Are audiences getting stupider???

[Theresa Galbraith]

Thanks Jason!

[Tay Joslin]

All of this is mighty controversial, JUST THE WAY I LIKE IT! I am 24 years of age, grew up fast, and now have the tastes of the Medicare group instilled in me. Why? Because I do not wish to portray an image to those who are my mentors that depicts drug abuse, sexual lewdness, or left-wing politics. Conservative is far more comfortable and more widely appreciated. I can fully respect the fact that I was raised around a lot more older folks than the majority of people my age, but in no way does that excuse a lack of decency for those who choose to exert their modern art and/or lifestyle on others. Am I closed-minded? ABSOLUTELY and PROUD OF IT! I can take your criticism, too. I do not openly condemn those of you who choose to bend the rules of social conformacy, but it intrigues me to hear comments about how fellas like myself "are just too old-fashioned", "just don't get it", "are just a bunch of Bible thumpers", "are just too conservative", "are just too Country", and, the most ignorant one of all, "are just a bunch of racists who can't accept rap music". The plain and simple fact is this: WE ARE ALL ARTISTS IN OUR OWN RIGHTS. The first ammendment dictates that. Do we have to accept each other's likes and dislikes? No. Just because I have chosen to be the so-called "renaissance man" for traditional Country music in my generation does not mean that I expect a massive following for that movement. Besides, with modern philosphers (like some of who are blistered by my comments) fighting for the upper hand in the mainstream media these days, I am going to be busy with my inferior band for many years to come. Therefore, I salute you in your artistic endeavors and hope to split the stage with you, sometime.

Yours truly,
Tay Joslin
Newbern, Tennessee
U.S.A.

I perform in Memphis, Tennessee, by the way. I can tell you for a fact that it takes all of us to keep live music in general alive. Thank you for your time!

[Don Joslin]

Woo Hoo! The fur's a flyin'! I love a good debate and always have an opinion too. There's alot of criticism here. I think as artists, we should all open our minds to what is new. Let me say upfront that I love the classic traditional stuff. That's why I chose a non-pedal steel. Hank and Bob are the BEST! However, I enjoy the whole Muzik Mafia thing too. It's great that different types of influence are finding their way into country music. Remember, it was Big Bands that gave us Western Swing. I think guys like Big & Rich are really refreshing - especially if you really listen to all of their stuff. They don't take themselves too seriously. There is some really good writing on the CD too - just listen to "Deadwood Mountain" among others.

Be careful when you start to judge what is intelligent and what is not. Consider these quotes:

"What luck for the rulers that men do not think"

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."

"Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and stimulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth... Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."

At first this might be mistaken for wisdom. Consider the source. All of the quotes were by Adolph Hitler.

Personally, I think we live in a great time. We can collaborate with musicians around the world through the internet. We can set up a quality studio in our bedroom for about the same cost as a good amp. We have decades of music exploration at our fingertips and we are at a point in time where - if you are not concerned with fame and fortune - that a musician can truly be self-sufficient. My sons band recorded and produced their own CD. They even made the copies themselves. To date they have sold about 1500 copies ($10 each) - all at live shows and by word of mouth. This is a great time. Take advantage of it!

One last quote: "His newest work is blaphemy. He is ruining contemporary music!"

This was said by a music critic around 1800. The artist...Ludwig von Beethoven.

Sorry for being so windy...

Don

------------------
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it! ~ Yogi Berra

[Tay Joslin]

Don,
I like your style, man! Firm, assertive, honest, and political, yet you (like myself) are blessed with artistic and musical fortitude. It's almost a sheer sign that you and I are related. When I play music, I'm in my own little world. The old Country tunes take me back to a time that I was not fortunate enough to live in. Same goes for my love of Western movies; wasn't conceived quite soon enough to enjoy that phrase in American history, either. So, how sweet it is to be able to preserve those times through music and motion picture! The simplicity of yesterday America is something I envy. Although society will most likely never turn back and cling to its roots, I feel that the Lord has chosen a select few of us to walk tall in the streets of the big cities, make traditional America cool all over again, and do our best to gently fold-in the technological advancements of today into our lives without desecrating Mother Nature (you know, Johnny Cash said "Mother Nature's quite a lady"; we should treat her as such). To get back on track here, music is always evolving into new, unchartered territories. No, I do not like some of them, but as an artist I feel compelled to find some form of appreciation for the things I do not like. I might not openly admit that to others, but my music will never be appreciated if I do not have a tolerance for diversity. Don, I want to second your comments. Thank you very much for just being yourself! TAKE CARE!

Yours truly,
Tay Joslin
Newbern, Tennessee
U.S.A.

[Don Joslin]

Thanks Tay. Bottom line is audiences are not stupid. At least they are out listening to music. If you want a good dose of stupidity then take a drive down a freeway

Don

PS: I have a huge collection of old western movies. Gene Autry is the best! The most proud I ever felt was when I was a little boy living in New Mexico. My Mom told me that New Mexico was further out west than Texas!

------------------
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it! ~ Yogi Berra

[Tay Joslin]

Don,
I firmly believe that you and I would be ideal running mates for public office. I want to meet you sometime in the near future. Are you going to the ISGC-2004 in St. Louis this year? If so, let's get together and visit awhile. I reckon we ought to stay off of this man's "stupid audience" post if we aren't going to discuss the matter any further. You have my e-mail address; let's stay in touch!

Yours truly,
Tay Joslin
Newbern, Tennessee
U.S.A.

[David Mason]

"Only sick music makes money today." -
Freidrich Nietzsche, 1844 - 1900

C/O www.quotationspage.com

[Stephen Gambrell]

Don, I love Frank Zappa just as much as I love Spade Cooley, or Charley Parker, or Miles, or Frank Sinatra, or Merle Haggard, or the Beatles.
And since my hippie-wannabe days back in the late 60's-early 70's, I've been seeing well-meaning people quote Adolph Hitler, as if the statements you quoted were not wise and true. Just because they were made by one of the most evil and dangerous men in history, does not destroy their relevance.
Now, PLEASE, PLEASE, don't anybody think I'm some kind of Nazi sympathizer, but a quote like "What luck for the rulers that men do not think" could come from ANY boardroom, government office, or, sadly, radio station programmer. Clear Channel single market radio absolutely dictates what the mainstream audience WILL hear, if they listen to "big" radio stations. The video networks DICTATE what the audience will watch. PERIOD!!!
And I'm sorry, but the clever wordplay of Big and Rich, is not the same as the musical literacy shown by Mssrs. Zappa, Lennon, McCartney, Williams, Sammy Kahn, Hoagy Carmichael, Kris Kristofferson---How far do I need to go with this?
My frequent adversary, Mr.Eric West(Lundgren) has a thread regarding Mr. Deke Dickerson. A great musician, who, like the Nighthawks, the late Danny Gatton, the late Roy Buchanan, and so many more, must stay on the road, playing clubs, and independently marketing their music, to survive. And I thank God for every one of them, since they laugh in the face of the stupidity of the dumbed-down garbage that passes for 99% of the music out there.
Anybody wanna talk about the public school system??????

[Tay Joslin]

Stephen,
I'm going to begin by informing you that I'm only 24 years old, so this statement is going to sound a little odd coming from a fella my age. PUBLIC SCHOOLS DO NOT SPEND ENOUGH MONEY ON CULTURAL MUSICAL EDUCATION. I recall back when I was in junior high and even high school (6-10 years ago) being laughed at for picking a Waylon Jennings song at our talent show. I used to attend Bluegrass festivals on Saturdays, go back to school on Mondays, and talk about all of the neat licks I'd learned over the weekend; same scenario- LAUGHTER. I played trombone in our school band and rhythm guitar in our school Jazz band; everybody affiliated me with music. However, that didn't mean that they cared to learn about traditional Country music, Bluegrass music, or even the renowned standards of Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra. Why is that? My folks grew up in the '70s (like many of you reading this), and I enjoy their tastes, but I had grandparents (even great-grandparents) who instilled their diversities in me from a very young age. In short, the classroom never taught me anything about musical diversity, nor the history behind it. I learned all of that by paying attention to what my mentors and childhood heroes enjoyed listening to. Pardon my biographical account of musical appreciation, but the public school system could do a better job in curving the trends of indecency in music and fashion back to an acceptable level, and they could do so in a legal, Constitutional manner, but it is just so much easier to remain passive and allow today's youth to direct themselves. In short, it's a real shame (and this is a 24 year old male talking!).

Yours truly,
Tay Joslin
Newbern, Tennessee
U.S.A.

One more statement: I dig Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Freebird", but nothing blisters me worse than to be onstage someplace and hear some Redneck yell out, "FREEBIRD!". Yes, it's a fine Rock ballad, but give me a break once in a while! THANKS FOR LISTENING TO MY CACKLING!

[Don Joslin]

Hi Stephen -

First, thanks for taking time to reply. I'd just like to add two quick points. The Hitler quotes could be generic to any politician. My point was to always be careful what you accept as wisdom. Most any idea could be used for either good or evil. My point is that you should question and research everything before accepting it as wisdom. Again, consider the source.

Second, regarding Big & Rich. I wasn't talking about the lyrics. It's the music, arranging, and production that impresses me. I believe John Rich produced the recording - Gretchen Wilson's too. Also, they have penned several tunes for Martina McBride. I just enjoy their open minds and rather refreshing approach to writing popular music.

Don

PS - I'm certainly not a Nazi sympathizer either!!!!!!

------------------
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it! ~ Yogi Berra

[Stephen Gambrell]

"I wasn't talking about the lyrics. It's the music, arranging, and production that impresses me."
That's my point, Don! It's the pretty wrapping around the package that gets 'em, and NOT the content thereof! Remember the car commercial several years ago, where you never even SAW the car????
I GUARANTEE you're gonna see Faith, Shania, Kenny Chesney, whoever, a LOT in their videos, lest anybody get off track and listen to the lyrics, or the (ahem) SINGING???
As I said before, novelty songs have always had their place, in ALL genres of music. So are there NO novelty songs now?
Or are they ALL novelty songs?
The studios belong to the producers now, not the "artists." Let a producer churn out a few hits, and he's got a new job as head of a label! Does THAT tell you anything about the value system?

[Don Joslin]

Stephen -

I certainly see your point. But, popular is popular. Remember, we're talking about the layman masses here. Not educated (or even uneducated but experienced) musicians. Most of these people don't have trained ears. What they do have, just like you and me, are opinions. And it's their opinions and their dollars that count to big business. This is America. It's about profit. I think it's great that Big & Rich are having their moment. Will it last? Probably not because those popular opinions and their dollars will migrate to something else. That's the nature of the market. That's why people go to college and study marketing. But for awhile, and maybe a short while, Big Kenny and John Rich will eat real good for a change.

I support as many independent musicians as I can as well. I tend to listed to more independent music than corporate production by far. I also write lots of music that would never be marketable to the masses but I'll tell you one thing for sure. If I had the opportunity to tour and play stadium shows for a couple of years, I'd hop right on it.

Finally, I see nothing wrong with novelty songs. There have been plenty throughout the history of country music. In fact, I'm currently reading a history of Country Music and there is an entire chapter devoted to comedy and novelty. Bottom line is, if you have a product and somebody wants to buy it you would be a fool not to sell it to them - especially if you could sell millions of them at a healthy profit. Look at songs like "I've Been Everywhere", or even "Choo Choo Ch'boogie" or "Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens". No masterpieces there but what they are is FUN. People who are serious collectors and listeners will seek out and find those who are doing quality stuff in any genre. Albeit quality in their opinion. It doesn't matter whether or not you or I would buy a product. That's the beauty of diversity and the reason that independent musicians can make a living. And, it's getting better all the time with independently produced music and shows. This is a great time. I think everyone, even big business, should take advantage of it. The only thing that is inevitable is change. If you can't embrace it then you can only become more miserable as you age.

Just my $.02

Don



------------------
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it! ~ Yogi Berra

[Tom Olson]

Regarding the original question that started this thread, if I understand the question correctly, it could be paraphrased as follows:

Given the apparent popularity of all this homogenous mainstream (for lack of a better term) "stuff" that is being passed off as "music" these days, and in further view of the fact that there are quite a few truly talented artists who are coming up with truly good music, but yet who seem to be trapped on the "sidelines" and barely scraping by, what gives with the music buying public?

I think the question was intended to be considered against the backdrop of the past history (i.e. the 50's, 60's, and maybe the 70's), of the music industry when most (or at least a good portion of) mainstream music was considered "good" by most people of the type who are members of this forum.

In my opinion the answer to the question has to do with how the music industry has evolved over the last several decades into something quite different than what it once was.

I think Stephen G. pretty much answered most of the question already. The music industry nowadays is all about taking control in order to maximize the amount of money to be made. That is, it's not just about signing acts, recording them, and selling the music to the buying public and making money off of record sales, like it once was.

Nowadays, the producers, labels, etc. are concerned with much more than just recording an act that they can sell to you and me. They're also concerned making music which they think will appeal to certain other groups. These groups include more than just the music-buying public. Also included is potential sponsers which will use the music in advertising etc. and/or which will sponser tours etc. Why? You know the answer -- that's where the most money is.

That is, where once most of the money made in the recording industry was made from record sales, that ain't necessarily so anymore.

Remember when most, if not all, music for movies, television commercials, and radio commercials was original music? Ain't so anymore. Nowadays the advertising agency is more likely to look through a label catalogue and pick something out rather than contracting somebody to write original music.

Remember when the only TV networks were ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS? Ain't so anymore. Nowadays there are probably hundreds of networks all of which broadcast various "stuff" that many times needs a soundtrack. Back to the label catalogues and pick something out. Takes too long and is too much trouble to have somebody write an original score.

So, in other words, the producers and labels are taking control of the music they make to a greater degree because they want to make music that they think will make them the most money -- that's the bottom line. What music will make the most money? It doesn't matter what it sounds like or who says what about it -- the only thing that matters is who will pay the most money for it. Often times, the ones who will pay the most money for the music are NOT the ones who end up being the "listening public."

The producers and labels do research, and plug and chug, and whirl it around, and throw it up in the air, and when the chips (or tarot cards, or whatever they use) all come down on the floor, the result is the "stuff" that we have being thrown at us presently.

This music is an amalgomation of all the thinking, and tarot card-reading, and ouji-board playing that the producers and labels do in order to come up with a formula for the "stuff" that they can make and which they can sell for the most profit.

If that isn't enough, I beleive that most of the music-buying public, on top of all the other problems associated with just trying to make a living to get by today, just don't have the time, and/or the resources, and/or the energy to search out all those "sideline" artists who may be truly good and who may truly be appealing. So, the music-buying public finds it easier just to succumb to the continuous, unrelenting bombardment of the homogenous "stuff" that gets crammed down our throats every time we turn on the TV, radio, or whatever.

This is just my opinion, of course.

--edit--

I think what I'm saying about about the music industry can be compared to the evolution of NASCAR. In the beginning it was all about individual teams competing against one another. The race was run at least in great part for the pure sport of it -- the prize money came from ticket sales and was a real icing on the cake for the winner.

Nowadays, however, it's all about sponsership. The team doesn't necessarily want to win races for the prize money -- the big fish is in the big, fat sponsers. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 08 August 2004 at 03:45 PM.]</p></FONT>

[Jason Odd]

Quite often on this forum we see lines like "That stuff that is being passed off as music these days."

What bogus pomposity, that's the sort of guff that is as almost ageless as the concept of commercial recorded music.
Holy crud, every genre has some dude sittin' there goin' "man, that band/artist has totally sold out"... and just about everyone mistakes the nostalgic music of their youth as the 'good' stuff, although the baby boomers have made an art of that.

That's mainly because they came to dominate modern culture in the Post War boom, be it the UK or USA, and most rock history and the art of popular music critique is built on the foundations laid by middle class wankers who wrote for Rolling Stone or horrid teen mags that predated them. Rolling Stone was of course the first to think it was above all the previous publications, because they were so phoney, and Rolling Stone was about you know.. the music maaaaaannnn.

Seriously I want someone to step and and say, there was crap in my generation, the previous generation and will forever be crap, because someone is going to think that anyway.

Every generation thinks it invented everything, that the previous generation knew nothing and that the next generation won't know squat because they weren't born yet.

[Craig A Davidson]

Donny, Wipeout should be proof enough without turning over the record.

------------------
1985 Emmons push-pull,S-10 Marlen,Evans SE200,Hilton pedal

[Stephen Gambrell]

Jason, OF COURSE there was crap in "my generation." Neither the Archies NOR Josie and the Pussycats played Woodstock.
It must be wonderful to desire knowledge, and have so much space to put it.

[Tom Olson]

Jason, assuming you're referring at least in part to my post above, you seem to be on a different track than me:

<SMALL>every genre has some dude sittin' there goin' "man, that band/artist has totally sold out"</SMALL>

That may or may not be true, but so what? I'm talking about "eras" not "genres." But, maybe that's what you meant to say.

Regardless of whether you really intended to say "genre" or "era," SO WHAT, yet again. I don't believe I've ever read any post on this forum in which it was said that there was NO crap, and/or that there was NO selling out, in any particular genre or in any particular era. I'll "step up" right now and state unequivocally that there is at least SOME crap in EVERY genre AND era.

But, SO WHAT? What does that have to do with the issue of whether or not MOST, if not ALL, of the mainstream "stuff" that is being sold by the big labels these days is crap? Nothing.

Let's take it a step further. I'll say that there is at least some GOOD stuff that comes out of every genre and/or era. However, with that said, I know of, and/or have talked with, and/or have overheard, quite a few people in the current twenty-something generation who routinely listen to rock and/or pop and/or country music from the 50's, 60's, and early 70's.

So, these people are seeking out and listening to music that was recorded 20 or so years before they were born. I don't remember anyone listening to 40-year old music when I was in my twenties. But, maybe I just didn't know the right people or something. From what I see though, it's not just the people from the baby-boomer generation who think the music from that ear is, overall, much better than most of the music published by the big labels today.

<SMALL>they came to dominate modern culture in the Post War boom</SMALL>

They did?

At what point in history did the baby-boomer generation (or any generation) come to "dominate" modern culture? If the baby boomers dominated at any time, it's most likely RIGHT NOW that they are in the position of domination.

Or, in the alternative, assuming the BB generation really did "dominate" modern culture at some point, then you can say that every generation comes to "dominate" modern culture at some point or another, since that's just the natural cycle of life.

But what does that prove?

By your theory, the flapper generation would think that Scott Joplin is the absolute cool of cool. But, I'd be willing to bet that most of that generation would in fact rather listen to Frank Sinatra, or any number of other Rat Pack type crooners, or Henry Mancini or whatever (or any of that other music from the 50's 60's and early 70's that most kids at the time thought was NOT cool) than listen to old Scott Joplin recordings.

That is, my point is not that ROCK music from the 50's and 60's and early 70's was better than any other music. Instead, my point is that, taken as a whole, ALL music from all generations that was made in the period of the 50's 60's and early 70's time frame is of a better quality (whether it be lyrics, arrangement, musically, or whatever), than the music, as a whole, that is being made today by the major labels. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 09 August 2004 at 12:25 PM.]</p></FONT>

[Toby Rider]

Wow, what a great thread y'all! I've throughly enjoyed all the comments on this question.

My two cents: I agree with you Tay on alot of what you said.

There's obviously a place for catchy but trite songs like "achy, breaky", just as there is a place songs with a deeper emotional or philosophical message.

The lyrics for most country music & blues, is relatively simple, but simple & clever often equals *great*.

I love the comment about it currently being fashionable among certain crowds to be covered with tattoos and lookin' like you just got furloughed from prison!

[Jason Odd]

First of all, I made my first point back a little, audiences can't be any dumber than they were, despite what a typical Joe might think of the upcoming generation, it can't be dumber.
Unable to read and write, perhaps, but not dumber as such. I do like to illustrate with examples, and will continue.

>>>>> At what point in history did the baby-boomer generation (or any generation) come to "dominate" modern culture? If the baby boomers dominated at any time, it's most likely RIGHT NOW that they are in the position of domination. <<<<<<

Tom, You note that I wrote the post war boom, that means the period after the war when the economy was taking off, they grew up with that, the boomers.. and that makes them part of it. A generation that got more breaks than the prior one, the war of choice at the time (let's say Korea) was not as big as WWII, although it was a horrendous war, America was settling into a more posperous period in general. The Baby Boomers came into an age where they were the new target audience. Not bad huh?

<<<<<<<<<< then you can say that every generation comes to "dominate" modern culture at some point or another, since that's just the natural cycle of life >>>>>

Not really, some generations don't get a chance, and we're talking more about popular culture here, which is music and film and so on, I'm not trying to lump in every aspect of American or the West. This is a music forum after all.

>>>>>> I'll say that there is at least some GOOD stuff that comes out of every genre and/or era. However, with that said, I know of, and/or have talked with, and/or have overheard, quite a few people in the current twenty-something generation who routinely listen to rock and/or pop and/or country music from the 50's, 60's, and early 70's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I recall the 1960s music as a form of muzak in the 1970s and 1980s, there's plenty of gold radio style stations that burned that into the subconcious kiddie, I'm a 1970s chap myself, and I noted in the 1990s that a lot of gold stations were playing the 1960s and 1970s music, plus a little 1980s.
The 1950s stuff was generally ignored, although the post-punk scene picked up on rockabilly quite nicely. Retro trends came up with the Boomers in the 1960s, rock and roll revival tours, some of the country-rock bands like Commander Cody came out of 1960s retakes on 1950s Rockabilly, R&B and country.
One of the great things about the post-boomers era, and due in part to them is the joy of looking back at older forms of music and reinventin them, or rediscovering them.
A cynical soul might say that it was part of the 1960s mindset to find older music and to proudly claim it as their own, but not I as they set the trend for me.

By the way, I'm not negative about the 60's-70's generation, I hope you don't think that from my posts, as a good portion of my music purchases are '60s era sides. I just don't have a nostalgic weak spot for that era having not been born until the early 1970s.


And genres tend to be generational, a style of music only has a period of mass appeal, so at oldster dances you have a certain style of music that was lovable at the time.
Geddit?

I get emails with the topic "What Happened to Jazz?" or Real Country, or whatever.
I'll tell you, the world moved on. That simple.

Louis Armstrong thought Bop was sh!t, does this make it any clearer, genres and age groups are tied together, a bunch of middle age guys generally don't make a hot new style of music. It's not impossible, but it's less than likely.

The Boomers were the kiddies that bought Beatles Records as well as the Dave
Clark Five, Bob Dylan and Johnny Rivers.

At what point in history did the baby-boomer generation (or any generation) come to "dominate" modern culture? If the baby boomers dominated at any time, it's most likely RIGHT NOW that they are in the position of domination.

>>>>>>>> By your theory, the flapper generation would think that Scott Joplin is the absolute cool of cool. But, I'd be willing to bet that most of that generation would in fact rather listen to Frank Sinatra, or any number of other Rat Pack type crooners, or Henry Mancini or whatever (or any of that other music from the 50's 60's and early 70's that most kids at the time thought was NOT cool) than listen to old Scott Joplin recordings. >>>>>

I reckon you'd be wrong. Flappers by defination are part of the 1920s youth market and scene, which pretty much wound down to a large degree after the 1929 market crash.
Okay, so a Flapper is someone in their 20s, say they married and had kids by the late 1920s, early 1930s, although it's important to note that eras when youth is hip are also eras where kids come later, I guess it's that whole we're the kids, we can't have kids yet subconcious thing.
Anyway, so in 1944 when Frank Sinatra was wowing the bobby soxers and creating near riots in teen girls, there's a pretty good chance that these kids were the offspring of flappers and the 1920s generation.
Maybe the flappers were the ultra cool and snappin' their fingers and groovin' but the average joe was probably steamed by that greasy Sinatra kid and his sleazy music.


>>>>>>>>> Instead, my point is that, taken as a whole, ALL music from all generations that was made in the period of the 50's 60's and early 70's time frame is of a better quality (whether it be lyrics, arrangement, musically, or whatever), than the music, as a whole, that is being made today by the major labels. >>>>>>>>>>>

dude, that is totally the point I'm making, that's your generational bias right there.
I'm not saying that it's bad or wrong, my whole point is that it's atypical of a generation. It's normal.

When I wrote every genre has some dude sittin' there goin' "man, that band/artist has totally sold out".. it was partially inspired by your post Tom, but much moreso by various other topics and the repetitious nature of the comments on the quality of 'modern' music. Yawwwn I say.

ost of the genres of music enjoyed by the bulk of the forum members here are past popular styles, niche markets and retro acts might be active, but generally anyone looking for Buck Owens style stuff wasn't even getting that from Buck in any great degree after '75, let alone anywhere else.
I dig that stuff, but it's era is so far gone, guys like Dale Watson and Wayne Hancock, the Lucky Stars arethe records I buy, hell I help distribute them, but their labels know that it's not a style that's any way whatsoever in tune with what's going on now. That's the way it is.

[Wayne Franco]

I think the listners in general Could be a little smarter. Remember when Music Appreciation was an actual class you could attend at school. Can you imagine if we had manditory music classes all through our school years. I don't think music companies could pawn some of this music off on us so easily. We simply wouldn't buy it! And we would have a more cultured society to boot.

[Tom Olson]

Jason,

Points well taken. I'll have to admit that the issue of whether the music from a particular era (or genre) is "better" than that of another is really impossible to argue about because there are no standards against which to compare music to determine how "good" it is.

It's kind of like arguing over whether a particular musician (or any artist) is "better" than another. That argument is pointless because it's based on a totally subjective standard and there are bound to be people with totally differing opinions in regard to any particular artist or music.

But, that's really here nor there in my opinion with regard to the original question of this thread.

As I tried to point out above, IN MY OPINION, the answer to Stephen's question is that, while it's hard to say if audiences are actually getting "stupider," the reason why we are seeing the popularity of the so-called "big-label mainstream music" is because that's what the big money is pushing, and it's not necessarily the type of music (of all the music currently being made) that the listening public, as a whole, would prefer to listen to IF THEY WERE GIVEN A WELL-INFORMED CHOICE.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. That's just my opinion. I also tend to think that music is somewhat finite -- especially within a particular genre. That is, there are only so many melody lines, or hooks, or whatever, that can be developed within a certain style of music before some stuff starts sounding repetative or bland. I could be wrong about that too, of course.

[Bill cole]

they sure are around Buffalo<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Bill cole on 13 August 2004 at 10:10 AM.]</p></FONT>

[Donny Hinson]

I agree with Jason. Television, in and of itself, did nothing to "dumb down" society. There's trash and treasure on TV, there's masterpieces and mindless monotony. You can't blame TV for the stupid things people are more intent to watch on it. Before mindless TV...there were mindless movies, and before that...mindless music, and before that...mindless books. Also, since the dawn of man, there's been mindless conversation.

Those who wish to improve their knowledge and outlook always find a way to do it. Those who do not wish to exercise and expand their minds will continue to be amused and ceaselessly entertained by mindless prattle or pointless physical exertions. That the two highest-paid occupations in our society are sports stars and movie stars speaks volumes about our intellectual priorities.

Don't blame TV. Stages and stadiums have been around for millennia, and the audience (the dullards?) was there as well, to view en masse, the mindless spectacle.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 14 August 2004 at 04:20 PM.]</p></FONT>

[Mike Bowles]

theres been an awful murder down on music row i found some old stuff by buck owens some albums by charlie pride some by hag those were the good old days some great steel in them

[Tay Joslin]

Amen, Mike.