Does Contemporary Music Suck?

[Dr. Medulla]

This Bing Crosby character is just selling those mindless kids a bunch of noise. Now, Enrico Caruso, that's music.

Enrico Caruso? You mean that hipster charlatan? Antonin Dvorak—now THAT's what I call music.

These kids, they love to talk this, they love to talk Dvořák - everyone knows rock achieved perfection in 1774.

Bah everything before 1764 is no good.

Is this like Georgian-era Heston?

Ye Olde Shawaddywaddy.

[Silent Majority]

Of course, there is without a doubt a surplus of more great music being recorded and disseminated than ever in our history, but, as others have pointed out, the chances of any of that reaching anything beyond the cyber equivalent of a local audience at this stage are close to nil, thanks to the monopolisation of the huge companies and the at least semi-conscious decision to homogenise what was on the airways for further, easier to track, profits.

[Flex]

Of course, there is without a doubt a surplus of more great music being recorded and disseminated than ever in our history, but, as others have pointed out, the chances of any of that reaching anything beyond the cyber equivalent of a local audience at this stage are close to nil, thanks to the monopolisation of the huge companies and the at least semi-conscious decision to homogenise what was on the airways for further, easier to track, profits.

People sort of joke about it, but I suspect that the impact of algorithmic "creative" decision-making is having a genuine impact on how popular music is created - and is impacting the homogenization issue you're talking about. We know it's happening in other mediums and I strongly suspect its more of a force in music than anyone is admitting right now. How to juice those first 30 seconds of a play on spotify to get your 2 cent payday and so forth. It's like how Netflix creates shows for you to watch the first 5 minutes of or whatever the cutoff is for their shareholder performance reports. There's more and more data becoming available on how to juice #engagement, whether or not people are, like, truly listening to and enjoying the music.

We sort of deride concepts like authenticity and so forth, but I know where my cut-off for "authentic" music is going to be: when an AI is algorithmically writing pop hits for maximum virality and most clicks (which is very much not the same thing as genuine popularity). Mojo Nixon was right all along when said "machines ain't music" he just had the wrong machines in mind.

[Dr. Medulla]

Of course, there is without a doubt a surplus of more great music being recorded and disseminated than ever in our history, but, as others have pointed out, the chances of any of that reaching anything beyond the cyber equivalent of a local audience at this stage are close to nil, thanks to the monopolisation of the huge companies and the at least semi-conscious decision to homogenise what was on the airways for further, easier to track, profits.

People sort of joke about it, but I suspect that the impact of algorithmic "creative" decision-making is having a genuine impact on how popular music is created - and is impacting the homogenization issue you're talking about. We know it's happening in other mediums and I strongly suspect its more of a force in music than anyone is admitting right now. How to juice those first 30 seconds of a play on spotify to get your 2 cent payday and so forth. It's like how Netflix creates shows for you to watch the first 5 minutes of or whatever the cutoff is for their shareholder performance reports. There's more and more data becoming available on how to juice #engagement, whether or not people are, like, truly listening to and enjoying the music.

We sort of deride concepts like authenticity and so forth, but I know where my cut-off for "authentic" music is going to be: when an AI is algorithmically writing pop hits for maximum virality and most clicks (which is very much not the same thing as genuine popularity). Mojo Nixon was right all along when said "machines ain't music" he just had the wrong machines in mind.

I mentioned this before, but I think part of this is a response to music piracy. The record industry had to rethink how it'd make money when the traditional sales route became unstable. Licensing to tv and movies and commercials, but also generic background music. Stuff that doesn't seem worthwhile pirating but "works" as reaching the status of "listenable" and can generate streaming income and boring radio play. That's where algorithmic analysis comes in—how to create a generic sound that is "listenable." It would be ironic that the internet's initial blast of making music free also had the effect of making it so mediocre that it's not worth stealing.

[revbob]

Of course, there is without a doubt a surplus of more great music being recorded and disseminated than ever in our history, but, as others have pointed out, the chances of any of that reaching anything beyond the cyber equivalent of a local audience at this stage are close to nil, thanks to the monopolisation of the huge companies and the at least semi-conscious decision to homogenise what was on the airways for further, easier to track, profits.

People sort of joke about it, but I suspect that the impact of algorithmic "creative" decision-making is having a genuine impact on how popular music is created - and is impacting the homogenization issue you're talking about. We know it's happening in other mediums and I strongly suspect its more of a force in music than anyone is admitting right now. How to juice those first 30 seconds of a play on spotify to get your 2 cent payday and so forth. It's like how Netflix creates shows for you to watch the first 5 minutes of or whatever the cutoff is for their shareholder performance reports. There's more and more data becoming available on how to juice #engagement, whether or not people are, like, truly listening to and enjoying the music.

We sort of deride concepts like authenticity and so forth, but I know where my cut-off for "authentic" music is going to be: when an AI is algorithmically writing pop hits for maximum virality and most clicks (which is very much not the same thing as genuine popularity). Mojo Nixon was right all along when said "machines ain't music" he just had the wrong machines in mind.

I mentioned this before, but I think part of this is a response to music piracy. The record industry had to rethink how it'd make money when the traditional sales route became unstable. Licensing to tv and movies and commercials, but also generic background music. Stuff that doesn't seem worthwhile pirating but "works" as reaching the status of "listenable" and can generate streaming income and boring radio play. That's where algorithmic analysis comes in—how to create a generic sound that is "listenable." It would be ironic that the internet's initial blast of making music free also had the effect of making it so mediocre that it's not worth stealing.

Yeah this pretty well describes the core of modern popular music doesnt it? You dont "steal" that which has no value. And any value it might have initially diminishes quickly as it gets replaced by something newer.

[gkbill]

Hello,

I am hesitant to comment although I have read all posts thus far and considered them. I'll put forward an idea why contemporary music is disappointing (a better word for it to my thinking and feeling). It is far too easy to make music today. I am not a musician - beyond a few months plunking away on a bass. A few months ago, I was playing around with an ipad (I'm not an apple person so it definitely was playing around). Within a few minutes on garage band, I had a listenable song. It wasn't good but it was passable as music. It takes slightly longer to make than play. Not all contemporary artists may fall prey to this but I would think many do - write it, play it, get it posted quickly. When I write, I proofread several times to make sure there are no errors, my meaning is clear, and the quality of my work is good. There are contemporary artist who do so but I'd wager there's a good lot that does not.

As stated above, I'm not a musician but I couldn't help but feel there was no reflection or thorough consideration of what I had done. I'd love to be in a room with real musicians arguing about what sounds better or you should play this not that. I'd love to watch an artist play a song over and over again while watching them think "Is it right? Is it good enough? Does this reflect what I'm feeling/thinking?". Music created through these processes with that amount of time and thought is much more real (sorry to be so intangible).

You can argue "Well, how much time did the Ramones spend on a track?" but I can almost guarantee they spent more time than I did. Without time, effort, consideration, and reflection, quality will be lacking. I don't care for country - but can respect artists who put time and thought into their work - and I can recognize that.

There is good new music (check out my packet of three posts!) - there just a lot more weaker (both in terms of quality and effort) music.

[gkbill]

Hello,

I am hesitant to comment although I have read all posts thus far and considered them. I'll put forward an idea why contemporary music is disappointing (a better word for it to my thinking and feeling). It is far too easy to make music today. I am not a musician - beyond a few months plunking away on a bass. A few months ago, I was playing around with an ipad (I'm not an apple person so it definitely was playing around). Within a few minutes on garage band, I had a listenable song. It wasn't good but it was passable as music. It takes slightly longer to make than play. Not all contemporary artists may fall prey to this but I would think many do - write it, play it, get it posted quickly. When I write, I proofread several times to make sure there are no errors, my meaning is clear, and the quality of my work is good. There are contemporary artist who do so but I'd wager there's a good lot that does not.

As stated above, I'm not a musician but I couldn't help but feel there was no reflection or thorough consideration of what I had done. I'd love to be in a room with real musicians arguing about what sounds better or you should play this not that. I'd love to watch an artist play a song over and over again while watching them think "Is it right? Is it good enough? Does this reflect what I'm feeling/thinking?". Music created through these processes with that amount of time and thought is much more real (sorry to be so intangible).

You can argue "Well, how much time did the Ramones spend on a track?" but I can almost guarantee they spent more time than I did. How long between when the Ramones wrote a track and it got before the public? Without time, effort, consideration, and reflection, quality will be lacking. I don't care for country - but can respect artists who put time and thought into their work - and I can recognize that.

There is good new music (check out my packet of three posts!) - there just a lot more weaker (both in terms of quality and effort) music.

[matedog]

Of course, there is without a doubt a surplus of more great music being recorded and disseminated than ever in our history, but, as others have pointed out, the chances of any of that reaching anything beyond the cyber equivalent of a local audience at this stage are close to nil, thanks to the monopolisation of the huge companies and the at least semi-conscious decision to homogenise what was on the airways for further, easier to track, profits.

That seems counterintuitive to me. Music is waaaaay more accessible than it ever has been. Perhaps the old formats like radio are more homogenized, but the listener has more control than they ever had before with access to everything with a click vs before where you had like radio and MTV to hear a single a record company was pushing. I don’t really buy your position.

[Silent Majority]

Of course, there is without a doubt a surplus of more great music being recorded and disseminated than ever in our history, but, as others have pointed out, the chances of any of that reaching anything beyond the cyber equivalent of a local audience at this stage are close to nil, thanks to the monopolisation of the huge companies and the at least semi-conscious decision to homogenise what was on the airways for further, easier to track, profits.

That seems counterintuitive to me. Music is waaaaay more accessible than it ever has been. Perhaps the old formats like radio are more homogenized, but the listener has more control than they ever had before with access to everything with a click vs before where you had like radio and MTV to hear a single a record company was pushing. I don’t really buy your position.

I think you overestimate the extent to which people will, as a whole, a) be inclined to, and/or b) have the time to, seek out the new and interesting. As ever, most people will just content themselves with what is spoonfed to them by corporations via radio, TV and the top trending videos on YouTube. When was the last time a low-budget maverick broke through into those mediums?

[revbob]

Of course, there is without a doubt a surplus of more great music being recorded and disseminated than ever in our history, but, as others have pointed out, the chances of any of that reaching anything beyond the cyber equivalent of a local audience at this stage are close to nil, thanks to the monopolisation of the huge companies and the at least semi-conscious decision to homogenise what was on the airways for further, easier to track, profits.

That seems counterintuitive to me. Music is waaaaay more accessible than it ever has been. Perhaps the old formats like radio are more homogenized, but the listener has more control than they ever had before with access to everything with a click vs before where you had like radio and MTV to hear a single a record company was pushing. I don’t really buy your position.

I think you overestimate the extent to which people will, as a whole, a) be inclined to, and/or b) have the time to, seek out the new and interesting. As ever, most people will just content themselves with what is spoonfed to them by corporations via radio, TV and the top trending videos on YouTube. When was the last time a low-budget maverick broke through into those mediums?

Right and that goes for a lot of things. Most people are happy to turn on their favorite radio station or streaming platform and just happily listen to what is played. This is the same attitude that has lowed McDonald's et al to proliferate and sell tons of garbage food. Most contemporary popular music is the musical equivalent of fast food/junk food.

[Dr. Medulla]

I think you can see a parallel here with the nature of the internet, availability of information, and discourse. There is huge magnitudes of greater availability to people who wish to pursue critical evaluation of most any topic and a massive pool of participants who can debate. It should be a golden age of rationalism. Yet discourse as coarsened and large swaths of people all over the spectrum are content to dwell in the echo chamber of Facebook, Twitter, etc. So, yes, there is more music available and of greater diversity and creativity, yet what the mainstream gravitates to—whether they pushed or pulled to it is a separate, but no less vital question—is anything but. I've mentioned before that I've regrettably had to concede more ground to the dire predictions of Frankfurt school Marxists who saw popular culture as a pacifying weapon of capitalism, manufacturing docile drones who not only can't escape but don't want to. They were just premature in talking about the 1940s and 50s that way, but it's hard not to see that larger and larger numbers of people are going for blander and blander, more and more uncritical.

[Flex]

I think you can see a parallel here with the nature of the internet, availability of information, and discourse. There is huge magnitudes of greater availability to people who wish to pursue critical evaluation of most any topic and a massive pool of participants who can debate. It should be a golden age of rationalism. Yet discourse as coarsened and large swaths of people all over the spectrum are content to dwell in the echo chamber of Facebook, Twitter, etc. So, yes, there is more music available and of greater diversity and creativity, yet what the mainstream gravitates to—whether they pushed or pulled to it is a separate, but no less vital question—is anything but. I've mentioned before that I've regrettably had to concede more ground to the dire predictions of Frankfurt school Marxists who saw popular culture as a pacifying weapon of capitalism, manufacturing docile drones who not only can't escape but don't want to. They were just premature in talking about the 1940s and 50s that way, but it's hard not to see that larger and larger numbers of people are going for blander and blander, more and more uncritical.

The internet's app-ification, where all of our engagement now happens in cordoned, algorithmically-approved manners to maximize profit and minimize individual exploration and creativity is a perfect illustration of the trend. There was a brief moment when the internet seemed like the wild west and there were no gatekeepers. But the chances are that almost every aspect of your day online is now regulated and directed by for-profit corporations who have carefully designed ways to control what you see, hear and react to.

You don't just see a tweet or hear a new song on Spotify or whatever by happenstance. You're in those company apps and they're deciding what to serve up to you. Sure, some people can be adventurous and explore or alter the nature of how they're presented info, but the whole point is that everything in the system that's been created resists that.

[Dr. Medulla]

I think you can see a parallel here with the nature of the internet, availability of information, and discourse. There is huge magnitudes of greater availability to people who wish to pursue critical evaluation of most any topic and a massive pool of participants who can debate. It should be a golden age of rationalism. Yet discourse as coarsened and large swaths of people all over the spectrum are content to dwell in the echo chamber of Facebook, Twitter, etc. So, yes, there is more music available and of greater diversity and creativity, yet what the mainstream gravitates to—whether they pushed or pulled to it is a separate, but no less vital question—is anything but. I've mentioned before that I've regrettably had to concede more ground to the dire predictions of Frankfurt school Marxists who saw popular culture as a pacifying weapon of capitalism, manufacturing docile drones who not only can't escape but don't want to. They were just premature in talking about the 1940s and 50s that way, but it's hard not to see that larger and larger numbers of people are going for blander and blander, more and more uncritical.

The internet's app-ification, where all of our engagement now happens in cordoned, algorithmically-approved manners to maximize profit and minimize individual exploration and creativity is a perfect illustration of the trend. There was a brief moment when the internet seemed like the wild west and there were no gatekeepers. But the chances are that almost every aspect of your day online is now regulated and directed by for-profit corporations who have carefully designed ways to control what you see, hear and react to.

You don't just see a tweet or hear a new song on Spotify or whatever by happenstance. You're in those company apps and they're deciding what to serve up to you. Sure, some people can be adventurous and explore or alter the nature of how they're presented info, but the whole point is that everything in the system that's been created resists that.

Precisely. It's not that there is no choice, that *everything* is bland and awful, but you have to deliberately seek to colour outside the lines. The facade of freedom and diversity and criticality and all those things that keep the eagle from crying is there, but you're encouraged to go to the numbing, comfortable stuff (or the angry, comfortable stuff). Indeed, beneath the pavement, the beach.

[eumaas]

Just a ramble coming at this from the perspective of someone who makes electronic music as a hobby. Only talking about the "laptop"/production aspect.

Since childhood I've loved synthesizer music. Even getting into punk I was still listening to Kraftwerk and the early German progressive electronic music and a shit ton of Warp Records IDM/ambient techno. Always wanted to make it myself but the gear was out of reach—maybe you could get a secondhand analogue synth but you'd need some electronics repair knowhow to keep it functioning. Oscillators had a lot of drift too (you can hear some Tangerine Dream performances where the ostinato slowly shifts in pitch!). Control Voltage (CV) sequencers had their challenges too, and not a lot of analogue devices out there with MIDI.

In the 2010s there was a renaissance in analogue synthesizers—people stopped using virtual analogue modeling and went for real analogue gear. Companies like Arturia and Korg came out with really affordable analogues that had MIDI integration and more reliable pitch for the oscillators. Better components for one thing. Later Behringer started offering very inexpensive clones of classics like the 808 and the Minimoog Model D. Anyway, this stuff was finally accessible to me. I started out all-analogue with CV sequencing, but found it too limiting for the kinds of compositions I had in mind. Went through a lot of trial and error and ended up using Ableton Live on my laptop as the brain for sequencing the hardware and recording. I did end up getting into VSTs (digital synths that run in software), but any track I do is majority analogue as I like the timbral qualities of analogue gear.

(A lot of people have got into the knobby nature of analogue—after electronic music had become very digital and in the box, people wanted real gear to touch and manipulate. The apotheosis of this is modular synth formats like Eurorack (see I Dream of Wires for a documentary on this). I very nearly got into Eurorack but it was way too expensive to build out a full synth voice (oscillator, envelope, filter, amp, etc). But the new cheap analogues from various companies have enough modulation possibilities for me and give me the sounds I want to use.)

When I was younger I wanted to compose notated western classical music. But you really have to pursue that in the academy, and then you have to get together musicians and workshop it. Then the audience is pretty small for contemporary western art music. Kind of impractical given it's more a hobby than a profession for me. Didn't want to be in a band either because I'd prefer to compose all the elements of the music myself. I do collaborate on occasion but generally I'm just making this stuff for me and don't even share it. A lot of it is about working out structures and problems, so I'm pretty process-oriented in how I make music. Using synthesizers allows me to translate something from my head into audible music pretty immediately, even sound design as I understand how east coast subtractive synthesis works so it's easy to match a patch.

The other thing is that my hands are shit. My hands are often in pain, usually stiff, I can't really play an instrument to the level I'd like, even with a lot of practice. Sequencing lets me realize music outside of my technical abilities. I once dreamed of being an avant improv guy but I just physically can't manage that anymore.

There's certainly a lot of bad electronic music out there (I don't really like any top 40 stuff to be honest; I am getting old) but it's worth noting that electronic instruments allowed a lot of otherwise limited musicians to realize some pretty great compositions. I think the issue with top 40 music is in the composition, not the production. A lot of it propagates by imitation. So if one track is a hit, some element of it gets copied for another song, and you end up with some pretty samey music. I wouldn't put this down to the technology involved—the possibilities of the technology are nearly infinite. It's the finite human imagination and the social context of the market at fault I think. Doesn't help that a limited pool of songwriters drive a lot of contemporary pop.

The dig on quantization is funny because it's trivial to nudge and add variability to a track. Also the sound libraries and modeling for acoustic instruments have become incredible. There's a good chance the author of the article has heard seemingly acoustic music as a score to a TV show or movie and not realized it was composed and performed on a computer. Some of the piano modeling stuff I've seen has been nuts, even modeling the mechanical qualities of the hammers. I don't use any of that stuff myself—it's way too expensive and I'd rather pursue sounds not possible with acoustic instruments—but it's technically impressive and would fool most listeners.

Something sounds wrong to me about a lot of contemporary music (and it's interesting about popular listening turning towards older recordings), but I can't tell you if that's just me getting old, being already out of step (while I like a lot of pop music, I also listen to some pretty weird shit and a lot of old music), or if it's flaws in the music. I'm guessing all three. I do occasionally hear a song and think, that's a good composition or that has good production. Got a friend who's a Kpop stan and makes me listen to it sometimes. Only heard two songs that I really enjoyed! But I did enjoy them, so I don't think I'm totally set in my ways.

[eumaas]

I've also sometimes wondered if maybe there's just not that much you can do with a really simple foundation like most pop music. Like with the common harmony out there (just a few basic chord progressions) and melody lines being driven more by rhythmic delivery. Punk, working within a lot of limits, transformed into hardcore and post-punk.