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

[the Dept of Science]

Now I've always defended modern music on this forum. Whenever someone starts shooting their mouth off about how terrible everything they hear on the radio is, I tend to jump in their with my list of semi-obscure gems from the last decade. There is plenty of new stuff in the world which I have no qualms about enjoying or recommending. People like Animal Collective and Arcade Fire aren't really what this is about.

This also isn't so much about big pop acts like Rihanna, Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga, whos music I find ranges from fairly pleasant to pretty damn catchy. I don't really have any issues with them.
There seems to be quite a popular opinion on this forum that music like BrokenCYDE, the Millionaires or Ke$ha is what gets played in the special circle of hell reserved for anyone that has ever judged someone based on the contents of their iPod. It was the particular ire that I felt when listening to these acts that got my train of thought going.

Spoiler: Some wonderful examples of these musicians, in case you need to be reminded/educated/pissed off at the world

Its not difficult to see why they get their hate, the lyrics are crass at the best of times, music is a combination of 2 already hated genres (club pop and screamo), they've got an extremely bratty attitude and sing about heavy drug use and promiscuous sex.

However, I suspect many of the more vocal critics of these acts also like AC/DC, who are crass, bratty and sing about heavy drug use and promiscuous sex.*
Now, I'm going to make it clear, I don't own any music by BrokenCYDE, the Millionaires, Ke$ha or any of that lot. However, when I look back at music history and see how pretty much every new genre has been rejected by the "old fogies", I ask, are we really any better than the people that thought rock n roll would be the end of music, because they grew up listening to swing jazz?

I can't think of that many criticisms of them that I couldn't also apply to a lot of the music that I have. I mean, I can't complain about their lack of instrumental ability when I listen to, say, the Ramones. Between Abba and ZZ Top, I've got whole albums about murder (Murder Ballads by Nick Cave), sex (Songs about Fucking by Big Black), Pedophilia (Histoire de Melody Nelson by Serge Gainsbourg), drug use (the Velvet Underground).
While I don't think I'll ever be a fan of this new music, should I at least take head from history and face up to the fact that this stuff may be remembered as "groundbreaking" in a couple of decades?

Spoiler

*saying that, at least AC/DC had some idea of innuendo. The Millionaire's music makes AC/DC look subtle in comparison, which is impressive in a sortof retarded way

 

[ColaWarVeteran]

I was thinking something similar to this just the other day.

 

[ironduke88]

While I agree with the theory, I think perhaps that a lot of modern music is not produced out of a desire to expression one's self emotionally, but out a desire to be filthy stinking rich and 'famous'. A lot of the good music you list above was written by the musicians and produced without the aid of autotuning; furthermore, at the time it wasn't backed by rich producing studios that want to manufacture homogenous 'music', but by a group of people who wanted to do something rebellious and expressive (which gives it a status as art, as opposed to a money making gimmic).

Perhaps I am being overly cynical, and I imagine that in the future a lot of this stuff may be remembered a ground-breaking music. But I hope not.

 

[similar.squirrel]

You are absolutely correct. This whole thing about music being better in the 'old days' is a crock of sh-t. Part nostalgia, part posturing by young people who want to seem sophisticated. Music in general has never been as thoughtful, diverse and devoid of gimmicks and it is now.

A lot of terrible stuff gets exposure, sure. But that isn't representative of music as a whole.

 

[the Dept of Science]

While I agree with the theory, I think perhaps that a lot of modern music is not produced out of a desire to expression one's self emotionally, but out a desire to be filthy stinking rich and 'famous'. A lot of the good music you list above was written by the musicians and produced without the aid of autotuning; furthermore, at the time it wasn't backed by rich producing studios that want to manufacture homogenous 'music', but by a group of people who wanted to do something rebellious and expressive (which gives it a status as art, as opposed to a money making gimmic).

Perhaps I am being overly cynical, and I imagine that in the future a lot of this stuff may be remembered a ground-breaking music. But I hope not.

How is that so different from what Motown was doing? The acts on that label were just as meticulously groomed, choreographed and produced as what we have nowadays, in order to appeal more to white people. They even had regular quality control meetings.

Spoiler: Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with autotuning.

If you say that Justin Vernon cannot sing then wash yo ears out.

or

 

[ironduke88]

How is that so different from what Motown was doing? The acts on that label were just as meticulously groomed, choreographed and produced as what we have nowadays. They even had regular quality control meetings.

Ok firstly, motown was a pretty essential part of promoting racial equality in the music industry. Those choreographing and image sessions were viewed as essential for selling motown music to white consumers. It's not an excuse but it at least it had some kind of benefits to the social environment at the time. Secondly, there is a difference between quality control, and conformism and PR; I don't know enough to say about motown to say which these sessions were, but judging from how it was an amalgamation of two different music genera and, at least to start of with, was quite revolutionary (as far as I am aware, and I ready to concede I am completely wrong on this point) , I would have said the latter.

Finally, I am actually not that bothered by motown, I would probably lump it with pop music, which has always been about money.

Regarding talent, I do love listening to a bunch of people who know how to make their instruments sing. However, I personally find music without being able to evoke anything beyond " he/she's talented" to be rather boring. I would take meaningful or playful over talented any day.

 

[Arsen]

The problem is, that regardless of one's "message", these bands are ultimately just horrible examples of artistic sound. Therein lies the greater problem, not the "message they convey".

Edit - This is why I listen to metal. They take their influences and sounds from a wide variety of bands, talk about interesting topics that I feel personally matter, and don't give two shits about "society" in the shallow sense. You know, the way music was meant to be. Instead it focus's on the single human being here and there, religious topics, warfare, and fantasy. AKA: They enjoy being creative in other words.

 

[Jegsimmons]

its not MODERN music. its that stupid party pop music with the autotuneing crap i hate.

listen to queen then these people and lets see whos better.

 

[Sandernista]

I like some older music, I like some more modern music.

But pop has always sucked.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I'm one of those that falls into the 'Who Cares?' category.

Whether it's good or not it is generally not the music I prefer to listen to, and that's all that matters to me.

 

[Keldon888]

I disagree, I think it has more to do with the quality of the artists. I'm not knocking the music in general, but I think it's the industry that is the issue.

Look at rap, rap got big with some really good music, and to this day there are still some great songs coming out of the genre, but once it got big the industry was flooded by companies putting out any black dude that had tattoos and pretended to rap. And so rap sucks.

I think the big issue is that you can listen to a classic rock station for some great music, and basically everything on a classic rock station has already been stamped for approval, but if you listened to rock 30 years ago, you would be hearing the terrible songs too and people forget that.

The best of today's music stacks up just as well to the best of yesterday's music. You just can't compare a crappy cash in teen sob song to some of the the greatest rock n roll ever made and think that's a valid comparison for time periods.

 

[ChaoticKraus]

Seeing as how all music is subjective any kind of music hate is irrational at best, spiteful at worst.

Yes, most of the new things coming along in music was hated in the beginning. The pioneers of a music style always get's a fair bit of hate because it's something people haven't heard before and thus dislike. Following generations who are accustomed to the sound will like it more overall.

The ultimate would IMHO be that you just listened to the music you liked and ignored what you didn't like. Live and let live. Hating only makes you sound and look pathetic.

 

[PleaseDele]

I think we can also account possibilities of exposure to add to the "deterioration of music". Current technology made it possible to hear anything in mere seconds. This has helped some musicians to find teacher they like and develop the style laid down in the past even further.

The downside of this is that we also get to hear every little piece of junk. Crappy artists have always existed, it's just now we can find them. Back in the day garage bands wouldn't be easily found out about.

This way, what used to be "pop" was simply the tip of the iceberg that had usually had some quality to it. However these days pop music is a cash-in. Not something I mind at all, that's just modern times. But the songwriting is using basic techniques, rather than developing music.

Now I'm not to keen on metal, mostly because most bands people tell me are great seem to be mediocre artists that are simply using current day technology to become well known. But hey, if they can make it, it's cool, but I won't be coming to your shows.

The genre of metal however, has showed a continuous growth. What we consider mediocre now, sounds just like the top of metal iceberg from 25 years ago. They laid down certain core principles. Modern guitarists have studied what the previous generations did and just mashed it together. They also got more proficient at such techniques because it's already been figured out how to do them properly.

So yes. We are just as bad as the people who deemed Rock n Roll evil if we claim modern dya music isn't great. However, it has more to do with not seeing development, than being afraid of development.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

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.

 

[Trolldor]

Nope.

History has taught us that fringe music can become popular, not that pop music is worth listening to.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I accidentally clicked on the red button again yesterday; seeing a bunch of Justin Biebers argue this is somewhat humorous.

OT: I think there's more to it than old fogey syndrome. The truth is, bubblegum pop has always sucked, and since the late 80's, it's been at the forefront of the music industry. The good news is that pop today is more like it was in the 80's and early 90's than it was in the late 90's and early 2000's, which was the real low point in pop music. Incidentally, the 90's sucked hard for most genres of music, much harder than the last few years have -- and this is coming from someone who was born in 1990 and grew up on the stuff. Seriously, though, compare Lady GaGa to Brittany Spears; one of them is a musician who happens to do pop. The other is a dancer with a pretty face that some record exec thought would look good in a music video. For rock, look at Wolfmother and then look at Nirvana. One is a band made up of musicians who have the chops to play whatever they need to, from the simplicity of Woman to the really complicated stuff that shows up on their later albums. The other is a band made up of people who look nice, who whack away at their instruments and mumble their lyrics, which would be incoherent even if you could understand them. If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

Basically, we have a problem because 80's style bubblegum pop is at the forefront of music, but it's better than it has been, because 90's style bubblegum pop was even worse. We're on an upswing right now, not a downswing.

 

[tahrey]

29 years old... I and my peers have a secret guilty pleasure going on.

Lady Gaga.

Though I do wonder if that's simply because she rips off Madonna, Ace of Base, etc so egregiously that it's more like nostalgia than continuing to be "down with the kids".

But there are plenty of other contemporary artists I like ... just maybe not into the scene with the same fervour or depth as I was when I was a teenager, because there isn't as much time to indulge, and there are so many other things now demanding both it and my disposable income.

 

[OneStepAhead]

I don't care for music at all, so I guess this post doesn't really concern me. :/