Is today's music horrible and if so why?

Post Reply New Topic

i'm pretty sure at any given time, crappy musicians have been producing crappy music.

obviously music from the past is going to seem better because there is decades worth to pick&choose from. we could recall a whole heap of cruddy music if we wanted to too

D: this is terrible news. i blame totp for deserting me

For certain genres, such as sexist, commercial and ignorance-worshiping hip hop (the vast majority of hip hop) or most popular music, yes, today's music is largely rubbish. It has been that way since at least the early 20th century when classical music became seen as "uncool" and "stuck up" as opposed to rock and related genres.

However, high and artful music never died out, such as can be seen with Ligeti György, Philip Glass, Tilahun Gessesse or the band Inti-Illimani.

I think a lot of modern music is actually very good, you just need to know where to look for it. Plus, nothing's completely original anyway. I just choose to ignore all the crap, haha.

Here are a few to try on: Fleet Foxes. Noisettes. Asteroids Galaxy Tour. The Bird and the Bee. Cold War Kids. The Dirty Heads. There are some genuinely talented musicians out there, you just need to seek them out.

Also, it depends on what you define as good music, but I'm sure everyone out there can find something modern that they like. Hell, my mom grew up on Stevie Wonder and the British Invasion bands and she LOVES Lady Gaga. Personal taste.

today's music is harsh to my old ears. it is harsh lyrically, it is harsh musically, it is harsh in aural production values. it used to be that hard clipping was frowned upon by audio engineers because [aside from the damage it does to tweeters] it sounded bad. but nowadays, it [in the form of brickwall limiting with a very short time constant] is a standard arrow in the quiver of any hip record producer, as a noxious method of maximizing apparent volume. but it still sounds bad, whatever its form.

Today's music has heaps to offer. Indie music has allowed for a lot of exploration that record companies didn't allow in days past. I credit George Harrison (and Neil Young) with being the first voices againt the all powerful record companies. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think George's "Only a Northern Song" and later his "Blood from a Clone" were some of the most outspoken in that regard. Neil Young said similar with his Shocking Pinks.

Anyway, Indie music has allowed great things in more recent years. Also other genres...

I enjoy Fistful of Mercy a lot, Jack Johnson, Jason Mraz, the Weepies, Michael Franti... yeah, some of these are not 'new' acts, but they are still going strong! Gimmie India Arie any day... and Little Jackie, too. (Little Jackie has a new lp, finally!!) Pink is awesome. Emmanuel Jal. I could go on and on...

what i am about to say may seem like i believe in the paranormal, but i do not.

i have a rather limited set of musicians that i comprehensively like.
i like many "one off" songs by various artists, but i can not determine the progress of their musical styles through time, because i do not care who wrote and performed "one off" songs

the musical artists that i comprehensively like all dried up and produced mediocre songs after approximately 1979.

my tastes are somewhat basal i must admit.

i liked frank zappa, billy joel, elton john, supertramp, stevie wonder and kate bush (pink floyd and led zeppelin were a bit too dramatic and shrill for me).

all my favorite artist's creativity dried up around 1979. i have a complete discography of the artists i mentioned above, and every album after 1979 was mediocre and it seemed like they forced themselves to think of new songs for albums after 1979.

frank zappa did not write any new songs after 1979 (except for classical orchestral stuff).

here is an example of one song by each artist in descending chronological order (1980 then 1979) to show how i think they all lost their creative streaks at that time.
_______________________
a billy joel song from 1980 album "glass houses" which does not move me at all. it is melodically simple and tonally compressed.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-3ff6Svvtk[/youtube]
a billy joel song from 1979 album "52nd street" which does move me much. it is melodically dynamic and is a genius quality composition. (in my mind)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niVLasaDPAQ[/youtube]
______________________

an elton john song from 1980 album "21 at 33" which is boring and linear. it is also not imaginative in the development of the melody. it is like someone who is good at writing songs pressing out another product for the market after the genius has gone.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlz6mTyiMZc[/youtube]
i think elton john petered out before 1979 actually. here is an example of what i think is genius (i do not apply that word loosely).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSEX2yrZDks[/youtube]
_____________________

stevie wonder did a very good album in 1980 called "hotter than july, and he had fizzled out completely by 1984 (according to my opinion).

this is a lamentable degradation of his talent which i can not listen to in full. i do not like this song in any way. melodically, it is "run of the mill".
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bGOgY1CmiU[/youtube]
but in 1980 he composed and performed songs such as this brilliant piece...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg7XmGbw0TY[/youtube]
there is no comparison. in "i just rang", he seemed fawning and weak, and in "as if you read my mind", he had "attitude" (i have learned what that word means in this context).
_____________

this is an example of supertramp in 1985 (they were not as prolific as the other artists who released an album every year).
this song starts out well, and it has excellent richness of instrumental tonality, but as the song proceeds, it becomes apparent that the melodic journey is not going to go anywhere far.
it seems like a rearrangement of their previous styles in the hope that it would make a new song that was as inspired as their earlier songs, but to me, it is a forced composition for the market rather than an expression of giftedness. i think the members supertramp were gifted (not genius (i know. who am i to judge?)).

by the way, the youtube member who posted this did their own visual montage that is irrelevant to the song.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGx0kTXWBmo[/youtube]
i do not like it much.

here is a song when they had the "spirit" of creativity powering their compositions rather than the obligation to produce.
this is from 1979 and it is an engaging song to me all the way through. it is manifold in it's melodic developments.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O23p86vJgrU[/youtube]
_________________

that is enough.

i note that there was a song in 1980 called "video killed the radio star", and that was a prophetic song. the song was crap, but it foretold that video clips would kill the quality of music because, for the first time, the physical appearance of the artist would become important to people who were listening to the music.

from that time on, musical artists also had to be good looking, and that severely limited the ability of people like janis iain to prevail. billy joel had bug eyes. elton john had gaps between his incisor teeth. whatever. from the point that the listening experience became merged with a visual one, unattractive people became unable to express themselves without judgement of their looks.

music suffered badly.

that is my opinion anyway.

Most of today's stuff sucks, bar a few which I wont mention cos I wont have people dissing me.

But music was a million times better in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. I laugh at those listening to terrible new s**t, whilst sitting in my diamond tower, sipping whiskey and listening to the good stuff. And it is good, because I said so.