Why Music Has Lost it’s Charms (Article)

I couldn't agree more. I've always loved CCR, Chicago, B,S&T etc.

Now it's time to accept those days are well and truly behind us. To be honest they are dead and gone; never to return. In part you can blame the proliferation of the so called Talent shows; Talent-less might be more appropriate.

There's still excellent music being recorded, but not what might be classified as popular.
 

Commerical music now and then ... Has always been commercial (sellable) because it was what people wanted to listen to of what was available.

For sure you can repeat fact that are not even wrong... And call that the truth...

Or you can try to understand what i spoke about....

When Josquin Des Prez was dead, all Europe was sad....Not because they lost a commercial artist.... Guess why they were sad?

When Scriabin died in Russia it was the same lost all across Russia...

it was the lost of a popular artist idolized for his non economical value...

But you can call the deal with the devil also a "commercial" affair because the soul is sellable...A popular deal in some circle dont make it a commercial affair though ...

Anyway the devil dont consumate souls , he is very picky... Very educated ...He choose...

By definition,commercial culture is the death of culture... Consumerism created by Freud nephew is destruction of human soul and spirit...It was anticipated by Bernard Mandeville, before Marx and Freud , "the master of us all" said the austrian economist Hayek ...

Unlike the WEF said, conditioning of mind by consumerism is not education...

Commercial music is not first and last thought about to be a musical fact and to be produced like one ....It is something created to be sell...It is not created to be "art"....

It is the reason why i distinguish popular music and commercial music...It is not a clear cut absolute distinction for sure but this dont invalidate my point... Bob Dylan is a popular true artist.... Not primarily a commercial product...

@tylermunns  Couldn't agree more! I've given up on major film releases. The best movies are now on various streaming services in the form of the mini series, you get some damn character development. I much prefer the classic movies/film on TCM, I guess people don't care about story lines anymore, action and escape from reality is what they seek. I don't care about the tenth remake of some lame movie which seems to be profit model for theatrical releases these days.

Contemporary music nothing like this, major studios don't control the music business like they did back in the bad old days. There is so much obscure never heard of artists out there via streaming services, how one couldn't find some wonderful music is beyond me

Forrest for the trees.

Commerical music now and then ... Has always been commercial (sellable) because it was what people wanted to listen to of what was available.

They made music because they were paid to whether by church or as often nobility. For money, the definition of commercial. No one else could afford such frivolities to commission work. However, it was also consumed by the masses .. so popular and commercial though of what competition I can’t speak.

You are beside the main point...

There ALWAYS existed commercial aspect to any activities in all centuries..It is a common place fact...

But my point was that commercial music consumerism is a late affair... It is born AFTER playback system of Charles Cros and Edison...

Popular music of the past is not commercial music in the modern sense of the word...

Popular dont equal commercial in music culture....

In the past music was an education toward spirit and religious matter or toward beauty and superior values... This word "beauty" is cancelled today....

This dont exist no more in commercial music...

Nowadays Bob Dylan is a popular poet for example not a commercial object first and last...

If you say to Dylan that he is  merely a commercial product , he will be insulted...

If you say that to some commercial artists they will be glad and will try to improve their packaging and they will ask you how to do it better....

Then saying that Vivaldi one hundred operas were "commercial" music is not true...

Popular yes... Commercial not....We cannot read the past projecting onto it retrospectively our own categories sorry...Historians wrote entire  books about this error only....

They made music because they were paid to whether by church or as often nobility. For money, the definition of commercial. No one else could afford such frivolities to commission work. However, it was also consumed by the masses .. so popular and commercial though of what competition I can't speak. 

I feel the current model potentially can yield a further “democratization” of music commerce.  I’m not sad to see the old model (get signed by a major label, hopefully become famous) die.  The improvement to the current model would be to more fairly compensate the artists that are on streaming platforms.

The doom-and-gloom take is more applicable to film, in my opinion.  It’s easier for artists to get their music “out there” these days.  Artists in film seem to be toast.  No one wants to fund interesting films.  There’s no corollary to modern music distribution in modern film that I can see.  Unless you are lucky to live somewhere where you can hound art house theaters or have access to modern independent films, you’re stuck with the contemporary drivel that passes for cinema.

Operas and classical was the commercial music of it’s time.

Not true...

Projecting our actual economical categories on the past is not very useful...

First Vivaldi, Haendel and Bach were paid by some Religious or Noble elites not by a general popular market in the modern sense at all...

Second put the word "popular" instead of "commercial" word if you want to be truthful ... Why?

Because the tradition was not about economical consumerism but about learning cultural and spiritual activities, religious or secular, but NEVER based on pure mercantilism but on transmission of cultural values mainly....

Third, music was mainly a spiritual event paid by church for centuries...And with no recording, playing musicians were mostly artists or learning families playings, nothing commercial ...

But you can abuse the word and concept and claim that standing in a hall after buying a ticket to listen Liszt was a "commercial" event...But it will be completely beside the point of whatmusic was meaning at this modern time period...

Commercial music is an invention of this last industrial century mainly....

Then Operas and classical was the popular music of it’s time...Not the "commercial" affair it is today....

And a commercial publicity for an opera in Italy in the 19 century, has not much to do with consumerism marketing strategies of today....Puccini was popular yes, but not a consumers objetc, he was idolized because he was a true artist....This is not commerce, even if there is commercial aspect, the singers must be paid etc, this is culture event first and last ....

Modern pop industry can even create temporary idols who dont have almost no talent at all , one after the others...I will not name one...But they all know how to walk and dance for sure... They are sold with visuals...

Operas and classical was the commercial music of it's time.

I never listened to popular music even young...

I listened mainly choral music spanning centuries in European tradition, and Bach andother composers.....

And there is indeed good popular music for sure i listened too .... I like Bob Dylan or Leonard Vohen or Leo Ferré for example till today ...I listen Elena Frolova nowadays for example....Pure poetry...

But commercial music had never any appeal for me.... I never own one single commercial album i can listen to 2 times...( i forgot the one i ever bought, it was the third purchase and i was 13 years old, it was so bad i never bought any other commercial album for all my life ) I bought one Rolling Stone album....I listen to it 2 or 3 times and i discard it... 😁😊

Then commercial music of today for me is pure noise it is worst than Rolling Stone for example....I know i look like a "snub"...I am not, music for me is and has been always a spiritual or poetical event... If not, it is animal disturbing noise for me sorry...

I listen nowadays great actual musicians in jazz and classical, in India or Persia... And some others...

Then music has not lost his charms for me at all...

Commercial music had lost it for me long ago....

Who who read a bad novel Harlequin instead of Charles Dickens or Mark Twain?

And try Dostoievsky and call it a day.... 😁😊

Nevermind tastes, crocodiles had theirs too , music is an education first not a taste....

We take education to learn and develop  "new" tastes.... If not like crocodile we will stay with rotten corpses, they are meattier...  😁😊

For those who believe contemporary music and artists suck, give us a list of the all the artists who suck.

Personally, I couldn't care less if some muso is a virtuoso or not - all I care about is they play well enough to serve the song. If they can't write good songs, they're worthless to me. If I never hear another drum solo/bass solo again, I'll be very happy. And electronic instrumentation is every bit as valid as "real" instruments. 

And more lust and more dope, PLEASE!!!

I'm not sure exactly when that article was written and I'm not so sure it even matters. Not only does today's music suck, but today sucks. And yes, I've finally morphed into my father.

Music of romance died for "music"  of lust and dope which has done much evil to our society  , been there KNOW  that !

Not LUST!  No.......  Cats and Dogs living together!

This concludes your anti puritanical laugh fest. We now return to your regular ranting.

P.s. ... We live longer, we have less violent crime, we steal less,  we have less war, and we are more altruistic as a society than those "romance" times.

There are a few big problems with a lot of what currently passes for popular music.

1. Too many "musicians" prefer to copy, rather than create. The plagiarism laws that surrounded George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" have disappeared to the point that every "hook" or bass line is fair game.

2. Musicianship is almost nonexistent. When was the last time you heard a song with a great bass line or a killer guitar solo? One can argue its value, but remember when they used to do actual polls about who was the best guitarist or drummer? Whether it was Rolling Stone or Playboy. Today we would be polling to see with company makes the best drum machine.

3. Literacy has deteriorated to a point that many people do not possess a vocabulary that contains enough words to create engaging lyrics. "Like I met this girl and like I think she's hot and like I want to bounce her booty." 

4. Basic song structure consists of an intro, verse, pre-chorus, chorus and bridge. Song structure has now been supplanted by repetitive crap. Songs used to be like musical movies. Like poetry set to music. The Beatles "A Day in a Life". Gordon Lightfoot's "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". Bob Dylan's "A Simple Twist of Fate". Al Stewart's "Road to Moscow". Songs should take you on an emotional or intellectual journey. 

5. Finally. Music has become all about how you look and act, instead of the quality of the music you make. I am old enough to remember a time when you could go weeks before you saw a picture of the band who's song you loved. Would Taylor Swift, Beyonce or Katy Perry be recording stars if they looked like Janis Joplin or Geddy Lee?  

You can go back and revisit music from any year since 1950 via Tick Tock Internet Radio stations. Very cool!

https://ticktock.radio

Some say that it's the music you hear in your teens that has the most lasting effect.

Iny case I was into the Beatles whilst everyone else was into disco and ELO.

Even if new music as an art form is reaching the end of new combinations/permutations of notes and chords, there's the still the bewildering back catalogue of stuff that has never been so readily available.

Just then you think you've heard it all, you'll hear something new for the first time. I only recently found this gem on a Peter Sellers LP of all things. I now hear it's all over social media.

It’s all Elvis’ fault for making the post WWII crew aware that in many cases they in fact had the blues. Actually maybe it was the Colonel’s fault for helping Elvis hit it big? Or maybe it was just inevitable and The Beatles just happened to be the catalyst to free music from its former bonds? The rest is history.

An angry old, likely white, guy kvetching about the music of today, how unenlighting. He lost me at "stupid liberal suburban parents".

There is plenty of good new music out there, but I listen to my old favorites 90% of the time.

Meh? Music is so varied and diverse that if you’re glued into a specific genre it might be hard to find “new” bands that are becoming modern standards. But there is no shortage of great music being produced.
 

I discover a lot of music through NPR Tiny Desk, So Far sessions and KEXP. 
There is a bit of something for everyone there. That said this is my main issue with “audiophiles”. I love listening to stuff that makes me feel something. Something that is fun. With all due respect to the fantastic Miss Krall, it would bother me a bit if I never heard her stuff on a reference system ever again. 

Although this isn’t 96khz/24bit skookum-ness, I’d rather listen to these ladies on a reference system because it makes me feel something. There is plenty out there……

At  17  years i knew that rock was garbage and killing the Big Band that was at the height of American Music .

Music of romance died for "music"  of lust and dope which has done much evil 

to our society  , been there KNOW  that !

Shazam,  streaming is the key, so much good music made in recent decades, just not in commercial releases. I'm sure at least 25% of listening 2010-now releases.

Well the good news is with streaming now especially there is way more good music already out there and accessible to anyone who cares already than I will ever be able to listen to. It would take me 98 days and 19 hours to just listen to all 30 some thousand tracks in my digital library once. Then there is the 100s of albums on the shelf. Then there is qbuz Spotify, internet radio and such. I better get busy! Then, I might have time left to watch a movie or two.

As Bob Seger would say, the music today just doesn't have the same old soul. 

Bob Seger did say it, and he said it about 70's music, as that's when he put that out. Was he talking about his own 'today's music', too, or did he just mean everybody else's?

I disagreed 100% with that sentiment then, and I still do today. Just goes to show that people have been complaining about 'today's music' for a lot of decades now. 

There is plenty of great new music being created constantly; just takes a little longer to find what you like. I agree that the business is totally different from what it was - I used to work in the retail and wholesale end of the biz from '74 - '84 - it was a lot more fun then, and the execs could often be as loony as the artists. 

Another old guy complaining that "todays music isn't as good as the music I grew up with".  Every generation says the same thing.  I think we all have a time in our lives, 18 - 30 (?) that becomes the music we love.  Because the boomer generation is so large, and wealthy, it stands to reason our music will rule the airwaves for some time to come.  At 67, I still try to listen to newer artist but must confess I find it very difficult to engage.  I turn on the local University station and find myslef wondering why anyone would listen to that crap.  Oh no, I've become my father.  

I tend to agree with article as it pertains to 'commercial' music, however, I assume much prejudice from certain cohorts. The music of our youth and adolescence is often perceived as best since it elicits fond memories of those discovery years. So, at least some of these judgments are clouded by bias.

In favor of yesterday's commercial music being superior to today's is the idea that the cohesiveness of society was much stronger then. In general terms, individual lives were far more similar in past years, Virtually everyone experienced the same culture since we were all informed by similar limited media.

I suppose much greater individual variability is a natural evolving phenomenon, but certainly the IT revolution accelerated that variability. Based on my observations, individual alienation,increased number of out groups, and generally smaller numbers of cohorts within highly variable groups is symptom of increased societal fragmentation. In fragmented societies, entire lives can be lived devoid of contact or empathy for other individual lives and groups.  Not difficult to understand some can't  appreciate music coming from those individuals and groups!

Today's music reflects that fragmentation, I have absolutely no sense of familiarity with many forms of music. I've not paid any attention to 'commercial' music for decades, I have no idea of any songs from Top 40, So, for me, today's  'commercial' music is rather alien, I haven't a clue as to the culture it represents. I can relate to 'commercial' music made from anytime in past and into the 80's, as it came from times when society was far more cohesive, and I have either lived in those times or can at least understand the group think of the eras I wasn't alive in.

As for more recent decade's music, I've continued to listen to music I can relate to. Its just not the 'commercial' music, I've discovered a great variety of genres that represent much smaller cohort groups. Popular and/or mass culture holds nothing for me, tons of out groups is where I find the culture I can relate to. May seem rather strange, but I can even relate to 'world' music far more than mass market American music.

I find the rather myopic perspective quite comical:  the author acts as if music quality has only been dropping for the past generation due to some of his opinions of what good music is. . . why start in the 1960's; couldn't you say the same about music since the 1600's?  A longer perspective could rather argue that musical quality has been dropping for 300 years, and we have only been alive to see the past 50 years of deterioration. 

 Great piece. Agree with all he said. Thanks for posting.

There is a way in which everything has sped up -- due to pressure for profit and the increasingly metrical way in which life is now timed to fit with an intricate webs of devices. There is an attention economy in place that was not there before. Things are different. Read this book to really understand why.

Everything feels rushed, including music, movies, meals, etc.

Thoreau complained about this and saw it as the zeitgeist (alas). Thoreau was right.

I do not think the corporate aspect of music is that much different today. I just think that music is no longer a driving engine in culture. Which means less really talented people trying to make a career in music.