When we dislike modern music, are we forgetting the lessons history has taught us?

[F'Angus]

AC/DC are quality. (just thought I'd add that)

 

[RanD00M]

If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And there all your rock credibility went down the drain.

OT: Modern Music is a broad term. If we talk about it in general, then I think most people enjoy it. Dubstep is very popular nowadays, and the metal scene is ever expanding. Sure rock has been falling out, and punk is an underground genre again.
Now if we talk about POPULAR Modern Music then we're in for an entirely different conversation. Of course most people that hate popular modern music nowadays hate it, and there is a simple answer for that, It's the same with video games, the new stuff takes note of what is popular at the moment and making money and does the exact same thing. Making music in the intent of making music isn't in anymore, and starting your own record label isn't as in as it was in the 70's and 80's so acts that go into the big leagues have to make money because otherwise they'll just be dropped by their label. Joan Jett and the Blackhearts might be looked back as a rock classic, but no label wanted them so they made Blackheart Records. Same with Danzig, who had a hard time getting a record company to sign for the Misfits so he started Plan 9 records.
Everyone new wants to make it big, and making what the people want is how they become big. They just don't stay there for long without doing something groudbreaking or diverting a bit from time to time.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And there all your rock credibility went down the drain.

Did you listen to the samples? Nirvana may be more popular, but liking popular bands is not a part of rock cred -- well, at least with bands that formed after the end of the 80s.

 

[Joyous Insurrection]

1) For those of you citing such and such random golden oldie from the past and citing that as proof that music was better back in such and such. Please just read the last section of this article:http://www.cracked.com/article_18983_5-complaints-about-modern-life-that-are-statistically-b.s._p2.html#ixzz1NxwDP2rq

Spoiler

"First of all, you have the fact that the crap from previous eras gets forgotten, leaving only the great stuff behind. Those songs on classic rock stations are obviously cherry-picked as the best and most indicative of an entire era; it's not a random sampling of all the music available at the time. Modern rock or pop stations, on the other hand, have to play whatever's come out in the past six months or so.So there is a filter applied to the old stuff. Even most of the music in Mozart's day was bullshit. And because it was bullshit, nobody felt the need to keep copies. And what was preserved isn't played today. Because it's bullshit. So it's easy to look back at Mozart's era (or the 1960s, or whatever) and assume that because only the classics survive in our memory, everything made back then was a classic.

The other problem is we assume that what gets remembered over time is whatever was the most popular. Not true.For instance, what survives from the Vietnam era (thanks mostly to Vietnam movies) are songs like the badass protest song "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival and "Gimme Shelter" by the Rolling Stones. Both were released in 1969, after the war started going bad.

Now look at the Billboard year-end singles charts from 1946 to today. The top song in 1969? "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies. Let us quote the entire lyrics of that song:

Sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Honey, ah sugar sugar
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
I just can't believe the loveliness of loving you
(I just can't believe it's true)
I just can't believe the one to love this feeling to.
(I just can't believe it's true)
Ah sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Ah honey, ah sugar sugar
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
When I kissed you, girl, I knew how sweet a kiss could be
(I know how sweet a kiss can be)
Like the summer sunshine pour your sweetness over me
(Pour your sweetness over me)
Sugar, pour a little sugar on it honey,
Pour a little sugar on it baby
I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah
Pour a little sugar on it oh yeah
Pour a little sugar on it honey,
Pour a little sugar on it baby
I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah
Pour a little sugar on it honey,
Ah sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Oh honey, honey, sugar sugar ..
You are my candy girl .

"Fortunate Son" got no higher than No. 14 on the charts. "Gimme Shelter"? It was never released as a single at all.

Go ahead, look down the list. There is some great music on there, but it's mixed in with a lot of stuff you've probably never even heard of. And do you know what you don't see on there? Queen, Led Zeppelin and a lot of other great musicians. Groups that are well-remembered now, when classic rock radio stations wouldn't be caught dead playing some of the shit that outsold them. Even Elvis and The Beatles are only on there twice, tying for the most No. 1 year-end singles with none other than George Michael.
And that's not even considering that, thanks to the Internet, we have far more access to all kinds of niche music genres and independent artists that we'd have never heard in the past.

And as for the critics, you have to keep in mind that there will always, always be critics who hate whatever the latest trend is. Rock music as a whole was blasted pretty harshly when it first got popular. Melody Maker called it "one of the most terrifying things to have ever happened to popular music." The Daily Mail decided to up the ante by mixing in some good old-fashioned racism: "[Rock music] is deplorable. It is tribal. And it is from America. It follows ragtime, blues, jazz, hot cha-cha and the boogie-woogie, which surely originated in the jungle. We sometimes wonder whether this is the negro's revenge."

Hell, even The Beatles weren't safe. The Daily Telegraph said that they were "something Hitler might find useful."

Why? Because it's easier to be negative. That part will never change.

2)

As has already been noted, it's not the age of the music, it's the fact that it's "pop". Pop music always caters to the lowest common denominator. That's not to say there's never any good pop, but by and large, pop is garbage, regardless of what generation it's from.

3) Are these artists of hated/unpopular genres you cited groundbreaking and we're all just old fogies who can't see it? Well, yes and no, but mostly no. Its a certainly a new trend, screamy disco music. In that sense its breaking new ground, but let's all remember that innovation is not necessarily always a good thing. You can invent something bad, like thermonuclear missiles or something, and you're still an innovator. The real stuff that's progressing music forward in a positive way isn't going to be popular or on the radio. Also, let's not neglect to mention that just about everything on Top 40 radio, even the stuff that's really new is still usually a recombination of proven, "safe" elements.

The real innovation isn't going to be on the radio. Little Richard didn't have the chart success of Elvis or the Beatles even though he more-or-less invented rock'n'roll, and the Velvet Underground was never popular in its own time. That's just the nature of shit, bro. Its always been like that and it always will be.

4) If you want something good, most of the time, you have to go look for it.

 

[RanD00M]

If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And there all your rock credibility went down the drain.

Did you listen to the samples? Nirvana may be more popular, but liking popular bands is not a part of rock cred -- well, at least with bands that formed after the end of the 80s.

Which band you like more or less has nothing to do with your rock cred going down the drain. No, what you did to kill your rock cred was to totally dismiss the fact that people have different opinions, and that Nirvana and Wolfmother are in no way in the same league of music. Nirvana is a band that broke Grunge into the mainstream and influenced a lot of bands to come. Wolfmother are a straight rock group that did nothing new but did what they did in a solid style. Saying that one is better than the other as a rock band is just wrong. Finding one better than the other is just fine.
And just so we're clear, I like both bands.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And there all your rock credibility went down the drain.

Did you listen to the samples? Nirvana may be more popular, but liking popular bands is not a part of rock cred -- well, at least with bands that formed after the end of the 80s.

Which band you like more or less has nothing to do with your rock cred going down the drain. No, what you did to kill your rock cred was to totally dismiss the fact that people have different opinions, and that Nirvana and Wolfmother are in no way in the same league of music. Nirvana is a band that broke Grunge into the mainstream and influenced a lot of bands to come. Wolfmother are a straight rock group that did nothing new but did what they did in a solid style. Saying that one is better than the other as a rock band is just wrong. Finding one better than the other is just fine.
And just so we're clear, I like both bands.

You do get that my point is that we're on a musical upswing, right? I was saying that not only does mainstream music not suck any worse than it did 10 or 20 years ago, but that we're actually doing better than they did then. Nirvana is the direct forefather of the bland punk inspired rock that we've had to suffer through for the last 20 years, and Wolfmother is proof that we're finally moving away from that. Capiche?

 

[dashiz94]

Just going to hop in here and say this:

1. There's absolute shit from every decade of music. When people say "The 50s had the best music," they're remembering all the great artists/songs that came out then, and forget about all the terrible songs that came with them. It's just how our memory works.

2. The kind of bands you listed are TERRIBLE not because its new or anything, but because there is no musical ability involved or any artistic reason for it. Ke$ha admitted her career started out because of a joke, and BrokenCYDE basically make their music to troll everyone (their new album is called "BrokenCYDE Will Never Die" for Christ's sake. Obvious troll is obvious...) Basically, this wave of teen idols and autotuned "music" is there because record companies know it's catchy and will sell tons of records. Bands like Arcade Fire are lucky to be able to have widespread recognition, but for the most part most great musicians will always be overshadowed by record company controlled "false" musicians.

3. I actually don't mind the existence of crappy radio music. Whenever I see the constant "lol Justin Bieber is a fag I hope he dies and sucks on a cock in hell" type comment I always laugh at how idiotic they sound. See here's the thing, crappy music always serves to remind us of how much better the good music we find is. If great musicians like Neutral Milk Hotel, Cynic, or Godspeed You! Black Emperor got radio play, then we wouldn't have any comparison to say it's great. It would become average, and average music sucks.

 

[RanD00M]

Snip

Only problem is that Wolfmother have been greatly forgotten by the public right now while Nirvana is still getting praised for their originality. I would also like you to point out some of that bland punk inspired rock that you mentioned.
And again you fall into the trap of opinions. Some might say that we are on a musical upswing, some down. This is all different from person to person. Now personally I would say that we are at an upswing from the late 90', early 00's, but the early 90's treated me with more good shit than today does.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Snip

Only problem is that Wolfmother have been greatly forgotten by the public right now while Nirvana is still getting praised for their originality. I would also like you to point out some of that bland punk inspired rock that you mentioned.
And again you fall into the trap of opinions. Some might say that we are on a musical upswing, some down. This is all different from person to person. Now personally I would say that we are at an upswing from the late 90', early 00's, but the early 90's treated me with more good shit than today does.

This whole thread is about opinions, so you're being pretty silly by attacking me. As for bland punk inspired bands, try Green Day, Fallout Boy, My Chemical Romance, and basically the entirety of both Pop Punk and Emo music. Even Screamo and Hardcore are nothing but punk mixed with metal. They're all descendants of punk in some form or fashion, and they all share the common ancestor of grunge.

 

[aznj03]

Nirvana is good. Hurt is a beautiful song. (Cash covered it, not the other way around.)

Well I must say I'm surprised no one said anything about this. Please, someone inform me as to how Hurt is related to Nirvana in any way.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Modern music sucks because of minimalism, that terrible idea that music needs only one meter repeated over and over. Modern pop just tries to hide this by putting lyrics over the top. Listen to pretty much any given modern pop song and ignore the lyrics, it's all the same. This problem seems mostly endemic to modern pop, even though it was invented shortly after the turn of the century before the previous one. Sure, some of the less popular bands are doing fantastic work, but the widespread use of minimalism has made shitty modern pop music even shittier than shitty old pop music. This is why I believe that the overall quality of music has been decreasing.

To sum, "Afternoon Delight" by the Starland Vocal Group is terrible, but I'd surely take it over anything Ke$ha or Lady Gaga has done.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

Unfortunately, with the low cost of production, music has become a low-risk industry

Oh, how I laughed.

Music is a higher-risk industry than ever before, and when you look at the success/failure ratio, one of the highest risk industries there is. Sure, it's easy enough to make music now, but to be part of the music industry? I can't think of any other industry with a greater failure/dropout/oops-I-ruined-my-life ratio with the possible exception of acting. Just going on percentages of the total, I certainly know more dead/permanently handicapped/mentally scarred/living in a world of complete delusion musicians than soldiers, police or firemen.

I am speaking strictly in terms of economics. Compared to any number of decades ago, music is becoming much cheaper to make with some bands becoming completely digital and releasing music strictly online to cut the cost of compact disks (which aren't very expensive anyways compared to the vinyls music used to made on). I am not at all saying you are not risking time, one can certainly waste a lot of time on music that will never be popular, but now, remember my Lady Gaga example: anybody could make an album cover as crappy as that, the same goes for most modern music videos which are now mostly about the artists as compared to twenty years ago when music videos were nearly at their zenith and the ratio of art to artist was in a beautiful 5 to 1 proportion.

So music for you is about what art is on the front cover, and the images in the music video, not the music itself?

Hardly, that's just the more risky aspect in terms of money (encompassing distribution as well). The actual art of the music doesn't cost anything, you just think and write and compose that, recording is cheap and everything else doesn't cost much at all because people avoid investing more than the minimum in it. The fact of the matter is, distribution of music is becoming the most expensive part.

Just checking here; you do know you're arguing with a recording engineer, right? I'd be more inclined to trust his judgement when it comes to what things cost the industry.

I did not realize that, no, though I do now seek agreement: has the cost of recording music gone down or hasn't it?

 

[TheLaofKazi]

This person gets it. Music is what it is, and you can choose to be interested in music, or not. Many people who consume music in today's society consume with with a lot of codified junk on top that informs how they should feel: "oh, I can't like that band because they have a stupid dance move", "I don't like them because of their hair", "my friends don't like it", "my friends do like it, but I want to feel superior to them, so I'll like something else instead", "I don't like them because they sold out, they were on MTV, but before that they were cool because less people knew about them", etc etc... in other words, everything but the music. Many music fans aren't really music fans at all, they're culture/design junkies, like a sports fan who likes a team because the colour and shape of the logo and the location of the players appeals to him. In the meantime, other people go "hey, I like the way it sounds".

Thank you! I'm glad someone else here feels the same. Although if I just said I liked music just for the music, I would be lying, because many other aspects interest me. There are many artists I like because of the background they came from, or their attitude or appearance. For example, I really love Lady Gaga, Bjork, and Marilyn Manson's sexuality and expression through their stage personas. I still enjoy their music though, and even if I didn't, that wouldn't stop me from enjoying their personas, and vice versa.

Music, fashion, art, history, ect. all makes up the rich whole that is culture. I guess the difference between me and many others out there is that they separate those things instead of being fascinated by them and how they're all linked together.

 

[mjc0961]

However, I suspect many of the more vocal critics of these acts also like AC/DC, who are crass, bratty and sing about heavy drug use and promiscuous sex.*
Now, I'm going to make it clear, I don't own any music by BrokenCYDE, the Millionaires, Ke$ha or any of that lot. However, when I look back at music history and see how pretty much every new genre has been rejected by the "old fogies", I ask, are we really any better than the people that thought rock n roll would be the end of music, because they grew up listening to swing jazz?

So this whole thing is you assuming people like music that older people hated when it was new? Wow. You could have put this at the start so it would be easier to disregard the rest of your post, because you didn't really say much of anything if "You probably like AC/DC, which are just like these bands you hate if you only look at the lyrics and ignore every other aspect of the music, so you should stop hating so much" is your argument here. One, you have no way of knowing if anyone here actually does like AC/DC for your very weak comparison to even hold water in the first place. And two... As I just said, it's a very weak comparison. There is indeed more to music than just the lyrics, and AC/DC sounds a hell of a lot different than that stuff in your spoiler tag.

Although, anyone who thinks that the mainstream crap of today will be the end of music is indeed just as dumb as people who thought that rock would be the end of music back then. Sure, listening to the radio is pretty much intolerable anymore, but all you do is not listen to the radio. Problem solved.

 

[Outright Villainy]

There's absolute balls from every decade, this is no different. If you judge all of music based on what you hear on the radio, well I feel sorry for you. You clearly just don't give a shit about music. And I'm not saying that to be rude, it's ridiculously easy to find good music if you dig in any way. All of my favourite bands started in the last decade, or are still making music now anyway.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Note that I didn't say that Nirvana was absolutely terrible -- although I can't personally stand what their influence did to music for the last 20 years. What I said was that any fan of rock would be able to recognize that Wolfmother was better. Listen to both selections; if you honestly think the Nirvana song is better, I don't know what to say to you.

That they clearly know how to recognize a superior band when they see one. Wolfmother is at best a mediocre band. To top it off the first album they released was absolutely shit quality. Considering how big they were before their first album hit the stores they could have released something that didnt sound like it was recorded in the basement on a tape recorder.

Funny, because I could say the same thing about Nirvana, word for word -- heck, that "recorded in the basement on a tape recorder" thing was part of the appeal of grunge; it's part of why it was called "grunge."

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Funny, because I could say the same thing about Nirvana, word for word -- heck, that "recorded in the basement on a tape recorder" thing was part of the appeal of grunge; it's part of why it was called "grunge."

Which is exactly why your arguement and really any on this topic is kind of silly. Its all based on personal opinion, plenty of people absolutely love modern music and plenty more think that it is complete crap. Then there are others that dont give a shit what people think and listen to the music that they like.

Its strange that you said that because I never actually purchased a nirvana album where the sound quality was absolutely terrible. By your comment though im not actually sure if you understood what I meant.

And that's exactly why I'm annoyed that people have been taking one little bit of hyperbole so far out of context. As for the sound quality, I knew exactly what you meant; Nirvana has always sounded really muddy to me.

 

[zehydra]

It's not really the lyrics that bother me, it's the musical end of it that I really can't stand. There is little to no effort put into the rhythm in these songs at all, and there's so much autotune/screamingw/out pitch use that you don't get to hear good clean vocals.

You don't need autotune or pitchless screaming to sound good.

I personally find them both awful.

But OP's right in that there are plenty of bands out there RIGHT NOW which are top notch, it's just that people aren't flocking to them.

I personally am a huge fan of Porcupine Tree, and they're still a contemporary artist.

 

[zehydra]

Nirvana is good. Hurt is a beautiful song. (Cash covered it, not the other way around.)

Well I must say I'm surprised no one said anything about this. Please, someone inform me as to how Hurt is related to Nirvana in any way.

Lol yeah I just saw that. I'm a huge Nirvana fan, and... well... what?

 

[zehydra]

Modern music sucks because of minimalism, that terrible idea that music needs only one meter repeated over and over. Modern pop just tries to hide this by putting lyrics over the top. Listen to pretty much any given modern pop song and ignore the lyrics, it's all the same. This problem seems mostly endemic to modern pop, even though it was invented shortly after the turn of the century before the previous one. Sure, some of the less popular bands are doing fantastic work, but the widespread use of minimalism has made shitty modern pop music even shittier than shitty old pop music. This is why I believe that the overall quality of music has been decreasing.

To sum, "Afternoon Delight" by the Starland Vocal Group is terrible, but I'd surely take it over anything Ke$ha or Lady Gaga has done.

I agree, but I wouldn't even call it minimalism, because minimalism is usually on purpose.

These artists are just making music that way because it's the only way they know how/it's what's selling right now.