"Modern Music Sucks."
"Music was so much better back then."
"The 60s and 70s were the golden age of music."
"Music has no soul anymore."
"Music is dead."
These phrases all all commenly used by people to suggest that the music of their parents, or their childhood was better than the music being made and released today. Most of these are based on biases, ignorance and sometimes just plain denial.
The idea that music suddenly went through a "Good" period after having existed for hundreds (thousands) of years and then within a century magically went back to being "bad" is not based anywhere in reality and is absolutely insane.
I have written this article as an attempt to convince you otherwise.
What Genre?
Generally this concept of the "good old days" is refering to rock music between 1965 and 1994, but that is only rock music. Every genre has fans that claim "it sucks now, you should listen to the older stuff from X-Y years" and these decades vary wildly.
If you're talking to a baroque fan he will tell you that the good music was made between 1600 and 1750. Opera-fanatics will tell you it was the 18th century. If you speak with a bluesman he will tell you that it was between 1910 and 1960. If you speak with a jazz listener, they will tell you it was from 1950-1970. Thrash metalheads will tell you it was from 1983 to 1991, death metalheads will tell you 1986-1996. Hip-hop fans will tell you that 1988-1998 had all the "best" releases. Classic rock fans will tell you 1965-1977. Punks will say 1977-1989.
These overlap slightly but have no commen end or starting point. As you can see, the "good" era of music completely depends on who you ask and is very subjective.
The "good old days" person will (usually) tell you that music as a whole was good during that period but these "Good" eras are usually based on genres not the actual quality of music from those periods. Everyone knows that genres go through different periods of popularity. Popularity doesn't equate to good music, but if you have more bands, especially in a new genre that has untapped ideas and concepts, chances are that the bands will be better.
One talented, skilled band that produces great music can inspire tons of others to either follow and expand in the new realms they have created, or just plain rip them off.
Music is less talented now?
One of the most commenly used phrases people who believe the quality of music magically disappeared will say is "Back in the day, they used to actually play instruments that took talent." They will often expand upon this and insert their favorite instruments, usually the standard rock set of drums, guitar, a bass and "normal" vocals.
If one takes a look at the history of music they will learn that the instruments used through history have been radically different. Look at what instruments they used during the romantic era of classical music. Look at the instruments they used during the baroque era. Look at what jazz groups use. Just because the instruments of modern music are different from those used 50 years before doesn't mean they are bad. No one in their right mind is going to attempt to say that music as a whole from these time periods was bad simply because they used different instruments. Why do the same for electronic and hip-hop?
YouTube comments on this topic often mention computer programs create beats, suggesting that all you need to make a hip-hop beat or an electonic song is some fancy audio-software and the ability to press a button on the mouse.
Music editing and creation programs often come with sample beats and even beat-makers in which you can simply adjust sliders to change the tune being played. These, like anything else, require much skill to use. If they didn't, everyone would be writing hit songs. But, these are not how beats are made, I would suggest reading a few articles on the topic: http://tweakheadz.com/hip_hop_beat_construction.htm
There is a reason artists and recording companies have pay large sums of money for proffesional producers to come in and work with them.
In defence against this, YouTube commenters will often argue "Yeah, all you have to do is read a guide and you can do it, there are little kids that have YouTube videos of them producing beats to prove it." There are several things wrong with this arguement. First of all, you could "just" read a guide for how to play guitar but that wouldn't make you Jimmy Page. Secondly, there are plenty of YouTube videos of young children playing guitar, does this mean that the guitar requires no talent? Finally, how much talent goes into something is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if something is nearly impossible to play properly or if half the planet could do it; what matters is if it sounds good. And this is obviously subjective.
But everyone listens to bad music now?
Yes. Does this really surprise you? Most people don't care about taking the time to enjoy genres. You didn't take the time to develope a taste for jazz or the blues, why should you expect others to develope a taste for rock music?
What is popular and what is good are not the same thing at all. Most music that gets popular, (especially now that there is a much larger music listening crowd) (more on that later) just isn't that good. Most people don't want to have to think about the lyrics or the meaning, they don't want long songs, they don't want things that are hard to listen to or take time to appreciate, they just want something simple that is fun to listen or dance to. It has always been this way.
According to these people, during the prime-time of rock music, everyone listened to rock and practically worshipped it. This is not true in any way at all. Because there were simply less genres of music back then, a smaller crowd of people listening to music and less ways to get access to music, there were more people listening to rock than there are to the "good" genres today.
Look at the "top singles" charts for those years when people supposedly, magically, had better music tastes. The top selling single of 1969, supposedly one of the greatest years in music, was "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies, a cartoon band from a TV show. Throughout the 60s, the Beatles had three best selling singles of the year. On the surface this seems great but look at what years and what songs. The Beatles didn't play the sound they are famous for until after 1965, two of their "top singles" were in 1963 and 1964. Literally, simple pop songs. I am not saying these songs are bad, they just aren't the "classic" rock sound, or even really that good compared to what we remember the Beatles for today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles_by_year_(UK)
Take a look at the best selling albums in the United States of America. The Beatles didn't score a single one during the 60s, despite selling more albums than any other band in history. Throughout the entire 60s and 70s only a handful of artists associated with the "good music" scene sold top albums. Dark Side of the Moon, the best selling rock album of all time, didn't even make it to the top. The reason these albums sold so well was because they were good enough that people still wanted to buy them in large amounts ten years later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-selling_albums_by_year_in_the_United_States
The difference is that these artists had lasting power, that they were good enough that people still wanted to listen to them ten years later. Time weeded out the bad artists. When we look back at the 60s we don't hear the bad music that all the teenagers then complained about and rebelled against by playing the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan, we hear the "soul-filled" artists they made popular by rebelling against the "bad" music.
The "good" music was more popular back then than it is today and there are reasons why. Back then, people didn't have the Internet and other sources of finding music easily. So when something got popular, that meant it was more popular than it would be today. Today, because the Internet has allowed so many new genres to spread so quickly and old ones to be brought back, more and more people and sent off into different directions rather than just what is being played on the radio at that time. Experience shows me that if you listen to something several times, even if you hate it at first, you might develope a taste for it. This would allow people to listen to the Rolling Stones or Black Sabbath and learn to enjoy them simply because they heard them so often. And no, I'm not suggesting everyone lived in a box with a single radio station, I'm just saying there was less variety back then.
Another thing that makes "bad" music more popular is how it is marketed. Back "then" kid's music existed, but it just wasn't such a large portion of the market. Today, things like Disney Channel and Nickelodeon use their own artists to create their own music for kids. They use their advertisements, TV shows and their own radio stations to promote this. Being exposed to it so often, it is no surprise that children often fall for Hannah Montana or whatever the latest artist is. This happened "back then" too, a good example is the Archies, but just not as widespreadly as it happens today. Today, more parents just drop their kids off in front of a TV.
So now that we have established that people didn't magically have better ears for discerning talent and quality from "easy" and "fun" back then, lets apply that to modern times. Look at the top 40 chart for today, February 5th, 2012. You'll find artists like Katy Perry, Bruno Mars and LMFAO. These are all pop artists that are played on the radio, TV shows, put in movies and played at dances. Obviously these artists are going to be the most popular. Once again, do you seriously think that the majority of the population is going to take the time to develope tastes for different genres of music? Do you think they're all going to listen to Oneohetrix Point Never? No, they just want something simple to put on in the background.
Back in the 60s and 70s there was bad music too. We just don't see it. The reason why is because time has weeded out the bad and the boring and left us with, mostly, the classics. Most people who listen to pop music get tired of something simply because it is old. We've all heard some teenager trying to tell us that 90s and 80s music is bad simply because it is "old". Most "simple" music listeners become much less avid followers of the art form after they reach a certain age. So, without the simple music listeners still listening to and spreading the "bad music", there isn't as much of a vehicle for it to live on. Which one are you going to tell you kids about, the Beatles or the Archies?
Well, there is no good music underground either?
A lot of people cite certain artists and say "Here's the good music, just listen to this" and expect the people who enjoy everything from AC/DC to Led Zeppelin (joke) to enjoy this psychedelic-elecontric-experimental-art-rock-ballad that they love so much.
I have mentioned it several times earlier, but you don't just listen to a new genre or sound and enjoy it automatically. Sometimes you might, some people are better at it than others, but lets be honest here; everyone has listened to a band that is a "classic" and hated it or found it boring and came back a week later and loved it. I didn't like Pink Floyd the first time I heard them; now they're one of my favorite bands.
The first time I ever heard Radiohead, the only song I liked was Creep, which was a grunge-influenced song that is among their most popular. I thought their other stuff was boring but interesting. Their casual listeners say that Radiohead is a one-hit-wonder and that Creep is their only good song (or one of roughly three). Fans of the band will tell you that Creep is average in their discography and that the albums that came later are so much better in almost every aspect.
Thankfully I enjoyed Creep enough (Mainly the vocals, which I wasn't used to hearing yet) that I gave their other stuff another try. I bought OK Computer and listened to it. The first time I heard it I only liked two or three of the songs a lot and found the rest from above average to boring. Now, after repeated listens allowing the textures and layers to come out and be appreciated, OK Computer would rank among my favorite albums of all time.
Also, in my opinion, "good" music has moved more towards the artsy side. Every year seems to have better production (not really over-produced, that's not what I'm saying) and more experimental music being released. Some of the things that used to be avant-garde ten years ago are normal now. There are more sounds and they are constantly blending together in new ways.
So, obviously, just listening to a song, especially if you come in expecting to hate it, isn't going to be enough to say that it is bad music.
Conclusion?
There is plenty of good music being released now. It all depents on what genres of styles you like. If you have a very small taste in music genres then you probably won't find much because many modern genres are blends of already-existing genres.
Give yourself an honest and complete chance with some of these artists. If you do, you'll find that some of them are just as good as the so called "good" music you constantly tout. And not just modern music either. This article is geared towards "classic rock" listeners, the vast majority of whom do not listen to jazz or the blues or any form of classical or punk. Allowing yourself to enjoy genres such as these will open entire new worlds of music and sounds for you to enjoy.
This is a ridiculous urban-myth that is created by nostalgia and the wish to stand out in a crowd.
In the end, the only thing you have to lose in opening up your music taste is to lose your credibility among angry teenagers who think their dad's CD collection is the greatest ever assembled.
In short, it isn't like all the world's governments just put some chemical in the water that magically made everyone tone-deaf and dumb.
"Music was so much better back then."
"The 60s and 70s were the golden age of music."
"Music has no soul anymore."
"Music is dead."
These phrases all all commenly used by people to suggest that the music of their parents, or their childhood was better than the music being made and released today. Most of these are based on biases, ignorance and sometimes just plain denial.
The idea that music suddenly went through a "Good" period after having existed for hundreds (thousands) of years and then within a century magically went back to being "bad" is not based anywhere in reality and is absolutely insane.
I have written this article as an attempt to convince you otherwise.
What Genre?
Generally this concept of the "good old days" is refering to rock music between 1965 and 1994, but that is only rock music. Every genre has fans that claim "it sucks now, you should listen to the older stuff from X-Y years" and these decades vary wildly.
If you're talking to a baroque fan he will tell you that the good music was made between 1600 and 1750. Opera-fanatics will tell you it was the 18th century. If you speak with a bluesman he will tell you that it was between 1910 and 1960. If you speak with a jazz listener, they will tell you it was from 1950-1970. Thrash metalheads will tell you it was from 1983 to 1991, death metalheads will tell you 1986-1996. Hip-hop fans will tell you that 1988-1998 had all the "best" releases. Classic rock fans will tell you 1965-1977. Punks will say 1977-1989.
These overlap slightly but have no commen end or starting point. As you can see, the "good" era of music completely depends on who you ask and is very subjective.
The "good old days" person will (usually) tell you that music as a whole was good during that period but these "Good" eras are usually based on genres not the actual quality of music from those periods. Everyone knows that genres go through different periods of popularity. Popularity doesn't equate to good music, but if you have more bands, especially in a new genre that has untapped ideas and concepts, chances are that the bands will be better.
One talented, skilled band that produces great music can inspire tons of others to either follow and expand in the new realms they have created, or just plain rip them off.
Music is less talented now?
One of the most commenly used phrases people who believe the quality of music magically disappeared will say is "Back in the day, they used to actually play instruments that took talent." They will often expand upon this and insert their favorite instruments, usually the standard rock set of drums, guitar, a bass and "normal" vocals.
If one takes a look at the history of music they will learn that the instruments used through history have been radically different. Look at what instruments they used during the romantic era of classical music. Look at the instruments they used during the baroque era. Look at what jazz groups use. Just because the instruments of modern music are different from those used 50 years before doesn't mean they are bad. No one in their right mind is going to attempt to say that music as a whole from these time periods was bad simply because they used different instruments. Why do the same for electronic and hip-hop?
YouTube comments on this topic often mention computer programs create beats, suggesting that all you need to make a hip-hop beat or an electonic song is some fancy audio-software and the ability to press a button on the mouse.
Music editing and creation programs often come with sample beats and even beat-makers in which you can simply adjust sliders to change the tune being played. These, like anything else, require much skill to use. If they didn't, everyone would be writing hit songs. But, these are not how beats are made, I would suggest reading a few articles on the topic: http://tweakheadz.com/hip_hop_beat_construction.htm
There is a reason artists and recording companies have pay large sums of money for proffesional producers to come in and work with them.
In defence against this, YouTube commenters will often argue "Yeah, all you have to do is read a guide and you can do it, there are little kids that have YouTube videos of them producing beats to prove it." There are several things wrong with this arguement. First of all, you could "just" read a guide for how to play guitar but that wouldn't make you Jimmy Page. Secondly, there are plenty of YouTube videos of young children playing guitar, does this mean that the guitar requires no talent? Finally, how much talent goes into something is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if something is nearly impossible to play properly or if half the planet could do it; what matters is if it sounds good. And this is obviously subjective.
But everyone listens to bad music now?
Yes. Does this really surprise you? Most people don't care about taking the time to enjoy genres. You didn't take the time to develope a taste for jazz or the blues, why should you expect others to develope a taste for rock music?
What is popular and what is good are not the same thing at all. Most music that gets popular, (especially now that there is a much larger music listening crowd) (more on that later) just isn't that good. Most people don't want to have to think about the lyrics or the meaning, they don't want long songs, they don't want things that are hard to listen to or take time to appreciate, they just want something simple that is fun to listen or dance to. It has always been this way.
According to these people, during the prime-time of rock music, everyone listened to rock and practically worshipped it. This is not true in any way at all. Because there were simply less genres of music back then, a smaller crowd of people listening to music and less ways to get access to music, there were more people listening to rock than there are to the "good" genres today.
Look at the "top singles" charts for those years when people supposedly, magically, had better music tastes. The top selling single of 1969, supposedly one of the greatest years in music, was "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies, a cartoon band from a TV show. Throughout the 60s, the Beatles had three best selling singles of the year. On the surface this seems great but look at what years and what songs. The Beatles didn't play the sound they are famous for until after 1965, two of their "top singles" were in 1963 and 1964. Literally, simple pop songs. I am not saying these songs are bad, they just aren't the "classic" rock sound, or even really that good compared to what we remember the Beatles for today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles_by_year_(UK)
Take a look at the best selling albums in the United States of America. The Beatles didn't score a single one during the 60s, despite selling more albums than any other band in history. Throughout the entire 60s and 70s only a handful of artists associated with the "good music" scene sold top albums. Dark Side of the Moon, the best selling rock album of all time, didn't even make it to the top. The reason these albums sold so well was because they were good enough that people still wanted to buy them in large amounts ten years later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-selling_albums_by_year_in_the_United_States
The difference is that these artists had lasting power, that they were good enough that people still wanted to listen to them ten years later. Time weeded out the bad artists. When we look back at the 60s we don't hear the bad music that all the teenagers then complained about and rebelled against by playing the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan, we hear the "soul-filled" artists they made popular by rebelling against the "bad" music.
The "good" music was more popular back then than it is today and there are reasons why. Back then, people didn't have the Internet and other sources of finding music easily. So when something got popular, that meant it was more popular than it would be today. Today, because the Internet has allowed so many new genres to spread so quickly and old ones to be brought back, more and more people and sent off into different directions rather than just what is being played on the radio at that time. Experience shows me that if you listen to something several times, even if you hate it at first, you might develope a taste for it. This would allow people to listen to the Rolling Stones or Black Sabbath and learn to enjoy them simply because they heard them so often. And no, I'm not suggesting everyone lived in a box with a single radio station, I'm just saying there was less variety back then.
Another thing that makes "bad" music more popular is how it is marketed. Back "then" kid's music existed, but it just wasn't such a large portion of the market. Today, things like Disney Channel and Nickelodeon use their own artists to create their own music for kids. They use their advertisements, TV shows and their own radio stations to promote this. Being exposed to it so often, it is no surprise that children often fall for Hannah Montana or whatever the latest artist is. This happened "back then" too, a good example is the Archies, but just not as widespreadly as it happens today. Today, more parents just drop their kids off in front of a TV.
So now that we have established that people didn't magically have better ears for discerning talent and quality from "easy" and "fun" back then, lets apply that to modern times. Look at the top 40 chart for today, February 5th, 2012. You'll find artists like Katy Perry, Bruno Mars and LMFAO. These are all pop artists that are played on the radio, TV shows, put in movies and played at dances. Obviously these artists are going to be the most popular. Once again, do you seriously think that the majority of the population is going to take the time to develope tastes for different genres of music? Do you think they're all going to listen to Oneohetrix Point Never? No, they just want something simple to put on in the background.
Back in the 60s and 70s there was bad music too. We just don't see it. The reason why is because time has weeded out the bad and the boring and left us with, mostly, the classics. Most people who listen to pop music get tired of something simply because it is old. We've all heard some teenager trying to tell us that 90s and 80s music is bad simply because it is "old". Most "simple" music listeners become much less avid followers of the art form after they reach a certain age. So, without the simple music listeners still listening to and spreading the "bad music", there isn't as much of a vehicle for it to live on. Which one are you going to tell you kids about, the Beatles or the Archies?
Well, there is no good music underground either?
A lot of people cite certain artists and say "Here's the good music, just listen to this" and expect the people who enjoy everything from AC/DC to Led Zeppelin (joke) to enjoy this psychedelic-elecontric-experimental-art-rock-ballad that they love so much.
I have mentioned it several times earlier, but you don't just listen to a new genre or sound and enjoy it automatically. Sometimes you might, some people are better at it than others, but lets be honest here; everyone has listened to a band that is a "classic" and hated it or found it boring and came back a week later and loved it. I didn't like Pink Floyd the first time I heard them; now they're one of my favorite bands.
The first time I ever heard Radiohead, the only song I liked was Creep, which was a grunge-influenced song that is among their most popular. I thought their other stuff was boring but interesting. Their casual listeners say that Radiohead is a one-hit-wonder and that Creep is their only good song (or one of roughly three). Fans of the band will tell you that Creep is average in their discography and that the albums that came later are so much better in almost every aspect.
Thankfully I enjoyed Creep enough (Mainly the vocals, which I wasn't used to hearing yet) that I gave their other stuff another try. I bought OK Computer and listened to it. The first time I heard it I only liked two or three of the songs a lot and found the rest from above average to boring. Now, after repeated listens allowing the textures and layers to come out and be appreciated, OK Computer would rank among my favorite albums of all time.
Also, in my opinion, "good" music has moved more towards the artsy side. Every year seems to have better production (not really over-produced, that's not what I'm saying) and more experimental music being released. Some of the things that used to be avant-garde ten years ago are normal now. There are more sounds and they are constantly blending together in new ways.
So, obviously, just listening to a song, especially if you come in expecting to hate it, isn't going to be enough to say that it is bad music.
Conclusion?
There is plenty of good music being released now. It all depents on what genres of styles you like. If you have a very small taste in music genres then you probably won't find much because many modern genres are blends of already-existing genres.
Give yourself an honest and complete chance with some of these artists. If you do, you'll find that some of them are just as good as the so called "good" music you constantly tout. And not just modern music either. This article is geared towards "classic rock" listeners, the vast majority of whom do not listen to jazz or the blues or any form of classical or punk. Allowing yourself to enjoy genres such as these will open entire new worlds of music and sounds for you to enjoy.
This is a ridiculous urban-myth that is created by nostalgia and the wish to stand out in a crowd.
In the end, the only thing you have to lose in opening up your music taste is to lose your credibility among angry teenagers who think their dad's CD collection is the greatest ever assembled.
In short, it isn't like all the world's governments just put some chemical in the water that magically made everyone tone-deaf and dumb.
