In the days b4 downloads

thecolourbox

TTony said:

RocknRollDave said:

57Deluxe said:

/\ I was actually alluding to all of the classic classics all in the chart at the same time this time 50 years ago - Absolutely nothing to do with making a statement about bloody technology - Jeez....

But...it was YOU that brought up downloads...?   *confused*

I think that was just as a measure of time.

Much in the same way that some people use "BC" and "AD" ... Not every event that happens with an AD (or BC) date is explicitly linked to the alleged birth of a person of cultural and religious significance in a barn, many years ago.

But by that measure you could use any significant event or invention of the last 50 years, but the implication would be that the event you chose would be somehow relevant surely? 

For the record I actually do like a number of the songs in that list (beach boys, Barron knights, Hendrix, Spencer Davis) and I'm probably as retro as any twenty something, but I do think this kind of thing is affected by older generations generally being more nostalgic than younger ones, its not directly comparable culturally. 

fob

   There's so much fantastic new music out there; I don't understand this love some people have of wallowing in 50-year-old music.

Aren't you currently trying to get Bach under your fingertips? 

fields5069

fob said:

   There's so much fantastic new music out there; I don't understand this love some people have of wallowing in 50-year-old music.

Aren't you currently trying to get Bach under your fingertips? 

I think it's good to grow up on old music, it gives one a good grounding, helps you to appreciate that most musical ideas have been done before. As a family we used to listen to the Old Record Club on a Sunday, then when in school people were amazed that I could name Lieutenant Pigeon when someone played Mouldy Old Dough. It also helped me answer a Trivial Pursuit question along the lines of "Which train leaves Pennsylvania station at a quarter to four" (Chattanooga Choo Choo). The other school kids thought I'd sneaked a look at the answer.

I can't be doing with this modern aversion to knowledge of the past.

guitarfishbay

I thought the key word was 'wallowing'.  I'm betting @sporky has heard all of that stuff before enough times he doesn't want to listen to it again.

fields5069

If you don't wallow, your kids won't get to listen.

Philly_Q

fields5069 said:

I can't be doing with this modern aversion to knowledge of the past.

It's a good point.  I've even heard supposedly well-educated people trotting out the "it's before I was born" line on things like The Chase.  Don't go on a TV quiz show then, you muppet.

When someone says that on Mastermind I'll know it really is time to just give up on the 21st century.

stickyfiddle

Not sure what the question was, but the best song on that list (by far) is I'm a Believer. 

Surprised there's no Beatles in 67.

BigMonka

bingefeller said:

I used to tape pop songs off the radio with it and try to get it done perfect so you couldnt heard the DJ.

+1 
In fact I heard an old song the other day that I knew really well until about halfway through the song. I then realised that the reason I didn't know the rest was because the tape had run out!

Sporky

fob said:

   There's so much fantastic new music out there; I don't understand this love some people have of wallowing in 50-year-old music.

Aren't you currently trying to get Bach under your fingertips? 

Yes, among other pieces. Bach was a bit more than 50 years ago though, and that's for playing, not listening to over and over while complaining that there's no good new music. As guitarfishbay says, the key word is "wallowing". It's like the people who want to watch Only Fools And Horses on repeat for the rest of their lives.

fields5069 said:

I can't be doing with this modern aversion to knowledge of the past.

Nothing wrong with knowledge, and nothing wrong with liking music from however long ago it is. But I think there's a great deal of obsession with the 50s, 60s and 70s amongst guitarists, to the detriment of the instrument.

TheOtherDennis

fields5069 said:

I can't be doing with this modern aversion to knowledge of the past.

This.

I mean, all those sad old fucks who listen to Mozart and Puccini, I ask you.

It's music. Does it matter how old it is if you like it?

PolarityMan

ICBM said:

guitarfishbay said:

That dog looks like Jeremy Corbyn.

Funny as his grasp of policy is almost identical too.

Sporky

TheOtherDennis said:

It's music. Does it matter how old it is if you like it?

I could repeat myself, but it doesn't seem like anyone's reading anything other than what they want to read.

TheOtherDennis

Sporky said:

TheOtherDennis said:

It's music. Does it matter how old it is if you like it?

I could repeat myself, but it doesn't seem like anyone's reading anything other than what they want to read.

Or you could say something unambiguously in the first place.

Sporky

TheOtherDennis said:

Sporky said:

TheOtherDennis said:

It's music. Does it matter how old it is if you like it?

I could repeat myself, but it doesn't seem like anyone's reading anything other than what they want to read.

Or you could say something unambiguously in the first place.

What's unambiguous about "there is nothing on that list that I would listen to on purpose", or "I've nothing against pop. I quite like Good Vibrations, but that list is all old stuff that I've heard a bazillion times already. There's so much fantastic new music out there; I don't understand this love some people have of wallowing in 50-year-old music."?

monquixote

I'm with @Sporky on this one. While I acknowledge that list contains a lot of classic songs, I'm not sure I could be arsed to listen to any of them. 

I was amused to realise the other day that downloads will die out before CDs which in turn will die out before vinyl.

TheOtherDennis

Sporky said:

TheOtherDennis said:

Sporky said:

TheOtherDennis said:

It's music. Does it matter how old it is if you like it?

I could repeat myself, but it doesn't seem like anyone's reading anything other than what they want to read.

Or you could say something unambiguously in the first place.

What's unambiguous about "there is nothing on that list that I would listen to on purpose", or "I've nothing against pop. I quite like Good Vibrations, but that list is all old stuff that I've heard a bazillion times already. There's so much fantastic new music out there; I don't understand this love some people have of wallowing in 50-year-old music."?

Well given that at least five of us apparently failed to get your meaning, I'd say it was ambiguous.

Speaking as someone who has made his living as a writer for 35 years, there are only two reasons someone misunderstands what you're saying.

They're trolling you. I for one wasn't trolling.

Or you didn't express yourself as clearly as you believed.

Writing isn't about what you put down. It's about what people take out. If they take out something other than what you meant, then you didn't put it down as clearly as you think you did.

The end.

ICBM

stickyfiddle said:

Not sure what the question was, but the best song on that list (by far) is I'm a Believer.

I would say Dead End Street is better.

It's also noticeable that although there are a lot of good songs there, there are only a small handful at best of great ones.

stickyfiddle said:

Surprised there's no Beatles in 67.

It's January '67 - they were hard at work on Sgt. Pepper.

Sporky

TheOtherDennis said:

Well given that at least five of us apparently failed to get your meaning, I'd say it was ambiguous.

I've removed your silly lecture as it was built on a logical fallacy; there are many more than those two possibilities (your argument therefore relying on a false dilemma).

Again - what did I write that was ambiguous? I opened that post with the question, so if you missed it I'd say that's your comprehension, not my writing. I've put it in bold here so you can't just ignore it again (see my comment earlier on people reading what they want to read )

scrumhalf

Aaah, the "listen-by date" argument, you have to drop all music over x years old in order to listen to stuff that's on current release.

It's a shit argument.

If you were alive when all over the wallowed-over music was around and have half an ear you quickly find that so much modern stuff is just a re-hash of what came before (in the same way that a lot of the wallowed-over was not of itself entirely original.

I will on occasion click on links posted by FBers but I end up hearng either something that's a re-hash or just a horrible noise. Why would I want to listen to either just to be on-trend?

By all means like whatever music you want to like, but if you are affected more by the date of the music than the music itself you might need to stop and have a think.

fields5069

Sporky said:

Nothing wrong with knowledge, and nothing wrong with liking music from however long ago it is. But I think there's a great deal of obsession with the 50s, 60s and 70s amongst guitarists, to the detriment of the instrument.

Yes, I see and I agree there, if you're talking about expanding what one can do with a guitar. Although Adrian Belew did some pretty amazing things in the 70s, and the Tom Verlaine / Richard Lloyd intertwining guitars thing still amazes me.

Edit: but then on 99% of the videos I've seen for the BOSS SY-300 guitar synth, I hear people playing pentatonic lines which is really not the point of the device I hope.