http://nadir.nilu.no/retro/data/img/toplogos/retro_logo.gif

 

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I just wanted to know your opinions. I think vintage acts like Cyndi Lauper, Blondie and Rolling Stones etc. have classics upon classics of tunes that people will never forget.

 

Now the questions...

 

Do you today's artists will have remembered and have classic hits upon their name?

 

Who's better vintage acts or today's acts?

 

Also, is Retro the best (genre) of music?

 

Now the questions...

 

Do you today's artists will have remembered and have classic hits upon their name?

 

Who's better vintage acts or today's acts?

 

Also, is Retro the best (genre) of music?

1. Some will, most won't

 

2. Depends on the act. For every Human League there were 20 Naked Eyes or Seona Dancings, for every Clash there were a dozen bands like Eater or Slaughter And The Dogs who were rubbish

 

3. Retro isn't a genre and again it depends on the acts referred to i.e. a modern idie act like Arctic Monkeys are far superior to a retro indie act like Soup Dragons but The Smiths are better than Arctic Monkeys.

 

 

In short people tend to view the past throught the proverbial rose tints. Having experienced first hand the late 70s onwards I can honestly say there's always been more $h!t than quality.

1. Some will, most won't

 

2. Depends on the act. For every Human League there were 20 Naked Eyes or Seona Dancings, for every Clash there were a dozen bands like Eater or Slaughter And The Dogs who were rubbish

 

3. Retro isn't a genre and again it depends on the acts referred to i.e. a modern idie act like Arctic Monkeys are far superior to a retro indie act like Soup Dragons but The Smiths are better than Arctic Monkeys.

In short people tend to view the past throught the proverbial rose tints. Having experienced first hand the late 70s onwards I can honestly say there's always been more $h!t than quality.

 

agreed, but id go back to 1964 myself for first hand experience of music. there has always been a minority of good music surrounded by more commercial pap.

 

however, until the mid 80's the majority of music was original, each new genre from rock n roll, beat, motown, soul, philly, glam, bubblegum, prog rock, rock, punk, new wave, mod, ska, psychedelia, new romantic etc etc etc.. you only had to wait 3-5 years for a new style to emerge if you didnt like the current trends.

 

pretty much all music (except perhaps electronica and dance) over the last 25 years odd is re-vamping old styles in an almost karaoke/fancy dress style. what passes as 'indie' now is probably the most guilty of this ... play the style, go down the high street and buy the uniform <_< . it wasnt like that for original indie fans.

3. Retro isn't a genre and again it depends on the acts referred to i.e. a modern idie act like Arctic Monkeys are far superior to a retro indie act like Soup Dragons but The Smiths are better than Arctic Monkeys.

In short people tend to view the past throught the proverbial rose tints. Having experienced first hand the late 70s onwards I can honestly say there's always been more $h!t than quality.

 

Following on from this point, I have noticed that the moderators have deleted a number of references from the 21st century that have appeared in another thread in this section. Having the area focused on acts and recordings that were made before the year 2000 is sensible as the Millennium provides a natural cut off point and therefore it is easy to remember, but at the other end of the spectrum, where would you start your retro genre?

 

Would you start at 1960 when records become public domain, a few years earlier at the birth of ‘Rock N Roll’ or in 1952 when the NME first started publishing a chart that was based on record sales? Last night I was actually listening to a record that was recorded in 1949 and therefore you could probably argue that this recording would be ‘pre-retro’.

 

Loz

Edited May 14, 201015 yr by Zippy T Doodar

Following on from this point, I have noticed that the moderators have deleted a number of references from the 21st century that have appeared in another thread in this section. Having the area focused on acts and recordings that were made before the year 2000 is sensible as the Millennium provides a natural cut off point and therefore it is easy to remember, but at the other end of the spectrum, where would you start your retro genre?

 

Would you start at 1960 when records become public domain, a few years earlier at the birth of ‘Rock N Roll’ or in 1952 when the NME first started publishing a chart that was based on record sales? Last night I was actually listening to a record that was recorded in 1949 and therefore you could probably argue that this recording would be ‘pre-retro’.

 

Loz

 

i delete anything that i consider 'non retro', post y2k is a natural boundary, but its not fixed and sometimes if its relevant referances to post y2k is allowed. same with new material by retro artists, its ok if comparisons are made as often younger people cannot relate to earlier works. they can talk about current perspectives in other forums, but this forum is for retro.

 

'pre-retro'?... nah, anything goes although its hard to discuss much before punk, again theres a natural barrier that theres not many people here who know or have first hand knowlege of material older then 35 odd years. shame, id be happy for older people to discuss deeper the 60's and 50's, so no, theres no 'pre retro' date... its all retro!

Wheather a new Genre is ceated or not doent really make any diffrence. all music no matter from which generation has 'borrowed' music of past generations. e.g. rock n roll borrowed a bit from the blues and country music of yesteryear. Same as today new genres are being created like Grime music which borrows a bit from Hip Hop and some from Garage music. Technically no music is ever really totally 'new'

 

as to Whether todays music is good or bad it is completley subjective.

Wheather a new Genre is ceated or not doent really make any diffrence. all music no matter from which generation has 'borrowed' music of past generations. e.g. rock n roll borrowed a bit from the blues and country music of yesteryear. Same as today new genres are being created like Grime music which borrows a bit from Hip Hop and some from Garage music. Technically no music is ever really totally 'new'

 

as to Whether todays music is good or bad it is completley subjective.

 

i dont agree that its as simplistic as that. whilst what you say is true, pop from rock n roll to the mid 80's used past styles but evolved them into new sounds. todays music hasnt done that, it copies directly old pop styles.

I'd say anything from before last week is "retro". I certainly include things from 2005 say, as dated. I was listening yesterday to a mix CD i made of the Top 20 from April 2005 - discounting the top 2 as they weren't really reprensentative of 2005 (Tony Christie/Peter Kay and one of the Elvis re-releases), tracks like "Let me Love You" by Mario, "Switch" by Will Young, "It's Like That" by Mariah Carey, "Time To Grow" by Lemar and "Next Best Superstar" by Mel C (all inside the top ten in that week) have aged very badly.

 

--

Richard

I'd say anything from before last week is "retro". I certainly include things from 2005 say, as dated. I was listening yesterday to a mix CD i made of the Top 20 from April 2005 - discounting the top 2 as they weren't really reprensentative of 2005 (Tony Christie/Peter Kay and one of the Elvis re-releases), tracks like "Let me Love You" by Mario, "Switch" by Will Young, "It's Like That" by Mariah Carey, "Time To Grow" by Lemar and "Next Best Superstar" by Mel C (all inside the top ten in that week) have aged very badly.

 

--

Richard

 

..... but here its y2k, because most since then is still current, both in artists and styles and this sites full of 'current' forums. pops around 50 years old, this forum is to cater for the first four fifths of its history, not the last fifth (or 20% if you dont do fractions! :lol: )

It's difficult to keep this forum 'retro' when the average BJ member age end in -teen! I'm only 26 but I can still hold a firm opinion about music as far back as the early/mid 80s (even though it's not usually agreed with!)

Following on from this point, I have noticed that the moderators have deleted a number of references from the 21st century that have appeared in another thread in this section. Having the area focused on acts and recordings that were made before the year 2000 is sensible as the Millennium provides a natural cut off point and therefore it is easy to remember, but at the other end of the spectrum, where would you start your retro genre?

 

Would you start at 1960 when records become public domain, a few years earlier at the birth of ‘Rock N Roll’ or in 1952 when the NME first started publishing a chart that was based on record sales? Last night I was actually listening to a record that was recorded in 1949 and therefore you could probably argue that this recording would be ‘pre-retro’.

 

Loz

 

Myself I'd start at 1963 - when really great acts started to emerge with the likes of Beatles - Stones - Hollies - Dusty - Cilla - Mersey Sound - Phil Spector acts and many more

 

Myself I'd start at 1963 - when really great acts started to emerge with the likes of Beatles - Stones - Hollies - Dusty - Cilla - Mersey Sound - Phil Spector acts and many more

 

tbh it regulates itself because the further back you get, the less interest there is in any topic.

There seems to be way too much emphasis put on image today, even more so than in the '80's. And most music today is being marketed towards 12 year olds with no taste.

 

I think because of these things you've going to have fewer artists who last long enough to have multiple memorable hits. People like Beyonce, Alicia Keys are image-conscious but are also genuinely talented and are likely to last and be remember for their music.

There seems to be way too much emphasis put on image today, even more so than in the '80's. And most music today is being marketed towards 12 year olds with no taste.

 

I think because of these things you've going to have fewer artists who last long enough to have multiple memorable hits.

 

By the way, whilst we are talking about the 1980s, did anybody else watch the Live Aid shows that were on BBC Four over the last two nights [actually repeated from 2005]? In regards to memorable hits and long term careers, I think the list of Live Aid artists could be a good reference point here for this opinion and maybe some of the points raised in other threads about ‘guilty pleasures’ as well.

 

Loz

 

 

 

 

There seems to be way too much emphasis put on image today, even more so than in the '80's. And most music today is being marketed towards 12 year olds with no taste.

 

I think because of these things you've going to have fewer artists who last long enough to have multiple memorable hits. People like Beyonce, Alicia Keys are image-conscious but are also genuinely talented and are likely to last and be remember for their music.

 

as someone said on a thread on ds regarding jacko... "he tore up the template set by the beatles, and ever since the emphisis has shifted to style over substance" .... pretty accurate id say.

As for ages: I'm 20 and could probably hold my own on a lot of genres, going back to the mid-60s!

 

I think if you go back far enough, what's popular seems better than what's popular now. A top three from, say, 1965, 1966, is likely to be better than a top 3 from 2010.

 

Of course, it's all opinion. The mid-sixties had their fair share of novelty, covers, and flashes-in-the-pan. And a year I really like in terms of charts and popularity - 2000 - is regularly derided for its quality.

 

But, 'back in the day', artists that still mean a lot, in terms of nostalgia or legacy, and actual talent, were popular.

 

Beatles (obviously). Abba - set the trends for all bubblegum pop, via SAW: $h!tloads of #1s. The Smiths, the biggest indie band ever, had a #1 and three #2 studio albums. Etc.

 

Acts that are popular now - and indeed over the last ten years - don't tend to be acts that are going to be matching these older acts in terms of influence or awed memories. Acts that are influential like the Libertines sold relatively poorly and often did badly chart wise.

As for ages: I'm 20 and could probably hold my own on a lot of genres, going back to the mid-60s!

 

I think if you go back far enough, what's popular seems better than what's popular now. A top three from, say, 1965, 1966, is likely to be better than a top 3 from 2010.

 

Of course, it's all opinion. The mid-sixties had their fair share of novelty, covers, and flashes-in-the-pan. And a year I really like in terms of charts and popularity - 2000 - is regularly derided for its quality.

 

But, 'back in the day', artists that still mean a lot, in terms of nostalgia or legacy, and actual talent, were popular.

 

Beatles (obviously). Abba - set the trends for all bubblegum pop, via SAW: $h!tloads of #1s. The Smiths, the biggest indie band ever, had a #1 and three #2 studio albums. Etc.

 

Acts that are popular now - and indeed over the last ten years - don't tend to be acts that are going to be matching these older acts in terms of influence or awed memories. Acts that are influential like the Libertines sold relatively poorly and often did badly chart wise.

 

the reason why the 60's had so much good and diverse music is because most of the artists wanted to make muic, not so much make money. today its all image and fame, not expressing yourself through music

 

well, i was a 1970 baby with older parents, so my musical taste goes forward 30 years and back 20 before i was even born, so yes retro should be 1950 - 2000 - there aren't many people at the age of ten that are into retro.