Why does most new music suck?

****The dilemma artists are faced with today is finding good original melody. There's simply none left****

Ah, not so; at all. The well is bottomless. The problem is not the potential of music; a great melody is not "found". The problem is the "artists".

Oh but it is! This is where we differ. Do you think that the great melodies of the past would not exist had those who wrote them not done so? They simply beat everyone else to the punch. There are no punches left to punch.

The Frogman:

***After a small discount, of course ;-)***

But of course.

After you brought Shaw to my attention, I have been doing some research. This guy seems to be thought of as being on the same level as Hubbard and Morgan.

Cheers

I don't think that music takes a back seat in the equation but look at it as a passenger in a conveyance. The passenger (music) can be conveyed in a Bentley (the gear) and arrive in wonderful shape whereas the same passenger in a donkey cart would suffer accordingly, arriving in poor shape (with shape being the appreciation aspect).

If I hear a song or piece of music I love on a rather crappy device, I'll like it but nowhere near as much as on a good system, which can literally transfix and transport me. I still like the music at a lower level of fidelity but I love it when at a higher level of fidelity. Music is never a secondary consideration for me and was never implied.

The quote:

For me, the gear makes it possible to get lost in music, and if it's great music, all the better

implies (quite frankly) that the music I love is all the better when it can emotionally move me and great equipment is what can do it.

Listening to something I love is appreciated differently depending on the setting. To say otherwise, that it would move me equally under all circumstances would be disingenuous. Can anyone here tell me with a straight face that at moments when, at home with your system, playing a piece of music takes you into a reverie, momentarily, has the same effect as listening to it while driving?

All the best,
Nonoise

Froggy, hate to debate the structure and use of a dictionary, but you actually posted seven =separate= definitions for the word "progress". Noun definition #1 is just as valid on a stand-alone basis as #2, #3 or #4. Same with use of either of the three verb definitions.

Whether music or any other subject, one can find plenty of situations in history where people now widely regarded as great were looked down on in their own time. I well remember what my dad thought of the now "classic rock" when I was in my teens.

Earlier in this thread I gave two examples: one where Bach was almost fired from his first job as a church organist and another where Benny Goodman fought for the respectability of swing music.

Many other examples exist: Tchaikovsky did not think Brahms constituted "progress" in music; in fact, he called Brahms a "giftless bastard", saying further that "It irritates me that this self-conscious mediocrity should be recognized as a genius."

So, regardless of which definition is used, the subject of what constitutes "improvement" is highly subjective. While I'll agree with those who say that a lot of modern pop music doesn't appeal to them, others disagree. It caught my attention a few weeks ago when I heard a music critic on National Public Radio explained how exciting some new rap artist (I immediately forgot the name) was. There are plenty of well regarded critics who will explain to those who wish to listen just how progressive and important rap music is.

I have a relatively simple formula that works for me. I'm always open to new music and artists. Then, I listen to the ones I like and ignore the ones I don't. I see no reason to waste time lecturing others as to what they should or should not like. Future music historians don't need my help to sort out the "progress" question.