Why does most new music suck?

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.

I'd like to add something that may illuminate some of your feelings.

Recently when I hear cheesy disco music (not at all my genre) I often think to myself, "wow these are pretty darn good musicians, and they did it all without Protools, samples, or autotune."

My point is that even the most disposable of music from the 70's had a level of musicianship you seldom find in today's cut an paste world of production.

In fact much of today's pop music is mean to be disposable.

The corporatization of music and film has often led to chasing the lowest common denominator.

An anecdote from the the BBC documentary, "Yhe Monster that Ate Hollywood." may also shed some light on these similar industries.

Up until the 80's or so, the way a film got "greenlit" was a 3 or 4 executives in a room discussing whether or not they though the script under consideration would make a good film, based in their gut story instincts. Now, often the man consideration of whether a film gets made or not is a series of corporate decisions like whether or not there the project has a tie in to a fast food chain promotion, or a car company, and how it play to the global audience.

The golden age of cinema and music has passed us by. Thats not to say there isn't great work being produced by certain artists, thay may in fact eclipse works from the past, but it is minority rather than the norm.

Another factor is the influences of today's artists. The Stones, Dylan, etc were real students of authentic music like early blues which were steeped in a rich history and tradition.

Often today's artists will cite influences on the order of Van Halen or Nirvanna, or maybe Led Zep if your lucky,

Just my thoughts on the subject.

I think the brain remembers "Firsts" and kind of loses track of repetition. I record the late-night guest bands, and most are derivative of my own "Firsts," but that doesn't mean they're worse.

I agree that Radio Paradise does a stellar job of blending old and new, and the experience is that most of the blend is interesting and worthy. Also agree that WWOZ out of New Orleans is a great way to expand the ears to great music beyond what most of us grew up with.

"I don't know, and I don't care"! Forget you read that, it was a "Typographical" error. "What did Rhett Butler say to Scarlet Ohara in "Gone With The Wind"? These thoughts just keep coming, I can't stop them.

Every day, as this planet sails on it's course into the future, Universe Orpheus glides on it's musical journey into the past, and man I'm telling it gits groovier everyday. At the moment I'm digging Ray Charles "My Kind of Jazz".

Y'all be cool now.