Seriously, early rock was way simpler than the big band music that came before it. Did that make it less good?
No, because it was a new music form.
The bulk of grunge music was much simpler than the heavy metal it followed.
Again, its a different music form, and needs to be judged on its own merits.
Comparing classical European symphonic music to jazz swing to metal to prog rock to skiffle to ska on the basis of complexity is just going to give you headaches.
Simpler sheet music has nothing to do with the quality.
Its not a 1-for-1 comparison, but there is a relationship. Something can be quite simple and of high quality.
However, that's not what is going on in Teen Idol music. (See below.)
And popular music written by the musicians who sing it is "actually written for the singers," so what? Does that mean that The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and hundreds of other bands were bad?
While both the Beatles and Led Zeppelin did do some cover tunes, there is almost nothing in their catalogs that was written for their singers by other writers. Lennon/McCartney and Page/Plant are 2 of the more successful writing duos out there, rivaled only by partnerships like Tyler/Perry, Taupin/John and Gibb/Gibb.
However, I don't count that as being a proper distinction. If you look at both Motown and Nashville, you'll find a LOT of hit songs (of various quality) written by professional songwriters, and bands that compose little if any of their own material.
And then there are iconic songwriter/performers like Bob Dylan, Carole King and Prince: all great performers, all also renown for the music they've written for others.
Really, I'm surprised that you guys can't see this for what (I think) it is: the tastes of today's youth seem horrible simply because they're not your tastes, nor that of your peers or parents.
Not it at all.
"Teen Idol" music- regardless of genre- is typically watered-down versions of what is popular among adults. Debbie Gibson and Tiffany's music was simply highly diluted versions of what artists like Madonna and Cyndi Lauper were doing. Where Madonna was singing about someone who was in a new relationship that made her feel "like a virgin" (which she clearly wasn't anymore, according to the lyrics) and Cyndi sang about masturbation, Tiff was singing a (cover) song about new intimacy and
possibly going all the way. Gibson's work is similarly "cleanly racy."
Leif Garett has admitted he was trying to emulate Robert Plant- visually, if not musically. The Cassidy brothers music has elements cribbed from rock and psychidelia, but neither of those genres' edge.
Silverchair compared to the grunge rock of the day seemed...light.
Old Skull compared to their elders in punk bands came across as...cute.
Black Tide, skilled at playing thrash metal though they are, still sound a bit youngish compared to even
early Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax, Testament and Metal Church...but they show lots of promise.
Oh yeah...and those high-pitched squeaky voices bug the hell out of me.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with high notes in and of themselves- I love Ian Gillen's howl on "Child In Time" or Chris Isaak's sweet wail in "Wicked Game"- its that in the voices in the teen's music has no relief...no contrast. Their voices- and the music written to support them- is usually heavily shifted to the trebel end of things, except for the rhythm section.
Gillen and Isaac typically cover a few octaves when they sing. Even the great Michael Jackson couldn't do that until his vocal chords matured.
I think this is one reason why the "recycled" criticism seems so prevalent also. I however think that music continues to evolve and change. When we are 80 years old, the "current" music of the time may likely seem very alien to us. Question is though, will we be as vehement and non-understanding as previous generations have?
