Why is modern music so awful

[jamcat]

Do you know all second- or third-tiers composers and musicians (now unknown) of the past? No. Now you see them, listen their music or read about them all the time.

You make an interesting point about baroque/classical/romantic composers, which I think is valid in some ways. Yes, composers who existed prior to the recording industry were not created or promoted by it, and people in the 20th century were exposed to a limited number of them. (Of course people of their day also were limited in their exposure by geography and wealth.)

Today, I think people have greater exposure to a wider number of these composers than anyone at any time in history, including the composers’ time. And this of course has to to with the Information Age. But you are kind of making my point still, and here’s why: we are talking about contemporary music vs music produced by past generations. These composers belong to past generations, not the current one. The internet age indeed makes it easier for us to discover great musical works. It just doesn’t seem to produce them.

[ghettosynth]

Also: Zappa is a walking talking type III error.

He was spot on about the music industry IMO. Especially when it came to talent agents.
I'm not particularly a fan of Janes Addiction but a good friend is in a famous 90's band and mentioned that Janes Addiction only got signed because three different talent agents went to the same show randomly and assumed there was a massive potential in Janes, whom they had all passed on in the past.

Yes, the industry changed in the 70s for a number of reasons, but it wasn't because hippy AR talent were all claiming to "know what the kids wanted." Again, I have no interest in debating this here, I think that it's a waste of time, but, that's exactly the nature of a type III error. You get the direction right but for the wrong reason.

[lobanov]

Do you know all second- or third-tiers composers and musicians (now unknown) of the past? No. Now you see them, listen their music or read about them all the time.

You make an interesting point about baroque/classical/romantic composers, which I think is valid in some ways. Yes, composers who existed prior to the recording industry were not created or promoted by it, and people in the 20th century were exposed to a limited number of them. (Of course people of their day also were limited in their exposure by geography and wealth.)

Today, I think people have greater exposure to a wider number of these composers than anyone at any time in history, including the composers’ time. And this of course has to to with the Information Age. But you are kind of making my point still, and here’s why: we are talking about contemporary music vs music produced by past generations. These composers belong to past generations, not the current one. The internet age indeed makes it easier for us to discover great musical works. It just doesn’t seem to produce them.

By the publishing I mean the publishing of scores too. In the classical age this was a form of promotion equivalent to modern recordings in some aspects. In short, if you are a published composer you are a performed composer too. But this topic is highly complex, I am hardly ready to discuss it.

I think that the current age produces the same amount of great music as previous ages. More or less. This doesn't depend on the fact that our age is the information age. What has changed in the information age are forms and ways of musical distribution. Regarding the quality of music our age isn't worse or better than previous ones.

I don't want to dispute the fact that musical experinence of people of the past was more meagre and limited than our experience.

People of the past was limited "geographically" (spacely) in their musical experience. We in our experience of past music are limited ... hmmm ... by importance? I don't know how to tell it better. Something has been selected, something has been forgotten, something has been completely lost. Our limitations in our actual musical experience (I mean modern music) are a different story. Spacial limitations aren't valid now (or significantly less valid). I would say we are more limited by the narrowness of our consciousness. We cannot listen all music on this very moment, we can listen it piece by piece. (And we can listen even music of the past if it is performed or recorded.)

Mostly I agree with you. But when we talk about ages we mean music of this ages in whole. When we talk about music of the past we mean a sort of "prepared picture" in whole rather than the musical process "in realtime". Now we can see the musical process itself, "in realtime" (partly, we see events that constitute it) and we reconstruct the whole from what we see. This two types of images are very different. And to look at the musical process itself as it evolves is to look at musical garbage too rather than refined picture only.

We discuss the (low?) quality of current music, right?

What I've written seems slightly rambling to me but I hope I've explained my point.

[machinesworking]

Yes, the industry changed in the 70s for a number of reasons, but it wasn't because hippy AR talent were all claiming to "know what the kids wanted." Again, I have no interest in debating this here, I think that it's a waste of time, but, that's exactly the nature of a type III error. You get the direction right but for the wrong reason.

Nothing to debate, this sort of thing isn't usually one event or even really trackable by musicians on a forum in any binary way. It's all opinion pieces.

IMO yes, hipper more self serving and out of touch really A&R people was part of the reason. Another fantastic example recently, Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo talked in an interview about being flown to Jamaica by Richard Branson of Virgin records. They get there and Branson being the kewl hip exec that he is smokes them out and announces that Johnny Lydon is in the next room and they have gathered reporters together to announce that Lydon will be the new lead singer for Devo. Branson literally thought Devo should be fronted by Lydon...

Apparently Mark and the other member of Devo who had come along were so stoned they couldn't stop laughing.

[jancivil]

but it wasn't because hippy AR talent were all claiming to "know what the kids wanted."

Well I didn't see MW posting the same exact video coming

(not sure how wide their hips were enters into it, but an abolute 'were all' does set up an impossible goalpost)

But if we're looking for why the music of an experimental nature was considered feasible by the industry at one time, which in general is not true today, this makes sense. I didn't see a competing argument in actuality there. And one supposes an FZ knows from experience having a viable business in it 1965-1993.

[jancivil]

and realizing he wouldn't have what my father called "A Chinaman's chance" (CF: more US history) to even get started in the industry by the time of that video.

less music [but] way more curated. This meant that the quality of music that was even given an opportunity to get recorded was objectively higher on average than today, and then it went through a second filtration process of curation and distribution that no longer exists, which further refined the quality of what was delivered as a singular, common cultural experience to the entire western world.

IMO I get why you would think that, but you're not correct at all here. Zappa pointed out IMO rightfully so that it's the exact opposite problem. Now we have the whole boy band Disney/Nickelodian puppy mill approach, all fueled by this same impulse.

[Zappa interview 'let's get a hippie in here to tell us what the kids want']

I'm not certain because I guess I need more caffeine to sort the convoluted syntax that concludes 'singular, common cultural experience' but I suspect the two commments are in agreement.

[ghettosynth]

Yes, the industry changed in the 70s for a number of reasons, but it wasn't because hippy AR talent were all claiming to "know what the kids wanted." Again, I have no interest in debating this here, I think that it's a waste of time, but, that's exactly the nature of a type III error. You get the direction right but for the wrong reason.

Nothing to debate, this sort of thing isn't usually one event or even really trackable by musicians on a forum in any binary way. It's all opinion pieces.

IMO yes, hipper more self serving and out of touch really A&R people was part of the reason. Another fantastic example recently, Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo talked in an interview about being flown to Jamaica by Richard Branson of Virgin records. They get there and Branson being the kewl hip exec that he is smokes them out and announces that Johnny Lydon is in the next room and they have gathered reporters together to announce that Lydon will be the new lead singer for Devo. Branson literally thought Devo should be fronted by Lydon...

Apparently Mark and the other member of Devo who had come along were so stoned they couldn't stop laughing.

Funny story, but it fails completely. First, the lineup change never happened, so Richard Branson couldn't make that happen despite his power. Second, Branson was not one of the conservative young people that Zappa is talking about. In point of fact, he was quite the opposite and signed many experimental artists in the 70s including Mike Olfield in 1973, Tangerine Dream, and the Sex Pistols. Hilariously, Captain Beefheart was also signed by Virgin.

So then, it seems that one could get signed as an experimental artist in the 70s, as should be obvious. Using a risk-taking self-made exec as a counter to the argument that there the industry wasn't taking risks is an odd choice. There are reasons that other labels weren't taking risks, but it's not solely, or even primarily, because young people came in and said "we know what the kids want," as I already stated. This is a juvenile reduction of complex changes in the industry and the socio-political landscape.

[jancivil]

[machinesworking]

Yes, the industry changed in the 70s for a number of reasons, but it wasn't because hippy AR talent were all claiming to "know what the kids wanted." Again, I have no interest in debating this here, I think that it's a waste of time, but, that's exactly the nature of a type III error. You get the direction right but for the wrong reason.

Nothing to debate, this sort of thing isn't usually one event or even really trackable by musicians on a forum in any binary way. It's all opinion pieces.

IMO yes, hipper more self serving and out of touch really A&R people was part of the reason. Another fantastic example recently, Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo talked in an interview about being flown to Jamaica by Richard Branson of Virgin records. They get there and Branson being the kewl hip exec that he is smokes them out and announces that Johnny Lydon is in the next room and they have gathered reporters together to announce that Lydon will be the new lead singer for Devo. Branson literally thought Devo should be fronted by Lydon...

Apparently Mark and the other member of Devo who had come along were so stoned they couldn't stop laughing.

Funny story, but it fails completely. First, the lineup change never happened, so Richard Branson couldn't make that happen despite his power. Second, Branson was not one of the conservative young people that Zappa is talking about. In point of fact, he was quite the opposite and signed many experimental artists in the 70s including Mike Olfield in 1973, Tangerine Dream, and the Sex Pistols. Hilariously, Captain Beefheart was also signed by Virgin.

So then, it seems that one could get signed as an experimental artist in the 70s, as should be obvious. Using a risk-taking self-made exec as a counter to the argument that there the industry wasn't taking risks is an odd choice. There are reasons that other labels weren't taking risks, but it's not solely, or even primarily, because young people came in and said "we know what the kids want," as I already stated. This is a juvenile reduction of complex changes in the industry and the socio-political landscape.

IMO like I said it's always multiple reasons that these days major labels don't really sign experimental groups. Branson is a perfect example, because he thought he was so in the know that this wouldn't have been taken as one of the most preposterous things to happen, (Rotten and Devo), that it didn't happen isn't important, Devo were pretty hardcore about their vision, not manipulatable.

I mean it can also be argued that the puppy mill thing happens now because record companies want artists that have obligations and are not fully in control of their careers. The rumor was/is that the truly fantastic deal Prince was finally able to get with his label was the breaking point. That record companies no longer wanted "free range" talent, because this wasn't necessarily the first time this had happened.

But yeah I think jancivil is right as usual with her post right before mine.

[THE INTRANCER]

It's because the music industry as we once knew is dead.

[ghettosynth]

IMO like I said it's always multiple reasons that these days major labels don't really sign experimental groups.

Of course, but you also said "He was spot on about the music industry IMO. Especially when it came to talent agents", and I disagree with that. Zappa often overgeneralized his experience and I think this is, yet another, clear example of that. Your examples do not dispel that.

[jancivil]

I don't know from Richard Branson. I know Virgin Records, on Market Street at Powell; also a clothing store and a lot of things. It turned out to be unsustainable there. It was a nice place to sit and catch your breath until the music played got too annoying.

It's pretty clear in the 1970s the more 'experimentally-oriented' or at least a less slave-to-convention musical artist could have a record deal. I don't know what that's doing in the thread or if it's supposed to counter-argue something.

I was situated closely with a band that did have a record deal by 1983. I was able to have aspirations of some quality there in the mid-1980s because here (literal here) was Henry Kaiser and over to Oakland was Fred Frith professoring at Mills College [day job]. An anecdote: Frith swung by the house on Oak Street one night to borrow Innocenti's Marshall in order to play a gig here in the city. Henry Kaiser I doubt had to worry a lot about money.

And if you're much younger than I am - 68 - you know a bit less about the possibilities then than do I, other than to read about it in a magazine. So this is talk about talk.

[machinesworking]

I don't know from Richard Branson. I know Virgin Records, on Market Street at Powell; also a clothing store and a lot of things. It turned out to be unsustainable there. It was a nice place to sit and catch your breath until the music played got too annoying.

It's pretty clear in the 1970s the more 'experimentally-oriented' or at least a less slave-to-convention musical artist could have a record deal. I don't know what that's doing in the thread or if it's supposed to counter-argue something.

I was situated closely with a band that did have a record deal by 1983. I was able to have aspirations of some quality there in the mid-1980s because here (literal here) was Henry Kaiser and over to Oakland was Fred Frith professoring at Mills College [day job]. An anecdote: Frith swung by the house on Oak Street one night to borrow Innocenti's Marshall in order to play a gig here in the city. Henry Kaiser I doubt had to worry a lot about money.

And if you're much younger than I am - 68 - you know a bit less about the possibilities then than do I, other than to read about it in a magazine. So this is talk about talk.

I was likely at some shows you went to back then. I lived in SF 84-89, played in a band called Systems Collapse. Snakefinger, MudWimin, Beatnigs, Faith No More, and Caroliner Rainbow were friends of ours etc. I guess the keyboard players older sister was a big time manager and promoter in the area, they were not close so it wasn't a plus for us.

[jancivil]

OMFG. Whatsis name, Systems Collapse... David? (the very gay short-haired blonde guy) was my dispatcher at Perfect Courier for a brief time.
We didn't hang out together a lot, but a few times. We gave each other a friendly hard time about our differences. I was "seeing" a stripper. Did the naughty on the chair he sat in (I lived there, I felt like I owned the joint). He was so disgusted.
I auditioned for that group one day just out of nothing to do, on a two-string guitar, he couldn't believe it. But the rest - you? - didn't want me anywhere near the group because I was a junkie.

I didn't know Beatnigs myself but Herb Diamant (Cartoon/PFS) and I were in the Marina Safeway (or some other naborhood we didn't live in) and ran into one of them.

The drummer in my C&W band was married to the singer of Red Meat (Judith or Jill? Olsen). Before there was any ironic country movement.

[Krakatau]

business process : maximum profit with minimum investments, minimalistic creations (?)