Why a lot of modern electronic (and other genre) music sucks
 

Lately I've been listening to some really old school trance. The art has been mostly lost, so you have to be willing to listen to retro trance to even understand what it was all about. When you try to explain it to the up and coming generation of wish-they-could-be toddlers, they utilize their early-learned flame skills to debate the matter with you, because after all, the keys on their keyboard are the same size as yours even if their e-penis is not quite as lengthy as their life experience.

I see music as something parallel to home construction. I have a friend who lives in a home that is 80 years old. The windows are original construction material, yet they still function perfectly. The sashes are almost certainly covered in multiple layers of lead-based paint, but they are made of wood that was harvested from naturally grown trees. These days, most windows (if they are made from wood at all as opposed to plastic) are grown from trees that are genetically modified to grow faster, and are cut younger to maximize manufacturing profit. Then when put into practice, in the case of windows at least they are painted or stained with environmentally friendly materials like lead free paint or someone's blueberry stained snot juice that looks great when you buy them but needs full replacement in a decade or so. Full on expendable crap.

So how does this relate to music and where am I going with this?

Music is going the way of rapidly-manufactured building materials. So much information is easily obtained via the web, easily searchable -- why should anyone read and make an attempt to absorb it for life when they know they can search for it later and remember it on the fly as needed?

It is the musical equivalent of genetically modified trees and the building products that resulted from crap wood.

If you listen carefully to vintage trance, you find amazing soundscapes that took many hard-earned hours to sculpt. Then you had youtube tutorials and other BS that came along and said "here's how you do this with Massive in Ableton".

Don't get me wrong. Massive is a great softsynth and Ableton is a great DAW. But then again being able to modify the genetics of tree growth is an amazing achievement too. The important thing is that we understand the consequences of technological progress.

So now, new-school electronic music is more or less "I stumbled across a cool sound and sampled it". Don't think for a minute I'm completely innocent as charged, I do use Maschine and I do occasionally sample things and/or use samples, but sampling and any other technique designed to "speed" music making comes with its own set of consequences. Sampling allows me to create music faster and better, but the music loses a great deal of soul in the process. I'm not picking on sampling specifically, I'm only citing it as one technology that can accelerate music production, and speeding anything up tends to result in the same loss of quality I discussed in the window analogy with genetically modified trees. Soft synths, DAWs and computers, youtube tutorials.... all of these speed the process and result in lowered quality and less actual craftsmanship on the part of the music author.

A lot of synth junkies talk about analog... pure analog, and almost become bigots against virtual analog. Then virtual analog folks become bigots against soft synths.

Then at some point, if they are lucky enough, there is a watershed moment when they realize that the technology behind the music actually matters very little compared to what was going on in the mind of the creator of the music at the time they created it.

There's tons of very competent people doing music today! And tons of interesting music to, if you know where to look! There's tons of huge generalisations in this post of yours mate! Chances are, you're trying to rationalise the lost of the times you felt more identified and inside the circle of what's happening? That's a natural occurrence with the coming of age.

Cheers

I know there are tons of generalizations. It saddens me that they are true.

I'm all too aware of the "nostalgia" effect. I'm not the type to hold onto the past just because its the past. On the contrary -- I love hearing something new and different as long as it's not a substandard knock-off of something that was done previously.

I'm not saying that SOME great music is not still being created, I'm just saying that when I listen to the sources that should be exposing me to good content (satellite radio, Pandora, Youtube, etc), I have to come to the conclusion that most newer music just plain sucks. It could be that I'm not going far enough underground to dig up the real treasures, but that's part of my point -- 30 years ago I could turn on MTV on a Sunday night and that was as far as I had to dig to hear some great new music. It wasn't all great, of course. There was plenty of crap back then too, but the crap did not outnumber the good music 10000:1. I didn't have to spend every waking hour looking for something new and decent.

I'm all too aware of the syndrome of the old man telling kids to get off his lawn. Believe me when I say I have put way more thought into this subject than that.

Being a technologist by profession I am all to aware of what happens (not just to music, but to anything) whenever a technology goes more mainstream, becomes easier to use and more approachable by the masses. That is exactly what has happened to music production over the last 10-15 years. Things like the ability to produce an entire track from a single laptop, vocal pitch correction technology, etc. have made music production so available that there's no stopping the flood of bad music anymore.

It doesn't necessarily mean that no good music is being produced, it just means the signal to noise ratio is no longer in favor of finding the good stuff without a lot of time wading through the bad.

The phenomenon I'm discussing here is not exclusive to music. It happens in many industries over time as an industry matures. Technological advances make certain elements of production easier, resulting in faster production at the expense of quality.

In my first post in thread I used home construction as an example. You sometimes hear people say "they don't make _________" like they used to (insert homes, cars, etc.), and unfortunately most of the time the statement is true. It's not said simply because some old man is waxing nostalgic, it's because there are valid, provable reasons why the quality of build has declined over time. With music of course, we don't have the same level of tangibility, so it's hard to pinpoint exactly what has changed unless you're lucky enough (or unlucky enough I should say) to have the ear to be able to recognize things that have already been done a decade or decades before only better.

So, while I understand you don't agree, you have tempted me that there is this oasis of fantastic music that I just haven't found yet... I will only ask that you point me there so I can experience this for myself. I'd like to believe all these great artists are actually there, and they just aren't trying hard enough to reach me, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Links please? :)

This is a ridiculous post. I too tend to listen to what originally got me into the scene, but there is some FINE music being produced. If you look at trance charts it's mostly trash. I have a few favourite racks from this year I really hope you take the time to listen to and hopefully appreciate.

"If you listen carefully to vintage trance, you find amazing soundscapes that took many hard-earned hours to sculpt." It's pretty unfair to assume everyone doesn't do this. I've spent the last two years working on my craft, and sound design is a very important part of it for me. I completely agree that a lot of people abuse the preset and, "I'll come back to this later so I won't bother remembering it." The saddest part about the scene for me is that songs don't last. You write a hit and a month later no one remembers. It just kills me that (me for example) people are so passionate about the scene and you just write everyone off as trash. My life has become Trance, so I hope if I ever write anything decent one day people won't just dismiss me so easily.

Giuseppe Ottaviani - Linking People (2005)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Sd7-HVJR0

Adam Ellis - Mandarine (2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El4T2YRQ4J4

John O'Callaghan - One Special Particle (2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-1HwcdLJJM

Sebastian Brandt - Repercussion (2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FER38roosgc

Jordan Suckley - Elation / Contaminated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RxCm804nW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIR6VBQxGzk

Luke Terry - Ice Cap (2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3xzF95YEPg

It would be kind of pointless for me to point you some of my own references, as chances are we have very different taste...

One of the points you make is a valid one: there's plenty more people doing music today then there was before. Not just music, there's also plenty more people taking photos and sharing them to! There's plenty more people talking and communicating in a number of ways, such as this one, a public forum. Thus, there's a lot more information sharing. Access to information and technology has made it a lot easier for people to accomplish more and to go after their dreams and that usually means that a lot more people are going to do things that were once, at best, reserved for a select elite of people who had the educational background and, many times, the money to engage in what used to be very restricted activities. Music production is just one of them.

I don't see how having access to information, even if it's about sound design, doing some kind of patch on Massive or something, is necessarily bad! I think people have the opportunity to learn faster, 'cause they now have the means to do so without the need to enrol in paid for, highly expensive, sometimes not so direct, forms of education. If you want to know how, for example, a comb filter works, you can just type it in youtube or google and take it from there. Then it's up to you, as it always was.

However, there's plenty more music and stuff to choose from and it's progressively harder to separate what's good from what's bad - even though this is a highly subjective subject as with all things concerning taste and aesthetics. And this also means that the artist - in most cases - doesn't enjoy a wide market of fans and supporters, that allow him to live of his artistic endeavours.

I think that there's a lot of things that are actually better. Most people look at it from a biased point of view. What I mean is: digital technology (in audio) has always been judged by how it compares to or, worse, how it's able to emulate analogue technology. It was always like that with any new form of technology. History is there to tell you this. But in many ways, digital has allowed us to achieve a level of detail in sound that was impossible to achieve before, among many other things. And there's enough people exploring this in very creative ways and sharing it with other people and many sub genres and scenes are growing with a small number of people whose efforts are being constantly updated among themselves and perhaps even some audience to. This is all good, besides judging how good or how bad some stuff sounds to you and me, this strikes me as a level of connection between people and ideas, procedures, technical info, and so on, that's quite revolutionary by itself.

Instead of complaining about how easy it is to find some "how to" videos online, do a more focused search and you're able to find professional laboured videos and complete courses even of just about any subject you can imagine that can aid you in achieving whatever it is you want. And it's either free or cheap, but it's certainly a lot easier then a few decades before, 'cause it's just two clicks away...

I see a lot of people engaged in actually learning their tools. In learning how to program synths, learning how to mix properly, trying to improve their compositional skills, so forth and so on, that it would be unfair to say that most people rely on presets and formulaic ways of doing things. Maybe there's people doing it, but they hardly get anywhere near a professional carrier doing so. People can tell the difference, 'cause it shows. So the argument I'm making here is that: yes, plenty of amateur stuff out there. But if you spot some name on a lineup, chances are it took some hard work to get there, regardless of our opinion on its aesthetics...

What I see is quite the opposite: I think people now have the tools to learn faster. I think it's easier to engage with other people in learning, doing things together, sharing info. It's also easier to engage with the audiences directly. MTV sucks, but it's their editorial choices that make it so dude. Along with the rest of the big media groups. But now you don't actually need them. You have the means to find, share, make, discuss, comment on, analyse, etc.

The magic is lost is an old and tired argument. Do it like the things you love then! If there's no more of it, then there must be someone out there waiting for it, just like you! Music making is about putting out there the music you wanted to listen to but couldn't find anywhere, isn't it? So keep a positive attitude and enjoy the good parts of it! Cheers

Ok, well first I should have probably pointed out that when I said links please, I had no intention of providing feedback on varying musical taste for every link someone wanted to post. So let me say that I wasn't trying to convince anyone they should like or appreciate trance, much less vintage trance.

My point is that most of the great musical ideas have already been consumed. Most of the opportunity for fame, profit, recognition for creativity, etc has been on a downward slide for years, due partially to technology innovations like Napster.

Tweak I don't believe it has anything to do with the sharing of information -- more than thirty years ago I used to run an online forums (they were called BBS back then for those not old enough to remember), and they were quite active among the technology savvy (maybe I should use the word MIDI-heads to describe the musically technological savvy folks, since MIDI was still a relatively new invention back then). I don't think that replacing an older technology like character-based BBS's with web browsers and forums has necessarily had a direct impact, except for the fact that it has enabled a tsunami of people who would have never been technical enough to figure computers out 30 years ago to just walk into an Apple retail store, buy a Mac or an iPad and be "online" in a matter of minutes. Just getting online in the early 1980's was a chore in itself! That pretty much guaranteed that anyone else you interacted with online was of high intelligence. I miss those days.

Anyway, getting back to specific musical taste. I wasn't trying to impose my own musical preferences on anyone else, that's completely beside my point.

I will try to illustrate with an example. Recently I went on a long drive (several hundred miles) with an MP3 thumb drive providing the music to my car. One of the LPs I listed to was "Very Best of Fleetwood Mac".

Now, I realize not everyone likes Fleetwood Mac, but my point is that *IF YOU DO* like them, then you can sit back and listen to song after song, album after album of some of the greatest soft rock ever to grace the human eardrum. Think about what I said. I'm not talking 10 hits. Not 20. Not 30. DOZENS of magical tunes.

How many bands do that these days? If they are able to eek something even worth listening to out of Pro Tools, they are lucky to be a fucking one hit wonder.

I can't turn everyone into a Fleetwood Mac fan, but I could sit here and post links to probably 70 distinct original tracks from them, or the Eagles or some of the other greats that are just mind-blowing displays of talent.

And some of these people are 60 or 70 years old and can still sit down with nothing but an acoustic piano or guitar and a microphone and make their shit sound so good it will leave goosebumps on your arm every time.

And you're telling me there is some other band that has come about in the last 20 years of that caliber?

Sorry. No. Just, no.

When people get older they get less appreciative of new things and find comfort in what they know. New versions of what they know doesn't quite cut it for them as they've heard it all before.

I dread they day i don't find joy in new songs, even new pop songs.

My joyus long drive would be listening to hours of what passion punch posted, endless trance tunes i'd not heard before, like a new journey, yeah the same old presets rearranged in a different order with the odd new sound thrown in. Listening to endless Fleetwood Mac would be like HELL to me.

Ohh and those one hit wonders you mention are usually made by the same people. Therefore not really 1 hit wonders just different fronts, acts!

I think you missed my point. I like all the trance passion punch posted, but that's because I like the genre and have an ear for it. That's also why I said I am not talking about a subjective preference for a particular band. I used Fleetwood Mac as an example of a classic rock band that was famous because their music was good -- long before video and MTV became the mainstream. They achieved their success solely because of their musical talent -- talent that does not even require a specific technology, any one of them can sit down on an acoustic instrument and faithfully reproduce their work.

But, it's not about Fleetwood Mac or liking a particular band. That's why I said *IF YOU DO* like them at all, you will find that they have an UNFUCKING BELIEVEABLY COMPLETE catalog of music that is of the same high quality as their major hits. I could say the same of maybe Tom Petty. I know people who think Tom Petty is brilliant, others think he sounds too country or just plain hate his sound. That's fine, but what is undeniable is the sheer quantity and quality that he offers to his existing fans.

In the electronic music genre, I would say maybe Armin Van Buuren is maybe hinting towards that same level of greatness, in the sense that if you like his stuff at all, his prolificacy is starting to approach (at least in quantity) the type of artists I've spoken of... he consistently pumps out music that will usually appeal to existing fans. But we have to be fair and keep in mind he is fundamentally a DJ more than a musician, and what he does is not quite in the same league.

When we say "there is some good music still being made" -- yes, I would agree, but for the most part it seems to be limited to artists that stumble upon creation of a few good tracks by accident. There aren't any left that seem to be able to consistently write amazing music (amazing according to their own fan base -- again further removing the subjective nature of whether one band or another is good from the discussion for obvious reasons).

Pointing out some example that YOU feel was legendary and saying everything else falls short in comparison is a very tired and lame argument.

I do think that information sharing and easy access to everything has really helped to push music production, along with dedicated technology for it some steps forward. So my point was, precisely, that easier access to things is not a bad thing. While you seem to recall the days when things were hard enough that only technology literate people would be able to surf the web and only people with a huge investment behind them - which was needed to set up a working studio - were able to make music.

Well, the fact of the matter is: things have changed and there is no turning back. Almost everyone in the developed world has access to the internet these days, interfaces are made with the common joe in mind so as to enable anyone to go ahead and focus on what it is they want to do, rather then on what's under the hood to make it happen. And to some extent, a quick browsing of facebook will easily point out just how much garbage that's brought about - so I do agree with you on that point. But if you look at the bigger picture, then it's quite obvious - if we're not looking at this from a very biased perspective, that is - that things have evolved! And they've evolved towards a much more inclusive and democratic paradigm.

The rest of it is a natural phenomenon brought about by this pandora's box wide open situation. Meaning: that when you have much more people doing what used to be done by a select few, then chances are it won't be possible for the music industry to remain the same. Labels won't be big business companies no more. Their task of finding and supporting artists is much harder. First 'cause there's simply much more to choose from. Secondly, 'cause there's not as much money to be made to begin with. You need a reasonably big audience for one artist to be able to live off what he likes to do best. In a world where more and more people are going for it, this means that not as much is reaching the hands of each of them.

On the other hand, the artists and their audiences have never ever been closer. Being online means that there's no separation. People can follow you and know what you're on about with daily updates. They can try and communicate with you. They can join some crowd funding campaign to finance something they believe in, even the making of a new album - there's just tons of such examples out there. How come is this a bad thing?

And someone else could say to you that there are a lot of artists delivering good music that pleases their audiences today. It's just a matter of taste, you're just rationalising your own taste versus what's up there today and not realising that's what it is. No offence, but that's what it is!

Hey mates,

just saw this and thought it might help illustrate some of the points in here:

http://noisey.vice.com/blog/our-favo...rce=noiseyfbus

cheers

Once again, for perhaps the third time, I used a particular band -- three actually actually, to illustrate a couple of bands from times gone by that have produced a ridiculously high quantity of successful hits.

It pains me that you have yet to grasp that it has nothing to do with whether you like the band in question.

Give me an example of a recent band that has achieved anywhere near the total number of hit singles that Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles or Tom Petty and the Heartbreaker have achieved in their career?

It doesn't matter if I like the band or not, I am looking for quantifiable industry success here. True to the point, I am not interested in whether or not *I PERSONALLY* like the band or not, I am looking for tangible evidence of musical talent and success (something that goes far beyond an underground following and a handful of successful singles).

Until that's done, nobody has come to this argument prepared.

Do you mean it helps illustrate some of the points from my position on the argument or yours? I actually think it helps my argument in several different ways. Perhaps most interesting was the mention of Taylor Swift's success -- because while I'm personally not a fan of hers, I think in the genre she works in she does have a way-above-average level of talent. The fact that so many of the rest are flipping burgers or whatever instead of focusing on music full-time is a strong indicator of my earlier point about how much the music industry itself has changed.

Taylor is one of those who may actually achieve the level of industry success in her lifetime that approaches the others I've mentioned. I don't follow country or mainstream pop, so it's very possible that there are others like her that I'm unaware of. Even still, I don't care for her music, I'm just mentioning that to help drive home my point that what I've said her has absolutely nothing to do with my own personal taste or preference for a particular artist. It is an observation about the music industry as a whole.

In a few more years no doubt Calvin Harris will have had more hits then them if he doesn't retire. Like his music or not. Not enough time has past on new producers artists to compare them.

One could then say how many hits has Max Martin or Dr Luck had. Bands, sorry ACTS are worked a lot different from those of yesta year. Producers seem more interested in giving someone fresh their 5 seconds of fame over dragging out acts over and over.

You have a good point in your second paragraph, although I'm not sure if it's only due to the choice of producers that results in the 5 seconds of fame syndrome or the ADHD nature of the modern listening audience that always wants something new or a gimmick to grab their attention.

I had to look up Calvin Harris to even know who he was. I've never heard of him or his music here in the US, maybe he's hugely popular elsewhere. What little I was able to tolerate listening to just sounded like the typical pop crap that could be the poster child for the type of music I'm talking about. That's not to say fans of his should like him any less, it's just very hard to picture him appearing in a list like this, even if he's given a 50 year trial period to attempt it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Maybe I just listened to the wrong tunes of his. I just couldn't stand his singing style in the mixes I listened too. That type of Justin Bieber sounding stuff pains my eardrum.

Sorry i'll edit that back, i didn't like how it was worded so changed it but you've quoted me now, lol.

As for Calvin Harris he has the record for the most successful singles off 1 album, ever.

I'll go on to add, if you hadn't even heard of him it kind of suggest you are actually suffering from old mans syndrome bringing up this debate. Rather than the actual point you are trying to mask it behind.

In 20 years from now the kids who grew up listening to Calvin Harris and had no interest in FWM arn't suddenly going to erase all their memories of the music they grew up with. It is that that will hold a place in their heart and have that uniqueness too not FWM. I am like you using FWM and Calvin as example to the point not actualities.

As for the Armin comment you made, then through away by mentioning how FWM could easily sit down and play any acoustic. WHO CARES about Acoustic ability. Give members of FWM an empty Virus, you think they'd be able to come up with the unique sounds that has graced our EDM scenes. There's hundreds, millions even of people who can sit and play. Playing ability means shit in the real world, it's the producers and the engineers who make them sound good.

Leave some of the best known bands in a studio with no hardcore engineer who'll sit their for hours crafting their sound and they will basically sound like shit.

Being a VIRUS forum i'm surprised to hear what you said.

You also need to factor in competition. A band of then had less competition, labels even bought up acts to bench them. Nowadays you can get yourself heard much easier so the 1 great band doesn't get to stand out for as long. People only have so much time to spread out across the different artist, labels had control then, now they don't.

You also mention their other songs that are just as good as hits, to you yes but if they weren't hits, they aren't hits. I have many underground artist I love who make songs that might be far superior to their actual hits but that is just my taste. If another sound wasn't mainstream at that time the song might of been a hit, which brings me back to the competition point i started with.

As for those lists, best selling albums, LOL! people don't buy albums any more, people stream music. Those lists will fade out into the past.

One could come to that conclusion if they are trying hard to.

I believe understand the point you are trying to make. Even the kiddies of today probably have trouble imagining an era where people spend a months salary on a home stereo system to play vinyl. The kiddies of today have absolutely no mental concept of purchasing quality handmade shoes. They have grown up in an era where everything is mass produced cheaply and badly in China, just like most of the music they listen to is produced cheaply and badly. I do agree with your point here and would like to thank you for further validating my position.

No I clearly pointed out Armin is only a DJ and not in the same league as some of the musicians who have stood the test of time. Sorry you missed it.

Well this brings up a couple of other points. Do yourself a favor and watch a movie called "Sound City", about a specific music studio where so many of the albums that are considered some of the greatest music of all time were recorded. It's quite interesting even if you are unable to see how it helps support some of the ideas I've brought forth here.

I did say a couple of points. The second point is that Lindsey Buckingham was not only an amazing guitarist (decent but perhaps not great singer), but also a genius producer/mixer. He was both the musician and the master engineer, one of the reasons why Fleetwood Mac still sells albums and commands top dollar for tickets for sold out shows while the teeny bopper bubble gum pop stars command a fraction of the ticket value and can only pray that their career actually lasts as long.

So, how can anyone compare these modern artists with someone like Buckingham who not only directly contributed to the "engineering" aspect of Fleetwood Mac's success, but also played and wrote many of the tunes? How many of these producers that you feel are solely responsible for "good" sound can just walk out on a stage with a guitar and do this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdd_fv0xrSo

Actually I think in terms of electronic music, one of the great pivotal eras was right around the time the Virus hit the market. It put powerful VA in the hands of true synth gear heads, and it would be many years before cheaper and more easily available softsynths would fall into the hands of the masses, resulting in a flood of horrible electronic music. So in that sense it's quite an appropriate discussion for a Virus forum I think, even if most of my points are being embarrassingly overlooked.

Also I never really meant to focus on Lindsey Buckingham specifically, but he was a god of music production back when the equipment to produce a good record was a thousand times more difficult to learn and use. These days we are spoiled by computers that do about 90% of the heavy lifting for us.

Bringing up how important a producer is to the overall quality of a track was a seriously poor choice when trying to compare modern artists to someone like Fleetwood Mac. Not only was Buckingham 1000x the producer most of the noobs that let the computer do the work for them are, but he can play his stuff live and sound good without falling back on "it's the producer's job to make me sound good" excuse.

John Peel once said "everytime I here some music that I dont like, I just think that it's my problem that I don't get it"

What I think that story on the link illustrates is that there's not so much money in the music industry because things have changed. There's not - like I said here - as much money to be made because there's more competition. There's plenty more artists, there's plenty more ways to get music to, even streaming is a big challenge for the music industry as we speak.

So the reasonable conclusion is that no band is ever going to achieve such levels of industry success ever. And if you need another example, then take Pink Floyd or the Rolling Stones while we're at it. Trust me, no one's ever going to touch that level of success again! And the whole point I'm trying to make here is that it's not just about quality, it's got to do with other things.

Even those big studios you mention, just take a look how many of them are still in practice today. Take a look at how much an artist is expected to make from an album and do your math: if you have the money to live off it, and you have money to get all the conditions and material you want, then chances are you'll be much more focused in just doing music, you'll make plenty of it and you're always growing and becoming better at it!

The fact of the matter is: that today it's quite easy to make music, but it's much harder to make a career with it.

And the points I've made are:

Both money and the audiences are much more distributed. So an artist gets less of both.

Labels are not big business anymore.

Success has nothing to do with quality. It's got to do with money and having a big audience.

I actually like the bands you pointed out! ;)

cheers

I think in some ironic way, his sentiment applies to forum threads like this as well :) I don't think I've ever spent so much time on redundantly reiterating that the point really had nothing to do with my individual taste in music, yet it seems that's what everyone wants to debate.

Pink Floyd and Rolling Stones would also both be great examples of the bands of yesteryear I'm referring to, even though I'm not a big fan of either. There are a lot of others actually, some of whose music I actually can't stand personally, but I could still cite them as an example of talent that is increasingly unavailable.

One that comes to mind is Michael Jackson. I personally can't stand the guy's music -- not even one song of his can prevent me from changing the radio station. And yes, I think he was probably a bit of a pedo, I don't think his love of kids was purely innocent. However, I once saw a show highlighting some of his career accomplishments, and I was at awe at how talented the guy really was. It doesn't matter that I hate his music, I can still recognize the talent. Likewise, I can recognize the law of diminishing returns over time that has occurred in the music industry.

Last night as I realized that the personal insults (such as that I'm really just an old man with outdated taste who is trying to mask his motives) might have put me in a position where this thread was pointless, perhaps even over the heads of some, I thought about the effort I've already invested in trying to guide it back toward the original intention and I wondered to myself if my time is simply better spent elsewhere. However, to simply give up because things aren't going as planned is not my style.

The bottom line is that the intent of my original post in the thread was not to ignite a debate on whether or not musical quality has been on the downturn over the years; I was giving the benefit of the doubt that this was already common knowledge. I've become aware that some might not only have not been around long enough to see how things have changed over time, but might also consider this idea an assault on their particular generation. Rest assured it is not -- it also was not an attempt to create a tiresome Internet forum pissing contest.

So, in an effort to get the thread back on track... for those who are unable to see the phenomenon I'm referring to, I will simply say your opposition is noted, but also know that if you can't fundamentally see the issue at hand, or don't believe it exists, it's going to be difficult (impossible actually) for you to gainfully participate in the discussion at hand which is the possible causes of the issue. Discussing possible causes of the issue doesn't make a great deal of sense if you don't see the issue. And if you don't see the issue, I would say I'm envious of you in a way; it means you're able to derive listening enjoyment from a much broader range of content than I am, and it means that being a musician since age 5 has put me in a position of liability overall, in that it has made my ear for music perhaps too discerning. In some ways I wish I could blissfully listen to a lot of the content that kids are buying today.

But as I've noted, it goes way beyond what I am able too force myself to listen to.

I'm interested in exploring the causality of the issue. For example, someone mentioned that producers these days prefer giving multiple artists their five seconds of fame rather than identifying artists that have the potential to stand the test of time and have an extremely successful ongoing career. I presented the alternate possibility that audiences may be demanding this type of entertainment, but let's say for a moment that my theory is wrong or off the table, and that it's a producer-driven decision. Why would this be? Could it be because some level of maturation of the music industry has resulted this being a more attractive business model? Perhaps changes in the legal system have made it advantageous for a given producer (or perhaps more likely record labels) to pump-and-dump artists, making as much money off of each one and moving on to the next, without getting involved in longer-term legal commitments?

One idea that came up before was the cost of high-end home stereo equipment. How many people really listen to music this way anymore? So many folks these days listen to music with tinny ear buds plugged into their phones or iPods, or they are streaming from their phone to an amplified blue tooth speaker. These devices have been optimized for things that do not necessarily facilitate proper sonic reproduction, such as portability, wireless use etc. As we all know, what sounds good on one set of listening hardware does not necessarily sound good on another set of listening hardware. Has this "technology advancement" given us one thing (portability, low cost of ownership etc.) at the expense of another? Are the generation of kids who are blissfully unaware of the decline of music quality comparing music that was mastered and optimized for an iPod to music that was mastered and optimized for much better hardware?

The decline of dynamic range could probably be a discussion in itself. The kiddies like it relentlessly loud, compressed, side chained, etc. Has the advent of portable listening devices reshaped the way we listen to music, and simultaneously crippled the listening ear of the newer generations to the point they are unable to even recognize the difference?

I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm trying to explore the questions. I'm bringing these ideas up to show the type of discussion I was hoping for. The Interwebs don't need another e-penis flexing show or meaningless debate, that's not what this thread was meant to be about. And again, in order to intelligently discuss the issue you must be able to see the issue -- if you're one of those who don't see the issue, this is probably not the thread for you.

Because you fail to see that your taste is swaying your opinion. You mention the other hit like hits on FWM album and guess what, they weren't hits... FWM had poor single sales in the UK, i think the spice girls may of had more hits than them. To other people those songs arn't hits and rightly so because they weren't. You just see them as because it suits your taste of what a hit is.

Obviously album sales is a big factor here so less people likely to buy a single, before someone mentions it.

To other comments. Competition is still a big factor to no one ever getting as big ever again. Did you not see where i put labels bench acts. This happened a lot back then. they would deliberately bench acts so sales would be directed to which ever act they happened to have the vested interest in. What with the new technology, they can't really control that no more.

I'm for both sides of the argument i just get annoyed when people don't open up to the other. Just because a producer/band or act don't sell as many albums as say a 'LEGENDARY' band, does not mean that the new skooler has any less talent or is any less great than the legends, yes they might never sell as many records, they might only have a few hundred thousand following, they could release hit after hit material for generations, just never getting an actual hit. Yes the artist might never reach the same level of 'to the masses greatness' but they will surpass the skill of FWM. People like Zedd can play and craft, he has a grasp of technology that those old skoolers will never obtain.

Going back to taste, your reply back to me on Calvin Harris was directly connected to taste, the "this is exactly the dah dedah i was on about". People actually love this sh1t you know, exactly how you love fleetwood. It's you who is failing to make that connection.

Might want to read post #25, and keep doing it over and over again until it begins to make sense to you. You're lost my friend.

And to the last post... How many people really had Hi end Hifis in the old days? What you on about there? Most people have better headphones now than people with decent Hifis in the 70's and early 80's. Even the masses spinning vinyl had cheap needles and radio players were very poor, remember those crappy cassette players. An I pod with some designer head phones is a big step up from what we had when i was a kid (i don't have an ipod). Most kids these days upgrade the headphone first chance they get, even in the poor areas.

You are raising valid points but your not seeing the full picture. I recon more people have Hi end gear now than they ever did.

Another point, how many shit 1 hit wonders came and went back then too?

Pretty much everyone who cared about whether music sounded good, because that was the only way to know the difference.

I'm realizing you're in the segment that will never know, no matter how much effort I expend.

Yes, the sheer quantity of people with "decent headphones" whose ears have been polluted by "good enough" over-compressed sounds is probably a major contributing factor to the problem.

Being involved in software development for almost as long as I have music, I've seen a similar issue with the current millennial generation that have grown up being only a Google-search ("how do I.....") away from a solution or an answer to a question. In the old days we had to dredge through hundreds or thousands of pages of dense technical material in order to derive solutions. It was not fast or convenient, in fact it was slow and laborious, but what happened was we obtained a deep technical understanding of things way beyond the sole answer we sought. Like music, modern times have spoiled and polluted the up and comers. I know this first hand because I interview them on a weekly basis, so I get first hand visibility into watching them fall embarrassingly on their ass when forced to solve complex problems without a search engine. Is it a little like not being able to solve a math problem without a calculator? Sort of, except perhaps the consequences are far more severe. Their entire ability to think is being tethered to the availability of their Internet connection, and that's fairly scary.

I'm just thankful I learned to think back when we still had to.

Following up on post #25, sometime back I promised Timo I would be more careful not to rise to troll bait discussions and try to keep things productive.

Has anyone read #25 enough times to understand the discussion I brought to the table? Feel free to start your own thread promoting whatever ideas or bands you like, I just would prefer to keep this one free of the mindless trollfests where possible. Thanks.

I hadn't read post 25 yet. My comment was to the earlier comments.

I totally understand you are saying taste has nothing to do with it. BUT you can't see that it is. I couldn't give a f about FWM or how many other people like them as I don't, apart from poss 2 or 3 songs, that is my taste!

Again i will bring up labels benching acts... Those big studios churning out hit after hit, this WAS easily controlled by the labels. If Sound Cloud existed in the 80's and 90's, band like FWM, Oasis etc, might never ever of reached the stardom they did. There's more to a big act, band than musical skill. Marketing is majour. Their sound dominated then, it was hard for others to get a look in, even underground bands were crafted carefully to appeal to the target audience. Many had the skill but weren't pushed as it would distract from the sales of who ever they were pushing. Do you see the big sales thing now!!!!

I came fresh outta the rave scene, we liked noise crafted in peoples bed rooms. The stuff these big names were making we despised. SOFT ROCK my arse, it sounds like shit to me. MUSIC IS TASTE. If every one liked Shit we would eat it. If every one like the noise you don't it is your taste that makes you think it is shit, not that it is actually shit.

If I was in charge of the world I could buy all music creators and make it so only a few bands which i controlled had market share. Those bands would now sell the most. Every one would see that sound as the sound of there youth and have an attachment to it. I'm using way out there similies now to try paint the picture.

We can't have this debate with out taste being a factor, as there is no science to what is good music, more dynamics, less dynamics, repetition, no repetition. If every one starts dancing and loving a mad porta tone sine wave while Fred bangs a bin lid, that will be what music is. YES, your right, Fred and his bin lid might never have as big a following and sell as many records because, there is Dave, Jack, John, Simon and every fucker else with their bin lids getting equal opportunities at exposure. These artists arn't getting benched. If they were benched Fred might easily rack up the numbers. MARKET SHARE!!!

I bet hundreds of musicians could have made just as good tunes as FWM back in their day if given the right team and studio to work in. Today, we don't need that.

Are you for real... People couldn't afford these things!!! OPEN UP i dare you!!!

My quote here really amplifies the situation. What you are saying is right, yeah people who care bought better systems, that is obvious but you don't see the other side. Most people couldn't afford them, were they still music lovers? most likely. could they still appreciate talent when they heard it? YES!!!!!!!!!

I'll go on to say again... MUSIC is subjective, the rules are determined by the listener. Dynamic v's less dynamic... Could be argued exactly the same as saturation, distortion on an analog desk etc.

The question lies in does it sound better now than it did before. I think yes... More people can now do what only a few could. More people are technologically talented than ever before. If you can't see or hear this talent, i feel for you!

This paragraph starts to approach things that are more aligned to what I was trying to discuss. For example, the idea that Sound Cloud (along with Internet music distribution on the whole) might be either contributing to the dearth of talent, or at least covering it up by making bad music more obtainable and thus removing focus from the good music? If I have to wade through tons of half-baked crap on SC to find true talent, then wasn't it better in the old days when record labels vetted out the garbage for me, making my life more efficient?

One of the ideas I was hoping to explore is that its very possible (since the world is a more crowded place these days than it was say, 30 years or so ago) that there are actually far more talented musical artists on the planet, but perhaps they are harder to come by because the availability of Internet technologies has made it too easy for the less talented people to flood the "airwaves" (intentional use of retro terminology), thus making it harder to find the diamonds in the rough? Maybe there are a lot of talented artists who feel it is too hard to make a living because of the same issue, thus find other ways to feed themselves or their family?

But the fact you don't like soft rock is completely irrelevant. You're trying so hard to make it a discussion about musical taste, while simultaneously telling me what the thread is really about (despite the fact I'm the one who created it). The fact is that you want to believe that's what it's about, because it's the angle you want to debate it from, but no matter of wishing is going to change the fact that I started the thread with a particular intent, and you're not going to be successful in re-inventing that intent with all the wishing in the world.

But that only supports the idea that both today and yesterday, lots of bands who had talent never got played because of marketing tricksters. That problem exists in every industry, it always has, and is not news. We can only focus on what fans are saying they like... they can only like what they hear. Unfortunately there may be other influences that affect what is available for us to hear, and maybe that's an interesting discussion in itself, but I don't it speaks to the decline of musical quality because it has remained constant over time.


Yes, and that is exactly one of my points - THEY DID, BACK IN THE DAY. Finding good tunes these days gets a lot harder though.

I think that sentiment probably summarize the real root of the problem. Nobody cares if the band is the right team or not. As long as their bubblegum is fed to them over their little ipods, they will spend big money for headphones as a fashion accessory without caring one bit about what's actually being fed through them.

Umm.. when were you born? I knew guys that washed dishes part time and still spent a wad on good audio gear because it was a priority to them at the time.

I guess what i'm trying to say is there will always be and always has been this problem. It's not new and the next generation will do exactly the same.

One could argue that their talent lies in Googling. Yes with out it they'd fail but with it, better than average Joe, some people are rubbish at googling lol! The same as a guitarist or drummer, the song writer or the mix engineer, take away their tool and boom.

So we could now have a debate over what talent actually is. Stumbling on to realise that your talent might be in debating.

For me I guess it's us, we apply the belief of talent on someone. They could have all the talent in the world but if we don't see it, to us they are talentless.

Anyone who can load a PC, record and mix an entire song from start to finish, with no actual mistakes (although that's a hard one to pin down), technically has talent, yet so many can do that now as we are so connected we see that as not talent.

Oh and i'm 35...

If you honestly believe that the people of today, the youth don't care about their music, you are very deluded!

in future i should learn to avoid all threads that star, why this or that sucks! Total waste of life!!!!

If only I charged money for each time I repeated what this thread was about, I could start sending out enough invoices to finance some bling-headphones for some poor millennial who has yet to discover good music :)

Not here to debate what talent is. Once again, looking for a causality discussion about symptoms and issues that have been described. Debating definitions of talent might indeed be a worthy discussion, why don't you create a thread about it? Hopefully it won't get beaten to death by folks unable to stay focused on your fundamental goals.

Sitting down and creating a song by yourself on a PC is a VERY different definition of "talent" than coordinating all musical efforts among bandmates, dealing with complex human dynamics and interpersonal relationships in the process, and still producing great music that you are able to play live pretty much flawlessly at any point in time. The latter was the caliber of band I was talking about. Doing anything by yourself is always a thousand times easier, and the net result is always a thousand times less rewarding. Consistently producing good music decade after decade with other bandmates is something very few modern "artists" will ever be able to dream about in their wildest fantasies, as they sit down to their own PC in their own little world of self-taught and self-proclaimed genius, falling back on Google searches whenever they can't figure something out.

In your last sentence, you seem to be arriving at what I've been saying for many posts now. Invoking debates about all sorts of tangential side discussions that aren't even what the thread is about is a complete waste of time and I'm sure its been done elsewhere by those more passionate.

I was looking for a discussion about a particular issue, detailed meticulously multiple times here.

Why anyone felt it would be a productive use of time to argue all sorts of semi-related points, especially after I went to so much effort to pull things back on track, is beyond me.

Why a lot of modern forum threads suck!!!

Well hindsight is 20/20, and honestly? If I had to do it over again? Probably not. ;)