There were quite a few comments made, inclduing recently by none other than Tommy Denander, strongly stating that the songwriting bar has come down a lot in recent years, and that average songs are now hailed as "classic", or at least "great".

To be fair, is it really correct? Is music today less inspired / inspiring than "back in the days"? Are the songs not as good?

From my point of view, I do not think so. What happened to me is that I have heard it all before. It doesn't mean that the songs are not good. It is just that I cannot relate to a band because they straight away make me think of an "older" band. Add the fact that I have an emotional link to these older bands/songs, which cannot be replicated today as I am in a very different frame of mind and no longer in my "formative" years, and maybe there lies some of the reasons why some feel that yesterday's songs were better.

If you ask me, I can find a lot of fillers and uninspired songs on any REO, Journey, Toto, Survivor, Styx, Foreigner, Boston, Kiss, Aerosmith, etc albums.

So why do we think songs of today are less good? Because the fillers are no longer "hidden" or "sheletered" by a huge hit that makes you notice the other songs less? As all songs are "equal" in terms of charts, maybe we feel that as there is no hit the overall songwriting is poorer?

I am admittedly no longer updated and have missed a lot of new music in the last 10 years. However, the few things I have bought did not make me think that the songs were weaker. The only thing is that they are not original (anymore?). The fact that I have loads of music bought back in the day prevents me from fully enjoying a lot of the newer bands. This said, if I were 20 today and discovering bands like WET, would I think their songs are weaker than say Journey's? Not sure.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2013 09:50AM by Laurent.