i honestly can’t stand music from before the 70s.the instrumentation is just a noisy clatter and the audio quality is worse than an old iphone recording.how do you guys even enjoy this stuff unless you're a boomer?
>>130721469>the instrumentation is just a noisy clatter and the audio quality is worse than an old iphone recording.post specific examples
>>13072146930 dollars for that shit. You're wrong and gay but that's crazy
>>130721469stop listening to hippity niggity you faggot.
neither of your criticisms are remotely accurate, many 60s bands sound very crisp and clear
>>130721515>In 1969, the average retail price of a standard 12-inch vinyl LP (Long-Playing) record was $4.98. The manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) typically hovered between $4.98 and $5.98, though standard albums could frequently be found on sale for about $3.98.$4.98 would be about $43 in today's dollars, so inflation-adjusted that album is cheaper than it was new.
Who gave this goymonkey access to a keyboard? Either horrible bait or genuine retardation. Your call.
>>130721469true. its a hot take but yeah, the recording techniques were not good enough thats why there is so much REMASTERED also the melody aint even that good The Beatles fucking suck in particular they are severely overrated.
>>130721499the rolling stones
>>130721534he obviously means specifically the beatles
>>130721535Okay but this is a dead medium and that's the zillionth repress of a record that you can easily buy much cheaper
By the 50s and tape recording good audio fidelity was possible.
>>130721560the stones, the beatles, the who, the doorsall overrated af and with bad sound default qualityThe only good shit of the 60s is Genesis, King Crimson that sorta deal.
>>130721566yeah maybe 3 of 200 beatles songs are "noisy clatter" the recording quality is high for most of it aswell
>>130721570hot take music from the 50s sucks for the most part. Frank Sinatra is coo tho.
>>130721596Then why did they remaster the songs for 09/09/09?
>>130721597>hot take music from the 50s sucks for the most partNo you just have bad taste
>>130721606for money
>>130721576king crimson is great, genesis is totally mediocre and outdone by pretty much every band you listed. 60s has tons of good artists beyond the popular names aswell
>>130721624>>130721576furthermore both Genesis and KC have 1 album in the 60s, by that logic Led Zeppelin is one of the best 60s bands
tired of these fucking kids going around complaining about picture and audio quality. they’re fucking dumb. shitty quality has always been a part of the magic around the experience. a tape player with some cheap ass headphones brought more variety sonically into people’s lives than any studio quality headphones and flac file ever could. 480p and scan lines made pre digital effects look even better. people could make things on a lower budget and still find an audience because the masses weren’t brainwashed into thinking everything needs to be perfect all the fucking time
>>130721597>hot take music from the 50s sucks for the most partif you listened to the Mitch Miller type of stuff you deserved what you got
It depends on who you listen to, but I think Motown had the most polished and modern sound in the 60s.
>>130721647lmao bollocksif an artist wants to make something lofi, fine, make it lofi. but for a listener to restrict themselves to shitty equipment that has no hope of reproducing stuff that was well recorded, and impose a lofi aesthetic on everything is fucking stupid. you can play lofi recordings perfectly well on decent quality hardware.music doesn’t have to feature perfect recording and replay all the time but that doesnt mean that it should always be shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O04VcM_RY8gThe low fi 40s sound of this has a charm of its own and gives it that hazy, dreamy quality that would be lost if it had modern digital production.
>>130721717that’s fine, both can exist. but the undeniable truth behind the past and what made things so great is factors like this. People back then worked with what they had, a teenager in the 80s had no choice but to listen to a tape player on some headphones and if they wanted to listen to music at all they had to get over it. It’s an attitude that’s been lost, and making things sound like shit on purpose through audio engineering is entirely different than using “bad” equipment. There’s factors that play a part in why music sounds the way it does today, and that’s the overall sterilization of people. My point is that the imperfections made things greater. As we reach closer and closer towards this “cleanliness” in media, we move further from the attitudes that built interesting and creative projects.
>>130721741I also feel that with the commodification of the music industry its become less about passion and more about monetary incentive. It really started around the 80s but we only started feeling its full effect 10 years later. It's probably one of the main reason I barely listen to anything made after 1990. It's bound to be crap.
This bait is extremely low quality
>>130721789your mom is extremely low quality and I still took her
>>130721617well obviously but its also because the ogs didnt sound good enough
>>130721553You like Paramore
>"When I first started, we had limited resources," Streisand recalled. "Studio time was expensive. Tape was expensive. We didn't have the budget to do dozens of takes or get a song exactly like we wanted it. A lot of times we couldn't get the mix or arrangement we were going for."
>>130721774I mean when you get down to it, music has always been marketing. People with money promoting someone with less resources and unable to promote themselves independently. Certain demographic and marketing techniques dictating what’s most appealing and what isn’t, the data tends to change as people age and younger generations tend to grow up and discover their own tastes. The thing is, the attitude is shifting in a direction that’s less appreciative in general. People are becoming harder and harder to please, and as such the attitude is ever shifting more and more towards “fuck it” and as a result we might end up seeing a lot less creative innovation.
>>130721639>furthermore both Genesis and KC have 1 album in the 60s, by that logic Led Zeppelin is one of the best 60s bandsthey debuted in '69, but in reality the 60s was 1958-67 rather than 60-69
>130721469nice brown hands boybandfag
>>130721814Cause its comfy kino and has good sound quallity unlike the fagtles.
>>130721553dumb nigger
>>130721893I’m just going to assume you are more intelligent than this. you must know somewhere deep down this has nothing to do with the beatles or race.
>>130721726"Confess" has an interesting story that dovetails into >>130721819. It was supposed to use backing singers but Page was then a nobody who had no hits yet and Mercury wouldn't pay for them, so an engineer came up with the idea to sync two master discs (since they didn't yet have tape) to produce doubled up vocals, a very tricky stunt to pull off, but the song became her first chart hit and the vocal doubling gimmick turned into a hallmark of her records.
>>130721902Paramore is gayer than the beatles
>>130721932they were the last band keeping rawk alive, so...
the noise at the start of "Black Dog" was guitar feedback left in by accident, but Page decided it sounded cool so they would just leave it there
>>130721948Geese mogs em
>>130721469You'd call the audio quality of these shitty?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qNFAKhh588https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoYdeEDdtK4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSvoZSE9coc
>>130721553>The Beatles fucking suck in particular they are severely overratedThis. Corny jangly pop trash.
>>130721964>GeeseGross. Paramore and Geese both fucking suck.
>>130721948t. Taylor York>>130721964t. the Geese singer (whoever he is)
Pre-1950 : pre-historic/Primitive music1950-1970 : Ancient/Obsolete music1970s-1980s : Classic/Pioneering Music1990s-2000s : Modern Music 2010s-2020s : Current Music
>>130722511>Pre-1950 : pre-historic/Primitive music>1950-1970 : Ancient/Obsolete music>1970s-1980s : Classic/Pioneering Music>1990s-2000s : Modern Music>2010s-2020s : Current Music
>>130722199I wish he was here instead of studying guitar like a nerd... no jk he should study guitar. Formally if possible as in: Go join a music conservatory
>>130722511>1950-1970 : Ancient/Obsolete musicits especially true when it comes to rock from that era. it all sounds so dated and corny
>>130724340I was listening to stuff in the /mu/ in 1970 thread and a lot of it has a power you never get in modern releases.
>>130721553"remastered" = compressed to the point of no dynamic range. because retards think louder is more gooder
>>130721639genesis's album from the 60s sounds like the moody blues but even worse so it shouldn't even count
>>130721469unfortunately this means you are lacking a soul
>>130721469Since when the fuck do zoomers care about sound quality
>>130721469Meanwhile I ONLY listen to music from the 70's and earlier
>>13072146940s-60s music sounds so dated and primitive now, that it is hard to find a use for it, other than memes/analog horror... We are now as distant from Elvis/the Beatles, as cavemen were from apartments, this is what a Beatles album sounds like to modern ears : 1- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZojBi0cxd6I&pp=ygUddGhlIGJ1aWxkaW5nIDcxIGluY2lkZW50IHNvbmc%3D 2- https://youtu.be/kKlYEMHVFow?si=Tr4XEQk26PX6Lfc- 3- https://youtu.be/EvJkwn2INy8?si=TOAwOjwJPh6OjJY_ 4- https://youtu.be/S652aa_kXjY?si=7SLA4zn1G0LiCWj4
>old iPhone recodingWhat the fuck does that even mean?
>>130726926>Old = bad
>>130726926How's the weather in Mumbai?
>>130726934It's a zoomer, it can't articulate itself
>>130725528right some of the 70-79 rock is decent. but its still rather dated compared to the 80-89 era. van halen still sounds modern while zeppelin sounds dated
How do I enjoy it? I don't.
>>130721469>i honestly can’t stand music from before the 70s.I like bubblegum pop with female singers from the 60s. It sounds cute in retrospect, however the era must have been pretty bleak if that's all there was (that and motown soul etc)
>>130729072IT WAS, especially for rock, albums were over half filler. You can see that music only started in the early 70s, when you notice that most releases before then were the most basic/uninspired stuff, made just to sell records. The fact that the Beach Boys or the Beatles dominated, has less to do with talent, and more with the lack of it. The culture of singles was strong, while of band fandoms was still in it's infancy. https://youtu.be/K9Nd6TgvY9M?si=mtb2OuH_MAlOoRbZ
>>130721469I kinda get what you mean. I’m big into 60s garage rock, proto punk stuff but most music from before the late 70s does nothing for me. It’s funny because I barely listen to anything from after 95 or so. I basically have like twenty years of music I actually enjoy. I’m also a zoomer geg
>>130727122Van Halen is too plastic and gimmicky.
>>130729072>I like bubblegum pop with female singers from the 60s. It sounds cute in retrospect, however the era must have been pretty bleak if that's all there was (that and motown soul etc)>all the rock, blues, jazz, pop, country from the 60s was shit and there was absolutely nothing good in the entire decade except a couple of Supremes and Leslie Gore tunes
I miss the old john lennon album in toilet getting pissed on pics
>>130732618whether or not you like them is irrelevant. they still sound contemporary 40yrs later
>>130733064No they dont van halen is dated as hell and aged like shit
>>130729523However Ennio Morricone was endlessly dropping bangers like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcN-eszBYcAgarage rock is THE sound of the 60's.that and most important early experimental/electronic music
>>130733064Van Halen were ended forever on September 24, 1991.
>>130732731i neither implied that nor am i a zoomer.see>>130733181shit not even my boomer parents care about anything pre-70's
>>130721469besides artists like Ariel Pink where you can tell they are doing it on purpose, if you can't appreciate lo-fi, you're soulless.
>>130721650Yellow Rose of Texas is a bop though
I always thought of the late 60's (lots of great stuff in there) to be part of the 70's - so I guess it doesn't count.Impossible challenge : find something good from early 60's
>>130733323>Impossible challenge : find something good from early 60'sthat's a qualitative statement. i'm sure lots of people would say there was great blues, jazz, and country.
>>130733323The early 60s lacked hard rock but pop was a lot better than the 50s.
>>130733472>The early 60s lacked hard rock but pop was a lot better than the 50s.no doubt>i'm sure lots of people would say there was great blues, jazz, and country.like who? as i said, not even boomers give a shit about the 60s
>the audio quality on all these famous bands from the 60s is terrible!no it isn't. what are you fucks even suggesting is wrong with it? none of you have said anything specific at all. just that it's bad. is this like how in /vr/ people are trying to force a new history for the sega dreamcast? bored kids shitposting about invented memories by retards on short form online media?
>>130733472>The early 60s lacked hard rock but pop was a lot better than the 50sWith the exception of Steve Lawrence, who was at his hitmaking peak in the early 60s, most of the more cancerous stuff from the 50s had gone away by then.
>>130733555adults responding to retarded kids erroneous OPs is 99% of this board
>>130733405On two of those I would agree. Not so sure about jazz as that was running out of steam by the time Kennedy was president.
>>130733581it's peculiar how 60-64 is sometimes treated as an extension of the 50s and the "real" 60s begins in 65 although it was a clearly distinct era
>>130733631The real 60s was 58-67, not 60-69 per se. The obvious change comes in 68 when being cute and brightly-colored disappeared and stuff became darker.
>>130733259it would be hard for even Mitch to fuck up a traditional song performed with a chorus+marching band
>>130721469What is wrong with you?
>>130725528what happened in 67-72 was a once in a century event, we've never had an era quite like it since, or as chaotic
Someone post the fucking lennon peePic holy shit i asked nicely notGona ask again
>>130721469That's cool man, you should be pulled apart by horses and your legs stuffed into what's left of your anus, but you do you.
>>130734955Yes we did, an even more chaotic one : the 2000s. That decade saw the release of albums so good, each year would have multiple "album of the decade" were they released in the 20th century.
>>130734991>Yes we did, an even more chaotic one : the 2000s.The 2000s was not comparable to the late 60s, not even close.
>>130734984I got u nigga
>>130734984Is that some kind of haiku?
>>130734984Sometimes when I shit I cum
>>130735004True, it was WAY better, the entire 1960s combined, didn't have the output of great music that 2004 ALONE had. There's no comparison to be made, is like comparing a Kawasaki Ninja to a rickshaw.
>>130734955It's impossible to get aids if you arent a faggot or a junkie
>>130735043Well you can catch it from hetrosexual sex or a blood transfusion
>>130735042https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_2004nta but how about not?
>>130735058I see so many great songs in there, and that's just the mainstream, once you did deeper than top 50/100, the goodies just won't stop coming.
>>130735058"Burn" sounds like Borders' sound system music.
>>130721469Ehhh I only really like music from the 80s, to the early 90s. I like some stuff here and there after, like I love Toxic Holocaust, I love SkelatonWitch, I love Witchtrap, but generally there isn't much after Swedish Death Metal that I actually like.
>>130735058Bet if you ask him what all these great songs and albums are you won't get any reply.
>>1307351102004 was better than the late 00s which were really awful and void of anything interesting, but it was only just okay.
>>130735135 Out of my all-time top 20 albums, 4 came out in 2004.>>130735164 The 2001 - 2006 run is the greatest in music history imo, surpassing even the 70s.
>>130735135>Bet if you ask him what all these great songs and albums are you won't get any reply.>trying to b8 me into naming specific albums so you can ridicule my tastesNo fuck you I won't fall for it.
>>130721469This The Beatles album is now as distant from us, as WW2 was to Call of Duty... of course it would feel like a relic of it's time.
idk man, all i know is when i was in middle school in the 90s we had a boomer music teacher who kept trying to make us perform 60s pop songs and i was like c'mon idg a shit about the Beatles, Beach Boys, Motown etc i just wanted to go home and play NIN and Pantera songs on my guitar.
>>130721469This is overly simplistic, every era of music has its charms (other than the 2010s)
>>130722511>Pre-1950 : pre-historic/Primitive musichttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSZhNcKqDpY
>>130736200funny you should say that because i just put on a Doris Day tune from '49
OP was born in 2004 and that's being generous.
Just nuke this board alreadyZoomers don't deserve music
I CAN'T STAND MUSIC PAST THE 90S>Over Produced Fake Synthetic Slop>No Real Instruments>Vocals are always unnatural due to excessive auto-tune and post work.>Drums are just computer beats now. >Nothing is real anymoreI FUCKING HATE MUSIC FROM 2000S AND UP.
>>130735745hotel california is almost as old and doesnt sound nearly as ancient as the beatles though
>>130736817https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Woman#Technical_creditsThey use instruments, it's more that the mastering is done in a way to deliberately make everything sound synthetic.
Most Classic Rock fucking sucks.Punk and Extreme Metal is where it's at if you ask this guy (and if you're reading this, you did ask this guy)
>>130735230I'm a neutral observer who would like you to get more specific.
https://desuarchive.org/mu/thread/130552174/#130552174I remember from here that most 2004 releases still sounded reasonably ok, but most 2010s stuff is borderline unlistenable.
>>130737084it seems to me that a lot of that comes from trying to sound like the more commercial Daft Punk songs, but you'd have to ask yourself "why would you do that?" when the normal reaction to "One More Time" is to turn it the fuck off before you die of a massive brain aneurysm.
>>130737030Like stating "They still sing. They just over work that shit in post so its like a robot singing". Might as well not even matter whether real instruments were used if it sounds like Ableton Library Slop
didn't they used to complain about 80s production being too synthetic too?
>>130721469you should cap this, print it, and put it in your wallet.then take it out and read it again in a few years, when you're all grown up. you'll be amazed at how much you've changed.
>>130721535>In 1969, the average retail price of a standard 12-inch vinyl LP (Long-Playing) record was $4.98naw, very hard to believemaybe that was full List Price but they actually sold for a couple dollars less
>>130721469rude
>>130734991The 2000's were the dullest decade in music since the 50's (barring this current decade).
>>130721469You're entitled to your (wrong) opinion.
>>130741690You're entitled to your stupid (and wrong) opinion, some people (you) must have shitty music taste after all...
>>130735018>>130735028>>130735043Based. Thank you sir.
>>130721469thats because most of it was monophonic
