Why does most new music suck?

I did check out Radio Paradise for some different music and sampled the playlist via Amazon. I didn't really find an artist that could hold together an entire CD except for Ben Howard who I thought was exceptional....so still searching.

I meant no offense and apologize if I cam e across too judgmentally. It's just that I always shudder when someone makes a sweeping generalization about an art form - like opining that most new music sucks. I;m quite sure that many of those in their 40's and 50's said much the same thing when The Who and Zep and such came about in the mid- to late-60's. Much of mew music is simply different in scope and presentation from the standard rock paradigm.

Also, most ADULTS don't know what good sound is. Seriously. For most of the adult world, Bose or Cerwin-Vega! or Bang and Olufsen represent the ultimate in sound, and as long as they have their surround system with earth-shattering bass, they're happy. We audiophiles are a niche minority.

Case in point, a recent review of M83's "Hurry Up, We're Dreaming" cd (whence comes "Midnight City"), while lauding its sonic mastery and composition, lamented that much of its 20-something audience wouldn;t have the equipment needed to really appreciate its audiophile production and attention to detail - nor would they care.

Besides, who ever accused "young folks" of being appreciative of sonic nuances and three-dimensional sound-stages? :)

I get the feeling "most of the music" from any particular time won't stand the test of time. We tend to forget much of the flat out crap or stuff that has not aged well from- name your decade. We have much more choices now- internet radio, spottily and so on dilute the new good stuff. Fleet Foxes, Kate Bush, Radiohead, Devotchka, Janelle Monae get as much of my listening time as Buffalo Springfield, the Doors, R.E.M. Further, there's so much music from earlier decades that I'd never even heard of- The McGarrigles (thanks Elizabeth), the Shins, Stone Roses. And I'm not going to even start on classical- all of Furtwangler's recorded output in one box! Thus, I side with those who feel this is a great time to be a music lover.

There is no good new music. Go ahead, take a deep breath and begin with the word 'there'. Just do it. Now that wasn't so hard was it? Because if it is good, it's a remake. Why is it so hard to face the fact that music can be reduced to a mathematical equation. There simply is not an infinite number of original pleasing harmonies available. This is why the new stuff sucks. No different from the old stuff that sucks. Do the math. And top 40's is a ridiculous comparison. It's time to usher in the brave new world of 'Plagiary'.

Bob Mintzer is one of the greatest musicians I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. His level of proficiency on his instruments, composing/arranging skills, and insight into the core of music, and art in general, is truly amazing. Those who don't know him or his work can read more about him in on his website. The comments below re the OP's question are from the "Blog" page in his website:

***********************************************************************************

Grammys 2013

February 12, 2013 – 6:14 pm
When I was doing session work in NYC I worked a few times for an arranger who played in the big bands of Glenn Miller and Tommy Dorsey. Most of the guys on the session were 15-20 years older than I. I had some quasi-soloing to do on one of the cues for a soap opera session with these musicians. The arranger commented privately to one of my friends later that he was perturbed that I did not play more like Al Klink from the Glen Miller band. The guys from my generation were emulating Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, and Joe Henderson. This arranger clearly heard things differently than I did. Needless to say, I was not called back to work for that arranger again after that. I did go out and did some research on the saxophonists of that era subsequently.

I am finding myself in a similar situation today after having attended the Grammy celebration last night. Only this time I am on the other end of the spectrum.

I feel like we were witnessing the further dumbing down of music, the lack of acknowledgement of so much of the profound music that has influenced what we do today, and disguising the lackluster level of musicianship we heard in a mass of glitz, special effects, special sets, and camera work.

First the good news. The Grammy bands, comprised of high school students from around the US were by far the best musicians to perform all day. They played with an amazing level of maturity, poise, and spirit that bodes well for the future of refined, informed playing. Justin Dicioccio and Ron McCurdy did fantastic jobs directing the big band and vocal ensemble. Bravo to them and all the students!

The live band at the pre telecast was great as well. My bandmate Will Kennedy from the Yellowjackets was on board. I couldn’t see him, as we were pretty far away, but I heard one snare drum crack and knew it was him.

On to the telecast which, I’m told, had the highest ratings of any Grammy telecast for the last 20 years. To me (music is VERY subjective and personal, so this is an important caveat) nobody in the whole telecast sang or played their ass off. There were a few nice tunes, but the live versions were far less compelling than the hyper-produced versions you heard during the announcements of the nominees. TO ME most of the music lacked subtlety, interesting harmony or melody, or rhythms for that matter.

There was no James Brown, Ray Charles, Tony Bennett, James Taylor, John Mayer, Stevie Wonder, or Aretha Franklin anywhere in sight!

One of music’s iconic treasures, Dr. John was buried in a large band with the Black Keys and a New Orleans brass band that wound up sounding like a high school garage band jam session. I did not hear Dr. John play one note! It’s unfathomable to me that musicians would play with such a great musician and blatantly play right over him.

A tribute to Dave Brubeck, an American musical hero, lasted 30 seconds (Chick Corea, Kenny Garrett, Stanley Clark), and was such an amazing slight to this great artist’s legacy and to jazz music in general. This made things embarrassingly clear that the Grammys have become all about television ratings and very little about the music.

The so called collaborations (aren’t you supposed to collaborate on a collaboration?) were very mis-matched, and again the performances were pretty bad.

Out of tune singing and mediocre playing of instruments do not a collaboration make!

The songs were forgettable.

Lots of other little things were disconcerting as well. At the pre telecast an 8 piece faux chamber music group performed a Phillip Glass in odd meter like piece that was not terribly interesting, then went on to win a Grammy. Hard to understand. Jazz musicians do far more interesting things with odd meter coupled with improvisation.

A Gil Evans arrangement from 1949 won best arrangement of a composition over several of the most prominent arrangers of this era. One would think that some note worthy things nave happened since 1949.

Music and art generally reflect some level of what is happening in society.

This year’s Grammys is a pretty good snap shot of the world we live in. Recognition and prosperity for a select few and the dissemination of information that doesn’t necessarily reflect the truth, frequently obscuring view of those who do the best and most profound work.

All we can do is continue to speak out on these issues and keep the flame alive for quality playing, live playing, the craft of musical composition, and informed musical decisions in creating our art.

I think I’ll go listen to some Al Klink!

*******************