Why is modern music so awful

[jancivil]

reached #9 in 1955. (The guitarist on that tour {Dennis Budimir} also played on Lumpy Gravy.)

I mentioned BS&T in 1968 as illustrative. So I've cued this bit of wankery up:
The album was at the top of the U.S. charts for seven weeks with three successive Top 5 singles.

Kids today, man.

[machinesworking]

I don't think "the common man" is an actual thing. OTOH conformity is a real thing, ie., people afraid to individuate themselves much from the crowd.

[to] take this whole thing too seriously

- what, other people's opinions?
"A strong argument can be made that..." meh

I maybe shoulda not had that second cuppa today

lol I resemble the cuppa comment.

This all gets pseudo philosophical but what is non conformity? I mean aren't we rebelling against what is obviously mankinds greatest strength when we attempt to individuate ourselves? The only thing us weak hairless apes have is our ability to cooperate, our other strengths aren't that great. Even intellect, Octopi seem to develop massive intelligence in a few short years, we're lucky they don't live long and aren't tribal.

Just a bunch of nonsense to point out that folk music is the music of the "common" man. Who am I to judge the drive that created rockets that went to the moon?

[jancivil]

I would think that any definition of non-conformity depends on the affirmative definition of conformity, which I personally don't find to be much of a mystery.

"Atonal" on the other hand is less clear, because the definition of 'tonal' may or may not be strict; eg., modal music isn't tonal according to a fairly widely accepted definition.
She says, taking the thread for the first time into "music theory".

[jancivil]

"to point out that folk music is the music of the "common" man." where does that happen in the thread. What does "folk music" mean? is it Peter Paul and Mary doing a bad cover of Of When I Die or is it what Bartok did in deeply researching his culture's native music and tendencies.
At what point is it an art object instead of common currency.

I can go both ways with 'the common man'. Das Volk/The Third Reich, or Shostokovich coerced to write crap because it suited USSR state propaganda; conversely Aaron Copland Fanfare for the Common Man. I suppose it depends on one's politics. EDIT: I don't think defining 'individuate' or 'common' in the extreme is too useful now that I reflect for a second

aren't we rebelling against what is obviously mankinds greatest strength when we attempt to individuate ourselves?

I would argue that we wouldn't have gone to the moon or anything in the vicinity of that kind of achievement if no one had strongly individuated themselves, first of all from one's parents.

The problem the thread wanted to be about is the enshittification of [pop] music over time as a product of people in a position of power in the music industry being able to totally count on mass numbers of people feeling they have to be like the others. This appears to be more and more true, and now we'll rely on AI to copy other music so no human has to be arsed to.

[donkey tugger]

I would argue that we wouldn't have gone to the moon or anything in the vicinity of that kind of achievement if no one had strongly individuated themselves, first of all from one's parents.

Reminded me of...

thisbetheverse.jpg

As you were...

[machinesworking]

"to point out that folk music is the music of the "common" man." where does that happen in the thread. What does "folk music" mean? is it Peter Paul and Mary doing a bad cover of Of When I Die or is it what Bartok did in deeply researching his culture's native music and tendencies.
At what point is it an art object instead of common currency.

Bluntly, all music besides Jazz and Classical is folk music. The structure is fairly simple, maybe the playing and harmonic content is complex, but it all follows a verse, chorus type arrangement, It's a little less insulting to Black Sabbath, BB King, NIN, or David Bowie etc. etc. to call them folk music than pop considering what's happened to pop music pretty much ever since TV and radio came alone.

I can go both ways with 'the common man'. Das Volk/The Third Reich, or Shostokovich coerced to write crap because it suited USSR state propaganda; conversely Aaron Copland Fanfare for the Common Man. I suppose it depends on one's politics. EDIT: I don't think defining 'individuate' or 'common' in the extreme is too useful now that I reflect for a second

Mostly in this context because people are defining "modern music" as pop music, which is the first mistake, it's more than rare when pop music defines anything, it's usually just aping some moderately successful genre of the time, and vanilla flavoring it to death.

aren't we rebelling against what is obviously mankinds greatest strength when we attempt to individuate ourselves?

I would argue that we wouldn't have gone to the moon or anything in the vicinity of that kind of achievement if no one had strongly individuated themselves, first of all from one's parents.

Not a single person could have gotten us to the moon, there's nothing about the greatest achievements of humans that ever came from one person, it's always a collective venture, that some ass claims as his, "one small step for man"...

The problem the thread wanted to be about is the enshittification of [pop] music over time as a product of people in a position of power in the music industry being able to totally count on mass numbers of people feeling they have to be like the others. This appears to be more and more true, and now we'll rely on AI to copy other music so no human has to be arsed to.

While I get your point I don't really think it's much of a thing. There's always been shit music, and for the most part the most popular groups are just watered down trash. There always has been and always will be great underground music, it's just the older we all get the least interested we are in putting in the time it takes to sift through all the music out there to fine the gems.

[Jac459]

...
There always has been and always will be great underground music, it's just the older we all get the least interested we are in putting in the time it takes to sift through all the music out there to fine the gems.

I so much agree.
I think this is the conclusion of this thread.

And I would go further to say that because of arguably much better tools put at the disposal of humanity, music becomes greater and greater.
Interested people just need to search beyond Spotify top playlists....

And by the way, I don't think "common man music" should be regarded as inferior. It is just a different usage.
Maybe "pop" is for people who like to have a bit of music playing on the radio while doing something else, and maybe never really focusing on the music.

It is different from a music on which you need to immerge yourself in order to grasp its complexity.

[harryupbabble]

taste in music is suppose to be subjective
but people are free to ignore that

for example, the guy who said...

“I’m forever near a stereo saying, ‘What the f**k is this garbage?’ And the answer is always the Red Hot Chili Peppers.”

[harryupbabble]

wait a sec,
the red hot chili peppers are a 1990s band?
and they may not be as "modern"?
and therefore they may not be as "awful"?

[jamcat]

“I’m forever near a stereo saying, ‘What the f**k is this garbage?’ And the answer is always the Red Hot Chili Peppers.”—Nick Cave

[Bunny_boy]

“I’m forever near a stereo saying, ‘What the f**k is this garbage?’ And the answer is always the Red Hot Chili Peppers.”—Nick Cave

You would thinky Nicky boy would find the easy way to stop this happening

[Bunny_boy]

wait a sec,
the red hot chili peppers are a 1990s band?
and they may not be as "modern"?
and therefore they may not be as "awful"?

They had more albums out in the 80s than 90s, which included songs that Jimmy Page might like

[jancivil]

"to point out that folk music is the music of the "common" man." where does that happen in the thread. What does "folk music" mean? is it Peter Paul and Mary doing a bad cover of Of When I Die or is it what Bartok did in deeply researching his culture's native music and tendencies.
At what point is it an art object instead of common currency.

Bluntly, all music besides Jazz and Classical is folk music.

<Is folk music Peter Paul and Mary or Bartok> should convey that I don't buy there is a consensus, without needing to explain it. Bartok, or JS Bach, or Louis Armstrong, or Frank Zappa, you name it. use folk music, so where is the turning point where you define for us it no longer is? is it where the result exceeds the grasp of this "common man"? Is it that when someone places the frame 'art' around it it no longer is? Is Indian classical music not folk music because it's concert music? What if it's the same tune. These are not musical definitions, this is sociology.

[jancivil]

aren't we rebelling against what is obviously mankinds greatest strength when we attempt to individuate ourselves?

I would argue that we wouldn't have gone to the moon or anything in the vicinity of that kind of achievement if no one had strongly individuated themselves...

Not a single person could have gotten us to the moon, there's nothing about the greatest achievements of humans that ever came from one person, it's always a collective venture, that some ass claims as his, "one small step for man"...

What idiot doesn't get it was a massive collective venture? THE POINT, however, was people with high accomplishments that lead to such have individuated from the rest of the class, perhaps typically from an early age. But if someone likes the idea t'was hive mind that got us to the moon, not a lot of skin off of me.
Nor is that weird failure to understand how the meaning of "one small step for man - "...for a man, one giant leap for mankind" Mr Armstrong explained was his intent later - is truly not what you say it is. Flagrant strawman arguments made this a waste of time.

[machinesworking]

Bluntly, all music besides Jazz and Classical is folk music.

That is a blunt reaction, to be certain. Useful as a definition it demonstrably is not.

Who was insulting folk music? Your strawman, at best. <Is folk music Peter Paul and Mary or Bartok> should convey that I don't buy there is a consensus, without needing to explain it FFS.

I started responding to your first drafts, but here we go...

I don't think it's impossible to get the gist of what I'm trying to say, but unnecessary debate is IMO par for the course with forums, I had no intention to offend you.

IMO the forms music comes in pretty much exist in three states: Jazz, Classical and Folk or popular music. None are IMO more or less important. Yes it's reductionist, it was brought up to attack the old man yelling at clouds topic of this thread. Most of popular music has always sucked, in terms of creativity and complexity it's always been just average. <- To a degree that's a personal opinion.

[edit] I'm not responding to your multi edited attack above, I agree it's a waste of time.