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
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. |
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? |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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.... |
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. |
Apparently Lou Reed has an opinion about new music too. And he's an old guy! |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Mapman, I'm 40-years-old and "some of those who are currently down on most new music." Many of the bands and artists I listen to and like were no longer in existence when I was born. I might not be a typical advocate for the superiority of older music over current music, but the notion that the musical preference is dictated by what one grew up with, came of age listening to, did drugs to, or what was playing then in general is simply untrue. If it were, I'd be stuck on the '80s and big hair metal bands. I have a 24-year-old female friend who grew up in Southern California. She too wholeheartedly agrees with me that new rock and pop music does not hold a candle to the music that came out of the '60, '70s, and perhaps some out of the '80s. So just because posters on this board are older on average doesn't mean that only they represent a certain point of view. Something magical happened in those decades, and you should not have to be on drugs to recognize it. |
Actusreus, No argument, but consider the music prior to Elvis and The BEatles to that after. Big difference! I was born in 1959 (13 years older than you). Music changed in big ways over the next two decades from the time I was born. To some extent during the 80s and 90's and later as well, but to a much lesser degree in terms of music popular with kids and younger adults of the time. Many tend to like a lot of older rock/pop music just like classical lovers still listen to Bach and Mozart as well as newer composers. There is love for the genre of classical music, much like for rock music. But most new music out there today is no longer rock/pop, a lot of that has been done and yes hard to top, though it still happens. Its when one considers newer musical forms and genres that the argument for new music changes, much like rock and roll changed the argument for what comprised good music for many back in those days. Its hard to compare apples and oranges, but does not mean either sucks. |
I suppose its a glass half full or glass half empty type of thing. I will chose the glass half full perspective. Would a full glass really be any better? I can only drink so much at a time. After that, its not as enjoyable. And there are plenty of old favorites out there to always fall back on as needed. If I'm around for another twenty years or so, there will surely be even more. |
There will always be enough one-hit wonders to keep the airwaves interesting (if you can find the right stations). I did prefer the time when all I seemed to need was one or two "top 40" stations, but I was young and naive and settled for some things I would not listen to now. For me I guess the great radio years were 1962-1973 though there's certainly tons of great stuff from before and after that period. |