Music, Movies, (novels?) and other media: The "quality" of.

[Laharl]

It's come to my attention that the overall quality of music/movies and other such media has dropped significantly through the past ten years even if not longer. Recently it's all about appearance, less and less about actual content.

Why is it? Are people becoming less... tasteful in general arts/music and the media as a whole? Is the whole "Rebel" theme we have going affecting beyond what we might expect?

Discuss.

[Jimbo]

1999 was a great year for movies... Music has been sucking for awhile though..

[Laharl]

Almost every movie released recently was, well, mindless blood & gore with a story line strapped onto it to make it seem like a "Real" story. Then they add lots of special effects, and poof. The movie is done. Cookie cutter much, hollywood? And nobody else can do anything about it because if you don't have the money, you can't send the message.

Music has been diminishing in quality since the early 90's. It's all entirely physical appearance base. Remember when most musician were male? Yeah, they didn't need to use the sex appear most "recent" ones do.

[Roach Of Discord]

I'm not sure about movies, but music has always gone through various phases. Metal, Rock, R&b, grunge, nu metal, emo, etc. Now days, we're just stuck in a horrible rut of bad music made by angry teens wearing eyeliner.

I've moved away from most 'mainstream' music long ago. There still are tons of quality bands out there, making great music..most are just unrecognized and you have to search for them. Most of the music I listen is put out by indie bands who do their own thing without being in the spotlight.

I think the world now days is more about fashion than anything. Sadly, fashion outsells content. If you have big boobs and an average voice, chances are you'll sell a few million. Same with the whole emo thing. If you can whine about personal issues while showing off your spiky hair..you'll appeal to kids who are in the same angst filled stage as you...and you'll get big.

I guess, it's all about what sells and what doesn't. If ****ty music/movies sell...for whatever reason, they will continue to be produced this way.

[Tipsy]

I don't think the quality of music has gone down, just the people in charge of advertising and selling music on a large scale seem to not agree with my tastes. I personally have no trouble finding good bands because there are a lot of local bands where I live and most of the time you can see them either for free (at some bars or clubs) or for really cheap. Some of them are terrible, some of them are really good, but most of them are a breath of fresh air in the music overwhelming popular today.

For the media in general, I basically consider them, in one word, complacent. They act like they have their figurative finger on the world's figuration pulse and they really almost no idea what is really going on.

For movies, in general, there are a good number of small movie theaters around where I live that play independent films which, in my opinion, seem to be better than most of the huge Hollywood films because they have to make due with less money and more plot and acting. Though I've always liked seeing movies when I could see the actors and not know who they were in real life.

I can't think of any redeeming quality for novels recently written. Though I don't really have much a problem because there's hundreds of years of books to go back on that are quite good. I just find it sad that there hasn't been a book that will be a 'classic' or a 'book of our times' other than something like Harry Potter (which I personally hate).

[x42bn6]

You know you have an issue when the best songs on the Billboard Top 100 are mostly rap, hip-hop or just plain stupid.

Don't get me wrong, but I am always going to wonder where the vocals of Mariah Carey and Celine Dion are going to come from in the future. At the moment, it seems that the songs are dictated by a bunch of people speaking the most controversial lyrics (and they sell well).

I do feel the overall quality of things have changed; but the perspective of a consumer has changed too. Singers end up being actors/actresses now; they are sponsored by hundreds of companies and therefore end up being "good" role models... This didn't happen previously.

I do feel, however, that songs and movies today lack good quality storylines, and games too. Don't you get sick of seeing games that look good but play crap? The first Superman movie was hilarious, and not many movies can be so simplistic yet so powerfully moving. A lot of today's movies are emotionless and robotic...

Perhaps it's merely a case that all the storylines are now cliché and overused... But this should not be an excuse.*

[TheJanitor]

Hell, music is no less technically as good as any of the older stuff(unless we start getting into orchestral). Its really hard to measure that, and a piece of music doesn't have to be technically brilliant to be considered a really good piece of music. Picasso's 'master pieces' were just wonky pieces of **** in my opinion. So yeah the 'quality' is really hard to measure. Music HAS changed, and so has peoples tastes. I don't like alot of the mainstream music right now, but a LOT of people do and they can like what they want.

[Laharl]

So you're saying that people who are little better than belly dancers are better than real musicians? That's really quite sad.

[Arxces]

Today's music industry is a ruthless, calculative, well-oiled behemoth, with the aim of making as much money as possible. It's all about 'market research' and 'target demographic'; they do not look for the talented, merely for fanwhores. However, they are not the ones to blame. The society of today has created this demand for the type of music being released; where there is a demand there will be a supply.

In today's Billboard 100, I saw Ludacris and Jojo in the <10. I can't bear to listen to even one of these. But if this is what people want, this is what they get. Yes, there does seem to be a shift: style over substance. However this trend has been going on for decades now. Who's to say this music is "tasteless", when so many acquire the taste for it? It reminds me of when I first listened to Linkin Park (yeah, long time no hear, huh?) and my mom asked me how I could enjoy all the screaming and shouting. It made me think: what would her parents think of her music (Beatles, Abba, Carpenters, etc...)? The point is that you can't be absolutely certain if a piece of music is any good, as it is subject to personal view. Don't get me wrong; I'm sick and tired of the whole "ghetto, imma pop sum lead in yo skull son", but other people may not be.

As for the dominance of style over substance, this is an ongoing trend caused by social dynamics. The emos huddle into the corner and listen to emo music, the punks blare it out loud and make stabbing gestures, the suburb kid drives around in his dad's escalade and gives the whole neighbourhood some secondhand rap, and basement dwellers like me play "Buddy Holly" on Winamp while surfing on the net. To each his own I say! Yes there is a "rebel" mentality, and this has caused the (temporary) defeat of pop music, and allowed people to enjoy the music that applies to their situation, to their 'little' niche. This is a promising development, but it does mean that some of us won't be able to appreciate music from other genres. We shouldn't be concerned with how the music sucks, but with music choice.

As a side note: The hip-hop scene in Malaysia is mostly underground, making it essentially indie music. None of the major labels want to even touch it! However, that does not stop thousands of people turning up for concerts at stadiums and stuff. We should embrace choice, instead of QCing music. If it truly sucks, it won't sell, plain and simple as that...

[Jimbo]

Well.. The mainstream music is crappy now days... But there are really good bands out there, you just have to look...

Islands is a really good band... their first cd came out this year i think....

[Arxces]

Kill (or kidnap and imprison for life) the following people:

Paris Hilton
Lindsey Lohan
James Blunt
Generic Gangster Rapper (far too many to name)
Justin Timberlake
JoJo

Now, I will hide to escape the impending wrath of fanboys/fangirls.

[Cobalt Wolf]

I agree that Hollywood has run out of ideas.
They've stooped to putting nudity in just
about every single movie that comes out
now just to sell it. How pathetic.

[Arxces]

Nudity and special effects. Don't forget the special effects! It seems that more and more movies are comming out with really nice eye-candy and a really hot female lead with one or more racy scene, but overall a rubbish storyline. The last film I saw which had none of these was the Borat movie, and even then it stooped to such a low level as to insult everyone, especially depicting Kazakhs as a backward, intolerant people.

[dArKmIsChIeF]

Originally Posted by General

I'm not sure about movies, but music has always gone through various phases. Metal, Rock, R&b, grunge, nu metal, emo, etc. Now days, we're just stuck in a horrible rut of bad music made by angry teens wearing eyeliner.

ho ho ho, you have no idea how much I agree with you...the only reason all those emo people havent killed themselves or sacrificed themselves to some cult ritual is because they're in it for the attention and money...

and movies are just making me laugh nowadays. I am a science fiction / fantasy novel fan, and when I look at the upcoming Eragon or Stormbreaker or Harry Potter, I just can't understand how they get things so off. Did you guys notice that the path to Hagrid's hut is different every year? (as well as the common room and entire castle...)

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by dArKmIsChIeF

Did you guys notice that the path to Hagrid's hut is different every year? (as well as the common room and entire castle...)

That must be because of the *gasp* Magic! Or Hogwarts is so rich, it can afford renovation each year...

[Cobalt Wolf]

Originally Posted by Arxces

Nudity and special effects. Don't forget the special effects! It seems
that more and more movies are comming out with really nice eye-candy
and a really hot female lead with one or more racy scene, but overall a
rubbish storyline. The last film I saw which had none of these was the
Borat movie, and even then it stooped to such a low level as to insult
everyone, especially depicting Kazakhs as a backward, intolerant people.

I didn't see Borat but I know that it does have nudity in it.
It got a 9 on the 1-10 sex/nudity scale on kids-in-mind.com.

I'm not going to post all the information here because I'm sure it's
against the rules and I'm not going to post a direct link because I'm
not entirely sure that it's not against the rules but if you go to
kids-in-mind.com and look up Borat you will find it all right there.

I go to that website every time before I rent or go to see a movie
because I don't want to see it if it's going to have a bunch of junk
in it. It makes me feel like I've just wasted $4 (for renting a movie)
or $15 + the price of snacks and a drink for two people (for going
to see a movie in theatres).

I very seriously doubt that my husband wants to pay any of that
just to see two guys rolling around and playing with each others'
privates just to get a laugh or two from the parts of the movie
that doesn't have that in it just as he understands that I don't
want to see some greedy, eager slut taking off her clothes.

[Tipsy]

I don't think nudity necessarily makes a movie 'bad'. There are quite a few movies that have nudity and sexual references and lack quality, however there are others that actually use violence and nudity as part of their content and use it in a way closer to art than pornography. To be quite honest, the most graphic sex scene in a move I've ever said was used as art rather than simply a place filler for lack of content. It, for example, would have easily merited a 10, however nudity can be used for artistic purposes (and violence for that matter).

[Arxces]

You've managed to evade the trashy stuff, which makes you lucky. (You must give me some movie recommendations, pleeease?) Yes, you're right, nudity does not necessarily make a movie 'bad'. What is a problem is when nudity is pointless, or fan-service, purely 'filler' as you put it. I think it can safely be said that most of the latest box-office films employ nudity in that way. Borat, or example, has two naked men fighting just for the sake of humour. The same goes for violence. Some movies (e.g. V for Vendetta) use violence to demonstrate a point. This is a legitimate story-telling technique. The problem is when films resort to violence as an attraction. My point is that these techniques should not be used for the sake of it, but should be employed to enhance story-telling and to demonstrate a point.

I guess you are in on the films that aren't populist, fan-servicing, sensations, given the fact that you've been able to evade this kind of box-office trash.

[Cobalt Wolf]

Arxces, I get my info from Kids-in-mind.com.
You can see the content before you see the movie.

Sorry to go off-topic but there is something I want to discuss real quick.
I suppose you can consider it a sub-topic.

Nudity is pornography. Now whether or not you want to call
pornography "art" is your own decision. I, however, do not think
of it as art because I feel it is distasteful and inappropriate.

Now you can go on to say that pornography's purpose is to cause
sexual arousal in the person looking at it but pornography is also
described as obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like,
especially those having little or no artistic merit. Yes I did take that
out of the dictionary - I can't think of another way to reword it.
Besides, these words fit it best.

And regardless of if you don't feel it is offensive to you, people
shouldn't be seen in the buff. Let me ask you a simple question...
Would you take a painting of a fully nude man or woman to a
church with you? You know just as well as I do that it has no
place inside a church (or even out of church for that matter).
Just because it is something you see all around you -
that does NOT make it right!

If you are a man it is going to stir up feelings, whether you want
it to or not, because men are visually stimulated. It's a well-known
fact because that's the way men were created. They are different
from women in that aspect. The best way to prevent that altogether
is to not have it. And by these feelings being stirred up you are actually
commiting a sin: adultery. Lusting after another person is just as bad
as having sex with them. Even the Bible says this.

If you want to bring up the nude statues from the Roman days,
just think of this: How many of those men who built those statues
were homosexual? Those were the days of Sodom and Gommorah
David did not kill Goliath in the buff and he was a boy. But yet there
is a nude statue of him with the body of a gladiator. What inspired
Michelangelo to make his statue like this?

The only people who walked around in the buff in history were Adam
and Eve and they were unaware that they were without clothes because
they were innocent until they ate from the tree of knowledge. Then
they realised that they were without clothes and were ashamed.
Remember when Adam hid from God because he was ashamed?

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Cobalt Wolf

And regardless of if you don't feel it is offensive to you, people
shouldn't be seen in the buff. Let me ask you a simple question...
Would you take a painting of a fully nude man or woman to a
church with you? You know just as well as I do that it has no
place inside a church (or even out of church for that matter).
Just because it is something you see all around you -
that does NOT make it right!

If you are a man it is going to stir up feelings, whether you want
it to or not, because men are visually stimulated. It's a well-known
fact because that's the way men were created. They are different
from women in that aspect. The best way to prevent that altogether
is to not have it. And by these feelings being stirred up you are actually
commiting a sin: adultery. Lusting after another person is just as bad
as having sex with them. Even the Bible says this.

If you want to bring up the nude statues from the Roman days,
just think of this: How many of those men who built those statues
were homosexual? Those were the days of Sodom and Gommorah
David did not kill Goliath in the buff and he was a boy. But yet there
is a nude statue of him with the body of a gladiator. What inspired
Michelangelo to make his statue like this?

The only people who walked around in the buff in history were Adam
and Eve and they were unaware that they were without clothes because
they were innocent until they ate from the tree of knowledge. Then
they realised that they were without clothes and were ashamed.
Remember when Adam hid from God because he was ashamed?

I, personally, have seen paintings in churches and cathedrals of naked figures (in Europe, I don't think I've ever seen one in an American church). This ranges from symbolism for clothing the naked to angels. You mention Adam and Eve specifically; I've seen paintings of that scene with them naked in a cathedral. A lot of these paintings are art and do belong and are in churches and cathedrals. I also can't say that when I've seen it that I've ever lusted for that Angel, or for Eve, or for a poor beggar. I stand by the claim that there is a difference between art with nudity and pornography.