4 ms·
And they were for the most part correct. The 90's and early 2ks were filled with trash music. The only nice thing compared to the pop lists today is that those
by fein 6y ago
And they were for the most part correct. The 90's and early 2ks were filled with trash music. The only nice thing compared to the pop lists today is that those bands still actually played instruments.
I look back at what I listened to then and maybe a handful of those groups were actually anything good. The rest was appealing to an unrefined 13 year old, which really says a lot about how shitty that music is.
I listen to a lot of stuff from the late 60's and early 70's now, as well as newer stuff full of band names that would never end up in the top 500 lists.
My parents generation of music was undoubtedly more wholesome and serious than my own, and its not even a comparison to now.
If music is supposed to be a reflection of society, it's no wonder as society is such trash now.
- rsynnott 6y agoExtremely serious and wholesome hit from 1960: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yw0bLHTOb0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yw0bLHTOb0 Edit: by the way, you realise that your grandparents were probably moaning about the music your parents listened to? And their parents ditto, and so on. Nothing new about it.
- Exmoor 6y agoI have some spreadsheets* that have every charting hit on the billboard charts. I haven't gone through the general charts that much, but I'd say the ones I have gone through are really surprising. We tend to think we know what the most popular music from the past is, but if you look at the singles that charted the highest throughout modern history you'll find a lot of forgettable crap. *Technically the data is copyrighted, so sadly I can't share.
- progre 6y agoI didn't think tabulated data was copyrightable
- Polylactic_acid 6y agoFacts are not copyrightable, collections of facts are, thats why you cant copy google maps but you can go outside and write down the same data from your own observations. They have to be significant enough to be covered by copyright. A top 40 is maybe copyrighted.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoCollections of facts are also not copyrightable. What's copyrightable is the editorial decision to include or exclude -- or, potentially, arrange -- some facts. This is why phone books weren't copyrightable - there is no creativity involved in choosing what's included ("everything") or the order in which entries appear ("alphabetical"). "Every charting hit" is also a comprehensive list involving no creativity. Order them chronologically and call it a day.
- richrichardsson 6y agoSome phone directories were said to include made up names and numbers that could be used to copyright phone directories. i.e. Company A provides a phone directory with a smattering of nonsense data contained within, Company B copies that wholesale which gives Company A ammunition in a copyright case as they point to the nonsense data and ask Company B to explain why they are included (which they obviously can't without saying, "We copied your directory"). This may just be urban lore.
- sk5t 6y agoIt might be helpful to understand your perspective on this, but a quick sampling of the top albums of 1994-1996 shows almost all modern classics. The singles and one-hit wonders, maybe that's a different story.