@Aqua-Letifer said in Number 2:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Number 2:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Number 2:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Number 2:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Number 2:
Remind me again that it's only old fogies who think old music is better than new mu—oh wait no it's the entire music market!
Pedantic mode on/
TBH, I don't think the Vince Guaraldi popularity is really down to a scarcity of good contemporary jazz, which is what you really should compare it with if you were going to do an old-versus new comparison.
The people buying this probably aren't listening to much other similar music - the Charlie Brown soundtrack is something that kind of stands outside pop music of any era.
I imagine sales of colourful sweaters and Mariah Carey are probably through the roof at this point, too.
You know music stuff. You play an instrument. You know what a hook, a solo, an improvisation and a bridge is. You know the difference between simple and complex harmonies.
And so you can compare both popular and niche music of the past to popular and niche music of today and see that modern music has fewer live players, more programming, less vocal talent in favor of more autotune, and far fewer solos, bridges, improvs and complex harmonies in favor of short, simple songs that are all hooks. And that's when they can even be bothered to write anything original.
Try to make an argument that modern music isn't crap using evidence more substantial than general hand-waving about old people and their silly beliefs about what they personally grew up with. It can't be done.
There’s not as much of it, admittedly.
Yeah, I'd call that a problem. I'm not much into jazz but as a genre it's pretty important.
It hit a bit of a dead end. Like modern classical music, the really innovative/avant garde stuff is frequently not much fun to listen to.
Then you’ve got people like Wynton Marsalis that think that electronic instruments and funky rhythms are an abomination from hell.
