An example of what's wrong with today's music and the industry as a whole

[wasted]

But Zepp were outside the pop mainstream a bit like how GNR were. They were outside the rock mainstream. Metal is for outsiders, it's an army vibe but it can generate a big following but it's not really mainstream culture. It's kind of why Kurt had a problem being big, for one album teeny boppers bought his album. Nevermind was originally titled Sheep in disgust at popular culture.

U2 and Metallica are the Zepp of the day so to speak. When we look at the sales they are on level with anyone but know Michael Jackson is universal. Everyone knows Thriller. People stop in the street to watch MJ dancing on tvs in the shops. Nobody could tell you a Metallica song.

Edited September 22, 2014 by wasted

[wasted]

Stock, Aitken and Waterman were admirable?

All Motown is is a black Stock, Aitken and Waterman.

Kylie, Sinnita, Rick Astley, Mel and Kim I admire them. Can't wait to pick up that box set.

[uncivil war]

There has always been shit music and there always will be.

Growing up in Australia in the 80's and 90's, I heard plenty of it. Every second song on the radio was some soap star reject warbling about some ridiculous thing or another.

All bar a couple have faded away into obscurity, and the same thing will happen to today's crop of pop stars.

I think longevity is a truer test of respect in the music industry. Beyonce (or whoever it was) can only wave her "booty" around for so long. Eventuality she will have to sing about something with substance, or she and the others like her will be added to the LONG list of pop stars who have long been forgotten.

[Len Cnut]

Growing up in Australia in the 80's and 90's

Like Craig Mclocklin (i cant spell his name, i think he was Joe Mangle in Neighbours!) singing Mona?

[Lio]

Growing up in Australia in the 80's and 90's

Like Craig Mclocklin (i cant spell his name, i think he was Joe Mangle in Neighbours!) singing Mona?

He wasn't Joe Mangle, he was Henry, Kylie Minogue's brother.

[DR DOOM]

Growing up in Australia in the 80's and 90's

Like Craig Mclocklin (i cant spell his name, i think he was Joe Mangle in Neighbours!) singing Mona?

You mean Craig McLachlan and Check 1, 2 do you Lenny?

It saddens me to see not only Craig's, but Check 1, 2's musical talent and innovation disparaged.

[Len Cnut]

Growing up in Australia in the 80's and 90's

Like Craig Mclocklin (i cant spell his name, i think he was Joe Mangle in Neighbours!) singing Mona?

He wasn't Joe Mangle, he was Henry, Kylie Minogue's brother.

Alright, so sue me, i don't remember characters from a soap i ain't seen in a quarter of a century But yes, you're right, Henry, that rings a bell. Joe Mangle was the dozy one, wasn't he?

And yes Doomy, the very same, i could never spell McLachlan for the life of me.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Lio]

Growing up in Australia in the 80's and 90's

Like Craig Mclocklin (i cant spell his name, i think he was Joe Mangle in Neighbours!) singing Mona?

He wasn't Joe Mangle, he was Henry, Kylie Minogue's brother.

Alright, so sue me, i don't remember characters from a soap i ain't seen in a quarter of a century But yes, you're right, Henry, that rings a bell. Joe Mangle was the dozy one, wasn't he?

Yes, he was. I have a pretty good memory for totally useless trivia. Never thought that knowledge would come in handy a quarter of a century (omg) later.

[Len Cnut]

It's been that long hasn't it? Fuck me, I'm getting old.

[Iron MikeyJ]

My 2 cents:

Crap music has always existed, hell Elvis was the first "boy band." He didn't write his music, it was given to him. Not much different than today's music honestly. I agree with Bono that in the days of old, actual "Artists" (because honestly not many in the pop world today should call themself an artist, because you need art to be an artist, but I digress) could rise to the top of the pop charts. That does seem to be a lost or very rare thing now. I also agree with Lenny that dance music is supposed to make you dance, so however that is accomplished is really the only point. Comparing a Robert Plant song to a JLo song was just a poor choice imo, its really apples and oranges. You can't expect a 16 year old girl to give to shits about a Robert Plant song in 2014, thats just asinign. Back in 1985 you wouldn't expect the new Bill Haley and the Comets album to compete with Madonna for the teenage demographic, so this really isn't much different.

But having said all that here are my issues with todays music; lack of creativity and overtly sexual. First let me address the lack of creativity, by that I am only focasing on the lyrics, not the music in general (even though I am not a fan of EDM or other modern forms of music, I'm not going to bash one form of music and say it is inferior to another). But just from a lyrical stand point I have noticed that this current generation seems to just really prefer generic and straight to the point lyrics. Which isn't a bad thing persay, but as a fan of older artsits it just feels like the music is very juvenille. I expect more out of lyrics than what is being given today, and Bono made a great point about the Booty song he posted. Those are some pretty terrible and unoriginal lyrics. Hell by comparsion Brittany Spear's Hit me baby one more time is a lyrical masterpiece, so I agree that is quite sad. I honestly can't think of any dumber lyrical content songs than what I've heard of the course of the last 5 plus years. Even when someone tries to have a "deeper song" like Katy Perry's fighter song (or whatever the hell its called) its full of recycled lyrics from other songs. I just find that to be very poor and unoriginal, yet its a huge hit. I blame the current generation for accepting these crap lyrics tbh. Pop songs don't have to be on Lennon's Imagine level lyrically, but come on guys? Recycled lyrics are crap and you know it. But it's not all bad, the song Royals by LORDE at least has ironic type lyrics. So even though I don't really like her, at least from a lyrical stand point its a step in the right direction, better than most lyrics in 2014.

Now on to my sexual point. Let me start by saying that I have zero problem with sex being in music, the two go hand and hand tbh. But here's my problem, if everyone is doing it, it's not really interesting anymore. Back in the 80's when Madonna was wearing her bras on stage and humping the ground, that was controversial because nobody had done that before. But in 2014 watching Miley Cyrus twerk on stage is not controversial, its par for the course. Yes she might have gotten attention for it, but none of the attention was directed towards her song, hell nobody even talked about her song, all they talked about was her twerk. When Madonna did what she did, she was singing the song Like a virgin, whether you like that song or not, you still know it. That's the difference. The music was still more important than the controversy, not the other way around. But beyond that, sex was in music as innuendos, not as the focal point. Sexual explotation in music has become extremely boring in 2014, its par for the course. Every video has booty shakers, all about that ass and titties. Honestly I think it is riskier and more against the grain for a current "artist" to not put those things in their songs/videos. It would be MUCH harder and more gratifying if JLO could make a huge dance hit all while NOT being sexual. That would be an accomplishment imo. She took the easy way out imo, everyone already knows she has a nice ass, so for her to release this song is just so expected. That's not original, thats not unique, thats not art, thats her drawing attention to her "assests". It takes more originality and artistic integrity for her to have that "asset" and not use it.

[Len Cnut]

It would be MUCH harder and more gratifying if JLO could make a huge dance hit all while NOT being sexual.

Jenny From The Block?

Also, as far as recycled lyrics, come on man, rock n roll is based on recycled imagery and lyrics.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Iron MikeyJ]

It would be MUCH harder and more gratifying if JLO could make a huge dance hit all while NOT being sexual.

Jenny From The Block?

Also, as far as recycled lyrics, come on man, rock n roll is based on recycled imagery and lyrics.

You missed my point man. When JLO released Jenny from the block, how long ago was that? Quite a while man. That song was ok, I had nothing against it. She would not have released this Booty song back then, it would not have been accepted, thats my point. She would have gotten bashed for releasing such garbage back then, the standards were higher man, they just were. Just like she can't release Jenny from the block in 2014. The current generation likes this kind of crap lyrics man, they really do. I don't get it. But to each their own I suppose.

As far as rock and roll using recycled lyrics and imagery its not even close to the same thing. Yes most songs might of been about sex, drugs, and rock and roll but they were all told from a different perspective. That's what made them unique and different. Plus every song didn't have the lyrics "I love sex, drugs, and rock and roll". Which thats how it seems now, they are literally saying these things. No beating around the bush, no using similies, no metaphores. Everything is at face value, which is extremely generic imo. Take the Pharrell Williams song Happy, (even though I don't mind the song) it seems to be a good representaion of modern lyrical content. Just so direct and to the point "because I'm happy...." Honestly it reminds me of the Lego movie song "everything is awesome". These are the types of songs that are big hits today, and from a lyrical stand point they are very simple. Which I'm not saying is an awful thing, I just prefer more complexity to my lyrics. Just look at the lyrics of someone like Tupac, he had so much more to say than "I'm happy".

When lyrics have metaphores they leave room for interpertaion. The same song isn't going to relate to everybody the same way. Where a song like "Happy" despite its catchyness, leaves zero room for interpertaion. You are either happy or you are not.

[Len Cnut]

It would be MUCH harder and more gratifying if JLO could make a huge dance hit all while NOT being sexual.

Jenny From The Block?

Also, as far as recycled lyrics, come on man, rock n roll is based on recycled imagery and lyrics.

You missed my point man. When JLO released Jenny from the block, how long ago was that? Quite a while man. That song was ok, I had nothing against it. She would not have released this Booty song back then, it would not have been accepted, thats my point. She would have gotten bashed for releasing such garbage back then, the standards were higher man, they just were. Just like she can't release Jenny from the block in 2014. The current generation likes this kind of crap lyrics man, they really do. I don't get it. But to each their own I suppose.

As far as rock and roll using recycled lyrics and imagery its not even close to the same thing. Yes most songs might of been about sex, drugs, and rock and roll but they were all told from a different perspective. That's what made them unique and different. Plus every song didn't have the lyrics "I love sex, drugs, and rock and roll". Which thats how it seems now, they are literally saying these things. No beating around the bush, no using similies, no metaphores. Everything is at face value, which is extremely generic imo. Take the Pharrell Williams song Happy, (even though I don't mind the song) it seems to be a good representaion of modern lyrical content. Just so direct and to the point "because I'm happy...." Honestly it reminds me of the Lego movie song "everything is awesome". These are the types of songs that are big hits today, and from a lyrical stand point they are very simple. Which I'm not saying is an awful thing, I just prefer more complexity to my lyrics. Just look at the lyrics of someone like Tupac, he had so much more to say than "I'm happy".

I pretty much disagree with you entirely here. Rock n roll really really really has recycled imagery...by the bagload. Aerosmith and The Stones, for example (with The Stones having some very obvious exceptions of inspired songwriting) pretty much worked within the real of parody, kinda heavy handed sexual innuendo, most of what goes under the hard rock type banner is seriously trite. Not that there's anything wrong with that, The Stones do it with a great sense of humour and in the vein of parody but it still is what it is.

The notions of rock n roll cool were kinda developed and solidified through imagery, certain things slot right in, a neon beer light, a 6 shooter, sunglasses, a deck of card, a certain kinda car, a certain kind of woman etc etc You basically got enough for an Aerosmith song there I think something that is complex is something that requires figuring out to some degree...and i can't think of one rock n roll album that ever made me work like that to understand it proper.

And listen, there are amazing dance tracks with a shitload less lyrics, dance music doesn't work like that, there are dance tracks out there with like...two repeated words to them over and over, it's about the beat, it's about moving, it's not made for you to sit there and listen to the lyrics, no ones gives a shit about the lyrics

This is the thing with this whole like, sitting at home listening to an album on headphones grading the motherfucker, each kinda music is properly understood in it's context, you can't REALLY get hip hop entirely until it's listened out in the open, like how it began, out in the park. Same with reggae, it's bass driven music, you can't really understand it until you've heard it on a sound system, which is where they were produced to be heard, on a Jamaican soundsystem with a makeshift dancehall set up around it, you can't really understand proper rock n roll, like Jerry Lee type stuff until it's in his proper context (you might wanna try going to a good ol' American Baptist (or even Pentecostal Church) cuz a lot of the shit kicked off there) which is played in a club (as in music venue club) all locked in together sweating and bouncing....and it's the same for dance music, it's for people who are pissed or pillin' or need a song by way of which they can get something to take home that night.

There's a lot that is profound and poetic in rock n roll by the way, in case i get misunderstood here, i just think it tends to come from the ones who are trying the least.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Iron MikeyJ]

Len,

I agreed with your point about dance music's only real goal is to get you to dance, so however that is accomplished is a success. But my point is that POP music lyrics (for the most part) have gone to shit. Which you could say they have always been shit, but it really has gotten worse. That's why I made the point by comparision Brittany's songs like Toxic or Hit Me Baby are lyrical masterpieces compared to this new JLO song. Which is just a little bit sad isn't it? If we go back in time to 2004, I remember girls dancing in the clubs like crazy to Brittany's toxic song. So Dance music doesn't have to have such dumb lyrics. It's just a matter of what each generation accepts or rejects, and I feel very strongly that this current generation 15~25 year olds accept some really fucking crap lyrics. So much so that they make fucking Brittany look good man. You don't see the irony of that? Brittany fucking Spears looked talented when compared to someone like Miley Cyrus. That's how far things have fallen imo. But again these are just my opinions.

[Len Cnut]

The thing about art and looking at these things with a view to assessing their artistic validity, listen, there's a line of art bullshit you can assign to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANY fuckin' lyric out there, give it to a bunch of pointy nosed pencil pushers and watch them cream their panties over it. You can have the most fuckin' indefensible theatrical shock tactic bullshit out there like say GG Allin lyrics and some fucker out there'll be able to assign some kind of arty interpretion to em like, i dunno, they're existential, his act is this big situationist thing and then tie it into some movement in France and say, OK, whether he knows it or not this guy is producing 'x' kind of art, like a working class idiot savant.

And you can do that with any fuckin' lyrics in the world. Now is it bullshit? To me and you probably but then there's someone digging it somewhere and that begs the question that, y'know, we have our line of reasoning and justification for why the shit we listen to is art...now do we make these assessments just based on what the shit is or do we find something, like it and then dream up a justification for it's artistic merit?

Edited September 22, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Iron MikeyJ]

On a side note man, since you called out Aerosmith by name let me ask you this, which lyrics do you honestly feel are "better", more creative, and just plain catchier?

"You ain't seen nothin' til your down on her muffin, then your sure be changin' your ways. Cause a cheerleader was a real young bleeder in the times I can reminise. Cause the best thing in lovin' was a sister and her cousin, and it started with a little kiss like this."

or perhaps for a little more though provoking....

"Every time I look in the mirror, all these lines in my face getting clearer. The past is gone. It went by like dusk to dawn. Isn't that the way? Everybody's got their dues in life pay. I know what nobody's knows, where it comes and where it goes. I know it's everybody's sin, you got to lose to know how to win."

"Sing with me, sing for the years, sing for laughter and sing for the tears. Sing with me just for today, cause maybe tomorrow the good lord will take you away."

Now obviously it's all opinion, but I feel that these lyrics are a lot better than the Booty ones that you are defending. Well not that you are defending them, but you know what I mean. Or do you really prefer modern lyrics? But to each their own....

But to address your last post, all art is subjective man. It's up to everyone to decide whether it is good or not. If most people like it, than its considered good, and if people don't like it, its considered garbage. Not just for music, but any art. Who decided that the Mona Lisa was any good? Was it judged in some art competition? Probably not. But if you were to say "The Mona Lisa is complete garbage" people would look at you like you were nuts. They would probably make personal attacks against you and your personal opinions would be considered rediculous or even dare I say ignorant. That doesn't make it right, but the court of public opinion is still very powerful.

Which that brings me back to my point. I am not making the claims that any of the music I discussed in this thread is "garbage". I am just saying I don't like it, especially from a lyric stand point. But that doesn't mean it is bad, I'll let the court of public opinion answer those questions. But if we go back and look at the pop acts of 1984; we would see Michael Jackson, Prince, Van Halen, and Madonna dominating the charts. All of those have proven to stand the test of time. If we look at 1994 we would see Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Tupac, Snoop, and Biggie dominating the charts. Again they have stood the test of time. Will Katy Perry, JLo, Miley Cyrus and other top acts of 2014 stand the test of time? We can't answer that question yet, but I wouldn't be betting on those horses if I were you. They just don't seem to belong with the other acts that dominated their times. But that's just my opinion.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Mike420

[Apollo]

Who cares about what's on the charts? Just don't listen to it.

The good music is easily accessible. Albums are free. Tracks get put online shortly after finished. I'd say things are better than ever.

The charts are what most people listen to, and most people are usually idiots. It's been like that since the birth of popular music.

That's kind of why there is and always has been this weird fighting amongst people regarding music.

Everybody thinks "their" music is the best and that people that don't like "their" music are just idiots with bad taste in music.

"People who like my favorite genre of music do so because they are intelligent people with great musical taste. People who don't like it, or who like music I don't like ......those dudes are just idiots, mindless sheep, who don't know anything about music."

The two Bs on here can't make a post about music without throwing in an insult about 80s rock. But if somebody says something bad about Kayne or NIN or whomever they like, they lose their shit.

I've never understood why it bothers some people so much. Who cares what types of music somebody likes? It's like being mad because somebody doesn't like swiss cheese on their turkey sandwich. Who gives a crap? You don't have to eat their sandwich.

*******

Everybody is partially right in this topic, imo.

There has always been mindless dance-orientated pop music on the charts. Look at some of The beatles lyrics - cheesy as hell.

But that is OK, as that's what teenagers want to listen to. If there is a market for it - it's OK for musicians to fill that need. If 10 million people want to buy the next Rihanna album, then clearly Rihanna should keep putting out albums. There is a demand for pop dance music.

Just because we love a certain type of music of band doesn't mean we are better than anybody else.

And lastly..........man, Bono is also right in his frustration. This morning I listened to the Billboard top 20 songs to see if I liked anything that was fairly new. Iggy and her fake baby voice thing is just weird, and the way she doesn't pronounce words is annoying - nothing for something is nutin fo suntin. Minaj and a song about anaconda and her f*cking people was actually painful to the ears - I couldn't even finish it, Jennifer Lopez Booty song is painful, and I listened to about 5-6 different rap type guys songs (TI was one of them, Chris Brown, etc) and they are all almost the same song. It's like a contest to see how many "n*ggas" and "I f*cked this girls" they can put in one song.

You listen to those songs and shake your head at what is popular today. BUT...........it's always been that way. When I was a teen and young adult, my parents thought all my music (and popular music) sucked and wasn't as good as when they were young. That's how it's always been. Nothing new today.

Music is all about personal preference and taste.

No need to be mad and insult others because people don't like what you like.

I'm just glad there are so many different types of bands and musical styles out there.

And I'm glad to live in a time period where access to thousands of bands is so easy.

And Buddy Holly was better than Elvis.

(All just my opinion)

[Apollo]

*****

MIke - I don't know if I'm disagreeing or agreeing with you!

I think Miley Cryus is just as talented as Britney.

But Britney and her era came out just before the internet went crazy with sites like TMZ and such. A lot of the reasons why people don't like the Cyrus and Beiber's of the world is because of their non-song related antics. If we didn't see Miley and all her crazy sexual stuff and we didn't see what a complete douche Bieber is in real life, then I don't think "older" people would hate them as much. If we just saw Miley the Disney actress and then she put out some albums and that was it - I think people's opinions of her would be completely different.

The internet and the media just go so OVERBOARD with everything now days that they end up putting huge divides of love/hate onto artists. Look at sports - last year people started to hate Tim Tebow. Why? Because every day there were 8 stories on every website about him. That wasn't Tebow's fault. This year, people started to hate Michael Sam and Johnny Maziel. Was it Sam's fault that ESPN ran 3 stories a day about him? LOL, Manziel is a bad example because he was a douche in college. But in training camp, dude wouldn't say a WORD or do anything except spend four hours at practice --- but there would be 2-3 stories on ESPN about him that day. That's not Manziel's fault. Us fans go to espn, yahoo, sports illustrated and say "uugggg, another story on what Manziel is doing? He's a back-up this year. I'm tired of it!" and we place a lot of that anger on Manziel, Sam, Tebow - when it's really the friggin media just shoving them down our throats.

Anyway. There has always been shallow pop music made for teens and young adults to dance to. I don't think Britney is any better than Miley......I just think it's a different world now where the media goes overboard with their coverage. And the young acts today take advantage of it, sure. But I really don't think a 1995 pop song from Britney is any better than a 2013 pop song from Miley. Or Ariane grande or any of the pop singers of today.

[Lithium]

That's kind of why there is and always has been this weird fighting amongst people regarding music.

Everybody thinks "their" music is the best and that people that don't like "their" music are just idiots with bad taste in music.

"People who like my favorite genre of music do so because they are intelligent people with great musical taste. People who don't like it, or who like music I don't like ......those dudes are just idiots, mindless sheep, who don't know anything about music."

The two Bs on here can't make a post about music without throwing in an insult about 80s rock. But if somebody says something bad about Kayne or NIN or whomever they like, they lose their shit.

I've never understood why it bothers some people so much. Who cares what types of music somebody likes? It's like being mad because somebody doesn't like swiss cheese on their turkey sandwich. Who gives a crap? You don't have to eat their sandwich.

I thought we did this five years ago. Do you really want me to discuss this with you again?

[Apollo]

That's kind of why there is and always has been this weird fighting amongst people regarding music.

Everybody thinks "their" music is the best and that people that don't like "their" music are just idiots with bad taste in music.

"People who like my favorite genre of music do so because they are intelligent people with great musical taste. People who don't like it, or who like music I don't like ......those dudes are just idiots, mindless sheep, who don't know anything about music."

The two Bs on here can't make a post about music without throwing in an insult about 80s rock. But if somebody says something bad about Kayne or NIN or whomever they like, they lose their shit.

I've never understood why it bothers some people so much. Who cares what types of music somebody likes? It's like being mad because somebody doesn't like swiss cheese on their turkey sandwich. Who gives a crap? You don't have to eat their sandwich.

I thought we did this five years ago. Do you really want me to discuss this with you again?

Sure. You are a smart guy and I respect your opinion.

In regards to my post, where am I wrong?

But only if you can do it without making it an age thing and just the facts of the situation.

Thanks!

[Len Cnut]

On a side note man, since you called out Aerosmith by name let me ask you this, which lyrics do you honestly feel are "better", more creative, and just plain catchier?

"You ain't seen nothin' til your down on her muffin, then your sure be changin' your ways. Cause a cheerleader was a real young bleeder in the times I can reminise. Cause the best thing in lovin' was a sister and her cousin, and it started with a little kiss like this."

or perhaps for a little more though provoking....

"Every time I look in the mirror, all these lines in my face getting clearer. The past is gone. It went by like dusk to dawn. Isn't that the way? Everybody's got their dues in life pay. I know what nobody's knows, where it comes and where it goes. I know it's everybody's sin, you got to lose to know how to win."

"Sing with me, sing for the years, sing for laughter and sing for the tears. Sing with me just for today, cause maybe tomorrow the good lord will take you away."

They're good lyrics for the purpose they want to serve but the purpose they want to serve is commercial rock music...in and of themselves they do not have any profound poetic quality and are really quite trite, I mean what is there in them that wasn't obvious to you by age seven? Set some fuckin' shit to music and you'll have people left right and centre...I mean are the 'sing with me' lyrics really saying, aside from like, seize the day more or less? You get what I mean sorta?

Same with the dance track, they are good in that they serve the purpose they are aiming for...but you can't seriously look at Aerosmith lyrics or even your average Zep lyric *ducks Mikes swinging axe * or even The Beatles, just in case you think I'm being one sided about this, even the band i love the most those lyrics work in their context and their poetic quality is served and heightened by the music...but put it down on paper, it ain't Proust and I've yet to hear any rock musician, ANY whoose work works as poetry in and of itself.

Bob Dylan I suppose touched upon it but i don't think Bob took it seriously enough...on purpose as well. Leonard Cohen i think could work like, on paper.

I mean quite honestly, the rhythm and blues in a kinda The Who, Aerosmith, Zep' type context, depending on how seriously they take it (its interesting to note the most successful appeared to take it the least serious, The Who, The Stones, The Beatles) its kinda parody, isn't it? The Beatles understood that, I think Mick understood that but Keith didn't, The Who totally got that. And in being a kinda parody or an imitation the people that are not first hand privy to the culture in question are really working off of archetypes and stereotypes and little phrases and turns of phrase and linguistic quirks and enunciation that they picked up on from off the records soooo...y'know, it kinda lends itself to a degrading of quality, in one sense, right off the bad.

John Lennon i think was a wonderful writer of songs and prose etc and his juuuuust about work in that they didn't have any affectations of being this, that or the third (where Bob Dylan clearly did), it's uniqueness and the uniqueness of his poetic voice carries it through and papers over the cracks of his...kinda haphazard approach to doing that shit.

But, to get back to the point, no man, i don't think its like...particularly good...but then good for what, it serves its purpose so who am i to sit here going 'it's shit cuz it's not Shakespeare', it ain't meant to be, it's a working class blue collar pursuit.

Honestly, lyrically speaking, i think i could write THAT kinda song, an Aerosmith kinda song, an F.I.N.E. kinda song in my sleep...not only that but i think more people can than they think. It's just like...obvious sexual innuendo and various blue collar Americana references all tied together with a kinda punchliney quality to the couplets, it's really not rocket science.

[Apollo]

On a side note man, since you called out Aerosmith by name let me ask you this, which lyrics do you honestly feel are "better", more creative, and just plain catchier?

"You ain't seen nothin' til your down on her muffin, then your sure be changin' your ways. Cause a cheerleader was a real young bleeder in the times I can reminise. Cause the best thing in lovin' was a sister and her cousin, and it started with a little kiss like this."

or perhaps for a little more though provoking....

"Every time I look in the mirror, all these lines in my face getting clearer. The past is gone. It went by like dusk to dawn. Isn't that the way? Everybody's got their dues in life pay. I know what nobody's knows, where it comes and where it goes. I know it's everybody's sin, you got to lose to know how to win."

"Sing with me, sing for the years, sing for laughter and sing for the tears. Sing with me just for today, cause maybe tomorrow the good lord will take you away."

Honestly, lyrically speaking, i think i could write THAT kinda song, an Aerosmith kinda song, an F.I.N.E. kinda song in my sleep...not only that but i think more people can than they think. It's just like...obvious sexual innuendo and various blue collar Americana references all tied together with a kinda punchliney quality to the couplets, it's really not rocket science.

Isn't that just it?

To break down the value solely because of the lyrics seems a bit unfair to music in general..

Some of the "greatest" songs of all time have horrible lyrics. But does that mean they weren't great songs?

The Elton/Bernie team is pretty well praised. But I'm listening to a lot of Elton John today and some of the lyrics are flat out silly. But the songs are still pretty great.

Lyrics.

Singer's voice.

Emotion. Or fun. Or anger.

Each individual musical part.

How it all works together.

All those parts are just as important as each other.

You might be able to write the greatest lyrics of all time. But if your singer sucks, and your band sucks, and none of you can put together a song..........

I worked at a bar for a couple of years and you know what the three most.....not sure of the right word. Not popular. But the three songs that got the most participation from bar patrons? I'm talking a wide range of people, from 21 year old party girls to 50 year old biker type dudes. When this song came on, people started dancing, or playing air guitar, or singing along out loud.

Ice Ice Baby - Vanilla Ice. People laugh at it, say how horrible it is, etc. But when that song comes on at a bar, the girls start dancing and the guys start bopping their head.

Sweet Child O' Mine. That song is loved by several different generations.

And Friend's In Low Places by Garth Brook. For whatever reason, drunk people love to sing that song.

I wouldn't say any of those three songs have great lyrics. But crank them up in a bar full of people drinking..........and you'll have a lot of happy people.

[Dan H.]

Music doesn't always have to be beautiful or artistic to be good.

I dig Iggy. I don't think she's profound or artsy or anything like that, but she's got some fun songs. Sometimes I'm not really feeling like listening to Robert Plant cry about shit.

Luckily there's a lot of different kinds of music out there, and a lot lot lot lot lot of new music coming out is very profound, artistic, and intellectual. But profound artistic and intellectual has never really been what you expect to hear when you turn on top 100 radio. That's how music has always been. It's not a problem exclusive to this generation.

I don't think it's necessary to call them whores or skanks either.

Edited September 22, 2014 by LiveFromNormal

[Broskirose]

As someone who listens to music ranging from the 40s till present day, I honestly think that there is a greater output of good music now then ever. It's just not on the charts. But it's easily accessible.

You can just fucking do anything these days and put it up on Soundcloud. It doesn't have to make any sense. It doesn't have to make money. You can just sign to an indie label or no label at all and do whatever the fuck you want. And that opens doors for real musicians who are passionate about what they do that were never available to them in previous decades.

This is a great era for musicians. When you push big labels aside so many opportunities open up.

[maynard]

Great era for musicians to expose ther music, yes. Great era for musicians to make money, not so sure. (big acts aside)