Why does most new music suck?

The problem with Rokid's 'challenge' is as follows. When dealing with someone who's clearly let it be known that they have limited musical acceptance levels, why bother? We all have our musical preferences, and while I certainly don't enjoy ALL types of music, I'd never put down a genre or artist simply because I don't like it. I'd never say something as ignorant as 'new music sux', it's just silly, bordering on stupid. Take Fusion Jazz as an example. It's not for everyone, I totally understand that, but why put it down and by extension, insult anyone that does enjoy the genre? The dude is clearly a music-lover, albeit a very close-minded one. That being the case, why would I bother trying to convince him otherwise? If you really and truly want to honestly attempt to open your ears to new Jazz, why hang around an audio site? Why not go to any one of the many Jazz sites or Jazz magazine sites and start diggin'? BTW, this would be my suggestion to ANYONE that feels 'new' music sux! Stop wasting time complaining at an audio site and start spending more time at music sites!;) New POP music absolutely sux! And not in that 'generational' gap kind of way. While Pop music always caters to a lowest common denominator mindset, the bar is currently SO low it insults the intelligence!

"BTW, this would be my suggestion to ANYONE that feels 'new' music sux! Stop wasting time complaining at an audio site and start spending more time at music sites!;)"

That's pretty good advice!

"Someone suggested that I get out of my comfort zone and listen to some new music via Radio Paradise for example. I listened, searched the play list and the reviews and I found that the highest rated music isn't new but older stuff."

That's very true. A classic is a classic. But there is still lots of newer stuff that rates well and does not "suck" accordingly. Maybe some future "classics" in the making.

Its worthwhile considering an account on Radio paradise. The community features there are quite good and conducive to learning more about the music played.

For those seeking interesting new pop music, I'd suggest searching those threads in this forum that include the recommendations of A'gon user Richard Stacy. They come in 2 flavors; electronica and singer-songwriter. The former is, alas, lost on me but might work for those more in touch with that genre. The latter recommendations have been amazingly reliable. Good examples include Amelia Curran and Hiss Golden Messenger. The CD Poor Moon by HGM is, IMHO a stunner of its type.

Marty

PS There's lots of good pop music still being made by veterans (like Rebirth, mentioned above), but I assume the request here is for new music by new artists

Ok, I am going to try to, as Mapman (?) said earlier, "blow the whistle".

I think this thread has a lot of potential, has inspired some very thoughtful commnents, and is just starting to get good. As is usually the case with these discussions we don't stay "on point". We don't stay focused on the OP's question and go off on tangents that don't address the ORIGINAL question.

The OP made it very clear that his question refers to "rock and pop" music, and goes on to mention ROCK AND POP artists that he "grew up with"; that strongly suggests radio play. He then asks a perfectly legitimate question: "Why does most new music suck"; IOW, why does most new ROCK AND POP suck? Not, fusion, not jazz, not rap, not classical; ROCK AND POP.

Chazro, your advise to visit music sites is an excellent one, but your overall post perfectly illustrates my point. First of all, implied in that advise is the notion that posters on this site don't add value to a discussion such as this. You then decry the "insult" of dissenting opinions, but proceed to refer to the OP as "having limited musical acceptance level", that his original question is "ignorant", "silly", "bordering on stupid", and that he is "close-minded". Then you go on to completely agree with his original premise: "New POP music absolutely sux!" Huh!?!?

First of all, the cries for "civility" are plain silly. I have seen nothing written so far that is not civil, and it seems that the complaints about lack of it or "insults" come from those not being directly addressed in those "insulting" comments. I think we are all big boys and girls and can handily deal with comments such as "sucking lemons". Is it not a good thing that discussion of music inspires some passion? Are we that thin-skinned? I hope not.

IMO, the point that (once again) gets lost on some is that good music is good music; regardless of genre. There is good in any genre. Personally, I have no idea wether Goose likes jazz, classical or rap; frankly, as concerns his OP, it doesn't matter! He is asking about Rock and Pop, and decries what he perceives to be a decline in the quality of Rock and Pop; a perfectly reasonable observation. The reasons for the decline (remember: "Why does new music suck?") are very interesting and could be the subject of great discussion and debate. I think this discussion has scratched the surface of the answer, and musical examples of new and old are a great way of learning about good new Pop music, and for refreshing our memories of how good much of the old Pop music was. Not because of wanting to live in the past, nor because some of us are old (56), not because we are close-minded; simply because more of it was good.

What makes good music good? What makes good musicianship or artistry? It has nothing to do with genre. I think that, unfortunately, some of us are quick to pass judgment on the quality of certain artists simply because their music is not in a preferred genre; or, at the very least, let our genre preferences color our feelings about the quality of the music. Conversely, music that is in a preferred genre gets less scrutiny and more of a pass.

No one is suggesting that we should all like every genre of music; but, what I think is undeniable, is that anyone who considers him/her self a "music lover" should be able to appreciate great musicianship, great singing (really the same thing), great compositional skill, regardless of genre. Example (and obviously, I am showing my bias here): the Roberta Flack recording that I posted. One may not like the genre, but how is it possible to not appreciate the great singing, the nuance, beauty of expression, and outpouring of emotion in that performance even if the song may be considered "sappy" by those with "edgier" sensibilities? I cannot think of a pop vocal performance that has gotten consistent radio play over the last ten years that I would put on the same level as concerns the above criteria. I admit that I don't follow pop music closely, or at all, so that is where Rok's challenge comes in: I want to be proven wrong!

I think that the point that the OP is making is that performances of that quality were much more a part of the pop-music landscape than what we have today. Not that there is NO new good pop/rock, simply that the overall quality has declined a great deal. For me, that is undeniable. It may not be for others, and I would love to hear examples that might convince me otherwise. But, "I like this" does not a discussion make; tell us why.

Remember this? This was a HIT on the Pop music playlists in the '70's!!!??? I find that to be incredible when put in the context of what gets played today. One may not like the genre (actually, I don't, particularly) but if the compositional, instrumental and vocal skill cannot be appreciated, then something is wrong. What gets played on the radio today that is anywhere nearly as adventurous while still using traditionally accepted musical criteria?

Doesn't suck! :

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M