''le born in wrong generation.'' plebeians

Watch a video of Hendrix live and then delete this thread

File: stage73.jpg (37KB, 404x319px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 404x319px

>>72378623


The technology, sound and mindset of a lot of the music/artists at the time. True psychonauts(most) putting together strange music. As opposed to what I see (personally) a lot of pretentious jerkoffs trying to replicate what has already happened. Some of them remind me of types of people who move into a shitty side of town just because it seems cool.

I mean, I like some of the artists out there today that have their own sound and talent. But they are few and far between.

But these are just my personal take on your particular question.

Survivor bias, probably.

punk sold out

Good music gets remembered, bad music is forgotten from the collective conscious
It was way harder to record and publish music so only dedicated artists released stuff.
Some stuff you can only do one time, you can't make another silver apples of the moon.

>>72379008
>this
You know how many shitty bands were in the 60s-90s? Those bands never made it out of the recording studio successful. The ones that are popular are popular for a reason. Because they were genuinely liked and had the balls (or vags) to continue.

>for once in your miserable lives
cliche

Up until the 60s-80s (when is kind of arguable) pop music was kind of a wild wasteland. Record companies didn't really care what they did as long as their artists sold music. So, pop music of yesterday was generally very innovative and unique. As time went on, record companies understood what made a record sell and basically large labels would only produce things that were formulaic as time went on

>But what about the popularity of X in the 90s or 80s or even today! You're just generalizing

I totally am, but a few fringe cases don't change the trend. I think we see it a lot more in the 21st century because of the internet. Things don't stay on the chart for a long time because industry is literally shitting out pop charts because the average millennial has a short attention span and we're all looking for the next fix on pop music.

So now the cultures that were all about music in the past are relegated to subcultures. I don't think music is LARGELY better yesterday than it was today (especially since it's apples and oranges considering the context of experimentation), but there are some pretty clear lines to be drawn between mainstream cultures

>>72378623
Today's artists are devoid of tasteful use of influence, along with having generally poor musical culture. Also, it's very obvious that there are hardly any groups or musicians that are the full package- before we had the Presleys, the Hendrixes, the McCartneys, the Bowies, the people who can compose their own music, be outstanding musicians, and be amazing performers on top of that. It really just makes for compelling music, and artists today don't dedicate themselves like that to ever reach those heights, because they have producers and writers and backing musicians and so on. Being dependent in the industry has become the norm.

>>72378623
I'm not one of them, but I have a bead on their mindset. What they like about that music is the fluidity it gets from the fact that A: nobody producing it was a racist, and B: pop was basically jazz, so even rock was a little jazzy. Now rock is basically a bleached version of its whitest components, and everyone who makes it is essentially racist. Rock artists now can only value black artists who were around thirty years earlier, whereas in the 60s, those guys were listening to current black music. The rot began to set in even back then, though - look at cocksuckers like Canned Heat and how they preferred busted, broken-down old black guys they could patronize, like Son House, to people like Ornette Coleman.

While all of this was happening, bear in mind that rock was being given such support by record companies mainly because it made more money and was made by and for less politically-aware and troublesome people than had become the case with jazz. Imagine how much better society would be now if Archie Shepp had had the promotional muscle that the Rolling Stones did.

TL;DR: The music had yet to reach the half-life of its active elements.

modern music sounds gay

There's always been good music.

>>72381669
You're comparing the pop of one era to the pop of another, and you're getting it wrong. Presley wrote nothing to speak of, his songwriting credits are minimal and probably contractual rather than honest.

I never believe that any of you people really listen to Hendrix. I think you listen to Hey Joe and All Along the Watchtower. I don't believe you listen to the longwinded jazzy epics designed to be heard stoned that were 90% of his output.