Why does most new music suck?

There's probably more good--and bad--now than before simply because there's so much more being produced. There are so many more people around now and I'm betting a higher percentage are involved in making music. Homemade productions are huge in number due to the technology. How many self-produced projects were there in the 60's or 70's?
Not many.

Years from now the bad stuff will mostly have gone away and will be forgotten. The good stuff will be cherished and a later generation will get the wrong idea that this was a "golden age." I promise you, for all the good music produced in the 60's there was also a great deal of crap.
And, of course, it's all subjective anyway.

Every cycle has its share of good and bad art.

I did check out Radio Paradise for some different music and sampled the playlist via Amazon. I didn't really find an artist that could hold together an entire CD except for Ben Howard who I thought was exceptional....so still searching.

I meant no offense and apologize if I cam e across too judgmentally. It's just that I always shudder when someone makes a sweeping generalization about an art form - like opining that most new music sucks. I;m quite sure that many of those in their 40's and 50's said much the same thing when The Who and Zep and such came about in the mid- to late-60's. Much of mew music is simply different in scope and presentation from the standard rock paradigm.

Also, most ADULTS don't know what good sound is. Seriously. For most of the adult world, Bose or Cerwin-Vega! or Bang and Olufsen represent the ultimate in sound, and as long as they have their surround system with earth-shattering bass, they're happy. We audiophiles are a niche minority.

Case in point, a recent review of M83's "Hurry Up, We're Dreaming" cd (whence comes "Midnight City"), while lauding its sonic mastery and composition, lamented that much of its 20-something audience wouldn;t have the equipment needed to really appreciate its audiophile production and attention to detail - nor would they care.

Besides, who ever accused "young folks" of being appreciative of sonic nuances and three-dimensional sound-stages? :)

I get the feeling "most of the music" from any particular time won't stand the test of time. We tend to forget much of the flat out crap or stuff that has not aged well from- name your decade. We have much more choices now- internet radio, spottily and so on dilute the new good stuff. Fleet Foxes, Kate Bush, Radiohead, Devotchka, Janelle Monae get as much of my listening time as Buffalo Springfield, the Doors, R.E.M. Further, there's so much music from earlier decades that I'd never even heard of- The McGarrigles (thanks Elizabeth), the Shins, Stone Roses. And I'm not going to even start on classical- all of Furtwangler's recorded output in one box! Thus, I side with those who feel this is a great time to be a music lover.

There is no good new music. Go ahead, take a deep breath and begin with the word 'there'. Just do it. Now that wasn't so hard was it? Because if it is good, it's a remake. Why is it so hard to face the fact that music can be reduced to a mathematical equation. There simply is not an infinite number of original pleasing harmonies available. This is why the new stuff sucks. No different from the old stuff that sucks. Do the math. And top 40's is a ridiculous comparison. It's time to usher in the brave new world of 'Plagiary'.