Reader's Digest condensed version: Because it's turned into crap.

Actually, this is the summary, from TFA:

"To summarize, here are some points, which most likely contribute significantly to the great decline of music:

- Too much information. People don't have time to sift through a billion myspace pages
- Music and arts programs have been removed from our public schools. So many children have been growing up without ever having a chance to not only learn and study music, but understand its history

- Music is free
- Live venues are dwindling
- Fame has become the ultimate goal
- Music has become devalued...why? Because it's free
- Anyone who can play 3 chords or rap a line has the ability to record it and post it on the web for the whole world to hear, though the world is hardly paying attention anymore (you better have AMAZING songs)
- It's harder to be original and it's harder to stand out
- Sonically, music is waaaay too compressed and loud, making it very fatiguing to the ears for any extended period of time- the burn-out rate is fast
- People don't even buy stereo systems anymore- most people I know listen to music only on their computer speakers
"

Music and arts programs have been removed from our public schools. So many children have been growing up without ever having a chance to not only learn and study music, but understand its history

um, no.
I didn't go to music or arts class in school, but I still liked rock music back in the 70s when music was still good.

Sonically, music is waaaay too compressed and loud, making it very fatiguing to the ears for any extended period of time- the burn-out rate is fast

WTF??

HappyHarryHardOn:
- It's harder to be original and it's harder to stand out

That's because nothing original has come out to change things.

Recent music has given me a chance to expand my interests in older music. Rush lead me to so much awesome.

The musical difference (musical difference meaning the general sound of the recordings and artistic message) was obvious from 1950 to 1960, 1960 to 1970, 1970 to 1980, etc. But something peculiar happened towards the tail end of the 90s: It appears that since then there hasn't been much progressing.

Agreed. And , if anything, I think it's de-evolving. Honestly, a lot of the pop that's put out now I find reminiscent of the late 80's dreck era.

For those who say that there is just as much great music today, well then they also have to admit one of two things along with that theory:

a) This multitude of "great" music is not getting out to the masses anymore...

Yes and no. I think there is quite a lot of good music that never makes it to the radio these days. But I don't find so-called indie/underground music to be a wealth of undiscovered musical treasures. I find a lot of it derivative and self-indulgent (no one knows how to write a damned song anymore!).

Everyone complaining about how music today sucks has a very selective memory about the music from their era of choice.

There's always been tons of crap to sift through. You just don't remember it because you found the bands that you liked and listened to them.

Oh man, the poor author hasn't figured it out yet - he's getting old. There's just this strange intrinsic facet of growing up that makes it harder to appreciate modern music.

You see it happen to every generation, but then you think it doesn't happen to you? Yeah right.

So hip-hop and emo sound like shiat to you, (for the record, they do to me to) but you can't just dismiss it because you don't like it.

I don't know of any objective scale that music can be measured on. It's all in the ear of the beholder, innit?

Kings of A&R? I'm assuming that the blogger is a record exec, which sort of invalidates his opinion. He's just pissed that he's becoming increasingly irrelevant.

HappyHarryHardOn: Actually, this is the summary, from TFA:

awfulperson: Yes and no. I think there is quite a lot of good music that never makes it to the radio these days. But I don't find so-called indie/underground music to be a wealth of undiscovered musical treasures. I find a lot of it derivative and self-indulgent (no one knows how to write a damned song anymore!).

Allow me to translate these posts:



"I used to be with it, but now what I'm with isn't it. And what is it is weird and scary to me."

There's plenty of great music out there, and there always will be - even if the marketplace of music changes. Either you're looking in the wrong places, or you're too old.

There are pieces of good music, of every type, from every era. But please, continue being old.

FTFA Anyone who can play 3 chords or rap a line has the ability to record it and post it on the web for the whole world to hear, though the world is hardly paying attention anymore (you better have AMAZING songs)

Also known as

1950 - Rock is just anyone who can play three chords
1978 - Punk is anyone who can smack around an instrument
1982 - Rap is just naggers talking
1982 - Scratching? Ooooo he is playing a record! BFD
1990 - Trance is just guys tooling around with computers

/The pronouncements of music's death are always premature

AzDownboy: FTFA Anyone who can play 3 chords or rap a line has the ability to record it and post it on the web for the whole world to hear, though the world is hardly paying attention anymore (you better have AMAZING songs)

Also known as

1950 - Rock is just anyone who can play three chords
1978 - Punk is anyone who can smack around an instrument
1982 - Rap is just naggers talking
1982 - Scratching? Ooooo he is playing a record! BFD
1990 - Trance is just guys tooling around with computers

/The pronouncements of music's death are always premature

1962 - "Guitar groups, Mr. Epstein, are on their way out."

anal brazil men:
"I used to be with it, but now what I'm with isn't it. And what is it is weird and scary to me."

There's plenty of great music out there, and there always will be - even if the marketplace of music changes. Either you're looking in the wrong places, or you're too old.

Um, no (to the last sentence). When all the "new bands" that "with it" publications like Spin and Paste prattle on and on about sound like early 80's lo-fi (i.e. The Strokes, The Hives, The Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The ____s, The ____s, the _____s), THAT'S NOT INNOVATION. It's been fun, but now it's done.

And then there are the songwriter ingenues everyone seems to love who can't write an effing song to save their lives: Cat Power and her mopey, grade school piano-playing; snotty Conor Oberst and his stupid haircut. My Whining Jacket.

And forget writing a song--does no one know how to end a song? I enjoy Iron and Wine, but four minutes of "oooooh...ooooooh...ooooooh" at the end of a song is too much to bear. And they aren't the only ones--can't say how many times I've changed channels from XMU because a song needed to end but wouldn't.

So, no, AFAIK, I'm looking in all the right places. I'm just harder to impress these days.

/adjusts onion in belt

awfulperson: Um, no (to the last sentence). When all the "new bands" that "with it" publications like Spin and Paste prattle on and on about sound like early 80's lo-fi (i.e. The Strokes, The Hives, The Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The ____s, The ____s, the _____s), THAT'S NOT INNOVATION. It's been fun, but now it's done.

And then there are the songwriter ingenues everyone seems to love who can't write an effing song to save their lives: Cat Power and her mopey, grade school piano-playing; snotty Conor Oberst and his stupid haircut. My Whining Jacket.

And forget writing a song--does no one know how to end a song? I enjoy Iron and Wine, but four minutes of "oooooh...ooooooh...ooooooh" at the end of a song is too much to bear. And they aren't the only ones--can't say how many times I've changed channels from XMU because a song needed to end but wouldn't.

So, no, AFAIK, I'm looking in all the right places. I'm just harder to impress these days.

/adjusts onion in belt

Please list your favorite bands, that I may ridicule them with my patented Objective Music Quality Measurement System™.

awfulperson: Um, no (to the last sentence). When all the "new bands" that "with it" publications like Spin and Paste prattle on and on about sound like early 80's lo-fi (i.e. The Strokes, The Hives, The Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The ____s, The ____s, the _____s), THAT'S NOT INNOVATION. It's been fun, but now it's done.

"The" bands are not innovative, but they aren't trying to be. Rock music is fun, loud, and crass. Their ilk have been doing their thing for decades, and people who like a good riff will always enjoy it.

And then there are the songwriter ingenues everyone seems to love who can't write an effing song to save their lives: Cat Power and her mopey, grade school piano-playing; snotty Conor Oberst and his stupid haircut. My Whining Jacket.

Firstly, Bright Eyes and Cat Power have been around since the 90s. Secondly, there are other singer songwriters, equally popular, who are more capable of composing a song.

And forget writing a song--does no one know how to end a song? I enjoy Iron and Wine, but four minutes of "oooooh...ooooooh...ooooooh" at the end of a song is too much to bear. And they aren't the only ones--can't say how many times I've changed channels from XMU because a song needed to end but wouldn't.

So, no, AFAIK, I'm looking in all the right places. I'm just harder to impress these days.

/adjusts onion in belt

Yeah, uh, indie is more than sad bastard music. If you want innovation, listen to Battles or Subtle. If you want songs that don't overstay their welcome, listen to Pete and Pirates or The Long Blondes. If you want examples of fine songwriting, listen to the National or LCD Soundsystem.

I could keep going, but the point is you need better arguments or more examples if you're going to be so dismissive.

Live venues are dwindling?

I can go into Portland on any given night and find a venue playing whatever genre I'm in the mood for, usually more than one.

This guy needs to get out more.

awfulperson: So, no, AFAIK, I'm looking in all the right places. I'm just harder to impress these days.

/adjusts onion in belt

It sounds like we have similar tastes (and frustrations). Spoon is about the only contemporary band that really does it for me anymore.

anal brazil men: Yeah, uh, indie is more than sad bastard music. If you want innovation, listen to Battles or Subtle. If you want songs that don't overstay their welcome, listen to Pete and Pirates or The Long Blondes. If you want examples of fine songwriting, listen to the National or LCD Soundsystem.

If awfulperson doesn't take your advice, I will. ;)

One word: postmodernism

suck it, potential audience, you aren't allowed to create our art.

won't read TFA

but once videos became the standard medium for record company 'hit' music

the music stopped mattering.

it could be any halfassed drivel done with a drum machine and a couple of crappy samples, so long as there's tits n ass on the screen.


IF music mattered anymore
you would not have Justin Timberlake topping the charts
or worse, Britney Spears in her heyday-
no distinguishable melody or hook, shiity singing...it didn't matter.



NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT corporate crap, the money making machine
NOT the real music being made down in the trenches by great artists.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE ALWAYS WILL BE
but it's on the fringe because it's great

AND POPULAR MUSIC IS ABOUT NUMBERS, NOT GREATNESS

anal brazil men: "The" bands are not innovative, but they aren't trying to be.

Sorry, that's a cop-out, particularly since they're always being touted as something "new." And there HAS to be innovation, at
least in my book. It's what separates artists from musicians.

Secondly, there are other singer songwriters, equally popular, who are more capable of composing a song.

Who, pray tell are...oh, wait, you did list some.
/writes them down for later

Cagey B: Please list your favorite bands, that I may ridicule them with my patented Objective Music Quality Measurement System™.

Never hope to know the source of our power.

HappyHarryHardOn: - Sonically, music is waaaay too compressed and loud, making it very fatiguing to the ears for any extended period of time- the burn-out rate is fast

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
Why have a 90+ dB range available for your music but only use the top 8dB?
"Louder" =/= better.

What this guy doesn't include is how fractured the entertainment options are today. There will never be another Elvis or Beatles because there are so many media options today. Elvis and the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan show and became instant icons. There is no one media outlet that will do this today. There are more options today but almost no venues to make a national or international presence.

awfulperson: anal brazil men:
Sorry, that's a cop-out, particularly since they're always being touted as something "new." And there HAS to be innovation, at
least in my book. It's what separates artists from musicians.


I think you're crossing the border of Music Snob over to Music Nazi when you start demanding that everything new must be innovative and start tossing around statements like "It's what separates artists from musicians."

Because big pimpin' and booty poppin' aren't aesthetically and politically forward?

/just a thought

Most new popular music doesn't have staying power. Hell, look at groups like the Spice Girls, the Backstreet Boys and N*sync. In 10 years they'll be as forgotten as your neighbor's band that never left the garage.

Alot of the new corporate music seems to be recycled pop-trash that's proven to make money off of the 12-18 female demographic.

Is that sad? Yes. Will it stop them from using the formula that attracts that demographic? nope. There's money in it, and thats all that matters.

I agree with these points from the article :
- Too much information. People don't have time to sift through a billion myspace pages
- Music and arts programs have been removed from our public schools. So many children have been growing up without ever having a chance to not only learn and study music, but understand its history

- Music is free
- Live venues are dwindling
- Fame has become the ultimate goal
- Music has become devalued...why? Because it's free
- Anyone who can play 3 chords or rap a line has the ability to record it and post it on the web for the whole world to hear, though the world is hardly paying attention anymore (you better have AMAZING songs)
- It's harder to be original and it's harder to stand out
- Sonically, music is waaaay too compressed and loud, making it very fatiguing to the ears for any extended period of time- the burn-out rate is fast
- People don't even buy stereo systems anymore- most people I know listen to music only on their computer speakers

And also, even the more "professional" sounding music is over-produced by producers who think that there is a "formula" they have to follow. For example : "The drums must sound like this and be in Perfect time" "All the notes must be in Perfect pitch" "The music must have a huge orchestra" "I am not going to let this singer write their own songs".
While this kind of music will sound "professional" that is all that it sounds like and is therefore quite boring.

A good case as to why pop music has not necessarily gotten worse, but actually lost all its impact


My version:

We are older, have mortgages and kids, and frankly don't give enough of a fark to go out and find the good stuff, so we complain about what we can hear on the blogs we all visit (or write) while grinding away at work.

Glitchwerks:
I think you're crossing the border of Music Snob over to Music Nazi when you start demanding that everything new must be innovative and start tossing around statements like "It's what separates artists from musicians."

Ohh, I crossed that border long ago.

SCHNELL! SCHNELL!!

Article seems farked so i can't read it -- but I can tell you why it is bullshiat;

More people now are listening to more music more different ways than ever before. More bands are making recorded music than ever before, and there are more ways to distribute it. Kids today are into far more diverse genres than any other time in history. Music is more important that it ever has been. The total opposite of the article headline.

The difference is people are getting it from more than the 3 radio stations that played pop music in every market. So there may never be another Beatles as one band won't have so much success.

Cagey B: There's always been tons of crap to sift through. You just don't remember it because you found the bands that you liked and listened to them.

+1

QU!RK1019: 1962 - "Guitar groups, Mr. Epstein, are on their way out."

+2

A succinct summary of the article:

"You dumb kids wouldn't know good music if it kicked you in the ass!"

The author makes the same scintillating points that my old man did - 30 years ago, when I was 16.

hardercase: The author makes the same scintillating points that my old man did - 30 years ago, when I was 16.

+3

Back in the late 70s, when I was a young punk rock fan, many of my Skynyrd/Zepplin/Genesis loving peers told me that the Ramones sucked because they couldn't play their instruments as well as their favorite bands.

When I would point out that that was the same kinda thing their grandpas said about Elvis and Chuck Berry, they all said "No, no... it's different... it's different" I asked how -- but of course there was no response.

Invent a new genre.

Pop/rock has been squeezed dry.

I think a few peoples heads would explode if they stopped letting MTV and top 40 radio tell them what the "new music" is

The Monkees used to be huge too

the riaa punishes any new artist who uses derivative music content from other bands/artists for copyright infringement. since that happens, some types of music, such as the blues, which are tradionally derivative driven genres at their core, are suffering in the creative stage due to the artists being persecuted.

in addition, radio/live dj's are much a thing of the past. broadcast content is preprogrammed across markets selected by "suits and marketing bean-counters" who play the same content over and over ad nauseam. in that environment where the bottom line is king, risk taking by allowing unique new content is shunned for the "safe bet what's worked before" stuff.

more artists are over produced nowadays. programmed drumkits, voice on-pitch smoothing electronics, lipsynching etc.. live music in label produced artists is suffering due to this.

the riaa is killing it's cash cow by drm, and its anti-p2p infatuation. when you can't share music you even own like you could with tape cassettes, their free advertizing by the fans themselves becomes nil.

sonically, cd's and mp3's don't have the same quailiy due to Dynamic range compression . why am i paying more for an inferior technology that i can't even copy like i used to be able to legally with cassettes?
it's the industries own damn fault.

QU!RK1019: Oh man, the poor author hasn't figured it out yet - he's getting old. There's just this strange intrinsic facet of growing up that makes it harder to appreciate modern music.

You see it happen to every generation, but then you think it doesn't happen to you? Yeah right.

So hip-hop and emo sound like shiat to you, (for the record, they do to me to) but you can't just dismiss it because you don't like it.

I don't know of any objective scale that music can be measured on. It's all in the ear of the beholder, innit?

Eh, you're wasting your breath. Just as every generation gets old and thinks the next generation's music inherently sucks, so does every generation fail to acknowledge that it's simply an endless cycle. They will, and no amount of arguing will convince them otherwise, continue to believe that all music created after year xxxx (usually somewhere in their mid-20s) has gone to shiat.

I've read somewhere on the internets that the type of music you listen to post college (22-25 years old) is what you will "like" the rest of your life.

I was turned on to the No-Depression/Alt-Country in my 20's and still seek out new bands in that genre now in my almost 40's.

Broktun

gODDhead: One word: postmodernism

suck it, potential audience, you aren't allowed to create our art.

Sound like a DEVO fan



(Going to see them next week)

Grace Jones did the best version of Warm Leatherette ever. What is this pop music of which you speak? If it is missing Akina, Dalida, or Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, then there's your problem right there.

flecsrogar: Most new popular music doesn't have staying power. Hell, look at groups like the Spice Girls, the Backstreet Boys and N*sync. In 10 years they'll be as forgotten as your neighbor's band that never left the garage.

All those bands are older than ten years. Why haven't they been forgotten yet?

i actually think he's onto something with the lack of education about music.

You have to understand it to some point to enjoy it. If it's all clicks and whistles, you're going to want 'the package' instead of the sound. With 'the package' you get Spears.

Lot of Farkers realising they're old in this thread! What a stupid article. The only reason past decades seem better than the current one is because we're not continuously surrounded by the dreck from those eras. When we think 80s music nowadays, it's all Smiths/New Order/Pixies/Devo/Echo and stuff, not what was actually mostly charting at the time. In 30 years time, I doubt our decade's most popular music will be Timbaland, Black Eyed Peas and Gwen Stefani.

Back in the 90s, we all thought the same thing - we don't have a signature sound, because everything was so fragmented. A bit of distance has let the cream rise, and yeah, there's definite things we can now say are 90s.

Back in the late 70s, when I was a young punk rock fan, many of my Skynyrd/Zepplin/Genesis loving peers told me that the Ramones sucked because they couldn't play their instruments as well as their favorite bands.

I'm sad to inform you that your friends were right. About you, and about everything.

WOO! I LIKE MUSIC!

Seriously folks, just do what I do - find what you like and ridicule the hell out of the rest of it.

/That includes you, Jack Johnson - you may be a cool guy who bought me a beer once, but your music sucks.

danduran: Back in the 90s, we all thought the same thing - we don't have a signature sound, because everything was so fragmented. A bit of distance has let the cream rise, and yeah, there's definite things we can now say are 90s.


But who? Who is going to persevere? The top songs of the 90s belonged to Sinead O'connor, Nirvana, REM, Sheryl Crow (seriously), Coolio (seriously), Spice Girls, Puff Daddy, Celine Dion, and Cher.


From this list, Nirvana will last (as will the other Seattle grunge bands). Green Day? REM? Smashing Pumpkins? Chili Peppers? Who else?


Sure, there was some great music made in the 90s, but in terms of what was popular back then and will remain so for decades, I just don't see it. Hootie and the Blowfish? Counting Crows? Gin Blossoms? Lenny Kravitz? Live? Oasis? Offspring? Weezer?


I think the 90s and (2000s) in music will be looked at a lot like the Dark Ages in the middle centuries. Not entirely devoid of good stuff, but pretty damn devoid.

Popular music production, since the the 90's, has taken a "cut and paste" approach when it comes to editing, mixing and mastering. I think what's made any classic pop song interesting are the tiny imperfections that would make it stand out from the drek. We just don't have much of that any more, as songs are sampled, looped and sequenced to the point of removing any soul it might have had at the beginning of production.

I also agree with TFA about compression getting way out of hand in the mixing and mastering process. There's doesn't seem to be any room for dynamic range anymore.

It's because kids dictate the trends of tomorrow, and being that their whole lives have included video games and digital technology, they want more synthesizers whereas a lot of the old sad bastards in this thread want to hear more guitars. I like both, and pretty much every kind of music, but if you want innovation in rock n' roll you have to look a lot harder or expand your tastes. But understand that some things, like punk and prog, are pretty much either dead or being treated like Sarah Jessica Parker's corpse at an S&M party.

Here's why.

/not a rickroll, i swears

mrEdude: IF music mattered anymore
you would not have Justin Timberlake topping the charts
or worse, Britney Spears in her heyday-
no distinguishable melody or hook, shiity singing...it didn't matter.

I had a whole long response typed out, but ultimately, there's little point in arguing with someone about the relative merits of music. So just listen to Richard Thompson performing "Oops, I Did It Again" and realize that maybe there's more to pop music than you think.

Moses To Sandy Koufax: Sure, there was some great music made in the 90s, but in terms of what was popular back then and will remain so for decades, I just don't see it. Hootie and the Blowfish? Counting Crows? Gin Blossoms? Lenny Kravitz? Live? Oasis? Offspring? Weezer?

Weezer's first two albums won't fade. Nirvana won't. Tool won't. Jane's Addiction won't. Radiohead, Pavement, Portishead, Built to Spill, Dinosaur Jr., Modest Mouse, Neutral Milk Hotel, My Bloody Valentine, Primus, The Flaming Lips... there's no end to the list of bands that will still have solid followings well into the next decade.