/mu/ is modern music shit and why so? Is it just me or does most

>>71132331
You could have at least picked better examples of """good music""", now you're just embarrassing yourself

>>71132331
>Am I just being a lewronggeneration faggot

Yes.

That said music has never been easier to record and publish - so i agree with you that the amount of indie "DEEP AND ORIGINAL" garbage floating around is awful.

>>71132348
The hell is wrong with those guys?

>>71132363
Nothing, but you chose very popular and overrated bands, thus showing that you're indeed a lewronggeneration faggot. Listen to more music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfYjQfjQITU
Published on Oct 28, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv0A-axCV7w
Published on Mar 3, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMksp1aJkbg
Published on Jun 15, 2016

>top 40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O-LfmuOhKg
Release date: July 4, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BdZLKlfOG8
Published on Jun 18, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6T0ahYeaN8
Release date: March 15, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtVV7q-_BE
Published on Jan 18, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTAU7lLDZYU
Published on May 6, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_a1hPwXiWw
Published on Apr 11, 2016

>>71132418
I chose them because they were popular. They might not be 10/10 (except for Danny elfman fuck you I would suck his dick) but they're a hell of a lot better then the shit in the top 40 nowadays.

>>71132532
>popular
Their best-known song,[citation needed] "Weird Science", was written for the John Hughes film of the same name, and was later included on their 1985 album Dead Man's Party.

>>71132532
>le top 40
How about you go and look at top 40 for 60's and 70's. You would recognize 5 songs a year maximum. The rest were forgotten, and guess why? [spoiler]Because they were shit.[/spoiler]

>>71132531
Lana del Rey and sia were what I was talking about when I meant overly pretentious. Kendrick and Radiogead are decent, but you can hardly say the over 2 songs were very popular even if they were in the top 40, I don't even remember them.

>>71132434
These are all alternative and not really part of what I'm talking about.

>>71132574
5 songs a year is better then we're doing now.

>>71132575
>Kendrick and Radiogead are decent, but you can hardly say the over 2 songs were very popular
both albums were massive hits although radiohead was a lot more dependent on their legacy but still got massive attention

>>71132596
Shit meant *other 2 songs. Sorry I'm on mobile. I love radiohead and Kendrick's albums I meant the other 2 songs that I didn't even remember existed.

>>71132621
Mark Ronson was arguably the biggest smash hit of the year if not the surrounding years. It's lead single is possibly the most successful of the millennium.

Maybe Car Seat was a tiny stretch but that is commonly considered the most relevant rock song of the year.
On May 13, 2016, Matador Records recalled the entire initial compact disc and vinyl print runs of the album following the denial of permission to use lyrics from The Cars' "Just What I Needed" in the song "Just What I Needed/Not Just What I Needed".[4] It was the first time in the label's history that they had recalled a record.[5] The recalled copies were destroyed in the label's warehouse using a garbage truck compactor.[5]

>>71132678
I seriously never heard car seat before, and I only remeber Mark Ronsin from a couple of movie trailers.

Also do record companies really still make actual records?

>>71132797
Yeah vinyl sales are at a 30 year high or some shit. I don't follow it too closely.

>>71132418
>Queen
>Overrated

No other band does or has done opera-styled rock fampai.

>>71132331
>but particuarly with what's popular and in the top 40 seems just to be complete and utter shit to me.
You're not wrong, therefore - don't listen to it.

>>71132331
It all sounds like it was recorded in the same studio.

File: 1443380489216.jpg (18KB, 299x300px)

18KB, 299x300px

>>71132331
sounds like you are just cherrypicking or falsely dichotomizing to generalize a set within which you apparently have both good and bad items. It is more up to you to determine whether "modern music" is shit by making your own distinction in quality of modern musical works while weighting them quantitatively with how many are "good" or "bad" if you are even keeping track.

Whatever I'll take the bait when someone makes counter-intuitive and overtly ambivalent statements about the condition of such a broad entity any day. t.autism

>>71132532
The majority of the top 40 have always been shit since the 70s.
#1 in October 1974 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pft1kkqKx_E
#1 in June 1978 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3ceb5OVG7k
#1 in December 1981 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWz9VN40nCA
#2 in March 1987 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwqa3QCwMw
#2 in September 1991 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2H6pTtEVlo (I think this one is going to become a guilty pleasure of mine tho tbqh)

And even in the 60s, a lot of hits were extremely formulaic and silly. I think the reason why the Beatles were so popular at that time is that they were more creative and interesting musically than the rest while still being very accessible and catchy.