Why is modern music so awful

[Scoops]

I would add:

The removal of music education from schools.
The availability of decent, inexpensive instruments and recording equipment.

But I agree that there has always been terrible music, whether from Lawrence Welk or the Osmonds. There is just more bad music now, and the absence of musical education lets people accept it. The result is most pop, hiphop, metal, and teeny punk.

This IS an issue... If you haven't gone thru music in school & after-school you then have no idea... Playing actual instruments trains the EAR for the recognition of melodies & chords/changes... This is why you see so many on here begging for help to pick out a tune that is actually quite easy to figure out... So many on here just make same 'fat sound' music that is baby lullaby simple in musical terms it gets quite boring to listen to, way too many FX used & not enough musical talent...

Sorry, but that's a complete load of BS. It's hardly as if that many prices of music and songs are super complicated. Many of the best bands in the world were largely self taught and their music had little to do with school music lessons.

Sure some modern music styles may be 'simple', but at the same time other people are pushing the levels of musical proficiency to very high levels, and clearly quite a few doing so in areas you may not even consider musical.

Sorry, but your BS call is BS

Yeah, all of the orchestral players that have performed things like Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Handel, etc, are all self taught. Right. Let's put this a different way. All of the people in the BBC Symphonic Orchestra, which by the way IS one of the best bands in the world, are all self taught.

Thanks for the good chuckle this morning though.

[Bunny_boy]

People like the Beatles and Jimmy Hendrix were self-taught

[Gamma-UT]

Sorry, but that's a complete load of BS. It's hardly as if that many prices of music and songs are super complicated. Many of the best bands in the world were largely self taught and their music had little to do with school music lessons.

Sure some modern music styles may be 'simple', but at the same time other people are pushing the levels of musical proficiency to very high levels, and clearly quite a few doing so in areas you may not even consider musical.

Sorry, but your BS call is BS

Yeah, all of the orchestral players that have performed things like Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Handel, etc, are all self taught. Right. Let's put this a different way. All of the people in the BBC Symphonic Orchestra, which by the way IS one of the best bands in the world, are all self taught.

Thanks for the good chuckle this morning though.

A strawman so large it’s visible from high orbit.

[stoopicus]

My usual response to “<Rock God> didn’t need music theory” is “Yeah, but you’re not <Rock God>”

The fact that some random genius didn’t need no book-learnin’ isn’t going to make me think that ignoring centuries of accumulated knowledge is a good idea.

[Aloysius]

I see this thread has descended into the man of straw arguments. In which case .... Would it be controversial to say that modern music awful because modern people are awful?

[Bunny_boy]

The modern era started around 1500, so that is when people became modern people. As all people are awful, this includes modern people. Therefore all music since 1500 is awful

[BONES]

Yeah, all of the orchestral players that have performed things like Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Handel, etc, are all self taught. Right.

You're talking about musicianship, it has nothing whatsoever to do with songwriting or anything necessarily involved in popular music. It's a completely absurd argument.

Let's put this a different way. All of the people in the BBC Symphonic Orchestra, which by the way IS one of the best bands in the world, are all self taught.

OK, let's look at it that way - how many members of the BBC Symphony Orchestra, in the entire history of music, have released music that has charted in any chart? Again, it's a nonsense argument. The BBC Symphony only exists because it gets funding from the government. There hasn't been a time in the last 100 years when it could have made a living on the back of what it does.

The fact that some random genius didn’t need no book-learnin’ isn’t going to make me think that ignoring centuries of accumulated knowledge is a good idea.

What we do could not have been done 40 or 50 years ago, there's nothing from previous Centuries that would be more than tangentially relevant to what we do today, therefore there is little we could learn, nothing actually worth knowing about. If you think otherwise, your delusional.

[stoopicus]

I’m unclear on what point you are trying to make, BONES. I am saying that I am more than happy to benefit from music theory around chord tones, intervals, melody and harmony, counterpoint, etc based on what has been learned sounds good over the last few centuries.

Are you saying that all of that is useless because they made music using comparatively more primitive tools? It’s hard to see what your point was there.

[stoopicus]

Or, for that matter, if you even had a point.

[dune_rave]

Modern music...
Some say after debussy evrything is modern music ..

[Bunny_boy]

Playing actual instruments trains the EAR for the recognition of melodies & chords/changes

While I agree with you, I have - and I would imagine that everyone on here has as well - sat through gigs by many many interminably dull bands. By which I mean ones that are incredibly basic, repetitive and unimaginative.
Not that I would argue that they know music theory!

Not quite sure what my actual point is, or how this adds to the conversation, but well

[_leras]

OK, let's look at it that way - how many members of the BBC Symphony Orchestra, in the entire history of music, have released music that has charted in any chart? Again, it's a nonsense argument. The BBC Symphony only exists because it gets funding from the government. There hasn't been a time in the last 100 years when it could have made a living on the back of what it does.

The fact that some random genius didn’t need no book-learnin’ isn’t going to make me think that ignoring centuries of accumulated knowledge is a good idea.

What we do could not have been done 40 or 50 years ago, there's nothing from previous Centuries that would be more than tangentially relevant to what we do today, therefore there is little we could learn, nothing actually worth knowing about. If you think otherwise, your delusional.

Even if orchestral players live in a little cocoon and are funded as much as paid, it's a wonderful thing. To become a paid orchestral musician means years of dedicated practice and attaining an incredible standard of playing in a very competitive environment. It's is only a good thing for society and the world that this craft, musicianship and music is kept alive.

Being part of a quiet, respectful audience hearing an unamplified performance of twenty minutes long prices of music is amazing thing. Very immersive, and even if not captivated you'll be carried along by the energy and the music of a large group of talented musicians. There's something real about any live music, but orchestral composition in it's long form really does tell it's story and paint it's detailed picture in ways other forms of music cannot. I would recommend anyone should see such a performance once in their lives. If in London you can go to a whole season of concerts for less than a tenner per show.

And there are many types of classical music and they all have some bearing, or things that people can still learn from. Not saying everyone should be a classical music fan, but I do think people should listen to a broad range of music. Theres so much to appreciate out there, why block things off.

[BONES]

I don't get that attitude, as though music is something other than what it is, something that can be appreciated for no real reason. IF a piece of music doesn't connect with you, then it doesn't connect with you. beyond that, why would you care? It's very similar to wine snobbery - people who think they know what they are talking about when, in reality, they can't pick a white from a red if they can't see it -

I think all wine tastes like cough medicine. People tell me it's an "acquired taste" but I think that's utter bullshit. Why the f**k would I want to "acquire" a taste for something I don't like? I'm the same with music - it moves me or it doesn't and that's that. The technical side of it just bores me.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting for a moment that a symphony orchestra is anything other than awesome, just that it is hardly relevant to what we're talking about. A guy I went to school with is in the Sydney Symphony's choir and he got me a ticket to see the orchestra's performance of Beethoven's 9th, with the full 80 voice choir, at the Sydney Opera House a few years ago. It was an incredible experience I'd not had in 30+ years. It's also the most I've ever paid to see a gig but it was worth every penny.

[Scoops]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting for a moment that a symphony orchestra is anything other than awesome, just that it is hardly relevant to what we're talking about.

Well, yeah it is to the point. My response to leras post here was on some stuff about self taught players, which if I'm not mistaken is part of the discussion.

So to that point, part of the problem with modern music is that people with untrained musical talent are churning out emotionless gobble-de-gook for the purpose of generating $$$, and this is all supported by the industry.

So who would I rather listen to Eva Cassidy, or Miley Cirus.

[Bunny_boy]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting for a moment that a symphony orchestra is anything other than awesome, just that it is hardly relevant to what we're talking about.

Well, yeah it is to the point. My response to leras post here was on some stuff about self taught players, which if I'm not mistaken is part of the discussion.

So to that point, part of the problem with modern music is that people with untrained musical talent are churning out emotionless gobble-de-gook for the purpose of generating $$$, and this is all supported by the industry.

So who would I rather listen to Eva Cassidy, or Miley Cirus.

This is just from a quick scan of Eva Cassidy's wiki page, but it sounds like she's self-taught.

I've heard neither artist for a long time so I can't comment on what they sound like - although Cyrus did do some stuff with the Flaming Lips.

Also, I note that Cassidy's most famous recordings are covers.

However, people with untrained musical talent are churning out emotionless gobble-de-gook for the purpose of generating $$$ - that's always been the case surely?