Why does most new music suck?

Exactly. Talented musicians are not necessarily artists. Imagine teaching yourself not only to play an instrument but to come up with some of the best music of all time. There's lots of information available to corroborate the statements I've made. Do some research. Here's where the absolute quashes the idea of subjectivism. Except for the insistent foolhardy of course, thinking he can raise a dead horse and soldier on not realizing he's just standing there.

Its a mistake to underestimate the musical talent levels out there these days. Whether one likes modern music versus older stuff or not, these things only grow and evolve over time. Lotgs of musicians still covering older material and forms if that is what one is interested in.

Don't mistake technical prowess for artistic merit--ask those kids to do something original and good and then see what happens. The ones who can produce something imaginative and with "staying power" are not necessarily the same ones that can "play almost anything."

Frogman, I've seen that quote attributed to Martin Mull and to Frank Zappa but never Laurie A.

I guess that's one more to disagree about.

"Writing about art is like dancing about architecture" - Laurie Anderson

Absolutely, yes. It is our intelligence that brings the best to the forefront of the myriad possibilities which can be calculated mathematically. Sure there are zillions of possible melodies, the vast majority being pure garbage as relates to our ears. But it's ridiculous to think any of the best ones are somehow still hidden in the math. Someone else would definitely have come up with something similar enough that if put side by side, would be considered plagiary. There have been lots of law suits regarding this issue. I believe it's called sampling.

I must be from a different planet. I still listen to the old 60s and 70s stuff, but todays musicians are light years ahead musically than the old rockers. Go to your local liberal arts college and you will hear kids playing with the expertise that could only be mustered by a handful of musicians a few decades ago. There are literally 10s of thousands of young amazing musicians just in the U.S. Most of what we were listening to back in the day were glorified garage bands. Many were self taught and couldn't read music. Turn off the rig and go find some live music venue supporting local artists. You might be surprised.

****Do you think that the great melodies of the past would not exist had those who wrote them not done so? They simply beat everyone else to the punch. There are no punches left to punch.****

I find that to be a strange statement. The great melodies are a reflection of a given composer's musical personality. Many of the great melodies are clearly identifiable as being by Mozart, Bernstein, Bacharach, etc. Are you suggesting that had Bernstein never lived someone else would have come up with "Maria"?

Mlsstl, I truly don't understand the relevance of your historical examples in this discussion. About this, and your use of the dictionary as a reference, we will have to agree to disagree. But, I find this comment particularly interesting:

****There are plenty of well regarded critics who will explain to those who wish to listen just how progressive and important rap music is****

Since when do music critics determine which music will be "important" in music history? There are many examples in history of works, now considered masterpieces, that were panned by "well regarded critics" when premiered. I do agree with the critics that rap is progressive and important; but, that still doesn't make it good music. Its importance is not defined by it's inherent quality (or lack thereof) as an art form.

Doesn't suck! :

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Knh9pV4EB3k

Excellent post, Emailists; I agree with all your points.

Thank you Simao. It's spoken word performance and every bit as bad as when the beatniks did it. Hip-Hop is no different as far as I can tell.

Didn't like it then, don't like it now.
People keep mistaking it for music, and talent.

All the best,
Nonoise

FYI, the term is "rap", not "rap music". "Rap" itself is - in part - an acronym created by the Village Voice back in '79, standing for "rhythm and poetry."

Froggy, hate to debate the structure and use of a dictionary, but you actually posted seven =separate= definitions for the word "progress". Noun definition #1 is just as valid on a stand-alone basis as #2, #3 or #4. Same with use of either of the three verb definitions.

Whether music or any other subject, one can find plenty of situations in history where people now widely regarded as great were looked down on in their own time. I well remember what my dad thought of the now "classic rock" when I was in my teens.

Earlier in this thread I gave two examples: one where Bach was almost fired from his first job as a church organist and another where Benny Goodman fought for the respectability of swing music.

Many other examples exist: Tchaikovsky did not think Brahms constituted "progress" in music; in fact, he called Brahms a "giftless bastard", saying further that "It irritates me that this self-conscious mediocrity should be recognized as a genius."

So, regardless of which definition is used, the subject of what constitutes "improvement" is highly subjective. While I'll agree with those who say that a lot of modern pop music doesn't appeal to them, others disagree. It caught my attention a few weeks ago when I heard a music critic on National Public Radio explained how exciting some new rap artist (I immediately forgot the name) was. There are plenty of well regarded critics who will explain to those who wish to listen just how progressive and important rap music is.

I have a relatively simple formula that works for me. I'm always open to new music and artists. Then, I listen to the ones I like and ignore the ones I don't. I see no reason to waste time lecturing others as to what they should or should not like. Future music historians don't need my help to sort out the "progress" question.

"I don't know, and I don't care"! Forget you read that, it was a "Typographical" error. "What did Rhett Butler say to Scarlet Ohara in "Gone With The Wind"? These thoughts just keep coming, I can't stop them.

Every day, as this planet sails on it's course into the future, Universe Orpheus glides on it's musical journey into the past, and man I'm telling it gits groovier everyday. At the moment I'm digging Ray Charles "My Kind of Jazz".

Y'all be cool now.

I don't think that music takes a back seat in the equation but look at it as a passenger in a conveyance. The passenger (music) can be conveyed in a Bentley (the gear) and arrive in wonderful shape whereas the same passenger in a donkey cart would suffer accordingly, arriving in poor shape (with shape being the appreciation aspect).

If I hear a song or piece of music I love on a rather crappy device, I'll like it but nowhere near as much as on a good system, which can literally transfix and transport me. I still like the music at a lower level of fidelity but I love it when at a higher level of fidelity. Music is never a secondary consideration for me and was never implied.

The quote:

For me, the gear makes it possible to get lost in music, and if it's great music, all the better

implies (quite frankly) that the music I love is all the better when it can emotionally move me and great equipment is what can do it.

Listening to something I love is appreciated differently depending on the setting. To say otherwise, that it would move me equally under all circumstances would be disingenuous. Can anyone here tell me with a straight face that at moments when, at home with your system, playing a piece of music takes you into a reverie, momentarily, has the same effect as listening to it while driving?

All the best,
Nonoise

The Frogman:

***After a small discount, of course ;-)***

But of course.

After you brought Shaw to my attention, I have been doing some research. This guy seems to be thought of as being on the same level as Hubbard and Morgan.

Cheers

Oh but it is! This is where we differ. Do you think that the great melodies of the past would not exist had those who wrote them not done so? They simply beat everyone else to the punch. There are no punches left to punch.

****The dilemma artists are faced with today is finding good original melody. There's simply none left****

Ah, not so; at all. The well is bottomless. The problem is not the potential of music; a great melody is not "found". The problem is the "artists".

Rok, do it! You only live once. And if it is anything less than "good", I'll take it off your hands. After a small discount, of course ;-)

Frogman,

Hmmm....compressed sound, poor lyrics and electronic drivel = pop music that sucks. Thanks for the Smithonian post.

I think a clear distinction should be made between lyrics and melody. My son came home one day after school indignant that the new assignment was to write a poem. He thought 'How absurd to demand something from someone who may not be particularly talented in this area'. He was 10 at the time. I made an agreement with him that if I can write a poem, so can he. I promptly retreated into the bedroom with clipboard in hand and emerged an hour and half later with a 7 stanza poem which he thought was fabulous. He then diligently wrote a pretty decent one himself. Attempting to add music to it is the hard part. This is where his contention would have made sense. In my recollection, all of the most important players of the 60's and 70's did in fact write their own material. Something that was always pointed out back then. It was considered a very important attribute and highly respected. However, great music stands alone and all those who did Bacharach, who imo was the key player for pop, were very well liked. So it really is always about the music isn't it. Any one can do the lyrics. The dilemma artists are faced with today is finding good original melody. There's simply none left. Not sure what that Simpson article was trying to convey.

The Frogman:

*** But Rok, I think you're out there.***

Of course you are correct. It's a thankless job, but someone has to do it. Just trying to keep them moving.

BTW, compared to the prevailing attitudes in the audiogon 'General Population', so are you.

I was thinking of buying the Mosaic box set of Woody Shaw.

Cheers

Back to the regularly scheduled programming :-)

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/07/science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_gist/2004/03/simply_simpson.html

Wrong thread, sorry! But Rok, I think you're out there.

Rok, I can't speak to the CD sets, but I can tell you that the Mosaic LP sets are generally very very good.

I find the definition of "progress" as presented above to be typical of the way that "progressives" often justify a stance. The definition, as presented above, is conveniently incomplete. Here is the complete definition:

++++n
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
intr.v. pro·gress (pr-grs) pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing, pro·gress·es
1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a rapid rate.
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily: as medical technology progresses.
3. To increase in scope or severity, as a disease taking an unfavorable course.++++

Notice two key aspects of the complete definition that were omitted:

++++Steady improvement++++

++++To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily++++

I realize that "better" can be considered to be subjective, but then we return to the issue of standards; a good thing.

No one (not I, anyway) is looking for acquiescence re what is good music or what sounds good. Everyone is free to like what they like ((Duh!), these discussions are a great way to share ideas, and serve to minimize complacency and hopefully inspire others to rethink their viewpoints.

****For me, the gear makes it possible to get lost in music and if it's great music, all the better.****

I find it interesting that the music should be presented as taking the back seat to the gear. Good sound is great and it can be a lot of fun to enjoy it simply for the sake of good sound. If that is one's goal, that's great. But, personally, I would be much more inclined to consider someone's viewpoints on the music if the music is always in the front seat.

Rok, it doesn't change the truth. Give me an alternative.

Acman3, I hear you. But it is what it is. You can't deny it. You can only try. What's the big deal? It doesn't change anything else. It's still all fun. So carry on.

Who do you think you are? God? Only He is infinite. If there is somewhere further to go, it is He that will light the way. Otherwise, use your math skills, quantum science, geometry, etc. to calculate your limited existence and face it!

The WHAT has happened to music is easy to SEE / HEAR. The problem is discovering the WHY.

In the visual arts, we have gone from the Sistine Chapel.. Mona Lisa... Dutch Masters.. French Impressionist, to a Soup Can.
And now they just throw the paint at the canvas. And people go gaga and pay real money for it.

Have they forgotten how to paint? Do they have the talent to paint?
The great works are forged all the time. They even fool the experts. So the talent to do the art is there, maybe it's just the creativity and vision that is missing.
The skill set and training / education is top tier, they just aren't able to connect with humanity on a mass scale.

Many of today's music 'artist', have all become niche players. Each with their small group of followers / fans.

The decline is national. Cosby, Playhouse 90, All in the Family, etc... to, The Real Housewives of 'reality' TV!!

We are in a state of artistic decline. Music is not spared.

There is some hope. European Governments will use tax money to encourage, create and preserve their great art and artists. While here, we continue under the mistaken belief that people CAN BE, and have a RIGHT to be, whatever they WANT to be.

And everybody wants to be, The Stones or Miles or Dylan or etc..... And don't forget the GREED! Which is the root of it all.

Get Mingus while you can!! :)

Cheers

There is a lot of good sixty/seventies music. Good luck guys!

On the suck meter they're off the scale.

I'm still smiling from that one.

Every time I put on a poor recording on I rescue it.

It's the very act of listening to it that can make up for a poorer recording. The quality of the music itself calls for resuscitation now and again. :-)

All the best,
Nonoise

Acman3, I rest my case. It's virtually impossible to distinguish one of those bands from another. There must be some kind of a generic hat they all draw their material from. They could interchange members and still not change a thing. On the suck meter they're off the scale. I'd like to see you whistling or humming one of those tunes at your work place or walking down the street. Yeah, sure. And the slow tunes are no different, just more pathetic. Nothing but an act of desperation as Nonoise stated. However in this and most if not all other cases we're not talking about actual artists, just greed.

Nonoise, I think a little of everything you've said applies to all of us. I certainly relate to your last statement. Don't we all long for the 'good ole days'? I knew they were happening when I heard Carly Simon sing about them. There's a lot of music from that time frame I haven't heard yet. Why would I sweep it under the carpet in favor of something that by necessity is sub-par. The gear does matter but it's secondary. My interest has not evolved. The goal is still to make the best music sound as good as it can. Every time I put a poor recording on I rescue it.

Doesn't Suck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ-_4A4gGjg

Frogman,

My point about progress is that as music moves forward, it may lose me from time to time. Maybe I'll catch up, maybe I won't. Maybe the music took a bad turn and there's nothing to catch up to, because the way forward may involve some temporary steps backward.

All I'm saying is that I tend to view my own dissatisfaction with....say electronica...as a disconnect rather than an inherent problem with the music (or with me, for that matter) .

Music is such an abstract art form that I'm hesitant to be dismissive of new and unfamiliar variants. I feel comfortable making judgements about rock n roll (though I don't expect everyone to agree with me) because I have a context in which to judge it. I don't feel like I can discriminate good electronica from bad electronica, so I conclude that I don't "get" the genre, rather than conclude that the genre sucks

Hope that makes sense.

Marty

I like music from all time frames but would not like being stuck in some era and do my best to make it sound good, only to come to the conclusion that the gear doesn't matter, it's the music. Why have this hobby? It's the fox and the sour grapes analogy. Older recordings can only sound so good and simply can't be rescued. Some can sound really good, but just some. It can be a great piece of music, but too bad it wasn't recorded with todays equipment.

Another overlooked aspect is when someone doesn't realize they no longer really like the music but long for the times when it was made and use it as a device to anchor themselves in the past.

C'est la vie.

As for what sounds good, haven't we all had this discussion before? It all boils down to personal taste and no one here is correct. No one here is determinant in their perspective to the point where we all acquiesce.

For me, the gear makes it possible to get lost in music and if it's great music, all the better.

All the best,
Nonoise

Frogman, the dictionary definition of "progress" is movement toward a goal.

With that in mind, not everyone has the same goals as you. So a style of music or artist can certainly be progressing but still leave a lot of people unimpressed.

Frogman, 1st thing I thought of ,off the top of my head. Reminds me of the Who live, without the windmill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=937P9X_jsXA&feature=player_embedded

I think the brain remembers "Firsts" and kind of loses track of repetition. I record the late-night guest bands, and most are derivative of my own "Firsts," but that doesn't mean they're worse.

I agree that Radio Paradise does a stellar job of blending old and new, and the experience is that most of the blend is interesting and worthy. Also agree that WWOZ out of New Orleans is a great way to expand the ears to great music beyond what most of us grew up with.

****For me, it's progress, even if the results don't move me very often.****

I don't understand that comment.

Interesting comments about the music suffering for the "separation of artists and instruments". Intuitively, I'd reach the opposite conclusion. As technology changes, music adapts. To me, rock n roll is the musical child of the electric guitar. Had the piano not come along to follow the harpsichord, music would certainly have evolved differently. You can be pretty confident that piano music alienated a fair # of harpsichord music lovers and you know that rock n roll pissed off a whole lot of folks.

Today, computers (and derivative electronics) are often the instruments of choice and music has morphed to accommodate that. The skills required to make music may have changed, but skills are still required. For me, it's progress, even if the results don't move me very often.

Most of the music I love comes from artists whose careers started 40+ years ago and very little comes from new artists exploiting new approaches. That is, I do like a fair # of young singer songwriter types, but I don't like much hip hop or electronica. The fact that I don't love it, however, would never lead me to conclude that it sucks.

Just MHO

I want to be proven wrong more than anything. The difference is that it is artists and songs like the ones below that we heard on the radio all day long without having to "look for them". Seems to me that this is an important part of what makes music "popular". Here are four that came to mind without any effort at all. What songs from the last, say, thirty years that are as well crafted and performed with a similar level of artistry come immediately to mind? Yeah, I know I know, it's subjective. Is it?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9j7z3nQJj-0

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdw7kxD8eUc

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQYkbzSz5s

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV_QjenbDw

Just my position in answer to the op's question that there's plenty of good music to find without having to settle for current new offerings. Rok2id hit the nail on the head though. I'm still stuck in the 70's. With me it's still all about the music. The gear really is secondary. I would not be interested otherwise. I don't care how good or bad the recording is. Good ones are a bonus, bad ones a challenge.

I'd like to add something that may illuminate some of your feelings.

Recently when I hear cheesy disco music (not at all my genre) I often think to myself, "wow these are pretty darn good musicians, and they did it all without Protools, samples, or autotune."

My point is that even the most disposable of music from the 70's had a level of musicianship you seldom find in today's cut an paste world of production.

In fact much of today's pop music is mean to be disposable.

The corporatization of music and film has often led to chasing the lowest common denominator.

An anecdote from the the BBC documentary, "Yhe Monster that Ate Hollywood." may also shed some light on these similar industries.

Up until the 80's or so, the way a film got "greenlit" was a 3 or 4 executives in a room discussing whether or not they though the script under consideration would make a good film, based in their gut story instincts. Now, often the man consideration of whether a film gets made or not is a series of corporate decisions like whether or not there the project has a tie in to a fast food chain promotion, or a car company, and how it play to the global audience.

The golden age of cinema and music has passed us by. Thats not to say there isn't great work being produced by certain artists, thay may in fact eclipse works from the past, but it is minority rather than the norm.

Another factor is the influences of today's artists. The Stones, Dylan, etc were real students of authentic music like early blues which were steeped in a rich history and tradition.

Often today's artists will cite influences on the order of Van Halen or Nirvanna, or maybe Led Zep if your lucky,

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Nothing. I'm still looking, listening and absorbing. I just don't feel the urge to ferret out everything that's available.
You're point?

So what's stopping you?

Granted. And probably never will. It's like when I was a kid: I'd spend a lot of my time in the library and dream of reading ALL the books and how wonderful it would be. Bad eyesight put a serious chink in that design.

Thank goodness my ears work well enough.

All the best,
Nonoise

We're kind of on the same page. I'm talking about all the thousands of pre 90's recordings you haven't heard yet.

What I alluded to is what has yet to be seen or discovered, maybe anew, or simply overlooked or needing a new twist or take. We all create based on what we know, what is passed on freely from others, and some times we invent, creating something great out of many plain and ordinary pieces.

As for what's hidden in plain sight (I think that's what you meant), I'm famous for missing those gems.

All the best,
Nonoise