Well, maybe because new music suxx

[Grinderman]

God, this thread - mostly the responses to it - is so depressing.

World full of awesome new music being released out there every day and most of the people who're posting here have NO IDEA.

+ Those who complain otherwise need to do more of what's necessary to find it. The good stuff is out there, now. It's always has been out there. Largely, I believe it's a matter of those stuck in the rut needing to shift and broaden their fishing nets.

Nobody else can do it for them unless they know or trust that someone else shares their tastes in music.

Edit to add analogy: Good cooking heavily depends on quality of ingredients. If you're cooking Indian food, for example, some of the necessary ingredients to make it right may require extra efforts to locate and acquire.

 

[J_Bass]

Funny thread.

 

[Ron Berenato]

I'm 58, so my musical preferences range from the late '60's to early '90's. Even then, taking southern rock for example, there were the original bands who were great, then a bunch of knock offs who weren't. Same thing with hard rock & heavy metal. If you hunt for them the good new bands are out there. I listen to Eddie Trunk's talk show almost everyday and I'm constantly reminded of those popular bands from the '80's who really . . had a lot to be desired.

 

[truand85]

To be aware of music is different from having to like said music. I can be aware of the Beatles, Sinatra and Duke Ellington and not like any of them. That was the point I was making.

But regardless of whether you like them or not, it cannot be argued or denied that they have made a huge impact on world culture.

Just because something is "popular" (in the sense that it's a top 40 and played on the radio or listened to by current generation of kids) does not mean it has or will have a huge impact overall.

That's the difference between most of today's music and the "classics". The former will be quickly forgotten by history and culture, the latter is already popular amongst newer generations. How many can name 50 bands started after the year 2000 that still make a huge impact today?

 

[Sixgunn]

My 23 year old daughter was listening to cussin' Louis Armstrong the other day!

 

[mdogs]

I haven't read this whole thread and I really have no intention of doing so. Debating opinion like this is one of the least fruitful exercises known to man. To older people, current music has always "sucked." Whether it actually sucks or not, as we all should very well know, is completely subjective. Tastes change, music changes, it is the job of musicians to push the envelope. I hate music labels, I have two that I use, music that I like and music that I don't like, suits me pretty well... no judgement, no dispersions.

 

[Grinderman]

//I have to wonder how much great music some of these people missed from 30, 40, 50 years ago and still haven't found it.

 

[Grinderman]

I haven't read this whole thread and I really have no intention of doing so. Debating opinion like this is one of the least fruitful exercises known to man. To older people, current music has always "sucked." Whether it actually sucks or not, as we all should very well know, is completely objective. Tastes change, music changes, it is the job of musicians to push the envelope. I hate music labels, I have two that I use, music that I like and music that I don't like, suits me pretty well... no judgement, no dispersions.

As long as there are people, there always has and always will be music that sucks and music that doesn't suck, including now.

I'm 54, where do I fit in this whole scheme?

 

[J-Mags]

I see a couple of reasons:

1. Since fewer people can actuallake any money recording music, there just are fewer "professional" musicians.
2. The new generation grew up not paying for music - certainly not regularly. Most of the buyers are older, and that's what they know.
3. The majority of the new music is not being made to sell, but as part ofmarketing other things
4. Because almost anyone can put something together in their basement with a computer, the idea of waiting for the next Sgt. Peppers just isn't out there
5. My personal reason - because every songs is done with unlimited tracks, and is compressed as @$-_#@, everything tends to sound the same.

There's no law saying that you need to do this, however. I'm an old guy who first recorded on tape, so I'm not a perfect example, but I limit my recordings to between 16 and 24 tracks at the absolute most, 24 being for if I expand the drums from a stereo track to individual tracks. Some have far fewer. My kid records in their room on a USB mic and puts out one or two track recordings.

You also have to assume that the people who are listening to overcompressed tunes with the the trap beats are hearing something that makes it worth listening to. I'm not gonna say it's good, because I really don't know how to listen to it, but that's on me. Music that is popular serves a function for somebody and the fact that I'm unable to listen to just proves that I'm not educated on how to listen to it. If I was educated on how to listen to pop hits of 2022, I could tell whether it was all a bunch of bull or not.

It took 30 years to convince me that "Don't Stop Believin'" was functional music, but now I'm convinced.

The other thing that has happened is that, in the absence of a compelling dominant narrative for music, there are tons and tons of hugely popular artists who work in what used to be tiny indy niches. Bands who can't get on the radio are more popular than ever. The entire continent of Australia is bursting with creative rock. My kid has an entire universe of LGBTQ-friendly punk and alternative to listen to. Earnest Berklee grads with beards are selling out their own shows, etc., etc. It gets harder and harder to follow what's going on, but there are infinite numbers of pockets to look into.

 

[TyBo]

I haven't read this whole thread and I really have no intention of doing so. Debating opinion like this is one of the least fruitful exercises known to man. To older people, current music has always "sucked." Whether it actually sucks or not, as we all should very well know, is completely objective. Tastes change, music changes, it is the job of musicians to push the envelope. I hate music labels, I have two that I use, music that I like and music that I don't like, suits me pretty well... no judgement, no dispersions.

I think the point (and the point of the original article) is that the landscape has just changed radically from what it used to be, in numerous ways, from the media landscape itself, to the economic and social landscape which drastically impact opportunities for live playing of music itself, to the technological landscape, which greatly impacts the way in which music can be produced (and reduces to some degree the need to even be able to play an instrument), to the shrinking of the music industry in general ... so many differences. It would be astonishing if the music scene was not different today. That's certainly not the fault of any younger people making music today ... some of which is indeed very good. Again, as the article mentioned, it's just harder to FIND good new music today, compared to when a lot of it was just there in the air to hear.

 

[friskinator]

I'm 58, so my musical preferences range from the late '60's to early '90's. Even then, taking southern rock for example, there were the original bands who were great, then a bunch of knock offs who weren't. Same thing with hard rock & heavy metal. If you hunt for them the good new bands are out there. I listen to Eddie Trunk's talk show almost everyday and I'm constantly reminded of those popular bands from the '80's who really . . had a lot to be desired.

I recently had a trial subscription to Sirius, and I checked in on the Hair Nation channel quite a bit. Most of that genre was laughable garbage, to be honest. But I loved a lot of it as a teenager.

 

[E2942]

Someone claims there's awesome music being released?
Really?!, there's been something awe inspiring within the past two decades?

I highly doubt that, but I also have a high bar for being struck with awe.

 

[higain617]

Some of the greatest music you've ever heard is being made today, but it's not being promoted through traditional channels. The music industry is focused on reissuing old music. Go surf through Bandcamp.

 

[Todd Hamby]

I remember my grandparents saying the same thing. I bet THEIR grandparents said it too.

 

[emal]

Unsure if this was discussed sorry if I repeat, but I feel it's all about algorithms. I use Spotify to practice for a 90s rock band I play with. Now all Spotify does is suggest 90s rock.
YouTube is the same I watch ONE Soundgarden video and boom, all 90s all the time.
I equate it to FM radio from back on the day. We were bombarded with 60-70s rock. So of course we listened to it. But then one day a buddy, garage sale or whatever gives you a "punk" "metal" tape-record and changes your trajectory forever.
Spotify for me is just the new FM radio. But go to sites like Bandcamp, and there's a Huge eclectic variety of all genres.
Also unsure if this still happens, but for example when I discovered Nine Inch Nails, I discovered David Bowie and Joy Division through interviews, again opening my world to new music.

Sorry to rant

 

[James Collins]

But regardless of whether you like them or not, it cannot be argued or denied that they have made a huge impact on world culture.

Just because something is "popular" (in the sense that it's a top 40 and played on the radio or listened to by current generation of kids) does not mean it has or will have a huge impact overall.

That's the difference between most of today's music and the "classics". The former will be quickly forgotten by history and culture, the latter is already popular amongst newer generations. How many can name 50 bands started after the year 2000 that still make a huge impact today?

I mean are you just talking rock bands? Or are you talking any type of music? I can't name 50 rock bands all time that still make a huge impact today. Even huge bands for their day have little impact today. I think The Beatles have as little impact today as The Black Keys. But hey, these days most of the music I am listening to was written around 100-200 years. Love me some Fernando Sor and Francisco Tárrega.

Sure, I still listen to some rock music, but I agree, rock music seems to have nowhere to evolve without becoming something else. Then people don't count it as music anymore. But some of these "classics" that get overplayed and are my least favorite songs. I could live without hearing another AC/DC, Journey, Rush, or Nirvana song. I hate using most streaming services because they play the same songs over and over again.

Also, I will point out that most of the "greats" that have an "undisputed" lasting impact on music did so on there second or third albums and then fizzled. When I was very young, Metallica was my favorite band. It was around the time of the black album and anything they put out was golden. Looking back, I really just like the albums Ride the Lightening and ...And Justice For All. So when I contribute to statistics, I'm playing nearly 40 year old music, and none of their recent discography.

The only old band I still listen to and like their newest music as well or better than the hits is 311; and even then I could understand why someone doesn't like Transistor.

I guess my last point here is that most bands have their heyday which always force music tastes backward. It's rare to find someone like Drake that the new music is always better received than the old music for decades.

 

[sotua]

You're absolutely right. Everyone knows Rock & Roll attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.

 

[James Collins]

The real reason I think new music seems less popular is because people have other things to consume. I don't listen to as much music as I did when I was 15 because I also watch a lot of YouTube. Tiktok is also wildly popular, and people would rather watch those short videos for a half hour than play an album. Long format is difficult these days because you get constantly pulled from one thing to another. Connectivity makes people not take time doing things like watching full length movies or listening to entire albums. From my personal experience, long formatted media gets interrupted by text messages, calls from work, etc.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

Is Old Music Killing New Music?

Ok, generally. I'm supper sure there are tons of great new bands and talented young artists.

But in reality the gist of this article kinda makes me chuckle and go "yup".

Thoughts?

It's because everything put out in the last 10 years (actually probably more like 20 years) sucks. Everyone now just seems to take bad ideas, and make them worse.

 

[Obese Chess]

I don't feed click bait articles. There's still good music out there, you just have to look for it. In the "good old days" there were only a couple of outlets so it was easier to find good music. Old farts, myself included, sometimes forget that there was a lot of God awful music produced in the "good old days" although I do believe that the 60's was an era that will never be replicated. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Aretha Franklin, Otis Redding, Sly and the Family Stone, Led Zeppelin, and dozens of other killer musicians/bands. If you think that depth and breadth of talent exists today, you're just delusional.

There's absolutely that much talent in music today, it just may be spread into different genres.

Yeow. Beatles hard to listen to ... that's a bit like finding, say, Frank Sinatra hard to listen to, or maybe, Duke Ellington - there are artists who are musical signposts for a reason. They did their thing so well that it's a marker in music history. If they're hard to listen to, that says more about the listener than it does them. Whereas ... I don't know how a rapper can be out of tune, but that guy somehow manages it. Good band, but yeah, that ... suxx.

Yellow Submarine, in fairness, is not their best work.

But regardless of whether you like them or not, it cannot be argued or denied that they have made a huge impact on world culture.

Just because something is "popular" (in the sense that it's a top 40 and played on the radio or listened to by current generation of kids) does not mean it has or will have a huge impact overall.

That's the difference between most of today's music and the "classics". The former will be quickly forgotten by history and culture, the latter is already popular amongst newer generations. How many can name 50 bands started after the year 2000 that still make a huge impact today?

I think what we are running into is the argument that the average band today is not as good as the absolute best band from 50 years ago, which is certainly true but also a pointless exercise. There have always been average bands putting out okay music that nobody listens to a few years later, there's no sense comparing those bands to Zeppelin or the Beatles any more than there would have been sense comparing, I dunno, Tex Wilkinson's Big Acid Band and their debut album "Honky Tonka Mushroom Trucks" that sold six copies in 1971 to Duke Ellington. There's MORE music now. That doesn't mean it's WORSE. It just means that there's MORE of it.