Why is modern music so awful

[ampetrosillo]

My opinion on the matter (topic title) is that music has always progressed together with technique (be it musical or manufacturing). Go back three centuries: first there was the harpsichord, then the piano, and composers strove to take advantage of the new possibilities it offered. Pop(ular) music is no different. Styles and genres progressed in lockstep with what was available to musicians decade after decade. Jump to the late 2000s, when ITB production was now totally possible (it was before too, but possibly limited to some electronic subgenres). There is nothing new to experiment with. Unlimited tracks with unlimited possibilities; a '60s analog workflow is as possible as a mid-'90s one. Therefore all that has been done in the last twenty years has been mixing and matching. You could say that you could experiment with different, "alien" styles. That has already been done, we called it world music. So maybe polyrhythmic stuff? Meh, been there, done that. In order to truly break ground, you probably now need some serious theory and chops to go beyond the tropes of Western popular music and that goes counter the very idea of popular music, music by the masses (never really true, but at least for the middle class) for the masses.

[bermudagold]

My opinion on the matter (topic title) is that music has always progressed together with technique (be it musical or manufacturing). Go back three centuries: first there was the harpsichord, then the piano, and composers strove to take advantage of the new possibilities it offered. Pop(ular) music is no different. Styles and genres progressed in lockstep with what was available to musicians decade after decade. Jump to the late 2000s, when ITB production was now totally possible (it was before too, but possibly limited to some electronic subgenres). There is nothing new to experiment with. Unlimited tracks with unlimited possibilities; a '60s analog workflow is as possible as a mid-'90s one. Therefore all that has been done in the last twenty years has been mixing and matching. You could say that you could experiment with different, "alien" styles. That has already been done, we called it world music. So maybe polyrhythmic stuff? Meh, been there, done that. In order to truly break ground, you probably now need some serious theory and chops to go beyond the tropes of Western popular music and that goes counter the very idea of popular music, music by the masses (never really true, but at least for the middle class) for the masses.

I agree...the music has always been steered by the equipment available...what would classic soul have sounded like without the rhodes, wurli, clav, and hammond?...what would the 80s have sounded like without the dx7 and linndrum?...what would golden era hip hop have sounded like without the sp1200, mpc, and and asr-10?...what would 90s dance peak have sounded like without the M1, D50, proteus, and JV boards?...what would the rise of edm have sounded like without the virus, nord lead?...there are really no "new" instruments to steer the motifs and a common zeitgeist anymore...unless you become a luthier or start using new luthier instruments from Foersch, Bras, or Hopkins

[Bunny_boy]

I agree...the music has always been steered by the equipment available...what would classic soul have sounded like without the rhodes, wurli, clav, and hammond?

It would've sounded like soul music. It wouldn't be soul music that anyone in this dimension would instantly recognise, but it would be soul music.
Soul music didn't arise because someone invented the Rhodes piano, it arose because kids from gospel choirs decided to play music in clubs

[bermudagold]

I agree...the music has always been steered by the equipment available...what would classic soul have sounded like without the rhodes, wurli, clav, and hammond?

It would've sounded like soul music. It wouldn't be soul music that anyone in this dimension would instantly recognise, but it would be soul music.
Soul music didn't arise because someone invented the Rhodes piano, it arose because kids from gospel choirs decided to play music in clubs

sure...but without the invention of those new instruments and timbres it would have sounded very different and may have evolved completely differently in different directions...just look and listen through the evolution of Ray Charles...to pretend like we know what would have happened in their absence is delusional...look what happened from one lady bringing an electric guitar to church

[Bunny_boy]

I agree...the music has always been steered by the equipment available...what would classic soul have sounded like without the rhodes, wurli, clav, and hammond?

It would've sounded like soul music. It wouldn't be soul music that anyone in this dimension would instantly recognise, but it would be soul music.
Soul music didn't arise because someone invented the Rhodes piano, it arose because kids from gospel choirs decided to play music in clubs

sure...but without the invention of those new instruments and timbres it would have sounded very different and may have evolved completely differently in different directions...just look and listen through the evolution of Ray Charles...to pretend like we know what would have happened in their absence is delusional...look what happened from one lady bringing an electric guitar to church

I think amplified instruments is the one though. If that never happened then music would not be the same at all. Amplification might've been inevitable though

[Benedict]

A desire/need for more volume is indeed inevitable. This is why the piano was built. The name alone means LOUD. This is part of why an 'orchestra' moved from consort to chamber to the whole Red Army sawing away (give or take).

Glenn Miller and his contemporaries were adjusting their music and performances to deal with volume issues in jumpin' jivin' clubs in the 40s. This is why the soloist stood up - so his horn didn't blow into the back of the head of the bloke in front (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Charlie Christian tried the amp so he could cut the big band sound level.

[ksandvik]

The saxophone was invented as part of the ongoing marching band loudness battles between the French and Preussian military marching bands. Seems loudness wars have been around for a long time.

Early day drum machines from Roland were meant for one-two band lounge music scenarios, not acid house. Technology use in music is nothing bad.

But we need to separate the use of music technologies versus writing music. The palette for music making is extremely wide, but it's hardly used in today's top-50 Spotify music.

[Benedict]

But we need to separate the use of music technologies versus writing music. The palette for music making is extremely wide, but it's hardly used in today's top-50 Spotify music.

Bingo

A drum machine does not "print" a whole song. It is a tool that can be used to make a raft of terrible songs or "In The Air Tonight" and "I Can't Go For That". The difference being the real driving force - not the tool itself.

This whole "it's just a tool" is a misdirect argument designed to make laziness, which leads to poor (read shit) outcomes equal to, or worse greater than, "Hotel California". Esp seeing a Tool by definition doesn't do the task, it has to be directed as an extension of a sentient process. Hammers do not punch in nails in the real world (Disney not being real - charming yes but not real). Humans drive nails, using a hammer to save their hand.

So wanting a house and borrowing a hammer DO NOT deliver a house. The idea is easy - and as such, worthless. It is all in the execution. Proof of that appearing in songs that needed several revisions to really fire, eg "Take On Me", "My Way", and oh yes, "Hotel California".

[lunardigs]

I'll suggest this, which probably no one will agree with here, but I think astrology can describe modern music very well.

[Bunny_boy]

I'll suggest this, which probably no one will agree with here, but I think astrology can describe modern music very well.

That's bollocks. But I'm a Pisces so what do I know?

[CandelaAudio]

I don’t think modern music is uniquely awful tbh. I think we’re just hearing way more of the mediocre middle in real time.

With older eras, history already did the editing for us. Nobody goes around saying “man, 1974 was amazing” and then queues up the 10,000 forgotten filler records. They remember the killers.

Now the whole pipeline is visible, and the pipeline rewards stuff that hits fast, repeats fast, and doesn’t ask much of the listener. That’s less a music problem than an incentives problem.

So yeah, the tools matter a bit, but Spotify/playlist/skip-culture probably matters more than whether someone used a LinnDrum, a DX7 or Serum.

We’re comparing the canonised past to the unfiltered present. Of course the present loses that fight.

[Bunny_boy]

We’re comparing the canonised past to the unfiltered present. Of course the present loses that fight.

I was thinking about that the other night. This is going to be a bit messy, but anyways. A band like Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, etc exist completely in the past. Their story is complete - it has a start and an end. Therefore it is manageable, digestible and, basically, you know where you are with them. New music is in a continuous evolving process. It changes and mutates and there is no finish line. It's harder to grasp and internalise - you may like a few songs by an artist, but you don't know what they are going to do next.

It's not that music was better in the past - it's that it's easier to know.

[lunardigs]

I'll suggest this, which probably no one will agree with here, but I think astrology can describe modern music very well.

That's bollocks. But I'm a Pisces so what do I know?

It would track the same quality of time as the generations, which is pretty well described already by astrologers.

Silent Generation: 1928 to 1945 (Pluto in Cancer until 1939, then in Leo)
Baby Boomers: 1946 to 1964 (Pluto in Leo until 1957, then in Virgo)
Generation Jones: 1954 to 1965 (Pluto in Leo until 1957, then in Virgo)
Generation X: 1965 to 1980 (Pluto in Virgo until 1971, then in Libra)
Millennials: 1981 to 1996 (Pluto in Libra until 1984, then in Scorpio)
Generation Z: 1997 to 2012 (Pluto in Scorpio until 1995, then in Sagittarius)
Generation Alpha: 2013 to present (Pluto in Sagittarius until 2024, then in Capricorn)

This is a somewhat simplified representation, as there's other important generational aspects, but nonetheless.
It's through the principal of Pluto that a generation realizes sex and death. i.e. transformation--radical transformation and so on--and this is what we're approximately hearing in the music of a given time.
so deal

[bermudagold]

I'll suggest this, which probably no one will agree with here, but I think astrology can describe modern music very well.

That's bollocks. But I'm a Pisces so what do I know?

It would track the same quality of time as the generations, which is pretty well described already by astrologers.

Silent Generation: 1928 to 1945 (Pluto in Cancer until 1939, then in Leo)
Baby Boomers: 1946 to 1964 (Pluto in Leo until 1957, then in Virgo)
Generation Jones: 1954 to 1965 (Pluto in Leo until 1957, then in Virgo)
Generation X: 1965 to 1980 (Pluto in Virgo until 1971, then in Libra)
Millennials: 1981 to 1996 (Pluto in Libra until 1984, then in Scorpio)
Generation Z: 1997 to 2012 (Pluto in Scorpio until 1995, then in Sagittarius)
Generation Alpha: 2013 to present (Pluto in Sagittarius until 2024, then in Capricorn)

This is a somewhat simplified representation, as there's other important generational aspects, but nonetheless.
It's through the principal of Pluto that a generation realizes sex and death. i.e. transformation--radical transformation and so on--and this is what we're approximately hearing in the music of a given time.
so deal

so then pick one of those generations and explain anything unique to that eras music caused by the astrology

[Bunny_boy]