Is Music Today Really That Bad?

[Stofsk]

But how about the percentage of the good music against crappy ones? Do the crappy ones are actually getting bigger share and become more acceptable these days, or am I just wrong?

I think it's a case of nostalgia and the generation gap. You're probably going to find that older songs appeal to you more than the latest ones, or that there was more good coming off the airwaves back then as opposed to now.

It's a sign that you're getting old. I'm sorry, but it's a terminal condition, known as aging. You old fuddy-duddy.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

But how about the percentage of the good music against crappy ones? Do the crappy ones are actually getting bigger share and become more acceptable these days, or am I just wrong?

I think it's a case of nostalgia and the generation gap. You're probably going to find that older songs appeal to you more than the latest ones, or that there was more good coming off the airwaves back then as opposed to now.

It's a sign that you're getting old. I'm sorry, but it's a terminal condition, known as aging. You old fuddy-duddy.

Well, at least there IS a body part of mine always manage to avoid the aging process over the decades and will be likely to be in good condition for the years to come *looks down* Isn't that true, Jerry?

[Kyle]

I still think there are good bands out there, its jsut with modern distribution we have so many more choices for everyones different tastes that you need to look harder to fidn what you would consider good music. I don't really think you can label music styles as good or bad, certain bands can be labeled as such, but styles of music has a lot to do witht he person listenign to it and what tyhey like, its pure opinion.

Personally the rock bands I listen too that could be considered as modern are, Sublime, Incubus, Audioslave, Red Hot Chili Peppers, 311, Unwritten Law, Tool, Foo Fighters, Queens of the Stone Age, A Perfect Circle, Hoobastank, Green Day, Jimmy Eat World, and Jack Johnson (though I don't know if I can call him rock). Now obviously I like some of these a lot better then others but they all have their own good points.

[aerius]

But how about the percentage of the good music against crappy ones? Do the crappy ones are actually getting bigger share and become more acceptable these days, or am I just wrong?

If you go by what they play on the radio and MTV or MuchMusic, then the crappy artists are definitely getting a bigger share these days. Unfortunately with modern consumer habits this translates to huge sales for crappy music which people get drilled into their heads by TV & radio. Looking at the overall ratio of good bands to crap bands instead of sales numbers, I think it's pretty much the same today as it's always been.

I think the main difference these days is that bands never get a chance to develop a career, they get one, maybe 2 hit records and they're done, record companies do the big push and then dump them for the next band. With this kind of business model, it's nearly impossible for a musician to develop a career and have any lasting influence, and the artists with the talent to do so tend to get stuck on smaller labels so they never get the exposure to create influence beyond their local areas.

I doubt we'll see another band like Nirvana or U2 in this decade, let alone the goodness that is Led Zeppelin, not that they don't exist, but because they're stuck on the local or at best national scene. The ones who achieve international success are usually the "band of the week" type, whoever the record companies feel is a "trend" at the time. The Tea Party (go buy "Tangents", NOW) for instance has been compared to a modern day Led Zeppelin by many, but they're unknown outside of Canada and even here they're overshadowed by Avril Lavigne.

As a result, people give Avril Lavigne more credit than they do to Britney Spears, because Avril writes her own songs.

I just need to correct this one for the record. Until her latest album, Avril did not write her own songs, unless you count changing a word or 2 in the lyrics which other people had written for her as "songwriting". All the songs on her latest album were co-written by Chantal Kreviazuk & her husband Raine Maida, the former's a well known (in Canada) singer/songwriter and the other's the lead singer & songwriter in a well known Canadian rock band.

[salm]

Yes, music today completely and utterly sucks in every regard.

Note that I don't really believe this, but I like to show off my knowledge of rock at public gatherings, and the best way to appear to know what you're talking about is to relentlessly savage anything and everything being produced today and harken back to the good old days. It works surpisingly well.

that works even better if you critisize most new stuff and then explain why (insert utter shit song) kicks ass. you have to sound like you´ve actually analyzed the song (and can do so with any song within seconds). read: use cool sounding wishiwashi words like "immersiveness" and a bunch of technical terms which everybody has heard but nobody really knows what they actually mean.

[aerius]

that works even better if you critisize most new stuff and then explain why (insert utter shit song) kicks ass. you have to sound like you´ve actually analyzed the song (and can do so with any song within seconds). read: use cool sounding wishiwashi words like "immersiveness" and a bunch of technical terms which everybody has heard but nobody really knows what they actually mean.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/top/2004/index.shtml
They've got the words & technical terms down to an artform in describing music from bands that no one has ever heard of. Slight exaggeration, but you get the idea.

[Joe]

that works even better if you critisize most new stuff and then explain why (insert utter shit song) kicks ass. you have to sound like you´ve actually analyzed the song (and can do so with any song within seconds). read: use cool sounding wishiwashi words like "immersiveness" and a bunch of technical terms which everybody has heard but nobody really knows what they actually mean.

Another thing that is very effective is to call the band's creativity/originality into question with a witty remark. That will stifle many discussions before they even start.

If the band is influenced by another band, you might say complain about that. "Derivative" is a great word, if you can use it. For example, you could say of The Strokes "Ugh, the Strokes? Have you ever even heard of the Stooges, man?" If the person has not heard of The Stooges, they will assume that you know what you're talking about and just feel really stupid (note that this is an extremely common example, everyone who knows anything about music knows that The Strokes are completely unoriginal crap). Extra points for passive aggressive slams on the taste and intelligence of the person you're talking to. If the band's songs over the years have tended to sound similar, a good idea might be to accuse them of writing the same song over and over again. Or you could use a tried and true witticism; for example, if you were talking about Green Day, you might say "American Idiot? I didn't like it the first time, when it was called Dookie." Very effective, it's hard for someone not well-versed in bullshitting about popular music to defend against that.

[Lord Pounder]

Personally i blame pop idol and its varients for the definate fall in quality of todays music. Any chump can grab a bunch cute kids, give them voice training and make them sing a song that was a hit 20 years ago. The industry has become a revolving of cloned wannabe's. The paying public then swallow it whole because MTV are bombarding them with this fake plasticised shit and telling them they're no cool if they don't listen to it.

IMHO music should be a labour of love. The band, singer or even DJ should put something of themselves in the music. Today you are very lucky to even know who it is that wrote the music and they're certainly not the shmuck performing it.

[darthdavid]

Basement Jaxx

I love the Basement Jaxx. And Donna the Buffalo. And... well I like alot of classic rock and I'm sure a few other modern artists. But yeah, most modern music is shite with the exception of a few goodies. I geuss it's just because music from any time is likely to be mostly stupid but there's alot more music from the past than from now so the goodies have survived and the retarded fad shit hasn't thus tilting the bias of music that doesn't blow to the past.

[SPOOFE]

Muse, the White Stripes, Scissor Sisters, Franz Ferdinand, Coldplay are all great bands IMO and no doubt people who prefer other types of music will chime in with what bands/artists are good for them.

I'm with you on the Scissor Sisters and Coldplay... haven't heard the others, though.

Another great band is The Negro Problem. Their head man, Stew, is an amazing lyricist, with some of the cleverest poetry I've ever heard. The music ranges from poppy to bluesy to folksy... a very well-rounded sound.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

But how about the percentage of the good music against crappy ones? Do the crappy ones are actually getting bigger share and become more acceptable these days, or am I just wrong?

If you go by what they play on the radio and MTV or MuchMusic, then the crappy artists are definitely getting a bigger share these days. Unfortunately with modern consumer habits this translates to huge sales for crappy music which people get drilled into their heads by TV & radio. Looking at the overall ratio of good bands to crap bands instead of sales numbers, I think it's pretty much the same today as it's always been.

I think the main difference these days is that bands never get a chance to develop a career, they get one, maybe 2 hit records and they're done, record companies do the big push and then dump them for the next band. With this kind of business model, it's nearly impossible for a musician to develop a career and have any lasting influence, and the artists with the talent to do so tend to get stuck on smaller labels so they never get the exposure to create influence beyond their local areas.

Wait, so even though the overall ratio of good bands to crap bands has been the same, the crappy ones is actually getting the bigger and bigger market share thanks to:

- the continous brainwashing of the unsuspecting consumer to make them love generic & crappy music, lowering their expectations and molding their taste to be uniformly conforming to those generic craps.

- the (deliberately?) short-sighted business model which basically kills good talent and encourages the growth of short-lived, generic crappy artists which are cheap to produce and expendable; basically reducing the risk of co-dependency to the music stars, since the newly "manufactured stars" is more short-lived and much less bright.


I should have known.

[Neko_Oni]

The Streets is one of the more interesting 'bands' I've heard recently, though I'll freely admit my knowledge of music isn't all that broad. Can't wait till BDO '05.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Basement Jaxx

I love the Basement Jaxx. And Donna the Buffalo. And... well I like alot of classic rock and I'm sure a few other modern artists.

If you're not allergic to R&B-style music, you may wanna't try Brand New Heavies. They're way much diferent than "what-so-called-R&B" these days!

[SPOOFE]

If you go by what they play on the radio and MTV or MuchMusic, then the crappy artists are definitely getting a bigger share these days.

Except the best music never hit the mainstream airwaves. The Beatles were almost banned from America during the peak of their career. Jazz was called "the Devil's music", and Rock 'n Roll was slandered and trashed for much of its early existence.

Again, you're missing the point: The situation with music is much the same now as it's ever been.

[2000AD]

Today's music is just like every other eras music.

Some good music surrounded by a load of crap.

But how about the percentage of the good music against crappy ones? Do the crappy ones are actually getting bigger share and become more acceptable these days, or am I just wrong?

I think it's the same percentage, but the main difference is that there's a lot more different types of music around now.
AFAIK the really big styles in the 60's were pop, rock and country (maybe). Now there's R&B, Dance, Rap, all the new variations of rock, etc. etc. on that list as well.

Each genre has it's own crap and gold, but if someone doesn't like that style they'll just lump everything in with the crap.

Newer styles such as R&B and Dance don't appeal as much to older people in my experience, and they seem to be doing most of the moaning about todays music, and since these newer genres are getting an increasing amount of air play it's only logical that the amount of "new music is crap" moaning will go up.

[Rye]

Metal seems to be doing alright as a musical genre that's not perpetually getting worse. Last year Scars of the Crucifix (imo, Deicide's best album) and Archetype (Fear Factory's return to greatness) came out and they kick all manner of ass. The most recent Chimaira album was great too, as was Damageplan while that lasted. Death Cult Armageddon by Dimmu was fine also, Nymphetamine by CoF was so-so, but they've been in a bit of a downward spiral since Midian. Hatebreed's latest album was imo, their best too.

EDIT: I forgot to add, there is a downward aspect to metal of course, personally, the whole evanescence thing doesn't really go for me. I prefer some of the Project Hate MCMCIX or Lacuna Coil, as these bands have more variation in the way they play. There's been a new wave of american metal lately, with vocals that bug me, Lamb of God, Atreyu, Avenged Sevenfold, Shadows Fall and to a lesser extent KSE of late are the kinds of ban I'm thinking of. I'm not sure why everyone thinks they're so great, KSE are the best out of that list, imo, and they seem to be just thinly lifting Fear Factory and Pantera style stuff with some occasionally ok vocals.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Newer styles such as R&B and Dance don't appeal as much to older people in my experience, and they seem to be doing most of the moaning about todays music, and since these newer genres are getting an increasing amount of air play it's only logical that the amount of "new music is crap" moaning will go up.

Probably it's kinda ironic that I usually found more innovation in dance/electronic music (hardcore ones, not mainstream, commercialized 'house' like DJ Sammy's Heaven). Do you still remember Prodigy's Breathe some years ago? It offers something fresh amidst the 'normal' house rythm during that time. If I'm not mistaken, dance/electronic genre has the most birth rate of sub-genre branches compared to other genres.

Just for note, I prefer electronic music instead of mainstream Top 40s. I'd rather be listening to DJ Tiesto or Kosheen instead of Britney Spears.

[Medic]

Video game remixes, techno heavy though not exclusive

OverClocked ReMix is a website dedicated to reviving the video and computer game music of yesterday, and reinterpreting that of today, with new technology & capabilities. This site's mission is to prove that this music is not disposable or merely just background, but is as intricate, innovative, and lasting as any other form.

And Juno Reactor. Well if you're in to techno and all... then music certainly isn't dead. And yeah, it has to be hardcore not mainstream commercialized. If it's good then you didn't hear it on the radio 9 times out of 10.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Video game remixes, techno heavy though not exclusive

OverClocked ReMix is a website dedicated to reviving the video and computer game music of yesterday, and reinterpreting that of today, with new technology & capabilities. This site's mission is to prove that this music is not disposable or merely just background, but is as intricate, innovative, and lasting as any other form.

I remember it now! I've got Ultima 6's Stones, remixed in techno. Thanks for reminding.

And Juno Reactor. Well if you're in to techno and all... then music certainly isn't dead. And yeah, it has to be hardcore not mainstream commercialized. If it's good then you didn't hear it on the radio 9 times out of 10.

There's already so-many sub-genres now from the simple, 4/4 house to "breakbeat-style" like Kosheen to "jazzy" ones like Basement Jaxx. So, Juno Reactor, if you haven't been following the genre for quite a long time, you may be amazed (or maybe a little bit confused) of how do they define "techno" today.

Anyway, I believe the more correct designation would be "electronic music", as techno has been strongly associated with 4/4 "house" rythm, where Kosheen, or that older one Prodigy, wouldn't fall into 4/4 beats category.

IMHO, the only difference between vintage "techno" (2 Unlimited, Capella, etc) and modern-day "house" (DJ Tiesto, Safri Duo) is merely the speed and the existence of main melody, since they both basically has the same 4/4 pattern

[sketerpot]

I think it's worth pointing out the abbreviated version of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

[RogueIce]

I discount that gangsta rap contains anything of value justifying its existence.

WHAT? OKAY

Does Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise count? I thought that was pretty good, and I liked the story element to it.

Eminem as noted before is pretty good when he's not just going whacko. Say what you will about his Kim/mother/whoever bashing, but the songs themselves are pretty good (especially when you compare them to his "bitches 'n' hoes" stuff).

[Medic]

Anyway, I believe the more correct designation would be "electronic music", as techno has been strongly associated with 4/4 "house" rythm, where Kosheen, or that older one Prodigy, wouldn't fall into 4/4 beats category.

Duly noted. I use techno in a very general sense for a reason -- the multitude of sub-genres you mention mainly.

I think it's worth pointing out the abbreviated version of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

The amazing thing is that is just the first thing that came to mind. I wasn't thinking about Sturgeon's Law at all. More proof of shit masquerading as music nowadays, eh?

[SPOOFE]

I think it's worth pointing out the abbreviated version of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

SPOOFE's Corollary: Everybody forgets about that 90% after twenty years.

Eminem as noted before is pretty good when he's not just going whacko. Say what you will about his Kim/mother/whoever bashing, but the songs themselves are pretty good

In my opinion, those songs themselves are pretty lackluster. It's his performance of them, this character he plays, that is so interesting.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

I discount that gangsta rap contains anything of value justifying its existence.

WHAT? OKAY

Does Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise count? I thought that was pretty good, and I liked the story element to it.

I'm not quite a lyric analyzer myself, but IMHO it was pretty innovative (composition-wise), utilizing the heavy use of orchestral strings, slow pace, and new "pattern" of rap.

IMHO in rap/hip-hop/R&B there are still some creativity compared to "mainstream" Top 40. Remember Get Your Freak On and For My People by Missy Elliot? Although the GYFO rhytmic pattern was shamelessly cloned by Eve for her song Cowbow (Blade 2 soundtrack).

In rock genre, I'd like to raise my hat for Red Hot Chilly Peppers. Long before the likes of Limp Bizkit, they have adopted "rapping in rock music" style in Give it Away. IMHO RHCP is the true inventor of "Hip Metal" genre (alright, feel free to call me some old geezer now).

As for the boys band, the only "innovation" they got was when N'Sync (shamelessly?) repackaged Queen's We Will Rock You, probably in desperate attempt to give some "hard edge" impression to the usual sissy, generic boys band tunes.

[SeebianWurm]

Basically, you can have this exact same conversation at any point in time - the only variable is the name of the bands. I see a lot of the "Never Was" syndrome in people complaining about music. It just never was amazingly awesome all around; we get selective vision when recalling the bands of old.

But that's not the reason my lurker ass posted. The >>Starlight Mints<< are that reason. There's two songs available on that link (although they're pretty far down and you have to be signed in to get them, but it's free, and it's Amazon, so you'll probably want an account sooner or later). And if you don't want to sign up, go >>here<< for three songs from their second album (in flash). Although the second album stuff is softer and not quite as inspired, I think, it's still a good listen and refreshingly different.

I just had to plug their bitch asses, so people can ruin my illusions and tell me they suck.