Why Music Has Lost it’s Charms (Article)

@parker65310

"There is an incredible variety of great music still being created all the time. One just has to keep an open mind and be curious and willing to put the time in to search it out." 

The fact that we have to search it out rather than have it presented to us on the radio or some other medium is the problem in a nutshell. It's the people who are choosing what to present to us on the radio or some other medium who are the problem because they aren't willing to expand their searches and fall back on the simplistic, routine, and boring garbage that makes it onto the radio today. I have no problem saying there is likely great music being created today. I also have no problem saying that most of what makes it onto the radio or onto other media today is drivel.

I have no problem saying there is likely great music being created today. I also have no problem saying that most of what makes it onto the radio or onto other media today is drivel.

Great post!

It is this radio or other media most of the times crap i called "commercial" music...

Very good  popular music  all across the world is unknown in traditional media...

Artists are boycotted  .... They are not enough usable "commercial" products..

There is more artist creators in music today than ever, but corporations rules not art...

They made music because they were paid to whether by church or as often nobility. For money, the definition of commercial. No one else could afford such frivolities to commission work. However, it was also consumed by the masses .. so popular and commercial though of what competition I can't speak. 

Best not to post about things you apparently know next to nothing.  Ever heard of patronage and the patron system?  Patronage isn't commerce or commercialism, nothing close.  And to say music for the courts of the nobility was consumed by the masses is so self-evidently wrong it isn't even funny.

Music for the Courts of Nobility is NOT the music we hear today. We hear the major works for the masters, which was commissioned by nobility and religious leaders, the latter which obviously had wide distribution, but the former also was used to appease the "masses" at least the much lesser nobles, merchants, etc.  There was little music for the masses at all then.

YOU may want to learn a little about say "Mozart" and what a patronage meant back then. Today's equivalent is employee with a rather defined salary whether for nobleman or religious leader, the definition of "commercial".  He eventually struck out on his own .... again commercial ... and then went back to employment.  It was called "patronage" back then, as unlike say a blacksmith, there was no inherent value or output you were being paid for, a frivolity so to speak, but absolutely his commercial paid career was making music, complete with the influence of his "patron".

@sns I agree we don’t value artists.  As a musician, I am quite aware as to how devalued artists’ contributions to society are.  It couldn’t be more apparent.

I’m not sure a business model that requires artists to receive 100,000 “plays” before they make $400, especially during inflation and a live-show-limiting global pandemic, has “nothing inherently wrong with it.”