I feel like the common idea that music nowadays is garbage compared to old stuff peaked in the 2000s and is actually on its way out. The internet and streaming services have allowed people to get exposed to any sort of music. There's a lot of great stuff being made these days, and a lot greater variety. For a while things had reached maximum commercialism with incredible money being poured into promoting a small number of manufactured acts but it's very easy to ignore that nowadays.
It's a function of age, as expected. By definition, most music in any era is unexceptional. The only songs that resonate and last in memory is the good stuff, the crap gets forgotten. Integrate the function over time and there will be a big chunk of memory dedicated to exceptional (past) music and a small cache holding the current state with mostly crap and possibly 1 or 2 good songs.
That suggest you can find an equal number of high quality popular songs in each year. Compare say top 25 from 1935, 1945 ... to 2015 and I don’t think that holds.
Some of this is just taste, but I suspect the need to innovate coupled with endless copyright is forcing music into less generally accessible areas.
It was also a relatively new thing as was radio and vinyl recording. It also allowed for a lot of experimentation.
(BTW I listen to quite a few pieces composed about 300 years ago, and find them genuinely cool and engaging. But the filtering factor since then is huge.)
People that were born in 1935 are in their 80s now and probably started listening to music in the early 50s. Any extension of the principle further back than the 50s doesn't apply to living humans and doesn't matter.
Yes, you are exactly right. This is survivorship bias [1]. I often find myself pining for the NES and SNES games of my childhood, annoyed by the massive proliferation of crap today. Then another video by AVGN [2] shows up on my YouTube subscription feed and my nostalgic bubble is so violently popped.
I think survivorship bias is such a huge part of nostalgia. We remember the best times and forget the mundane.
In 2000 the 'gatekeepers' of music were still trying to promote legit acts, today, it's not the case.
Have a look at this (Trippie Red) [1]
It's truly crap and not just a function of age.
The very low barriers to entry have allowed for crap to come through - secondarily, it means that young people don't spend years in their bedrooms anymore honing their craft, so you don't get a lot of virtuosos either just raw talent/creativity.
There is quite a lot of good stuff out there but it's hard to find.
There are very few good bands/groups that roll through town anymore.
Imagine if you went down to the local theatre and saw this (Heart / Barracuda) [2] my god man that's raw.
I go to shows occasionally now and it's a 'rapper' who says some things over a track. I saw BADBADNOTGOOD with Ghostface Killah, now that was spectacular, but usually even live rap is usually just karaoke.
I went to a gig hailed as 'brazilian/european/american' fusion rap. It was a DJ who played some tracks and the 'rapper' didn't even rap. He just said 'heya' 'whaaaat' and 'wassup' a bunch of times over the rap track. I was incredulous. I wanted to go on stage and punch the talentless SOB. I felt so sad for the generation.
1968 was a big year because a) Rock was new. Rock as we know it was literally just being born. New instruments, new sounds. b) Lots of young people c) social movement i.e. hippies, summer of love etc. etc. - first time on tv etc.
I agree that there is more crap now than ever. Music production software being available to basically everyone, along with platforms for their music to be released, has allowed even the most basic first song someone tries to sing to be viewed by anyone. But is that a bad thing? Some of these small artists eventually turn into super talented industry giants, and it's so motivating for kids to believe that they can be one of those people no matter who they are! If there is more crap out there that's alright with me, it means artists are being given the opportunity to at least try.
Who are these super huge amazing artists full of talent?
I can't think of any really.
Because of all the crap - the 'talent' is now gone into show, entertainment, visuals etc, not anything remotely musical.
Example: When Justin Bieber was young, his producer/backer Usher hired him a 'swagger coach' - to teach him how to be cool. Effectively - how to walk, talk, be chill. So Bieber honed is 'swagger' instead of honing any kind of musicianship, creativity or otherwise.
Kids unfortunately don't want to be 'music stars' so much as they just want to be famous. 'Rapper/Musician' is just another form of Instagram star. Kanye is not that different from Kardashian. (FYI I do think Kanye is actually talented, and I also begrudgingly respect Kardashian's entertainment sensibilities). When Ariana Grande was 13 she walked into the label's office and told them she wanted to be a famous worldwide.
And yes - there is actually a lot of innovation in production - production is now where a lot of the 'art' is as the producer matters more than anything else these days.
The saddest part is that it's nary impossible for a 'good group' to make a decent living, or maybe to earn a nice buck for retirement because of course life is short for musicians. A few of them in the zeitgeist, but that's about it.
Oh - a 'big name talent' I can think of is Bruno Mars. I thought his music was ridiculous until I saw them at the super bowl and was very impressed, looking into his background it's clear these guys are super talented, though fairly commercial as well.
Low barriers + Commercialism have benefits: notably broader access and also the money/backing to do stuff. But they have really taken over and it's a problem sadly.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Is it that the huge mega artists now aren’t good, or that good music isn’t getting recognized/doen’t have a sustainable fanbase? The latter is demonstrably untrue.
If we’re talking huge mega stars that also have talent/artistic merit, that’s admittedly more limited (Kendrick Lamar and Beyonce are the only two I can really think of), but if you go to medium sized artists that still have big followings (say, 1M+ monthly spotify listeners) you’ve got James Blake, Janelle Monae, Frank Ocean, Mitski, Future Islands, Earl Sweatshirt, Rosalia, etc. Some truly important artists in that list.
Is it possible you just don’t have a taste for the direction certain genres are going in (especially rap)?
I have an entirely different outlook on this, and I believe the case of the "bedroom musician" is a perfect example.
The amount of young talent out there is not withering. It is blooming, particularly because of the low barrier of entry. You are correct that there is much more crap out there due to the low cost of entry, and the signal to noise ratio is much higher. But there is also a lot more talent than I have ever seen before. And the talent still rises to the top, because even though the internet has created a lot of noise, it is also self regulating: the noise filter has been crowdsourced.
Part of it can certainly be explained by the fact that, thanks to Youtube and Soundcloud, it is possible to find talent that before would have otherwise remained in obscurity. But a significant part is not the lower cost of entry, but the lower cost of learning and inspiration. Young musical talent can develop in ways that were simply not possible for past generations.
And furthermore, the easy access to the vast canon of modern music that online access have made available gives these musicians exposure to musical concepts and modalities that they might never had heard otherwise. For example, were it not for Napster, there would be no Fleet Foxes.
I've seen it first hand. Not only can vocalists and instrumentalists of all kinds access vast amounts of training material for the cost of an internet connection, but they can learn from one another, be challenged by their peers, and be motivated to up their game. How many young musicians of the past never developed their talent because of the lack of access to that teacher or that group of musicians?
But all of this means that the entire scene, inevitably, will lose the classic label model where popular musicians are hand-picked based upon their perceived commercial value by a relatively small number of gatekeepers. The door which gives performers access to an audience also gives the audience access to performers.
Even the monetization model is radically changing. Patreon has replaced the game of "hide the royalties," and many of these new musicians do quite well, gain funding to produce a more professional produce, contract for studio time and mixing engineers, etc., and start careers.
Does this mean that we will see a tapering off of "the big contract"? Yep. Good riddance. But it also means that music is returning to the commons where it belongs: where it can once more become a product of the culture itself, with an organic feedback loop between creators and audiences, rather than the culture being told what they may listen to by self-service commercial interests who create nothing on their own.
The Internet is a global campfire for creators and audiences.
Ok, this is the 'theory' of the internet, and I'm inclined to agree with it.
But do you have any evidence that there are more talented musicians than ever?
Because they are lacking at my local hot spots - i.e. the bands coming to town are not showcasing much of this. Obviously this has a lot to do with pop culture tastes - and maybe this is the 'other side of the equation' ie 'demand'.
As for 'the commons' - no. There is no return sadly.
'Musician' used to be a job. If you wanted to hear music, it generally had to be live. When rock and roll came along, the number of horn player jobs dropped by 90% - because hey, now you only have a '5 piece' band instead of a '30 piece' band.
With electronic music - there are zero pieces in the band. Just a DJ to press play and to pretend he's busy with the knobs.
Tastes change, which is fine - and it's possible to do a lot with a computer, which is fine - but due to the lower barrier to entry - AND - the 'globalization' of music. FYI what is happening to pop is the same thing happening to Hollywood films, like 'Transformers' - there is literally no plot, just production values - a lot of music is being consumed in the developing world where often taste is simple.
So there are no jobs for musicians anymore, which makes it hard to be in the commons.
Another note on taste: music used to be pretty. It was something almost anyone could enjoy, on some level. All folk music is 'listenable'. All classical is 'listenable'. So is light rock, and easy Jazz. Broadway music - etc..
But some versions of rock, most of rap, 1/2 of hip hop - and a considerable amount of music is not 'unlistenable' to anyone but the people really into that genre. It's now really 'edgy' and contemporary.
For example - Trippie Red, SixNine - even a lot of JayZ - it's only going to ever appeal to a very small group of people. My Grandfather could feasibly listen to a Beyonce song. But he literally won't understand what the sound Trippie Red is making.
That there is talentless, mumbling over noise on video and touring, and that it gets vast attention - more than many musicians ... is problematic. Which gives rise to my final point hinted at above and that it's really just about popularity, not music. Trippie Red makes a little more sound than Kardashian and wears a different label - but it's almost the same thing.
FYI there's a good anecdote about Puff Daddy and is AR guys. His guys would come back from the club and say 'we found a great new sound' and Puff would say 'but how do they look?'.
Getting a face tattoo today is more 'key' to getting acclaim than much else, because it really sticks out on instagram (ie visual) where the competition is.
I truly hope as you say there are actually more 'bedroom masters' than before, I don't see it but I hope I'm wrong.
To be fair, the people I'm talking about tend to be more on the folk / eclectic side of things — and are playing real physical instruments. I don't count laptop jockeys in that group.
>I feel like the common idea that music nowadays is garbage compared to old stuff peaked in the 2000s.
I dunno. There's always been garbage music. The 60's had it's own share of it. There were a lot of one hit wonder bands, radio and tv friendly music, lip synching and manufactured bands back then and all through the 70's, 80's and 90's. I think the problem is a lot of people don't remember it because it's garbage and gets overshadowed by the awesome music from those times.
What seems to have happened is the process of manufacturing and distributing garbage commercial music was improved and refined over the decades to the point of complete saturation. Thankfully widespread internet adoption broke that stranglehold and you can find an amazing amount of music now.
I have to listen to the radio at work though and it's just the same as it's always been...full of garbage.
It was garbage when people with money who controlled the distribution channels decided to also manufacture music bands, because it allowed them greater control and less costs.
That all changed with the widespread availability of the internet.
All that changed with the widespread availability of the internet is that now there's more garbage to spread around.
There's more good music, simply because there's more music, but it's a matter of scale and of Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is still always garbage.
Pop music yes. All music no. Pop music of all generations has pretty consistently been trash, with a few exceptions that over time begin to overshadow the rest.
Look at the pop single charts every year going back in time and find a generation where the majority of those songs are still considered classics.
Frank Zappa had some comments about this. Despite his outré reputation, he actually preferred working with record companies that had conservative, old, cigar-chomping executives -- who would say "we don't know what kids are listening to these days, but the stuff sells!" According to Zappa, it was when the young hip coolhunters took over that a record company would stagnate and cease to sign innovative artists.
>he actually preferred working with record companies that had conservative, old, cigar-chomping executives
I think it's more of a general observation than his personal "preference". Zappa only worked with two record companies early in his career: MGM and Warner Bros., both of which he ended up in a bunch of legal battles with, so in mid-70's he started his own label (Zappa Records, then Barking Pumpkin Records) he exclusively released his music with.
"I prove to you that I am bad enough to get into hell, because I have been through it! I have seen it! It has happened to me! Remember: I was signed for Warner Brothers for eight fucking years!" -- FZ to the devil in "Baby Snakes" movie.
What is missing today is not superb music, it's the dynamic the brought excellence together permitting its fusion and the evolution of a re-enforceing and self-perpetuating identity.
The huge empowerment to make and distribute music today, as wonderful as it is, has led to an overwhelming abundance that dilutes excellence and prevents it from coming together to reinforce itself and perpetuate its creation.
There must be wonderful music out there, but I'll never hear it. Sigh!
I'm sure the romantic ideology of the politically shifting landscape at the time also played a role. Freedom of expression is very important for this all to have taken place, but being "real" tends to look different to different people. To those complaining about current artists being "cookie cutter" and simply copying the past, there are plenty of prolific composers and 60's bands that have songs that are heavily influenced by other artists in which you could easily tell where they got that material from. There have been terrible "pop" artists that have gained recognition since the times of medieval taverns to the 21st century (although their reach to the masses is much greater now). Tchaikovsky began writing compositions very similar to his influencers, just like some current artists have done with the music they grew up listening to. And honestly, that's ok.
I agree that popular music was better in the old days. But that's just because the rise of indie labels, and then the internet, have enabled the more creative artists to thrive on the fringes, instead of having to compete for mainstream popularity.
What was popular used to be determined by actual popularity and DJs with control over what got played even in the face of payola. The vertically integrated pop music industry now tries to decide who they will promote based purely on analytics without any regard for actual talent. Nobody can sing ballads on pop radio now except the one designee, Adelle.
isnt using analytics also taking into account talent? Analytics is just measuring what people like, and people like talented artists. Why would using analytics hurt the talent level?
But that makes no sense from a business perspective... I feel like corporations actually do the opposite... "Oh, this band is really popular with a profitable audience segment? Lets find and promote a hundred other bands that sound just like them!"
They won't make more money by choosing one and discontinuing the others... you are only going to buy a band's album once, you can only go to the concert when they are in town.. a record label is going to want to give you multiple albums to buy and multiple bands to go see.
But if that is the case (that people want easily digestible pop), then wouldn't the most popular music be easily digestible pop? I don't see how not using analytics would change that.
You need to keep recording something new to sell. Before you had to take at least some risks to find something that's both easily digestible and goes with the current fashion, and sometimes good music would sneak in, too. Now you can just run it through some buzzword black box and get back something that should make label the most money with least expense.
Unpopular opinion: The music of 1968 is so enduring because Baby Boomers have had an outsize influence on culture for decades, and are obsessed with their youth. Plenty of other musical periods were also important, but we almost never hear about those.
Led Zeppelin? Joni Mitchell's Blue? Songs in the Key of Life by Stevie Wonder? These are all incredible cultural touchstones from the 1970's, and we almost never hear about them as "the sounds that evoked a generation" or whatever.
Uh, pardon my take but but who is the "we" in your assessment here? I honestly had Sir Duke playing last night at my NYE party, and I'm in my thirties.
If "the kids" didn't before they surely do now after the amazing use of "Immigrant Song" in a certain recent Marvel movie. (Also featured in School of Rock)
Yes, we have all heard of Led Zeppelin. That is not my point -- my point is that I've seen roughly one million "Music from 1968/1969 is The Best!!!!111" articles / essays / etc in my life, and zero "Music from the 1970's changed the World!" articles, even though Led Zeppelin 4, Joni Mitchell's Blue, Songs in the Key of Life, Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, and a bunch of other amazing stuff all came out then.
I blame my baby boomer parents precisely for getting me interested in their generation's music, if it weren't for them I wouldn't be jamming out to The Temptations right now.
shakes fist mightily
"Damn you, Boomers!"
Also, from the GP:
Baby Boomers have had an outsize influence on culture for decades, and are obsessed with their youth.
I have ZERO reason to believe Millennials will be ANY different when they're old and their time has passed. Us Generation Xers don't care one way or the other. It's our trademark :P
As a fellow Gen Xer, I think we've got a healthy approach to our glory days. Did I like Nirvana and Red Hot Chili Peppers? Yes, yes I did. Do I insist that the world stop so I can indulge in early 90's nostalgia? No.
I think you hit the nail on the head. There are other issues at play (the "pop music" medium was still new so it was super easy to innovate...) but this is clearly subjective.
Here's another unpopular opinion: If you defrosted someone from the ice age and had them sit down and listen to Bob Dylan, they'd not identify it as listenable music. From a musical perspective, it's pretty bad. Limited melody, no harmonies, no counterpoint, limited syncopation, very limited vocal range...
Baby boomers will tell you all of these artists are "great" but I think they're unconsciously talking about the social context around the bands more than the actual music.
>If you defrosted someone from the ice age and had them sit down and listen to Bob Dylan, they'd not identify it as listenable music. From a musical perspective, it's pretty bad. Limited melody, no harmonies, no counterpoint, limited syncopation, very limited vocal range...
As you say, everything is subjective, but I've heard "tribal" music and chanting (which is probably close to what someone from the ice age would be familiar with), and it's a lot closer to Bob Dylan than whomever you would consider "great." Complexity isn't the only valid measure of greatness, of course.
>but I think they're unconsciously talking about the social context around the bands more than the actual music
Maybe. Maybe they also actually like the music. Maybe it's a bit of both, and what you're describing applies generally to everyone, that part of musical taste is wrapped up in the nostalgia for the era it comes from.
You make a good point. Dylan is folk and that obviously has some similarities to tribal music. That being said, I think social context is super important to both styles, more so than musical aesthetic.
I would say that a lot of interesting concepts around poly-rhythms and syncopation come from tribal music though.
> Maybe. Maybe they also actually like the music. Maybe it's a bit of both, and what you're describing applies generally to everyone, that part of musical taste is wrapped up in the nostalgia for the era it comes from.
I agree. My point was mainly that Dylan is a great example to show how subjective "greatness" in pop music really is. There are a lot of cases you can make that he's actually not very good from a musical perspective.
Bob Dylan is a bit of a cherry-pick there, though. He's definitely not a great musician (he's a good songwriter), but The Band, just to pick another example, absolutely are.
But you're right, a huge part of music is the time, place, and people where it came forth.
I agree Dylan is an extreme example and The Band are very good musicians. That said there’s a Dylan like quality that a lot of the music at the time had. Joplin and even Hendrix are pretty rough sounding from a purely musical perspective.
Counter examples would be bands with heavy use of harmony such as Crosby, Steel, Nash and Young or the Mommas and the Papas.
