When we dislike modern music, are we forgetting the lessons history has taught us?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Unfortunately, with the low cost of production, music has become a low-risk industry

Oh, how I laughed.

Music is a higher-risk industry than ever before, and when you look at the success/failure ratio, one of the highest risk industries there is. Sure, it's easy enough to make music now, but to be part of the music industry? I can't think of any other industry with a greater failure/dropout/oops-I-ruined-my-life ratio with the possible exception of acting. Just going on percentages of the total, I certainly know more dead/permanently handicapped/mentally scarred/living in a world of complete delusion musicians than soldiers, police or firemen.

I am speaking strictly in terms of economics. Compared to any number of decades ago, music is becoming much cheaper to make with some bands becoming completely digital and releasing music strictly online to cut the cost of compact disks (which aren't very expensive anyways compared to the vinyls music used to made on). I am not at all saying you are not risking time, one can certainly waste a lot of time on music that will never be popular, but now, remember my Lady Gaga example: anybody could make an album cover as crappy as that, the same goes for most modern music videos which are now mostly about the artists as compared to twenty years ago when music videos were nearly at their zenith and the ratio of art to artist was in a beautiful 5 to 1 proportion.

So music for you is about what art is on the front cover, and the images in the music video, not the music itself?

Hardly, that's just the more risky aspect in terms of money (encompassing distribution as well). The actual art of the music doesn't cost anything, you just think and write and compose that, recording is cheap and everything else doesn't cost much at all because people avoid investing more than the minimum in it. The fact of the matter is, distribution of music is becoming the most expensive part.

Just checking here; you do know you're arguing with a recording engineer, right? I'd be more inclined to trust his judgement when it comes to what things cost the industry.

 

[The Funslinger]

In order:
I got 32 seconds into the first song linked.
Lolwhut? Got me one minute and two seconds into the second song linked.
30 seconds into the third song I got bored but for a few seconds I thought it was not that bad... Then I realised I was comparing it to the first two and killed it.

Those examples of Modern Music are not going to kill music. A hell of a lot of bad music came out of the 80's, along with a few gems. Like Twilight will not kill the Vampire genre, those examples of modern "Music" will do nothing in the long run.

Revolutionary? I do not believe they will ever be called such. They are a flash in the pan (Although I am happy to have been ignorant as to the existence of those bands prior to coming across this thread and the happy knowledge that none of my friends have tried to introduce me to those bands.) and well, given some time they will fade.

As for people hating on all modern music? Well, You covered that in your post so I will say nothing bar "What you said is right and I agree"

I do thank you for reminding me to give Arcade Fire a try, been meaning to get round to it for a while.

Some people were born old Fogies. I was raised on a diet of The Beatles (Being born in 92') and I am a massive fan of the Stones, The Who and similar, plus I have a rather large collection of Swing Jazz. Now I do look at modern music and I go "There is a lot of shit out there. Good thing I like Sabaton, The Flobots, The Decemberists, The Killers, Frank Turner, Franz Ferdinand, Scroobius Pipp" (Just trying to pick out bands that have been making music post-2000 or are post-2000 indicating that they are vaguely modern)

I can also safely say I don't just hate techno etc, I have been known to listen to some Basshunter, Tiesto and the like and I really like Dubstep.

I guess what I am trying to say is some modern music is shit but thats life, just avoid what is shit. Its all find to sit up on your highground and state that some people have bad music taste but who are you to judge? Call them morons but those people earn more in a year than most of us will earn in a lifetime. People have the right to like whatever crap they want.

And hell, Certain examples of modern pop aint that bad. I do like me some Bloc Party at times, some generic rock and metal is not so bad. So hating on entire Genres is also pointless (I used to say all rap was shit, then I found Scroobius Pipp)

-Snip-
If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And it's that sentence right there that invalidates your argument and turns it into douche whining.

And before you claim anything, no, I'm not a fan of Nirvana, mostly because I've never bothered to listen to their stuff. However, they're pretty iconic in Rock, so I imagine I'd like them. I do like a lot of rock bands that were around in the 90's. Specifically, Red Hot Chili Peppers. They are basically 80's-present day. The 90's was a fantastic decade for them, they manage to have such a huge variety of music while staying inside of their genre. The only song of theirs I dislike is Porcelain, which grates on me like nothing else.

binnysboy, Just saying right here that I agree with you on the Chili's, bar the moment about Porcelain, which I love (Its actually one of my favourite Chili's songs.

Owyn_Merrilin... You are a tool bro. I like Rock and I dont really like Wolfmother. I really love quite a lot of Nirvana's stuff. Just saying. I am a fan of Rock that likes Nirvana. And Million Dead, Frank Turner, hell, quite a lot of other stuff.

You cannot judge others. Stop thinking you can. However, I can judge you based on how you judge others cause I am a self-declared hypocrite and this will devolve into "BUT X IS BETTER THAN Y LIKING Y MAKES YOU INFERIOR" I advise you go and watch the Jimquisition on Call of Duty.

Nirvana is good. Hurt is a beautiful song. (Cash covered it, not the other way around.) Rock is a varied genre, you do not have to like all of it to like Rock, nor do you have to like a particular band over another to be a fan of rock.

Who am I kidding? I am a fan of Music. And you are a tool ^.^

Or maybe I'm just annoyed that Nirvana's huge success killed classic styled rock for almost 20 years? If you'll notice, Wolfmother sounds a lot like Led Zepplin. Had Nirvana not been so popular that it pushed the kind of rock that actually requires the musicians to know their way around an instrument out of the picture for most of my life, I wouldn't hate them so much. As it stands, I fail to see how someone who likes non-punk based rock could listen to Nirvana and go "you know, I like what they did for the music industry."

Would you stop acting like Nirvana is literally just bashing instruments like cavemen? Yeah, it's noisy music, boo hoo. Get over it, that doesn't mean they're playing badly, it just means it's loud music. The few songs of theirs I've listened to are very tuneful. It's always the rock with distinctive tunes that stick in my mind, see "Smells like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana, "Turn it Again" by Red Hot Chili Peppers and "Carry on Wayward Son" by Kansas.

Razada, thanks, you basically summed up the points I'm too polite to make. RHCP forever! (Also, he called them grunge. How? Grunge is loud angry rock about depressing circumstances and such. Red Hot Chili Peppers are far more varied than that. I'm sure you (Razada) will agree.

 

[JochemDude]

What we do have is less different artist, atleast not all get the opportunity to get big anymore. Why? Because of piracy because sales have dropped (this is undeniable) record labels are less tempted to take risks in new and 'high risk' bands and artists. They do this because it's the safest way to make a lot of money. The masses like often what they are told to like and is 'said' to be good. It's not like there weren't artists like this before only less diverse and other genres feel underrated, which isn't always true there is a immense support for them and to be honest popular music like this is a starting point sooner or later we all develop are more individualized sense of musical taste.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

In order:
I got 32 seconds into the first song linked.
Lolwhut? Got me one minute and two seconds into the second song linked.
30 seconds into the third song I got bored but for a few seconds I thought it was not that bad... Then I realised I was comparing it to the first two and killed it.

Those examples of Modern Music are not going to kill music. A hell of a lot of bad music came out of the 80's, along with a few gems. Like Twilight will not kill the Vampire genre, those examples of modern "Music" will do nothing in the long run.

Revolutionary? I do not believe they will ever be called such. They are a flash in the pan (Although I am happy to have been ignorant as to the existence of those bands prior to coming across this thread and the happy knowledge that none of my friends have tried to introduce me to those bands.) and well, given some time they will fade.

As for people hating on all modern music? Well, You covered that in your post so I will say nothing bar "What you said is right and I agree"

I do thank you for reminding me to give Arcade Fire a try, been meaning to get round to it for a while.

Some people were born old Fogies. I was raised on a diet of The Beatles (Being born in 92') and I am a massive fan of the Stones, The Who and similar, plus I have a rather large collection of Swing Jazz. Now I do look at modern music and I go "There is a lot of shit out there. Good thing I like Sabaton, The Flobots, The Decemberists, The Killers, Frank Turner, Franz Ferdinand, Scroobius Pipp" (Just trying to pick out bands that have been making music post-2000 or are post-2000 indicating that they are vaguely modern)

I can also safely say I don't just hate techno etc, I have been known to listen to some Basshunter, Tiesto and the like and I really like Dubstep.

I guess what I am trying to say is some modern music is shit but thats life, just avoid what is shit. Its all find to sit up on your highground and state that some people have bad music taste but who are you to judge? Call them morons but those people earn more in a year than most of us will earn in a lifetime. People have the right to like whatever crap they want.

And hell, Certain examples of modern pop aint that bad. I do like me some Bloc Party at times, some generic rock and metal is not so bad. So hating on entire Genres is also pointless (I used to say all rap was shit, then I found Scroobius Pipp)

-Snip-
If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And it's that sentence right there that invalidates your argument and turns it into douche whining.

And before you claim anything, no, I'm not a fan of Nirvana, mostly because I've never bothered to listen to their stuff. However, they're pretty iconic in Rock, so I imagine I'd like them. I do like a lot of rock bands that were around in the 90's. Specifically, Red Hot Chili Peppers. They are basically 80's-present day. The 90's was a fantastic decade for them, they manage to have such a huge variety of music while staying inside of their genre. The only song of theirs I dislike is Porcelain, which grates on me like nothing else.

binnysboy, Just saying right here that I agree with you on the Chili's, bar the moment about Porcelain, which I love (Its actually one of my favourite Chili's songs.

Owyn_Merrilin... You are a tool bro. I like Rock and I dont really like Wolfmother. I really love quite a lot of Nirvana's stuff. Just saying. I am a fan of Rock that likes Nirvana. And Million Dead, Frank Turner, hell, quite a lot of other stuff.

You cannot judge others. Stop thinking you can. However, I can judge you based on how you judge others cause I am a self-declared hypocrite and this will devolve into "BUT X IS BETTER THAN Y LIKING Y MAKES YOU INFERIOR" I advise you go and watch the Jimquisition on Call of Duty.

Nirvana is good. Hurt is a beautiful song. (Cash covered it, not the other way around.) Rock is a varied genre, you do not have to like all of it to like Rock, nor do you have to like a particular band over another to be a fan of rock.

Who am I kidding? I am a fan of Music. And you are a tool ^.^

Or maybe I'm just annoyed that Nirvana's huge success killed classic styled rock for almost 20 years? If you'll notice, Wolfmother sounds a lot like Led Zepplin. Had Nirvana not been so popular that it pushed the kind of rock that actually requires the musicians to know their way around an instrument out of the picture for most of my life, I wouldn't hate them so much. As it stands, I fail to see how someone who likes non-punk based rock could listen to Nirvana and go "you know, I like what they did for the music industry."

Would you stop acting like Nirvana is literally just bashing instruments like cavemen? Yeah, it's noisy music, boo hoo. Get over it, that doesn't mean they're playing badly, it just means it's loud music. The few songs of theirs I've listened to are very tuneful. It's always the rock with distinctive tunes that stick in my mind, see "Smells like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana, "Turn it Again" by Red Hot Chili Peppers and "Carry on Wayward Son" by Kansas.

Razada, thanks, you basically summed up the points I'm too polite to make. RHCP forever! (Also, he called them grunge. How? Grunge is loud angry rock about depressing circumstances and such. Red Hot Chili Peppers are far more varied than that. I'm sure you (Razada) will agree.

I didn't call RHCP grunge, I called Nirvana grunge. And yeah, compared to the rock that came before it, Nirvana really was bashing the instruments like cavemen. look into the history sometime. Grunge was a calculated move to clear rock music of hair metal, which required a fairly high level of skill to play properly, and therefore made it difficult for the labels to sign new pretty faces. It's the same story as Punk in the late 70's, except back then, they were trying to kill prog. Can you forgive a person who loves both Prog and hair metal for hating the movements that were calculated to bring them down, and succeeded? However, you people are freaking out about an off handed comment I made about why music is actually better today than it was a decade or two ago. I wouldn't have gone into the points about exactly why I dislike Nirvana if one person hadn't freaked out about a mild hyperbole.

 

[F'Angus]

AC/DC are quality. (just thought I'd add that)

 

[RanD00M]

If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And there all your rock credibility went down the drain.

OT: Modern Music is a broad term. If we talk about it in general, then I think most people enjoy it. Dubstep is very popular nowadays, and the metal scene is ever expanding. Sure rock has been falling out, and punk is an underground genre again.
Now if we talk about POPULAR Modern Music then we're in for an entirely different conversation. Of course most people that hate popular modern music nowadays hate it, and there is a simple answer for that, It's the same with video games, the new stuff takes note of what is popular at the moment and making money and does the exact same thing. Making music in the intent of making music isn't in anymore, and starting your own record label isn't as in as it was in the 70's and 80's so acts that go into the big leagues have to make money because otherwise they'll just be dropped by their label. Joan Jett and the Blackhearts might be looked back as a rock classic, but no label wanted them so they made Blackheart Records. Same with Danzig, who had a hard time getting a record company to sign for the Misfits so he started Plan 9 records.
Everyone new wants to make it big, and making what the people want is how they become big. They just don't stay there for long without doing something groudbreaking or diverting a bit from time to time.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And there all your rock credibility went down the drain.

Did you listen to the samples? Nirvana may be more popular, but liking popular bands is not a part of rock cred -- well, at least with bands that formed after the end of the 80s.

 

[Joyous Insurrection]

1) For those of you citing such and such random golden oldie from the past and citing that as proof that music was better back in such and such. Please just read the last section of this article:http://www.cracked.com/article_18983_5-complaints-about-modern-life-that-are-statistically-b.s._p2.html#ixzz1NxwDP2rq

Spoiler

"First of all, you have the fact that the crap from previous eras gets forgotten, leaving only the great stuff behind. Those songs on classic rock stations are obviously cherry-picked as the best and most indicative of an entire era; it's not a random sampling of all the music available at the time. Modern rock or pop stations, on the other hand, have to play whatever's come out in the past six months or so.So there is a filter applied to the old stuff. Even most of the music in Mozart's day was bullshit. And because it was bullshit, nobody felt the need to keep copies. And what was preserved isn't played today. Because it's bullshit. So it's easy to look back at Mozart's era (or the 1960s, or whatever) and assume that because only the classics survive in our memory, everything made back then was a classic.

The other problem is we assume that what gets remembered over time is whatever was the most popular. Not true.For instance, what survives from the Vietnam era (thanks mostly to Vietnam movies) are songs like the badass protest song "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival and "Gimme Shelter" by the Rolling Stones. Both were released in 1969, after the war started going bad.

Now look at the Billboard year-end singles charts from 1946 to today. The top song in 1969? "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies. Let us quote the entire lyrics of that song:

Sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Honey, ah sugar sugar
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
I just can't believe the loveliness of loving you
(I just can't believe it's true)
I just can't believe the one to love this feeling to.
(I just can't believe it's true)
Ah sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Ah honey, ah sugar sugar
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
When I kissed you, girl, I knew how sweet a kiss could be
(I know how sweet a kiss can be)
Like the summer sunshine pour your sweetness over me
(Pour your sweetness over me)
Sugar, pour a little sugar on it honey,
Pour a little sugar on it baby
I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah
Pour a little sugar on it oh yeah
Pour a little sugar on it honey,
Pour a little sugar on it baby
I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah
Pour a little sugar on it honey,
Ah sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Oh honey, honey, sugar sugar ..
You are my candy girl .

"Fortunate Son" got no higher than No. 14 on the charts. "Gimme Shelter"? It was never released as a single at all.

Go ahead, look down the list. There is some great music on there, but it's mixed in with a lot of stuff you've probably never even heard of. And do you know what you don't see on there? Queen, Led Zeppelin and a lot of other great musicians. Groups that are well-remembered now, when classic rock radio stations wouldn't be caught dead playing some of the shit that outsold them. Even Elvis and The Beatles are only on there twice, tying for the most No. 1 year-end singles with none other than George Michael.
And that's not even considering that, thanks to the Internet, we have far more access to all kinds of niche music genres and independent artists that we'd have never heard in the past.

And as for the critics, you have to keep in mind that there will always, always be critics who hate whatever the latest trend is. Rock music as a whole was blasted pretty harshly when it first got popular. Melody Maker called it "one of the most terrifying things to have ever happened to popular music." The Daily Mail decided to up the ante by mixing in some good old-fashioned racism: "[Rock music] is deplorable. It is tribal. And it is from America. It follows ragtime, blues, jazz, hot cha-cha and the boogie-woogie, which surely originated in the jungle. We sometimes wonder whether this is the negro's revenge."

Hell, even The Beatles weren't safe. The Daily Telegraph said that they were "something Hitler might find useful."

Why? Because it's easier to be negative. That part will never change.

2)

As has already been noted, it's not the age of the music, it's the fact that it's "pop". Pop music always caters to the lowest common denominator. That's not to say there's never any good pop, but by and large, pop is garbage, regardless of what generation it's from.

3) Are these artists of hated/unpopular genres you cited groundbreaking and we're all just old fogies who can't see it? Well, yes and no, but mostly no. Its a certainly a new trend, screamy disco music. In that sense its breaking new ground, but let's all remember that innovation is not necessarily always a good thing. You can invent something bad, like thermonuclear missiles or something, and you're still an innovator. The real stuff that's progressing music forward in a positive way isn't going to be popular or on the radio. Also, let's not neglect to mention that just about everything on Top 40 radio, even the stuff that's really new is still usually a recombination of proven, "safe" elements.

The real innovation isn't going to be on the radio. Little Richard didn't have the chart success of Elvis or the Beatles even though he more-or-less invented rock'n'roll, and the Velvet Underground was never popular in its own time. That's just the nature of shit, bro. Its always been like that and it always will be.

4) If you want something good, most of the time, you have to go look for it.

 

[RanD00M]

If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And there all your rock credibility went down the drain.

Did you listen to the samples? Nirvana may be more popular, but liking popular bands is not a part of rock cred -- well, at least with bands that formed after the end of the 80s.

Which band you like more or less has nothing to do with your rock cred going down the drain. No, what you did to kill your rock cred was to totally dismiss the fact that people have different opinions, and that Nirvana and Wolfmother are in no way in the same league of music. Nirvana is a band that broke Grunge into the mainstream and influenced a lot of bands to come. Wolfmother are a straight rock group that did nothing new but did what they did in a solid style. Saying that one is better than the other as a rock band is just wrong. Finding one better than the other is just fine.
And just so we're clear, I like both bands.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And there all your rock credibility went down the drain.

Did you listen to the samples? Nirvana may be more popular, but liking popular bands is not a part of rock cred -- well, at least with bands that formed after the end of the 80s.

Which band you like more or less has nothing to do with your rock cred going down the drain. No, what you did to kill your rock cred was to totally dismiss the fact that people have different opinions, and that Nirvana and Wolfmother are in no way in the same league of music. Nirvana is a band that broke Grunge into the mainstream and influenced a lot of bands to come. Wolfmother are a straight rock group that did nothing new but did what they did in a solid style. Saying that one is better than the other as a rock band is just wrong. Finding one better than the other is just fine.
And just so we're clear, I like both bands.

You do get that my point is that we're on a musical upswing, right? I was saying that not only does mainstream music not suck any worse than it did 10 or 20 years ago, but that we're actually doing better than they did then. Nirvana is the direct forefather of the bland punk inspired rock that we've had to suffer through for the last 20 years, and Wolfmother is proof that we're finally moving away from that. Capiche?

 

[dashiz94]

Just going to hop in here and say this:

1. There's absolute shit from every decade of music. When people say "The 50s had the best music," they're remembering all the great artists/songs that came out then, and forget about all the terrible songs that came with them. It's just how our memory works.

2. The kind of bands you listed are TERRIBLE not because its new or anything, but because there is no musical ability involved or any artistic reason for it. Ke$ha admitted her career started out because of a joke, and BrokenCYDE basically make their music to troll everyone (their new album is called "BrokenCYDE Will Never Die" for Christ's sake. Obvious troll is obvious...) Basically, this wave of teen idols and autotuned "music" is there because record companies know it's catchy and will sell tons of records. Bands like Arcade Fire are lucky to be able to have widespread recognition, but for the most part most great musicians will always be overshadowed by record company controlled "false" musicians.

3. I actually don't mind the existence of crappy radio music. Whenever I see the constant "lol Justin Bieber is a fag I hope he dies and sucks on a cock in hell" type comment I always laugh at how idiotic they sound. See here's the thing, crappy music always serves to remind us of how much better the good music we find is. If great musicians like Neutral Milk Hotel, Cynic, or Godspeed You! Black Emperor got radio play, then we wouldn't have any comparison to say it's great. It would become average, and average music sucks.

 

[RanD00M]

Snip

Only problem is that Wolfmother have been greatly forgotten by the public right now while Nirvana is still getting praised for their originality. I would also like you to point out some of that bland punk inspired rock that you mentioned.
And again you fall into the trap of opinions. Some might say that we are on a musical upswing, some down. This is all different from person to person. Now personally I would say that we are at an upswing from the late 90', early 00's, but the early 90's treated me with more good shit than today does.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Snip

Only problem is that Wolfmother have been greatly forgotten by the public right now while Nirvana is still getting praised for their originality. I would also like you to point out some of that bland punk inspired rock that you mentioned.
And again you fall into the trap of opinions. Some might say that we are on a musical upswing, some down. This is all different from person to person. Now personally I would say that we are at an upswing from the late 90', early 00's, but the early 90's treated me with more good shit than today does.

This whole thread is about opinions, so you're being pretty silly by attacking me. As for bland punk inspired bands, try Green Day, Fallout Boy, My Chemical Romance, and basically the entirety of both Pop Punk and Emo music. Even Screamo and Hardcore are nothing but punk mixed with metal. They're all descendants of punk in some form or fashion, and they all share the common ancestor of grunge.

 

[aznj03]

Nirvana is good. Hurt is a beautiful song. (Cash covered it, not the other way around.)

Well I must say I'm surprised no one said anything about this. Please, someone inform me as to how Hurt is related to Nirvana in any way.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Modern music sucks because of minimalism, that terrible idea that music needs only one meter repeated over and over. Modern pop just tries to hide this by putting lyrics over the top. Listen to pretty much any given modern pop song and ignore the lyrics, it's all the same. This problem seems mostly endemic to modern pop, even though it was invented shortly after the turn of the century before the previous one. Sure, some of the less popular bands are doing fantastic work, but the widespread use of minimalism has made shitty modern pop music even shittier than shitty old pop music. This is why I believe that the overall quality of music has been decreasing.

To sum, "Afternoon Delight" by the Starland Vocal Group is terrible, but I'd surely take it over anything Ke$ha or Lady Gaga has done.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

Unfortunately, with the low cost of production, music has become a low-risk industry

Oh, how I laughed.

Music is a higher-risk industry than ever before, and when you look at the success/failure ratio, one of the highest risk industries there is. Sure, it's easy enough to make music now, but to be part of the music industry? I can't think of any other industry with a greater failure/dropout/oops-I-ruined-my-life ratio with the possible exception of acting. Just going on percentages of the total, I certainly know more dead/permanently handicapped/mentally scarred/living in a world of complete delusion musicians than soldiers, police or firemen.

I am speaking strictly in terms of economics. Compared to any number of decades ago, music is becoming much cheaper to make with some bands becoming completely digital and releasing music strictly online to cut the cost of compact disks (which aren't very expensive anyways compared to the vinyls music used to made on). I am not at all saying you are not risking time, one can certainly waste a lot of time on music that will never be popular, but now, remember my Lady Gaga example: anybody could make an album cover as crappy as that, the same goes for most modern music videos which are now mostly about the artists as compared to twenty years ago when music videos were nearly at their zenith and the ratio of art to artist was in a beautiful 5 to 1 proportion.

So music for you is about what art is on the front cover, and the images in the music video, not the music itself?

Hardly, that's just the more risky aspect in terms of money (encompassing distribution as well). The actual art of the music doesn't cost anything, you just think and write and compose that, recording is cheap and everything else doesn't cost much at all because people avoid investing more than the minimum in it. The fact of the matter is, distribution of music is becoming the most expensive part.

Just checking here; you do know you're arguing with a recording engineer, right? I'd be more inclined to trust his judgement when it comes to what things cost the industry.

I did not realize that, no, though I do now seek agreement: has the cost of recording music gone down or hasn't it?

 

[TheLaofKazi]

This person gets it. Music is what it is, and you can choose to be interested in music, or not. Many people who consume music in today's society consume with with a lot of codified junk on top that informs how they should feel: "oh, I can't like that band because they have a stupid dance move", "I don't like them because of their hair", "my friends don't like it", "my friends do like it, but I want to feel superior to them, so I'll like something else instead", "I don't like them because they sold out, they were on MTV, but before that they were cool because less people knew about them", etc etc... in other words, everything but the music. Many music fans aren't really music fans at all, they're culture/design junkies, like a sports fan who likes a team because the colour and shape of the logo and the location of the players appeals to him. In the meantime, other people go "hey, I like the way it sounds".

Thank you! I'm glad someone else here feels the same. Although if I just said I liked music just for the music, I would be lying, because many other aspects interest me. There are many artists I like because of the background they came from, or their attitude or appearance. For example, I really love Lady Gaga, Bjork, and Marilyn Manson's sexuality and expression through their stage personas. I still enjoy their music though, and even if I didn't, that wouldn't stop me from enjoying their personas, and vice versa.

Music, fashion, art, history, ect. all makes up the rich whole that is culture. I guess the difference between me and many others out there is that they separate those things instead of being fascinated by them and how they're all linked together.