I'd be willing to bet that if some of those who are currently down on most new music would ramp up their "creative drug" input to their adolescent and early adult levels, their perspectives might change and perhaps even broaden.
Why does most new music suck?
Ok I will have some exclusions to my statement. I'm not talking about classical or jazz. My comment is mostly pointed to rock and pop releases. Don't even get me started on rap.... I don't consider it music. I will admit that I'm an old foggy but come on, where are some talented new groups? I grew up with the Beatles, Who, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix etc. I sample a lot of new music and the recordings are terrible. The engineers should be fired for producing over compressed shrill garbage. The talent seems to be lost or doesn't exist. I have turned to some folk/country or blues music. It really is a sad state of affairs....Oh my god, I'm turning into my parents.
545 responses Add your response
Assuming what was said above to the effect of simple melodies being the best (which I agree with), that bodes well for music both now and in the future, plus creative drugs most likely need not play a major role. There will always be those who are more adventurous as well, but they will likely meet with smaller (though not necessarily less enthusiastic)fan bases. That is even the case today with the more adventurous works and artists from the glory days of what is referred to as "classic rock". These guys (and gals) are the ones that will continue to draw the strongest opinions as well, like "this is the best thing since sliced bread", or "that sucks", whatever. Its still a small % of the population that are even able to draw a meaningful conclusion regarding many of the best but perhaps lesser known, more esoteric works of even the classical masters. And so it goes. We each can only participate and observe from our own always limited perspectives. |
Bongo. Seriously? Haters of what? Those who say they like lousy music? That's a pretty revealing expletive, don't you think? It's interesting to note those on your side of the fence(which btw was erected by those on your side)never refer to those on the other side as haters of good music, but only haters of "The New Music". That's also pretty revealing isn't it. There isn't a person in this whole world, never mind on this site that hates good music regardless of when it was perceived. You've shown there definitely is a line between one and the other. |
I doubt any of the haters on this chain have actually: a) stepped into a record store that champions new music (Burger Records in Fullerton, CA has a stable of great young bands and regularly sells cassettes of these), b) attended a club performance, c)preview music on online sources like Spotify. I can name a dozen bands I am grooving on from each of these three sources. And the kids are not buying into your argument. Having attended the last three years of the SHOW in Newport, what I see in the audiophile world is a demographic one foot away from the grave. Too many OEMs chasing too few monied and aged consumers. In the meantime, I see millions of kids enjoying music on their portable devices. Internet radio now accounts for 5 hours in a day of active listening. So to the haters: the world will grow new a day at a time, and no one will likely care about your experience. |
New music is like vinyl reissues - 99% is not as good as the original. You keep hoping and trying, but time after time you go back to the original release for the real thing. At some point, if you're smart, you give up and stop wasting time. Aside from this metaphor (which to me rings very true), I keep discovering great new music from the '60s and '70s that will keep me enthused for years to come. Just the other day I discovered Colosseum and their "Valentyne Suite" album. Unbelievable. Why would I waste my time on bands that at best can try to emulate this level of musicanship and talent? |
Apparently Lou Reed has an opinion about new music too. And he's an old guy! |
I have to admit, the percentages aren't necessarily high but--if you look hard enough you will find some young artists you like. There are certainly more artists with their work available now than at any other time. I'm knocked out by the Wood Brothers and by Kat Edmonson (not sure if that's spelled right). I would imagine there are others out there that I simply have not come across yet. I also enjoy a lot of the artists on our local scene, some very under-the-radar performers. |
There might even still be a "hippie" or two around that thinks the only good music out there is still classic rock from the 1960s and 1970s, just like there are still some out there today that levitate towards music from the middle ages, like Ritchie Blackmore and his lovely wife. I am a bit of a lute fan myself even.... |
And one more thing: speaking of Rolling Stone, I remember back in the late 80's and early 90's being mystified, scared, but fascinated by the artists on the "College Charts". I didn't recognize 90% of the names, but they seemed way different than the mainstream AOR stuff that was out there. Who were some of those names? REM Jane's Addiction Suzanne Vega Elvis Costello The Stone Roses The Smiths The Sugar Cubes (whence comes Bjork) Living Color The Replacements etc.. These were the artists that helped shape the next two decades of musical zeitgeist. And no, not every artist on the College Charts (which became "Alternative" in the mid-90's) had substance or longevity, but they were the "new music" that didn't suck. |
I like Reznor and Nine Inch Nail's music, and respect his opinion, but I think he like many underestimate the ability of others to make good music. He is a star, and a tad of narcissism typically goes along with that, buthe is only a few years younger than me and I suspect many up and coming artists and producers would disagree. SO let me get this straight. All us older guys whose stars are fading don't think the newer generations have it in them to make good music anymore. That is laughable but not unexpected to me. We all think we know best. |
i just watched the dave grohl documentary, "sound city", about the history of the legendary analog studio. the film's only fair, but there's an interesting bit where trent reznor (a very bright guy) opines that while recording technology has advanced immensely over the past few years, the quality of the music produced thereby has regressed. because it's now possible to make music without actually learning to play an instrument, many recording artists have no foundation and no real incentive to become a prodigy--why learn to sing on key when you can fix all your mistakes on pro tools? |
But the size changes with perception. You would have made the same statement 50 years ago. You're beating it up just because it's history? My goodness, yesterday is history. There's serious progressive thinking going on in the older music. Far more progressive than current. It's the current stuff lamenting the lack of progression! And they are timeless precepts, facts of life and such. These new guys have nothing left to sing about. It's been sung. On top of the fact there's no new worthwhile melodies left. They're hopelessly crouched in the desert with no where to go and nothing to drink. |
You're kidding, right? My kids grew out of their narcissistic tendencies as we stopped posting their crayon art on the refrigerator. Although it sucked really bad, to us it was beautiful so there was no issue whether or not to break it to them gently. All kinds of achievement going on there. Are you suggesting you guys posting these you tube examples and the like should be treate3d the same way? Here we go again calling the kettle black. Are you really talking about these so-called artists? |
I have learned many things while being open to what is new. In fact, I have built a nice library of music across over 40 genres, including classic rock, as well as exotic genres like J-Pop, K-Pop, African, Icelandic, etc.... There are 6 billion people on this earth, of which a small percentage have chosen music as their artistic expression. This whole "this sucks" attitude so reeks of being a narcissist, rather than seeing the goodness that someone else has achieved some uniquely newer art that speaks to your inner sensibilities. Who cares if something stands the test of time, when today you can have something new to add to the soundtrack of your life. |
Again, all the calls for open-mindedness and non-judgment are commendable; up to a point. Expressing a viewpoint, and more importantly, explaining that viewpoint in a way that is meaningful is not the same as being judgmental of someone else's tastes. It's simply an expression of MY tastes; and if someone is offended by that, I would say the problem is with that person's insecurity in his own tastes. Of course, as Acman3 say, it's all OK. But, if I say a certain music sucks (BTW, I think the Iggy Pop cut sucks, big time) I am saying that it sucks for me, not that the individual who says it also sucks. This notion that we should only speak about music if we happen to also like it, or if we happen to agree with someone's comments seems a little ridiculous, unproductive, and close-minded. What commentary, then, is allowed if one truly does think artist A sucks? Oh wait, I might offend someone if I say that! Seems ridiculous, no? |
My last post was only meant to be humorous. If you had seen the original Iggy video of No Fun, it would be easier to get, but I decided not to post, due to profanity. Life is to short as it is, so listen to what moves you. Some will always gravitate to new music and some won't. Some will love music I don't get, and many,many,many do not get what I enjoy. It's all OK. To each his own |
How's about everybody listens to whatever the freak they want to listen to and nobody passes judgement on their tastes? There's a lot of great new stuff out there, and there always will be, but I'm not going to stop listening to my favorite old music because of a baseless notion that there's too much great new stuff to spend time listening to the great old stuff. As a guitar teacher I constantly hear new music that my young studens bring in to learn--mainstream and on-the-fringe. I have played in bands for a long time, have done jingles, have produced recordings. I don't know what an NME is and couldn't care less a) what it might be or b) what someone else thinks about it. I don't need your approval and that's my point. Nothing personal, I just don't have to walk your walk. Thank God I don't have to talk your talk! Listen to what you like, new or old, and don't let someone else tell you what's right or wrong about it. |
This is embarrassing...I've read through a few pages and I can't believe people waste their time trying to help people who obviously will not change their already made up minds. Did a supposed "music fan" really just admit to not even knowing what or who a NME is? Good lord. That's like being a fan of exotic Italian cars and never hearing of a Ferrari. |