy the current top ten?



I'd admire your egalitarian at ude, I often find myself in that role arguing the merits of Spielberg with wannabe cinephiles on the IMDB boards, but you're absolutely in' deluded if you think the top 100 musical acts and top 20 films of 1969 are on "equal footing" with today's top 100 and 20.

But I love the way you two are simply focusing on my Beatles and Godfather examples and not even considering the argument I'm implying by citing those examples.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you think the acts that occupied the top ten list in 1969 are no better than acts that occupy the current top ten?



I'd admire your egalitarian at ude, I often find myself in that role arguing the merits of Spielberg with wannabe cinephiles on the IMDB boards, but you're absolutely in' deluded if you think the top 100 musical acts and top 20 films of 1969 are on "equal footing" with today's top 100 and 20.

But I love the way you two are simply focusing on my Beatles and Godfather examples and not even considering the argument I'm implying by citing those examples.

Those are the only two examples you have given numbnut. And we have addressed the argument on general merits.

And you can try and speak for music critics but if you do not understand that there was a dramatic shift in the type of music the Beatles put out before and after 1965 then you do not know about music.

Quite frankly your at ude is cliche and if you are under the age of 50 and acting like this then that is pretty ing sad.

[midnightpulp]

Those are the only two examples you have given numbnut. And we have addressed the argument on general merits.

And you can try and speak for music critics but if you do not understand that there was a dramatic shift in the type of music the Beatles put out before and after 1965 then you do not know about music.

Quite frankly your at ude is cliche and if you are under the age of 50 and acting like this then that is pretty ing sad.

Do you really need me to do the work for you and write out every popular musical act and popular film of the 60s through 90s for the sake of comparing them to today's popular acts and films?

Again, I challenge you to compare the Billboard chart from 1969 to today and tell me that the artists who occupy the former list are no better than the artists on today's list. If you cop out with the "aw shucks" at ude that it all comes down to opinion and neither is "empirically" better than the other, then the only thing that I can tell you is your taste in' sucks.

Where did I deny there wasn't a radical shift in the Beatles music as they matured? I was addressing your opinion that implied that pre-1965 Beatles were simply a teeny-bopper group that lacked artistry (quote you: They were putting out like I Wanna Hold Your Hand), which can't be further from the truth.

Tell me how my at ude is "sad?" Please.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you really need me to do the work for you and write out every popular musical act and popular film of the 60s through 90s for the sake of comparing them to today's popular acts and films?

Again, I challenge you to compare the Billboard chart from 1969 to today and tell me that the artists who occupy the former list are no better than the artists on today's list. If you cop out with the "aw shucks" at ude that it all comes down to opinion and neither is "empirically" better than the other, then the only thing that I can tell you is your taste in' sucks.

Where did I deny there wasn't a radical shift in the Beatles music as they matured? I was addressing your opinion that implied that pre-1965 Beatles were simply a teeny-bopper group that lacked artistry (quote you: They were putting out like I Wanna Hold Your Hand), which can't be further from the truth.

Tell me how my at ude is "sad?" Please.

http://web.archive.org/web/200712110...bums&year=1978

Actually I am looking at the Billboard top 100 for the last 50 years and as time goes by I am just laughing my ass off.

1978 sure was a great year with the Beegees and John ing Travolta topping the music charts.

The early 60s it was a bunch of showtunes like Camelot with an occasional Elvis album. Who were the top 2 albums in 1967? They were Monkees albums. Thats right the ing Monkees outsold Sgt Peppers in 1967.

Here are the top songs of 1967:

http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/1967.php

There was a great period from 1968 to 1971 that included CCR, Beatles, Led Zep, Jimi etc, then it starts into John Denver, The Carpenters, Barbara Streisand and Peter Frampton, Start getting into the late 70s and you see disco bull and ABBA and then the eighties are when MJ takes over. Then you start getting into Whitesnake Heart and Bon Jovi.

Youre just full of . I already looked over the movies box office sales I can go over those too.

And your at ude is sad because you obviously have no ing clue what are actually on the charts and spout this nostalgic bull pining for the good old days. Youre acting like the elderly do and that conservative mindset is as I said, sad.

And Jesus have you even listened to Beatles for Sale or With the Beatles? Yu just have no clue whatsoever.

[koriwhat]

also, kesha is sexy as .

no even! chick has no ass and looks like every other blonde chick. no ass!

[midnightpulp]

http://web.archive.org/web/200712110...bums&year=1978

Actually I am looking at the Billboard top 100 for the last 50 years and as time goes by I am just laughing my ass off.

1978 sure was a great year with the Beegees and John ing Travolta topping the music charts.

The early 60s it was a bunch of showtunes like Camelot with an occasional Elvis album. Who were the top 2 albums in 1967? They were Monkees albums. Thats right the ing Monkees outsold Sgt Peppers in 1967.

Here are the top songs of 1967:

http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/1967.php

There was a great period from 1968 to 1971 that included CCR, Beatles, Led Zep, Jimi etc, then it starts into John Denver, The Carpenters, Barbara Streisand and Peter Frampton, Start getting into the late 70s and you see disco bull and ABBA and then the eighties are when MJ takes over. Then you start getting into Whitesnake Heart and Bon Jovi.

Youre just full of . I already looked over the movies box office sales I can go over those too.

And your at ude is sad because you obviously have no ing clue what are actually on the charts and spout this nostalgic bull pining for the good old days. Youre acting like the elderly do and that conservative mindset is as I said, sad.

And Jesus have you even listened to Beatles for Sale or With the Beatles? Yu just have no clue whatsoever.

Monkees are actually not a bad listen. I won't try to convince you otherwise, but they are a 100x better than Katy Perry and Lady in Gaga.

And Bon Jovi and Whitesnake are twice the bands Nickelback and Daughtry are. That's the point you seem to miss. I never denied there wasn't crap in the past, I'm contending that today's crap is far worse than past crap, and the fact I think that Bon Jovi sounds like the Velvet Underground when compared to like Nickelback proves that.

Do you deny this? You haven't made one claim in this whole conversation. You default to deflection all too quickly, resorting to calling me "nostalgic" and my at ude "sad."

Let's get back on track and clarify, okay.

My argument: Mainstream consumers, namely the 18-35 demographic, are more tasteless than ever, and the popular "crap" of today is far worse than popular "crap" of yesterday. I've cited Billboard charts (and I do have a clue about them since I got the in' book right in front of me) and box office receipts as evidence of how consumer taste has progressively gotten worse.

Agree or disagree?

Make an argument instead of caterwauling about my "at ude."

And if your first salvo is referencing the BeeGees and Michael Jackson's popularity as "proof" that consumer taste was as bad back then as it is today, my response to that is those artists are much better than wits like Gaga, Justin Bieber, and Drake.

[xellos88330]

Isn't it the movie makers decision on who get the roles? If they want to lessen their movie by selecting lesser talent then the blame is on the maker and not the viewer. No?

Exactly. I don't think it is a problem with the movie goers, but the movie makers. Economy went to , so ty actors is what we get.