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 3 responses by rja

Hey Elizabeth, Ah one, ah two, champagne bubbly music. The pride of North Dakota don't yah know. Yah sure, you bet!
The "90% of everything is crap" theory IMO is close to accurate and applies to OP's question.
This is just my opinion, at any given time "90% of everything is crap" is true in general but I threw this out specifically as a response to this thread.

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

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

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

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