You do realize various forms of post production have been in use in the music industry for decades right? Blaming everything on autotune is lazy.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why are 80's vocal just so much more powerful than most modern pop
- Thread starter Benji
- Start date
You do realize various forms of post production have been in use in the music industry for decades right? Blaming everything on autotune is lazy.
Didn't you know? This song was relesed in 1999..
OH thats right it was 1988 =p
80s indie rock was just the prequel to the 90s alternative scene. That's kinda how it is, sometimes the underground stuff in one decade becomes the mainstream of the following decade. That's how it was with New Wave in the 70s being more niche, then becoming big in the 80s.
If you want to really see the difference between artists today and the 80s just look at 1 simple example.
Then....
Arguably one of the greatest collection of talent. A fucking masterpiece of a song.
Now.....
*BARF*
There are still some great acts, I'm a big fan of Adele and Florence against the Machine for example, their singing has such power but they feel like the exceptions rather than the rule.
Albums like Pyromania and Hysteria are perfect examples of this. It took months, years and millions of dollars to write, record and put those albums together as they tried to make everything perfect under Mutt Lange's durection. Nowadays it can be done on a few software programs for cheap on a laptop in under a month.
Hold on now..Ariana and Miley are both good singers..what you just said was complete shit
I'm not big on 80s music, and I can't stand modern pop. But my impression is that with 80s music, everyone sounds like they're in the 35-45 age range whereas today most singers sound 20-30.
That's awesome! It's why we have this many artists nowadays who can release stuff without being dependent on a record label.
Music has declined. Movies have declined. Both of gone to whatever makes the most money.
They can release stuff all they want. They aren't making money though.
It's a double edged sword as it also lowers the bar for entry and therefor lowers the average quality of music.
So taking way more time and money is better than being efficient? 😂😂😂😂
As a 34 year old, I'm not ashamed to say I quite like Miley's voice. She did a live performance of Rebel Yell with Billy Idol, and absolutely nailed it.
Goddamn this is a great post. You eloquently put down in writing a lot of the issues i have with most popular music being produced today. I'd only like to add that the range and variety of what genres are popular has shrunk considerably as well, especially when compared to the 90s. You could have Nirvana, Enya, Celine Dion, Tupac, Peter Gabriel, Metallica and Pavarotti sharing the same Top 10 chart on any given week. Looking at the charts today, everything seems taken out from the same dwindling genetic pool.
Nobody is making money except the big artist but nowadays it's easier to build an audience.
That's a stupid argument because some artists would have never been able to release stuff in the 80s but now they can and I don't care if some release crap because... I can just ignore it?
This is definitely true. My teenage daughters just outright state that singing ability isn't interesting to them or their friends...it is 100% about the vibe of the music and nothing else really matters.
Also, in an age of disposable music, the way they typically consume music is far different - typically skip to songs they really dig, listen to about 90 second of that song at most and then on to the next one they find to listen to for 90 seconds or so...they almost have to be distracted by something else to listen to a song to completion. Thank you next indeed.
Like what? Back then if the vocal take wasn't good enough the vocalist had to redo the take. Today autotune can make a shit singer sound good and singing to vocal tracks live is now accepted.
Back then Pink Floyd was able to make Dark Side of The Moon because of support from their label. Nowadays they wouldn't have made that album because after the first flop you are dropped quickly by the record label.
Recird labels use to help artists flourish but nowadays all they care about is quick cash in the short term.
Yikes. Even Voices That Care sounds better than the new take on We Are the World, and that was from the early 90s(To the youngins, can you spot people you know TODAY in the MV?):
Last edited:
There may be more nuance than these numbers represent, but I just wanted to comment about the bolded:
https://www.marketingcharts.com/demographics-and-audiences/men-demographics-and-audiences-66123 claims that although radio's reach is highest with boomers as you might expect, some 66+ million millennials still listen to the radio 11+hours a week.
https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insig...ica-listens-the-american-audio-landscape.html claims 95% of the millennial population listens "monthly" and 92% listen "weekly", though they do not mention hours.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/415072/radio-listener-number-usa-by-demographic-group/ claims 66+ million millennials listen weekly as well. This might be the same source as the first link above.
All this is to say, maybe such statistics are some degree of marketing and people under 30 don't listen to the radio much, but I've definitely heard before that people of all ages still "listen" to radio a surprising amount. How much does that still relate to pop music? I don't know. Other posters also already covered that MTV etc. were popular in the 80's so people didn't solely depend on radio.
I love Billy Idol, he's a bad motherfucker. Also if anything this guy just shows that artists who've been around for decades actually have more respect for new artists than the audience does.
They could still make it today because you don't need a record label to finance an album production which is a result of technology advancing to the point everyone can make an album on a laptop. You do not need a record label to record music today which means it doesn't even matter if they get dropped after the first flop or if they never had a record deal to begin with. Back in the 80s this was not possible.
Dark Side of the Moon produced on a laptop would be heinous. There's a intangible beauty in its analog medium.
And limitation breeds creativity with music. It would have been a completely different and arguably worse record if made today.
That was fantastic!
It's fine to not be a fan of her music. After all, it's not made for you. However, you cannot deny that she has one hell of a singing voice. There is a difference between someone making something that isn't to your own taste, and someone lacking talent.
Are we really treating Dark Side of the Moon as a summit of musical output for anything? That's a fucking spot on the lewronggeneration bingo if I've ever seen one
It's not even Pink Floyd's best written or most ambitious album.
It's not even Pink Floyd's best written or most ambitious album.
Can you imagine Queen producing Bohemian Rhapsody or Somebody to love on a fucking laptop? *BARRRRFFFFF*
Miley has an awesome raw quality to her voice that makes her great to listen to but I wouldn't call her a great singer. Ariana is a very good singer but she could be great if she actually worked on it (and I could not care less about random whistle-like sounds) - but there really is zero reason to do so as that isn't rewarded in today's market. Adele, Smith and a group like Pentatonix are also great vocally. Also, Adam Lambert is incredible/generational talent (power, range, control, sustain, register switching, etc) but gets no run as a mid-30s somewhat flamboyant gay guy singing about relationships in a society that doesn't care about vocals. Couple recent songs (not his clubbier tracks or one of his Queen numbers - one is a tribute to Cher and another is a song he just released):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukSKzOwYvvs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=w_tALF6-YNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukSKzOwYvvs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=w_tALF6-YNA
Your assumption that a production on a laptop is inferior is false.
No it would be better. Ask any artist who made music in the 80s and who still does now what he prefers. If anything you will find them saying "I wish we had the possibilities of today in the 80s" because a lot of times they simply couldn't do something but they can now.
Do you understand anything about production?
God i hate that music. Especially total Eclips of the heart.
These are studio-bands. They can play and sing everything but it does nothing for me. It's so over the top and nauseating to me.
There has to be a Southpark episode about this soulless music, right?
Anyway, that's my opinion and i would advise you not to put any weight into it if you really like this music.
Listen to what you like and own it. Seriously.
I think the 80's were a mistake in general. Sad i had to live through them in my teenage years. I felt very out of place in that period and liked nothing about it. Even the really great artists were bad in the 80's Franklin, Bowie, you name them. And i'm not a fan of most pop-music. And not a fan of dancing.
So... different strokes for different folks.
These are studio-bands. They can play and sing everything but it does nothing for me. It's so over the top and nauseating to me.
There has to be a Southpark episode about this soulless music, right?
Anyway, that's my opinion and i would advise you not to put any weight into it if you really like this music.
Listen to what you like and own it. Seriously.
I think the 80's were a mistake in general. Sad i had to live through them in my teenage years. I felt very out of place in that period and liked nothing about it. Even the really great artists were bad in the 80's Franklin, Bowie, you name them. And i'm not a fan of most pop-music. And not a fan of dancing.
So... different strokes for different folks.
I'd add the lead singer from Panic! at the Disco, Hozier, Foxy Shazam as well.
Foxy Shazam is as close to Freddy Mercury as you can get. Amazing vocal talent.
Albums would have been completely different though. Def Leppard didn't write Pour Some Sugar On Me untill 1986 after Hysteria was basically finished and it turned out to be the most important track on the album. If they had the tech back then things would have been alot different.
It's not just the vocals, It's the keys used and the 80s chord progressions
Please go to the GOAT synth channel on YT Sythnmania. Paulo is a GOD
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSGAKoBpUJI5jrJLgFQxiiw
Please go to the GOAT synth channel on YT Sythnmania. Paulo is a GOD
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSGAKoBpUJI5jrJLgFQxiiw
You can dislike 80s pop, but during the 80s there were some amazing music genres emerging outside of the pop charts. The foundations of new music, music as we know it now
There's an argument that this happens every generation, but the combination of technological and artistic innovations are undeniable during that period
So true. More times then not I listen to non-pop from the 80's moreso then the pop hits, by a far margin.
Sure, there was some good stuff, thank god. And experimenting. It was a period of rebellion i guess, but often in such a dumb way. At least that's how i experienced it. I still don't like most of it.
They would have been different, but closer to what the artists intention were because they weren't limited by technology. Now some might not feel like that and were completely satisfied with what they had back then, but that doesn't matter. What matters is if an artist is happy with the result. If Madonna re-records one of her 80s albums today and you compare it to the originals and you think the originals were better but Madonna says the new versions are what she wanted to achieve back in the day, then who's in the right here?
I mean even if you record on a laptop, people still choose to limit themselves even today. They buy hardware synths for thousands of dollars that are more limited to what they already have in their laptop because... well they like it. I agree on your argument that this enables creativity too, but the determining factor for whether something is good or better shouldn't be you, but the artists themselves.
What? Total Eclipse of the Heart owns. Peak Jim Steinman right there. Being OTT was the point.
The trials and tribulations of finding your sound back then added something organic to the music. You can feel it in the tracks themselves. They have a sense of soul, authenticity, and grittiness to them that I just can't find in most of the recent stuff out there.
Respectively disagree, I'd say the eighties was the best decade for pure pop music since the sixties.
As a kid I remember watching Top Of The Pops on BBC 1 and just being blown away by the sheer variety of pop stars we had. You could have some old stadium rocker from the early seventies followed by someone like Adam Ant or Duran Duran.
Then you had bands come along like ABC or later on, The Pet Shop Boys. Bands that knew exactly what they were doing as far as preserving the legacy of creating great, unashamedly "pop" music.
No, you just dislike their vocal style. They have insane talent and to say that they can't sing well is preposterous
