Why does most new music suck?

most of our kids going to the public schools where the best they can hear is 'gamnasta' 'saying lego'.
a decreased budget would eliminate music teachers that can show them at least basic scales. our kids can't get any info on how music is made and so the show biz going towards there.
my generation of mid-40's probably the last existing in united states. harder and harder to find younger musicians. hopefully european countries have a different pattern and they really do since most of talented musicians don't tour US(problems with visas as never ever before). young girls are not impressed anymore by young boys skills to play guitar or any other music instrument. local us musicians still prefer europe or canada where they get larger success in live venues.
there's still flow of a great music from europe of current years. good jazz and rock.

Frogman: "Since when do music critics determine which music will be "important" in music history?"

Interesting, as nowhere in my comments did I say that current music critics determine what will be considered "important" in the future.

In fact, in answer to your question about the historic examples I mentioned, it should be quite clear that evaluations of an artist by his contemporaries often tells little about what those in the future will think of the art in question.

That was my main point in making my prior comments. The OP declared that "most new music sucks" and I simply pointed out that similar opinions have been pronounced in the past about people and music styles that are now held in high regard. As such, I don't spend much time worrying about the current state of music. I find plenty of current music that I greatly enjoy and have little problem ignoring the rest.

I think you missed my point.

This community is dominated by (though not completely composed of) conservative music lovers. A glance at the music threads over time will confirm that. The music of Jimmy Page is certainly far more beloved here than say, the music of his contemporary(ish) Phillip Glass. That speaks zero to their relative artistic merit as composers - particularly since Page stole as much material as he created (great guitarist, tho) and Glass continues to further the evolution of musical language (for better or worse). No surprise that I'd agree that rap would be unpopular in the vote you suggest - it ain't what people here want to hear.

OTOH, rap dominates music sales among young people. The inherent assumption in the audiophile vote you propose is that the musical taste here is "superior" to the masses. If you're talking about discriminating between two guitar heros of the '60's, I'd agree that the knowledge base here would be relevant. Once you extend the debate to more recent genres....

IOW, my observation is that it is (with several notable exceptions) popular music posters here are narrow, backward looking, and quite conservative in their musical taste and would likely reject rap in a heartbeat. It's also likely that the community is older, wealthier, whiter, etc. than the population in general. That might have something to do with the musical preferences here, ya think?

If I'm being honest, I'd include myself in that group. The difference is, I'm not dismissive of the entire genre.

Marty

My initial challenge was 'Audiophile wide", globally. Let's not cloud the issue here. If these guys are writing these tunes to satisfy themselves, fine. They're second to none. However, if they're competing with the past trying to pass it off to the general public as viable art, they're kidding themselves and anyone else as desperate to break out of current establishment, or just exploiting such for monetary gain. I would think that Rok2id's challenge extends to everyone here.

I made no attempt to cloud any issues in my previous post. If the wider audiophile community is meaningfully different demographically from the community here on A'gon, it would surprise me - not that I couldn't be surprised. I make no argument that most audiophiles (here or elsewhere) likely reject rap, just an argument that it's the wrong community to pass judgement on genres like rap or electronica.

As to Rok 2 id's challenge, it's the same problem, both musically and lyrically: context. You may find Public Enemy or Grandmaster Flash's lyrics offensive, but they strike me as serious in a way that most rock lyrics are not. That is, closer to The Clash's "Guns of Brixton" than Zep's "Lemon Song". I understand those who reject a call to violence (and I agree at one level), but I also think it's the duty of art to challenge and, at times, offend. The overt sexuality of (mainly black) rock n roll musicians was enormously offensive to the white community in the 1950's. Who do you take to task there, the musicians or the community? That said, I admit that I find some of the rap violence, mysogeny and homophobics unsettling. Again, I don't love this music.

Musically, the form resists the kind of evaluation you desire. This is primitivist art. We've seen that aesthetic rejected (predictably) in the earlier post about Andy Warhol, for instance. (Do you think Warhol's art is rejected by the academy?) Note: the acceptance of Warhol (or Basquiat or Haring or even Picasso's very simple nudes) by the academy isn't meant to suggest that they're great art. Merely that primitivst are shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's primitive. That's the point of it.

In particular, I'd argue that primitivist blues based music should never be rejected on its face. The blues is as simple as it gets - primarily formulaic 12 bar structures. From my perspective, that extends to rock music, as well. "Johnny B. Goode" is barely a song - it's a riff, a backbeat, and a lead guitar with a wild hair up its ass. Yet, for me, it's the greatest rock song ever written. (And, by the way, lots of critics polls put it near the top, as well, for whatever that's worth.) No harmony, meaningful lyrics, hooks, interesting chord progessions, etc. Just rock n roll. The Beatles, who were IMHO master pop craftsmen, never get close (again, only IMO) to capturing that anarchic essence of the form, despite some very elegant songwriting.

As to the percentage of rap artists (vs other pop/rock musicians) with commercial as opposed to artistic aspirations, I don't see much difference. I assume that the vast majority of pop musicians (rap, rock, or otherwise) probably combine some belief in their own artistic vision with a desire to be a star. OTOH, I really don't have any basis to evaluate the goals of the broader community of either group of musicians - I'm just not that familiar with 'em.