Why is music from the past fetishized so much?

there's loads of pseuds who will try to tell you otherwise

It's not fetishised. Do you know what fetishised means?

why would you prefer "new" music when the collective back catalog of human expression grows every year and is orders of magnitude more than you could ever possibly listen to

Attached: 1545489049450.jpg (1024x1004, 177K)

it means I can only get off to this image

Attached: th (12).jpg (474x474, 33K)

Late-70s through mid-80s kicks the shit out of the 60s. People need to get over 60s rock already.

New shit sucks, old shit rules, etc...

I never understood the 60s appeal desu

1994 was a great year in music
Dummy, Superunknown, Downward Spiral, Purple, Park Life, Definitely Maybe, I must be forgetting stuff

The whole grunge and alternative rock period of the 90s, before the boybands and pop singers of 1998, was one of the most "high brow" in rock history. The albums critics rated highly were selling very well. PJ Harvey, Massive Attack would get gold albums in the USA, Bjork sold millions around the world, and had platinum albums in the USA.
It's only normal it's very well regarded, in comparison to the 80s and late 70s (metal, hair metal, disco), and what we got after the 2000s.

people only think the mid-70s through mid-80s sucked because critics are pseuds who hate prog literally because it's too good
>REAAALLLL music has to sound like SHIT
>t. scarrufi circa 1980

its simple

>avg rym user was a kid in the 1990s-early 2000s
>their parents were kids in the 60s-70s
now look at the graph
there, i explained why that piece of shit site should be ignored completely

everything about the culture from that era is fetished. allegedly your taste solidifies in your late teens or something
also minimal wave and later-industrial are essentially erased from music history

Literally every year I say "political tension and music can't get any worse" and each year I'm wrong.

a few factors I think for there being a discrepancy on RYM with older albums being rated higher
1. the mid-late 20th century saw a lot of huge developments in popular music and brought the introduction of the album format
2. we've had more time to ruminate over these older albums
3. the internet has transformed the music industry and a lot of what was feasible in the past isn't anymore. something on the scale of like Sgt. Pepper's or Loveless can't really be done anymore in this age and economy
4. the taste of a large portion of RYM users are more rock oriented so obv older albums will be more represented, although we're starting to see a bit of an influx of younger users getting stuff like modern hip hop higher in the charts

The ratings for newer acclaimed albums tend to rise with time and the algorithm updates have only been rising them further. More time having passed means more time to reflect on a release and develop a strong, personal relationship with it. Factor in nostalgia as well and you shouldn’t be too surprised to see in the near future more and more of the top 100 on RYM including 2000s and 2010s albums.

Fetishized? Fuck you, there's almost nothing good from this year, and so much absolute shit

every year an album successfully "copying" your favorite artist/release comes out, you're just too lazy to do research

Why listen to a copy over the real thing? Why should I listen to Snail Mail or CSH over Pavement?

I think many young people don't listen to albums at all. it's an age of streaming and singles.

I don't think humans have gotten less talented and that the current generation of musicians is worse, but the quality of music is suffering from the destruction and downsizing of the music industry because of internet, mp3s, youtube etc. Napster was a real threat, Lars Ullrich was right.

Lou Reed only had 2 moderately successfull albums in a career of more than 40 years, New York from 1988 iirc, and Rock n Roll animal, a live album from like 1974 that was a slow burner hit, an album that eventually became gold album. Most of his albums were commercial failures that still sold like 200.000 albums, but that was enough to not make the company lose money and fire him, because that was 200.000 people buying a vinyl or cd.
A career like that now is impossible, you need dozens of millions of streamings and views, and they only care for the lowest hanging fruit most people will like, and the artist will probably have to wait until touring to be able to make money.

Because you can see these bands in their prime with hot fresh pussy over boomers playing 30 year old hits to old people.

Copies are often as good as the real thing. Lilys - In The Presence of Nothing is easily as good as Loveless imo
Alex G has some great Pavement rip-offs. The song Starlings of Slipstream really predicted his style in a way

Do you?

What about this image?

Attached: canadian girls.jpg (500x700, 100K)

Alex G is pretty good
I do want more new rock scenes, sounds and genres unique to the decade to develop though.

This guy gets it, the internet has been a blessing and a curse to music.

Music was more MUSIC in the past. There was a thing called "songcraft." It was an art to create beautiful melodies and catchy hooks.

Also, while studio tricks have ALWAYS existed, they were rarely in a position to ruin music until the advent of the synthesizer and worse, AutoTune. If you are listening to a song from 1966, for example, chances are every instrument you can pick out in it is actually a REAL INSTRUMENT being played by a REAL HUMAN. Musicianship. Listen to a song from 2019. Hear strings? Most likely a synth. Horn section? Synth. Hear that perfect pitch vocal? Computer assisted.

Money and time has forced music makers to dehumanize music. Less and less of what you hear is human-generated. But, 60s & 70s music? Most of it consists of real performances. And I think THAT'S the draw.

Another thing. Why is every other song released these days written by 6 or 7 people? In the 60s, 3 co-writers was pushing it. Many, many classics were penned BY ONE PERSON. You simply don't see that anymore. Even in country music. It's these huge songwriting teams.

Give me the classics any day!

Attached: gink.jpg (1100x1100, 58K)

because you will never hear a new chris squire album

Only timing is important in music, not time.

Lead me to the kino Tool and NIN knockoffs

Not to mention the total abuse of compression and brickwalling in post-production

underrated post. upvoted

>minimal wave and later-industrial are essentially erased from music history
I kinda like it better that way, feels like its really very underground goldmine

t. only likes shitty bands no one liked

tool=chevelle

>that 80s slump
Plebs, the lot of them.

>synths are bad
There were people like you complaining about synths in the late 70s and 80s too. Synths still have to be played or arranged generally.

>Why is every other song released these days written by 6 or 7 people? In the 60s, 3 co-writers was pushing it. Many, many classics were penned BY ONE PERSON. You simply don't see that anymore. Even in country music. It's these huge songwriting teams.
Stop listening to corporate pop music. And having a single person or a small group as a band writing music doesn't guarantee good music either. There's plenty of single person indie acts that are shit but write all their own music.

>visit RYM thread
>CTL + F, search username
>0 results

phew, see you guys next thread

for I have dined on honeydew
and drunk the milk of paradise...

cuz american culture is obsessed with authenticity and music from the past is perceived as authentic

>Money and time has forced music makers to dehumanize music.
No, humanism is just a dying ideology