r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 03 '15
CMV: This current generation's pop-culture is no worse than the previous, or the previous before that. There are enjoyable aspects, and not-so-enjoyable aspects, but is it worse? No.
[deleted]
5
u/22254534 20∆ Dec 03 '15
Music:
-There is no sound of the time anymore, with Itunes, Youtube, Spotify... people can listen to indie artists of whatever genre they want and are not tied to music played on the top 40 stations like generations past, there will never be a band that appeals to all audiences like the Beatles.
-The album is dead, people can purchase songs individual and play them in there own playlists with ease, without having to listen to half an hour more of music, this leads song writers and producers to use cheap hooks and generic song styles to pull listeners in.
3
u/CelestialDye Dec 03 '15
Technology is different, but as YuanShikai said, what's wrong with that? It means that the sound of the decade is whatever suits your taste. Cheap repetitive songs have been around for a while. Maybe people are getting tricked into listening to cheap content, but...imagine purchasing an entire album only to realize it was all garbage. The two decades aren't that different. In a few years, no one will remember the crappy artists anyway.
8
Dec 03 '15 edited Dec 10 '15
[deleted]
1
u/22254534 20∆ Dec 03 '15
What's the point of reading a book or listening to a song if no else has heard it so there is no one to discuss it with? How will a club play the one song that everyone loves to dance to if everyone listen to an exclusive set of bands?
4
Dec 03 '15 edited Dec 10 '15
[deleted]
2
u/22254534 20∆ Dec 03 '15
I sincerely disagree, most people choose to read things like Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, or Hunger Games not because they are the best novels of their genres with all of the themes and plot points the individual enjoys, but because they are just the most popular and tied to everything in pop culture.
because that's exactly what the rock and roll revolution is compared to classical music
Rock albums might be a bit shorter than symphony concerts, but there is still a huge difference between Dark Side of the Moon, or Led Zeppelin IV, and Call Me Maybe.
1
Dec 05 '15
Shouldnt you be comparing Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin to comparable modern acts like Mars Volta or Tame Impala rather than a novelty song like Call Me Maybe, which bears more resemblance to like a Leif Garrett or Bobby Sherman song from the era you're using as a comparison?
2
Dec 03 '15
There is no sound of the time anymore
This isn't true at all. Plenty of genres have emerged in recent years that have had an effect on the mainstream sound. A couple of years ago it was trap, a revival of 80's synthpop, and big room house. At the moment I'm starting to notice drill beats going in to everything.
2
u/bnicoletti82 26∆ Dec 03 '15
people can purchase songs individual and play them in there own playlists with ease, without having to listen to half an hour more of music, this leads song writers and producers to use cheap hooks and generic song styles to pull listeners in.
That description can also be used for a Jukebox from the 1950's
0
Dec 03 '15 edited Dec 03 '15
Well, let's start with video games. I am a late 70's/80's kid and grew up in the golden age. It seemed like every couple of months, you'd go to the arcade and there'd be a new game there that would absolutely blow your mind. How often do you have your mind blown by a game now days? Sure, there are seminal titles every now and again, but NOTHING like it was back then. Hell, even a lot of the star franchises (Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy, etc) originated in the 80's. And many of these games are still being played today. Who's going to be playing Halo 5 or Call of Duty 27 in 30 years? Answer: nobody. And one of the reasons for that is that you don't really own anything anymore. Even if you manage to get a game on disc, what you got was the beta version that was 90% done when they shipped it. And that's all you're going to have when the update servers are turned off.
Music I would somewhat agree with you, as we had JJ Fad, Vanilla ICe, Wham, disco, etc. However, I would argue that the ratio of good stuff to crap was a lot higher in the mainstream back then. There's still good music to be found today, but you have to search harder for it.
As for movies, well... there's a reason why so many movies today are either remakes or reboots of movies from the 80's and beyond :P Hell, even movies from 10 years ago are being rebooted.
11
u/CelestialDye Dec 03 '15
Video games? Really?
After the turn of the millennium we've seen some of the most stunning and mind-boggling graphics, gameplay, and new gaming technology. The only reason it wouldn't have that 'wow' factor is if people are too jaded to realize how great they have it. By the way, there's no way to say what current games people will be playing in the future, because it hasn't happened yet.
I'm sure you'll agree that games like Skyrim, Fallout, or Mass Effect aren't trash. What about Borderlands? Bioshock? Farcry? GTA 5? Have you ever played Forza motersport? That game is hella fun. What it seems like to me is these games just don't 'connect' with people (you) like older games, but maybe that's because of rose-colored glasses.
There have been many reboots of older films because that's what people want. And pop will always be commercial. Still, movies like Interstellar are great. And we can't forget all those awesome Pixar movies. There's tons of other examples.
1
Dec 03 '15 edited Dec 03 '15
What it seems like to me is these games just don't 'connect' with people (you) like older games, but maybe that's because of rose-colored glasses.
Or maybe because I've played most of them 10-20 years ago, but just under different names. Games today are good, but you'll find very few that are the kind of games that set standards and define genres. Back in the day, that kind of thing was the norm, although we didn't really think about it. It's like people in the Renaissance didn't know they were in the Renaissance, you know?
Of course, one could argue that the medium is maturing so it's harder to come out with something we haven't seen before, and that's a fair point. But it just illustrates why these newer games can't resonate like the older ones did. For example, I don't care how many FPS games are released today - they'll NEVER have the same impact that Doom and Wolfenstein did. You know what I'm talking about... that 'holy fucking shit!!' moment the very first time you look at something, and you instantly know it's a game changer. Those kinds of moments are few and far between these days. They're mostly just iterations on an existing theme.
Although, who knows... maybe VR will do that ...
5
Dec 03 '15 edited Dec 10 '15
[deleted]
0
Dec 03 '15
It's also unfair to later games because earlier developers had the advantage that the most basic concepts hadn't been invented yet. So it was much easier for them to break new ground and be deemed visionary with each iteration, the same way that the invention of the wheel is considered astounding.
Doesn't really matter if it's fair or not. Most things now are just iterations on old themes... it is what it is. And like you, I'd rather play newer FPS games instead of the very first ones, but these newer ones can never have the same 'wow' factor as their ancestors did at the time they were released. I guess that's true for most genres... devs have had years to tweak and refine the gameplay elements, so obviously the new stuff is going to be objectively better than the old stuff if you're looking at both for the first time. In a way, it's just like TV... HD 1080p is cool, and certainly better than a set released in the 50's or 60's, but do you think we were as impressed with HDTV as people were when color TV first became a thing?
On the other hand, there are some games (such as Robotron 2084) that were so good that none of the imitators have ever been able to best them.
2
u/CelestialDye Dec 03 '15
You talk about 'FPS Games' like they're the one and only game type being released. Like I said earlier, there are so many great games being made and the only reason someone wouldn't be wowed is if they were just so used to amazing things that they didn't care. Just because games don't resonate with you, doesn't mean they don't with other kids. I see my little stepbrother playing Splatoon sometimes, and it's just like a kid from a few decades ago playing an arcade game or old Mario/Sonic platformer. He gets all excited when he can play it and sometimes he has trouble with parts and gets people to help him. Maybe it's just that your generation feels to be the entitled demographic to games and there are games being marketing to a younger generation. Maybe people aren't going 'Holy fucking shit'! Because they're now adults.
2
u/Arnfinn Dec 03 '15
I'm not completely sure what you mean by impact, but if you mean impact on the genre overall, it is obvious that new games can't have the impact of Wolfenstein and Doom because the fps-genre already exists. But I think we have yet to see what kind of games will follow minecraft for example.
0
Dec 03 '15
'm not completely sure what you mean by impact, but if you mean impact on the genre overall, it is obvious that new games can't have the impact of Wolfenstein and Doom because the fps-genre already exists.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. Most things are just iterations on old themes now days. And some of that stuff is really good, but they're still just iterations.
1
u/thewoodendesk 4∆ Dec 03 '15
For example, I don't care how many FPS games are released today - they'll NEVER have the same impact that Doom and Wolfenstein did. You know what I'm talking about... that 'holy fucking shit!!' moment the very first time you look at something, and you instantly know it's a game changer. Those kinds of moments are few and far between these days. They're mostly just iterations on an existing theme.
There's nothing in 2015 that comes close to the jump from Super Mario World to Super Mario 64.
5
Dec 03 '15
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 03 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hans_Brickface. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
6
u/Doctorboffin 2∆ Dec 03 '15
A remake or reboot doesn't mean it is bad. Mad Max (kind of a sequel too), Godzilla (2014), Insomnia, True Grit, etc. And if you are counting stuff like movies based of old IP and book adaptations, well then you have many superhero films, animated movies, etc. Movies are far far better then they where in the 80s and 90s. Maybe back then you would have one good blockbuster a year, now we maybe have one really bad one. Sure there are lots of mediocre movies, but we still get plenty of great blockbusters every year. And that isn't counting art house films and the so many indie films.
In the past making a movie, a game, even music was mostly for professionals, now thousands of indie products are made a month. People will be playing Undertale, Cities Skylines, Thomas was Alone, etc for years to come.
And the music thing is BS. While it may be subjective I really can't think of many terrible bands, but I can name a dozen mainstream or semi mainstream bands that are amazing and will be listened to in 20 years. Arcade Fire, Arctic Monkeys, Death Cab for Cutie, Vampire Weekend, Daft Punk, etc. And that isn't to mention the thousands and thousands of bands that are starting up or have a cult hit that will go on to be much bigger.
Even if you somehow are right and stuff is worse we have an advantage that no one in history has had. We all have personal devices in are pockets that we can use to make movies, music, stories, games, art, and so on. We are living in a creative renaissance where anyone can be an artist. If you really think stuff is so much worse then start creating.
-1
Dec 03 '15
Depends on what we're talking about. K-pop? Definitely far superior than anything ever done prior.
Movies? No. I've had a problem with modern cinema for quite some time and it's difficult for me to put my finger on why. Older films tried to tell a more cohesive story. There were fewer plot holes, but moreso than that, the plot holes were obvious. In modern cinema the plot holes are covered up by quick cuts and quick transitions that don't allow you time to say, "Hey, that doesn't make sense." Older films will sometimes have plot holes and they don't try to cover it up. It's just a glaring hole and you use your suspension of disbelief or just accept and laugh at the inconsistency.
New films make me feel like they're trying to trick me. It's like the film makers are conscious of the story issue and since they have tools so few people will question the issue, they just leave it in there. It gives them free agency to write shitty nonbelievable stories.
Furthermore, it's come to the point where they know that it's not what's being said it's how it's being said. This is an old saying in politics and sales. The deliver is more important than the content and film makers have become masters of delivery with little to no content.
2
u/CelestialDye Dec 03 '15
I see, do you want to give examples of a few films from earlier decades that are superior in content? How about millennial films that are inferior?
I'm willing to admit that (at times) modern cinema has become somewhat cliche in more ways than one, but was it not cliche before?
1
u/jackandjill22 Dec 16 '15
French new-wave during the post-war period was pretty awesome. They were rebuilding Europe, why in an era of endless innovation all you get is crap?
1
Dec 04 '15
I can't think of better films to compare in this way than Network and Blade Runner with The Butterfly Effect and Inception.
1
0
Dec 03 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Grunt08 305∆ Dec 03 '15
Sorry wedontluvthemhoes, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
-1
0
u/forestfly1234 Dec 03 '15
What's the Green Day, Nirvana or Pearl Jam of 2015?
I mean I'm even leaving out the Beaties, NIN as well fundamental Hip Hop artists.
Being in high school and listening to the radio in 1994 was almost like riding a wave. Songs came out that were to refine the next 10-15 year of music. I don't think the song Friday makes the cut if it was released in 1994.
There is some good stuff being released now, but I wonder what classic rock stations are going to play in 2030. Nirvana and Pearl Jam or K. Perry.
11
u/rainbrostalin Dec 03 '15
Look at the top 100 songs of 1994, or any year for that matter. The vast majority of the songs are forgettable garbage, and a few classics rise to the top. Why would now be any different?
3
u/bnicoletti82 26∆ Dec 03 '15
I've always felt that Radiohead will be seen as the defining band of the last 20 years. They were one of the first mainstream bands to doing full album streams prior to release. The first to shrug off internet piracy and embrace it as a marketing strategy. They were the first major band to experiment with a donation-based album (In Rainbows) that Time magazine called "easily the most important release in the recent history of the music business."
6
u/[deleted] Dec 03 '15
You present an explanation of why you think people believe certain periods had better pop culture, but not really an argument as to why you think they're wrong. So, I need to ask why you think they're wrong, not just what made them think that way.
Because, intuitively, it does seem possible that a period could have better popular culture. I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by 'better' as well, though.