Is the quality of new music diminishing, or am I just getting old?

[The Unforgiven]

For some time now, I have pondered this question. But let me preface what I mean by "new" music before I elaborate further. When I say new music, I mean to sugest Top-Fifty pop music. Comparing what charted a quarter of a century ago to now, the music is worlds apart, in my opinion.

I was born in the early eighties. I grew up listening to bands like Metallica, Live, R.E.M., Nirvana, U2, Pearl Jam, Red Hot Chilli Peppers et al. Subjectively of course, I say that these bands produced some fantastic music. Music which dominated the charts throughout the nineties.

Fast forward twenty-five years and what do we have dominating the charts these days? Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Bruno Mars and Nicki Minaj, just to name a few. Most or all of the tracks produced by these "artists", as well as many others, appear devoid of originality at best, to downright irritating at worst.

Many, including the younger brigade, will take issue with some of what I've said. That's fine. I'm not trying to be provocative, but I am trying to seek clarity as to how I feel about where music is at today.

Music is emotive. The lyrics are supposed to stir up feelings, good or bad. When we relate to the lyrics, when the beat and the tempo just feel right, we feel an almost indescribable joy when absorbing ourselves in the moment.

I have tried hard to be objective when listening to many, many songs produced in the last ten or so years. I've tried to relate to the lyrics; I've tried to become absorbed in what the artist is presumably trying to achieve. But I can't. I find many of today's music bland. And I certainly can't see the same level of artistry in pop music now as I did back in the day.

This all begs the questuon: is the quality of the music which charts today of a lower standard than what charted twenty-five years ago? Or am I getting old and finding that new music is something which I can no longer relate to?

I remember my Mum saying that new music sucked when I was a kid. I feel like I'm now becoming the very thing that I lamented when I was young; an old, out of touch person. But I can't help it. And, ironically, some of the music my Mum listened to which I thought was old fart's music back then, I actually really like now.

 

[BEaston]

There was the same amount of crap back then as well, you just forget it easily and only remember the good stuff.

Yes those bands you mentioned were on the charts... I wouldn't say they dominated though. I remember crap groups like the Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys dominating...

Yes it is an age thing as well... music changes with the times and older generations will always struggle, to some degree, to connect with new/different music.

 

[The Unforgiven]

There was the same amount of crap back then as well, you just forget it easily and only remember the good stuff.

Yes those bands you mentioned were on the charts... I wouldn't say they dominated though. I remember crap groups like the Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys dominating...

Yes it is an age thing as well... music changes with the times and older generations will always struggle, to some degree, to connect with new/different music.

I don't agree, subjectively, that there was the same amount of crap back then as there is now. Of course, that's my opinion - my opinion being the basis of this thread, however.

I have reviewed the end-of-year charts from the last twenty odd years and I have found that there's less songs in each consecutive year that I can truly say that I liked. There's less than ten songs in the aria top-fifty charts that I *don't mind*.

There's definitely something to be said about crap songs being forgotten. Yes, Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys and many others throughout the nineties sucked. But there was a good balance of genres - enough to satisfy many tastes.

I guess one of the problems I've found is that I don't really like hip-hop/RnB. There seems to be a lot of it getting airtime. Where's the Rock/Metal these days? No where to be seen!

Thankfully the internet has made finding great non-mainstream bands easy. It's just a shame that these great bands, in my opinion, are not mainstream. If a band like Disturbed were around in the eighties, they'd have been a lot bigger.

 

[BEaston]

I have reviewed the end-of-year charts from the last twenty odd years and I have found that there's less songs in each consecutive year that I can truly say that I liked. There's less than ten songs in the aria top-fifty charts that I *don't mind*.

Sure and that's where the different generation thing comes in.

It's a combination IMO. People always look back more fondly on things over time and the music is changing away from your tastes. IT will be the same for every future generation the same as it has been for every past generation (which you already acknowledged with your Mum).

 

[PhatBoy]

Fundamental difference:

Less guitar music charting.

 

[JackOutback]

It's the second one

People often think that music has gotten worse, because the songs that stand the test of time and are replayed 20 years later are very, very good. Here's the rub though, a lot of those songs didn't chart at the time and the same old pop s**t topped the charts. In 20 years time, Bieber and co will be forgotten, and some of the great songs from today that don't chart will still be getting a run on your old timey stations.

I grew up on late 80s, early '90s music, that era of grunge was still the most influential to me. But I still make a point of listening to as much new music as I can and it is still very good. The whole music industry is a little more fractured because of downloading and streaming, so perhaps it's a case of finding what you like and tracking it from there rather than looking at the charts.

 

[QuietB]

I don't agree, subjectively, that there was the same amount of crap back then as there is now. Of course, that's my opinion - my opinion being the basis of this thread, however.

I have reviewed the end-of-year charts from the last twenty odd years and I have found that there's less songs in each consecutive year that I can truly say that I liked. There's less than ten songs in the aria top-fifty charts that I *don't mind*.

There's definitely something to be said about crap songs being forgotten. Yes, Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys and many others throughout the nineties sucked. But there was a good balance of genres - enough to satisfy many tastes.

I guess one of the problems I've found is that I don't really like hip-hop/RnB. There seems to be a lot of it getting airtime. Where's the Rock/Metal these days? No where to be seen!

Thankfully the internet has made finding great non-mainstream bands easy. It's just a shame that these great bands, in my opinion, are not mainstream. If a band like Disturbed were around in the eighties, they'd have been a lot bigger.

I give you 1927, Millie Vanilli, Peter Andre, Boyz II Men, Bros, Bronski Beat, Rick Astley, Jason Donovan, Sabrina, Fine Young Cannibals, Martika, New Kids on the Block, Indecent Obsession and that is not even touching on soft metal

**** the 80's

 

[The Unforgiven]

I give you 1927, Millie Vanilli, Peter Andre, Boyz II Men, Bros, Bronski Beat, Rick Astley, Jason Donovan, Sabrina, Fine Young Cannibals, Martika, New Kids on the Block, Indecent Obsession and that is not even touching on soft metal

**** the 80's

Yep. The only problem is that I never disputed that there were no s**t bands in any given era. Your argument is a classic case of straw man fallacy, owing to the fact that I actually agree with your examples.

 

[Long Live HFC]

i think your methodology is off. music charts are merely a metric for sales; they say nothing about music quality- they just show what people are buying. it could be perfectly possible for music overall to be of a much higher quality, yet the charts still be filled with s**t in comparison to "the good old days". the only (subjective) inference you could make from chart statistics is that more people generally are enjoying worse music than in previous "eras".

as QuietB points out, the 80s (for example) were full of so much ******* s**t it was ridiculous. additionally, while chart-topping pop music might be generally awful in 2017- check out the pop tracks from the 50s and 60s. jesus f'n christ. thanks mum!

i suspect your post could possibly be more accurate if you said 90s-era grunge or alternative rock is better than its modern equivalents. not being into it anymore i couldn't comment, though.

I have tried hard to be objective when listening to many, many songs produced in the last ten or so years. I've tried to relate to the lyrics; I've tried to become absorbed in what the artist is presumably trying to achieve. But I can't. I find many of today's music bland. And I certainly can't see the same level of artistry in pop music now as I did back in the day.

the options for finding new music to love are better than at anytime previous, it's just that you might have to wade through more s**t to find what you want. but nothing worth having is easy!

 

[The Unforgiven]

It's the second one

People often think that music has gotten worse, because the songs that stand the test of time and are replayed 20 years later are very, very good. Here's the rub though, a lot of those songs didn't chart at the time and the same old pop s**t topped the charts. In 20 years time, Bieber and co will be forgotten, and some of the great songs from today that don't chart will still be getting a run on your old timey stations.

I grew up on late 80s, early '90s music, that era of grunge was still the most influential to me. But I still make a point of listening to as much new music as I can and it is still very good. The whole music industry is a little more fractured because of downloading and streaming, so perhaps it's a case of finding what you like and tracking it from there rather than looking at the charts.

That's exactly what I do do now. I don't have trouble finding decent new music. It's just interesting that today's young demographic want something completely different to twenty years ago.

What I do find interesting to ponder is what songs from today will be absolute classics in, say, fifty years' time? Bands like The Beatles, Rolling Stones are synonymous with sixties/seventies classics. I'd bloody well hope Bieber and co. are in fact forgotten by then.

 

[QuietB]

Yep. The only problem is that I never disputed that there were no s**t bands in any given era. Your argument is a classic case of straw man fallacy, owing to the fact that I actually agree with your examples.

You said today's charts were dominated by s**t and pointed out the 80's charts were dominated by s**t.

What is the difference between Madonna and Beyoncé or Katy Perry or whoever. It is basically the same crap just 30 years apart except Katy Perry has not got her kit off. Yet

 

[JackOutback]

That's exactly what I do do now. I don't have trouble finding decent new music. It's just interesting that today's young demographic want something completely different to twenty years ago.

What I do find interesting to ponder is what songs from today will be absolute classics in, say, fifty years' time? Bands like The Beatles, Rolling Stones are synonymous with sixties/seventies classics. I'd bloody well hope Bieber and co. are in fact forgotten by then.

Downloading, streaming, alternative music sources etc mean that the era of the super band is probably over. It is unlikely you will find someone as big today as U2 or Metallica in the '80s, Nirvana and Pearl Jam in the '90s or even Foo Fighters and Green Day, Each genre will have its own station or website promoting its music, but less likelihood of bands crossing into the mainstream. The charts will be dominated by what the teens like. But there are still great songs by great bands that will receive airplay in years to come.

 

[The Unforgiven]

You said today's charts were dominated by s**t and pointed out the 80's charts were dominated by s**t.

What is the difference between Madonna and Beyoncé or Katy Perry or whoever. It is basically the same crap just 30 years apart except Katy Perry has not got her kit off. Yet

I suppose that today's music charts are dominated by s**t while the eighties had a fair amount of s**t with a very healthy dose of great bands.

I could list an absolute truck load of bands from the eighties whom regularly charted and are considered both subjectively, as well as universally very good. I defy you to list half as many good ones.

From the top of my head, the bands/artists from the last ten years whom I considered good: Coldplay, Mumford and Sons, The Killers, Kings of Leon, Foo Fighters, Linkin Park, Fallout Boy. There would be plenty of others if I did some research.

Most of what I like is not what the masses want. But it's because the quality of songs produced, the lyrics and creativity appear to be lacking, is the reason why I don't like a lot of what's currently produced.

Instrumentals seem to be replaced with computer generated noises whilst the vocals no longer sound as unique, with synthesisers being used more than ever before. And I even do like some euro dance/trance with all of that in use, but even then that genre isn't as mainstream.

 

[QuietB]

I suppose that today's music charts are dominated by s**t while the eighties had a fair amount of s**t with a very healthy dose of great bands.

I could list an absolute truck load of bands from the eighties whom regularly charted and are considered both subjectively, as well as universally very good. I defy you to list half as many good ones.

From the top of my head, the bands/artists from the last ten years whom I considered good: Coldplay, Mumford and Sons, The Killers, Kings of Leon, Foo Fighters, Linkin Park, Fallout Boy. There would be plenty of others if I did some research.

Most of what I like is not what the masses want. But it's because the quality of songs produced, the lyrics and creativity appear to be lacking, is the reason why I don't like a lot of what's currently produced.

Instrumentals seem to be replaced with computer generated noises whilst the vocals no longer sound as unique, with synthesisers being used more than ever before. And I even do like some euro dance/trance with all of that in use, but even then that genre isn't as mainstream.

Just Radiohead is enough to save the period

I think the mega band is diminishing but then we do have Coldplay as you listed who are today's equivalent of U2.

I think we can overstate what some of the past bands were as well, R.E.M. were a fringe college band for example for their whole career, Nivana were certainly alternative as well.

And the current period is weirdly dominated by nostalgia for the past - see Rolling Stones endless world tours, Bruce Springsteen, Oils now etc.

It will be interesting if there will be a new mega band

 

[JackOutback]

Coldplay were the last mega band but even they have moved on to nostalgia, almost. In the past decade, Muse, Killers, Arcade Fire all threatened to break through but never really had the mainstream longevity.

When the only place to get your music was in store, some indie bands were able to push into mainstream through some big sales. But too many fans will download or stream while teens will always buy. A band that can straddle indie cred and mainstream sales is pretty unlikely now.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Instrumentals seem to be replaced with computer generated noises whilst the vocals no longer sound as unique, with synthesisers being used more than ever before. And I even do like some euro dance/trance with all of that in use, but even then that genre isn't as mainstream.

haha. funnily enough, most old-school trancers will tell you 1999-2001 was better than anything being produced today.

It will be interesting if there will be a new mega band

will never happen. the market delivery mechanisms have changed too much and there is so much more product available, cheaper and more accessible.

 

[La Dispute]

When was the last incredible rock album released?

 

[The Unforgiven]

Just Radiohead is enough to save the period

I think the mega band is diminishing but then we do have Coldplay as you listed who are today's equivalent of U2.

I think we can overstate what some of the past bands were as well, R.E.M. were a fringe college band for example for their whole career, Nivana were certainly alternative as well.

And the current period is weirdly dominated by nostalgia for the past - see Rolling Stones endless world tours, Bruce Springsteen, Oils now etc.

It will be interesting if there will be a new mega band

I recall many social commentators and musos alike predicting One Direction to be the next "mega band". FMD is what I thought when hearing that. Luckily they have been quiet as of late.

I get that we can and do get seduced by nostalgia. Our teenage and early twenties can be the most exciting and impressionable time of our lives.

Songs that we thought were junk back then can seem better later just because they evoke memories of a fun and care-free time of our life.

Having said that, I've also found that music I liked back in the day doesn't really do it for me these days. My tastes certainly have matured, so some of what I liked is now in the WTF was I thinking? box.

And just finally; Radiohead FTW! I didn't include them as they'd disbanded for the better part of the last decade. However, their most recent album is pretty solid. I hope they'll be remembered for a lot more than just Creep. I doubt theh will be though, at least in Australia...

 

[The Unforgiven]

haha. funnily enough, most old-school trancers will tell you 1999-2001 was better than anything being produced today.

And those "old-school trancers" would be bang-on, too. Delirium remains one of my all-time favourite tracks.

 

[ibd77]

Lets face it, social media killed the mainstream music scene. As a result of this the big recording companies are no longer investing money into new artists as they are no longer getting the financial returns from their investments. This is now limiting the chances of finding and promoting the next big hit which the old timer music audience are seeking to fill their void.

On the flip side, more bands and artists are able to produce and release music without the need of major recording labels via Youtube, iTunes and other means. However this cheapens the music industry and over saturates the market with average releases.

But there is good news too. As there is an over saturation of music, you can explore and find hidden gems that are not in the mainstream. Sure you may find it more difficult to share the experience with your friends but if you are looking at music for your personal pleasure. This is a great era to explore new sounds.

 

[QuietB]

I actually think there is a huge opportunity for live music to return back to the main earner for artists and this may just bring back the band

 

[Richard Cranium]

From the top of my head, the bands/artists from the last ten years whom I considered good: Coldplay, Mumford and Sons, The Killers, Kings of Leon, Foo Fighters, Linkin Park, Fallout Boy. There would be plenty of others if I did some research.

 

[ibd77]

I actually think there is a huge opportunity for live music to return back to the main earner for artists and this may just bring back the band

Majority of bands or artists no matter how big or popular they are have no choice but to tour as this generates most of their income. Album sales alone no longer cuts it these days.

 

[The Unforgiven]

It is right as it's my subjective opinion. Which mainstream bands from the last ten years do you rate, if clearly not the ones I've listed?

 

[psychobrown]

Yeah, I know what you mean man. Chart music (like all music I guess) has that nostalgia factor to it, Pop in particular can place me back in some temporal space where I often remember what was happening around me when that song blew up. A lot of the bands and artists in the past could really capture the changing context of a decade with their sound and delivery, for example, the 60s progressing through Hard Bop, Stomp, Surf Rock, British Invasion, Psychedelica, etc. Nowadays there doesn't seem to be the same variations, across the decade there are homage acts (e.g. Pharrell, Bruno Mars), or generically sampled club crap. I was just having a laugh about this the other day with some friends in fact, over that new Charlie Putrid song "Marvin Gaye", where all he does is namecheck songs and lyrics. He would think he's clever, but I mean, compare that with an homage like "Nightshift" or "Walking in Memphis", the content doesn't even compare.

I agree with your markers there, for me the three things I look for are musicality, lyrics and technique, so if any song can construct meaning and relevance through those dimensions, I find it resonates with my memories. There's a fair bit of half-assery with production these days, simple arrangements, little to no key changes, etc. Drake or Iggy Azzalea as just a quick example, their verses are normally indistinguishable from the chorus. Hell, I am sure even Technotronic put more effort into their arrangements than most artists today. The lyrics do bore me to buggery as well, but I suppose it's more that I struggle to connect with the themes and issues that are critical to today's audiences (cellphones, haters, money, etc). Ultimately, Pop now is so impersonal across all levels, these songs can have 5-10 writers, the singer is usually never even in the studio with the producers and I'm sure some of them never even hear their album until it's finished. I mean come on, if they don't invest in their own music, why would I? Maybe the current big-selling artists still have that same level of self-image as their predecessors did, but the market is so saturated now, producers are cycling through wannabes all the time and it becomes unrewarding to follow such an empty career. I think there are artists today who have been able to cross that old school approach with modern music practices (Adele, The Weeknd, etc), but again, their music doesn't really stay with me after a year. Perhaps, as they have always said, music is just a reflection of our times. Maybe our times just doesn't have much to say?