I have had an interesting and eye-opening experience concerning "pop" music over the last several months; "pop", as defined by what gets a lot of radio play. The only radio that I listen to are the jazz and classical stations in the NYC area. I have been spending a fair amount of time doing landscaping and other outdoors work at a weekend property in upstate NY far from any major towns and I listen to local stations while I work. The choice of radio stations is very limited and my choices are either current pop or country/western; there is classic-rock station that is difficult to pull in most days. I have never liked country music (to put it mildly), but the surprise for me has been how much better contemporary country music is than the vast majority of current "pop" music. There is no comparison when it comes to how well songs are crafted or the level of musicianship and singing. Most of the pop that gets air play is pretty dreadful IMO, while I find myself actually enjoying much of what I hear from the country music stations. I almost can't believe I am saying that, but it's true.
Why does most new music suck?
Ok I will have some exclusions to my statement. I'm not talking about classical or jazz. My comment is mostly pointed to rock and pop releases. Don't even get me started on rap.... I don't consider it music. I will admit that I'm an old foggy but come on, where are some talented new groups? I grew up with the Beatles, Who, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix etc. I sample a lot of new music and the recordings are terrible. The engineers should be fired for producing over compressed shrill garbage. The talent seems to be lost or doesn't exist. I have turned to some folk/country or blues music. It really is a sad state of affairs....Oh my god, I'm turning into my parents.
- ...
- 545 posts total
Frogman, you're statement about modern "country" music is not surprising. The majority of today's country music sounds like soft rock from the 1980-90s. It's a long way from Hank Williams. Byroncunningham, thanks for alerting us to the threat to our civilization, although you're not the first with that observation. Let's face it, music designed to appeal to young people probably won't make much sense to adults. |
Gustav Mahler, at a concert which featured new music of Arnold Schoenberg, was asked his opinion of the piece. "The younger generation," he declared, "is always right." He went on to say he in fact did not like the piece himself, but that was not the point. I'm not sure what the particular piece was but I'm probably on Mahler's side on both counts. Nevertheless, each of us is free to choose what we want to listen to. If we say other music sucks we'd better be prepared for a challenge to that statement. Again, there's a lot of good and even more bad music produced at any moment in time. So listen to the good and try to avoid the bad. It probably means that if you listen to the radio at all you need to be prepared to spend a lot of time changing stations. I know I do. |
Bryon, et al, I agree with your statement that more production equals more dilution of talent. And I was impressed by your careful and methodical articulation of your point. I guess what got me, though, on the original post was the implication that compared to the giants of yore, the modern day artists are superficial, etc. Yes, many modern day musicians struggle (or not) to surpass bubble-gum cheese pop status. But the same can be said for just about any decade of music. Idk; I think when we start denying the modern for a celebration of the past - the whole "ubi sunt" (oh, where have they gone?" motif) is when we delude ourselves to how relevant our perspective really is. |
- 545 posts total