MatchboxVagabond wrote:
The argument I'm making is that it wasn't compulsory to spend all your free time trawling record stores in order to come across a variety of music the way that it is now. Now, you can have whatever opinion of that you like, but you're being naive if you think the normies are spending large amounts of time seeking out obscure tracks and artists that reflect the broader spectrum of musical complexity. And Taylor Swift just happens to be so much better than all of it that people will spend that much on tickets to see her play. That's just not consistent. Because, that is incredibly hard to believe when most of them can't even be bothered to go a few icons down the page on YT to get to their subscriber tab rather than just accepting the slop that the YT algorithm is pushing and just about every video featuring music from last century is full of young people complaining about how crap the current music is.
It's always possible that I'm wrong, but if the standard here is that there's somebody out there that's good and there's musical complexity to be had, if you're willing to make a serious project of it, I'm sorry, that's a crap standard to have, because people aren't doing that. We went through a long period where people were using streaming services as their primary source of music and just buying the tracks they like out of the ones available on ITMS. That doesn't exactly scream musical discernment or we're going to be making a project of finding cool music.
Sigh, but whatever, it's not really worth this arguing if you can't grok the notion that people are just not going to be listening to most of this music 50 years in the future the way that we do of music from the '70s and likely will be of the '90s in the 2040s.
I don't think normies are investing huge amounts of effort into pursuing obscure music, but I do think they're prone to getting sent down rabbit holes and coming back with a few favourites, even if they only explore those rabbit holes superficially.
Younger people glazing old stuff while disregarding new stuff isn't a new phenomenon. I was one of those kids.
I don't think what's popular does a good job of representing what is available, so crap being popular is irrelevant when it comes to the quality of what's being produced. It's easier than ever to gain at least some degree of popularity in any obscure style than it was when you had to rely on word of mouth, or putting up posters, or tape trading, etc. It's easier to participate in all sorts of outsider music. It's almost certain that 10 or 100 times more recorded music is being produced than ever before, so it's almost inevitable that more quality music is being produced. Saying music is lower quality because you're exposed to less quality music is placing the blame on the wrong variable.
I also think nostalgia informs the idea that people will care about classic rock in 50 years, but not Taylor Swift. I don't believe either will stand the test of time in the long run. Most music is disposable, it's just a matter of time scale.
What's popular is certainly a better proxy than you're giving it credit for. A much broader range was popular and it was normal to shop for music in record stores with people that had opinions to discuss things. It's the starting point for most people. The whole notion that it's just nostalgia makes little sense when so many young people are also bemoaning the lack of quality in recent music and holding up older music as an example of what they like.
As far as rabbit holes go, that does happen, but the algorithms are designed to funnel people to what's popular and sells ads, it's why the front page of YT is like 30% AI scam videos and Mr. Beast if you don't log in. It gets a bit better as it tracks you, but it's funneling people where the site makes the most money, not necessarily to what you want.
Again, I just don't see any evidence to think that the outliers really amount to enough to declare modern music to have more variety. IIRC Deep Purple was doing rap ages before Sugarhill Gang did.