English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

60s 70s rock and 2000 rock

2006-11-07 11:41:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music Music

8 answers

Rock today and rock back then talk about totally different things. Rock back then was more soulful and todays it's just emo.

2006-11-07 11:50:03 · answer #1 · answered by killer queen 5 · 0 0

The main difference is that in the 60's record labels for the most part wanted artists that were unique. Sometime in the 70's, though, money became more important than art, so labels decided they needed their own version of almost any group or artist that had a hit, so every label had a couple of acoustic based artists such as James Taylor or Joni Mitchell, or progressive bands like Genesis or Yes, or basic rock like Ted Nugent or Pat Travers. Also, not knowing anything about business, bands were so eager to "get signed", that they would forfeit creative control of their own music without realizing it, thereby essentailly being told what to write and record, which is why by the late 70's you heard fewer songs on the radio lasting over 5 minutes. The 80's saw perhaps the biggest enemy to artists - radio consultants. These consultants began telling radio stations what to play based on surveys within a target market and ratings in their particular market, because in order for a staton to make more money, they needed to have as high of ratings as possible, because advertisers want to reach as many people as possible. This is when DJs lost the ability to play what they felt like or what the listener wanted to hear, and played what "the suits" told them to play based on what their research numbers reflected, supposedly. This, coupled with technological advances in music, such as drum machines and midi sequencers, saw a rise in simple 3 minute songs written around basic drum machine patterns and midi sequences, as opposed to actual musicians performing all the parts on a 6 or 7 minute "opus". Not only did this mean that stations could claim to play "more music" (and more commercials!), this also meant generally lower recording costs for the label. However, the music usually came off as overly mechanical and cold. In addition, the 80's also saw the emergence of MTV, which meant that labels were not as likely to sign an artist if they didn't have "the look", as a result a lot of music in this era was based on style, rather than substance. Labels even went so far as to begin manufacturing boybands who were hand-picked based on youthful age and good looks. They were given voice lessons and paired with top-notch pop producers, writers, and choreographers to acheive the "total package". In the 90's sampling allowed people to lift sections of music from an existing song, mix it with their own drum tracks and new lyrics, and call it their own. So, not only had musicians been largely taken out of the process in the 80's, now songwriting itself was being eliminated as well. However, "grunge" was certainly the antithesis to this trend, although record labels soon watered down the genre with an onslaught of second-rate generic "grunge" bands that hardly resembled the genres pioneers. In the 00's, recording technology has become inexpensive enough so that almost anyone can produce music. This coupled with internet technology and satellite radio has started to empower musicians to function independent of record label control and still amass a sizeable following, which means that more artists in more genres of music will be available to whoever searches for it.

2006-11-07 17:33:03 · answer #2 · answered by Niknud 2 · 0 0

Rock and roll is something that moves you. Rock is crap you hear on the radio today (Rock=pop). Rarely do modern bands rock AND roll any more. System of a Down... Rock and Roll.
Creed... Rock.

2006-11-07 11:52:13 · answer #3 · answered by Hans 3 · 0 0

The rock of the 60s 70s was invented by Black people, it was more softer and enjoyable. But today dat crap ppl listen to today aint nothin but screamin

2006-11-07 11:44:08 · answer #4 · answered by D-Choppa 2 · 0 0

If David V does not get terrific answer, i will lose all faith interior the international. and inspiring this shallow stereotyping (for sure biased in direction of classic rock followers) is annoying. there is no longer something incorrect with those that take place to prefer pop to classic rock--in any respect. and that i does no longer assume that all of them hear to purely spare songs... i'm confident album revenues are doing fairly lots for many artists featured on the radio.

2016-10-03 09:49:43 · answer #5 · answered by murchison 4 · 0 0

60,s and 70,s rock was performed by poeple with a lot more musical talent and instumental ability. today, music like rap and boybands and girl bands and emo bands have taken musicianship completely out of music. its all about looks and image now. modern music rarely has instumental solos and intelligent lyrics. there are no guitar heroes anymore, and no great lyricists since kurt cobain. hiphop has taken over for some reason. which is sad

2006-11-07 12:40:33 · answer #6 · answered by randy s 2 · 0 1

Quality, diversity, originality and creative difference

2006-11-07 11:43:46 · answer #7 · answered by cabjr1961 4 · 0 0

Pro-Tools.

2006-11-07 11:51:11 · answer #8 · answered by Erad 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers