Why does most new music suck?

For those seeking interesting new pop music, I'd suggest searching those threads in this forum that include the recommendations of A'gon user Richard Stacy. They come in 2 flavors; electronica and singer-songwriter. The former is, alas, lost on me but might work for those more in touch with that genre. The latter recommendations have been amazingly reliable. Good examples include Amelia Curran and Hiss Golden Messenger. The CD Poor Moon by HGM is, IMHO a stunner of its type.

Marty

PS There's lots of good pop music still being made by veterans (like Rebirth, mentioned above), but I assume the request here is for new music by new artists

Ok, I am going to try to, as Mapman (?) said earlier, "blow the whistle".

I think this thread has a lot of potential, has inspired some very thoughtful commnents, and is just starting to get good. As is usually the case with these discussions we don't stay "on point". We don't stay focused on the OP's question and go off on tangents that don't address the ORIGINAL question.

The OP made it very clear that his question refers to "rock and pop" music, and goes on to mention ROCK AND POP artists that he "grew up with"; that strongly suggests radio play. He then asks a perfectly legitimate question: "Why does most new music suck"; IOW, why does most new ROCK AND POP suck? Not, fusion, not jazz, not rap, not classical; ROCK AND POP.

Chazro, your advise to visit music sites is an excellent one, but your overall post perfectly illustrates my point. First of all, implied in that advise is the notion that posters on this site don't add value to a discussion such as this. You then decry the "insult" of dissenting opinions, but proceed to refer to the OP as "having limited musical acceptance level", that his original question is "ignorant", "silly", "bordering on stupid", and that he is "close-minded". Then you go on to completely agree with his original premise: "New POP music absolutely sux!" Huh!?!?

First of all, the cries for "civility" are plain silly. I have seen nothing written so far that is not civil, and it seems that the complaints about lack of it or "insults" come from those not being directly addressed in those "insulting" comments. I think we are all big boys and girls and can handily deal with comments such as "sucking lemons". Is it not a good thing that discussion of music inspires some passion? Are we that thin-skinned? I hope not.

IMO, the point that (once again) gets lost on some is that good music is good music; regardless of genre. There is good in any genre. Personally, I have no idea wether Goose likes jazz, classical or rap; frankly, as concerns his OP, it doesn't matter! He is asking about Rock and Pop, and decries what he perceives to be a decline in the quality of Rock and Pop; a perfectly reasonable observation. The reasons for the decline (remember: "Why does new music suck?") are very interesting and could be the subject of great discussion and debate. I think this discussion has scratched the surface of the answer, and musical examples of new and old are a great way of learning about good new Pop music, and for refreshing our memories of how good much of the old Pop music was. Not because of wanting to live in the past, nor because some of us are old (56), not because we are close-minded; simply because more of it was good.

What makes good music good? What makes good musicianship or artistry? It has nothing to do with genre. I think that, unfortunately, some of us are quick to pass judgment on the quality of certain artists simply because their music is not in a preferred genre; or, at the very least, let our genre preferences color our feelings about the quality of the music. Conversely, music that is in a preferred genre gets less scrutiny and more of a pass.

No one is suggesting that we should all like every genre of music; but, what I think is undeniable, is that anyone who considers him/her self a "music lover" should be able to appreciate great musicianship, great singing (really the same thing), great compositional skill, regardless of genre. Example (and obviously, I am showing my bias here): the Roberta Flack recording that I posted. One may not like the genre, but how is it possible to not appreciate the great singing, the nuance, beauty of expression, and outpouring of emotion in that performance even if the song may be considered "sappy" by those with "edgier" sensibilities? I cannot think of a pop vocal performance that has gotten consistent radio play over the last ten years that I would put on the same level as concerns the above criteria. I admit that I don't follow pop music closely, or at all, so that is where Rok's challenge comes in: I want to be proven wrong!

I think that the point that the OP is making is that performances of that quality were much more a part of the pop-music landscape than what we have today. Not that there is NO new good pop/rock, simply that the overall quality has declined a great deal. For me, that is undeniable. It may not be for others, and I would love to hear examples that might convince me otherwise. But, "I like this" does not a discussion make; tell us why.

Remember this? This was a HIT on the Pop music playlists in the '70's!!!??? I find that to be incredible when put in the context of what gets played today. One may not like the genre (actually, I don't, particularly) but if the compositional, instrumental and vocal skill cannot be appreciated, then something is wrong. What gets played on the radio today that is anywhere nearly as adventurous while still using traditionally accepted musical criteria?

Doesn't suck! :

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M

"Why does most new music suck"; IOW, why does most new ROCK AND POP suck?"

Regarding "rock", that genre, in its purest form has past its prime and is clearly on the decline in terms of popularity.

Pop is where it becomes more interesting in that pop is a more open book. WHat is popular changes over time. Plus the trend is towards more globalization of pop culture along with all the rest of modern civilization. That is where things get interesting.....more diversity from more cultures around the world get thrown in the pot.

This is why an open mind is important. Music has always evolved and always will. Rock was an evolution of "rock and roll", in its original form mostly about electric guitars and percussion, but much evolved in many directions since. So rock at its core is still mostly about guitars and percussion. There is plenty of that still being created, but its a limited form in its purest sense, so fresh new material that matches the "classics" becomes harder to find.

It'll always be a tough job comparing current music to classics.

Classics are classics for a reason...they've stood the test of time and achieved widespread "pop"ularity.

NEw "pop"ular tunes will either retain and grow in popularity over time or be mostly forgotten.

A lot of good music of all genres will NEVER be or become polular on a large scale, but this area is typically where the riches lie.

But of course, mining for gold is never an easy task, it takes patience and perseverance, and dare I say an open mind towards trying the next thing that presents itself that has some promise.

Goose,

If you look at the Radio Paradise listener ratings, I think you'd find a correlation between older tunes (ie those regarded by the programmers as "classic" to some extent) and the highest scores in that they have withstood the test of time. Most older tunes that retain airtime score very high, but newer tunes do also but to a lesser extent. As time mvoes on, I think one would find this trend continues, and the more recent tunes that retain airtime will continue to rise in overall rating. New or newer tunes will still garner more of a mixed reaction, but tunes that persist on the playlist will probably improve their scores as well over time, not decrease. We'll see...

The Frogman:

Great post. That Mr Charzo is a ray of sunshine, ain't he? You took the words out of my mouth concerning the lack of logic in Mr Charzo's post. I think in his enthusiastic rush to attack me, he became confused. It seems as if he thought I was the OP.

Even though it seems as if he is in agreement with the OP. I guess he agrees with the OP, if he ain't me.

When I came on this site a few years ago , and after making a few comments, I was warned/advised, that it was not what I said, that got people upset, but how I said it. That if I wanted to 'get along' on this site I had to change my 'tone'.

I didn't understand at that time, but have since come to understand the tenor of this place. That's why I seldom venture out into the General population.

Some of these people just cannot stand the pressures of living in a democracy. Everyone claims to be 'open minded', but actually it's a very closed minded place.

Marching to a different drummer is not authorized.

Cheers.