Why does most new music suck?


Ok I will have some exclusions to my statement. I'm not talking about classical or jazz. My comment is mostly pointed to rock and pop releases. Don't even get me started on rap.... I don't consider it music. I will admit that I'm an old foggy but come on, where are some talented new groups? I grew up with the Beatles, Who, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix etc. I sample a lot of new music and the recordings are terrible. The engineers should be fired for producing over compressed shrill garbage. The talent seems to be lost or doesn't exist. I have turned to some folk/country or blues music. It really is a sad state of affairs....Oh my god, I'm turning into my parents.
goose

Showing 16 responses by martykl

All in perspective, grasshopper!

For some people, Zep, The Beatles, The Who, etc. are just examples of white folk butchering the music of Chuck Berry, et al. Then there are the folks that see Chuck Berry as an abomination of the blues. Etc. Etc.

I don't love hip hop, but I do see it as one more step in the evolution of the blues into dance music - pretty much the same way I see rock n roll.

Everyone sees art where they see it, misses art where they don't see it, and may or may not struggle to see it where it doesn't exist. At the end of the day, all you can do is keep looking. An open mind helps, but even that doesn't guarantee that anyone will relate to a given piece of music.

So, good luck and keep listening!
I like Bongo's advice.

No one will ever get the satisfaction of saying "I told you so!" when the world comes to an end. (Okay, maybe in their next life.)

As to civility, the good news is that people here are passionate about music (among other things). When passion runs high, manners are sometimes forgotten.

I'm in the camp that generally prefers to read the optimistic responses so my kudos go to Todd and Mapman for seeing the half full glass.
My mistake.

What's pleasing to Csontos is - perforce - pleasing to all. More importantly, what's displeasing to Csontos is displeasing to all.

And what's close minded is when it's raining and you ask the guy next to you to stop pissing on your leg.
Interesting comments about the music suffering for the "separation of artists and instruments". Intuitively, I'd reach the opposite conclusion. As technology changes, music adapts. To me, rock n roll is the musical child of the electric guitar. Had the piano not come along to follow the harpsichord, music would certainly have evolved differently. You can be pretty confident that piano music alienated a fair # of harpsichord music lovers and you know that rock n roll pissed off a whole lot of folks.

Today, computers (and derivative electronics) are often the instruments of choice and music has morphed to accommodate that. The skills required to make music may have changed, but skills are still required. For me, it's progress, even if the results don't move me very often.

Most of the music I love comes from artists whose careers started 40+ years ago and very little comes from new artists exploiting new approaches. That is, I do like a fair # of young singer songwriter types, but I don't like much hip hop or electronica. The fact that I don't love it, however, would never lead me to conclude that it sucks.

Just MHO
Frogman,

My point about progress is that as music moves forward, it may lose me from time to time. Maybe I'll catch up, maybe I won't. Maybe the music took a bad turn and there's nothing to catch up to, because the way forward may involve some temporary steps backward.

All I'm saying is that I tend to view my own dissatisfaction with....say electronica...as a disconnect rather than an inherent problem with the music (or with me, for that matter) .

Music is such an abstract art form that I'm hesitant to be dismissive of new and unfamiliar variants. I feel comfortable making judgements about rock n roll (though I don't expect everyone to agree with me) because I have a context in which to judge it. I don't feel like I can discriminate good electronica from bad electronica, so I conclude that I don't "get" the genre, rather than conclude that the genre sucks

Hope that makes sense.

Marty
Might as well stir up the pot.

Simao,

Where did you get the "Rhythm and Poetry" Village Voice attribution for the etymology of the word "rap"? I've seen the term "hip hop" attributed to the Voice, but never "rap" and I can't find anything like it on a web search. The idea of that coinage also strikes me as very unlikely, given the much earlier use of the term to describe racial debate in the US and its broad adaptation in the African American community (see H. Rap Brown) in the 1960's. Further, the musician Joe Tex ("Gotcha") claimed that he used the word "rap" to describe his spoken vocals as early as the 1960's.

Emailsts,

As to rap not descending from "legitimate" artists, many in the earliest generation of rappers were arguably much deeper into the historical context of the blues than any of the white rockers revered on this site. If you explore African griots, rap seems very much a part of the same evolutionary musical process as blues and rock music and it's every bit as true (and probably truer) to the African musical traditions that underpin the blues.

Csontos,

Don't couch your argument in math when it ends here:

"Sure there are zillions of possible melodies, the vast majority being pure garbage as relates to our ears. "

Even if this statement were true, determining which combinations are "pure garbage" is a wholly personal judgement rendering any math before it entirely moot. The rules of standard Western musical scales and diatonics might seem restrictive, but there's a lot of room to expand them. Modern classical musicians live in this space, and even pop music can be (and is being) constantly tweaked to new and interesting effect (Steven Sondheim is a good example of a "pop" musician exploring new harmonic ideas). Beyond that, there is a world of alternate tonality (the semi tones, quarter tones, and micro-tones of Indian Raga, for example) that can be endlessly hybridized with more familiar approaches.

Your notion that all "the best ones " (musical ideas) have been exhausted (and the math to support that idea) speaks narrowly to your personal definition of "best".

I don't like very much rap music, but - IMO - artists from Gil Scott Heron to Grandmaster Flash have produced rap that shouldn't be dismissed. It's striking how many posts here defend the author's personal taste in absolute terms. Where does "discriminating taste" end and "close minded" begin?

Marty
I think you missed my point.

This community is dominated by (though not completely composed of) conservative music lovers. A glance at the music threads over time will confirm that. The music of Jimmy Page is certainly far more beloved here than say, the music of his contemporary(ish) Phillip Glass. That speaks zero to their relative artistic merit as composers - particularly since Page stole as much material as he created (great guitarist, tho) and Glass continues to further the evolution of musical language (for better or worse). No surprise that I'd agree that rap would be unpopular in the vote you suggest - it ain't what people here want to hear.

OTOH, rap dominates music sales among young people. The inherent assumption in the audiophile vote you propose is that the musical taste here is "superior" to the masses. If you're talking about discriminating between two guitar heros of the '60's, I'd agree that the knowledge base here would be relevant. Once you extend the debate to more recent genres....

IOW, my observation is that it is (with several notable exceptions) popular music posters here are narrow, backward looking, and quite conservative in their musical taste and would likely reject rap in a heartbeat. It's also likely that the community is older, wealthier, whiter, etc. than the population in general. That might have something to do with the musical preferences here, ya think?

If I'm being honest, I'd include myself in that group. The difference is, I'm not dismissive of the entire genre.

Marty
I made no attempt to cloud any issues in my previous post. If the wider audiophile community is meaningfully different demographically from the community here on A'gon, it would surprise me - not that I couldn't be surprised. I make no argument that most audiophiles (here or elsewhere) likely reject rap, just an argument that it's the wrong community to pass judgement on genres like rap or electronica.

As to Rok 2 id's challenge, it's the same problem, both musically and lyrically: context. You may find Public Enemy or Grandmaster Flash's lyrics offensive, but they strike me as serious in a way that most rock lyrics are not. That is, closer to The Clash's "Guns of Brixton" than Zep's "Lemon Song". I understand those who reject a call to violence (and I agree at one level), but I also think it's the duty of art to challenge and, at times, offend. The overt sexuality of (mainly black) rock n roll musicians was enormously offensive to the white community in the 1950's. Who do you take to task there, the musicians or the community? That said, I admit that I find some of the rap violence, mysogeny and homophobics unsettling. Again, I don't love this music.

Musically, the form resists the kind of evaluation you desire. This is primitivist art. We've seen that aesthetic rejected (predictably) in the earlier post about Andy Warhol, for instance. (Do you think Warhol's art is rejected by the academy?) Note: the acceptance of Warhol (or Basquiat or Haring or even Picasso's very simple nudes) by the academy isn't meant to suggest that they're great art. Merely that primitivst are shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's primitive. That's the point of it.

In particular, I'd argue that primitivist blues based music should never be rejected on its face. The blues is as simple as it gets - primarily formulaic 12 bar structures. From my perspective, that extends to rock music, as well. "Johnny B. Goode" is barely a song - it's a riff, a backbeat, and a lead guitar with a wild hair up its ass. Yet, for me, it's the greatest rock song ever written. (And, by the way, lots of critics polls put it near the top, as well, for whatever that's worth.) No harmony, meaningful lyrics, hooks, interesting chord progessions, etc. Just rock n roll. The Beatles, who were IMHO master pop craftsmen, never get close (again, only IMO) to capturing that anarchic essence of the form, despite some very elegant songwriting.

As to the percentage of rap artists (vs other pop/rock musicians) with commercial as opposed to artistic aspirations, I don't see much difference. I assume that the vast majority of pop musicians (rap, rock, or otherwise) probably combine some belief in their own artistic vision with a desire to be a star. OTOH, I really don't have any basis to evaluate the goals of the broader community of either group of musicians - I'm just not that familiar with 'em.
Rok 2 id wrote:

I just want to make clear that a person does not have to an Audiophile, or be of a certain ethnicity or socio-enconomic class, to be OUTRAGED, at the sight and sound of some illiterate cretin shouting obscenities and vulgarities, over a plagiarized music track.

....Well, maybe you don't have to be an audiophile, or socio-economically privileged to be outraged by rap, but it certainly seems to help. ;-)

Marty
Csontos,

The question of art that offends is an interesting one to me. Whether they were throwing eggs at the debut of Rite of Spring because the music was strident or because the choreography was suggestive is irrelevant to me. Either way, it was great art that offended its contemporary audience. I think there's a lesson about tolerance in there, and tho I doubt much rap deserves to be the beneficiary of that lesson, I'm still disinclined to sweeping dismissal.

And, I actually disagree about the connection between rock n roll on the one hand and contemporary painters on the other - tho Basquiat, Haring, et al are probably purer examples than Warhol. (Ironically, their imagery owes a huge debt to - you guessed it - rap and hip hop culture.) I was married into the NYC art scene at that time and the connection between pop art and classical art was definitely prominent. Even the "classical" music of Steve Reich, LaMont Young, Phillip Glass, Terry Riley, et al bumped up against rock n roll.

The idea that simple, abstract images (or music) could be very powerful is a pretty recent idea in the West. Classical art that celebrates craft and beauty has its place in my life. So does contemporary art that eschews those notions.

As to evaluating Chuck Berry vs The Beatles, it's another question that poses a problem about which measuring stick should be used. If you want craft with your art - take The Beatles. If the point of the art is that craft only dilutes the impact - then take Chuck Berry. (Depending on the day of the week, I might go either way.)

Personally, I will still listen to Chuck Berry, but I'll never cue up a Beatles song. OTOH, The Beatles are probably the biggest influence on my own (amateur) songwriting. For me, there's two sides to this coin and I appreciate both sides - each in its own way.

Marty
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
Sorry, in my world, there's only one acceptable cover of this song.

Marty McFly in Back to the Future

A smokin' solo from (I'm told) Mark Campbell of Jack Mack & The Heart Attack
FYI Raconteurs fans.

I'm a huge Jack White fan, but Brendan Benson is a (some might argue the) major contributor to the sound of that band. All of BB's solo stuff is worth checking out.

Regarding the NME 150 list,

That thing looks like it was assembled by committee. You start with a sprinkling of Mumford, add a little Rihanna and Gnarles Barkley on the one hand, a bit of Coldplay on the other, and Radiohead all the way around, just to be safe from criticism. I always try to be open minded regarding music and actually enjoy music from each of those genres, but this list reeks of political, rather than artistic, considerations.

It's not a terrible job, but no one should view that list as indicative of today's SOTA.

Marty
One more thought re: a preference for simple melodies. If you're a fan of Zep, then you probably like involved melodies more than you might think. While the vocal melodies and the riffs in their music are generally pretty simple, the melodies that Jimmy Page supplies via guitar are anything but...

Just sayin'

Marty
Act,

How many songs prior to 2000 match up to Watchtower?

OTOH, Long and Winding Road? There's a very long list of those. You taste is your taste, and my takeaway is that todays innovative music is barking up a Different tree. If you limit yourself to first degree blues derivatives, I agree that the songs will, by definition, begin to mine familiar ground.....however that was also true in the 60s and 70s.

That said, there's plenty of great post 2000 stuff already listed above that should move you. From your own list, I'd start with Todd Rundgren's cover album of Robert Johnson songs. Tho these are very old songs, they were already old songs when you loved them back in the day. Newer songs from older artists would include "Come" from Say You Will by Fleetwood Mac, "Guns are the Tongues" from Sweet Warrior by Richard Thompson, and "Spoonful" from I Feel Like Playing from Ron Wood, among many, many others. To varying degrees these will sound familiar, but as near as I can tell, this is what might work for you

On the new artist side, I'd have started with White Stripes, and we know that didnt move you much, so I'll skip that part.

Marty
Interesting observation by Schubert.  Rap/hip hop strikes me as much closer in spirit to 1950s Rock n Roll than most other contemporary music.  On the whole, it's been significantly more counter-culture than most other pop music forms that have come and gone since then.   Like the message or not, at least it has something to say.  Rock music has produced a fair number of virtuoso players over the decades, but you can argue that that sort of misses the point.  None of this music need necessarily be about technical competence.

However, little hip hop resonates with me.  While that doubtless says more about me as a listener than it does about the music, it also speaks to an earlier argument made in this thread:. As we get older, we listen differently.  Some have suggested that we listen with a more discerning ear, but it's also likely that we listen with a less open mind - and I plead guilty to that, as well.