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.
goose

Showing 19 responses by tostadosunidos

There's probably more good--and bad--now than before simply because there's so much more being produced. There are so many more people around now and I'm betting a higher percentage are involved in making music. Homemade productions are huge in number due to the technology. How many self-produced projects were there in the 60's or 70's?
Not many.

Years from now the bad stuff will mostly have gone away and will be forgotten. The good stuff will be cherished and a later generation will get the wrong idea that this was a "golden age." I promise you, for all the good music produced in the 60's there was also a great deal of crap.
And, of course, it's all subjective anyway.

Every cycle has its share of good and bad art.
Gustav Mahler, at a concert which featured new music of Arnold Schoenberg, was asked his opinion of the piece. "The younger generation," he declared, "is always right."

He went on to say he in fact did not like the piece himself, but that was not the point.

I'm not sure what the particular piece was but I'm probably on Mahler's side on both counts. Nevertheless, each of us is free to choose what we want to listen to. If we say other music sucks we'd better be prepared for a challenge to that statement.

Again, there's a lot of good and even more bad music produced at any moment in time. So listen to the good and try to avoid the bad. It probably means that if you listen to the radio at all you need to be prepared to spend a lot of time changing stations. I know I do.
Toddnkaya wrote:

There is plenty of music being produced every year that is as good or even better than the Beatles ,Stones,Who, etc... IMHO

Wow--what color is the sky on your world?
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 listen to contemporary musicians but find it absurd that I wouldn't listen to artists who have disbanded or died. Geez, my main man is Beethoven and he has been dead for nearly 300 years.

This past weekend I listened to two albums (CD copies) produced in the late 60's and they both just killed me. Now that I have a really good-sounding system I enjoy the old stuff more than ever. It sounds brand new and fresh to my ears--it ain't nostalgia.

Listen to what you feel like hearing. You needn't overthink it or hang inappropriate labels on a natural thing.
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.
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 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.
Todd,
if you had read my previous posts on this thread you'd know that I embrace some current artists and the concept of new music in general.

I do think there was more good stuff proportionally in the 50's, 60's and 70's than since. There was also a lot of bad stuff in those decades.
With home recording available on the cheap and with the media options we have today, the big labels are less important than before. Everyone has a chance to have their music heard. So the labels' influence over what we hear is on the wane.
That's really good. I also liked his "Some of Shelley's Blues" which Linda Rondstadt covered. And "Her Name was Joann." The guy could write a tune, that's for certain.
Bdp24, as a burned-out Beatle lover, my solution is to turn to the alternate takes, demos, etc. on the Anthology (6 CDs)and to the BBC sessions. And for some reason I almost never tire of the LP "A Hard Days' Night."
Mapman, another way to say that is that the Beatles music spoiled us to the point that we have no use for most of today's music. It's partly a matter of quality.
Czarivey--that's beautiful. I didn't know the man but in the Gospel according to Wiki it's said he cited Tchaikovsky as an influence, FWIW. Personally, I think anyone who can't hear the blues in pieces such as Bach's D minor Chaconne (2nd violin partita) or Beethoven's Grosse Fuge have a narrow view of things.
The Ellington quote reminds me of another--Townes Van Zandt (allegedly) said "there are two kinds of music: the blues and zippity-doo-dah."
Bdp24 I still like Elvis Costello and Talking Heads. "Stop Making Sense" is still at the top of my list of concert movies--and I'm a child of the damn 60's.
I find very little rap or hip-hop that doesn't annoy or offend me.  I don't think of it as music at all--it's rope-jumping rhymes with loud percussion accompaniment.  I do like some recently-produced music, usually some sort of alt. rock or pop.  Anyway, I listen more to classical than popular music these days. 

I find some truth in this oversimplification:
Rap--people talking when they should be singing
Opera--people singing when they should be talking