| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3148 Posts |
 Posted - 11/20/2018 : 01:06:20
|
Not about Pixies specifically, but this video interestingly shows the trend in music becoming worse and worse.
COMPRESSION is a significant topic in the video and probably the one most relevant to the Pixies, but also the trend to less poetic lyrics.
It has over 5 million views so maybe you’ve seen it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 01:27:15
|
If he's going to make continual references to Katy Perry and Justin Beiber then yes he's got an argument, based on cherry picked science.
I say The Beatles are overrated and music has never been better than it is now.
As for the Pixies I think the overriding reason 2.0 isn't as good as 1.0 is simply the songs aren't as good. |
 |
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3148 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 01:45:15
|
I think the Pixies fell victim to the same stuff as everyone else. The decline of western civilization. Shorter attention spans, compression, less poetic writing, etc.
Bieber and Perry are just the banner children, but it’s probably affecting everybody. |
Edited by - Bedbug on 11/20/2018 02:19:36 |
|
|
|
picpic
* Dog in the Sand *
Belgium
1874 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 02:27:31
|
I don't know about other artists, but Black gave us 5 ultimate records in 5 years with the Pixies. And then a shitload of amazing records as Frank Black. And two very good records in 2.0 IMO.
All of his 1.0 stuff becam cult, which is of course absolutely impossible to override.
Many bands propbaly become worse and worse, but I don't think Black's efforts are following this tendancy. Less prolific for sure, but definitely not terrible. And some of the 2.0 stuff is up there with 1.0/solo stuff (yes, I really believe that !).
___
"Service Unavailable" |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3148 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 04:06:32
|
The man’s input from 87 to 94 is the G.O.A.T., not a doubt about it.
Everything after that is far superior to the rest of the world as well.
I just think they part of the reason 2.0 is not as good as it could be is the devolution of humankind. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 05:24:45
|
| I think it might also have something to do with having greater expectations of his work if recorded and released under the Pixies, as opposed to solo. |
|
|
|
Jeepster
- FB Fan -
USA
123 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 05:35:34
|
I don’t think it’s fair (and it’s certainly not good scientific practice) to judge the quality of modern music based on the top 40 hits. There are loads of thoughtful, exciting, innovative musicians out there right now, you just probably don’t hear them on the radio (which is the same as ever- There was plenty of crap on the radio back in the times we’re nostalgic about today). I think 2.0 is pretty good btw, with a few songs that could have fit right in on Trompe le Monde or Bossanova.
-----------------------
Q: Where do Pixies keep their instruments when they're not playing?
A: Debasement. |
Edited by - Jeepster on 11/20/2018 05:36:28 |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3148 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 06:38:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
I think it might also have something to do with having greater expectations of his work if recorded and released under the Pixies, as opposed to solo.
Agreed, I’ve made this point many times.
If Frank Black released Indie Cindy I (we?) would like it better. Why? |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3148 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 06:56:16
|
I don’t agree with the video 100% by the way.
I just think he makes some valid points in general that even apply to our team |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 08:49:28
|
You have to remember also that there isn't an infinite number of different sounds or arrangements of those sounds. Modern technology of the post 60's and 70's electronic era made things a lot more interesting and varied, and some saw that as a bad thing and still do. Whether you do or not, with the sheer volume of music being produced and that has been produced over the past 5 or 6 decades it's difficult to be original now and so the record companies are always looking to promote new styles. Sometimes these are good, eg. grime and sometimes these are bad, eg. Clean Bandit. Right now we are blessed with bands and artists all over the world all working hard to produce (and play live) music from every kind of genre that has evolved from the music scene of olde, and there's always something worth listening to and always something from the past yet to be discovered. There is more music to entertain us than any of us could ever get bored with in ten lifetimes. There's so much music these days that I find it hard to fit in obligatory quiet time. Compare this situation to even just a hundred years ago: what music did we have to choose from then? Not much, bit of blues or jazz or classical or country folk and that was about it. Enough to keep people entertained but I can imagine people would have gotten bored with their record collections in those days, if they even had any. Go back a thousand years, what music was there then? Nowadays if you get bored of an album all you need to do is look around on spotify for something else you haven't heard.
I therefore would like to contest the above conjecture that music is worse now than it was in the 60's. How can music be getting worse if all the music that's already been is still there, recorded and available to listen to. Adding more recorded music to that library cannot logically make music in general worse. More music is better music. |
Edited by - pot on 11/20/2018 08:51:17 |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3148 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 10:40:42
|
It is interesting that in our "infinite universe" there is a finite number of notes that can only be played so many ways. Is it all in the ear of beholder?
Of your top ten greatest artists of all time, how many are ones that millenials would consider to be current?
Of your favorite artists, how many are doing their best work now (as opposed to then)?
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2018 : 11:17:03
|
Music doesn't always have to be the same to sound the same.
Q1. Dunno but there's a lot that in years to come could become old time favourites. The Pixies were never my favourite band of all time until after the reformation.
Q2. *scratches head* |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3148 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2018 : 05:50:33
|
Sorry if Q2 was a dumb question, just kind of saying that if you like Frank Black, Bob Dylan, Ween, etc. you probably like the stuff they did pre-2018 better than what they are doing in 2018, or maybe even you like their 20th century stuff better than their 21st century stuff.
And of course I think the Beatles are overrated. Doesn't everybody?
But no, I don't necessarily think that more music means better music.
|
Edited by - Bedbug on 11/21/2018 05:57:16 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2018 : 07:33:18
|
Not not dumb, just can't think of anything. It seems to be the way for musicians, hard to keep writing music as good as their early stuff. Other art forms by comparison don't seem to suffer from this unfortunately inescapable trend, ie. painting, writing, film directors..
Some musicians think they are releasing their best stuff ever. How often have you heard "back to form" when an old band releases their first album in years and you listen to it and it's just not. Noel Gallagher reckons his new stuff is his best ever, but he's a big headed twat. |
|
|
|
Sprite
* Dog in the Sand *
1334 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2018 : 08:27:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
And of course I think the Beatles are overrated. Doesn't everybody?
Eh No |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Science Proves New Pixies is Worse than Old Pixies
