Why does most new music suck?

The simplest of melodies being the most pleasing allows one to what can be expressed with a minimum of expression. Nothing overtly ornate or colossal in scope, nothing pounded down your ears.

At a social gathering, It is the gifted ones who can make me relate with a gesture, a phrasing or a tell. The loud guy in the corner makes me look for another room, or to go outside. :-)

The same goes for music, at least with me. Beauty is in simplicity, but simplicity can be on grand scale when done right. Less chance of conflict, chaos and cacophony. Not all that is simple is pleasing, it's just that when done right, it can be beautiful. That's why I find solos, duets, trios, and small ensembles potentially great since it takes more talent to convey with less.

All the best,
Nonoise

Whoa. It's only hindsight that's 20/20, maybe? The suggestion that complex melodies were being bandied about versus the ones that actually took place is a little overly optimistic don't you think, in retrospect? Seriously.

Rja, and y'all , if ten percent of the groups out there are good or great that would mean there are thousands of good to great bands/ albums to discover. I'm way happy with all the fantastic music being produced today. There are even bands that I like much better than the Beatles and the Stones.

Agree with Toddnkaya

Talent always rises like cream. There are 80,000 to 300,000 bands online. That makes for a big pool.

All the music I listen to is new bands. I love new music. Bored to death with iconic bands. They had their place and time. But the time is now. I could care less for four decades ago. 2013 is where it is at in 2013.

This is just my opinion, at any given time "90% of everything is crap" is true in general but I threw this out specifically as a response to this thread.

Many of us are listening to something from the 10% of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. or the present. I don't believe that more "new music sucks" any more than more "old music" does. In other words, there is definitely new music that's worth hearing but probably about 10% will stand the test of time.

I'd venture that approximately the same percentage holds true for the Baroque or Romantic periods. Not everyone was a Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms or Schubert and there's plenty of obscure, forgotten repertoire in existence.

However, the fact that repertoire is forgotten or obscure may not alone relegate music to the 90%. Other factors, such as geographic isolation or a reclusive composer, could have been responsible. Such music could achieve a place in the 10% upon initial assessment or reassessment at a different time. Conversely many once extremely popular composers are almost unheard of today.

Again, I'm throwing this out to illustrate that the "90%" axiom is not absolute and may change with time, place and new or different perspectives.