Why is modern music so awful

[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.

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?

I had read somewhere where she was trained, like she took singing lessons or something. I probably could have used a better example. What I was recalling, was the fact that many record companies turned her down because they couldn't plug her into their formulaic machine to generate cash.

[vurt]

miley cyrus bits with the flaming lips are great
as is her garden session.
once she'd outgrown her teen angst and weird upbringing, she showed she can sing and it's not just about the dance routines.

worth a listen imo, the garden session at the least.

[BONES]

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.

Only because you, or someone else, made it so. It's simply not relevant.

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.

You mean like Joe Dolce's Shaddap You Face or any number of Herman's Hermits' hits of the 1960s or stupid, pointless songs from any era you care to name that were popular? Or any of Stephen Foster's classics from the 19th Century for that matter? In that instance, particularly, it was all about the lyrics, capturing some quintessential aspect of American life of the time, the music was almost incidental to the value of the work, it just had to be an earwig that you couldn't get out of your head. Anyone who can whistle can come up with those things.

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

I'd rather listen to X-Ray Spex than either, at least it has some energy about it -

[Scoops]

Only because you, or someone else, made it so. It's simply not relevant.

Sorry dude, your not relevant.

[Aloysius]

You're = You are
Your is incorrect.

Reported!

[stoopicus]

I still think that anyone who considers modern music to be awful should be subjected to the dogshit pop of the ‘80s like I was.

The only reason ‘80s pop is looked back on fondly is that people have cherrypicked the high points and remembered them. It was way worse then than it is now.

And one area where I agree with BONES - the tools to develop good music are so capable and ubiquitously available now, and the distribution models so different, that the bar by which we measure needs to be calibrated in a completely different way.

[Aloysius]

There were some great tracks in the eighties and some terrible ones. I think the vibe was generally more upbeat. Van Halen - Jump for instamce. Today all I hear on the radio is whiney people with synthesized voices via melodyne or similar. The same three or four chords. Overlimited, compressed and clipped. Lazy.

I could make an argument for terrible music in the eighties but I can't seem to make an argument for great music in the modern day.

[Bunny_boy]

Music today is f**king brilliant and I'm enjoying loads of it

[Bunny_boy]

For 80s stuff, maybe Huey Lewis? Their early work was a little too new wave for my taste. But when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humour.
In '87, Huey released Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square". A song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends. It's also a personal statement about the band itself.

[DrOcsid]

It's exceptionally easy to make an argument for modern music, as the only way the notion of "modern music bad" could hold even the slightest bit of merit is if the one saying it only listens to the radio or what some mainstream algorithm gives them. Yeah, radio/algorithm music sucks a lot of the time, and maybe it sucks a bit more than it did. Maybe it's become more sterile and corporatized. That makes it a completely unreliable reference point for judging the music sphere.

Music-making becoming more accessible only increases the amount of music being made, and that includes quality music. I still see people try to make the claim that rock music is dead because they're not hearing the next Led Zeppelin on the radio.

This is a long-settled topic. Everything else is just circular debate. One's experience with modern music is what they make of it. Don't like what an algorithm puts in front of you? Then don't depend on algorithms. If you want great modern pop, there's Lorde, Charli XCX, Magdalena Bay, Underscores, Black Country New Road. Rock? Queens of the Stone Age is still releasing music. Or, you know, Geese, King Gizzard (they've made metal too), Black Midi, Snooper. Older bands like The Hives, Godspeed You Black Emperor, and The Cure released a few of their best reviewed albums recently. Jack White's No Name from last year was the best thing he's ever done.

"I haven't heard of half of those!" You're the architect of your experience.

This is genuinely just an issue of people being out of touch and having bias toward the "good old days". There's nothing else to it than that, and it has exceptionally little to do with whether artists are self-taught.

[vurt]

For 80s stuff, maybe Huey Lewis? Their early work was a little too new wave for my taste. But when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humour.
In '87, Huey released Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square". A song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends. It's also a personal statement about the band itself.

what about genesis...

[Aloysius]

This is genuinely just an issue of people being out of touch and having bias toward the "good old days". There's nothing else to it than that, and it has exceptionally little to do with whether artists are self-taught.

As somone who lived through the ''good old days'' as you put it. I like a lot of the music but I would never want to live through those years again. I think you must have picked that argument up off the internet somewhere. I do not under any circumstances want to relive my life. School days were the best days of my life and I hated going to school.

[DrOcsid]

This is genuinely just an issue of people being out of touch and having bias toward the "good old days". There's nothing else to it than that, and it has exceptionally little to do with whether artists are self-taught.

As somone who lived through the ''good old days'' as you put it. I like a lot of the music but I would never want to live through those years again. I think you must have picked that argument up off the internet somewhere. I do not under any circumstances want to relive my life. School days were the best days of my life and I hated going to school.

That's certainly all well and good, though also inconsequential to the point. We're talking about rose-tinted glasses on music, not life as a whole. We both know people who talk about the "good old days" don't always want to literally relive every aspect of them. That's how life is; you get nostalgic about the good parts. It happens to most people and the concept long predates the internet.

[Gamma-UT]

For 80s stuff, maybe Huey Lewis? Their early work was a little too new wave for my taste. But when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humour.
In '87, Huey released Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square". A song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends. It's also a personal statement about the band itself.

Is that a baseball bat you’re carrying or are you just pleased to see me?

[stoopicus]

It's exceptionally easy to make an argument for modern music, as the only way the notion of "modern music bad" could hold even the slightest bit of merit is if the one saying it only listens to the radio or what some mainstream algorithm gives them. Yeah, radio/algorithm music sucks a lot of the time, and maybe it sucks a bit more than it did. Maybe it's become more sterile and corporatized. That makes it a completely unreliable reference point for judging the music sphere.

Music-making becoming more accessible only increases the amount of music being made, and that includes quality music. I still see people try to make the claim that rock music is dead because they're not hearing the next Led Zeppelin on the radio.

This is a long-settled topic. Everything else is just circular debate. One's experience with modern music is what they make of it. Don't like what an algorithm puts in front of you? Then don't depend on algorithms. If you want great modern pop, there's Lorde, Charli XCX, Magdalena Bay, Underscores, Black Country New Road. Rock? Queens of the Stone Age is still releasing music. Or, you know, Geese, King Gizzard (they've made metal too), Black Midi, Snooper. Older bands like The Hives, Godspeed You Black Emperor, and The Cure released a few of their best reviewed albums recently. Jack White's No Name from last year was the best thing he's ever done.

"I haven't heard of half of those!" You're the architect of your experience.

This is genuinely just an issue of people being out of touch and having bias toward the "good old days". There's nothing else to it than that, and it has exceptionally little to do with whether artists are self-taught.

Bravo. This post puts it really well.

There's more good music being made today than at any point in history; however the distribution channels are very different and you're no longer spoon fed AOR hits. You need to look for it.

Alternative rock genres have benefitted from this immensely. It's so much easier now to find great punk, extreme metal, rich and complex instrumental rock and so on than it used to be.

Of course, the AOR hits were also never the best music being made even back then, but that's another conversation.